For school finance officers
Evaluate the intended benefit alongside recurring cost, implementation time, access, data use, and approved vendor review. Do not put family or financial records into unapproved tools. Keep consequential financial-aid and spending decisions under authorized human review.
This month’s action: Review one technology proposal for purpose, total cost, and information requirements.
Name the learning purpose first
A new tool should begin with a clear educational question: what will students understand, practice, create, or demonstrate more effectively? The presence of screens or generated material is not itself evidence of learning. Ask whether the proposed use improves feedback, access, collaboration, or the quality of student work, and consider a simpler approach when it serves the purpose better.
Include teachers in that discussion and plan the support needed for implementation. A successful demonstration does not establish that a tool fits the school’s curriculum, student ages, or classroom routines. Define a limited use and the evidence leadership will review before wider adoption.
Make authorship and privacy expectations clear
For AI-assisted work, students and teachers should understand what help is permitted, what must be disclosed, and what remains independent work. Expectations can vary with age, subject, and assignment. Ask students to explain their thinking and verify sources; do not treat an automated detector as sufficient evidence for a consequential discipline decision.
Use an approval process before staff or students place information into external tools. Review data collection, access, retention, accessibility, age suitability, and the applicable requirements with qualified support. Do not assume a familiar product name or a permission checkbox settles these questions. The linked federal privacy resources are references for review, not a statement that every rule applies identically to every private school.
Keep people responsible
Christian education gives this discussion a wider purpose: truthfulness, attention, dignity, responsible work, and wise relationships. A tool can assist preparation or practice while people remain responsible for accuracy and judgment. Teachers should review material before using it and preserve space for student thinking rather than outsourcing the learning task.
Revisit the approved use after a defined period. Examine the student work, teacher workload, questions raised, and whether the intended benefit appeared. Continue, adjust, or retire the use based on evidence. A technology plan should help the school teach well, not obligate it to keep every tool it has purchased.
Finance officers: monthly action worksheet
Use this template in your next leadership meeting. Add your school’s evidence, responsible person, and review date. The page can be printed or saved as a PDF using your browser.
| Step | Work to record | Responsible person / next date |
|---|---|---|
| Your role | Evaluate the intended benefit alongside recurring cost, implementation time, access, data use, and approved vendor review. Do not put family or financial records into unapproved tools. Keep consequential financial-aid and spending decisions under authorized human review. | Clarify responsibility |
| This month’s action | Review one technology proposal for purpose, total cost, and information requirements. | Choose a date |
| Evidence to review | What benefit and review evidence would justify this expenditure? | Record what is known and missing |
| Next conversation | Bring the evidence and any decision beyond your role to the appropriate person. | Arrange follow-up |
One question to put into practice
What benefit and review evidence would justify this expenditure?
Continue in Solomon
Public reference for further review
An original Arete briefing adapted from the linked field notes. Guidance must be interpreted in the school’s context by its responsible leaders and qualified advisors.
Discuss technology professional development →