EdTech Vendor Accountability Storyboard
Invisible Algorithms: Holding EdTech Vendors Accountable in K–12
Instructional Design Storyboard for Grant Funders and Administrators
Instructional Design Storyboard
17 slides • Comprehensive case study presentation
Target Audience
Educational administrators, school board members, and grant funders evaluating EdTech vendor accountability initiatives
| Slide | Slide Title | Narration | On Screen Text | Visual Elements | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title Slide | Welcome to our comprehensive case study on third-party vendor accountability in EdTech. Today we'll explore how charter schools can protect student data and ensure equitable outcomes when working with AI-powered education platforms. | Invisible Algorithms: Holding EdTech Vendors Accountable in K–12 A Case Study for Educational Leaders and Grant Funders Presented by: [Your Organization] | Professional title slide with modern typography. Background featuring subtle tech-inspired patterns in blue gradients. School building silhouette with connected nodes representing digital networks. | Strong opening to establish credibility and urgency. Emphasize the 'invisible' nature of algorithms to hook audience. |
| 2 | Context & Problem Statement | Charter schools in Georgia and Florida are increasingly relying on AI-powered platforms like Clever, Study Island, and Read 180. These systems make critical decisions about student placement, performance tracking, and interventions—but schools have no visibility into how these decisions are made. | The Challenge: • Charter schools using AI-powered platforms (Clever, Study Island, Read 180) • Proprietary algorithms control student placement and interventions • No transparency into decision-making processes • Limited oversight of student data usage | Map showing Georgia and Florida with highlighted charter school locations. Screenshots of the mentioned EdTech platforms. Flowchart showing data flow from students to black-box algorithms to decisions. | Establish geographic specificity and name recognizable platforms to create immediate relevance for audience. |
| 3 | Key Risk #1: Contract Gaps | Our analysis reveals that most EdTech contracts lack fundamental transparency provisions. Schools cannot audit algorithmic decisions, challenge automated placements, or understand how their student data influences these critical educational outcomes. | No Audit Rights or Transparency Guarantees • Contracts lack algorithmic audit clauses • No requirement for decision explanations • Limited access to performance data • No mechanisms for challenging automated decisions | Contract document with highlighted gaps and red warning symbols. Scale showing imbalanced power between schools and vendors. Magnifying glass over algorithmic 'black box' showing question marks. | Use legal terminology carefully—audience includes administrators who may not be contract experts. Focus on practical implications. |
| 4 | Key Risk #2: Algorithmic Bias | Without visibility into vendor algorithms, schools cannot identify or address potential bias in student placement and intervention decisions. This poses significant risks to educational equity and may disproportionately impact vulnerable student populations. | Inability to Challenge Black-Box Decisions • No access to algorithmic logic or training data • Cannot identify discriminatory patterns • Limited recourse for incorrect placements • Potential for perpetuating educational inequities | Diverse group of students with different pathways leading to a black box, showing unequal outcomes. Warning symbols indicating bias risk. Charts showing potential disparate impact by demographic groups. | This slide addresses equity concerns that are particularly important to grant funders. Use inclusive imagery. |
| 5 | Key Risk #3: Data Misuse | Schools often lack clarity on how student data is used beyond immediate educational purposes. Vendor contracts may permit data sharing with third parties, use for marketing analytics, or even potential resale—all without explicit school consent. | Unclear Data Usage Policies • Ambiguous terms for data sharing • Potential marketing and analytics use • Third-party data transfers • Possible commercial resale of student information | Data flow diagram showing student information spreading to multiple unknown third parties. Privacy icons with warning symbols. Network diagram showing data connections beyond the school-vendor relationship. | Data privacy is a hot-button issue for parents and administrators. Emphasize the potential for commercial exploitation. |
| 6 | Key Risk #4: Misaligned Goals | Vendor algorithms may optimize for metrics that don't align with the school's educational philosophy or equity goals. Without contractual requirements for alignment, schools may unknowingly implement systems that undermine their mission. | No Alignment with School Values • Vendor metrics may not match school priorities • Algorithms optimized for engagement vs. learning • No consideration of school equity goals • Potential conflicts with inclusion policies | Two arrows pointing in different directions—one labeled 'Vendor Goals' and one 'School Mission.' Compass showing misalignment. Students in various learning environments with conflicting directional arrows. | Connect to school mission statements and values that administrators care deeply about. This personalizes the risk. |
| 7 | Solution #1: AI Vendor Scorecard | Our AI Vendor Scorecard Tool provides a systematic framework for evaluating EdTech vendors across four critical dimensions: bias risk assessment, data transparency, equity impact, and regulatory compliance. This tool enables informed decision-making before contract signature. | AI Vendor Scorecard Tool Evaluates vendors across: • Bias Risk Assessment (0-100 scale) • Data Transparency Score • Equity Impact Rating • Compliance Verification Resulting in overall vendor readiness score | Professional scorecard interface with rating scales and colored indicators (green=good, yellow=caution, red=risk). Vendor comparison chart showing multiple platforms rated side-by-side. Dashboard with key metrics highlighted. | Present this as a practical, actionable tool that administrators can use immediately. Emphasize the scoring system for easy comparison. |
| 8 | Solution #2: Contract Clause Library | Our Model RAI Clause Library provides ready-to-use, legally-tested contract language that schools can insert into vendor agreements. These clauses address data minimization, algorithmic transparency, bias auditing, and opt-out rights—closing the gaps we identified. | Model RAI Clause Library Editable contract language for: • Data minimization requirements • Algorithmic transparency obligations • Bias audit provisions • Student/parent opt-out rights • Compliance monitoring requirements | Contract document with highlighted sections showing new protective clauses. Legal scales showing balanced power. Checkmark icons next to each protection category. Before/after contract comparison. | RAI = Responsible AI. Emphasize that these are legally-tested provisions, not academic concepts. Show practical implementation. |
| 9 | Solution #3: Board Presentation Template | Many school boards lack technical expertise to evaluate AI risks. Our Board Presentation Template translates complex algorithmic accountability issues into clear, actionable language that enables informed governance decisions and community engagement. | Board Presentation Template Communicates to leadership: • Risk exposure assessment • Vendor accountability gaps • Student impact analysis • Recommended action plan • Community engagement strategy | Professional presentation slides on a screen with school board members viewing. Infographic showing risk levels with traffic light colors. Communication flow from technical team to board to community. | School boards are often the decision-makers for major technology contracts. This tool bridges the technical-governance gap. |
| 10 | Solution #4: Escalation Flowchart | When algorithmic harm occurs, schools need clear response procedures. Our Escalation Flowchart provides step-by-step guidance for parents, teachers, and administrators to identify, document, and address potential algorithmic bias or errors in educational technology. | Escalation Flowchart Step-by-step process for: • Identifying algorithmic harm • Documentation requirements • Internal review procedures • Vendor notification protocols • Community communication • Regulatory reporting when necessary | Clear flowchart with decision points and action steps. Icons representing different stakeholders (parents, teachers, administrators). Arrow pathways showing escalation levels. Emergency contact information highlighted. | This addresses the 'what happens when things go wrong' concern. Emphasize that this empowers all stakeholders, not just administrators. |
| 11 | Deliverable #1: Vendor Scorecard PDF | The Vendor AI Scorecard PDF provides a standardized evaluation framework that schools can use to assess any EdTech vendor. It includes detailed rubrics, scoring guidelines, and comparison templates that enable objective vendor selection and ongoing monitoring. | Vendor AI Scorecard PDF Includes: • Detailed evaluation rubrics • Scoring methodology • Vendor comparison templates • Risk assessment matrices • Implementation guidelines • Sample vendor profiles | Professional PDF document preview with scorecard interface. Multiple vendor comparison charts. Rating scales with clear indicators. Sample completed scorecards showing different vendor profiles. | Present as a professional, immediately usable tool. Show sample evaluations to demonstrate practical application. |
| 12 | Deliverable #2: Contract Clause Insert | The Sample Contract Clause Insert Sheet provides legal language that schools can directly incorporate into vendor agreements. Each clause includes implementation guidance, negotiation tips, and fallback positions for resistant vendors. | Contract Clause Insert Sheet Ready-to-use legal language: • Data governance provisions • Algorithmic transparency requirements • Bias audit obligations • Performance monitoring clauses • Termination rights • Dispute resolution procedures | Legal document with highlighted insertable clauses. Before/after contract comparison. Legal scales showing balanced terms. Checkmark icons indicating protection achieved. | Emphasize practical usability—these aren't academic concepts but actual legal language schools can use in negotiations. |
| 13 | Deliverable #3: Board Slide Deck | The RAISE Compliance Brief is a presentation template designed specifically for school boards. It translates technical AI accountability issues into governance language, enabling board members to make informed decisions about EdTech investments and oversight. | School Board Slide Deck (RAISE Compliance Brief) • Executive summary of AI risks • Vendor accountability assessment • Student impact analysis • Budget implications • Policy recommendations • Community engagement plan | Professional presentation template with school board setting. Governance-focused graphics and charts. Policy document imagery. Community engagement illustrations showing transparent communication. | RAISE = Responsible AI in School Environments. Position this as enabling good governance, not creating bureaucracy. |
| 14 | Deliverable #4: Parent Infographic | The public-facing infographic 'What Parents Should Know About AI in Schools' demystifies educational technology for families. It explains how AI affects their children's education and provides concrete steps parents can take to advocate for transparency and accountability. | Parent Infographic: 'What Parents Should Know About AI in Schools' • How AI affects student learning • Questions to ask schools • Red flags to watch for • Parent advocacy strategies • Resource links and contacts • Rights and protections overview | Colorful, family-friendly infographic with parent and child illustrations. Question bubble graphics. Warning symbol icons for red flags. Resource links and contact information clearly displayed. | Parent engagement is crucial for sustainable change. Make this accessible to all literacy levels and translate key versions. |
| 15 | Implementation Timeline | Our implementation plan spans 12 months with clear milestones and deliverables. Phase 1 focuses on assessment and tool development, Phase 2 on pilot implementation, and Phase 3 on scaling and sustainability. Each phase includes specific funding requirements and success metrics. | 12-Month Implementation Plan Phase 1 (Months 1-4): Assessment & Development • Vendor evaluations using scorecard • Contract clause customization • Board presentation preparation Phase 2 (Months 5-8): Pilot Implementation • Contract renegotiation with key vendors • Board adoption of new policies • Parent engagement campaign Phase 3 (Months 9-12): Scale & Sustain • Multi-school implementation • Policy refinement • Impact evaluation | Timeline graphic with three distinct phases. Milestone markers with deliverable icons. Progress bars showing completion phases. Calendar integration showing key dates and deadlines. | Include specific funding amounts for each phase. Show how early wins in Phase 1 build momentum for later phases. |
| 16 | Budget & Resource Requirements | Total project investment of $275,000 over 12 months will yield sustainable vendor accountability systems serving multiple school districts. This includes personnel, technology development, legal consultation, and community engagement activities with measurable ROI through improved student outcomes. | Budget Summary - $275,000 Total • Personnel (60%): $165,000 • Technology Development (20%): $55,000 • Legal Consultation (10%): $27,500 • Community Engagement (10%): $27,500 ROI Metrics: • Student data protection • Algorithmic bias reduction • Improved vendor accountability • Enhanced community trust | Professional budget breakdown chart with pie chart showing allocation percentages. ROI metrics with upward trending graphs. Cost-benefit analysis showing long-term savings from better vendor management. | Position as investment, not expense. Show how this creates sustainable systems that benefit multiple schools and students. |
| 17 | Call to Action | We invite you to join us in creating a new standard for EdTech vendor accountability. Your support will enable schools to harness the benefits of AI while protecting student rights and promoting educational equity. Together, we can ensure that technology serves all students fairly and transparently. | Join Us in Transforming EdTech Accountability Your investment enables: ✓ Immediate protection for student data ✓ Transparent algorithmic decision-making ✓ Equitable educational outcomes ✓ Sustainable accountability systems Next Steps: • Schedule follow-up meeting • Review detailed proposal • Discuss partnership opportunities | Inspiring image of diverse students working with technology in a positive learning environment. Partnership handshake imagery. Contact information and next steps clearly displayed. QR code linking to additional resources. | End with clear next steps and multiple contact options. Emphasize partnership rather than just funding. Include compelling call-to-action. |
Key Outcomes
- • Comprehensive vendor accountability framework
- • Practical tools for immediate implementation
- • Clear pathway for sustainable change
- • Strong ROI through improved student outcomes
Implementation Support
Complete support package includes training materials, implementation guides, and ongoing consultation to ensure successful adoption across multiple school districts.