FutureLearning AI Readiness and Practice Audit — Board of Trustees Survey

1 — Unaware: The board has not discussed AI. I am not aware of any board-level conversation or position.

2 — Emerging: AI has come up in passing but the board has not had a strategic discussion or formed any position.

3 — Developing: The board has had at least one substantive discussion about AI at a strategic level and understands that governance responsibility for AI sits with the board.

4 — Embedding: The board understands its governance role in relation to AI, receives relevant reporting, and contributes to the school’s strategic direction on AI.

5 — Leading: The board exercises active strategic scrutiny of AI at our school. We revisit our position regularly as guidance and evidence evolve.

1 — Unaware: The board has not discussed AI governance. We have not been briefed on AI use, risk, or the school’s policy position. NOTE: This is a non-compliance state.

2 — Emerging: The board is aware that AI governance is needed but has not yet adopted a formal position or received a structured briefing. NOTE: This is a non-compliance state.

3 — Developing: The board has adopted a governance position on AI and received a structured briefing. We understand that governance responsibility for AI sits with the board, not just the principal.

4 — Embedding: The board receives regular reporting on AI use, risk, and incidents. We are able to scrutinise this information and ask informed questions.

5 — Leading: The board exercises active strategic oversight of AI. We review our governance position regularly and are informed about Te Tiriti obligations in relation to AI and student data.

Yes, this has been a substantive board discussion

1 — Unaware: The board has not discussed equity or cultural considerations in relation to AI. We are not aware of Māori Data Sovereignty obligations as they apply to AI use at our school.

2 — Emerging: The board is aware in general terms that equity and cultural considerations matter in relation to AI, but we have not discussed what this means for our governance obligations specifically.

3 — Developing: The board understands that Māori Data Sovereignty obligations apply to how the school governs student data in AI contexts, and we have received at least one briefing on this.

4 — Embedding: The board actively considers equity and cultural responsiveness when receiving reports on AI use. We understand our obligations in relation to Māori data and we ask questions about this.

5 — Leading: The board ensures that Māori community have a genuine voice in decisions about AI tools that affect Māori students — and we can demonstrate that this has shaped decisions, not just informed them.

1 — Unaware: The board receives no information about AI use, risk, or incidents at this school. We have no basis on which to exercise oversight.

2 — Emerging: The board receives occasional mentions of AI-related matters but no structured reporting that would allow us to exercise meaningful oversight.

3 — Developing: The board receives at least annual structured reporting on AI use, risk, and any incidents. We understand the school’s monitoring structure at a basic level.

4 — Embedding: The board receives substantive, regular reporting on AI use and impact. We are able to ask informed questions, scrutinise the information, and act on it where needed.

5 — Leading: The board can demonstrate that it has acted on AI reporting — adjusting strategic direction, requesting additional information, or requiring changes to practice.

FutureLearning AI Readiness and Practice Audit — Board of Trustees Survey

School Code

Respondent Role