FossAI Schools
District AI enablement that starts with the policy, not the pilot.
The Problem
In the first, AI is blocked at the firewall and the district considers the matter handled. It is not handled. Staff are using personal accounts on their phones, pasting in whatever they need to get through the afternoon, and from a student data standpoint this is the worst available outcome. There is no log, no agreement, no retention setting anyone has reviewed, and no way for the district to know what left the building. Blocking the tool did not stop the usage. It moved the usage somewhere nobody can see.
In the second, AI is permitted because someone decided being forward-looking was the right posture, and it was permitted without a policy, without training, and without monitoring. Teachers are using it well in some rooms and badly in others. A principal has started drafting discipline documentation with it. Nobody has told anyone what may not be pasted in, and nobody has checked what the vendor agreement says about whether that content trains a model.
Underneath both is the same gap. Most districts have neither a written acceptable use policy for staff AI use nor any practical training on de-identification, which is the one habit that makes everything else safe. There is usually a board policy about student devices written before any of this existed, and a technology agreement nobody has reread. What there is not is a document that says which tools are approved, who approves the next one, and what a teacher is supposed to do when they want to use one that is not on the list.
The last piece is organizational rather than technical. The technology director and the curriculum and instruction director are usually not in the same conversation. One is being asked about data processing agreements and network filtering. The other is being asked about instructional quality and professional development days. The decision that actually needs making sits between them, and it tends to sit there until a board member asks a question nobody has a written answer to.
Who This Is For
A defensible written position, board-ready documents, and a straight answer about what the district is and is not doing with AI.
Professional development that changes practice, separated by role, tied to the work staff are already doing.
A vendor evaluation standard, an approval workflow, and visibility into shadow usage that is already happening.
Clear guidance they can give a teacher on Monday, and a policy that does not require a legal opinion to interpret.
In-service content that is practical rather than theoretical, with materials staff keep using after the day ends.
Published pricing, a defined scope, and a written findings report that justifies the line item.
What We Do
A district can start at any of the four, but the sequence exists for a reason. Assessment tells you what you are holding. Policy tells you what is allowed. Training tells people how. Implementation makes it stick.
A structured review of current tool usage including the shadow usage already happening on personal accounts, existing policy, vendor data processing agreements, technology infrastructure, and staff capability. Produces a written findings report and a prioritized roadmap. The finding is sometimes that the district is not ready and the first work is unglamorous, and we will say so in writing.
Facilitated development of a staff AI acceptable use policy, a student AI use policy, a vendor AI evaluation standard, and an approval workflow for new tools. Delivered as documents your board can act on, FERPA-aligned and mapped to state student privacy law. Your district counsel reviews and signs off before adoption. We do not.
Tiered training for administrators, instructional staff, and operational staff, delivered as in-service days, half-day workshops, or a self-paced program. The tracks are separate because a principal, a classroom teacher, and a transportation coordinator have almost nothing in common in how they would use these tools. Every track includes hands-on de-identification.
Standing up a district AI assistant loaded with your own policy and handbook content, building a shared prompt library staff can actually find, and light workflow automation where a form, a spreadsheet, and an email can be connected without an IT project. Includes a 90-day rollout with named owners and a measurement habit.
Pricing
$12,500
Findings report and prioritized roadmap, 3 to 4 weeks
$9,500
Staff policy, student policy, vendor standard, approval workflow
$7,500
Per in-service day, tiered by role
Starting at $45,000
All four services, phased over a semester
Priced against typical district consulting and professional development line items for a mid-size district. A small district will need a scaled-down package and a large one will justify more. Every engagement starts with a discovery call rather than a quote form.
Why FossAI
The compliance half
Bryan Fossi served as Chief Data, Analytics and AI Officer in a federal command, and currently leads an AI/ML and data intelligence practice at a consulting firm. Deploying AI in that environment means the governance question comes before the tool question, every time, with a written record of the decision. That is the same discipline a district needs when the records involve minors.
The public institution half
A policy that cannot survive a board meeting is not a policy. The work is shaped around what a superintendent has to say out loud, what a technology director has to sign, and what a business office needs to see before it releases the funds. Bryan is also a current high school head coach, which means the school calendar and the constraints of a public institution are not abstractions.
What We Will Not Claim
Every firm in this market has a list of things it promises. This is the list of things we do not, published in the same place on every page.
That AI will replace headcount. We will tell you where it creates capacity. What you do with that capacity is a decision you make, not an outcome we promise.
A specific ROI or hours-saved figure. You will hear numbers from other firms. Ours come from clients who measured it and agreed to be quoted, or not at all.
That we can certify you as compliant. We build policy and practice. Your counsel signs off, not us.
That the assessment will tell you to do a lot of AI. Sometimes the honest finding is that your data is not ready and the first six months of work is unglamorous.
That AI improves student outcomes or test scores. The research does not support that claim yet and we are not going to make it to a school board.
That anything we deliver replaces your district counsel's review of a policy before adoption.
That a policy makes the district compliant. It makes the district defensible, which is a different and more honest claim.
Questions
Get Started
Most districts are surprised by the answer. A discovery call will tell you whether an assessment or a policy engagement is the right first step.
