Methodology
How AIForEdu evaluates tools and resources.
The goal is not to produce hype-friendly rankings. It is to help educators and institutions make more defensible decisions by separating verified signals, open questions, and vendor claims.
Review pillars
Privacy
FERPA/COPPA posture, student-data handling, contract review prompts, and claims that matter to districts.
Instructional value
Whether the tool meaningfully supports teaching, learning, or leadership workflows in a school setting.
Implementation
Setup burden, governance implications, training overhead, and likelihood of successful rollout.
Transparency
Pricing clarity, documentation quality, and how much of the vendor story can be independently checked.
How scores work
Each published score is based on an internal rubric that combines privacy, instructional value, implementation readiness, and transparency. Scores are directional rather than absolute and should be read as decision support, not procurement approval.
Where information comes only from public vendor materials, pages should make that clear. When AIForEdu has directly reviewed documentation, tested a workflow, or verified a point against a public source, that should also be made visible on the page.
Evidence standards
Vendor-stated
Claim appears in public vendor copy or documentation but has not yet been independently corroborated.
Document-reviewed
AIForEdu reviewed published documentation such as pricing pages, privacy policies, or compliance materials.
Operationally observed
AIForEdu directly tested a workflow, product behavior, or implementation path relevant to school use.
Editorial ownership
AIForEdu is published by the Impact Glocal editorial and research team. The current operation is organized as a small editorial workflow, not as a fully staffed newsroom. Pages should avoid implying more scale or individual attribution than the site can currently support.
Affiliate relationships may exist, but they do not determine review criteria. When an outbound link is monetized, it should be disclosed. The site is currently operating on a content-first model, so editorial pages should remain useful without requiring purchase.
How the editorial desk works
Editorial research desk
Maps the AI vendor landscape, reviews product documentation, and translates product claims into language that educators and institutions can actually use.
Policy and governance desk
Focuses on privacy, academic integrity, family communication, and the governance decisions schools, universities, and education systems actually have to make.
Implementation and adoption desk
Evaluates rollout friction, training burden, workflow fit, and the practical questions teams ask before they formalize AI use.
Update policy
Tool pages should show when they were last reviewed. Significant vendor changes, pricing shifts, or policy changes should trigger page updates or clearly noted caveats.
If AIForEdu cannot verify a claim, the site should say that explicitly instead of presenting the claim as settled fact.