The child remains
the thinker.
Support should invite curiosity, explanation, and reflection. It should not make the AI the centre of a child’s relationships.
Keep the learner central.
Keep the boundaries clear.
A shared learning experience needs more than a friendly interface. It needs clear roles, understandable permissions, and honest limits.
The child remains
Adult guidance
stays visible.
Contributions should show who made them. Adult input should not silently rewrite an earlier child-facing response.
Access follows
clear permissions.
Family-private learning and school-linked activity need clear boundaries. Shared learning is not public-by-default learning.
Questions worth askingClear information.
Clear information.
Not blanket promises.
These are design principles and intended boundaries. They do not establish which safeguards are currently available in a live account.
What can a parent or teacher see?
The intended model separates family-private learning from school-linked activity. Visibility depends on the learning space and the permissions granted there. The illustrative screens on this website do not establish access to live records.
Does an AI suggestion establish mastery?
No. A detected learning signal is different from teacher-verified evidence. The teacher reviews the source work and makes the judgment; an AI suggestion does not establish mastery.
Can AI safety systems guarantee protection?
No. AI can make mistakes and miss harmful situations. These design principles are not a guarantee of detection, immediate notification, or prevention of every harmful outcome.
Where are the data and consent policies?
Access requests on these replacement pages are unavailable while the collection process and notices are being reviewed. The Privacy and Terms pages explain their current publication status. Requesting access does not establish parental consent or create an account.