Education - Overview
45% to 86% adoption in one year. 93% of faculty plan to expand AI use. Governance is 19% -- an 18-point gap. Students, faculty, and administrators are all using AI. FERPA, accreditation bodies, and academic integrity boards will all ask the same question: can the institution prove what happened?
Adoption jumped from 45% to 86% in a single year. 93% of faculty plan to expand AI use. Governance is 19% -- an 18-point gap. Students, faculty, and administrators are all using AI simultaneously, creating overlapping regulatory exposure. FERPA governs student data in AI systems. COPPA applies when K-12 platforms serve children under 13. Accreditation bodies are beginning to examine AI use in assessment and credentialing. Academic integrity frameworks were built for plagiarism detection, not for AI-assisted work. When a parent files a FERPA complaint about AI processing their child's educational records, or an accreditor examines how AI influenced grading decisions, the institution needs to produce an evidence chain showing what data the model accessed, what it produced, and what human review occurred. Most cannot.
This industry includes 2 segments in the Ontic governance matrix, spanning risk categories from Category 1 — Assistive through Category 2 — Regulated Decision-Making. AI adoption index: 5/5.
Education - Regulatory Landscape
The education sector is subject to 10 regulatory frameworks and standards across its segments:
- ADA/Section 504
- Accessibility (Section 508 / WCAG)
- Accreditation body standards (HLC, SACSCOC, etc.)
- COPPA (if under-13 users; 2025 amendments expand PII to biometrics)
- Clery Act
- FERPA
- State education codes
- State student privacy laws (e.g., CA SOPIPA)
- Title IV (financial aid)
- Title IX
The specific frameworks that apply depend on the segment and scale of deployment. Cross-industry frameworks (GDPR, ISO 27001, EU AI Act) may apply in addition to sector-specific regulation.
Education - Education / EdTech -- Small District or Startup
Risk Category: Category 1 — Assistive Scale: SMB Applicable Frameworks: FERPA, COPPA (if under-13 users; 2025 amendments expand PII to biometrics), State student privacy laws (e.g., CA SOPIPA), Accessibility (Section 508 / WCAG)
FERPA applies to AI systems the same way it applies to filing cabinets.
The Governance Challenge
EdTech startups and small districts use AI for lesson planning, student FAQ generation, and administrative communication. FERPA governs student data in AI systems without exception. COPPA applies when K-12 platforms serve children under 13 — 2025 amendments expand PII definitions to include biometric data. State student privacy laws add jurisdiction-specific requirements. Most small districts adopted AI tools without updating their FERPA compliance framework to account for AI data processing.
Regulatory Application
FERPA governs student education records in AI systems. COPPA applies to platforms serving users under 13, with 2025 amendments expanding biometric PII coverage. State student privacy laws (e.g., California SOPIPA) add jurisdiction-specific requirements. Section 508 and WCAG accessibility standards apply to AI-generated educational content.
AI Deployment Environments
- Studio: Lesson plan and curriculum drafting | Student FAQ generation | Administrative communication assist
- Refinery: FERPA-compliant content guardrails | Parent-facing communication governance
Typical deployment path: Studio → Studio → Refinery
Evidence
- Adoption jumped from 45% to 86% in one year; governance is 19%
- 93% of faculty plan to expand AI use
- COPPA 2025 amendments expand personal information to include biometric identifiers (effective June 2025)
Education - Education -- Large District / University
Risk Category: Category 2 — Regulated Decision-Making Scale: Mid-Market-Enterprise Applicable Frameworks: FERPA, Title IX, Title IV (financial aid), State education codes, Accreditation body standards (HLC, SACSCOC, etc.), ADA/Section 504, Clery Act
When AI influences an admissions decision, Title IV and accreditation standards require the evidence chain.
The Governance Challenge
Large districts and universities deploy AI for faculty productivity, research summarization, administrative drafting, student-facing content, FERPA-compliant communications, and financial aid explanation narratives. Admissions decisions that involve AI create Title IV exposure. Title IX investigation documentation that touches AI requires full provenance. Accreditation bodies are beginning to examine AI governance as part of institutional effectiveness reviews. When an accreditor asks how AI influenced grading decisions or a parent files a FERPA complaint about AI processing student records, the institution needs an evidence chain that most cannot produce.
Regulatory Application
FERPA governs student education records in AI systems. Title IX investigation documentation requirements apply to AI-assisted processes. Title IV financial aid regulations govern AI-generated award explanations. State education codes add jurisdiction-specific requirements. Accreditation body standards (HLC, SACSCOC, etc.) increasingly include AI governance. ADA/Section 504 accessibility requirements apply to AI-generated educational content. Clery Act reporting obligations apply to AI-assisted campus safety communications.
AI Deployment Environments
- Studio: Faculty productivity tools | Research summarization | Administrative drafting
- Refinery: Student-facing content governance | FERPA-compliant records and communications | Financial aid explanation narratives
- Clean Room: Admissions decision governance | Title IX investigation files | Accreditation evidence bundles
Typical deployment path: Refinery → Refinery → Clean Room
Evidence
- Adoption jumped from 45% to 86% in one year; governance is 19%
- Accreditation bodies adding AI governance to institutional review criteria
- FERPA complaints related to AI processing are a new category
- Title IX investigation documentation requirements are absolute