The Operational Gap in Educational AI Governance: A Landscape Analysis of International Frameworks
Open accessAbstract
The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence systems in educational settings has prompted significant policy development from international bodies, regional regulators, and national governments. This memorandum examines the current landscape of AI governance frameworks applicable to primary, secondary, and post-secondary education, identifying a consequential gap between policy articulation and institutional implementation. Through systematic analysis of frameworks from UNESCO, the OECD, UNICEF, the European Union, and various national jurisdictions, this paper establishes a four-category taxonomy: aspirational frameworks (which articulate principles), regulatory frameworks (which establish legal requirements), sector guidance (which provides education-specific recommendations), and operational frameworks (which supply implementation infrastructure). The analysis reveals that while the first three categories have proliferated, operational frameworks capable of translating policy into documented, auditable institutional practice remain largely absent from authoritative sources. This gap has significant implications for institutional compliance, insurance liability, and the protection of student welfare. The paper concludes that the education sector requires purpose-built operational infrastructure to bridge the distance between governance principles and demonstrable practice. SSRN working paper record will be added when available.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
FERPA compliance is a non-negotiable criterion in institutional procurement analysis.
“Institutional procurement analysis identifies FERPA compliance, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards, and data residency requirements as non-negotiable criteria.”
From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Purdy, 2025
Studies recorded cases in which student data was transmitted to third-party AI providers without sufficient consent or data use agreements, which may contravene federal regulations.
“Studies recorded cases in which student data was transmitted to third-party AI providers without sufficient consent or data use agreements, which may contravene federal regulations (Purdy, 2025).”
From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Purdy, 2025
Institutions are increasingly requiring explicit adherence to data privacy and security standards, with FERPA compliance being the most important criterion in procurement decisions.
“The results suggest that institutions are increasingly requiring explicit adherence to data privacy and security standards, with FERPA compliance being the most important criterion in procurement decisions (Purdy, 2025).”
From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Purdy, 2025
Recent analyses of procurement documentation indicate that institutions are requiring explicit adherence to data privacy and security standards, with FERPA compliance as a foremost requirement.
“Recent analyses of procurement documentation indicate that institutions are requiring explicit adherence to data privacy and security standards, with FERPA compliance as a foremost requirement (Purdy, 2025).”
From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Purdy, 2025
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 1
- Authors
- Purdy, R. J.
- Affiliations
- Purdy House Institute
- Corresponding author
- Purdy, Ryan James
- ORCID
- Purdy, Ryan James
- Venue
- Purdy House Institute
- Publisher
- Purdy House Institute
- Published
- 2025-12-21
- OpenAlex
- W7116762754
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- AI governance in education, operational framework, policy implementation gap, artificial intelligence in education, UNICEF, European Union AI regulation, institutional compliance, insurance liabilities, student welfare
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review