Instructional Impact Protocol

3-Gate Rubric Grader

How to score: Rate each criterion as 0 (No), 1 (Partial), or 2 (Yes). Mark a Red Flag when the risk is material.

Gate pass rule: No Red Flags AND at least 75% of points (6 out of 8).

Overall: District Deploy = pass all 3 gates, no flags. Pilot = pass Gates 1 & 2, Gate 3 meets minimum, no hard flags. Deny = any gate fails or any hard Red Flag.

1
Gate 1

Pedagogical Spec

Curriculum Lead

0/8
0/4 scored

Gate 1 evaluates whether the proposed tool directly advances the district's instructional priorities and whether it offers genuine pedagogical value beyond what analog methods already provide. This gate ensures that technology adoption is driven by learning outcomes, not novelty.

Key question: Does this tool measurably improve teaching and learning in ways that align with our district's strategic goals?

Pass threshold: 6/8 (75%)
1

Strategic alignment with district improvement goal (literacy, math, STEM, MTSS, etc.)

2

Better Than Analog test

3

Instructional capacity — professional development (PD) for teaching, not just button-clicking

4

Differentiation and accessibility (IEP/504 accommodations, Universal Design for Learning)

Awaiting scores

Score all 4 criteria to see the gate decision.

Required Evidence Artifacts
  • Curriculum alignment note linking tool to specific district improvement goal with metrics
  • "Better than analog" example: a concrete lesson scenario showing transformed (not just digitized) learning
  • PD plan outline covering pedagogy integration, coaching, and time allocation (not just vendor webinars)
  • Accessibility evidence: current VPAT/ACR, UDL alignment documentation, assistive technology test results
2
Gate 2

Technical Spec

Technology Lead

0/8
0/4 scored

Gate 2 evaluates whether the tool can be securely and reliably deployed within the district's existing technical infrastructure. This gate protects student data, ensures operational sustainability, and prevents tools that create unmanageable technical debt.

Key question: Can this tool be deployed securely, integrated with our existing systems, and supported on our current infrastructure without creating unacceptable risk?

Pass threshold: 6/8 (75%)
1

Data privacy and compliance (COPPA, FERPA, state student privacy laws, DPA)

2

Roster and provisioning automation (SIS, Clever, ClassLink, OneRoster)

3

Infrastructure load (bandwidth, device compatibility, battery impact, browser/app requirements)

4

Identity management (SSO via Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Okta, or district IdP)

Awaiting scores

Score all 4 criteria to see the gate decision.

Required Evidence Artifacts
  • Signed DPA (district or state consortium) plus COPPA/FERPA compliance documentation
  • Integration documentation: SIS/OneRoster/Clever/ClassLink configuration and sync verification
  • SSO specification: identity provider configuration, tested for all user roles
  • Pilot infrastructure test notes: bandwidth measurements, device compatibility results, battery impact data
3
Gate 3

Fiscal Spec

Superintendent / CFO Lead

0/8
0/4 scored

Gate 3 evaluates whether the district can financially sustain the tool beyond the initial purchase and whether there are clear metrics for renewal decisions and a viable exit strategy. This gate prevents 'grant cliff' situations and vendor lock-in.

Key question: Can we afford this tool for three or more years, do we know how we'll measure its value, and can we walk away cleanly if it doesn't work?

Pass threshold: 6/8 (75%)
1

Sustainability — Year 2 and Year 3 funding identified

2

Total cost of ownership / TCO (PD, support, subscriptions, devices, infrastructure)

3

Renewal and kill metric — usage threshold and decision date defined

4

Exit strategy — data export, cancellation terms, and continuity plan

Awaiting scores

Score all 4 criteria to see the gate decision.

Required Evidence Artifacts
  • 3-year cost model with all direct and indirect costs itemized (license, PD, support, devices, staff time)
  • Funding plan naming specific sources for Years 1-3, budget owner, and board notification status
  • Usage reporting sample: dashboard screenshot or analytics export showing the metrics that will drive renewal decisions
  • Exit/export terms: tested data export sample, cancellation clause excerpt, continuity transition plan

Final Determination

Incomplete

Score all criteria across all three gates to generate the final determination.

Gate 1
0/8
0/4 scored
Gate 2
0/8
0/4 scored
Gate 3
0/8
0/4 scored