What this platform does — and does not do — with student data and AI.
Pre-commercial stage disclosure: The Kaiden Project™ is in the pre-commercial, pre-district-contract stage as of August 2026. No student data is being collected under a district agreement. This page describes the design framework the platform is being built toward and the applicable legal standards it is designed to align with. Nothing here is legal advice. District technology officers and legal counsel should conduct their own independent review before any procurement decision.
The laws that apply — and what they require.
The Kaiden Project™ is designed to align with applicable federal and California student data privacy laws. Each law places specific obligations on the platform depending on deployment context.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (federal)
Applies once the platform operates under a signed district contract as a school official. Requires appropriate data access controls, use limitations, and breach procedures as part of district vendor agreements.
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (federal)
Applies to online services directed to children under 13. Requires verifiable parental consent, documented data retention limits, and a written security program. The Kaiden Project™ is designing toward full COPPA compliance. Compliance documentation is being prepared for counsel review prior to any commercial deployment.
Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (California)
Prohibits targeted advertising, behavioral profiling, or sale of student data. Applies to the school platform. The Kaiden Project™ does not use student data for advertising or third-party profiling. A compliant Terms of Service and data-use policy is being prepared.
California Education Code §49073.1
Requires district vendor contracts to include data ownership, security, breach notification, and deletion terms. A compliant vendor contract template is being developed for district procurement conversations.
California Student Data Privacy Agreement (National DPA-CA)
The de facto standard Data Privacy Agreement required by California school districts. The Kaiden Project™ is being built to adopt the CSDPA as its standard vendor data privacy agreement.
California Consumer Privacy Act / California Privacy Rights Act
California consumer privacy rights including special opt-in requirements for consumers under 16. Applicability based on revenue and volume thresholds is being reviewed with counsel.
California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act
Ninth Circuit (NetChoice v. Bonta, March 2026) enjoined DPIA and vague profiling provisions but allowed default-privacy-settings, age-appropriate defaults, geolocation minimization, and plain-language child privacy policy requirements to proceed. Kaiden is building toward these requirements now.
These are design commitments
Core Product Rule
STUDENT PROVIDES THE SIGNAL.
KAIDEN ORGANIZES THE INFORMATION.
AUTHORIZED PEOPLE MAKE THE DECISION.
— not claims about a completed compliance program.
Core Product Rule
STUDENT PROVIDES THE SIGNAL.
KAIDEN ORGANIZES THE INFORMATION.
AUTHORIZED PEOPLE MAKE THE DECISION.
- ✕
Diagnose a student’s emotional or mental health condition
- ✕
Make autonomous disciplinary decisions
- ✕
Generate unrestricted AI responses to students
- ✕
Share student data across families, schools, or districts without authorization
- ✕
Use student data for advertising, behavioral profiling, or third-party commercial purposes
- ✕
Independently determine interventions or clinical recommendations
- ✕
Replace teachers, counselors, administrators, parents, or other authorized human decision-makers
- ✕
Auto-notify parents or escalate to law enforcement based on raw AI model output alone
- ✕
Apply diagnostic labels, clinical scores, or mental health classifications to students
- ✕
Rank students against each other based on emotional or behavioral signals
Human authority is never removed from the support pathway.
The Kaiden Project™ has developed a Child Safety Governance System™ that governs how AI components are permitted to operate. These guardrails apply to every system component that touches a minor’s data.
Human authority is never removed from the support pathway
No AI component automatically notifies anyone, escalates a case, or takes an action based on raw model output alone. A trained adult reviews and decides. Every support pathway requires a human decision before action is taken.
No diagnostic language in AI output
AI-generated content uses no clinical, diagnostic, or mental-health terminology. The platform does not classify, score, or label a student’s emotional or behavioral state as a clinical condition.
No auto-escalation to law enforcement
Escalation paths route to a counselor first. Mandated-reporter obligations apply to authorized human adults — not to automated system actions.
Mandated-reporter obligations always apply
Nothing in the platform modifies, delays, or substitutes for a human adult’s mandated-reporter obligations under California law. The platform surfaces signals. Adults determine legal obligations.
False-positive / negative review cadence
The Child Safety Governance System™ requires periodic review of AI model outputs to assess false-positive and false-negative patterns in student-generated signals.
Counselor-first escalation path
When a student initiates a Care Check™ request, it routes to the configured counselor or trusted adult first. The platform does not determine clinical priority or urgency.
AI responds only within authorized parameters
AI responses are governed by a Controlled Response Library — pre-prompted, pre-approved responses tied to the selections and inputs available in the system. Not autonomous generation.
Every role sees only what their role allows.
The platform is configured by the school and district. Role-based access is the foundational architecture — not an optional feature.
- ✓
Counselor notes are private and not visible to families through the platform
- ✓
Escalation decisions belong to trained professionals — not to automated systems
- ✓
No family sees another family’s child
- ✓
No student is ranked against another student
- ✓
Teacher classroom signals are not automatically shared with district leadership
- ✓
Student-level data visible to district leadership requires authorized role access and configured workflows
- ✓
Foundation (nonprofit) data and Kaiden platform (SaaS) data are maintained in separate systems
Calculation and validation only — not clinical judgment.
Double-Audit AI™ performs data calculation, comparison, validation, organization, summarization, and pattern identification within authorized data. It does not generate autonomous recommendations, diagnose students, or make decisions without human review.
What Double-Audit AI™ does
✓ Calculates Growth Health™ from verified records
✓ Validates data accuracy across sources
✓ Organizes signals by role-appropriate view
✓ Generates summaries from records, not written copy
✓ Identifies patterns within authorized data
What Double-Audit AI™ does not do
✕ Diagnose emotional or mental health conditions
✕ Auto-notify parents or authorities
✕ Determine intervention priorities
✕ Generate unrestricted open-ended responses
✕ Replace counselor professional judgment
Kaiden welcomes technical and legal review before any district evaluation begins.
District technology officers, privacy officers and legal counsel should conduct their own independent review of the platform’s data practices, security posture, and applicable legal compliance documentation before any procurement decision. The Kaiden Project™ is prepared to provide technical and compliance documentation to qualified district evaluators.