P1-S6 School planning: AI budget and licensing worksheet (three funding sources, three cost scenarios)

• StageP1-S6
• SubjectSchool planning
• Learning strandthe basic principles of AI / human-machine communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI
• Official documentsBlueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools · AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools · Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools · EDB Circular No. 156/2026 · EDB Circular No. 107/2026
• Time to fill inabout 90 minutes the first time; update it with every new quotation and before each contract renews

A planning workbook that does the arithmetic: three funding sources kept apart, three cost scenarios filled in with the same set of columns, one formula for cost per student per year, three questions to ask before signing, and a blank timetable for the four reporting duties.

• AudienceTeachers
• ThemeSchool planning

• EquipmentA spreadsheet that can calculate (this workbook); the school's funding papers, quotations and contract terms; a projector or a printout
• Version1.0
• Last updated2026-10-29

A one-off grant is spent once; the tools stay. This worksheet does two things only: it writes down where the money comes from, and it works out where the money goes.

What this solves

Circular No. 156/2026 (Appendix I, section 2, “Making good use of the relevant resources”) sets out a one-off grant of HK$500,000 for digital education, available within the 2025/26 to 2027/28 school years for purchasing, subscribing to or renting the relevant services and for subsidising students to join activities; the same section also mentions the eLAFP subscription voucher and the Composite Information Technology Grant. So a school is holding three purses at once, and the three purses do not share the same permitted uses, the same end date, or the same record-keeping.

The same question therefore arrives three times a year: which purse does this line come out of? Most schools get stuck in three places:

• The three purses are added together. One grand total of “AI-related spending” leaves the school unable to say, at year end, which purse a line came from, what is left in it, or whether a line went beyond that purse’s permitted use.
• Only the first year is compared. A subscription, a self-built option and a mix have completely different spending curves: one is a charge every year, one is a large start followed by maintenance, one is both at once. Compare the first year only and nothing has been compared.
• Nobody asks about the contract clauses. Notice period and auto-renewal, a cap on price increases, the format your data comes back in — none of these sit in the price column of a quotation, and all three decide whether the school can leave gracefully in three years.

This worksheet deals with money and contracts only: which purse, which cost scenario, how much per student per year, three questions before signing, and who has to be told what, when. Whether a tool is worth teaching with belongs to the selection scoring table; devices, network, accounts, filtering and storage belong to the infrastructure checklist.

No prices, discounts or suggested amounts appear anywhere in this resource. Every money column is left blank for the school to fill in from its own quotations, and no commercial tool or supplier is named — tools are referred to by code letter and the school maps them itself.

Planning objectives

With this workbook completed, a school can:

1. Record the one-off HK$500,000 grant, the Composite Information Technology Grant and any other source separately, with permitted use, period, committed amount and the colleague responsible for each.
2. Fill the subscription, self-built and mixed scenarios with the same set of columns, so the three can actually be compared instead of each being written in its own shape.
3. Use one formula to work out cost per student per year in each scenario, on the same student count.
4. Get written answers to the three contract questions — notice period and auto-renewal, cap on price increases, export format on exit — before anything is signed.
5. Put the four reporting duties into one timetable: the interim report, the final report, approval by the Incorporated Management Committee or School Management Committee, and posting on the school website.

The worksheet takes the values of nurturing the whole person, literacy first, application-oriented practice and technology for good, and it is built around the three learning strands of AI literacy (the basic principles of AI, human-machine communication and collaboration, and reflection on the application of AI): money decides what a school can buy, but buying something is not the same as students learning something. Every line of spending therefore has to answer one question — which learning strand, which subject’s learning and teaching does this support, who provides the professional gatekeeping, and where the learning data is stored.

Planning steps

The workbook has seven sheets: notes, funding sources, the three scenario sheets (subscription, self-built, mixed), a side-by-side comparison, and the reporting timetable. The order below is the one to work in.

Step 1 — separate the three purses first

On the “funding sources” sheet, one purse per row, with fixed columns:

The circular names the programme in Chinese; this English edition refers to it as the one-off HK$500,000 grant, and the Chinese edition of this page reproduces the name exactly as the circular writes it. Copy the name from the circular rather than from memory — a name written differently is a line that cannot be matched in a report later, and mismatched names are a common reason a submission comes back.

Separation comes first because a single scenario may draw on two purses at once; only with the columns kept apart can the school see which purse is running out first.

Step 2 — three cost scenarios, one set of columns

The three scenario sheets carry identical columns and differ only in the numbers — that is what “side by side” means:

The three scenarios differ in the shape of the money, not in how expensive they are:

• Scenario 1, subscription: a charge every year, flat spending, a small start; leaving is defined by the contract, and whether the school can take its data with it depends entirely on the clauses.
• Scenario 2, self-built: a larger one-off start (devices, set-up, training), then mainly maintenance and updates; the thing sits inside the school, and so does the maintenance duty.
• Scenario 3, mixed: the core is self-built and the rest is subscribed; two spending lines run at once, and the line most often forgotten is “both of them need someone to run them”.

The three scenarios are three arrangements of the same set of numbers, and the Education Bureau does not require a school to adopt any one of them. A school chooses according to its own circumstances and writes down why; the workbook works out the money on all three paths, it does not choose for the school.

Step 3 — cost per student per year, one formula

The workbook carries one formula only, shared by all three scenario sheets and repeated once on the comparison sheet:

Cost per student per year = three-year total spending ÷ 3 ÷ number of students

Four things to hold to:

1. The numerator is three-year total spending, not year-one spending. Use year one and the self-built option always looks cheapest.
2. The denominator is the same student count in all three scenarios. The scenarios are not comparable otherwise; state the baseline school year in the field on the same sheet.
3. The formula answers “how much per student per year” and nothing else. It does not answer “is it worth it” — that goes back to the selection table and the learning strands.
4. The formula does not model “after year three”. Renewal, price increases and exit after year three belong in the three questions in step 4, not in the formula.

Step 4 — three questions before signing

All three need a written answer, copied into the contract summary line in the supplier’s own words — not “confirmed verbally”:

The third question is usually left to the IT colleague as a technical matter. It is a procurement question: if it is not in the contract, the school has no standing to ask for it later.

Step 5 — the reporting timetable (blank)

The circular sets out four reporting duties, and the workbook carries one blank timetable for them; none of the four may be dropped:

1. Interim report
2. Final report
3. Submission for approval by the Incorporated Management Committee or School Management Committee
4. Posting on the school website

Items 1 and 2 are, as the circular states, carried in that school year’s school report. The timetable has columns only — duty, responsible colleague, completion date, notes — and every date is left blank for the school to fill in from its own calendar. The workbook pre-fills no dates.

These four are the reporting duties the circular describes, not a matter of school-based arrangement: they cannot be reworded as “handled according to school-based arrangements”, and no one of them may be left out because the school usually does things differently.

Filling in and reviewing the workbook is best convened by the school’s digital education task group, and looked at at the level of the School Development Plan and/or the Annual School Plan (Circular No. 107/2026, paragraph 4), so that the budget, the learning and teaching, and the reporting papers all point at the same objective.

Review checklist

When the workbook is filled in, check each of these:

• □ The three purses are on separate rows, and every line of spending says which purse it comes from.
• □ The grant is named exactly as the circular names it (the Chinese edition reproduces that name), and the HK$500,000 and the 2025/26 to 2027/28 period match the circular the school received.
• □ The three scenario sheets have identical columns and can be read line by line against each other.
• □ There is one formula only, written the same way on all three sheets.
• □ All three scenarios use the same student count, with the baseline school year stated.
• □ No amount, discount or suggested amount is pre-filled anywhere; every money cell is filled by the school from its own quotations.
• □ No commercial tool or supplier is named anywhere.
• □ Written answers exist for notice period and auto-renewal, cap on price increases, and export format on exit, and are copied into the contract summary.
• □ All four reporting duties are present (interim report, final report, approval by the IMC or SMC, posting on the school website), and none has been reworded as a school-based arrangement.
• □ The timetable pre-fills no dates; all four are left for the school.
• □ Every line of spending answers: which learning strand, which subject’s learning and teaching, who provides the professional gatekeeping.
• □ The month of the next review and the colleague responsible are recorded.

Files

AI budget and licensing worksheet (Excel spreadsheet, calculates)

Seven sheets: notes, funding sources (three purses), scenario 1 subscription, scenario 2 self-built, scenario 3 mixed, side-by-side comparison, reporting timetable. The three scenario sheets share identical columns and each carries the same cost-per-student-per-year formula; every amount, student count, date and name is left blank, and the whole workbook can be reused and adapted by a school.

Official documents

Every resource in this library is written around the AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools and falls within the policy scope of the Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools.

This resource maps to:

• Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools (three-fold leaflet, p.2): overall objective 3 and implementation strategy 8 in the executive summary ask schools to set out the strategy, resources and implementation timetable for digital and AI education in their development plan. The workbook’s funding-sources sheet and reporting timetable are precisely “resources” and “timetable” turned into columns that can be checked.
• Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (p.1-4): sets out the three learning strands and the progression across four key stages. Every line of spending in the workbook has to name at least one of those strands; a line that cannot is not an AI budget line.
• Supplement II: Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.2-2 to 2-5): sets expectations for a school’s choice and use of AI tools, including putting teaching needs first, handling learning data, and the teacher’s professional gatekeeping in class. The support and training lines in the self-built and mixed scenarios follow it.
• EDB Circular No. 156/2026 (Appendix I, section 2, “Making good use of the relevant resources”): the one-off HK$500,000 grant for digital education, available within 2025/26 to 2027/28 for purchasing, subscribing to or renting, and for subsidising students to join activities, together with the eLAFP subscription voucher and the Composite Information Technology Grant. The same section states that the interim and final reports are carried in that school year’s school report, that they are submitted for approval by the Incorporated Management Committee or School Management Committee, and that they are posted on the school website; it also requires a school-based digital education task group.
• EDB Circular No. 107/2026 (paragraph 4): build digital education into the School Development Plan and/or the Annual School Plan.

Learning strands: the basic principles of AI / human-machine communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI

Official documents page: https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/it-in-edu/debp.html

This page is an independent teaching resource produced by Beets; it is not an official EDB document. The three purses, the three cost scenarios and the formula are this resource’s suggestion, and a school may adjust them to its own circumstances.

Feedback

If you have comments or questions about this resource, or a suggestion for the next one, tell us on the feedback page.