P1-S6 School planning: AI tool selection and procurement scoring table

• StageP1-S6
• SubjectSchool planning
• Learning strandfundamental operating principles of AI / human-AI 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 · EDBCM No. 156/2026
• Time needed for the selectionabout 90 minutes for the first selection; reviewed once a year

An editable scoring table for choosing and buying AI tools: six criteria with weights, a blank tool data sheet, a trial record, a three-year cost comparison of buying, subscribing and renting, and a record of how the funding was used.

• AudienceTeachers
• ThemeSchool planning

• EquipmentEditable Word document; projector or print; one internet-connected computer or tablet for the trial
• Version1.0
• Last updated2026-10-26

The point of a selection: write down how you will judge, before you watch the demonstration. Set the criteria after a demo and the criteria will always flatter that demo.

What this solves

A school has a few years in which to spend a one-off grant on AI tools — the Education Bureau circular puts it at HK$500,000, covering the 2025/26 to 2027/28 school years. The money is spent once; the tools stay for years. Three years later the school either keeps paying or takes away something it has already built into its classrooms.

Three common approaches all fail in the same place:

• Deciding from a demonstration. A vendor’s demo always runs under the best conditions: the best network, the highest account tier, the person who knows the product best. What teachers see in the room is not what their own classroom will meet next week.
• Comparing the first-year price only. Buying, subscribing and renting are put into the same money column, although the three-year total and the ease of leaving differ greatly.
• No exit arrangement. Student work, the materials teachers built, and the accumulated prompts and records all sit on one platform; when the school changes tools, it finds it cannot take them.

This resource turns the selection into a table a school can fill in, account for, and use again: six criteria and their weights, a tool data sheet, a trial record, a three-year cost comparison, and a record of how the funding was used. Filled in as written, it produces a decision with reasons attached, and a record the school can put in front of its management committee, its parents and the Bureau later.

No commercial tool is named anywhere in the table. Tools appear as Tool A, Tool B and Tool C, filled in by the school. That column is deliberately blank: today’s product names will mostly be renamed or re-termed within three years, and a set of selection criteria should not have to be rewritten when a product is.

Purpose

By the end of this table a school will be able to:

1. Score every candidate tool against six criteria before buying, and state what each score rests on.
2. Compare buying, subscribing and renting inside one three-year frame, including costs that only appear after year one.
3. Keep a complete record of the funding: amount, period, acquisition method, approver, receipts and an outcome review.
4. Write the must-pass conditions down before the trial, so that the trial is not another demonstration.
5. Record an exit arrangement for every candidate: how the data comes back, how the teaching materials come away.

How to use it

The file is one Word document in five parts, with two sheets to fill in directly. Suggested order: set the criteria first, then gather the data, then trial, score and cost the options, and only then decide and record.

Part 1 — six criteria and their weights (100 points in total)

How to score: rate each criterion from 0 to 4 (0 = does not meet it at all, 4 = fully meets it, 1 to 3 in between), then the score is the rating ÷ 4 × the weight. The six together give the tool’s total out of 100.

The six criteria and their weights are this resource’s recommendation, not an Education Bureau requirement. A school may change a weight to suit itself, but the change has to be written down before scoring and explained in the record. Changing a weight afterwards makes the whole table meaningless.

Part 2 — tool data sheet

One row per candidate tool, with the same columns for each, so that the comparison holds:

Tool code · purpose · learning stage it serves · account type (teacher / student / shared) · where the data is stored · whether there is a free tier · first-year price · minimum term · trial date · the colleague responsible

Part 3 — trial record

Before the trial, write down three must-pass conditions (for example: it works on the school network and behind its filtering; it does not require a personal student account; one teaching task can be completed inside one lesson). Then record each trial lesson: date · class · subject · number of pupils · the task · what you observed · what went wrong · whether a school-level adjustment is needed.

If one of the three conditions fails, write it in the trial record rather than carrying an impression into the meeting.

Part 4 — three-year cost comparison of buying, subscribing and renting

The same set of tools and the same number of users, in three parallel columns:

Fill in all three columns, including the three-year total and the costs that appear after year one. Comparing the first year alone is not a comparison.

Part 5 — funding use and accountability record

One grant, item by item: date · item · acquisition method (buy / subscribe / rent) · amount · supplier code · approver · receipt number · the scoring table reference · outcome review date.

This part is written for later: the management committee asking where the money went, a parent asking why this tool, the Bureau asking how value for money is assured — one answer, one record.

Suggested sequence

1. First meeting (about 90 minutes): set the six criteria and their weights, write the three must-pass conditions, name the colleagues who will gather the data.
2. Two to three weeks: collect prices and terms into the tool data sheet, and book trial lessons in the same period.
3. Second meeting: read the trial record, score the tools, complete the three-year cost comparison; where two totals are close, go back through the criteria one at a time.
4. Decide and record: complete the funding record and name the review date.
5. Once a year: review with the same table — terms change, pupil numbers change, increases arrive.

Review checklist

Before deciding, check each item:

• The six criteria and weights were written down before scoring, and a meeting record supports that.
• Every candidate tool was filled in against the same criteria and the same columns.
• The three must-pass conditions were written before the trial.
• No commercial tool is named anywhere in the tables or the attachment.
• All three acquisition methods carry a three-year total, with year-two-and-later costs listed separately.
• Every candidate has an exit arrangement: the export format, how the materials come away, the notice period.
• The funding record has an approver, a receipt number and an outcome review date.
• The HK$500,000 and the 2025/26 to 2027/28 school years at the head of the page match the circular the school received.
• The next review date and the colleague responsible are named.

Files

AI tool selection and procurement scoring table (editable Word document)

Five parts: the six criteria and their weights, the tool data sheet, the trial record, the three-year cost comparison, and the funding use and accountability record. Tool names, amounts, dates and owners are left blank to fill in, and the whole document can be edited and reused by a school.

Official documents

Every resource in this library is written to 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): requires a school’s development plan to state its digital and AI education strategy, its resources and its implementation timetable, including the purchase of tools and equipment.
• Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.1-6 to 1-10): sets out the four learning stages and the three learning strands; whether a tool is worth buying starts with whether it can carry that learning, not with how many features it has.
• Supplement II: Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.2-2 to 2-5): sets out what is required of a school choosing and using AI tools, including teaching need first, the handling of learning data, and the teacher’s professional judgement in the classroom. The “Teaching fit” and “Data and privacy” criteria here are written to it.
• EDBCM No. 156/2026 (2026/27 School Year Holistic Planning of School-based Digital Education and Related Teacher Training): states that schools must build digital education into the School Development Plan and/or the Annual School Plan in the 2026/27 school year, and account for the use of the related resources.

Learning strand: fundamental operating principles of AI / human-AI 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 Beets teaching resource, not an official EDB document. The six criteria, the weights and the scoring method are this resource’s recommendation, and a school may adjust them to its own situation.

Feedback

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