P1-S6 School planning: what never goes into a prompt — six categories of data, three rewriting methods and a one-page staff checklist

• StageP1-S6
• SubjectSchool planning
• Learning strandthe basic operation of AI, human-machine communication and collaboration, and 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 · EDBCM No. 107/2026
• Preparation time45–60 minutes, inside one staff meeting

Turning "which sentence must not go out" into one page and one meeting: six categories of data that never go in, three rewriting methods done in order, three exceptions that need written approval, and a one-page five-column checklist.

• AudienceTeachers
• ThemeSchool planning

• Equipmentthe one-page five-column checklist (one per colleague, laminated beside the photocopier and in the staff room); the meeting notes on the six categories and three rewriting methods (one for whoever chairs); a projector or whiteboard
• Version1.0
• Last updated2026-11-11

An incident rarely starts with the tool. It starts with the paragraph that was pasted in. This page does one thing: five questions to answer before pressing send. Six categories, three rewriting methods, three exceptions — all on one sheet.

What this solves

When a colleague pastes a paragraph into a tool, they are usually not taking a risk. They are short of time: producing a worksheet, rewording an explanation, tidying a record into a report. Nothing warns them. The tool is not broken and the colleague was not careless — nobody asked, at that moment, who is in this paragraph?

The school already has a document saying what may and may not go in. What is missing is the five seconds before it goes out: something that can sit beside the photocopier, be explained once in a meeting, and be in everyone’s hand while the meeting runs.

That is what this page supplies: six categories of data that never go in, three rewriting methods done in order, three exceptions that need written approval, and a one-page five-column checklist. It replaces no school document and rewrites no existing requirement. It turns “five questions before sending” into one sheet.

Why “never”, not “handle carefully”. “Carefully” is an attitude. Everyone agrees with it in the meeting and there is no next step back at the desk. “Never” is a line that can be answered yes or no on the spot: yes means stop, and only no goes on to rewriting. The whole page is built around that line.

Three statements to read first:

1. The names “six categories of data”, “three rewriting methods” and “the one-page checklist” are this resource’s suggestion, not something the Education Bureau has named. They rest on two things the documents do ask for — protection of personal data and professional judgement — and the documents set no number of categories, no number of methods and no column headings.
2. This page is not legal advice, and does not replace the school’s personal information collection statement or its information security guidelines. Which data may be handled, who approves it and how long it is kept are settled by the school’s own documents and the colleague responsible for them. This page covers only the step before input.
3. The Primary Information and Innovation Technology Curriculum Framework is a primary trial version. This page covers P1–S6; the secondary stage uses the same set of terms but has no equivalent official framework, so the page does not present that framework as a secondary requirement and does not quote its items.

Four things this page does not do:

• It cites no section number of any ordinance. Where a rule comes from the school’s documents, the page says so and leaves the wording to the colleague responsible.
• It names no platform, brand, supplier or shop. The phrase throughout is “the tool the school has designated”.
• It uses no real data in an example. Every example on the page and in the attachments is invented: no real name, student number, telephone number, address, account, password or internal system link.
• It demonstrates no tool. No screen, button or setting appears; the page is about the five questions before input.

Purpose

Scope. This page applies to every member of staff: teachers, teaching assistants, administrative colleagues, library and IT colleagues, and anyone who handles school or pupil data with a tool as part of their work, including trainees and supply staff. It is material for one staff meeting, and a card for the wall beside the photocopier.

After one meeting, a school can:

1. Read the six categories through once, and name the one its own daily work touches most.
2. Take one invented example through de-identification, abstraction and fictionalisation in that order, and say what separates the three steps.
3. Name the three exceptions that need written approval, and the four things the approval record must carry.
4. Use the one-page five-column checklist to decide, on the spot, whether a sentence may go out.

The page is written to the three learning strands of AI literacy — the basic operation of AI, human-machine communication and collaboration, and reflection on the application of AI — and takes nurturing the person, literacy first, application-oriented and technology for good as its values. It sits between critical thinking and responsibility: critical thinking is being able to ask who is in this paragraph, and responsibility is asking it when nobody is watching.

How to use it

The attachments are two Word documents: the one-page five-column checklist (one per colleague, to copy and laminate) and the meeting notes on the six categories and three rewriting methods (one for whoever chairs, covering 45–60 minutes).

Six categories that never go in (six, fixed)

The six are a working classification, not legal definitions. Read them one at a time, and for each ask one question: “is there anything of this kind in the sentence?”

Two sentences must be said together with the six, or the list gets copied as if it were exhaustive:

• If one item falls into two categories, treat it as the stricter one. A record carrying both a student number and counselling content is handled under category two, not category one.
• If it is not clear which category it is, treat it as data that may not go in. Hesitation already answers the question.

Three rewriting methods (three, fixed, in order)

The three are done in order, not chosen from: de-identify first, then abstract, then fictionalise. The rewrite is finished only when all three are done.

Three notes:

• Why it cannot be one of three. De-identify only, and “Secondary 3, April, four people” still identifies the event. Fictionalise only, and the original details are still in the background. Each step removes one layer, and the order cannot be reversed.
• “Three or more matchable details” is a ceiling, not a target. Three details is already close to identifiable; fewer is better.
• Run the six categories again after rewriting. Rewriting is so that the sentence can go out, not so that the writer feels better.

Three exceptions, and written approval (three, fixed)

Only three situations may go in, and all three need written approval:

Three rules to state plainly in the meeting:

• Parental consent is not an exception. Consent is to take part in an activity or to display a piece of work; it is not consent to send that pupil’s data to a third-party tool. Never write “parental consent is enough to put it in.”
• Verbal agreement, and “ok” in a message, do not count. Exceptions require written approval; without a record there is no exception.
• Approval is per occasion and per scope. One approval covers one purpose and one scope; change either and it is approved again.

The one-page five-column checklist (five columns, fixed)

One page, five columns, filled left to right, and no column is skipped. If column five cannot be answered, the sentence does not go out.

Four rules, printed at the foot of the card:

• The card records; it does not mark. No score, level or ranking, and no personnel or conduct record.
• Whoever chairs the meeting collects the cards, and keeps them under the school’s own retention arrangements. Not left on a wall, not left beside the photocopier overnight.
• “May not go in” in column three means it does not go out. That column is a line, not an opinion.
• Exceptions are in writing. With no approval record, column five reads “none” and the sentence does not go.

The 45–60 minute meeting

It fits inside one staff meeting. The 45-minute version drops the second demonstration round and changes nothing else.

Two rules that do not change: six categories means six, three methods means three, three exceptions means three, and the checklist has five columns. Nothing is added or removed, and no sub-items are created. The order of the three methods does not change.

The teacher’s and the office’s four checks

1. The chair chooses the example. Every example is invented; no real case from the school is “lightly changed”. An obviously fake example is better than a disguised real one.
2. No tool is demonstrated. No screen is opened, nobody logs in, no button is pressed; only the content of a prompt is read.
3. “May not go in” is a line, not a reproach. A colleague who answers yes is the moment the page is working, not a colleague who did something wrong.
4. Exceptions go to the responsible colleague. If someone believes an exception applies, it goes to the colleague responsible for personal data, under the school’s documents; it is not approved in the meeting.

Three closing sentences (read together)

1. “Who is in this sentence?”
2. “Which category is it?”
3. “Has it been rewritten — and who approved it in writing?”

Where this meets other resources in the library

Interfaces only; nothing here redoes their work:

• The staff data-handling guide (what may and may not go into an AI tool) covers the same subject for a different use: it is the school’s standing guide, with seven negative items, the requirements it has to meet, what may go in and how to anonymise it, and four in-school procedures for the school to fill in. This page is a checklist for the step before input. It does not rewrite that page’s requirements or procedures, and the two pages use the same names for the same things (for example “data that can identify a pupil”, and anonymisation, which is this page’s de-identification).
• The personal data scenarios pack works on situation judgement at pupil level; this page works on the boundary for staff input, and does not redo the scenarios.
• The AI risk register and incident response covers logging and reporting an incident; this page covers the step before one, and writes no register.
• The AI budget and licensing worksheet covers buying and licensing tools; this page’s three exceptions say only that something is already approved, and cover no procurement.

Review checklist

After the meeting and before the cards are handed out, check each line:

• □ All six categories are present, and only six: pupil identity, pupil performance and support, parents’ and colleagues’ personal data, unpublished school documents, credentials and access, third-party data under restriction.
• □ Beside them: “two categories means the stricter one” and “not sure means it does not go in”.
• □ All three methods are present, in the order de-identify, abstract, fictionalise, with “in order, not one of three”.
• □ All three exceptions are present, each with the four fields: approver’s post, date, purpose, scope.
• □ The page states that parental consent is not an exception, and that verbal agreement and an “ok” in a message do not count.
• □ The checklist has five columns only: what I am asking for, whose data is in it, which category, what it is after rewriting, who approved it.
• □ The card states that it records and does not mark, and that the chair collects it under the school’s retention arrangements.
• □ No platform, brand, supplier or shop is named — the phrase is “the tool the school has designated”.
• □ No section number of any ordinance appears.
• □ No real data is usable from the page: no real name, student number, telephone, address, account, password or internal system link.
• □ No tool demonstration appears (no screen, button or setting).
• □ The page states that it is not legal advice and does not replace the school’s personal information collection statement or information security guidelines.
• □ The page states that the Primary Information and Innovation Technology Curriculum Framework is a primary trial version, and that the secondary stage uses the same terms without an equivalent framework.
• □ The meeting runs 45–60 minutes, and names the segment the 45-minute version drops.

The core: who is in it, which category, has it been rewritten, and who approved it in writing. Answer all five columns and the sentence may go; leave one unanswered and it does not.

Files

The one-page staff checklist (editable Word document, five columns, copies on its own)

A single side: the six categories that never go in (one line each, with the two sentences about the stricter category and about uncertainty), the order of the three rewriting methods, the three exceptions that need written approval, the one-page five-column checklist, and the four rules at the foot. Laminate it beside the photocopier and in the staff room; it has no field for a name and no field for pupil data.

Meeting notes on the six categories and three rewriting methods (editable Word document)

For whoever chairs: the five header facts (stage, subject, learning strand, official documents, preparation time), a read-aloud line for each of the six categories, one entirely invented example taken through the three steps with before-and-after, the three exceptions and the four fields of an approval record, the 45–60 minute run sheet, the teacher’s and the office’s four checks, and the three closing sentences.

Both documents carry a version record line in the footer.

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 digital and AI education to be planned in the School Development Plan, with the arrangements explained to teachers, pupils and parents; putting the five questions before input on one page is part of explaining those arrangements.
• Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (p.1-4): sets out the three learning strands; this resource addresses the basic operation of AI, human-machine communication and collaboration, and reflection on the application of AI.
• Supplement II: Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (p.2-4): asks teachers to exercise professional judgement, to handle pupil learning data within the applicable requirements, and to remove what can identify a pupil before anything is put in; the six categories and the three steps are one way of doing that in a school.
• EDBCM No. 156/2026 (as published): sets out the values and attitudes schools should attend to, including the protection of personal data and professional judgement; the checklist is one way of meeting that in a school.
• EDBCM No. 107/2026 (as published): read together with the documents above as the policy basis for this page; the page quotes none of its items, and the specific requirements are those of the circular and the school’s own documents.

Learning strands: the basic operation of AI, human-machine communication and collaboration, and 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 names “six categories of data”, “three rewriting methods” and “the one-page checklist”, the division into six, the order of the three steps and the five column headings are this resource’s suggestion, not an Education Bureau requirement. This page is not legal advice and does not replace the school’s personal information collection statement or its information security guidelines. It names no platform, brand, supplier or shop, quotes no section number of any ordinance, demonstrates no tool, and uses no real data in an example. Parental consent is not an exception; every exception requires written approval. The card records only: it does not mark, and it is not a personnel or conduct record.

Feedback

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