Woolis Institutional Resilience Scale 1.0

Woolis Institutional Resilience Scale 1.0

Education in the Age of AI · A Rapid Governance & Dependency Assessment
26 Indicators · 5 Dimensions · 56 Points

© 2025 Diana D. Woolis · Learning Agenda. Free for non-commercial educational use with attribution. Commercial use, reproduction for distribution, or adaptation requires written permission.
BACKGROUND
Most frameworks for AI in education ask whether institutions are using AI responsibly. The Woolis Institutional Resilience Scale 1.0 works at a different level — asking whether the capacity, data rights, infrastructure, pedagogical judgment, and ownership needed to remain an autonomous educational actor are actually in place, or whether they have quietly migrated to someone else. It doesn't ask whether your institution has the right policies. It asks what happens when vendors change terms, staff capacity erodes, or educational judgment quietly migrates to platforms.¹
A 2026 global Delphi study by Crompton et al. — drawing on experts across 22 countries — identified eight consensus areas for AI governance in higher education, including academic integrity, privacy, and human oversight. EdTech Hub's A Theoretical Framework for Education in the Age of AI maps the trajectory from current AI adoption toward structural transformation in education systems. UNESCO's 2025 anthology AI and the Future of Education: Disruptions, Dilemmas and Directions identifies what institutions need to have in place. The Woolis Institutional Resilience Scale is a companion instrument — built to reveal what would actually bend, hold, or break when those structures meet real conditions.
This assessment is less about policy compliance than institutional stress-testing. It asks what happens when AI systems fail, vendors change terms, staff capacity erodes, or educational judgment quietly migrates to platforms. Each indicator can be answered in under a minute In Place / In Progress / Absent based on what your institution actually knows right now. No documentation required. This is a self-assessment instrument. It is not an audit, compliance review, or external evaluation.
Your data is secure. Responses are submitted through Jotform, which uses 256-bit SSL encryption and meets GDPR compliance standards. Your name, institution, and assessment responses are used solely by Learning Agenda for research and reporting purposes including aggregate analysis by role and sector. No student data or personal financial information is collected through this assessment.
Full Name

First NameLast Name
Institution
Your Role
Your Sector
What AI governance standards or frameworks, if any, is your institution currently using?
There are three response options for each indicator: Absent (not yet in place), In Progress (actively being built), or In Place (established and functioning).
Dimension 1 — Capacity & Expertise
1.1 Your institution has mapped which AI tools each unit depends on — and anyone can find the map or an inventory.
1.2 Your institution knows what it would do — step by step — if your primary AI vendor became unavailable for 30 days.
1.3 Staff are building skills that would still work if a vendor platform disappeared — not just learning to use the tool.
1.4 Before adopting a new AI tool, your institution asks what happens to its capacity if that vendor goes away.
Dimension 1 Score
Dimension 2 — Data Reciprocity & Commercial Governance
2.1 Your institution knows — from actually reading the contracts, not assuming — what each AI vendor can do with its data.
2.2 Someone has read the actual data-use clauses in your vendor contracts within the past two years and can tell you what they say.
2.3 Your institution knows whether its vendors offer opt-outs from data training — and has made a deliberate choice, not accepted a default.
2.4 Someone responsible has looked closely at what your AI vendors can actually do with your data — not just reviewed the general contract terms.
2.5 When contracts renew, someone checks whether the data terms have changed since last time.
2.6 Faculty and staff know when their work may be feeding a vendor's AI model.
Dimension 2 Score
Dimension 3 — Infrastructure Resilience
3.1 Your institution knows what it would do and what it would use instead if a major AI vendor ended its contract tomorrow.
3.2 Your institution knows what student data its vendors hold and how it would get it back.
3.3 Leadership regularly asks which AI platforms the institution could not function without.
3.4 Before adopting a new AI platform, you ask how hard it would be to leave.
3.5 Your institution has actually tested whether it could exit at least one critical vendor — not just planned it.
Dimension 3 Score
Dimension 4 — Pedagogical Integrity & Human Judgment
4.1 Your institution has decided which educational decisions — grading, progression, advising — must stay with humans, regardless of what AI can do.
4.2 Faculty are part of the decisions about AI tools that affect how they teach — not informed afterward.
4.3 Students are told when AI is shaping their learning or assessment experience — and why.
4.4 When your institution adopts an AI tool for learning, it asks whether the tool strengthens educator judgment or quietly substitutes for it.
4.5 Your institution weighs AI adoption decisions against learning outcomes — not just cost and efficiency.
Dimension 4 Score
Dimension 5 — Stewardship & Accountability
5.1 Someone specific owns how student data moves through your AI systems — and you can name them right now.
5.2 Any faculty member or student could find out who that person is without having to ask formally.
5.3 That person's reach covers your institution's AI systems — not just the data policies from before AI arrived.
5.4 Your institution has recently stopped to ask whether its AI approach still matches reality.
5.5 Before a significant new AI tool goes live, someone with real authority has looked at it and said yes.
5.6 The people responsible for AI aren't just in IT — academic, legal, and procurement leadership are in the room.
Dimension 5 Score
Total Score
Your Feedback
1. How was this assessment helpful to you?
2. What would make this assessment more useful?
3. Would you be interested in a webinar on AI resilience in education?
4. Which webinar topics would be most useful?
5. Were there areas of institutional AI risk or dependency that the Scale didn't reach?
6. Did the indicators accurately reflect how these issues present in your institution? If not, where did the framing feel off?
May we follow up with you?
Follow-up email address
example@example.com
Should be Empty:

Woolis Institutional Resilience Scale 1.0

BACKGROUND

Dimension 1 — Capacity & Expertise

Dimension 2 — Data Reciprocity & Commercial Governance

Dimension 3 — Infrastructure Resilience

Dimension 4 — Pedagogical Integrity & Human Judgment

Dimension 5 — Stewardship & Accountability

Your Feedback