QSFS School Readiness Pack
Pilot draft v0.1 • October 2026 • For school review
QSFS helps school communities prepare for quantum-era change: students learn to understand and question it, teachers build the capacity to teach it, and schools create the conditions for safe, fair and sustainable participation. The test of success is what students can understand, judge and do independently — not how much technology a school adopts.
No certification, readiness rank or guarantee is offered. There are no established QSFS outcome studies or institutional endorsements. Approval-path notes below are public guidance; no affiliation is implied.
1. Five domains × three roles
Proposed actions and observable outputs — not borrowed assessment standards. Not every cell needs to become a separate project.
| Domain | School readiness | Teacher readiness | Student readiness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum Literacy | Agree age-appropriate purpose and curriculum placement across relevant subjects. Budget accessible materials and review scientific claims. Output: Curriculum placement note and checked common glossary. | Rehearse a simple model, explicitly explain its limits and practise saying what remains unknown. Output: Annotated explanation plus misconception check. | Distinguish an established concept, a model and a prediction; explain one useful idea without claiming quantum computers solve everything. Output: Independent explanation and correction of a misleading claim. |
| Quantum-Safe Security | Name school and system owners for information stewardship; map what the school can decide and what it must escalate. Output: Role map and one authorised question/action, without sensitive technical inventories in the pilot dataset. | Teach digital trust using fictional information and toy examples; distinguish classroom analogy from actual security assurance. Output: Approved scenario with no live targets or real secrets. | Explain why information may need protection over different time periods; identify an appropriate adult response without carrying responsibility for school systems. Output: Reasoned fictional-data decision and help route. |
| Emerging Technology Futures | Require an educational purpose, accessible equivalent, evidence and exit route before optional tool use. Output: Adopt/adapt/defer/reject decision with review date. | Separate learning about a technology from learning through it. Protect unaided thinking and authorship. Output: Lesson with first attempt, critique and independent transfer task. | Compare claims about future systems, identify uncertainty and judge whether a technology is useful for a particular purpose. Output: Evidence-based recommendation that may reject adoption. |
| STEM Pathways and Careers | Remove avoidable participation costs and timetable barriers; include diverse technical and nontechnical pathways. Output: Access plan and locally checked pathway information. | Avoid prestige rankings and deterministic “jobs will disappear” claims; show transferable skills and multiple routes. Output: Balanced pathway cards reviewed with careers staff. | Connect an interest or existing skill to several possible roles and a realistic next learning step, without committing to a career. Output: Optional pathway map, including “still exploring”. |
| Responsible Innovation | Establish decision rights, accessible student input, family communication and safeguarding/support routes. Output: Decision record showing whose views changed the plan and how concerns were answered. | Facilitate disagreement without rewarding enthusiasm for technology; assess reasoning, not preferred conclusion. Output: Moderated rubric and a revised activity responding to student input. | Weigh benefit, burden, fairness, privacy and learning; ask who decides and who can challenge a decision. Output: Justified recommendation and revision after counter-evidence. |
Boundary: school readiness is broader than ICT readiness — leadership, curriculum, communication, inclusion, staffing, time, resources and sustainability. Technical changes, procurement and cryptographic migration remain with authorised system owners. Any adult technical cryptographic inventory or migration work is optional, separately authorised and outside student activities. Students do not audit school systems or investigate classmates’ accounts.
Cross-cutting conditions: wellbeing (predictable participation, respectful relationships, proportionate demands, routes to support), agency and equity. Not a sixth domain, a happiness score or an extra worksheet.
2. Readiness checklist
Record capacity and barriers; do not classify schools or teachers as ready/unready. Unknowns become actions, not penalty scores.
Before delivery
- Curriculum slot: student learning purpose and the existing curriculum/time it uses are stated; what it replaces or integrates with is named.
- Responsible roles: school sponsor, teacher lead and an inclusion/wellbeing/curriculum contact identified from existing roles (no new committee).
- PD time and resources: funded/released preparation time agreed and capped; resource responsibility named; supervision arranged.
- Rehearsal: educators rehearse one activity and inspect the independent assessment. Requests for support are useful information, not poor performance.
- Support and safeguarding routes: existing wellbeing, child-safety and privacy/security contacts known (roles, not student names).
- Meaningful equivalents: offline/print/oral equivalents ready with the same learning demand; no accounts, paid services or home internet required.
- Student voice: two live design decisions identified for students to influence; report-back planned.
- Family information: what is studied, whether any tools are used, what is collected, alternatives and whom to contact.
- Permissions: obtained before any data collection or optional tool use; optional tools pass sector software/privacy approval.
- Access: inspected with existing school knowledge — no new dataset of disabilities, disadvantage or trauma histories.
- Review/stop criteria: agreed in advance (section 5 and decision rule).
During delivery — brief log
| Session | Adaptations needed | Prep/support minutes | Resource/access barrier | Agreed next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Include a five-minute teacher debrief in scheduled time.
Before repeating or extending
- Can another teacher deliver with the pack?
- Can students meet objectives through the accessible alternatives?
- Are support and ownership sustainable?
- Did preparation exceed the agreed allowance? What must be removed?
Wider use should follow a documented local repeat and independent review; neither a workshop nor a 90-day pilot establishes broader effectiveness.
3. Optional 90-day local planning model
An optional planning shape, not a fixed cohort, schedule or universal lesson count.
- Days 1–30: convene existing roles; choose curriculum slot and one module; agree time cap, equivalents, support routes and stop criteria; family information; permissions if needed.
- Days 31–60: teacher supported cycle (indicative 145 minutes plus local preparation); deliver in the agreed slot; brief log; student co-design and report-back.
- Days 61–90: inspect student transfer evidence; review against the decision rule; decide continue, adapt, pause or stop.
4. Student co-design protocol and response log
Co-design does not make pupils responsible for curriculum accuracy, safety, procurement or peers’ wellbeing. Adults retain those obligations and explain them.
Before: identify two live decisions (e.g. which claim the class investigates; which response formats are offered). Give everyone the same short accessible brief with the objective, constraints and adult-retained decisions. Participation is optional; declining does not affect assessment.
15–20 minute protocol:
- Think privately: “What does this task ask you to work out? Which part of the instructions is unclear?”
- Inspect access: “Could someone complete this without a device at home? What would make these materials easier to use?” (Design, not classmates’ diagnoses or household resources.)
- Exercise choice: “Which claim would you investigate, or what related question would you propose? Which response format would let you show your reasoning?”
- Challenge the proposal: “What evidence would make adopting this technology a poor choice? What would a fair alternative look like?”
- Prioritise: one feasible change; record any minority concern. A majority vote does not override an accessibility or safety need.
Responses: short written, spoken to teacher or accessible digital. Public debate optional. Suggestions are not entered into a commercial AI tool.
Response log (illustrative lines — not real student feedback):
| You raised | We changed | We could not change yet | Check with you |
|---|---|---|---|
| “The first instructions assumed everyone already knew the word encryption.” | Added a plain-language worked example and an optional glossary. | The approved lesson length is fixed; we removed one task instead. | Do the new instructions let you start without someone interpreting them? |
Keep a concern even if one learner raised it. Track suggestions answered and changes made, without names. This measures responsiveness, not whether students feel empowered.
PD feedback loop: unclear explanation → M1; fear/blame framing → M2; polished work without transfer → M3; inaccessible format → M4; narrow career messaging → M5; unsafe discussion/unclear route → M6.
5. Stop, adapt and escalation protocol
| Trigger | Immediate action | Responsible route and restart condition |
|---|---|---|
| Student wants to leave a discussion, becomes visibly distressed or raises a personal concern | Offer a private, non-punitive alternative/support route; do not investigate publicly or record the narrative as evidence | Classroom teacher follows existing wellbeing/child-safety procedures; restart when participation arrangements are appropriate. Do not promise secrecy. |
| Disclosure suggesting harm or a safety concern | Stop the learning/evaluation interaction as appropriate; follow safeguarding procedures | Designated school safeguarding personnel; the QSFS facilitator is not an investigator or clinician. |
| Real personal data, images, credentials or school-system details enter an activity/tool | Stop entry and access; do not copy into pilot records; notify the school privacy/security contact | School/sector procedure determines containment; no improvised deletion of incident evidence or unauthorised system changes. |
| Tool approval, age/consent, privacy, accessibility or ownership unresolved | Use the offline equivalent or defer tool use | Relevant school/system owner decides; enthusiasm or a vendor demo is not approval. |
| No meaningful equivalent or materials inaccessible | Pause that component; provide comparable access | Teacher/inclusion lead checks the revision before resuming. Do not exclude students to keep pace. |
| Assisted output improves but independent transfer deteriorates or copying dominates | Remove answer-giving support, reteach, check a new task | Teacher and curriculum lead review design. No “AI dependency” diagnosis from one task. |
| Workload exceeds the agreed allowance or key support is absent | Reduce scope, replace an activity, add support or pause | School sponsor and coordinator agree resourcing; teachers do not silently absorb the deficit. |
| Quantum or career claims inaccurate, sensational or presented as certain | Correct, explain uncertainty, withdraw the flawed resource pending review | Subject reviewer verifies a revised version before reuse. |
6. Safe evaluation — learning and implementation, not mental health
Primary question: can students independently explain, evaluate and make proportionate decisions about quantum-era change, with accessible participation and manageable delivery?
- Learning: short individual baseline, end task and later transfer task, parallel difficulty, unchanged supports. Share only agreed non-identifiable aggregates.
- Reasoning: moderated sample using the rubric, de-identified before any authorised sharing.
- Agency in the design: suggestions answered and implemented (no names).
- Access: whether equivalents were on time and which features blocked participation — without identifying students or recording protected characteristics.
- Teacher readiness: demonstration of one explanation/adaptation and actual time. No stress/burnout questionnaires.
- School readiness: ownership, curriculum placement, communication, support route, resource plan, review decision.
Never collect: diagnostic screeners, emotion recognition, browsing histories, household income, trauma narratives, named wellbeing ratings or students’ private AI conversations. Use bounded learning-focused prompts; do not promise anonymity where handwriting or small groups reveal identity. The school approves retention, access, sharing and disposal before collection; no universal retention period is set here.
Decision rule (agree before starting): continue only if the school can demonstrate the learning check, usable equivalents, functioning safeguards and delivery within agreed capacity. Review weaker unaided performance, inaccessible activities or workload overrun; do not average them away with satisfaction. Make no causal or generalisable claim from a small uncontrolled pilot.
Research approval: externally initiated evaluation can fall within the Department’s RISEC requirements, which exclude research for commercial or material gain. Anonymous responses or principal permission alone do not establish exemption. Applicable ethics and sector approval are also needed. QSFS does not promise approval.
7. Approval paths by sector (public guidance, no affiliation implied)
- Government schools: Relevant Department policy and school authority (principal and Department processes). Department technology policy
- Independent schools: The school’s actual proprietor, board or delegate. Independent Schools Victoria is an association, not the approving authority.
- Catholic schools: Verify the school’s actual proprietor — do not assume every school is MACS. Possible governing bodies include MACS, DOBCEL, DOSCEL and CES Ltd; VCEA describes the sector role. MACS · DOBCEL · DOSCEL · CES Ltd · VCEA
Government-school Department policies (technology; software/Arc-ST4S) apply within their scope, including use of Department technologies where available and existing software-review milestones including end 2028. ST4S assessment is not educational endorsement. They do not automatically apply to independent or Catholic schools. The Commonwealth PSPF applies to in-scope entities and must not be applied automatically to every school. ASD PQC planning milestones (plan by end 2026, start transition by end 2028, complete by end 2030) are guidance, not a blanket school law or breakthrough prediction.
8. Review questions before pilot approval
- Do all three roles have genuine actions and outputs across the five domains, without becoming fifteen separate projects?
- Can a student meet each objective without a personal account, paid service or home connectivity?
- Can students disagree with technology adoption and still meet the rubric at its highest level?
- Is independent reasoning assessed with accessibility supports preserved?
- Are governance, teacher workload and student support responsibilities named and resourced?
- Have inclusion/wellbeing staff reviewed participation and referral arrangements without sharing personal histories?
- Is evaluation limited to authorised, proportionate learning/implementation evidence?
- Are claims distinguished as established knowledge, limited-context research, policy requirement or QSFS design proposal?
- Are quantum-era understanding and decision-making still the coherent focus?
- What specific evidence would cause the team to adapt, pause or abandon an activity or expansion?
Quantum-Safe Futures for Schools Framework (QSFS), founded by Michelle Magalona. Pilot draft v0.1 • October 2026 • For school review. Format: Markdown (.md).