1EdTech LTI 1.3
Specification and certification are separate. No implemented LTI integration or certification is claimed.
1EdTech LTI ↗COLLEGE IT · PROCUREMENT · EDUCATOR TRUST
Evaluate the platform with the status of every capability visible.
Procurement teams should see not only what works, but also what has not been built or independently verified. This page distinguishes public learning tools, design-stage institutional features and security prerequisites.
Transparency snapshot · Updated October 30, 2026 · Not a certification or legal compliance attestation
Institutional evaluation checklist
A proposed roadmap, not a declaration of FERPA compliance, WCAG conformance, or LTI certification.
| Capability | Current status | Evidence / remaining gate |
|---|---|---|
| Public English/Spanish practice | Public preview | Interactive reading passages, writing self-review and review scheduler are accessible on the public website; screen-reader testing remains incomplete. |
| Instructor pilot framework | Public preview | The six-week faculty preview and evaluation rubric are available as a planning model. No real instructor accounts or class rosters exist. |
| Dedicated student backend and authorization | Design stage | A separate secured student service, permissions, database policies and account-linked learning history must be deployed and independently tested. |
| Faculty roster and classroom reporting | Not implemented | Institution-scoped instructors, student assignment permissions, privacy-safe activity totals, grade approvals and export are not operational. |
| LMS integration / LTI 1.3 | Not implemented | Implement and test LTI launches, secure identities, Deep Linking, Names and Role Provisioning and grade services when requested. No certification claimed. |
| SSO and account provisioning | Not implemented | Campus identity providers, session security, role mapping, revocation and separate institutional access controls remain on the roadmap. |
| Student privacy / FERPA considerations | Design stage | Requires institutional legal review, data processing terms, purpose limitations, vendor roles, data retention/deletion and transparent student notice before identified learner records. |
| Accessibility / WCAG 2.2 | Design stage | Current pages have source-level checks, but need independent mobile, keyboard, screen-reader and assistive-technology testing. No WCAG certification or conformance assertion. |
| AI voice and feedback | Not implemented | The humanlike speaking coach and cost/usage ledger need private AI integration, safety tests, content and retention controls; current demos are not live AI grading. |
| Subscription billing and institutional licensing | Not implemented | Sandbox products exist but verified signed webhooks, reconciliation, entitlements and live charging are disabled. Institutional procurement and pricing are undecided. |
| Pilot outcomes / research evidence | Not implemented | No verified university pilot, measured achievement gain, dropout reduction or faculty time saving has been reported. A faculty-approved protocol would be required. |
PILOT ACCEPTANCE GATES
Required before a pilot with identifiable learners
Instructional approvalDocument scope, learning targets, accommodations, evaluation rubric and responsible faculty.
Security & privacyApprove institution-specific agreement, lawful data flows, incident response, retention and deletion controls.
Technical acceptanceDeploy isolated backend; test roles, mobile/assistive tech, recovery, error handling and any requested LMS connection.
Evidence planDefine comparison tasks, consent, access fairness, decision thresholds and methods for reporting uncertainty.
Questions to ask during procurement
Which data would the platform need?
Initial discussion needs only faculty/institution contact and pilot scope. A later study should define the minimum student data needed under a separately approved agreement.
Can we request LTI or SSO in the pilot?
Yes, as an implementation requirement to scope. It is not available or promised until engineered, security-tested and contracted.
Can we obtain a FERPA or WCAG certificate?
No such certification is claimed. A college should review contractual and technical controls, third-party accessibility results when available, and independent evidence.
Can we approve this for campus-wide deployment today?
Not on the evidence currently available. A limited demonstration of public exercises is possible; real student data and official classroom reporting should wait for the documented acceptance gates.
REFERENCE STANDARDS
Official sources colleges can review
W3C WCAG 2.2
Accessibility requirements must be tested with real users and assistive technologies.
W3C WCAG 2.2 ↗U.S. Education Records / FERPA
Institutional counsel must determine applicable obligations and approve handling of education records.
Student Privacy Policy Office ↗CEFR / MCER
Illustrative can-do descriptors guide teaching goals; sample questions are not official certification.
Council of Europe ↗Talk through your institution's requirements
Share the department and type of pilot you are considering. Do not send student records or protected education information through an inquiry form.
Request a pilot conversation ↗