Snapshot 29716
Normalized text
Scripts and page chrome removed; this is what change detection compares.
Product ▾ Product OverviewPlatform explained ObservationsEvidence-backed softwareSibme CopilotAsk questions across evidenceCoaching & CollaborationGoals, reflection & PLCsVirtual CoachingExpert coaches for every role Solutions ▾ For DistrictsProve instructional investments workFor SchoolsFor Teacher Prep & ACPClinical practice at scaleESCs & Partners Customers ▾ Customer StoriesHow districts use SibmeImplementationOnboarding & strategic support Blog Trust Pricing Log in Book a Demo ✕ Product ▾ Product OverviewObservationsSibme CopilotCoaching & CollaborationVirtual Coaching Solutions ▾ For DistrictsFor SchoolsFor Teacher Prep & ACPESCs & Partners Customers ▾ Customer StoriesImplementation BlogTrustPricing Book a DemoLog in AI Transparency AI-Assisted, Human-Confirmed Human agency is at the center of Sibme's mission, and guides the design decisions around our AI. Download this guideSecurity overview A guide for districts, coaches, teachers, and the people who advocate for them. Sibme Review · Mrs. Chen · Grade 3 1 District rubric selected Done 2 Evidence submitted Done 3 System analyzes artifacts Done 4 Evaluator reviewing Human judgment required. 5 Findings inform a conversation ∗ System boundaries What Sibme does. What it doesn't. Neither list is short. Both matter. Read both before you decide how you feel about this system. What Sibme does Produces evidence-cited analysis, every claim points to a specific moment in a recording or section of a document Generates pattern-based ratings reflecting multiple artifacts, using your district's exact descriptor language Works against the framework your district chose, not its own definition of effective teaching Produces a draft that the evaluator reviews, edits, confirms, or overrides before anything enters the formal record Logs every Copilot session with the evidence sources used, auditable and traceable What Sibme doesn't do ✕ Make personnel decisions, no teacher is hired, fired, or placed on improvement plans by AI ✕ Replace direct observation, Sibme analyzes submitted evidence, not a substitute for an evaluator who knows the students and context ✕ Rate practice not in the artifacts, insufficient evidence is named, not guessed ✕ Override evaluator judgment, the evaluator makes the final rating decision, always ✕ Operate without a district-selected rubric, every analysis is grounded in your framework ✕ Train on your district's data, evidence submitted to Sibme is never used to improve AI models ∗ The review process Five stages. One non-negotiable. Stage 4. Human review. Cannot be skipped, automated, or bypassed. Every report that enters the formal record has been confirmed by a credentialed evaluator. 1 Stage 1 District rubric selected Admin selects the framework, rubric, and indicators. Sibme operates within those boundaries exclusively. 2 Stage 2 Evaluator collects evidence Observations, artifacts, lesson plans, recordings, notes. Submitted by evaluator or teacher per the workflow. 3 Stage 3 System analyzes artifacts Sibme generates a draft analysis. Evidence cited, indicators rated, gaps flagged. No human has confirmed it yet. Non-negotiable 4 Stage 4 Evaluator reviews and confirms. A credentialed evaluator reads the draft, checks citations, applies professional judgment, and either confirms, edits, or overrides. 5 Stage 5 Findings inform a conversation The confirmed report enters the record and becomes the basis for a post-observation conference. Not the end of the process. The machine remembers so the human can think. AI handles the evidence. The evaluator handles the judgment. That's not a limitation of our system. It's the design. ∗ Non-negotiables Six protections that don't change when the model does. These aren't features. They're constraints. They apply regardless of which AI model is powering the analysis. District-selected rubric Sibme uses your framework. Not its own definition of effective teaching. Citation-backed claims Every assertion points to a specific, verifiable moment in the evidence. Pattern requirement Ratings reflect patterns across multiple artifacts. Never isolated moments. Direct observation governs Self-report cannot override behavioral evidence from recordings. Human review required A credentialed evaluator confirms every report before it informs any decision. Honest gaps + forward framing What can't be rated is named. Every section includes coaching-oriented guidance on what to work on next. The evaluator always has the final word. ∗ Questions we've heard Questions from teachers, coaches, and union representatives. We gathered these from real conversations. If your question isn't here, reach out and we'll answer it directly. What if the AI gets something wrong? Every claim is cited to source evidence. If a citation is wrong, the evaluator corrects it before the report informs any decision. The system does not have authority over the rating. It produces analysis the evaluator reviews. An AI error that passes through uncorrected is a human review failure, not a design feature. What if the teacher disagrees with the report? Disagreement is normal and expected. A Sibme report is structured analysis, not a verdict. The teacher can submit additional evidence, contest specific citations, or request a re-review. The formal rating reflects the evaluator's professional judgment, after that conversation, not instead of it. Who owns the data? The district. Recordings, documents, transcripts, and reports belong to the district that submitted them. Districts can export their data, delete it, or restrict its use. Sibme does not use district data to train AI models, ever. Can a report be used in a personnel decision without my knowing? No. Districts using Sibme are bound by their own evaluation policies and applicable employment law. No personnel decision is made based on a Sibme report alone, and teachers have whatever rights of review, response, and appeal their district policy and contracts provide. What does “AI-Assisted, Human-Confirmed” actually mean? It means the AI does the analysis work. Transcribing, citing, pattern-finding, drafting, and a credentialed human evaluator confirms whether that analysis accurately reflects what they observed. The report that enters the formal record has been read, checked, and signed off by a human. The AI assists; it doesn't decide. What happens if I submit evidence I'm worried about? Sibme analyzes what's in the evidence, honestly and without softening. If a lesson shows areas for growth, the analysis will reflect that. This is by design: the point of evidence-based review is to have a shared, accurate picture of practice. The report becomes the starting point for a coaching conversation, not an endpoint for a judgment call. ∗ Security & compliance How Sibme protects instructional data. FERPA, COPPA, ISO 27001, TX-RAMP Level 2, data ownership, sub-processors. All covered on our Security page. View security overviewFull compliance statement Download the complete AI transparency guide. A PDF version of this guide is available for sharing with evaluators, union representatives, HR teams, and anyone who needs to understand how Sibme reviews are built. Download the PDF guideSecurity overview The instructional evidence platform for K–12 districts. About Sibme → Our Manifesto → Made in Houston · Since 2013 Also by Sibme My Learning Hub ↗ Corporate & professional LMS Edplay AI ↗ AI course builder · K–12 & Higher-Ed Product Observations Copilot Coaching & Collaboration Virtual Coaching Implementation iOS App Android App Pricing Solutions Districts Schools Teacher Prep & ACP ESCs & Partners Customers Resources Blog Trust AI Transparency Security AI FAQ Help Center App Status Log in Legal Terms of Service Privacy Policy Acceptable Use Policy Compliance Do Not Sell My Personal Information Certified & integrated © 2026 Sibme · “See what’s working.”