Tools & setup
The stack, and how to get it approved.
VIBE is tool-agnostic by design - schools use what fits their existing tech agreements. But advisors still ask us "what do you actually use?" This page is the honest answer, with a district compliance lens for each piece.
This page is our opinion, not legal advice. Everything below reflects what we have seen work as of the date at the bottom of this page. The AI compliance landscape changes fast - vendor terms, Data Processing Agreements, state privacy laws, and district approval processes all shift month to month.
Before you commit to a tool, confirm its current status with the vendor directly and run it through your district's IT and legal teams. VIBE Afterschool and Juno Maps do not warrant the accuracy of any third-party compliance claim, cost, or feature on this page, and we are not responsible for district approval outcomes. Consult your own counsel for anything binding.
Three tools. All browser-based. Free tier viable.
This is the stack we use and the one we recommend. It runs on a Chromebook, an iPad, or a laptop with nothing to install. Total friction: one developer-identity setup in week 1, then you are done.
Claude Code (web)
claude.ai/code
The AI pair-programmer students write, edit, and deploy with. Runs entirely in the browser. No terminal, no local install, no API keys to manage. Same tool the advisor uses, so you can actually help when a student is stuck.
- 13+ ToS compliant
- GitHub integration built in
- Runs a terminal in-session for Vercel deploys
GitHub
github.com
Where every project lives. Industry standard. Free for students. The strongest compliance posture of the three - Microsoft-backed, FERPA data processing agreements available, listed with the Student Data Privacy Consortium.
- 13+ ToS, widely accepted by districts
- GitHub Education free upgrades for students
- Teaches real version-control habits from day one
Vercel
vercel.com
Where finished projects go live. Generous free tier. Git push, auto-deploy, real URL for the showcase. The weakest of the three on formal school compliance - see the workaround below if your district flags it.
- 13+ ToS compliant
- Free tier covers every student project we have seen
- Workaround: advisor owns the Vercel account, students push to GitHub, advisor deploys
Why this stack: it mirrors how professional developers actually ship. Students who finish the program leave with a GitHub profile, a deployed project on a real URL, and habits that transfer directly to internships and CS coursework. No tool they will have to unlearn.
The reasoning behind the stack.
We want you to be able to defend every tool in a board meeting. Here is the actual reasoning, including the tradeoffs we are accepting and the places where a different school might make a different call.
Why Claude Code over a GUI tool like Lovable or Bolt
Lovable and Bolt get a student to "something that works" in one session, which feels great. But they hide the underlying code, create vendor lock-in, and cost $20+/seat/month. Claude Code web gives students the same speed on day one and teaches them the actual file structure, git commits, and deploy flow. We optimized for transferable skills over first-session dopamine.
Why not Replit, even though it is Chromebook-friendly
Replit is a good product. The reason it is not in the stack is that it creates a second environment students have to unlearn when they graduate to industry tools. Since Claude Code web is also Chromebook-friendly and matches what working developers actually use, there is no pedagogical reason to add Replit. If a district blocks Claude, Replit is a reasonable fallback.
Why Vercel despite its weaker education compliance posture
Vercel has the best "git push → live URL" experience of any free host. That moment - seeing your project on a real domain - is the single biggest motivation driver we have seen in week 7. We are willing to accept the compliance friction because (a) the advisor-owned-account workaround works and (b) student data does not actually live on Vercel when you use it that way. If your district rejects Vercel, Cloudflare Pages or GitHub Pages are drop-in replacements with stronger compliance stories.
Why Claude is our default AI even though Gemini is easier to approve
Honest answer: coding quality. In our experience, Claude handles multi-file edits, debugging, and iterative refinement better than Gemini or ChatGPT - and those are the exact skills the program teaches. But we say this as practitioners, not as impartial evaluators. If your district has already approved Gemini through Google Workspace for Education, use Gemini. The curriculum works with any capable model, and a "yes" on Gemini today beats a "maybe" on Claude six weeks from now.
Why we are not hiding the tradeoffs
Because advisors pitching this to principals need to be able to answer hard questions with confidence, not with marketing language. If you get asked "why not Copilot?" or "what about data retention?" we want you to have a real answer. Every choice on this page has a reason, and every reason has a counter-argument we took seriously.
When each tool enters the cohort.
You do not hand a student all three tools on day one. The stack unlocks across the four VIBE phases so each one feels like a level-up, not a wall.
Claude Code only.
Students build something small in the browser, hit "share," see it work. Comfort over mastery. No GitHub yet.
Add GitHub.
"Today we set up your developer identity." Every student gets a GitHub account. Projects start living in repos.
Add Vercel.
First deploy happens in week 7. Students see their project at a real URL. Git push, auto-deploy becomes the rhythm.
Live URL for showcase.
Every showcase project is live on Vercel with a real URL. Families, admins, and guides scan a QR code and see it running.
Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT?
If your district has already approved an AI platform, use it - the skill is prompting and building, not the specific model. This table is for advisors who still need to choose, or who want to know what they are walking into when they pitch.
| Claude (Anthropic) | Gemini (Google) | ChatGPT (OpenAI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum age | 13+ | 13+ (school-managed account) | 13+ |
| FERPA posture | DPA required Request from Anthropic | ✓ Covered via Google Workspace for Education | DPA required ChatGPT Edu is the path |
| SDPC listed | Check current status with Anthropic | ✓ Listed | Partial |
| District approval | Case by case | Usually pre-approved | Case by case |
| Cost | $20/seat/month Pro tier | Free via school Google account | $20/seat/month Edu pricing exists |
| Coding quality | Strongest for this program | Capable, weaker on multi-file edits | Capable, varies by model |
The honest tradeoff: Gemini through Google Workspace is the lowest-friction path to district yes, but it is a weaker coding tool than Claude and breaks the continuity with the stack most guides and advisors use in their own work. Claude is the aspirational tool; Gemini is the path of least resistance. Both are legitimate choices.
Verify before you pitch. The FERPA, SDPC, and cost cells above reflect our best read as of the date at the bottom of this page. Vendor terms change without notice. Confirm each row with the vendor (or with your district's existing agreements) before using this table in a board meeting.
How each piece of the stack plays with district IT.
Before pitching the program, know what each tool's compliance story actually looks like. The three pieces of the recommended stack have very different postures. We are telling you up front so the IT conversation does not surprise you. The labels below - Strongest, Evolving, Weakest - are our editorial read as of our last review, not vendor claims. Confirm specifics with each vendor before relying on them.
GitHub
- Microsoft-backed, mature enterprise compliance
- FERPA data processing agreements available
- Listed with the Student Data Privacy Consortium (SDPC)
- 13+ ToS, widely accepted by US districts
- GitHub Education gives students free upgrades
Claude / Anthropic
- 13+ ToS requirement met
- No formal FERPA agreement or SDPC listing as of Aug 2025 - confirm current status
- Biggest question mark for district approval
- Action: email Anthropic to request a DPA before pitching
- Check your state's student privacy laws (CA SOPIPA, NY Ed Law 2-d, etc.)
Vercel
- No formal education compliance program
- Standard SaaS privacy policy only
- Some districts may flag it during vetting
- Workaround: advisor owns the Vercel account. Students push to GitHub, advisor deploys. No student data ever touches Vercel directly.
- Alternative hosts with stronger education posture: Cloudflare Pages, GitHub Pages
Pick the one your district will say yes to.
There is no single right answer. These three paths have all worked. The best choice depends on your district's existing agreements, your advisor's comfort level, and how much paperwork you want to do before week 1.
Compliance-first: Gemini only
Run the entire program on Google Gemini through Workspace for Education. If your district is already on Google, everything is pre-approved. Zero new vendor conversations.
Tradeoff: Weaker coding experience. Students miss the tool most industry guides use. Better for schools where a "yes" on any AI is the win.
Tool-agnostic: school decides
Teach the program as tool-agnostic. Each school uses whichever AI its district has already approved. The curriculum never names a specific model. The skill is prompting and shipping, not the platform.
Tradeoff: Advisors have to adapt session examples to their tool. This is the most scalable path and the one we recommend for new cohorts.
Push for Claude: request a DPA
Email Anthropic, request a Data Processing Agreement, hand it to your district's IT team. If you want the best coding tool in the stack and you have the runway to wait for paperwork, this is the path.
Tradeoff: Turnaround time is unpredictable. Not a good fit if your pilot is starting in four weeks.
Do these before week 1.
Every item here is a specific, concrete thing - an email to send, a form to fill, an account to create. Work through them in order. Most advisors can finish the whole list in an afternoon.
- Confirm your district's AI policy. Ask your IT director or tech coordinator: which AI platforms are already approved for classroom use, and under what accounts? If Gemini via Google Workspace is already greenlit, you can skip straight to the stack. Who: faculty advisor · Time: one 15-minute conversation
- Check your state's student privacy laws. FERPA is federal, but many states add their own (California SOPIPA, New York Ed Law 2-d, Illinois SOPPA, Colorado HB21-1170, etc.). Your district counsel or tech coordinator knows which apply. The compliance page has the federal baseline. Who: faculty advisor with district support · Time: one email
- Request a Data Processing Agreement from your AI vendor. For Claude: check the Anthropic trust center for the current DPA contact and process. For ChatGPT: use the ChatGPT Edu contact flow on OpenAI's site. For Gemini: already covered under your existing Google Workspace for Education agreement. Contact points and turnaround times change - verify current instructions on each vendor's website rather than relying on this page. Who: faculty advisor · Time: one email, turnaround varies
- Send the AI Acceptable Use Policy home for signatures. Use the VIBE template at handouts/ai-use-policy. Attach it to the parent consent form. Every student needs a signed copy on file before touching a tool. Who: faculty advisor · Time: send with enrollment packet
- Decide who owns the hosting account. If students use Vercel directly, every student creates a Vercel account. If the advisor owns one Vercel account for the cohort, students push code to GitHub and the advisor deploys. The second path avoids a district vetting conversation about Vercel. Who: faculty advisor · Time: 10 minutes
- Week 1 setup session: developer identity. First cohort session creates three accounts per student: GitHub, the approved AI platform, and (if applicable) Vercel. Walk the first one live on the projector. The one-time setup pain is done in one 45-minute block. Who: faculty advisor · Time: one 45-minute block
- Document the stack in your MOU. When you sign the school MOU, list the specific tools the cohort will use. This creates a paper trail so nobody is surprised in week 6 when a parent asks what Vercel is. Who: faculty advisor + principal · Time: covered by MOU sign-off
What students can and cannot share with AI tools.
Every student signs the AI Acceptable Use Policy before touching a tool. These are the rules the advisor reinforces in week 1 and refers back to whenever something comes up.
What is safe to put into an AI prompt
Project ideas, code, public information about a problem you are solving, and your own writing. If you would post it on a class Google Doc, it is safe to paste into Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT.
What does not belong in an AI prompt
Real names, student IDs, home addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, grades, disciplinary records, health information, family financial details, or anything about another student without their consent. If in doubt, leave it out.
Data retention
Consumer AI chats (Claude free, ChatGPT free, Gemini personal) may be used to train future models by default. School-managed accounts (Gemini via Workspace for Education, ChatGPT Edu, Claude via an enterprise DPA) do not train on student prompts. This is one reason to route students through school-managed accounts wherever possible.
Attribution and academic integrity
Students credit AI as a collaborator the same way they would credit a partner on a group project. They should be able to explain every decision in their code. If they cannot explain it, they did not learn it - the AI did the work and the student did not.
When something goes wrong
If an AI returns inappropriate content, a strange output, or something the student is unsure about, they stop and flag the advisor. The advisor handles it per school policy and logs it. Mistakes are learning moments, not punishable offenses.
Why the stack is not longer.
Schools often ask about Replit, Lovable, Bolt.new, Cursor, and other popular tools. Here is the honest reasoning behind why each one is not in the recommended stack. All three remain legitimate choices if your district has already approved them.
Replit
Good product. Works on Chromebooks. 13+ compliant. But it is a detour - different environment, different habits, different mental model from the stack students will use later. Solve the onboarding friction in Claude Code web instead, and students never have to unlearn anything. Replit makes sense as a fallback only if a district has explicitly blocked Claude, GitHub, or Vercel.
Lovable and Bolt.new
Great for a week-1 "look, something works" demo. But both create vendor lock-in, cost $20+ per seat per month, and teach students very little about how the pieces fit together. For a program built on transferable real-world skills, the composable stack teaches more for less money.
Cursor
Excellent tool for a motivated student who has a laptop and can install it. But it requires local installation, which is a non-starter on locked-down Chromebooks and iPads - exactly the devices most cohorts are running on. Claude Code web gives you 90% of the experience with zero install.
GitHub Copilot
Compliant, free for students through GitHub Education, and good for inline code completion. But the program is about ideation and building, not autocomplete. Claude Code web covers the same ground and more. If a student graduates into a CS class that uses Copilot, they will pick it up in an afternoon.
Things change. Here is how we keep up.
The AI compliance landscape moves fast. Vendor DPAs appear and disappear, SDPC listings update, state laws pass, pricing shifts. We re-review this page at least quarterly and after any significant change we are aware of. If you spot something out of date, tell us - we respond fast.
What would make us update this page
A vendor publishes or retracts a Data Processing Agreement. A tool gains or loses an SDPC listing. A state passes new student-privacy legislation that affects approval. A pricing or feature change materially shifts our recommendation. A school reports that a step in the action-item checklist no longer works. Any of those triggers a review.
What we do not promise
We do not guarantee that any third-party vendor's compliance posture, cost, or availability is current at the moment you read this page. We do not provide legal advice. We are not liable for district approval decisions, data incidents, or costs incurred based on this guidance. Every school remains responsible for its own due diligence.
Report something out of date
Email [email protected] with what you found. Link, vendor, and what changed is enough - we will verify and update. Corrections from practicing advisors and district IT staff are how this page stays useful.
Last reviewed: April 2026. Next scheduled review: July 2026, or sooner if a vendor change prompts one. This page is published under CC BY 4.0 - reuse and adapt it, just credit VIBE Afterschool.
We will walk you through the district conversation.
If you are an advisor trying to decide between the three paths, or you need help drafting the IT request, email the schools team. We respond to every message and have sample approval packets ready to send.