Writing an AI acceptable use policy for your school

A policy exists so that a teacher facing a decision at 9am, and a parent asking a question at 9pm, get the same answer. Judge every sentence you write against that.

This is a structure, not a template to adopt unread. The decisions inside it are yours, and a policy copied without those decisions being made is the kind that sits in a folder.

1. Scope: say what this covers

State which tools, which people, and which settings. Be explicit about school-owned versus personal devices and about school hours versus homework, because that is the first thing anyone will argue about.

A common trap: writing the policy so it applies only on school devices. That is the easy scope to enforce and it excludes most of the actual use.

2. Permitted, expected, forbidden

Three categories, not two. Most policies have permitted and forbidden and end up unusable, because the interesting cases are the ones where a teacher wants to require AI use — critique this draft, generate practice questions — and there is no category for it.

Then push the decision down to the assignment. A blanket rule cannot distinguish an essay testing unaided argument from a revision exercise where AI is the point. Give staff a standard phrase for each category to put on the assignment itself.

3. Content standards

This is where a school-specific policy earns its keep. Name the categories your community will not have in front of its children. Do not gesture at "inappropriate content" — a teacher cannot apply that and a filter cannot be configured from it.

Then say where the standard is enforced. If it is enforced in the tool, say which, and confirm it applies to images and video as well as to chat. If it is enforced only by expectation, say that too, honestly.

4. Attribution and honesty

Decide what a student must disclose and in what form. "Acknowledge AI use" is too vague to comply with. A single required sentence — which tool, for what part, what the student changed — is specific enough to follow and to check.

Also decide what happens when a student does disclose. If disclosure is punished, students stop disclosing, and you have built an incentive to conceal.

5. Verification

State plainly that AI output can be confidently wrong and that the student is responsible for what they submit. This single expectation does more good than most restrictions, because it is the habit that transfers to every tool they will use later.

Avoid promising to detect AI writing. Detectors are unreliable in both directions, and a policy that rests on one will eventually accuse a student who did nothing wrong.

6. Privacy

Say what students must never enter: their own or others' personal details, anything about another child, staff information. Then say what the school can see about their use, in specific terms.

Be accurate about the tool's own data handling. If you cannot state whether a vendor trains on submitted content, ask them in writing before you name them in a policy.

7. What happens when the rules are broken

Proportionate and stated in advance. Distinguish a student exploring from a student concealing; those are different behaviours and treating them identically teaches the wrong lesson.

Two wording traps

• "Students may not use AI to do their work for them." Nobody can apply this. Where is the line between a tool that explains and a tool that drafts? Name the specific activity instead.
• "AI use must be appropriate." This puts the whole judgement on the teacher in the moment and gives the student no notice of what was expected.

The test for any sentence: could two teachers apply it to the same piece of work and reach the same conclusion? If not, it needs to be more specific.