Every school needs an AI policy. Not because AI is dangerous — but because without clear guidelines, teachers will make inconsistent decisions, students will be confused about what's allowed, and administrators will be left responding to problems reactively instead of proactively.

This post provides a ready-to-use AI policy template that schools can adapt. It's organized into four sections: teacher AI use, student AI use, AI grading tools, and data privacy. Adapt each section to your school's specific context and existing acceptable use policies.

📌 Note: This is a starting-point template, not legal advice. Have your district's counsel review before adoption, especially the FERPA and data privacy sections.

Section 1: Policy Foundation

Before diving into the specific rules, every school AI policy should establish a philosophical foundation. This sets expectations and frames the why behind the rules.

Sample Language: Policy Foundation

[School Name] recognizes that artificial intelligence tools are transforming education, professional practice, and everyday life. Our goal is to prepare students to use AI thoughtfully and effectively — as a tool that augments human judgment, not replaces it. We also support teachers in using AI tools that reduce administrative burden and allow more time for instruction, mentoring, and creativity.

This policy governs the use of AI tools by students, teachers, and administrative staff at [School Name]. It applies to all AI tools, including but not limited to: AI writing assistants, AI grading tools, AI tutoring platforms, and large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and similar services.

Section 2: Teacher AI Use Policy

Teachers should have broad latitude to use AI tools professionally. The key constraints are around student data and transparency.

Sample Language: Teacher AI Use

Teachers at [School Name] are encouraged to use AI tools to enhance their professional practice. Approved uses include:

  • AI-assisted essay grading and feedback generation (using approved, FERPA-compliant tools)
  • AI tools for lesson planning, differentiation, and curriculum development
  • AI writing assistance for professional communications, reports, and documentation
  • AI tutoring tools for student support

Requirements: (a) Any AI tool used with student data must appear on the district's approved vendor list and have a signed Data Processing Agreement. (b) AI-generated grades must be reviewed and approved by the teacher before being communicated to students. (c) Teachers should be transparent with students when AI has been used in grading feedback.

Section 3: AI Grading Tools — Specific Policy

AI grading deserves its own section because it touches on multiple concerns: student data, grade accuracy, and the role of teacher judgment.

Sample Language: AI Grading Tools

AI-assisted grading tools may be used by teachers to generate feedback on written student work. The following requirements apply:

  • Teacher review required: AI-generated feedback must be reviewed by the teacher before being returned to students. Teachers may edit, add to, or override any AI-generated comment or score.
  • FERPA compliance: Only tools on the district's approved vendor list, with an active Data Processing Agreement, may be used with student submissions containing identifying information.
  • Student anonymization: Where possible, teachers should remove or anonymize student names before uploading submissions to AI grading tools.
  • Grade authority: The final grade on any assignment is the teacher's responsibility and professional judgment. AI-generated scores are advisory, not binding.
  • Disclosure: Teachers are encouraged (not required) to inform students when AI tools have been used to generate initial feedback drafts.

Section 4: Student AI Use Policy

This is the most nuanced section, because the right policy depends heavily on the grade level, subject area, and specific assignment. A blanket "no AI" policy is unenforceable and educationally counterproductive. A blanket "AI allowed" policy ignores real academic integrity concerns. The best policies are contextual.

Sample Language: Student AI Use

Students may use AI tools for learning and coursework in accordance with the guidelines set by their individual teachers for each assignment. Absent specific teacher guidance, the following defaults apply:

  • Research and exploration: Using AI to understand concepts, brainstorm, or explore ideas is generally permitted.
  • Drafting and editing: Using AI to draft or heavily edit writing submitted for a grade is not permitted unless the teacher explicitly allows it. Using AI to check grammar is permitted.
  • Attribution: If AI was used in creating work, students must disclose this in a brief note on their submission.
  • Academic honesty: Submitting AI-generated text as one's own original work, without disclosure, violates [School Name]'s academic integrity policy and may result in disciplinary action.

Section 5: Data Privacy and FERPA

Sample Language: Data Privacy

The protection of student data is a legal and ethical obligation. [School Name] complies with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and applicable state data privacy laws. For AI tools:

  • No student data (including student names, identifiers, or academic records) may be entered into AI tools that are not on the district's approved vendor list.
  • Teachers should use the minimum necessary student information when using AI tools. Anonymous or pseudonymous submissions are preferable where feasible.
  • Approved AI tool vendors must maintain a signed Data Processing Agreement with [School Name/District] and may not use student data to train AI models without explicit consent.
  • Parents have the right to request information about what AI tools have been used with their student's data. Direct such requests to the school principal or data privacy officer.

Implementing and Communicating Your Policy

A policy is only as good as its communication. Once adopted, your school's AI policy should be:

The technology is moving faster than policy can follow. Build in an annual review cycle, assign someone to track developments, and give teachers permission to use their judgment while the policy catches up.