School AI rules for students and staff

A school policy should distinguish student learning and assessment rules from staff uses. It should also cover approved tools, student-data limits, accessibility, equitable access, family communication, and fair review. District and school leaders, teachers, safeguarding, IT, privacy, and student-support teams should set the rules together.

Updated:: 2026-09-10

Customize this template

Sample school policy

The school uses AI only when it supports a defined educational or operational purpose, is age-appropriate and accessible, and follows approved-tool and data rules. Teachers state the rule for each assessed activity. A more specific assignment rule may be stricter than the school default when communicated before work begins.

Students may use AI for activities a teacher has allowed, such as generating practice questions or brainstorming, but must complete the intellectual work the task assesses. They must verify information, identify assistance when required, and never use AI to impersonate someone, harass others, bypass safeguards, or submit generated work as their own contrary to the stated rule.

Staff may use approved tools for low-risk planning with public or authorized material, but must review outputs and remain professionally responsible. Student records, safeguarding information, disability information, staff records, confidential assessments, and identifiable work must not be entered unless the specific tool and use have been approved.

Suspected misuse is not decided by an AI-detection score alone. A staff member considers the assignment instructions, available evidence, student context, accessibility needs, and the student’s explanation, then follows the school’s existing process. Detection may support inquiry but does not automatically establish misconduct or a penalty.

Example student and staff matrix

The same activity can have different rules depending on whose work it is and what is being assessed.

Student brainstorming for an ungraded project — Conditional; teacher allows it and student keeps responsibility for choices.
Student submits generated prose in an independent writing assessment — Prohibited unless the task expressly assesses supported AI use.
Teacher creates generic practice questions — Allowed in an approved tool; check accuracy, level, bias, and accessibility.
Teacher pastes an identifiable learning plan or safeguarding note — Prohibited unless a specifically approved workflow permits that data.
Administrator drafts a family notice — Conditional; use no personal data and obtain human review before sending.

Access and family communication

Do not grade a student’s ability to buy a tool or use it at home unless equivalent access and a meaningful non-AI route are provided. Accommodations and assistive technology should be considered under the school’s existing accessibility process, not treated automatically as misconduct.

Families need plain-language notice about educational purpose, student expectations, approved services, important data practices, whom to contact, and how concerns are handled. Notice does not substitute for any consent or assessment the applicable rules require.

Write your policy

Customize this template

Decisions for school leaders

Decide whether assignment rules can vary, the minimum notice teachers must provide, which student ages and accounts each tool supports, what data is never permitted, and how alternatives are offered. Name owners for educational quality, privacy, security, safeguarding, accessibility, procurement, and academic review.

Customize this template with the school preset. For course-level wording, compare the three statements at Syllabus AI Policy. Pangram’s educator guidance explains why detection should support human review rather than act as an automatic verdict.

Example wording

Student disclosure

I used an AI tool to list possible experiment variables. I selected the final design, carried out the work, analyzed the results, and wrote this report. I checked the cited sources myself.

Customize this template

Sample policy

Example School AI Use Policy

The names are placeholders. Review the rules and fill in the missing details before using this policy.

Read the sample policy

Audience: School or district
Scope: organization
Owner: To be designated
Status: Draft
Version: 0.1
Effective date: To be confirmed
Review date: To be scheduled

Summary

School or district policy. Status: Draft. Version: 0.1.
Activity permissions: Allowed: 2; Allowed with conditions: 4; Approval required: 3; Prohibited: 1.
This draft approves no tools. Designate approved tools before use.
Secrets are never permitted in general-purpose AI tools; sensitive data requires exact data-type, tool, and use approval.
Suspected misuse requires fair human review; detection alone cannot establish misconduct or trigger a penalty.

1. Document control and scope

This policy applies across Example School to people and work covered by its authority. Owner: designated policy owner. Status: Draft. Version: 0.1. Region, if supplied, is review context only and does not establish local legal compliance.

2. Purpose and approach

This policy sets the rules for AI use and assigns accountability. Use is permission-based. AI may be used only for activities permitted in the activity matrix and subject to every listed condition.

3. Definitions

“AI tool” means software that generates, transforms, ranks, or analyzes content using an AI model. Assistive editing corrects or suggests presentation without supplying the learner's ideas or reasoning. Substantive generation creates or materially rewrites an answer, analysis, code, or other assessed content. “Approved tool” means a tool designated for a particular use and data type through the applicable approval process; familiarity or public availability is not approval.

4. Roles and responsibilities

The designated policy owner maintains this policy and coordinates its review. the designated approver decides requests to approve tools, exceptions, and uses within their authority. the person responsible for the work checks outputs before anyone relies on or releases them. School leaders set staff and student rules; educators explain task-specific expectations; students follow those expectations and ask when unsure.

5. Approved tools and approval process

No tools are currently designated as approved. Before use, the designated approver must approve the tool, intended activity, account or deployment, and data types involved. Public availability or prior use does not constitute approval.

6. Permitted-use matrix

The activity matrix is part of this policy. For each activity, its permission, conditions, and clarification apply. All listed conditions must be met.

Activity permissions and required conditions
Activity	Permission	Conditions and clarification
Brainstorming	Allowed	No activity-specific conditions. The policy's data and human-review safeguards still apply.
Grammar and spelling support	Allowed	No activity-specific conditions. The policy's data and human-review safeguards still apply.
Translation	Allowed with conditions	Use only an approved tool Disclose the AI assistance Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
Tutoring	Allowed with conditions	Use only an approved tool Disclose the AI assistance Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
Research assistance	Allowed with conditions	Use only an approved tool Disclose the AI assistance Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
Coding	Allowed with conditions	Use only an approved tool Disclose the AI assistance Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
Drafting	Approval required	Obtain written approval before use A person must review the output before use
Substantive rewriting	Approval required	Obtain written approval before use A person must review the output before use
Graded work	Approval required	Obtain written approval before use A person must review the output before use
Examinations	Prohibited	No activity-specific conditions. The policy's data and human-review safeguards still apply.

7. Prohibited uses

The matrix prohibits: Examinations. Do not submit generated work as independent work, fabricate sources or evidence, impersonate another person, or use AI contrary to the applicable assessment instructions. Do not use AI where law, contract, professional duty, or a controlling organizational rule prohibits it.

8. Data, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property

The only data categories selected for possible use are: public. Selecting a category does not by itself permit its use. Data may be entered only when the specific tool and proposed use are approved for that data type. Do not enter confidential information, personal data, student data, customer data, or other sensitive data unless the tool and proposed use have been expressly approved for that exact data type. Credentials, passwords, access tokens, private keys, authentication codes, and other secrets must never be entered into general-purpose AI tools. Inputs and outputs remain subject to access, retention, intellectual-property, contractual, and confidentiality requirements. If unsure, stop and ask the policy owner.

9. Output verification and human accountability

A person remains accountable for AI-assisted work. Before using or releasing it, check factual accuracy, calculations, citations, originality, bias, security, rights, and suitability for the intended audience. AI output is neither an authority nor a verified source. Decisions affecting grades, discipline, admission, accommodations, or access require accountable human review and the institution's authorized process.

10. Disclosure and attribution

Disclose AI assistance when it creates, materially rewrites, analyzes, or otherwise makes a substantive contribution. A declaration must accurately describe the use. The following example is not a declaration on the user's behalf. A suitable declaration might read: “I used an AI tool to develop initial questions and organize ideas. I wrote the submitted text and verified the sources myself.”

11. Learning, assessment, and course rules

Staff must use school-approved accounts and protect student records. Students receive clear, age-appropriate instructions for each task. Required activities must account for equitable access, age-appropriate use, accessibility, and alternatives for students who cannot use an approved tool. The school will communicate material student-facing rules and changes to families where appropriate. Assignment variations remain subject to school authority and approval processes.

12. Review, reporting, and exceptions

Report concerns to the designated policy owner through the usual organizational channel. Report suspected data exposure, unsafe output, rights concerns, or material misuse promptly. A person must consider context, discuss the concern with the student, and follow the institution's existing review and appeal process. An AI-detection result may inform review but must never be the sole evidence of misconduct or automatically trigger a grade penalty or discipline. Exceptions must be written, limited in scope and duration, approved by the designated approver, and retained by the policy owner.

13. Training, communication, and acknowledgment

Before covered users begin AI use, the policy owner will provide onboarding on the matrix, approved tools, data limits, disclosure, verification, and reporting. Communication must be suitable for staff and students, with family communication where selected. Covered users will be asked to acknowledge that they received and understood the policy; acknowledgment does not waive rights or replace training.

14. Review and version history

The policy owner will review this policy annually and after a material incident, tool change, or change in applicable obligations. Changes require the designated approval process and notice to affected people. Confirm the effective date before adoption. Schedule the next review date. Version history: Version 0.1 | Status: Draft | Change: Initial draft.

Decisions to confirm

Name the policy owner.
Name the role or person authorized to approve tools and exceptions.
Designate tools, deployments, intended uses, and approved data types.
Set an effective date before adoption.
Schedule the next review date.

Implementation checklist

☐ Confirm and name the policy owner.
☐ Review the sensitive-data rules for each proposed data type and use.
☐ Designate approved tools before permitting AI use.
☐ Resolve 5 open decisions before adoption.
☐ Complete the authorized approval process; this document remains Draft.
☐ Communicate the matrix, safeguards, disclosure rules, and reporting route.
☐ Schedule the annually review.

Acknowledgment

I received the Example School AI Use Policy and had an opportunity to ask questions. I understand where to find the current activity matrix and how to report concerns. This acknowledgment does not replace training or waive any rights. Name: ____________________ Signature: ____________________ Date: ____________________

This policy draft is not legal advice. Have the appropriate people review it before adoption.

Frequently asked questions

Can a school allow brainstorming but restrict generated submissions?

Yes. Define brainstorming as idea exploration, require the student to make and explain decisions, and state that generated final prose is not permitted where independent composition is assessed.

Should staff and students have the same rules?

They share privacy, safety, honesty, and human-accountability principles, but their tasks and authority differ. Staff rules must address professional duties and records; student rules must be age-appropriate and tied to learning goals.

Can an AI detector prove a policy violation?

No automated result should by itself establish misconduct or trigger a grade penalty. Use it, if permitted, as one input to a fair human review under existing procedures.

What should families be told?

Explain purposes, expectations, approved tools, meaningful data handling, access and alternatives, the review process, and a contact for questions in understandable language.

Sources and references

These drafts have not been reviewed by a lawyer or subject-matter expert. Have your legal or policy team review them before use. They are not legal advice or proof of compliance.

NIST AI Risk Management Framework

NIST describes its AI Risk Management Framework as voluntary guidance for managing AI-related risks and incorporating trustworthiness into AI use.

Use it as a review reference when assigning owners and considering risks, safeguards, and ongoing oversight. This generator does not perform a NIST assessment.

UNESCO: Guidance for generative AI in education and research

UNESCO’s guidance emphasizes a human-centred approach, data privacy, and age-appropriate use of generative AI in education and research.

For school, university, and classroom policies, review student data, age restrictions, access, and the learning purpose of each permitted activity with the appropriate institutional owners.

Pangram: Useful AI policies for educators

Pangram’s classroom-policy article compares blanket restrictions with a tier-based approach that allows different levels of AI assistance for different assignments.

Use the examples to discuss classroom boundaries, then choose your own permissions in the generator. These approaches are options, not a requirement to adopt a particular rule.

Pangram guidance for educators

Public reference selected for the school ai rules for students and staff page.

Read the original source in its own context. It does not replace qualified local review or establish that this draft is compliant.

ISO/IEC 42001 — AI management systems

Public reference selected for the school ai rules for students and staff page.

Read the original source in its own context. It does not replace qualified local review or establish that this draft is compliant.

References do not imply endorsement.

Create your AI policy

Customize this template