Resources
A practical school AI policy template for disclosure, acceptable AI use, AI detection review, false-positive safeguards, and student appeals.
Open core guideSuggested clause: This policy sets a transparent process for AI-assisted schoolwork and protects student learning, privacy, and due process. The school will adapt it to local law, age group, accessibility needs, curriculum, data policy, and existing academic-integrity procedures before adoption.
Suggested clause: Every assessed task will state one category — AI use prohibited; AI allowed only for named support such as brainstorming or grammar; or AI allowed with disclosure. The assignment instruction controls when it is more specific than the general school policy.
Suggested clause: When disclosure is required, the student will identify the tool, date, purpose, and meaningful contribution; preserve relevant prompts or drafts when feasible; and remain responsible for accuracy, citations, privacy, and the submitted work. Routine accessibility tools should follow the student's approved support plan.
Suggested clause: Students and staff must not submit personal, confidential, copyrighted, or sensitive school information to an AI service unless the school has approved that service and its data handling. A teacher may not require a student to create an unapproved third-party account.
Suggested clause: An AI detector result is a probabilistic review signal, not proof of authorship or misconduct. No grade, disciplinary action, or accusation will be based on a detector score alone. Staff will consider the assignment, passage evidence, drafts, citations, prior work, student explanation, and known false-positive conditions.
Suggested clause: Before a formal outcome, the student will be told what concern is being reviewed, may provide drafts or an explanation, and will receive the applicable policy and decision rationale. Staff will document the evidence considered, the reviewer, the date, and the final outcome without retaining unnecessary student text.
Suggested clause: Students may request correction of an inaccurate record and use the school's existing appeal process. The school will review this policy when approved tools, curriculum, law, or material evidence about detection limitations changes, and will train staff before using detection in high-stakes cases.
It should cover acceptable AI use, disclosure rules, assignment-specific restrictions, detection review steps, evidence requirements, appeal options, and how teachers document decisions.
No. A detector flag should trigger review with context, drafts, citations, reviewer notes, and policy guidance before any high-stakes academic integrity decision.
It should be treated as a starting point, not legal advice or a ready-to-adopt rule. School leaders should align it with local law, contracts, privacy requirements, accessibility plans, age-appropriate practice, and existing appeal procedures.
When the assignment requires disclosure, students can identify the tool, date, purpose, and meaningful contribution and preserve relevant prompts or drafts when feasible. The required detail should be stated before the work begins.