A student attends English class, where the teacher never mentions AI. Forty-five minutes later, in a different class, the teacher guides a student step-by-step in using AI to answer math problems. In social studies, their teacher reminds the class of a classroom ban on AI use, but the student can tell that the teacher used generative AI to write the class assessment. Where does this leave students? And the teachers?
The emergence of AI technology has left schools scrambling: How can schools address its use while remaining flexible, allowing teachers autonomy, and preparing their students for the future? A growing number of schools have decided the right approach is to provide guidelines, which can be much easier to adjust, rather than policies. Guidelines are often approved by committees or school-building leadership, while policies usually require board approval.
School and district leaders that embrace guidelines follow the logic that guidelines signal adaptability and willingness to adopt new technology. While these leaders may intend to set clear expectations, in practice, many students and faculty members alike perceive guidelines as flexible or temporary. Relying solely on AI guidelines has the unintentional effect of leaving students, teachers, and parents lost and confused amid a sea of differing approaches.
In this biweekly column, principals and other authorities on school leadership鈥攊ncluding researchers, education professors, district administrators, and assistant principals鈥攐ffer timely and timeless advice for their peers.
In fact, according to a 2025 report from the Center for Democracy and Technology, which included surveys from students in grades 9-12, only 22% of students said they received guidance on their school鈥檚 AI policy, yet 86% of students say they have used AI during the last school year. This discrepancy implies that students are using AI, even when it is unclear if it is permitted.
It is essential that AI use has substantive district or administrative oversight, because both intentional and unintentional AI misuse can have serious consequences for student privacy, safety, and academic integrity.
Current school-based AI-use guidelines may overlook a critical objective: consistent and accountable protection of the school, its employees, and its students. With too much flexibility in a policy, teachers or departments may make changes without sufficient oversight or implementation. With too little oversight, these inconsistent approaches can create uncertainty for the school community.
And, when leaders opt to frequently amend guidelines, to avoid an inflexible policy, students and faculty have a harder time staying up to date on the constant barrage of notifications every time there鈥檚 a new update.
When do you need a formal policy?
The goal of a policy should be to reduce risk and limit uncertainty. While AI tools can offer significant benefits for student learning and instruction, they also raise privacy, safety, mental health, and academic integrity concerns for schools. Clear policies in these areas, together with consistent implementation, protect the school and everyone in it. A well written policy should create a safe and effective structure for AI use (or nonuse) in the school, which can leave room for flexibility in practice.
For example, a school鈥檚 tech policies should include the approval and vetting processes of new technology. Such a policy allows the policy to evolve by approving different tools as needed as the technology advances.
There can be a place for both policy and guidelines. School leaders can pair a clear policy on AI use in the classroom with guidelines that offer further clarification.
Is a given rule about AI use necessary for safe use or academic integrity? Then it should be mandated in the policy.
Is it a goal or aspiration of the district? Then it should be suggested in the policy, such as 鈥渢he school will strive to implement an age-appropriate AI literacy curriculum in grades 5-12.鈥�
For example, you might make the baseline policy clear to students through a statement like: 鈥淎I is prohibited on all assignments in all classes unless, and only to the extent, the teacher expressly allows AI use on the assignment.鈥� A teacher might then offer students more detailed guidelines, such as, 鈥淥n this assignment, AI is permitted to assist in editing and revisions only. Students must provide a screenshot of the prompts and outputs and must cite their AI use.鈥�
In this example, teachers have the flexibility to decide what AI use should look like in their classroom, while students have a clear understanding of the school鈥檚 baseline policy.
Our student now attends English, knowing that the teacher鈥檚 silence on AI means it is not permitted. They attend math, learning how to use AI as a tool, not as a replacement for thinking. They attend social studies with a teacher who knows how to model consistent standards for AI use.
