Schools and universities urgently need clear, fair guidance on AI use, but a policy that is too vague invites disputes while one that is too harsh punishes legitimate learning. This school AI use policy generator produces a student-facing acceptable-use policy tuned to your institution type, level, jurisdiction, and integrity stance, covering academic integrity, permitted use, disclosure, detection, and appeals.
How it works
Your selections shape both substance and tone. Institution type and grade range set the reading level and emphasis — directive and concrete for younger pupils, citation-focused and autonomy-respecting for university students. The integrity stance is the main lever: a restricted stance prohibits AI in graded work unless a teacher explicitly allows it, a balanced stance permits AI for learning and drafting provided students disclose and remain accountable for their work, and an encouraged stance treats AI as a normal tool that must be cited like any source. Jurisdiction adjusts framing and adds a note to align with local education and data-protection rules. The output is clean Markdown ready to brand and circulate.
Everything is generated in the browser, so nothing about your institution is uploaded or stored.
The three integrity stances and when to use each
Restricted suits assessments where independent thinking is the explicit learning objective — final exams, dissertations, creative writing portfolios. The policy prohibits AI on graded work by default and requires teacher sign-off to allow it for specific tasks. This is the right baseline for schools that have not yet built faculty training around AI literacy.
Balanced is the most broadly applicable stance for 2024–2026. It permits AI for research, drafting, and checking, provided students disclose what they used and remain responsible for the accuracy and originality of final submissions. It also requires institutional guidance on which tools are permitted under data-protection rules — many free AI services collect student inputs, which is a concern under GDPR, FERPA, and similar frameworks.
Encouraged is appropriate for vocational, technical, or postgraduate contexts where AI is a professional tool students need to learn. The policy treats it like any reference source, requiring citation and critical evaluation rather than prohibition.
What the generated policy covers
The output includes sections on: what counts as AI use; which uses are permitted and which are not under the chosen stance; how students must disclose AI assistance; how to cite an AI tool in submitted work; what happens when suspected misuse is flagged; the appeals process if a student contests an allegation; and a note on data privacy when using third-party AI services. The last point is increasingly important — staff and students using consumer AI tools may be sharing assessment questions and student work with commercial providers, which can create data-protection obligations depending on jurisdiction.
Tips for adapting the draft
Pair the institution-wide policy with per-assignment clarity. The fairest systems tell students, for each task, whether AI is prohibited, permitted with disclosure, or required — a simple three-level label on every assignment removes most of the ambiguity that leads to integrity cases. Use this generator for the umbrella rules and let teachers set the per-task level within it.
Handle detection carefully. AI-text detectors produce false positives, and an accusation based on a detector score alone is both unfair and indefensible. The generated policy deliberately treats detection as one signal among several and centres a conversation with the student and a clear appeals route. Keep that posture when you adapt the wording — fairness and due process protect both students and staff.
Route the final policy through your academic board or legal team before circulation. This tool produces a workable draft, not a legal opinion.