Creating an AI Policy for Schools: A Practical Guide for 2025

You open your staffroom door to find three teachers in heated debate. One insists ChatGPT is "cheating by another name". Another argues her Year 10s are using it anyway, so why not teach them properly? The third just wants clear rules before parents start asking questions. This conversation is happening in schools across the country, and it reveals a simple truth: without a clear AI policy, you're navigating by guesswork.

The templates accompanying this article provide you with a starting framework, not a finished product. Think of them as blueprints rather than instruction manuals. Your school's AI policy needs to reflect your context, your values and your community's needs. Whether you're a primary school exploring AI-assisted reading tools or a sixth form college grappling with assessment integrity, the principles remain consistent.

‍

Why Your School Needs an AI Policy Now

The Department for Education's guidance on generative AI arrived in 2024, but it deliberately avoided prescriptive rules. This leaves school leaders with flexibility and responsibility in equal measure. Your students are already using AI tools, often without guidance. Staff members may be experimenting quietly, uncertain what's allowed. Parents want reassurance that academic standards remain intact.

An AI policy provides three things: clarity for teachers who want to use AI effectively, protection for assessment integrity, and confidence for parents that you're managing this technology responsibly. The AI for teachers landscape changes rapidly, but well-designed policies can accommodate new tools without constant revision.

Research from Jisc (2024) suggests that clear institutional policies reduce staff anxiety while increasing appropriate adoption. Teachers who understand boundaries feel more confident experimenting with AI in their lesson planning, whilst students receive consistent messages across subjects.

‍

Building Your Policy: Six Core Components

1. Define What AI Means in Your Context

Start with clarity. Your policy should explain what counts as AI in practical terms your community understands. Avoid technical definitions that mean nothing to parents at Year 7 parents' evening.

Most schools find it helpful to distinguish between three categories: AI tools that assist learning (like adaptive maths platforms or reading recommendation systems), AI tools that support teaching tasks (such as automated marking or resource generation), and AI tools that could undermine assessment (essay generators or homework solvers).

The template document includes space for you to list specific tools your school has evaluated. This list will grow, so build a review process rather than trying to catalogue everything at once. Focus on the tools your students and staff actually encounter.

‍

2. Establish Clear Governance Structures

Who decides if a new AI tool gets adopted? Who handles concerns when a parent questions whether their child's homework used ChatGPT? Your policy needs named roles and clear processes.

Most effective school AI policies assign three distinct responsibilities: strategic oversight (usually a governor or senior leader), operational management (often the digital learning lead or head of teaching and learning), and subject-specific guidance (heads of department adapting the policy to their assessment contexts).

The governance section in your template includes decision-making flowcharts. Adapt these to match your school's existing structures rather than creating parallel systems. If your safeguarding procedures work well, model your AI governance on the same principles.

‍

3. Address Assessment Integrity Head-On

This causes the most staff anxiety. AI and student assessment presents genuine challenges, but paralysis helps nobody. Your policy needs clear boundaries for different assessment contexts.

The JCQ guidance (updated regularly, most recently October 2024) now explicitly addresses AI use in controlled assessments and examinations. Your school policy should reference but not duplicate these rules. Instead, focus on the grey areas: homework, coursework drafts, group projects and extended study tasks.

Consider a traffic light system. Red: AI use constitutes malpractice (formal examinations, controlled assessments). Amber: AI use requires acknowledgement and reflection (homework where process matters as much as product, draft work that receives feedback). Green: AI use is encouraged with guidance (research skills, generating practice questions, accessibility support).

Your students need to understand why context matters. The template includes a student-facing guide that explains these distinctions using realistic scenarios. A Year 9 using AI to translate a French news article for gist understanding differs from a Year 12 submitting AI-generated translation as evidence of their own linguistic competence.

‍

‍

4. Data Protection and Privacy Safeguards

This component requires careful attention, particularly given the UK GDPR requirements around processing children's data. Many AI tools operate outside the protections your school's approved systems provide.

Your policy should state clearly that pupil data never enters public AI systems. This includes names, assessment scores, IEP details and any information that could identify individuals. The risk assessment template helps you evaluate specific tools against ICO guidance.

Staff may legitimately want to use AI for tasks like generating differentiated resources or creating example questions. These uses typically don't involve pupil data at all. Your policy can enable teacher innovation whilst protecting student information.

For tools that do process pupil data, such as adaptive learning platforms or AI-assisted feedback systems, you need data processing agreements that specify UK servers, GDPR compliance and clear retention periods. The AI in special education context often involves particularly sensitive information, requiring additional safeguards.

Education-specific platforms with proper data processing agreements and UK GDPR compliance may be acceptable. Work through a Data Protection Impact Assessment for any tool that will process pupil information.

‍

5. Professional Development and Support

Your policy document matters less than how well your staff understand it. Budget time for training that goes beyond "here are the rules" to "here's how this helps you teach better".

Effective professional development on AI policy covers three layers. First, the why: helping teachers understand the thinking behind decisions, not just the rules themselves. Second, the how: practical workshops showing teachers ways AI can reduce workload whilst improving outcomes. Third, the ongoing: establishing channels where staff can ask questions and share discoveries without fear of breaking invisible rules.

The accompanying PowerPoint presentation provides a ready-made staff meeting structure. Adapt it to your context rather than delivering it verbatim. Include time for department-specific discussion, because AI opportunities and risks look different in Art compared to Mathematics.

Consider appointing AI champions in each department. These colleagues become go-to contacts who understand both the policy and practical applications in their subject area. This distributed model responds faster than centralized approval systems when teachers discover new tools or approaches.

‍

6. Student Education and Digital Literacy

Students need more than "don't cheat" warnings. They need genuine understanding of how AI works, its limitations, and their responsibilities as users.

Your policy should mandate AI literacy teaching across key stages, not as a standalone unit but embedded in subject teaching. When Year 8 Science students use AI to summarize photosynthesis research, that's the moment to discuss how these tools work and why critical evaluation matters.

The template includes age-appropriate guidance for students. Primary schools might focus on AI they already encounter (search engines, game recommendations, voice assistants) without introducing new tools. Secondary schools can progressively build skills: acknowledging AI use, evaluating AI outputs, understanding biases and using AI as a thinking partner rather than a replacement for thinking.

‍

Making Your Policy Work in Practice

Start with a Pilot Approach

Don't try to regulate everything immediately. Choose one year group or department for initial implementation. Learn from their experiences before rolling out school-wide.

Successful pilots share common features. They involve volunteers rather than mandatory participation. They include regular check-ins where teachers share both successes and frustrations. They collect evidence through student work samples and teacher reflections, not just opinions.

A Year 10 English department might pilot AI use in essay planning, explicitly teaching students to use it for brainstorming and structure rather than content generation. A science department could trial AI-generated practice questions for revision, comparing student outcomes against previous years. These specific, bounded trials generate evidence for policy refinement.

‍

Build Feedback Loops

Your policy needs mechanisms for evolution. AI tools change faster than annual policy reviews can accommodate. Build in quarterly check-ins where staff can raise concerns, suggest adjustments or propose new approaches.

Create simple reporting structures. A quick staff survey each term asking what's working, what's confusing and what new tools teachers are encountering gives you early warning of problems. Student voice matters too, particularly at secondary level where they often discover tools before staff do.

The template includes a policy review schedule. Treat this as a minimum rather than a maximum. If a significant new tool emerges (like a subject-specific AI tutor), convene your governance group immediately rather than waiting for the scheduled review.

‍

Handle Breaches Constructively

Your policy needs consequences, but punishment alone doesn't build understanding. When students use AI inappropriately, ask why before deciding how to respond.

A Year 7 who doesn't understand your homework policy differs from a Year 13 who deliberately circumvents assessment rules. The first needs education, the second faces academic misconduct procedures. Your policy should distinguish between genuine confusion, poor judgment and intentional deception.

Document cases without naming individuals. These examples help you refine your policy and your teaching. If multiple students misunderstand the same boundary, that's a communication problem, not a student problem.

‍

Adapting the Template for Your Context

The template provided works for most UK schools, but you'll need adjustments for your specific circumstances.

Primary schools should emphasize the AI systems children already encounter rather than introducing new tools. Focus on digital literacy and critical thinking. Your assessment integrity section can be briefer, as the risks differ from examination-focused secondaries.

Secondary schools and colleges need robust assessment guidance and clear differentiation between key stages. Year 7 boundaries differ from Year 13 expectations. Subject-specific annexes help departments apply the policy to their contexts.

Special schools may have different considerations around accessibility and assistive technology. Many AI tools offer genuine benefits for students with SEND. Your policy needs pathways for evaluating these tools against their benefits, not blanket restrictions. The AI in modern education challenges and opportunities discussion helps frame this balance.

International schools using this template should replace references to UK-specific bodies (DfE, JCQ, ICO) with their local equivalents. The principles remain sound, but compliance requirements vary by jurisdiction.

‍

Common Questions Answered

Do we need separate policies for staff and students?

No. One policy with clear sections for different audiences works better than multiple documents. Staff need to understand student expectations to enforce them consistently. Students should know that teachers also follow rules about AI use.

What if parents disagree with our approach?

Your policy should include a communication plan. Share the policy during admissions, reference it in newsletters and make it easily accessible on your website. When disagreements arise, focus on your rationale (assessment integrity, data protection, preparing students for an AI-influenced world) rather than defending specific rules.

How often should we review the policy?

Annually as a minimum, with provision for urgent amendments between reviews. The first year will likely need more frequent adjustments as you discover what works in practice.

Should we ban all AI tools to be safe?

Blanket bans rarely work. Students have smartphones. They'll use AI tools anyway, but without guidance or understanding. Your policy provides boundaries and education rather than prohibition.

What about teacher workload and AI?

Your policy can enable rather than restrict. Many teachers find AI genuinely helpful for routine tasks like drafting parent letters, creating differentiated resources or generating mark scheme exemplars. Clear permissions for these uses reduce anxiety and save time.

‍

Taking Action: Your Next Steps

Review the template documents alongside your senior leadership team and governors. Don't aim for perfection in your first draft. You need a working policy that you can improve through experience.

Assign clear ownership to someone with time and authority to make this happen. AI policy development fails when it becomes an additional responsibility for an already overloaded deputy head.

Set realistic timelines. A term to develop, pilot and refine is reasonable. Rushing a policy out in a few weeks usually produces something too vague to be useful or too restrictive to be practical.

Communicate early and often. Staff, students and parents all need to understand what's coming and why. Use your school's existing communication channels rather than creating special announcements that make AI seem more threatening than it is.

The templates accompanying this article give you the structure, but you provide the substance. Your school's AI policy should reflect your values, serve your students and support your staff. Start from these foundations and build something that works for your community.

‍

Further Reading: Research on AI Policy and Academic Integrity

If you found this guide useful, these five studies offer deeper insight into how schools and universities worldwide are handling AI in education. They explore different approaches to academic integrity, from strict enforcement to trust-based dialogue, and reveal the practical challenges institutions face when students have access to powerful AI tools.

Understanding Policy Variation Across UK Universities

Atkinson-Toal and Guo's analysis of generative AI education policies in UK Russell Group universities reveals significant inconsistencies between institutions. Some universities ban AI tools outright, whilst others promote AI literacy through structured frameworks. This variation creates what the researchers call a "lottery" where students' understanding of appropriate AI use depends largely on which university they attend. For school leaders developing policies, this research highlights why clear, consistent guidance matters. Your students will move into higher education or workplaces with different AI expectations. Policies built on ethical foundations and AI literacy serve them better than blanket prohibitions or vague guidelines.

Three Key Policy Themes from Global Universities

A systematic review examining academic integrity approaches in the age of ChatGPT analysed 37 studies and policies from the world's top 20 universities. Plata, De Guzman and Quesada identified three recurring themes: enforcement of integrity rules, education about ethical AI use, and encouragement of productive AI engagement. The researchers propose what they call a 3E Model (Enforce, Educate, Encourage) as a balanced approach. This framework translates well to school contexts. Your policy needs consequences for misuse, but it also needs teaching about appropriate use and permission to explore AI as a legitimate tool. Schools that focus only on punishment miss opportunities to develop digital literacy skills students genuinely need.

Hidden Cheating Behaviours Revealed Through Research Methods

An empirical study on academic cheating in the artificial intelligence era using Vietnamese undergraduates uncovered uncomfortable truths about student honesty. Nguyen and Goto used indirect questioning techniques to bypass social desirability bias. They found that AI-powered cheating was almost three times more common than students admitted when asked directly. The research also revealed patterns by gender and year group, with higher-year female students showing different behaviours than newly enrolled students. For schools, this suggests two things. First, asking students if they're using AI inappropriately probably won't give you accurate data. Second, transparent policies that reduce shame around AI use might encourage more honest conversations. Students who fear punishment hide behaviour. Students who understand boundaries and receive support can learn to use AI responsibly.

Practical Strategies for Assessment Design

Cotton, Cotton and Shipway's exploration of chatting and cheating in higher education tackles the question most teachers ask: how do we assess students when AI can write essays? The authors suggest proactive strategies including policy development, staff training and detection tools, but they emphasise something more important. AI's arrival forces us to examine whether our assessment methods actually measure what matters. Essays testing recall become obsolete when information sits at everyone's fingertips. Assessments requiring higher-order thinking, application and synthesis remain valuable. This applies directly to schools. Your GCSE or A Level students face similar challenges. Consider whether your assessment tasks test memory or understanding. Redesigning assessments to emphasise process over product, application over repetition, makes them both more robust against AI misuse and more valuable for genuine learning.

Trust and Dialogue Over Prohibition

Research on academic integrity versus artificial intelligence in Swedish higher education offers a different cultural perspective. Premat and Farazouli's study contrasts institutional policies with student experiences, revealing that trust-based approaches often work better than strict prohibition. Swedish universities tend to emphasise pedagogical support and context-sensitive reasoning rather than surveillance. Students in their research showed varied attitudes from full transparency about AI use to pragmatic distinctions between substantial and auxiliary applications. For UK schools, this research suggests that relationships matter more than rules. Your students need to trust that you understand AI's benefits and challenges. Policies presented as dialogue starters rather than commandments tend to generate more honest engagement. This doesn't mean abandoning boundaries, but it does mean explaining your reasoning and inviting student perspectives.

‍

What These Studies Mean for Your School

Collectively, these studies demonstrate that no single approach to AI in education works perfectly. Blanket bans fail because students access tools anyway. Unrestricted permission creates chaos because students lack frameworks for ethical use. The middle path requires effort: clear policies, ongoing education, trusted relationships and willingness to adapt as tools evolve.

Your school's policy sits within this broader landscape of international research and practice. The templates provided give you structure, but these studies give you evidence-based principles. Use them to inform staff discussions, defend your approach to governors and parents, or refine your policy after initial implementation reveals gaps.

Academic integrity in the AI age isn't about preventing all AI use. It's about teaching students to engage with powerful tools responsibly, transparently and with understanding of both capabilities and limitations. These studies can help you build that culture in your school.

References

• Department for Education (2024). Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in schools. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/generative-artificial-intelligence-in-education
• Joint Council for Qualifications (2024). Instructions for conducting examinations: AI guidance. Available at: https://www.jcq.org.uk
• Information Commissioner's Office (2024). Children's code: a guide for education settings. Available at: https://ico.org.uk
• Jisc (2024). Artificial intelligence in tertiary education: institutional policy frameworks. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk