Using this template

This template is meant to be customized, not adopted as-is. Each district's grade bands, approved tools, discipline framework, and parent-consent model change what belongs in each section. The structure stays constant; the content varies.

The fastest way to turn this template into an adoptable draft is to answer the intake questions Jombli uses (grade bands, tools, assessment stance, disclosure rule, consent model, discipline framework). The generator then fills each section with language specific to those choices. It takes under 15 minutes end-to-end.

When to use (and when not to)

This template fits public K-12 districts and open-enrollment charters adopting their first AI policy, amending an existing acceptable-use policy to cover generative AI, or refreshing a stale policy that was written before the current wave of classroom tools. If you already have a board-adopted AI policy with grade-band gradients and an explicit disclosure standard, use it. This template is the starting draft, not the replacement for a working one.

Private schools and independent schools can use this template, but the regulatory anchors shift — FERPA applies to schools that receive federal funds, and the state code citations are Texas-specific. Private schools should replace those anchors with their own accreditation and insurance requirements.

Step-by-step structure

Eleven sections, in order. Each has a purpose, what to include, and — for the most load-bearing sections — a real excerpt from a generated policy.

Section 1 · Purpose

The Purpose section states why the district is adopting the policy. It is short — a paragraph or two. Its job is to give the rest of the document a reason to exist, so that every downstream rule can be traced back to a stated purpose when challenged.

Section 2 · Scope

Scope names who the policy applies to and where. Staff, students, contractors, and volunteers. On-campus, off-campus, and during school-sponsored activities. Without an explicit scope statement, every edge case becomes an argument.

Section 3 · Student Use

Student Use is the highest-leverage section. It is where the grade-band gradient appears. A defensible policy names what students can do with AI at K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 separately. A single global line across all grade bands is not credible.

The two excerpts above come from different generator inputs — one from a K-5 elementary with a strict assessment stance, one from a 9-12 high school with a permissive stance. The policy language shifts materially with the inputs.

Section 4 · Prohibited Uses

Prohibited Uses should name categories, not individual tools. Impersonation of another person, submission of AI-generated work as one's own where disclosure was required, use of AI to bypass assessment integrity, and entry of personally identifiable student information into any AI tool are the common categories. Phrasing the rule category-first lets the policy survive the launch of whatever new tool comes next.

Section 5 · Teacher Responsibilities

Teacher Responsibilities is where the policy addresses staff use. Review of approved tools, completion of required training, protection of student data in prompts, and oversight of student AI use in class all belong here. Policies that omit this section leave teachers operating without cover.

Section 6 · Lesson Planning

Lesson Planning names how teachers incorporate AI when the policy allows it and how to design around AI when it doesn't. The section should give teachers a decision pattern for per-assignment AI classification — not a universal rule, since that is what the grade-band gradient already handles.

Section 7 · Privacy

Privacy translates FERPA into prompt-level rules. Teachers cannot paste student names, IEPs, behavior records, or grades into a tool that has not been approved for that data sensitivity level. The section should also address parent-consent posture (opt-in, opt-out, or notice-only) and what happens when a family declines AI participation.

Section 8 · Transparency

Transparency names when AI use must be disclosed. On student work, in communications with parents, and in district-facing materials. A usable transparency rule picks one of three standards — always, when substantial, or teacher discretion — and applies it consistently. Mixed standards confuse teachers and students alike.

Section 9 · Enforcement

Enforcement routes violations into the district's existing discipline framework rather than inventing a new one. The section should name that framework by name (progressive discipline, restorative practices, or zero-tolerance for major incidents) and indicate which violation categories trigger which response tier.

Section 10 · Teacher Guidelines

Teacher Guidelines is the staff-facing translation of the policy in plain language. It belongs in the staff handbook; a one-page quick-reference belongs on the workroom wall. Teachers will operate from these two documents far more than from the full policy — keep them concrete.

Section 11 · Student Guidelines

Student Guidelines is the grade-appropriate version for students. K-5 differs from 6-8 differs from 9-12. A single all-grade document either condescends to older students or bewilders younger ones — split it up or write for the middle grade band and annotate the edges.

Adapting the template

Districts adapt the template along four axes: grade bands served (changes Student Use and Student Guidelines), approved tools list (changes Prohibited Uses and Privacy), assessment policy (changes Student Use and Transparency), and discipline framework (changes Enforcement). A generator speeds that up by asking the four questions in intake and filling each section accordingly. Hand-editing works too, but takes a district three to five working sessions to get right — a generator collapses that to a single 15-minute session plus counsel review.