Is one policy enough for a whole school?

This generates a clear institution-wide baseline, but individual subjects and assignments often need their own rules — coding courses differ from essay-based ones. Use this as the umbrella policy and let teachers specify per-assignment expectations within it.

How does the integrity stance change the output?

A restricted stance prohibits AI for graded work unless explicitly permitted; a balanced stance allows AI for learning and drafting with disclosure; an encouraged stance treats AI as a standard tool with citation. Each adjusts the rules, examples, and disclosure language.

Should the policy mention AI detectors?

It includes a measured detection section. AI-text detectors are unreliable and can falsely accuse students, so the policy frames them as one signal among several and centres a fair conversation and appeals process rather than automatic penalties.

Does it adapt to age and level?

Yes. Wording for primary or secondary pupils is simpler and more directive, while university-level text emphasises scholarly citation and independent judgement. The grade range tunes tone and expectations.

Is my input uploaded?

No. The policy is built entirely in your browser from your selections. Nothing is sent to a server or stored.

School AI Use Policy Generator

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.

Tips and examples

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.