TERI / Layer 1 — Foundations (Policy, Data & Systems) / 1.3
Checkpoint 1.3

1.3 — AI PolicyVerify state law

What this is

Board-adopted formal governance that establishes the authority, boundaries, and accountability for all AI use across the district. Covers: scope (who and what is governed); definitions of AI in this context; categorical permissions and prohibitions; the principle of role differentiation for students, staff, and administrators; PII and data-handling boundaries; vendor DPA requirement; attribution expectation; academic integrity definition; consequences and due process; required safety protocols; review cadence; and authority for administrators to issue Guidelines under the Policy. Policy sets the floor; it does not attempt to anticipate every day-to-day decision.

Why it matters

District-level AI policy gives teachers, students, and families consistent ground to stand on. It also gives the district legal standing for vendor agreements, discipline decisions, and FERPA responses. Without it, AI use varies classroom-to-classroom even when teachers are doing their best in real time.

Connects to

The Framework: Condition #8 (Strategic Tool Selection & Data Governance). Links to 1.4 (AI Use Guidelines) as the operational complement, to 1.5 (Data Governance & Privacy) for DPA and PII requirements, and to 2.4 (Academic Integrity in the AI Era) for integrity definitions.

Maturity levels

Not Started
No district AI policy exists. AI use is ungoverned. Teachers and students make individual decisions without any district framing. No legal authority to require vendor DPAs, enforce attribution, or pursue discipline consistently.
Emerging
Initial AI statement or position document exists, often written reactively. Typically not board-adopted. Addresses AI broadly without clear scope, role differentiation, or boundary between binding principles (policy) and day-to-day practice (guidelines). Frequently conflates the two. Infrequently referenced in practice.
Established
Board-adopted AI policy covers at minimum: (a) scope — who and what is governed; (b) definitions; (c) categorical permissions and prohibitions; (d) role differentiation principle for students, staff, and administrators; (e) PII and data-handling boundaries; (f) vendor DPA requirement; (g) attribution expectation; (h) academic integrity definition; (i) consequences and due process; (j) required safety protocols; (k) review cadence; (l) authority for administration to issue Guidelines under this Policy. Referenced in student and staff handbooks.
Expanding
Policy is reviewed annually against field developments and state/federal law. Grade-band differentiated for students and role-differentiated for staff. Explicitly distinguishes itself from Guidelines (1.4): Policy holds the binding principles, Guidelines operationalize. Linked to data governance (1.5), procurement (1.6), academic integrity (2.4), and incident response. Student and family input incorporated into revisions. Public-facing plain-language summary available.

Go deeper with

Example resource
EDSAFE AI Alliance SAFE Benchmarks
Also consider