A useful school AI policy explains how the school protects learning, students and information while deciding where assistance is appropriate. It should be understandable enough for teachers to apply, students to follow and parents to discuss. A long document with no classroom examples will not do that work on its own.
The ten-part framework below is a starting point for Kenyan schools to adapt through their own review. It is not a government-approved template or legal advice. Involve school leadership, teachers, ICT and the people responsible for privacy and safeguarding. Seek student and parent perspectives where appropriate, then test whether the draft answers real questions.
1. Purpose
State why the policy exists. A useful purpose is to support learning, honest assessment, safe technology use and protection of personal information. Explain that AI should support human judgement rather than replace the responsibilities of teachers and school leaders.
Describe the policy’s scope: school-managed use, classroom activities, assessed work and relevant homework expectations. Identify whom it applies to and where other school procedures remain relevant. Clear scope helps avoid confusion about whether a general home activity and a formal assessment are governed in the same way.
2. Approved AI uses
List permitted activities with examples, such as generic teacher preparation, guided evaluation of an answer or explicitly allowed practice questions. Specify the approved tools, accounts and supervision arrangements through a process the school can maintain.
Avoid permission so broad that it silently authorises every upload and task. A teacher may be allowed to draft generic activities without being authorised to process individual learner records. Explain how staff request approval for a new use and how learners know which assistance is permitted on an assignment.
3. Restricted or prohibited uses
Identify uses that conflict with safety, privacy or learning: impersonation, bullying, harmful image manipulation, sharing private records without authorisation and submitting generated work as independent work. Explain any restrictions on age, access and unsupervised activities.
Use understandable examples. A rule against harming classmates should include fake images and recordings as well as text. A restriction on assessments should name the task or process. State where people can ask questions before using a tool, so uncertainty does not become a reason to guess.
4. Academic integrity
Connect the rules to the educational objective. Teachers should indicate which assistance is allowed and what must be independent. Different subjects and assignments may have different boundaries, provided learners understand the reason.
Explain how the school examines concerns and gives students an opportunity to respond through established procedures. Process evidence, source notes and explanations can help assess learning. A writing-style impression should not be treated as a complete finding. Include a teaching response that helps learners understand the boundary before a problem occurs.
5. Student data and privacy
Specify what information must not enter routine public-tool prompts and how approved workflows are reviewed. Include names, identifiers, health and disciplinary information, photographs and other identifying records. Encourage data minimisation and fictional examples where possible.
ODPC provides education-sector guidance for institutions considering learner data. Use that authoritative reference with responsible staff when developing this section. The policy should identify the school’s reporting route for accidental sharing and its process for reviewing provider information.
6. Teacher responsibilities
Teachers should plan purposeful activities, explain permitted use and verify generated materials before teaching or sharing them. They should consider accuracy, bias, accessibility, local relevance and the resources available to the class.
Clarify responsibility for supervision, privacy and responding to concerns. Provide training rather than expecting staff to infer good practice from a policy alone. AI for Educators can support practical preparation using generic tasks, while the school retains approval of its own procedures and classroom decisions.
7. Student responsibilities
Students should follow task instructions, protect personal information, check important claims and represent their work honestly. Include respectful behaviour towards classmates and a clear expectation to ask for help with unsuitable content or confusing requests.
Match the language to age and readiness. Younger pupils can learn simple rules through demonstrations; older students can keep process notes and explain verification. Make reporting a concern accessible. A child should know the trusted adult or established school channel to approach, without having to investigate the problem alone.
8. Parent communication
Explain how parents will learn about the school’s approach, the activities planned and the boundaries for homework. Include the relevant school contact route for questions. Parents should understand both the purpose of AI literacy and the limits placed on independent tool access.
Offer practical examples rather than assuming technical knowledge. Share family-friendly resources such as the parent guide, while stating that the school’s own instructions govern school tasks. Where arrangements change, communicate those changes clearly rather than leaving families to hear about them informally.
9. AI disclosure
Define how permitted assistance is acknowledged. A short statement may identify the tool, purpose, relevant help and the learner’s checking or revision. Adapt the format to age and assignment. Teachers should tell students what record is needed before the work begins.
Keep collection proportionate. Entire chat histories may include private information and are not always necessary. Disclosure does not override prohibited use. Explain that the goal is an honest account of the process, supported by the learner’s ability to explain the submitted work.
10. Policy review schedule
Assign an owner and a planned review point. Also state the events that prompt earlier review, such as a changed provider requirement, privacy concern or feedback showing that a rule is unclear. Keep an accessible version history so staff know which policy applies.
Gather evidence from classroom experience: whether learners can explain their work, whether staff can apply the rules and whether reporting routes function. Review benefits and problems together. A policy should evolve through deliberate school decisions, not change silently whenever a new tool becomes popular.
Turn the draft into practice
Test the policy against fictional situations: a teacher drafting questions, a child uploading a worksheet with a name, an older student requesting essay feedback and a harmful fake image of a classmate. Ask which rule applies, who decides and what happens next.
Revise unclear sections, prepare staff and communicate the final expectations. Pair the document with age-appropriate learning through AI Smart & Safe and AI Ready. Clear rules and practical skills reinforce each other.
Frequently asked questions
Is this framework officially approved?
No. It is a practical structure for the school’s own adaptation and review. Do not describe it as government, KICD or regulator approval.
Where should leadership begin?
Start with the purpose and current uses, then identify privacy and assessment questions. The responsible AI readiness page connects policy work with school-wide learning.