This is my first run at organizing principles for a plan that will create a district-wide policy for AI use in a Massachusetts PreK-12 school district. This first stab relied on research using . Here is the link to the original Perplexity page.

K-12 School District AI Policies: Expert Recommendations and Implementation Analysis

As artificial intelligence technologies rapidly enter classrooms across the United States, school districts face the urgent need to develop comprehensive policies governing their use. This report examines expert recommendations for effective K-12 AI policies and evaluates specific examples from New England and California school districts, identifying strengths and weaknesses in current approaches.

Expert Recommendations for K-12 AI Policies

Educational authorities, government agencies, and research organizations have established key components that should be included in comprehensive K-12 AI policies. These recommendations provide a framework for evaluating existing district policies.

Data Privacy and Security

Experts emphasize that protecting student data must be a foundational element of any AI policy. The U.S. Department of Education’s AI toolkit specifically highlights “mitigating risks while safeguarding students’ privacy, security and civil rights” as a primary concern1. Similarly, UNESCO’s guidance stresses that AI implementation must be “guided by the core principles of inclusion and equity” while ensuring appropriate data protections2.

Key recommendations include:

  • Compliance with federal laws like FERPA and COPPA
  • Clear guidelines on what student data can be shared with AI systems
  • Strong security protocols and access controls
  • Prohibition against using student data for training AI models without consent
  • Regular security assessments for AI tools34

Ethical Use and Human Oversight

Policies should establish AI as a supplement to, not replacement for, human instruction. The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) emphasizes that “In K–12 education, uses of AI should always start with human inquiry and always end with human reflection, human insight, and human” judgment5. This human-centered approach is echoed by UNESCO, which advocates for “a human-centred approach to AI in education, emphasizing the enhancement of human capabilities and the promotion of social justice, sustainability and human dignity”6.

Recommendations include:

  • Requiring human verification of AI-generated content and grading
  • Maintaining teacher autonomy in educational decisions
  • Establishing clear parameters for appropriate AI use cases
  • Developing ethical frameworks for AI implementation725

Equity and Bias Mitigation

Experts identify bias mitigation as critical in AI policies. The Commission cited in source8 recommends that “curricula should focus on developing critical thinking skills and adaptability, enabling students to understand and work alongside AI technologies effectively.” This helps students identify and address potential biases.

Key recommendations include:

  • Evaluating AI tools for bias before implementation
  • Ensuring equitable access to AI resources across student populations
  • Developing approaches that address diverse learning needs
  • Creating protocols to identify and mitigate discriminatory outcomes894

Academic Integrity

Districts must establish clear boundaries regarding appropriate AI use in student work. The Mohawk Trail Regional School District policy states that “any AI-created work presented as original work will be seen as ‘a breach of academic integrity and handled in accordance with relevant student handbook guidelines’”10.

Recommendations include:

  • Clear guidelines on acceptable AI use for assignments
  • Requirements for proper attribution of AI-generated content
  • Updated academic honesty policies that address AI tools
  • Guidance for educators on designing “AI-proof” assessments1011

Professional Development

Experts consistently emphasize the need for educator training. The state policy commission noted in source8 recommends: “States should encourage robust training programs that help both new and veteran K-12 and postsecondary faculty understand how to use AI tools in their teaching… ongoing professional development will help prepare educators to deal with the ethical implications of AI use in the classroom”8.

Recommendations include:

  • Training programs for educators on AI tools and concepts
  • Support resources for implementation
  • Guidance on pedagogical approaches that incorporate AI effectively
  • Continuous updating of skills as technologies evolve814

Governance and Accountability

Policies should establish clear oversight mechanisms. Alabama’s policy template, for example, “requires establishment of AI Governance Committees” to ensure accountability7.

Recommendations include:

  • Designated personnel or committees for AI oversight
  • Clear procurement and vetting processes for AI tools
  • Regular auditing and monitoring procedures
  • Transparent decision-making frameworks734

Analysis of Existing School District AI Policies

New England Examples

Boston Public Schools (Massachusetts)

Boston Public Schools (BPS) has developed comprehensive AI guidance based on the White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (2023). Their policy is organized around key principles9:

  1. Academic Excellence: Supporting AI use to improve teaching and learning
  2. Cybersecurity \& Privacy: Compliance with laws and mindful data sharing
  3. Ethical Use: Transparency and proper attribution
  4. Bias Mitigation: Recognition that AI can perpetuate biases and spread misinformation

The BPS policy includes specific guidelines for individual users (students, teachers, employees) and outlines a formal procurement process that requires:

  • Transparent explanation of how AI systems utilize data
  • Restrictions on using private/confidential data
  • Piloting tools with intended populations before formal adoption
  • Evaluation using a Racial Equity Planning Tool9

Mohawk Trail Regional School District (Massachusetts)

The Mohawk Trail Regional School District recently adopted an AI policy with a notably different approach. Their policy is intentionally broad and less prescriptive, recognizing that AI technology is rapidly evolving10:

  • Acknowledges AI’s “momentous shift” in education
  • Questions remain about ethical use and curriculum integration
  • Commits to seeking ongoing guidance and providing learning opportunities
  • Establishes that presenting AI-created work as original violates academic integrity
  • Policy was developed collaboratively with teachers and librarians

The policy was “purposely written to be vague as technology evolves so quickly” to allow for flexibility as AI technologies and best practices develop10.

California Examples

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)

LAUSD’s comprehensive policy (BUL-151113.0) provides detailed guidelines across multiple domains3:

  1. Prioritizes student and staff safety and privacy
  2. Aligns with U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on AI
  3. Establishes specific data privacy and security protocols
  4. Prohibits sharing confidential information with AI tools
  5. Addresses access and equity concerns
  6. Requires vetting of AI tools by multiple departments:
    • Procurement Services
    • Information Technology Services
    • Sponsoring District Department
    • Office of the General Counsel
    • Office of Labor Relations

The policy explicitly prohibits sharing “confidential, sensitive, or private information in AI prompts, including but not limited to pupil or employee record information or images, videos, or voice recordings”3.

Dinuba Unified School District (DUSD)

DUSD’s policy draft explicitly connects AI use to the district’s broader educational mission of “ending generational poverty through education.” Key elements include4:

  1. Alignment with district vision and mission
  2. Data privacy frameworks based on federal laws (FERPA, COPPA)
  3. Strong security measures including:
    • Access controls and encryption
    • Regular auditing and monitoring
    • Security assessments before deployment
  4. Ethical AI guidelines addressing:
    • Bias mitigation and cultural responsiveness
    • Transparency in AI decision-making
    • Governance and accountability structures

The policy emphasizes the importance of “keeping humans at the forefront of the process and ensuring they remain central to using AI in education”4.

Evaluation: Strong vs. Weak Policy Examples

Strong Policy Elements

  1. Comprehensive Data Privacy Protocols: LAUSD’s policy stands out for its detailed guidelines on protecting sensitive information. It specifically prohibits sharing various types of confidential data in AI prompts and requires multiple departmental approvals before AI tool adoption3.
  2. Clear Integration with Educational Vision: DUSD effectively connects AI policy to their broader educational mission, ensuring AI supports rather than distracts from core goals. Their policy states: “Artificial Intelligence for classroom instruction and student learning must be integrated into this vision and mission for the district as we strive to end generational poverty in our community”4.
  3. Robust Procurement Processes: Boston Public Schools establishes strong evaluation criteria for AI tools, requiring they “be able to explain in plain language how their system/model utilizes AI and what data is/was used.” They also require piloting with intended populations and evaluating with a Racial Equity Planning Tool before adoption9.
  4. Addressing Bias and Equity: DUSD’s policy specifically addresses implementing “measures to evaluate and mitigate any biases in assessment tools” and ensuring diverse perspectives are considered in AI implementation4.
  5. Clear Academic Integrity Guidelines: Mohawk Trail’s policy directly addresses the issue of passing off AI-generated work as original, establishing this as an academic integrity violation with clear consequences10.

Weak Policy Elements

  1. Overly Vague Guidance: While flexibility is important, Mohawk Trail’s intentionally vague approach may leave teachers and students without sufficient practical guidance. The policy notes it was “purposely written to be vague” which could create implementation challenges10.
  2. Limited Professional Development Provisions: Several policies lack detailed plans for ongoing teacher training. While acknowledging the need for professional development, they often provide minimal specifics on implementation or resources.
  3. Insufficient Transparency Requirements: Some policies lack clear guidelines on how AI use should be disclosed to students and parents, potentially creating transparency gaps.
  4. Inadequate Evaluation Mechanisms: Many policies lack detailed criteria for measuring the effectiveness and impact of AI tools after implementation, missing opportunities for continuous improvement.

Conclusion

State departments of education across the country are increasingly providing guidance on AI in education, with 25 states now having official policies or guidance as of early 2025712. However, the quality and comprehensiveness of district-level policies vary significantly.

The strongest K-12 AI policies align with expert recommendations by addressing data privacy, equity, ethical use, academic integrity, professional development, and governance structures. They provide clear guidelines while maintaining enough flexibility to adapt to evolving technologies.

Districts developing or revising AI policies should consider:

  • Establishing robust data privacy protections that comply with relevant legislation
  • Creating clear ethical frameworks with human oversight requirements
  • Developing comprehensive professional development plans
  • Building transparency and accountability mechanisms
  • Ensuring policies promote equity and address potential biases
  • Providing specific academic integrity guidelines for AI use

As AI continues to transform education, thoughtful policy development will remain essential to maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

References

The analysis and recommendations in this report are based on the search results provided, which include guidance from UNESCO, the U.S. Department of Education, OECD, state departments of education, and specific school district policies from Massachusetts and California.

⁂

  1. https://www.k12dive.com/news/education-department-ai-guidance-school-leaders/731038/ ↩ ↩2

  2. https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education/artificial-intelligence ↩ ↩2

  3. https://www.lausd.org/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/21/BUL-151113_0_Guidelines_for_the_Authorized_Use_of_Artificial_Intelligence_for_District.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1733863398/dinubak12caus/lev827hpzbnkhxrcqona/AIGuidelines.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  5. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2024-01/human-centered-ai-guidance-k-12-public-schools.pdf ↩ ↩2

  6. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-unescos-new-ai-competency-frameworks-students-and-teachers ↩

  7. https://www.aiforeducation.io/ai-resources/state-ai-guidance ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. https://campustechnology.com/Articles/2025/02/24/6-Policy-Recommendations-for-Incorporating-AI-in-the-Classroom.aspx ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  9. https://bostonpublicschools.helpdocs.io/article/7nvt595hpb-guidance-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-bps ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. https://www.recorder.com/Area-schools-drafting-AI-policies-for-classwork-59998504 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  11. https://www.taliaferro.k12.ga.us/AIPOLICY ↩

  12. https://www.aiforeducation.io/blog/ai-guidance-per-state ↩