Whether a teacher may use AI to grade student writing is no longer the same question everywhere, and the answer can change within a single school year. One state board adopted statewide AI guidelines in August that, according to news reports, bar teachers from using AI to grade student work at any level, while the largest school district in the country has reportedly told teachers not to ask AI systems to grade assignments. Other states, including Illinois, stress that AI should support rather than replace educator judgment and have focused their rules on evaluation and data privacy.

For a teacher or department head, the practical risk is usually not misunderstanding the technology but misunderstanding the rule. A tool that is perfectly acceptable under one policy may be off limits under another, and a teacher who used it in good faith can still end up in an uncomfortable conversation with an administrator. National survey data shows that fewer than half of principals report having any AI policy at all, which means many teachers are working in a gray area they never chose.

Checking the rule takes less time than most people expect, and it should happen before any student work is uploaded to any service. Start with the most specific document that applies to you, which is usually a school or district policy, and then work outward to state guidance and any relevant law. Keep a record of what you found and when, since policies are revised frequently and you may someday need to show that you checked.

Where to look, in order

Begin with your school handbook and the district acceptable use policy, since these often contain the most direct language about staff use of AI tools. Next, look for any board-adopted AI policy or administrative regulation, which may be posted on the district website or recorded in recent board meeting minutes. Finally, read your state department of education guidance, paying attention to whether it uses verbs like prohibit, permit, or discourage, because those words determine what you can actually do.

• Search the district website for AI policy, administrative regulation, and acceptable use documents.
• Read state education department guidance and note any language about grading, scoring, or evaluation.
• Ask your principal or technology director in writing whether AI-assisted feedback on student writing is permitted.
• Confirm whether a tool appears on the district approved list and has a signed data privacy agreement.
• Record the date, the document, and the exact wording so you can show your reasoning later.

What the rules tend to distinguish

Most policies draw lines between a few categories rather than banning or allowing AI as a whole. They separate student-facing tools from teacher-facing ones, administrative tasks from instructional ones, and tools that assist a teacher from tools that make the final decision. A rule that restricts AI from assigning grades may or may not cover software that drafts rubric-aligned comments for a teacher to review, which is exactly the kind of distinction you should confirm rather than assume.

Language about human review matters as much as language about tools. Guidance in several places stresses that educators remain responsible for every judgment about a student, and some new laws focus specifically on preventing AI from assigning ratings in teacher evaluations. When a policy says teachers must verify AI output, it is describing a workflow in which a person reads, checks, and approves everything before it reaches a student or a gradebook.

If your rules say no, or say nothing

If your district prohibits AI in grading, honor the rule completely and put your effort into the time savers that remain available, such as shared rubrics, comment banks, and focused feedback on one or two criteria. These practices cut hours without any new technology and are worth refining regardless of what the policy says. You can also bring evidence about time spent grading to your department so that leaders have data when the policy is next reviewed.

If your district has no policy, ask for one rather than proceeding quietly. A short written question to your principal creates a record and often prompts the district to clarify its position. Many leaders welcome a specific, well-framed request because it gives them something concrete to decide, and it shows that teachers want to follow the rules and adopt new tools responsibly rather than working around them.

Why this matters for schools evaluating tools

Policy fit should be the first filter in any evaluation of an AI feedback product, ahead of features and price. Ask vendors to explain, in writing, how their product works within restrictive policies, including whether teachers can keep AI features off, whether students ever see model output, and how student data is handled. A vendor who has thought carefully about these questions will be able to answer without hesitation.

Rules are likely to keep changing as states and districts learn from early experience, and several have said explicitly that their guidance will be revisited. Build a habit of rechecking at the start of each semester, and share what you learn with colleagues so that no one relies on a year-old understanding. A teacher who stays current protects both students and professional standing.