National reporting on AI in schools found that only about half of states had issued any K-12 guidance, and fewer than half of principals said their school or district had an AI-use policy. Only about a third of teachers reported that a policy addressed academic integrity and AI. That leaves a large number of classrooms where teachers are making decisions without clear support. Districts that wait for perfect state direction may leave staff and students guessing for years.

The absence of state guidance does not mean the absence of standards. Existing laws on student privacy, accessibility, and academic integrity still apply, and professional norms in assessment give a firm foundation. Local leaders can draw on those anchors to write guidance that is clear, modest, and adaptable. A short document that is actually used is better than an ambitious one that no one reads.

A useful local guidance document answers a handful of practical questions. It should say what students may do with AI on assignments and who decides, how teachers may use AI tools and what review is required, and how student data is protected and concerns are handled. Treat the answers as a starting point and revisit them regularly as practice develops.

Start with a small working group

Bring together teachers from several subjects, a counselor, a technology lead, a special education representative, and an administrator. Include at least one teacher who is skeptical of AI and one who uses it often, since both views improve the draft. Give the group a short timeline, such as six to eight weeks, and a clear charge to produce a usable first version. Diverse membership reduces blind spots and builds buy-in.

• Form a small working group that includes both skeptics and enthusiasts
• Write rules by assignment type instead of naming specific tools
• State that teachers remain responsible for every grade and comment
• Require vendors to explain data storage, training use, and deletion
• Schedule a review after one semester and then every year

Write rules by task, not by tool

Tools change quickly, but the skills schools teach do not. Guidance that says students may use technology to brainstorm but must draft their own thesis will outlast any particular product. Ask departments to describe what is permitted for common assignment types, such as reading responses, research papers, and in-class writing. Task-based rules are easier to explain to students and families and easier to defend.

Include a section on teacher use. Spell out that educators remain responsible for every grade and comment, that any tool used for first-pass feedback must be reviewed, and that student work should not be shared with a service that has not been vetted. Setting these expectations protects teachers and students equally. It also gives staff confidence that careful use is supported.

Cover privacy and procurement

Student writing often contains personal information, so any tool that touches it deserves scrutiny. Require that vendors explain how data is stored, whether it is used for model training, how it can be deleted, and how the product meets applicable privacy laws. Designate a person or committee to review requests so that individual teachers are not left to evaluate contracts. A simple approval process prevents inconsistent and risky adoption.

Think about equity as well. Students who have home access to powerful tools may gain advantages, while others fall behind. Guidance should ensure that classroom tasks do not depend on private subscriptions and that support is available at school. Equity concerns belong in the first draft, not as an afterthought, and districts can reduce the gap by providing access at school and by designing assignments that never require paid tools.

Plan to review and revise

Set a date to review the guidance, ideally after one semester and then yearly. Collect feedback from teachers, students, and families on what is clear and what is confusing. Track questions that come up repeatedly and add them to a short frequently asked questions page. A living document stays relevant as tools and practices change, and brief student focus groups can reveal confusion that adult committees often overlook.

Share the guidance widely and explain it, rather than posting it and hoping for the best. Hold a short staff session, send a one-page summary to families, and discuss it with students in class. When state guidance eventually arrives, you will already have a tested local framework to compare against. Your work will not be wasted, and your community will be better prepared.