Written by teachers
Every template was drafted by a high-school or college instructor who teaches writing, then reviewed by a second teacher before shipping.
For teachers · Policy
AI policies that survive first contact with students.
Five templates, each written by a working teacher and reviewed against common institutional guidance. Adapt, post, and stop relitigating the rules every assignment.
- Five stances: prohibited, cited-only, draft-only, open, adaptive-per-assignment
- Appeal procedure included, the most common gap
- Licensed CC BY so your department can remix freely
About: AI policy templates
Most classroom AI policies fail in the same way: they state a stance ("no AI") and then silently collapse when a student uses Grammarly, or when a research assistant suggests a citation, or when the student with accommodations leans on text-to-speech. A policy that fails at the first edge case gets ignored for the rest of the term.
The templates below start from a stance and carry it all the way through: what's allowed, what must be disclosed, how detection factors in, what happens when the policy is crossed, and, most importantly, how a student appeals a suspected violation. Every template we see missing that appeal clause is a template that ends up in front of a dean six weeks later.
The five templates
- Prohibited use. Generative AI is not an allowed tool. Assistive writing aids (grammar check, screen reader, translation dictionary) are allowed and do not require disclosure. Includes two example assignment prompts adapted for no-AI conditions.
- Cited-only use. Any AI output used in the submission must be quoted, attributed, and bounded with [AI: ChatGPT-5, prompt X, date] tags. The grading rubric includes "quality of attribution" as a line item.
- Draft-only use. Students may use AI to brainstorm or outline, but the final prose must be their own. Detection is used to surface essays where the final draft reads as AI-generated; those trigger the appeal procedure, not an automatic penalty.
- Open use. AI is permitted as a writing partner. The assessment shifts to oral defenses, in-class writes, and structured revision logs. This is often the right policy for upper-division research courses.
- Adaptive per assignment. The syllabus declares that each assignment's AI stance will be specified in the prompt. This is the heaviest-lift template but works well when the same course has both drafting and synthesis assessments.
What every template includes
Definitions (so "AI" isn't ambiguous), disclosure language, the role of detection tools, an appeal procedure (48-hour window, draft history review, oral check-in), and the consequence ladder. Templates are licensed CC BY 4.0, remix freely, credit optional but appreciated.
Before you post
Two questions to close before the term starts: (1) Do your institution's academic-integrity procedures allow a teacher-level appeal, or does every case escalate to the dean? (2) Do students with disability accommodations have explicit carve-outs for text-to-speech, voice dictation, and grammar aids? Both gaps are easy to fix in the draft stage and expensive to fix mid-term.
Appeal clause included
The most common gap. Every template explains what a student does when they believe a detection flag is wrong.
CC BY licensed
Remix, translate, or fold into your department handbook. Attribution appreciated, not required.
Frequently asked questions
Can I combine these templates?
Yes. Many teachers use 'draft-only' as the default and 'open use' for the capstone research paper. The adaptive-per-assignment template is essentially a framework for combining the other four.
Where does detection fit in a 'prohibited use' policy?
Detection is a screening tool, not the verdict. The template explicitly frames detection as a trigger for follow-up (draft history, oral check-in), not as the basis for a penalty on its own.
Do I need legal review?
If your institution has an academic-integrity office, walk the final draft past them before posting. The templates are written to be compatible with common institutional procedures, but your institution's procedures are authoritative.
What about students who use AI for accommodations?
Every template includes an accommodations carve-out. Text-to-speech, voice dictation, translation aids, and grammar checkers should be explicitly allowed and not require disclosure.
Adopt a template for this term.
All five are free. Post one this week and stop relitigating the rules.
Browse the teacher hub