How we write an AI policy a school board will actually sign
After drafting AI policies with eighteen schools across four countries, three things consistently make the difference between a policy that gets signed and one that gets shelved.
AI policy documents fail for the same three reasons. They are too long, they are too vague, and they are written for the wrong reader. We have now drafted AI policies with eighteen schools across four countries, and the policies that get signed share a small set of features.
First: they are short. Two pages, never more. A board meeting is not the place for a literature review. The principal who signs it has already read about AI for a year.
Second: they name the tools. Not "generative AI tools" but the specific four or five products students and teachers actually use. The moment a policy refuses to name a product, the policy ages out within six months and everyone knows it.
Third: they are written for the parent, not the lawyer. The lawyer reviews it; the parent lives it. A parent reading the policy should walk away knowing exactly what their child is allowed to do, what is forbidden, and what happens when something goes wrong.
Write to us if you would like the NASCA × WSF starter policy pack. It is free, two pages, and has been adapted for boards in India, the UAE, the UK and the US.
Frequently asked
Yes. Write to info@nasca.edu.in and we send it back the same day.
Yes. The structure is portable; the named tools are what you adapt locally.
One piece of writing on AI in education. Every Monday morning. From the editors of NASCA, in seven countries. No spam, unsubscribe in one click.
Bring NASCA to your school.
If this piece resonated, the next step is a conversation. A real person from our team will reply within one working day.