Build local guidance for instruction, student safety, data stewardship, accessibility, procurement, and responsible use.
Use the template with local leadership, workers, learners, and affected communities. Confirm the rules that apply and name who can answer questions, approve exceptions, and correct harm.
What learning or operational purpose does this use serve?
Is the tool approved and age-appropriate?
Could student information or identifiable work leave school control?
How will access, disability, language, and unequal effects be addressed?
Which educator or administrator can explain, override, and correct the result?
These primary and authoritative sources shaped the policy’s rules, review points, and accountability structure.
Mississippi Department of Education
MDE frames classroom AI as an instructional and policy question requiring educator judgment, student safeguards, and local planning.
It grounds the learning-purpose, educator-accountability, classroom-expectation, and local-approval sections.
UNESCO
UNESCO emphasizes human agency, age-appropriate use, privacy, inclusion, validation, and pedagogical fit.
It shapes the age, privacy, accessibility, human-oversight, and educational-value requirements.
Sources and requirements can change. Check the publication date, read the original material, and confirm the rules that apply locally before making a consequential decision.
Use these policy areas to turn values into decisions, responsibilities, safeguards, and remedies people can understand.
Set assignment-level expectations for required, permitted, limited, and prohibited AI assistance. Preserve opportunities for students to read, write, calculate, create, and reason independently.
Use school-approved systems consistent with age requirements and local safeguards. Do not place student names, records, disability information, behavior notes, or identifiable work into an unapproved tool.
Provide accessible formats and a meaningful non-AI option. Review whether examples, languages, infrastructure, and error patterns exclude Mississippi learners or communities.
Review educational value, evidence, data terms, security, accessibility, cost, ownership, parent communication, incident response, and exit before adoption.
✓ Teacher-reviewed planning and practice materials
✓ Student critique of an AI answer using primary sources
✓ Accessible drafting support with an equivalent non-AI option
× Uploading identifiable student records or work
× Automated grading, discipline, placement, counseling, or safety decisions
× Requiring an unapproved commercial account to access instruction
Adapt the clauses and complete the reviews with the people responsible for the work and the people affected by it.
Adapt these clauses for formal review and approval.
Complete before approving a pilot, workflow, purchase, or embedded feature.
Use before signing, renewing, or expanding a service.
Use when information, people, decisions, or trust may have been harmed.
Turn one real classroom or administrative use into policy language and an approval decision.
Choose one use and state the learning or operational goal.
Map student information, age requirements, access, and possible consequences.
Complete the approval and vendor reviews.
Classify the use as allowed, approval required, or prohibited.
Draft the relevant clauses, family notice, reviewer, and evidence plan.
Ask a student, family, educator, and accessibility representative what the draft misses.
Would a student understand what is expected, remain able to learn without the tool, and know who can correct a problem?
Share the plan with the people responsible for the work and the people who may be affected. Confirm local rules, protect private information, and name the person who can answer questions or correct a problem.