Understanding Our Approach to Artificial Intelligence
Schools that adopt AI without governance structures tend to get stuck: tools proliferate without oversight, assessment integrity erodes, and data protection becomes a problem solved after the fact rather than designed in from the start.
At the same time, schools that over-restrict AI risk producing graduates who are less prepared than their peers. AISA's goal is not to slow AI adoption but to make it deliberate, safe, and educationally valuable.
AISA is committed to preparing students for a world where AI is embedded in professional, academic, and civic life. This policy is how that commitment becomes operational. The governance it establishes is a shared framework for making good decisions, not surveillance.
This policy applies to:
Covers all AI tools used for instruction, assessment, communication, data analysis, or admin tasks - including personal devices and personal AI accounts used for school work.
These are not aspirational statements. They are the criteria against which all AI decisions at AISA will be evaluated.
AI augments teaching and supports learning. It does not replace teacher judgement, student thinking, or the relational core of education.
AI use must be fair, transparent, and accountable. This means identifying bias, ensuring equitable access, and never using AI to make consequential decisions without human oversight.
AI must not undermine assessment validity. Students must learn to use AI as a learning tool, not a substitute for intellectual effort. AI-generated content must be acknowledged.
Student and staff data are protected under UAE law. No AI tool may process personal data without lawful basis, appropriate consent, and compliance with AISA's obligations.
AI tools used with students must have age-appropriate access controls, content filtering, and protection from harmful content. Student wellbeing takes precedence over any benefit.
Staff are accountable for how they use AI. If we expect students to think deeply rather than outsource to AI, we must model the same standard. AI should amplify professional thinking, not replace it.
Which of the following best describes AISA's position on AI in education?
Use only approved AI tools listed on the AISA Approved Tools Register for school-related purposes, including on personal devices.
Exercise professional judgement on AI outputs. You remain fully responsible for accuracy and quality of your work.
Disclose AI use in professional communications where the nature of the content makes it relevant.
Never input student personal data into any unapproved AI tool. This includes names, ID numbers, assessment results, photos, or any identifiable information.
Engage in mandatory AI PD as directed by the school.
Model responsible AI use for students, consistent with the Lion's Way values.
Use this reference when deciding what data is safe to use with AI tools:
| What You Want to Do | Data Involved | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Analyze assessment patterns | Student names + scores | Approved tool only, approved for assessment data |
| Analyze assessment patterns | De-identified scores | Any approved tool |
| Draft a lesson plan | No student data | Any approved tool |
| Draft parent email about a student | Student name + details | Remove name from AI input, add back manually |
| Generate differentiated resources | Generic learning profile | Any approved tool |
| Upload class photo for AI task | Student images | Not permitted unless specifically approved |
| Personal professional learning | No school data | Personal AI account acceptable |
A teacher wants to paste their class's MAP scores into ChatGPT to look for patterns and group students for intervention. The scores include student names. ChatGPT is on the Approved Tools Register but is NOT approved for processing student assessment data. What should the teacher do?
AI does not make academic integrity less important - it makes it more complex. Students must develop and demonstrate their own thinking. Any AI-generated content must be explicitly acknowledged.
▶ Increase process-based and in-class assessments where thinking is observable
▶ Use oral defenses, portfolios, and performance tasks
▶ Design tasks that integrate AI as a tool within the assignment
▶ Avoid over-reliance on AI detection software as the sole basis for decisions
Use this scale to communicate the permitted level of AI use per assignment. Reference the level in your task instructions (e.g., "This is a Level 2 assignment").
Students rely solely on their own knowledge. No AI tools at any point.
AI generates ideas. Final content created by student without direct AI input. Must cite AI.
AI helps draft initial versions. Final must be significantly revised by student. Clear distinction required.
AI content can be included. Student critically evaluates and edits. AI usage transparent and cited.
Extensive AI use. Student provides rationale, ensures original thought, maintains integrity with full citations.
Levels 1-2 are appropriate starting points for Middle School. High School and IB DP teachers may use Levels 1-5 depending on the task. Elementary use is teacher-directed and typically Level 1, with occasional guided Level 2.
No AI tool may be used for school-related purposes involving school data unless it appears on the AISA Approved Tools Register. The approval process is designed to be responsive, with a target of 15 school days from submission to decision.
Lesson planning, differentiation, IEP support
Drafting, content generation, lesson planning
AI-powered design and visual materials
Browser-based AI assistant for teachers
Differentiated reading resources
Socratic AI tutoring (under review)
Found a tool you think has value? Submit it through the approval process. The expectation is compliance by default and escalation by design.
A Grade 7 teacher assigns a research essay and tells students: "You may use AI to help generate initial ideas and topic explorations, but all final content must be created by you. Cite any AI assistance." What level on the Scaffolding Scale is this?
Governance enables, not restricts. The policy creates structure so AI adoption can be fast, safe, and educationally meaningful.
Data protection is non-negotiable. Never enter student-identifiable information into unapproved tools. When in doubt, anonymize or consult IT.
Model what you expect. If we ask students to think deeply rather than outsource to AI, we must demonstrate the same standard.
Use the Scaffolding Scale. Communicate clear AI expectations per assignment so students know the boundaries before they begin.
You have a voice. If you find a useful tool, submit a request. If workload feels unsustainable, raise it. This policy is a living document.
Take a moment to consider:
Where does AI amplify your professional thinking, and where might it be replacing it?
This is the central question of AISA's professional standards conversation. There are no wrong answers - but the question deserves honest reflection.