Establish AI use and collaboration norms

Where the evidence comes from

• UK DfE Generative AI in education
• UK DfE Generative AI and data protection in schools
• UNESCO Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research

Strong for explicit norms and privacy; direct AI benefit unvalidated.

1. Extract the fixed boundaries

   Read policy first. Keep identifying material out of every AI tool. Verify each quote yourself; record interim holds separately from policy. If the policy conflicts with the privacy stop rule, stop and seek clarification.

   Prompt 1 · Policy inventory Copy

   CONTEXT
   Current school policy with source labels and line numbers: [paste non-identifying policy].
   Approved tools and age restrictions: [paste confirmed details or missing].
   Project purpose, tasks and assessment evidence: [paste them].
   Existing collaboration rules: [paste them].
   Teacher interim holds and supplied decision owners: [paste teacher decisions or missing].
   
   REQUEST
   Extract permissions, prohibitions, disclosure duties, privacy rules and unresolved questions. Distinguish policy from teacher interim holds.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Copy every policy quotation verbatim, including punctuation, with its supplied source label and line number. Never label a paraphrase an exact quote.
   Use "No supplied policy line" for silence. Do not infer permission, consequence, legal requirement or owner role.
   An unlisted or ambiguous use requires a teacher interim hold pending clarification, not a fabricated policy rule. If no hold or owner is supplied, mark "Teacher decision required" and block release.
   No personal data may enter any AI tool, including approved tools. Flag any policy conflict; do not silently revise policy.
   
   FORMAT
   Table: topic | exact policy quotation or absence | source label and line | project implication | unresolved question.
   Separate table: teacher interim hold | supplied owner or missing | decision still required.
   Separate stop-condition lines: policy conflict; personal data; AI grading/placement; missing owner. Give evidence or absence for each.

2. Draft the student agreement

   Confirm the inventory before drafting. Label project examples as examples, not new permissions. Reject wording that widens language support into permission to submit AI-generated text.

   Prompt 2 · Agreement draft Copy

   CONTEXT
   Teacher-verified inventory including exact policy quotations: [paste it].
   Project tasks and collaboration expectations: [paste them].
   Teacher-approved definitions and familiar terms: [paste them or missing].
   Teacher interim holds and supplied owners: [paste them or missing].
   
   REQUEST
   Draft an AI and collaboration agreement. Include at least one concrete project example each for permitted, conditional and prohibited use, plus one ambiguous language-support/draft-wording example held for clarification.
   Include a disclose-and-verify checklist and shared collaboration routine.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only supplied policy, definitions and teacher decisions. Do not invent permissions, consequences or roles.
   Prohibit personal data in any AI tool. Keep AI out of grading, placement and consequential decisions.
   Label interim holds "Teacher interim hold, not school policy"; name only a supplied owner, otherwise "Owner missing: release blocked". Keep ambiguous uses held, not simultaneously permitted.
   Examples must contain no personal data or real student story. Do not require new approval for clearly permitted language support.
   
   FORMAT
   Sections: We may; We must check first; We may not; How we disclose; How we verify; How we collaborate; Teacher interim holds.
   Label each example and link it to an inventory rule. Use checklist boxes for disclosure and verification.

3. Stress-test edge cases

   Inspect difficult boundaries as well as obvious prohibitions. Keep the draft unchanged while reviewing the test. Do not treat an AI judgement as school approval.

   Prompt 3 · Edge-case test Copy

   CONTEXT
   Draft agreement: [paste it].
   Verified inventory and original policy quotations: [paste them].
   Project tasks and assessment purpose: [paste them].
   Teacher interim holds and supplied owners: [paste them or missing].
   
   REQUEST
   Generate exactly eight fictional cases: meaning-preserving language support, draft wording for submission, ambiguous rewrite, image-generation silence, confidential translation, undisclosed group use, unverified sources and AI grading.
   Test each against both agreement and policy. Identify contradictions and missing holds.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Quote the agreement line and policy line separately and exactly, or state absence.
   Do not decide silent or ambiguous policy. Label any proposed hold as a teacher decision required, not an existing policy.
   No invented owner, consequence, permission or real student scenario. No personal data in any AI tool.
   
   FORMAT
   Eight-row table: fictional scenario | exact agreement quotation or absence | exact policy quotation with source/line or absence | clear/unclear/conflict | risk | supplied owner or missing | teacher action required.
   Finish with separate stop lines for policy conflict, personal data, AI grading/placement and missing hold/owner, each with evidence.

4. Reconcile and approve

   Students explain examples in their own words; colleagues check boundaries. Record both reviews without personal data. Revise yourself and submit the check. Missing reviews, unsupported rules or owners block release; only the teacher can approve.

   Prompt 4 · Final policy check Copy

   CONTEXT
   Verified inventory and original policy quotations: [paste them].
   Teacher-revised agreement: [paste it].
   Student comprehension review and colleague boundary review: [paste non-identifying records or missing].
   Teacher decisions, interim holds and supplied owners: [paste them or missing].
   
   REQUEST
   Check every agreement rule and example against policy or labelled teacher decisions. Check disclosure, verification and review completion.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Do not rewrite the agreement. Quote candidate and source separately; preserve exact text and source labels/lines.
   Block for policy conflicts, personal data in any AI tool, AI grading/placement, unsupported permission, missing reviews, or unresolved uses without an explicit teacher interim hold and supplied owner.
   Never invent an owner or claim human approval. Synthetic review records demonstrate only a test transition, never real review or launch approval.
   
   FORMAT
   Table: exact agreement quotation | exact supporting policy quotation and source/line, or labelled teacher decision | supported/conflict/absent | teacher action.
   Separate evidence and pass/block/not demonstrated lines for every blocking condition above.
   Finish: release blockers; unresolved questions; "Teacher approval pending". No autonomous release decision.

Check before you use it

• Does each policy rule have an exact source quotation, with teacher interim holds labelled separately?
• Are tool approval and age restrictions confirmed separately from privacy?
• Do examples distinguish permitted language support, conditional drafts and unresolved uses?
• Does the checklist record AI contributions and verification?
• Is personal data excluded from every AI tool, with grading and placement kept human?
• Are student and colleague reviews recorded, with missing owners or reviews blocking release?
• Has the teacher resolved blockers and approved the final agreement?