Schools are writing AI rules faster than anyone can keep up with - and almost none of them are written where students can find, read, or compare them. PeerAI collects those policies, organizes them, and publishes them in one place. We measure and disclose. We don't campaign.
Type a school name or filter by how each school treats AI. Every entry links back to the actual policy so anyone can read the source, not just our summary.
| School | Policy Type | Transparency Grade | Summary | Last Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Silicon Valley International School
Los Altos Hills, CA
|
Allowed with disclosure | A | Students may use AI for brainstorming and drafting if they cite the tool and describe how it was used. | Aug 2026 |
|
Example High School
San Jose, CA
|
Allowed for some tasks | B | AI permitted for study help and outlines, not for graded writing. Rules vary by department. | Aug 2026 |
|
Example Middle School
Palo Alto, CA
|
No stated policy | Not graded | No written AI policy found. Guidance is left to individual teachers. | Aug 2026 |
|
Example Academy
Mountain View, CA
|
Full ban | D | All AI use prohibited for schoolwork. No distinction between drafting help and submitting AI work. | Aug 2026 |
|
Example Charter School
Sunnyvale, CA
|
Allowed for some tasks | C | Policy exists but is vague. Students report confusion about what counts as acceptable use. | Aug 2026 |
|
Example Prep
Fremont, CA
|
Allowed with disclosure | B | Clear disclosure rule, but no guidance for teachers on how to respond when AI is disclosed. | Aug 2026 |
Sample data shown for launch. Grades reflect policy clarity and student access, not whether a school allows or bans AI. A ban can still be clearly written; permission can still be confusing.
Our grade measures one thing: how clearly a school communicates its AI expectations to the students who have to follow them. We take no position on whether AI should be allowed. We only measure whether the rules are findable, readable, and consistent.
Is the policy published somewhere students actually look, or buried in a handbook nobody reads? A rule students can't find is a rule that doesn't work.
Does it say specifically what's allowed and what isn't, or does it use vague language that leaves students guessing where the line is?
One teacher banning AI while another requires it creates confusion. We check whether the school sets a shared expectation or leaves it to chance.
Policies written without the people they govern tend to miss reality. We note whether students had any voice in how the rule was made.
Right now, every entry in this tracker is read and summarized by a student. That's slow, and it's how we prove the method works first. The next phase is a tool that does the heavy lifting: paste in a school's AI policy, and it returns a plain-language summary, a suggested grade against our public rubric, and the specific gaps a student could raise with their administration.
The goal isn't to replace student judgment. It's to let one student cover a hundred schools instead of one, and to keep the national tracker current as policies change.
The tracker gets stronger with every school added. If you know your school's AI policy - or know that it doesn't have one - tell us. Chapters can adopt their own school and keep its entry current.
Submit a School Policy