Policy Makers

Overview

Rules about AI and technology use are often written for students without students in the room. In this three-session project, students become policy makers. They analyze an outdated fictional acceptable-use policy, gather perspectives from classmates and staff, and draft a focused proposal on one issue (AI in coursework, phones, data privacy, or accessibility). Every proposal must pass the five-question check that school leaders use: What is the vision? What evidence will guide us? What changes in instruction? Who might be left out? How will families understand the change? Teams then present to a mock board that asks hard questions. The strongest proposals can go to the real one.

Objectives

• Students will break a complex policy problem into parts and gather evidence from multiple stakeholders before proposing a solution.
• Students will draft a specific, ethical policy proposal that addresses the five-question check, including who might be left out.
• Students will present and defend their proposal clearly to a mock board, responding to questions with evidence.

Step by step

1. 10–12 min

   Hook

   Session 1: Read the old rules

   Students read the Harmon Creek policy on Handout A individually and mark each rule with a check (still works), a question mark (unclear today), or an X (outdated or unfair). Ask: "What does this policy assume about technology, about students, and about learning? What's missing entirely?" Collect answers on chart paper. Students almost always notice the policy never mentions AI and treats all devices as distractions.

   Facilitator notePoint out the policy's one strength (it names privacy). Good policy work starts by keeping what works.

2. 212–37 min

   Explore

   Session 1: Map the issue and the stakeholders

   Teams choose one issue (AI in coursework, phones and personal devices, student data privacy, or accessibility of digital tools) and build an issue map on chart paper: the problem in one sentence, its parts, who is affected, and what they'd need to know. Then teams read the six stakeholder voices on Handout A and add each stakeholder's concern to their map. Finally, teams write three questions to ask real stakeholders before Session 2, such as a classmate survey, a quick interview with a teacher, or a family member's view.

   Facilitator noteThis is systematic problem-solving (S5.1): break it down before solving it. Teams that jump to rules now will write weaker proposals.

3. 337–60 min

   Explore

   Session 1: Compare with the real policy

   Teams find what their own school's or college's current policy says about their issue and note gaps. If teams have devices, they look up the actual policy documents; otherwise, hand out the printed copies you gathered. Teams record: what the real policy says, what it doesn't say, and what their stakeholders are worried about that no policy addresses. Assign stakeholder interviews or surveys as homework, collecting no names or personal information.

   Facilitator noteRemind teams to report perspectives accurately and anonymously: "a ninth grader said…" rather than names.

4. 460–95 min

   Create

   Session 2: Draft the proposal

   Teams share what they learned from stakeholders, then draft their proposal on Handout B: a one-sentence vision, three to five specific policy statements written so a student could follow them, and the reason for each. Every statement must be something a person could actually do or check. Replace "Students should use AI responsibly" with "Students may use approved AI tools for brainstorming and feedback in any course unless the teacher's syllabus says otherwise, and must attach a disclosure when they do."

   Facilitator noteTeams tend to write bans. Ask: "What problem does this ban solve? What learning does it block? Is there a narrower rule that solves the same problem?"

5. 595–120 min

   Apply

   Session 2: The five-question check and red team

   Teams answer the five-question check on Handout B for their draft. Then pairs of teams red team each other: each team reads the other's proposal and plays the toughest board member, raising the strongest objection they can think of, especially on "Who might be left out?" (students without home internet, students with disabilities, emergent bilinguals, families who don't use email). Teams revise. Optional: students 13+ may ask an approved AI chatbot, "What are the three strongest objections to this policy?", then decide which objections are valid and which aren't, logging their reasoning.

   Facilitator noteIf a team uses AI for objections, ask them to name one objection the AI missed that a real stakeholder raised. Human voices remain the main evidence.

6. 6120–135 min

   Practice

   Session 3: Rehearse

   Teams prepare a 4-minute presentation (with or without slides) that states the problem, their evidence from stakeholders, the proposal, and how it passes the five-question check. Each member speaks. Teams rehearse once for another team, which gives one piece of feedback using Handout C's "Clear communication" row.

   Facilitator noteA printed one-page proposal the board can hold is often more persuasive than slides.

7. 7135–170 min

   Apply

   Session 3: The mock board hearing

   Seat the board. Each team presents for 4 minutes and then takes 3 minutes of board questions. Board members score with Handout C. Suggested board questions: "How will you know if this policy works?" "What would a teacher who disagrees say?" "How will a family who doesn't speak English learn about this?" "What happens the first time someone breaks this rule?" Teams not presenting fill in a quick note: one idea from this team they'd borrow.

   Facilitator noteAsk adult board members in advance to question respectfully and to praise specific evidence. Their questions model real leadership thinking.

8. 8170–180 min

   Reflect

   Session 3: Board feedback and next steps

   The board shares one strength from each proposal and names the two it would forward to real decision makers, with reasons. Each student writes a short reflection: "What did I learn about how rules get made, and whose voices are usually missing? What would I change in our proposal now?"

   Facilitator noteIf you promised to forward proposals, tell students exactly where they're going and when they'll hear back.

Adaptations

Higher Ed

In a first-year seminar, teams draft a student-voice proposal for the college's AI guidance and compare it with policies at two other institutions. Education-prep students draft a classroom AI policy for a grade level they plan to teach and present to practicing teachers.

Dual credit

Teams address the specific problem of courses where high school and college rules differ, and propose how students should be told which rule applies.

Shorter version (90 min)

Skip the stakeholder homework (use Handout A's voices only), combine drafting and the five-question check, and hold a short gallery-walk board hearing.

Emergent bilinguals

Invite teams to translate their one-page proposal into a family's home language, which directly addresses the fifth question on the check.

Pairs well with

• Generative AI Adoption ChecklistThe questions leaders consider before adopting AI, useful for teams to anticipate board questions.
• TCEA ELEs (PDF)The student and leader ELEs, including the ideas behind the five-question check.
• Digital Accessibility Readiness AssessmentHelps teams answer "Who might be left out?" for digital tools.