This school year, AI isn’t just a buzzword — it’s part of the toolkit educators and students are using daily. AI is already reshaping the rhythm of school life.

, about 60% of teachers are already using AI for tasks like grading and progress assessments. Students are also using generative tools to brainstorm and develop essays and create study aids, while administrators are exploring automation to save time and reduce costs on tasks like budgeting, managing transportation routes, streamlining parent communications, and optimizing staffing schedules.

While AI offers tremendous potential, it also brings new ethical, legal and operational risks that few districts are fully prepared to handle.

 of U.S. states have created policies that define or regulate AI use, leaving the rest to navigate AI policy and governance without clear and defined direction. In the absence of federal guidance, many districts face uncertainty on how to encourage innovation while protecting students and promoting ethical use of these quickly emerging tools.

Written AI policies, developed and maintained by school boards, are no longer optional. They are mission critical for safeguarding our school communities, promoting responsible technology use and ensuring schools can safely harness AI’s full educational benefits.

AI governance falls directly within a school board’s purview: board members are responsible for setting strategic priorities, ensuring compliance with laws, and upholding transparency and accountability, all of which apply directly to AI use within the district. Yet many boards and educators feel underprepared to address these issues. A recent study 

 that only 18% of principals reported their school or district provided guidance on AI use, displaying a clear need for board preparedness. The technology’s complexity, speed of change and lack of precedent can make AI policy seem daunting.

However, the risks of inaction are even greater. Without written guidelines, districts leave themselves open to legal challenges, reputational damage and loss of stakeholder trust. From biased algorithms and privacy violations to academic dishonesty or accidental release of student data to free AI tools, schools without clear AI policies risk failing to protect their students, even as those students are using the tools.

Developing written AI policies ensures that districts can embrace the benefits of this technology responsibly and transparently. Clear policies also demonstrate to parents and the larger community that schools are proactively managing risks rather than reacting to them. In other words, AI in education is not just a risk to manage; it’s an opportunity to seize. When used thoughtfully, AI can make teachers’ workloads more manageable, help personalize learning, and streamline district and board operations.

The good news is that school boards don’t have to navigate AI policy development alone. Many state and national school board associations have already begun compiling guidance, templates, and best practices to help districts address the challenges and opportunities of AI. These resources are designed to align with existing governance structures and can serve as a practical starting point for boards looking to formalize their approach.

By tapping into what their association has already made available — whether it’s sample policies, legal briefings, or training modules — boards can accelerate their efforts and ensure consistency with broader educational standards and build upon their existing acceptable use and data privacy policies.

School boards can also build on these foundations by defining how AI aligns with or challenges any existing legislation and mandates at the state and local level. For example, a 

 that AI instructors be prohibited from classrooms in charter schools, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission has legislation on preventing the use of AI to make determinations regarding teacher employment, recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion, transfers and student evaluation.

Office of Educational Technology’s framework for AI policy

, which outlines four foundational principles for responsible adoption. First, schools should put people at the center, using AI to enhance outcomes for students, educators and parents, not to replace human oversight. Second, they should advance equity by evaluating AI tools for fairness and bias to ensure that all students benefit equally. Third, it’s essential to ensure safety, ethics, and effectiveness by prioritizing data privacy, security, and accuracy in every AI application. Finally, schools must promote transparency, requiring clarity around how AI models function and understanding their limitations to better anticipate risks and maintain trust within the community.

By grounding AI policies in these principles, school boards can create frameworks that are both adaptable and ethically relevant.

In this guide to safe and transparent AI governance in public education, learn how to streamline your AI policies and more.

Create an AI governance framework

The importance of agility and transparency

AI’s evolution and adoption are accelerating at breakneck speed. A written policy today may need revision six months from now, or maybe even sooner. School boards and districts must be ready to iterate quickly as new tools emerge, and regulations evolve. That means maintaining an agile governance process that enables frequent review and revision.

 which are commonly used in districts across the country to manage meetings and agendas, can also enable boards to collaboratively draft, revise, adopt and distribute policies efficiently.

As AI guidance changes, districts can quickly draft revisions and approve updates, ensuring consistent communication with the public and compliance as guidance evolves.

Transparency is also key. Parents, teachers, and students should understand not only what AI tools are being used but why and how. Providing clear communication about the district’s AI policies via your district website builds trust and demonstrates responsible AI governance.

Boards that take a proactive approach with AI policy today will be better positioned to protect our students, empower teachers, and lead their communities through the next wave of educational innovation. This means developing 

continuously investing in written AI policies that evolve alongside the technology and are supported by training and strong ethical frameworks. Otherwise, school boards open their communities up to the risks of improper AI usage.

As we look at the future of education, one thing is certain: schools that combine innovation with accountability will thrive. Written AI policies are the foundation for that balance, helping districts navigate new technology with confidence and integrity.

This blog post was previously published on 

Smart districts need smarter governance: The power of written AI policies

More than 120 investors, advisors and issuers convened in London on November 11 for the latest leg of the Diligent Market Intelligence Stewardship Series, hosted in collaboration with White & Case, Okapi Partners and Forward Global.

Over the three dynamic panels that kicked off the day, speakers explored how activism is evolving across the U.K. and Europe and what boards should expect next.

The event opened with the launch of DMI’s 

 report, sponsored by White & Case, and a clear message: U.S.-based activists are likely to continue dominating campaigns in the U.K. as the primary agitators.

“Homegrown activists are still a minority," said Tom Matthews, partner and head of EMEA activism, White & Case." The U.K. market is perceived as undervalued relative to the U.S. which makes it attractive." The discussion, moderated by DMI's Editor-in-Chief Josh Black, also highlighted that with various factors combining to make activist wins harder on their home turf, many U.S. players are looking across the Atlantic for new opportunities.

"With that combination of available capital, tougher conditions at home, and lower valuations in the U.K., I think we’ll continue to see more U.S. activists coming over here,” said Matthews.

The audience heard that M&A activism could be a defining theme in 2026 and noted that domestic U.K. activists are willing to adopt a more assertive, U.S.-style approach when needed – including more campaigns aimed at securing one or more board seats.

Address shareholder concerns before the activist strikes

The second session shifted the spotlight to board preparedness. The message from JP Morgan, Okapi Partners and Forward Global was unanimous: engage early and often.

“Too many companies do prep work and then put it in a drawer until the activist arrives. Understand where your shareholders sit, their concerns, their thinking, and whether that overlaps with what an activist’s thesis might be," Darren Novak, global co-head of shareholder engagement and M&A capital markets at JP Morgan, told delegates. "The most effective defence is to identify shareholder challenges and address them before the activist strikes.”

This sentiment was echoed by Patrick McHugh, co-founder and senior managing director, Okapi Partners, who advised issuers in the audience to talk to their shareholders early, communicate with confidence, and emerge stronger. “A few years ago, there was almost no dialogue unless there was an issue or a campaign. Companies are now starting to understand that they need to talk to their investors, explain what’s going on, and address any possible perception that nothing is happening,” he said. "You never want the first time you speak to an investor to be when you need their vote."

With the continued rise of first-time and occasional activists, companies were also advised to identify and assess potential activist approaches before they ever become public.

“A crucial part is intelligence and companies often underestimate this," explained Brendan Foo, partner at Forward Global. "When you’re dealing with first-time activists, you may not know how they think. The best approach is to start early. Ask yourself: If I were them, how would I approach this company and then build an understanding of how an objective third party would critique you. It's game changing."

In a candid discussion moderated by White & Case partner Patrick Sarch, Spur Value Partners’ Till Hufnagel pulled back the curtain on how activists identify opportunity and what his recently launched fund expects from boards.

Markets are increasingly impatient when it comes to even the slightest performance variations, he said, and while this can offer substantial opportunities for fundamental value driven investors, it also means companies should avoid vulnerabilities that could eventually invite activist pressure.

"In Europe, activists don’t show up with boxing gloves just for the sake of it. The goal is constructive engagement, not theatrics," said Hufnagel, adding that meaningful feedback on his thesis was the goal of sharing his plan with management.

However, for campaigns that do require escalation, boards were advised that activists will be prepared to follow through. “If you enter a fight, it’s important to see it through because the value of all investors, especially minority investors, is at stake. We try not to stop until we achieve our objective,” Hufnagel explained.

The second half of the invite-only event broadened the lens, focusing on the future of social stewardship in an AI-driven world, the next chapter of the U.K. Stewardship Code, and evolving expectations around executive compensation across the UK and Europe. Watch this space for more key takeaways from these expert discussions next week.

Speaking after the event, DMI Editor-in-Chief Josh Black thanked the more than 20 expert speakers who contributed to the day’s success: "Today’s panels have shone a light on the expectations investors of various stripes place on boards as stewards of their capital. Successfully executing on strategies to enhance shareholder value means persuading the company’s owners that good governance and oversight is in place and understanding your shareholder base is the first step on that journey."

The Stewardship Series' next stop will see the event return to New York in the first quarter of 2026. For more information on sponsorship opportunities, get it touch 

Delegates gather in London as DMI’s Stewardship Series examines Europe's evolving activism landscape 

Ten insights shaping boards in the year ahead

Boards entered 2025 facing rising risk, economic volatility, and an urgent mandate to modernize oversight. At Diligent, we recently hosted the Elevate Leadership Summit, a by‑invitation gathering of corporate directors and executives alongside a curated set of experts, for confidential, Chatham House Rule-style discussions to dissect these issues and look to the future of corporate governance.

Across sessions, a clear through‑line emerged: the most effective boards are shifting from moving from passive oversight to active, data‑driven governance with disciplined processes and human judgment at the center. Here’s what our expert speakers and experienced director attendees had to say about the trends to watch out for in 2026:

1) From passive to active GRC—augmented by AI

Active GRC is replacing passive oversight as directors confront increasing risk and low confidence in near‑term conditions. Speakers suggested augmenting teams with AI agents to handle foundational tasks and “ask the next question,” freeing leaders to focus on strategy amid resource constraints.

2) AI governance: Measure what people actually do 

The biggest AI risk isn’t only technical, it’s invisible usage. AI governance should incorporate real usage metrics, not just periodic sentiment surveys, and pair cultural encouragement (safe experimentation and knowledge‑sharing) with “lighthouse” projects that prove measurable value to employees and shareholders.

3) Culture oversight is expanding and needs better data

Board oversight of culture has outgrown legacy tools. Public trust continues to concentrate on employers and brands, and employees increasingly make choices based on societal beliefs. Activism is rising, and many boards still haven’t discussed company stances on social issues. Our speakers discussed the possibility of utilizing a broader range of anonymized unstructured data - such as employee intranet messages and chat data - into decisio useful insights, while ensuring individual employees aren’t being singled out or retaliated against for escalating concerns.

4) AI literacy and security remain non‑negotiable

Boards need AI literacy and strong cyber foundations; there’s no leapfrogging weak security into trustworthy AI. Keep a human in the loop, test for bias systematically (using available benchmarks), and consider experimenting with smaller models and improved licensing terms where they fit the use case and data‑governance needs.

Early red flags require pre‑defined protocols, not improvisation. The first 72 hours following a crisis event should trigger escalation playbooks, evidence preservation (including email freezes), independent counsel where appropriate, and non‑retaliation toward whistleblowers, all paired with board‑level visibility and documented independence.

Continuous monitoring (increasingly AI‑enabled) can surface fraud risk indicators earlier, narrowing the expectation gap around what audit and compliance actually do.

6) Speak‑up culture is a strategic asset

A speak‑up culture with higher hotline usage is a positive signal, but only if organizations close the loop, protect anonymity, and report metrics to the board. Leaders should be encouraged to normalize and celebrate reporting, which reduces fear and builds trust across the enterprise.

7) Board-executive dynamics are shifting under scrutiny

Executives are pushing for director refreshment, and more of them see boards overstepping compared to last year. Meanwhile, CEO turnover is up, with most U.S. departures described as unplanned. These themes raise the premium on preparedness, role clarity, and disciplined engagement between boards and management.

8) Succession planning must be continuous and robust 

Effective succession planning should be continuous and discussed at every meeting, with directors knowing the pipeline at least one level down and preparing for unexpected transitions – including mission-critical roles beyond the CEO.

The board chair’s (or independent lead director’s) role in tone‑setting and inclusion is pivotal. Boards can benefit greatly from periodic third‑party evaluations to raise effectiveness.

9) Executive compensation is evolving amid volatility

Executive compensation committees are recalibrating discretion, which allows boards to award compensation based not only on results, but qualitative assessment. COVID‑era lessons showed shareholders tolerate discretion in executive compensation when the rationale is strong and disclosure is clear.

Executive security as part of the compensation package is rising as a governance and risk issue; Policy and regulatory discussions happening at the SEC point to potentially simpler disclosures as early as the 2027 proxy season, while state‑level rules are reshaping proxy‑advisor practices.

10) Better questions and diverse composition strengthen oversight

Directors who ask, “What do I need to understand?” and “Do I have all the information?” sharpen risk oversight. Building formal and informal trusted channels with audit and compliance leaders can improve signal quality, while targeted training helps boards recognize fraud indicators. Evidence that boards with a broader range of perspectives are more effective highlights the value of having a well-balanced and diverse composition.

The year ahead will reward boards that operationalize judgment: clear protocols for crises, richer data streams on people and culture, pragmatic approaches to compensation, and step‑wise AI adoption that starts with the reality of how employees are using it. The common denominator is disciplined curiosity. The best directors will ask better questions, measure what matters, and adapt faster.

If these insights resonate with your board or leadership team, consider a structured review of your speak‑up mechanisms, succession playbooks, culture data sources, and AI governance metrics to ensure they’re meeting today’s pace of change. Then, pick one “lighthouse” initiative to prove value within the next two quarters and use the learning to scale.

Note: The Elevate Leadership Summit is an annual, by‑invitation gathering of corporate directors and CEOs, alongside a curated set of experts, for confidential, Chatham House Rule-style panel discussions.

Top board trends in 2026

This article originally appeared in our November 6 edition of the Diligent Minute Newsletter. For more insights like these, delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe

Cyber threats, AI disruption, and geopolitical instability are reshaping the audit landscape — and 4,000 audit leaders across 131 countries have weighed in. Whether you’re on the internal audit team, serving on your board’s audit committee, or working in partnership with them, the IIA’s 2026 Global Risk in Focus report has insights for you. This year’s edition reveals the key risk areas
to focus on and highlights how risk is changing across regions and sectors (with tips on how to achieve compliance with updated 

2026 Global Risk in Focus: Top risks for internal audit (Cybersecurity, AI, Geopolitics)

 remains the number one concern for organizations worldwide, with 73% of respondents naming it a top five risk. 

pronounced in North America and Europe, where more

than 80% of organizations put it at the top of their list.

, has seen the second largest jump in perceived risk with an increase of 9 percentage points year-over-year. Organizations are racing to implement new technologies,
but many are running into infrastructure and skills gaps.

3.Geopolitical uncertainty leapt 10 percentage points 

globally, now ranking sixth overall. North America saw the sharpest spike (up 19 points), driven by shifting U.S. trade policies and global conflicts.

4.Business resilience (47%) and human capital (43%) round out the top global risks.

 Organizations are feeling the pressure to shore up supply chains and crisis response capabilities. Meanwhile, talent shortages, wage competition, and generational shifts keep human capital risk firmly on the agenda. 

 Regulatory change (41%) is closely linked to geopolitical risk. Where political uncertainty is high, regulatory challenges follow.

How audit committees can close the risk-to-audit gap

I asked Curtis Warfield, experienced public company director, Audit Committee Chair, and former Chief Audit Executive, his thoughts on bridging the risk-to-audit gap. He outlined five steps:

“As an Audit Chair, I see the gaps as driven by limited expertise in emerging areas like AI and digital disruption, audits taking longer than planned, and the need to balance enterprise-wide coverage with limited resources.” says
Warfield. 

“It’s a risk–reward trade-off,” he goes on. “Sometimes management also has major deliverables in progress, which limits timing for audits. Audit committees can help by understanding these constraints, supporting skills development, and encouraging dynamic adjustments to the plan when new or fast-moving risks emerge.”

“Internal audit should not just police — it should partner,” says Warfield. “The key is alignment with senior leadership so internal audit can help ensure technology risks are managed without slowing innovation.” He adds, “Audit leaders should focus on being strategic partners, not just reviewers, and work closely with the business to embed technology risk considerations into
transformation projects from the start.”

Audit committees add the most value when they understand the process behind the audit plan. “Members should take time to learn how the ERM process connects to strategy and how audit allocates time across the risk
profile,” advises Warfield. “That understanding makes it easier to have meaningful dialogue about priorities. Regular communication and progress updates help keep the plan dynamic and aligned with emerging risks.”

4.Support advisory work while maintaining independence

“Tone at the top is critical,” Warfield emphasizes. “The audit committee and board chair can reinforce that internal audit’s role is not to police management, but to be a strategic partner while maintaining independence. It’s a delicate balance — audit must still provide objective assurance, but it can also offer valuable advisory input on AI governance,

, or scenario planning. Clear boundaries and communication make both roles possible.”

5.Build an agile, forward-looking partnership

Agility starts with alignment. “Everyone should understand the audit process, how it ties to enterprise risk and strategy, and how resources are deployed,” says Warfield. “The audit committee should be willing to adjust its agenda
throughout the year for new risks and ensure flexibility in hours and resources to respond to change. That’s how audit and the board can stay proactive and effective in uncertain environments.”

Looking to stay ahead of the curve on audit governance? Check out the 

IIA’s new Center for Audit Committee Leadership. 

The Center offers audit committee members tailored strategic advice, best practices, and educational resources to help ensure internal audit functions are effectively structured and integrated within your organization’s governance framework.

Diligent

Blog

Smart districts need smarter governance: The power of written AI policies

Delegates gather in London as DMI’s Stewardship Series examines Europe's evolving activism landscape

Your Data Matters