Ethical Transformational Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Governance in Secondary School Art Education: A Qualitative Case Study in Yogyakarta

Ethical Transformational Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Governance in Secondary School Art Education: A Qualitative Case Study in Yogyakarta | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Ethical Transformational Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Governance in Secondary School Art Education: A Qualitative Case Study in Yogyakarta Meilina Mira Sari This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9721460/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aims to analyse the leadership perspective on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta, map the perception of school leaders regarding AI use, identify the ethical standards needed in AI-based art learning, examine the mental and technical readiness of cultural arts teachers, and formulate an ethical leadership framework in AI governance in schools. Research was conducted in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta, involving school principals, deputy heads of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers as main participants, supported by the Special Region of Yogyakarta Education Office (DIY Education Office) and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum. A qualitative case study approach was used, combining class observations, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, Likert scale surveys of teacher readiness, analysis of school policy documents, and review of AI-generated student artworks. Key findings indicate: (1) Students in several high schools are using AI Image Generators in art assignments; (2) Most schools lack standard ethics regulations for AI use in learning; (3) Cultural arts teachers are uncertain about assessing the originality of AI-assisted student work; (4) School leaders consider AI a tool to be guided by educational values; (5) There is a gap between school leadership policies and classroom AI practices; and (6) Teachers' readiness for digital transformation in art learning varies. The study concludes that AI implementation in secondary arts education requires an ethical leadership framework integrating technology, policy, AI literacy, and protection of students' creative values. Educational Philosophy and Theory transformational leadership ethical leadership artificial intelligence arts education AI governance teacher readiness Figures Figure 1 I. Introduction AI significantly changes learning, school governance, and teacher-student interactions, including in secondary art education. Generative AI, such as AI Image Generator, is used by students to produce visual works quickly and easily, raising challenges about the line between human and machine creativity (Demartini, Sciascia, Bosso, & Manuri, 2024 ; Kamalov, Santandreu Calonge, & Gurrib, 2023). This is especially relevant in Yogyakarta, a city with a strong art ecosystem and historic creative education. While schools are adopting digital technology, implementing AI in art classes still prompts debates on originality, academic integrity, and assessment systems. Digital transformation is not just about technology use; it also demands school leadership readiness for shifts in organisational culture, policies, and educational ethics. Literature shows that transformational leadership guides institutional change, sparks innovation, and prepares schools for AI (Karaköse & Tülübaş, 2024 ; Mayokhi & Mwila, 2024 ). Ethical leadership ensures AI use in schools adheres to morality, justice, transparency, and student rights (Akingbola, 2025 ; Daamo & Arnejo, 2023 ; Davids, Camarero-Figuerola, & Camacho, 2025 ). Integrating AI in arts education requires governance focused on technology, character building, academic integrity, and sustaining human values. The problems that arise in the implementation of AI in arts education in secondary schools show that there is a gap between technological developments and the policy readiness and capacity of educational institutions. Based on the results of initial observations at 11 high schools in Yogyakarta, it was found that students began to use AI Image Generators in completing cultural arts assignments, while some teachers admitted that they had difficulty in determining the standards of assessment of the works produced with the help of AI. The teacher's statement that they were "confused about assessing originality if students use AI" shows an epistemological crisis in the process of evaluating art learning, which previously emphasised authenticity and personal expression. On the other hand, school leaders stated that "there are no standard rules in our school regarding AI ethics," which shows the weakness of institutional governance related to the integration of AI in the educational environment. This phenomenon is reinforced by the growing academic attention to the ethical issues of AI, as evidenced by the high public enthusiasm for the preprint of a previous study, which received around 180 views. The literature confirms that the use of generative AI in art education requires a clear policy framework regarding the originality of works, creative attribution, copyright, and academic integrity so that technology does not overshift the role of human creativity (Yan, Liu, & Chau, 2025 ; J. Zhang, 2025 ). In addition, AI governance in education must prioritise transparency, fairness, data protection, and social responsibility to ensure that the implementation of AI does not exacerbate inequality or bias in learning (Hasan, 2024 ; Keith, 2024 ; Stix, 2022 ). Thus, the issue of AI in arts education cannot be seen simply as a technology issue, but also as an issue of educational leadership, academic ethics, and cultural transformation of school organisations. The urgency of this research and service activity is increasingly important because secondary schools are currently in the transition phase towards the digitalisation of education, which is increasingly complex. The use of AI in arts education presents a new dilemma regarding the relationship between human creativity, technology, and learning evaluation systems. Cultural arts teachers are not only required to be able to operate digital technology, but also must understand aspects of AI ethics, academic integrity, and learning mechanisms that still respect students' creative processes. In this context, digital leadership is an important competency for school leaders to connect the vision of technology with the implementation of human-centred and equitable learning (Chua & Soo, 2023 ; Davids et al., 2025 ; Xie & Wang, 2023 ). The literature also emphasises that digital leadership is not only related to the technical ability to use technology, but also the ability to build a culture of innovation, improve teachers' AI literacy, and create transparent and accountable data governance (Roberts & Richardson, 2024 ; Xie & Wang, 2023 ). Conditions in the field show that some art teachers still feel threatened by the presence of AI because of concerns that technology can reduce the meaning of human creativity in art. In addition, there are still conservative views that consider AI to undermine the purity of art and threaten traditional aesthetic values. The situation shows that the implementation of AI in arts education requires a transformational leadership approach that is able to build collective awareness, reduce resistance to change, and develop a school culture that is adaptive to technological innovation. Therefore, this activity is very urgent to be carried out as an effort to build high school readiness in facing AI disruption in an ethical, adaptive, and sustainable manner. This activity was carried out in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta by involving school principals, vice principals of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers as the main subjects of the research. The selection of Yogyakarta as the location of the activity is based on the characteristics of the region, which has a strong identity as a cultural and educational city, so that the dynamics of AI integration in art education have a higher complexity than other general education contexts. Activity partners include the Special Region of Yogyakarta Education Office (DIY Education Office) and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, which have a strategic role in supporting the development of technology-based education policies at the secondary school level. The participant profiles were selected purposively by considering the principal's leadership experience of at least three years, the involvement of cultural arts teachers who actively use digital devices, and curriculum leaders who understand the school's digitalisation policy. The main focus of the activity was directed at the study of leadership styles, AI literacy, academic integrity in the arts, teacher readiness, and the development of school-based ethics policies. The literature shows that the successful implementation of AI in education is greatly influenced by the synergy between transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership, which can create a balance between technological innovation and the protection of human values in learning (Daamo & Arnejo, 2023 ; Davids et al., 2025 ; Karaköse & Tülübaş, 2024 ; Mayokhi & Mwila, 2024 ). In addition, teachers' readiness to understand AI is also an important factor in the success of technology integration because technical literacy without ethical awareness has the potential to lead to the misuse of AI in learning (Chua & Soo, 2023 ; Daamo & Arnejo, 2023 ; Mehta, 2025 ). Therefore, this activity is designed to produce a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between school leadership, AI literacy, and ethical governance in technology-based arts education. The main objective of this activity is to analyse the perspective of school leadership on AI ethics in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta. Specifically, this activity aims to map school leaders' perceptions of the use of AI in art learning, identify ethical standards required in AI-based art classes, examine teachers' mental and technical readiness in the use of AI, and formulate an ethical leadership framework for AI integration in secondary schools. This goal is in line with the need to develop technology-based educational governance that places humans at the centre of the digital transformation process. The literature emphasises that effective AI governance must be built through inclusive, adaptive, and ethical values-based policies so that the use of AI does not eliminate students' right to fair and meaningful learning (Akingbola, 2025 ; Moravec & Martínez-Bravo, 2023 ; Rigley, Bentley, Krook, & Ramchurn, 2023 ). In the context of arts education, the use of generative AI must also consider the protection of creativity, copyright, as well as clear attribution mechanisms for students' work to maintain academic integrity (Yan et al., 2025 ; J. Zhang, 2025 ). Therefore, this activity is not only oriented towards strengthening the capacity of school technology, but also towards building an ethical and leadership framework that is able to maintain a balance between digital innovation and humanistic educational values. In addition to producing academic recommendations, this activity is also designed as a practical contribution to support the development of school policies related to the use of AI in art education. The implementation of activities is carried out through several systematic stages, starting from the finalisation of AI ethics instruments, interviews with school leaders, art teacher readiness surveys, thematic analysis of qualitative data, and the preparation of scientific articles for preprint publications and reputable international journals. The research instruments included in-depth interview guidelines that focused on the vision of leadership ethics, a Likert scale-based technology readiness questionnaire, an analysis sheet of students' digital art portfolios, and field notes on learning observation results. The research procedure includes socialisation of AI concepts to schools, structured interviews, Focus Group Discussions between art teachers, school policy analysis, and triangulation with digital art ethicists. Documentation of activities in the form of interview transcripts, screenshots of AI-based artworks, voice recordings of school leaders, and photos of field visit activities was used to strengthen the validity of the research data. The empirical data collected included interview recordings from 11 school leaders, a survey of about 30 art teachers, school digital literacy policy documents, and the results of art learning observations. The data is then analysed to produce a categorisation of AI ethical dilemmas, the level of AI literacy of school leaders, a map of teacher readiness, and a transformational leadership model in the face of technological disruption. Thus, this activity is expected to be able to produce significant academic and practical contributions in the development of ethical, adaptive, and contextual AI governance in the secondary school arts education environment. II. Methodology This research method uses a qualitative case study approach with an evaluative-participatory orientation to analyse ethical transformational leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta. The design of the activity is focused on an in-depth exploration of the readiness of school leadership in dealing with the use of generative AI in art learning, especially related to issues of academic integrity, creativity, AI ethics, and technology-based school policies. The activity was carried out in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta with participants consisting of school principals, deputy heads of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers who actively use digital devices in learning, and involved the Special Region of Yogyakarta Education Office (DIY Education Office) and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum as institutional partners. The selection of participants was carried out purposively based on the criteria of leadership experience, involvement in school digitalisation policies, and direct involvement in technology-based art learning practices. The activity instruments included in-depth interview guidelines regarding the vision of AI ethics and school leadership, a Likert scale-based technology readiness questionnaire, an analysis sheet of students' digital artworks, observation field notes, Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guidelines, as well as documentation in the form of voice recordings, activity photos, and screenshots of AI-based works. The stages of implementing the activity began with the finalisation of AI ethics instruments and the socialisation of AI concepts to schools, followed by structured interviews with school leaders, surveys of art teacher readiness, the implementation of FGDs between cultural arts teachers, analysis of school policies related to the use of AI, to triangulation of results with digital art ethicists. Data collection techniques were carried out through art class observations, in-depth interviews, teacher readiness surveys, FGDs, school policy documentation studies, and AI-based student work portfolio analysis to obtain an empirical picture of the practice of using AI in schools. The evaluation analysis technique uses qualitative thematic analysis to identify leadership patterns, AI literacy levels, teacher readiness, and ethical dilemmas of the use of AI in arts education, which are then categorized into themes such as transformational leadership, ethical leadership, digital leadership, academic integrity, and teacher readiness as emphasized in the literature on AI governance and technology-based education leadership (Black, 2023 ; Chua & Soo, 2023 ; Davids et al., 2025 ; Karaköse & Tülübaş, 2024 ; Yan et al., 2025 ). In addition, the results of the evaluation were analysed to formulate an ethical leadership framework that can maintain a balance between technological innovation, student creativity, and the protection of human-centred learning values in secondary arts education (Daamo & Arnejo, 2023 ; Mayokhi & Mwila, 2024 ; Yin & Guo, 2024 ). III. Results (1) Participant Data and Active Involvement in Activities Research activities on ethical transformational leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school arts education were carried out in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta, involving school principals, vice principals of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers as the main participants. All participants were selected based on the characteristics that had been determined, namely, school principals with a tenure of more than three years, cultural arts teachers with a background in S1 or S2 arts education who actively use digital devices, and curriculum leaders who understood the school's digitalisation policy. The activity partners consist of the Yogyakarta Education Office and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, which play a role in supporting school coordination and facilitating the implementation of activities. The empirical data collected showed that there were recorded interviews from 11 school leaders, as well as survey data from around 30 cultural arts teachers. The activity also involved cultural arts teachers in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD), which discussed the practice of using AI in art learning, the assessment of students' work, and the need for AI ethics training in schools. Based on the documentation of the activity, participants were actively involved in the socialisation stages of AI concepts, structured interviews, filling out technology readiness questionnaires, group discussions, and analysis of school policies related to digital literacy. Activity records show that cultural arts teachers actively conveyed their experiences regarding the use of AI Image Generators by students in art assignments, while school leaders provided information on digitalisation policies and AI governance readiness in the school environment. In addition, active participation can also be seen from the involvement of participants in the data triangulation process with digital art ethicists to discuss the ethical limits of the use of AI in art education. (2) Field Observation Data and Empirical Conditions of Schools The results of field observations show that students at several high schools in Yogyakarta have started using AI Image Generators in the preparation of digital-based cultural arts assignments. The use of the technology is found in the form of digital visual works generated through the help of AI-based applications to create illustrations, visual designs, and aesthetic exploration based on generative AI. Observation notes show that there are differences in teachers' responses to the use of AI, where some teachers use AI as a medium of creative exploration, while others still show doubts about the originality aspect of students' work. In the observation of the art class, it was found that there was a discussion between teachers and students about the limits of the use of AI in the creative process and the assessment of works. Field documentation in the form of screenshots of AI-based student artwork shows that some students use certain prompts to generate visuals that are then manually re-edited. In addition, observations of the school environment show that schools in Yogyakarta already have access to computer laboratory facilities and digital devices that support the implementation of technology-based learning. However, field records also show that there is a difference in the level of readiness of schools in developing internal regulations related to the use of AI in art learning. Some schools have started discussing the ethics of using AI in school curriculum forums, while others are still in the stage of introducing AI concepts to teachers and students. The observation data also noted the conservative views of some teachers who stated that AI can affect the purity of the creative process of art and reduce the involvement of manual students in their work. (3) Interview Data and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) The results of interviews with cultural arts teachers show that there is confusion in the process of evaluating students' works using AI-assisted. One of the teacher's interview quotes stated, "I'm confused about judging originality if students use AI." The quote came up in a discussion about the difficulty of distinguishing between student creativity and the results of AI-based machine generation. In addition, interviews with school leaders show that most schools do not yet have standard rules regarding the ethics of using AI in art learning. One of the school's leaders stated, "There are no standard rules in our school regarding AI ethics." The statement came when discussing school policies regarding the use of AI generators in students' art assignments. In the FGD activity, cultural arts teachers conveyed the need for AI training that is not only technical but also discusses the ethical dimension and academic assessment. One teacher stated, "We need training, not just instruction." The statement was conveyed when discussing the need to strengthen teachers' capacity in dealing with changes in AI-based learning technology. Meanwhile, student reflections recorded in social context evaluations show that students want the freedom to experiment with AI but still expect their creative process to be appreciated by teachers. The student's quote states that they "want the freedom to experiment with AI but still value the process." In interviews with school leaders, there was also a statement that AI is seen as a tool that must still be controlled by the values of the character of education. One of the leaders stated, "AI is a tool, but character remains paramount." All excerpts of the interviews and FGDs were documented in the form of interview transcripts, voice recordings, and group discussion notes that were part of the research documentation. (4) Documentation of Activities and Evidence of Implementation The documentation of research activities consists of transcripts of interviews with school leaders, screenshots of AI-based student artworks, photos of school visit activities, voice recordings of interviews, notes of art class observations, and school policy documents related to digital literacy. Photo documentation shows the implementation of the socialization of the AI concept to teachers and school leaders in several high schools in Yogyakarta. In addition, there is documentation of structured interview activities conducted with principals and deputy heads of curriculum regarding leadership readiness in overseeing AI policies in schools. The audio recording of the interview shows a discussion of the integration of AI in art learning as well as the challenges of AI-based work assessment. The AI-based documentation of students' work shows the variety of uses of generative technology in the visual arts, from digital poster designs to artistic illustrations generated through the AI Image Generator application. The field notes also recorded FGD activities between cultural arts teachers who discussed AI ethics standards, academic integrity, and teachers' readiness to face changes in learning technology. Formal documents used in the activity include a research permit from the Education Office, informed consent of participants, and a statement of originality of the research manuscript. In addition, administrative documentation shows that research activities are supported by access to Scopus journals and Web of Science through UNNES, as well as the use of digital recording tools in the data collection process. All of this documentation is used as evidence of the implementation of activities, as well as supporting data in the research analysis process. (5) Quantitative and Qualitative Achievements of Activities Quantitative achievement data showed that the research successfully involved 11 school leaders and around 30 cultural arts teachers in the data collection process through interviews, surveys, and FGDs. In addition, the activity produced a collection of data in the form of recordings of interviews with school leaders, the results of art teacher readiness surveys, art class observation records, draft school policies related to digital literacy, and AI-based documentation of student artworks. The initial data of the study also showed that the previous preprint manuscript received around 180 views, which is one of the indicators of enthusiasm for the issue of AI in art education. In terms of qualitative achievements, the activity resulted in a categorization of AI ethical dilemmas in arts education, a map of the AI literacy level of school leaders, the identification of the mental and technical readiness of cultural arts teachers, and the mapping of the gap between the policy of leaders and the practice of using AI in the classroom. In addition, the activity also produced data on the views of school leaders on the importance of maintaining the character of education in the use of AI and the need for teachers to receive AI training that is more applicable and ethical. In the social context, data shows that there is a desire for students to still gain recognition for their creative process despite using the help of AI in their work. Supporting factors for the activity include the enthusiasm of young researchers for AI issues, the support of the Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, and the availability of computer laboratories in schools. Meanwhile, the inhibiting factors noted include the still conservative view of AI as a threat to the purity of the arts and the limited time of school leaders to participate in in-depth interviews. All of these achievements are documented in the form of empirical data, policy documents, survey results, interview transcripts, and observation notes, which are an integral part of the implementation of this research. IV. Discussion (1) Analysis of Findings Related to Transformational Leadership in AI Governance in Arts Education The results of the activity show that school leadership has a central position in directing Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school art education in Yogyakarta. This finding can be seen from the involvement of school principals, deputy heads of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers in the process of interviews, observations, and Focus Group Discussions (FGD), which highlight the need for school policy directions related to the use of AI in art learning. Empirical data show that most school leaders do not yet have standard regulations regarding the ethics of using AI, but they are beginning to realise that AI needs to be controlled through a leadership approach that considers aspects of character, academic integrity, and student creativity. The statement of school leaders that "AI is a tool, but character remains the main character" shows the existence of a human-centred leadership orientation in facing digital transformation in schools. These findings are in line with the literature on transformational leadership that explains that school leaders play a role in building organisational culture, directing institutional change, and creating an innovation climate that supports responsible technology integration (Karaköse & Tülübaş, 2024 ; Mayokhi & Mwila, 2024 ). In the context of this study, school principals are not only positioned as policy administrators but also as agents of change who determine the direction of the use of AI in art learning. The literature also emphasises that transformational leadership serves to build effective communication with education stakeholders and maintain a balance between technological efficiency and humanistic aspects of learning (Davids et al., 2025 ; Mehta, 2025 ). The findings of the study show that although schools have started to adopt AI Image Generators in art learning, school leaders are still in the early stages of formulating a systematic AI ethics policy. Thus, this activity shows that transformational leadership is the main foundation in building AI governance that is adaptive, contextual, and remains educationally value-oriented. (2) Analysis of Findings Related to Ethical Leadership and Academic Integrity The results of observations and interviews show that the use of AI in art education raises ethical issues related to the originality of works, academic integrity, and the mechanism of assessing student learning outcomes. Cultural arts teachers expressed confusion in assessing students' works made using AI, as can be seen from the interview excerpt, "I am confused about assessing originality if students use AI." The statement shows a dilemma between the recognition of student creativity and the concern about "machine plagiarism" in the process of creating artworks. These findings are in line with the literature on ethical leadership that emphasises the importance of transparency, fairness, accountability, and the protection of students' rights in the implementation of AI in schools (Akingbola, 2025 ; Daamo & Arnejo, 2023 ; Davids et al., 2025 ). In the context of art education, ethical issues are not only related to the use of technology, but also concern the value of originality, artistic expression, and copyright of works produced through human and machine collaboration. The literature on AI governance in arts education also affirms that generative AI demands clear evaluation guidelines regarding work attribution, verification of authenticity, and fair judging mechanisms for AI-based works (Yan et al., 2025 ; H. Zhang, 2025 ). The findings of the study show that schools do not yet have operational standards regarding the use of AI in students' art assignments, so teachers tend to use personal interpretation in the assessment process. This situation shows that there is a gap between technological developments and the readiness of school regulations in maintaining academic integrity (Gruenhagen et al., 2024 ; Holmes & Tuomi, 2022 ; Otero et al., 2023 ). In addition, the results of the FGD show that teachers need training that focuses not only on the technical aspects of the use of AI, but also on the ethics of AI and the mechanism of evaluation of digital works. Therefore, this study shows that ethical leadership is an important element in building AI governance that protects the value of students' creativity while maintaining academic integrity standards in high schools. (3) Analysis of Findings Related to Digital Leadership and Teacher Readiness Research data shows that schools in Yogyakarta have begun to adopt digital technology in art learning through the use of AI Image Generators, computer labs, and technology-based learning tools. However, the results of interviews and observations show that the readiness of cultural arts teachers in facing AI integration still varies. Some teachers show enthusiasm for AI as a medium of creative exploration, while others feel threatened or do not understand the mechanisms of using AI pedagogically. These findings are related to the concept of digital leadership, which emphasises the ability of school leaders to build a digital vision, lead technological transformation, and increase teacher capacity and culture of innovation in schools (Chua & Soo, 2023 ; Roberts & Richardson, 2024 ; Xie & Wang, 2023 ). In this study, teacher readiness is not only understood as the technical ability to use AI, but also includes mental, pedagogical, and ethical readiness in integrating AI into art learning. The teacher's statement that "We need training, not just instruction" indicates the need for more applicable and contextual sustainable professional development. The literature also emphasises that the development of AI literacy for educators is an important requirement for the success of AI implementation in schools, especially related to the ability to understand algorithmic bias, data privacy, and critical evaluation of AI output (Akingbola, 2025 ; Chua & Soo, 2023 ; Daamo & Arnejo, 2023 ). The results of the study show that schools have basic infrastructure that supports the use of AI, but not all teachers have adequate conceptual and pedagogical readiness to make optimal use of AI. In addition, the findings of the study show that digital leadership has not been fully institutionalised in school policies, so the use of AI is still partial and depends on individual teachers' initiatives. Thus, this study confirms that the success of AI governance in arts education is not only determined by the availability of technology, but also by digital leadership that is able to build a culture of AI-based learning systematically. (4) Significance of Research and Answers to Problem Formulation This research has strong significance because it is carried out in the context of secondary school art education in Yogyakarta, which is known as a cultural and educational city with a developing art ecosystem. This significance can be seen from the real phenomenon of using generative AI in students' art assignments, while schools do not yet have clear AI ethics regulations. This research answers the formulation of problems regarding how school leadership's perspective on AI ethics, how AI ethics standards are needed in arts education, how teachers are prepared to deal with AI, and how ethical leadership frameworks can be formulated for AI integration in schools. The answer to the first problem can be seen from the interview data, which shows that school leaders view AI as a tool that needs to be directed through character values and school policies. The formulation of the second problem is answered through findings regarding the need for AI ethical standards related to the originality of works, attribution, and AI-based art assessment mechanisms. The third problem formulation is answered through teacher readiness data, which shows the need for technical and ethical training in the use of AI. Meanwhile, the fourth problem formulation is answered through the identification of the importance of synergy between transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership in building school-based AI governance. The literature provided also reinforces that successful AI integration requires a leadership approach that balances technological innovation, ethics, and the development of school organisational culture (Chua & Soo, 2023 ; Davids et al., 2025 ; Karaköse & Tülübaş, 2024 ). Therefore, this research provides an empirical contribution on how secondary schools deal with AI disruption in the context of art education, which has a high sensitivity to the issues of creativity and originality. (5) Research Contributions and Practical Implications The contribution of this research lies in the development of an understanding of AI governance in arts education that combines aspects of transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership. This research shows that AI in arts education cannot be understood only as a technological tool, but must be placed within a governance framework that pays attention to academic integrity, student rights, and the value of human creativity. Other contributions can be seen from the mapping of AI ethical dilemmas in art learning, the identification of the level of AI literacy of school leaders, and the overview of the readiness of cultural arts teachers in dealing with changes in learning technology. This research also provides practical contributions in the form of school policy development needs related to the use of AI, AI-based artwork evaluation mechanisms, and strengthening AI literacy for teachers and school leaders. The practical implications of the research can be seen from the need for schools to develop operational guidelines regarding the use of AI in student assignments, including rules for attribution of works, transparency of the use of AI, and limitations on the use of generative AI in the evaluation of art learning. In addition, this study shows the need for an ongoing training program for cultural arts teachers that not only addresses the use of AI applications but also the ethical dimensions, data privacy, and academic integrity. The literature provided also emphasises that the implementation of AI in schools requires a human-centred approach that maintains a balance between technological efficiency and human interaction in the learning process (Black, 2023 ; Yang, Li, & Tong, 2023 ; Yin & Guo, 2024 ). This research also shows the importance of collaboration between schools, the Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, and local governments in building AI governance that is adaptive to the local context of arts education. Thus, the practical implications of this research could serve as a basis for high schools in crafting AI policies that are more contextual, ethical, and sustainable. (6) Research Limitations Based on Empirical Conditions This research has several limitations related to empirical conditions in the field, as listed in the table of research activities. One of the main limitations is that there is still a conservative view among some teachers who think AI can undermine the purity of art and reduce the value of students' artistic expression. This condition affects the openness of some participants in discussing the use of AI in more depth. In addition, the limited time of school leaders to participate in in-depth interviews is also an obstacle in the collection of broader data on AI governance policies in schools. This research was also conducted in the context of high schools in Yogyakarta, so that the results of the research are contextual and describe conditions in the cultural environment and certain educational ecosystems. Another limitation can be seen in the implementation stage of AI in schools, which is still in the early stages, so school policies related to AI ethics have not been fully formally documented. In addition, the use of teacher readiness survey data is still limited to around 30 cultural arts teachers, so it does not describe the overall condition of art teachers in the wider area. The research documentation also shows that the practice of using AI by students is still diverse and not entirely structured in the school's official curriculum. However, these limitations actually show that AI governance in arts education is still a growing issue and requires more in-depth follow-up research. Therefore, this research is the initial basis for understanding the dynamics of leadership, ethics, and teacher readiness in facing the integration of AI in secondary school arts education. V. Conclusion Research on ethical transformational leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta shows that the integration of AI in art learning has become a real phenomenon in the school environment, particularly through the use of AI Image Generators in student assignments. The main findings of the study show that schools in Yogyakarta are starting to enter the digital technology adaptation phase, but not all of them have clear regulations related to AI ethics, academic integrity, and AI-based art assessment mechanisms. Interview data shows that school leaders view AI as a tool that can support learning as long as it is guided by the values of educational character, while cultural arts teachers still face confusion in assessing the originality of students' works using AI. This study also found that there is a gap between school leaders' policies and classroom learning practices, especially related to standards for the use of AI, protection of student creativity, and teachers' readiness to face digital transformation. In addition, the results of observations and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) show that students want the freedom to experiment with AI but still expect their creative process to be fairly rewarded by teachers. Other findings show that school readiness in AI governance is influenced by a combination of transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership, which is reflected in the ability of school leaders to build a culture of innovation, technological ethics, and strengthen AI literacy in the arts education environment. The direct benefits of this research activity can be seen in the increasing awareness of schools regarding the importance of AI governance in art education, especially related to ethical issues, originality of works, and academic integrity. Interviews, observations, and FGDs provide a space for reflection for school leaders and cultural arts teachers to discuss the challenges of using AI and the need for clearer school policies regarding the use of technology in art learning. This research also provides benefits in the form of an initial mapping of the level of AI literacy of school leaders, the mental and technical readiness of cultural arts teachers, and the identification of ethical dilemmas that arise due to the use of generative AI by students. For the researchers, this activity provides learning about the importance of a human-centered approach in the implementation of AI in schools, especially in art education, which has a high sensitivity to the value of creativity and artistic expression. The researcher also gained empirical experience on how school organizational culture, teacher readiness, and technology-based education policies influence each other in the AI adoption process in secondary schools. In addition, the data triangulation process with digital art ethicists shows that the development of AI governance not only requires technological readiness but also requires readiness for values, ethics, and educational leadership. Based on all the research results, the program's sustainability recommendations are directed at developing a school policy framework regarding the use of AI in arts education that is more systematic, contextual, and ethics-based. Schools are advised to develop operational guidelines regarding the use of AI in student assignments, including rules related to work attribution, AI-based work evaluation mechanisms, and the protection of academic integrity. In addition, an ongoing professional development program is required for cultural arts teachers that includes AI literacy, AI ethics, data protection, and technology-based learning strategies. This study also recommends strengthening collaboration between schools, the Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, and the Yogyakarta Education Office in developing AI governance standards in secondary school arts education. The sustainability of the program is also directed at the publication of scientific articles through the Research Square preprint and international journals Q1/Q2, as planned in the research activities, so that the research results can make a wider academic contribution. In addition, the results of this research are planned to be an additional part of the dissertation to strengthen the development of technology-based educational leadership studies and AI governance in the context of secondary school arts education in Indonesia. References Akingbola A (2025) Post-Pandemic Era: Global Trends, Benefits, and Barriers in Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Public Health Education. Frontiers in Public Health , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1648970 Black J (2023) Past, Present and Tackling the Future of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education: Maintaining Agency and Establishing AI Laws. Open J Social Sci 11(07):442–464. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2023.117031 Chua CSK, Soo LMJ (2023) E-Leadership: Reconceptualising Teacher Leadership in the Singapore Digitised Educational Landscape. Asia Pac J Educators Educ 38(2):23–45. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2023.38.2.3 Daamo SE, Arnejo JM (2023) ICT Social and Ethical Competence of Secondary School Heads in the Division of Gingoog City. Int J Res Publications 129(1). https://doi.org/10.47119/ijrp1001291720235266 Davids AIR, Camarero-Figuerola M, Camacho MdM (2025) Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Artificial Intelligence in Educational Leadership: A Scoping Review. Rev Educ 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70101 Demartini CG, Sciascia L, Bosso A, Manuri F (2024) Artificial Intelligence Bringing Improvements to Adaptive Learning in Education: A Case Study. Sustain (Switzerland) 16(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031347 Gruenhagen JH, Sinclair PM, Carroll JA, Baker PRA, Wilson A, Demant D (2024) The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 7 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273 Hasan M (2024) Regulating Artificial Intelligence: A Study in the Comparison Between South Asia and Other Countries. Legal Issues Digit Age 5(1):122–149. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2024.1.122.149 Holmes W, Tuomi I (2022) State of the art and practice in AI in education. Eur J Educ 57(4):542–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533 Kamalov F, Calonge S, D., Gurrib I (2023) New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution. Sustain (Switzerland) 15(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612451 Karaköse T, Tülübaş T (2024) School Leadership and Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Recent Developments and Future Prospects. Educational Process Int J 13(1). https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.131.1 Keith AJ (2024) Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Southeast Asia. Global Policy 15(5):937–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13458 Mayokhi B, Mwila PM (2024) The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing Teacher Motivation and Managing Change in Secondary Schools in Kigamboni Municipality. Craj 01(06). https://doi.org/10.55677/craj/02-2024-vol01i6 Mehta N (2025) Not Replaced, but Reinvented: AI Education Pathways to Prepare Future Physicians to Lead Healthcare Transformation. Perspect Med Educ 14(1):849–859. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.2233 Moravec JW, Martínez-Bravo MC (2023) Global Trends in Disruptive Technological Change: Social and Policy Implications for Education. Horizon Int J Learn Futures 31(3/4):147–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/oth-02-2023-0007 Otero LC, Catalá A, Fernández-Morante C, Taboada M, López BC, Barro S (2023) AI Literacy in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review. Int J Stem Educ 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7 Rigley E, Bentley C, Krook J, Ramchurn SD (2023) Evaluating International AI Skills Policy: A Systematic Review of AI Skills Policy in Seven Countries. Global Policy 15(1):204–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13299 Roberts A, Richardson JW (2024) The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Schools: A Case of Policy Formation. J Cases Educational Leadersh 28(1):136–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554589241299320 Stix C (2022) Artificial Intelligence by Any Other Name: A Brief History of the Conceptualization of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Discover Artif Intell 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-022-00041-5 Xie Y, Wang N (2023) The Connotation Evolution and Enhancement Strategies of Digital Leadership in China’s Universities in the Context of Digital Transformation. Adv Educ Humanit Social Sci Res 8(1):221. https://doi.org/10.56028/aehssr.8.1.221.2023 Yan Y, Liu H, Chau T (2025) A Systematic Review of AI Ethics in Education: Challenges, Policy Gaps, and Future Directions. J Global Inform Manage 33(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.386381 Yang S, Li S, Tong C (2023) The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Teaching Methods in Art Subject Classrooms. J Artif Intell Pract 6(7). https://doi.org/10.23977/jaip.2023.060708 Yin L, Guo R (2024) An Artificial Intelligence-Based Interactive Learning Environment for Music Education in China: Traditional Chinese Music and Its Contemporary Development as a Way to Increase Cultural Capital. Eur J Educ 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12858 Zhang H (2025) Literary Writing and Ethical Issues in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. J Comput Methods Sci Eng 25(5):4539–4550. https://doi.org/10.1177/14727978251337920 Zhang J (2025) Artificial Intelligence Contributes to the Creative Transformation And Innovative Development of Traditional Chinese Culture. Int J Comput Experimental Sci Eng 11(1):516–522. https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.860 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryResearchInstrumentsSari2026.pdf Supplementary Research Instruments SupplementaryDataSurveyTeacherReadiness.csv Teacher Readiness Survey Data Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9721460","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":640688099,"identity":"97720714-2f3f-4a8d-84fb-058f58a73c24","order_by":0,"name":"Meilina Mira Sari","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3304-7909","institution":"Universitas Negeri Semarang","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Meilina","middleName":"Mira","lastName":"Sari","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-05-15 07:43:27","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9721460/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9721460/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109435360,"identity":"39731ef1-c97d-4317-a481-71cf9aae07dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:02:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1347488,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Transformational Leadership in AI Governance in Secondary School Art Education.\u003c/strong\u003e This diagram illustrates the integrated framework between top-down governance (DIY Education Office and School Leadership) and bottom-up readiness (Teacher AI Literacy and MGMP support) in managing AI integration within Yogyakarta's art education ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Screenshot20260515at14.57.49.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9721460/v1/66af163f113ac43d063f98cd.png"},{"id":109765643,"identity":"6d7a1a0f-1d0a-41c2-ba21-9e5103a733f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:43:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1404481,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9721460/v1/bb06a92b-268e-45bc-924f-1df3dab3853c.pdf"},{"id":109435358,"identity":"b0049de5-5267-4942-8991-8dc3e008c234","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:02:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19917,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Research Instruments\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryResearchInstrumentsSari2026.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9721460/v1/7cc22f1294ffc521cbd9292a.pdf"},{"id":109760208,"identity":"140790ae-2ff4-415f-a871-b07821d6a039","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:28:18","extension":"csv","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1538,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher Readiness Survey Data\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryDataSurveyTeacherReadiness.csv","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9721460/v1/3f0547765c0f794a9dcbd150.csv"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Transformational Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Governance in Secondary School Art Education: A Qualitative Case Study in Yogyakarta\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"I. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAI significantly changes learning, school governance, and teacher-student interactions, including in secondary art education. Generative AI, such as AI Image Generator, is used by students to produce visual works quickly and easily, raising challenges about the line between human and machine creativity (Demartini, Sciascia, Bosso, \u0026amp; Manuri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kamalov, Santandreu Calonge, \u0026amp; Gurrib, 2023). This is especially relevant in Yogyakarta, a city with a strong art ecosystem and historic creative education. While schools are adopting digital technology, implementing AI in art classes still prompts debates on originality, academic integrity, and assessment systems. Digital transformation is not just about technology use; it also demands school leadership readiness for shifts in organisational culture, policies, and educational ethics. Literature shows that transformational leadership guides institutional change, sparks innovation, and prepares schools for AI (Karak\u0026ouml;se \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;baş, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mayokhi \u0026amp; Mwila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Ethical leadership ensures AI use in schools adheres to morality, justice, transparency, and student rights (Akingbola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Daamo \u0026amp; Arnejo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Davids, Camarero-Figuerola, \u0026amp; Camacho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Integrating AI in arts education requires governance focused on technology, character building, academic integrity, and sustaining human values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe problems that arise in the implementation of AI in arts education in secondary schools show that there is a gap between technological developments and the policy readiness and capacity of educational institutions. Based on the results of initial observations at 11 high schools in Yogyakarta, it was found that students began to use AI Image Generators in completing cultural arts assignments, while some teachers admitted that they had difficulty in determining the standards of assessment of the works produced with the help of AI. The teacher's statement that they were \"confused about assessing originality if students use AI\" shows an epistemological crisis in the process of evaluating art learning, which previously emphasised authenticity and personal expression. On the other hand, school leaders stated that \"there are no standard rules in our school regarding AI ethics,\" which shows the weakness of institutional governance related to the integration of AI in the educational environment. This phenomenon is reinforced by the growing academic attention to the ethical issues of AI, as evidenced by the high public enthusiasm for the preprint of a previous study, which received around 180 views. The literature confirms that the use of generative AI in art education requires a clear policy framework regarding the originality of works, creative attribution, copyright, and academic integrity so that technology does not overshift the role of human creativity (Yan, Liu, \u0026amp; Chau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; J. Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, AI governance in education must prioritise transparency, fairness, data protection, and social responsibility to ensure that the implementation of AI does not exacerbate inequality or bias in learning (Hasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Keith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Stix, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the issue of AI in arts education cannot be seen simply as a technology issue, but also as an issue of educational leadership, academic ethics, and cultural transformation of school organisations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe urgency of this research and service activity is increasingly important because secondary schools are currently in the transition phase towards the digitalisation of education, which is increasingly complex. The use of AI in arts education presents a new dilemma regarding the relationship between human creativity, technology, and learning evaluation systems. Cultural arts teachers are not only required to be able to operate digital technology, but also must understand aspects of AI ethics, academic integrity, and learning mechanisms that still respect students' creative processes. In this context, digital leadership is an important competency for school leaders to connect the vision of technology with the implementation of human-centred and equitable learning (Chua \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Davids et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The literature also emphasises that digital leadership is not only related to the technical ability to use technology, but also the ability to build a culture of innovation, improve teachers' AI literacy, and create transparent and accountable data governance (Roberts \u0026amp; Richardson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Conditions in the field show that some art teachers still feel threatened by the presence of AI because of concerns that technology can reduce the meaning of human creativity in art. In addition, there are still conservative views that consider AI to undermine the purity of art and threaten traditional aesthetic values. The situation shows that the implementation of AI in arts education requires a transformational leadership approach that is able to build collective awareness, reduce resistance to change, and develop a school culture that is adaptive to technological innovation. Therefore, this activity is very urgent to be carried out as an effort to build high school readiness in facing AI disruption in an ethical, adaptive, and sustainable manner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis activity was carried out in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta by involving school principals, vice principals of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers as the main subjects of the research. The selection of Yogyakarta as the location of the activity is based on the characteristics of the region, which has a strong identity as a cultural and educational city, so that the dynamics of AI integration in art education have a higher complexity than other general education contexts. Activity partners include the Special Region of Yogyakarta Education Office (DIY Education Office) and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, which have a strategic role in supporting the development of technology-based education policies at the secondary school level. The participant profiles were selected purposively by considering the principal's leadership experience of at least three years, the involvement of cultural arts teachers who actively use digital devices, and curriculum leaders who understand the school's digitalisation policy. The main focus of the activity was directed at the study of leadership styles, AI literacy, academic integrity in the arts, teacher readiness, and the development of school-based ethics policies. The literature shows that the successful implementation of AI in education is greatly influenced by the synergy between transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership, which can create a balance between technological innovation and the protection of human values in learning (Daamo \u0026amp; Arnejo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Davids et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Karak\u0026ouml;se \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;baş, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mayokhi \u0026amp; Mwila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, teachers' readiness to understand AI is also an important factor in the success of technology integration because technical literacy without ethical awareness has the potential to lead to the misuse of AI in learning (Chua \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Daamo \u0026amp; Arnejo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mehta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, this activity is designed to produce a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between school leadership, AI literacy, and ethical governance in technology-based arts education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The main objective of this activity is to analyse the perspective of school leadership on AI ethics in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta. Specifically, this activity aims to map school leaders' perceptions of the use of AI in art learning, identify ethical standards required in AI-based art classes, examine teachers' mental and technical readiness in the use of AI, and formulate an ethical leadership framework for AI integration in secondary schools. This goal is in line with the need to develop technology-based educational governance that places humans at the centre of the digital transformation process. The literature emphasises that effective AI governance must be built through inclusive, adaptive, and ethical values-based policies so that the use of AI does not eliminate students' right to fair and meaningful learning (Akingbola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Moravec \u0026amp; Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Bravo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Rigley, Bentley, Krook, \u0026amp; Ramchurn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of arts education, the use of generative AI must also consider the protection of creativity, copyright, as well as clear attribution mechanisms for students' work to maintain academic integrity (Yan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; J. Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, this activity is not only oriented towards strengthening the capacity of school technology, but also towards building an ethical and leadership framework that is able to maintain a balance between digital innovation and humanistic educational values. In addition to producing academic recommendations, this activity is also designed as a practical contribution to support the development of school policies related to the use of AI in art education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implementation of activities is carried out through several systematic stages, starting from the finalisation of AI ethics instruments, interviews with school leaders, art teacher readiness surveys, thematic analysis of qualitative data, and the preparation of scientific articles for preprint publications and reputable international journals. The research instruments included in-depth interview guidelines that focused on the vision of leadership ethics, a Likert scale-based technology readiness questionnaire, an analysis sheet of students' digital art portfolios, and field notes on learning observation results. The research procedure includes socialisation of AI concepts to schools, structured interviews, Focus Group Discussions between art teachers, school policy analysis, and triangulation with digital art ethicists. Documentation of activities in the form of interview transcripts, screenshots of AI-based artworks, voice recordings of school leaders, and photos of field visit activities was used to strengthen the validity of the research data. The empirical data collected included interview recordings from 11 school leaders, a survey of about 30 art teachers, school digital literacy policy documents, and the results of art learning observations. The data is then analysed to produce a categorisation of AI ethical dilemmas, the level of AI literacy of school leaders, a map of teacher readiness, and a transformational leadership model in the face of technological disruption. Thus, this activity is expected to be able to produce significant academic and practical contributions in the development of ethical, adaptive, and contextual AI governance in the secondary school arts education environment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"II. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e This research method uses a qualitative case study approach with an evaluative-participatory orientation to analyse ethical transformational leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta. The design of the activity is focused on an in-depth exploration of the readiness of school leadership in dealing with the use of generative AI in art learning, especially related to issues of academic integrity, creativity, AI ethics, and technology-based school policies. The activity was carried out in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta with participants consisting of school principals, deputy heads of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers who actively use digital devices in learning, and involved the Special Region of Yogyakarta Education Office (DIY Education Office) and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum as institutional partners. The selection of participants was carried out purposively based on the criteria of leadership experience, involvement in school digitalisation policies, and direct involvement in technology-based art learning practices. The activity instruments included in-depth interview guidelines regarding the vision of AI ethics and school leadership, a Likert scale-based technology readiness questionnaire, an analysis sheet of students' digital artworks, observation field notes, Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guidelines, as well as documentation in the form of voice recordings, activity photos, and screenshots of AI-based works. The stages of implementing the activity began with the finalisation of AI ethics instruments and the socialisation of AI concepts to schools, followed by structured interviews with school leaders, surveys of art teacher readiness, the implementation of FGDs between cultural arts teachers, analysis of school policies related to the use of AI, to triangulation of results with digital art ethicists. Data collection techniques were carried out through art class observations, in-depth interviews, teacher readiness surveys, FGDs, school policy documentation studies, and AI-based student work portfolio analysis to obtain an empirical picture of the practice of using AI in schools. The evaluation analysis technique uses qualitative thematic analysis to identify leadership patterns, AI literacy levels, teacher readiness, and ethical dilemmas of the use of AI in arts education, which are then categorized into themes such as transformational leadership, ethical leadership, digital leadership, academic integrity, and teacher readiness as emphasized in the literature on AI governance and technology-based education leadership (Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Chua \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Davids et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Karak\u0026ouml;se \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;baş, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Yan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the results of the evaluation were analysed to formulate an ethical leadership framework that can maintain a balance between technological innovation, student creativity, and the protection of human-centred learning values in secondary arts education (Daamo \u0026amp; Arnejo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mayokhi \u0026amp; Mwila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Yin \u0026amp; Guo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"III. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(1) Participant Data and Active Involvement in Activities\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Research activities on ethical transformational leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school arts education were carried out in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta, involving school principals, vice principals of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers as the main participants. All participants were selected based on the characteristics that had been determined, namely, school principals with a tenure of more than three years, cultural arts teachers with a background in S1 or S2 arts education who actively use digital devices, and curriculum leaders who understood the school's digitalisation policy. The activity partners consist of the Yogyakarta Education Office and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, which play a role in supporting school coordination and facilitating the implementation of activities. The empirical data collected showed that there were recorded interviews from 11 school leaders, as well as survey data from around 30 cultural arts teachers. The activity also involved cultural arts teachers in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD), which discussed the practice of using AI in art learning, the assessment of students' work, and the need for AI ethics training in schools. Based on the documentation of the activity, participants were actively involved in the socialisation stages of AI concepts, structured interviews, filling out technology readiness questionnaires, group discussions, and analysis of school policies related to digital literacy. Activity records show that cultural arts teachers actively conveyed their experiences regarding the use of AI Image Generators by students in art assignments, while school leaders provided information on digitalisation policies and AI governance readiness in the school environment. In addition, active participation can also be seen from the involvement of participants in the data triangulation process with digital art ethicists to discuss the ethical limits of the use of AI in art education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(2) Field Observation Data and Empirical Conditions of Schools\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of field observations show that students at several high schools in Yogyakarta have started using AI Image Generators in the preparation of digital-based cultural arts assignments. The use of the technology is found in the form of digital visual works generated through the help of AI-based applications to create illustrations, visual designs, and aesthetic exploration based on generative AI. Observation notes show that there are differences in teachers' responses to the use of AI, where some teachers use AI as a medium of creative exploration, while others still show doubts about the originality aspect of students' work. In the observation of the art class, it was found that there was a discussion between teachers and students about the limits of the use of AI in the creative process and the assessment of works. Field documentation in the form of screenshots of AI-based student artwork shows that some students use certain prompts to generate visuals that are then manually re-edited. In addition, observations of the school environment show that schools in Yogyakarta already have access to computer laboratory facilities and digital devices that support the implementation of technology-based learning. However, field records also show that there is a difference in the level of readiness of schools in developing internal regulations related to the use of AI in art learning. Some schools have started discussing the ethics of using AI in school curriculum forums, while others are still in the stage of introducing AI concepts to teachers and students. The observation data also noted the conservative views of some teachers who stated that AI can affect the purity of the creative process of art and reduce the involvement of manual students in their work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(3) Interview Data and Focus Group Discussion (FGD)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of interviews with cultural arts teachers show that there is confusion in the process of evaluating students' works using AI-assisted. One of the teacher's interview quotes stated, \"I'm confused about judging originality if students use AI.\" The quote came up in a discussion about the difficulty of distinguishing between student creativity and the results of AI-based machine generation. In addition, interviews with school leaders show that most schools do not yet have standard rules regarding the ethics of using AI in art learning. One of the school's leaders stated, \"There are no standard rules in our school regarding AI ethics.\" The statement came when discussing school policies regarding the use of AI generators in students' art assignments. In the FGD activity, cultural arts teachers conveyed the need for AI training that is not only technical but also discusses the ethical dimension and academic assessment. One teacher stated, \"We need training, not just instruction.\" The statement was conveyed when discussing the need to strengthen teachers' capacity in dealing with changes in AI-based learning technology. Meanwhile, student reflections recorded in social context evaluations show that students want the freedom to experiment with AI but still expect their creative process to be appreciated by teachers. The student's quote states that they \"want the freedom to experiment with AI but still value the process.\" In interviews with school leaders, there was also a statement that AI is seen as a tool that must still be controlled by the values of the character of education. One of the leaders stated, \"AI is a tool, but character remains paramount.\" All excerpts of the interviews and FGDs were documented in the form of interview transcripts, voice recordings, and group discussion notes that were part of the research documentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(4) Documentation of Activities and Evidence of Implementation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe documentation of research activities consists of transcripts of interviews with school leaders, screenshots of AI-based student artworks, photos of school visit activities, voice recordings of interviews, notes of art class observations, and school policy documents related to digital literacy. Photo documentation shows the implementation of the socialization of the AI concept to teachers and school leaders in several high schools in Yogyakarta. In addition, there is documentation of structured interview activities conducted with principals and deputy heads of curriculum regarding leadership readiness in overseeing AI policies in schools. The audio recording of the interview shows a discussion of the integration of AI in art learning as well as the challenges of AI-based work assessment. The AI-based documentation of students' work shows the variety of uses of generative technology in the visual arts, from digital poster designs to artistic illustrations generated through the AI Image Generator application. The field notes also recorded FGD activities between cultural arts teachers who discussed AI ethics standards, academic integrity, and teachers' readiness to face changes in learning technology. Formal documents used in the activity include a research permit from the Education Office, informed consent of participants, and a statement of originality of the research manuscript. In addition, administrative documentation shows that research activities are supported by access to Scopus journals and Web of Science through UNNES, as well as the use of digital recording tools in the data collection process. All of this documentation is used as evidence of the implementation of activities, as well as supporting data in the research analysis process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(5) Quantitative and Qualitative Achievements of Activities\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative achievement data showed that the research successfully involved 11 school leaders and around 30 cultural arts teachers in the data collection process through interviews, surveys, and FGDs. In addition, the activity produced a collection of data in the form of recordings of interviews with school leaders, the results of art teacher readiness surveys, art class observation records, draft school policies related to digital literacy, and AI-based documentation of student artworks. The initial data of the study also showed that the previous preprint manuscript received around 180 views, which is one of the indicators of enthusiasm for the issue of AI in art education. In terms of qualitative achievements, the activity resulted in a categorization of AI ethical dilemmas in arts education, a map of the AI literacy level of school leaders, the identification of the mental and technical readiness of cultural arts teachers, and the mapping of the gap between the policy of leaders and the practice of using AI in the classroom. In addition, the activity also produced data on the views of school leaders on the importance of maintaining the character of education in the use of AI and the need for teachers to receive AI training that is more applicable and ethical. In the social context, data shows that there is a desire for students to still gain recognition for their creative process despite using the help of AI in their work. Supporting factors for the activity include the enthusiasm of young researchers for AI issues, the support of the Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, and the availability of computer laboratories in schools. Meanwhile, the inhibiting factors noted include the still conservative view of AI as a threat to the purity of the arts and the limited time of school leaders to participate in in-depth interviews. All of these achievements are documented in the form of empirical data, policy documents, survey results, interview transcripts, and observation notes, which are an integral part of the implementation of this research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"IV. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(1) Analysis of Findings Related to Transformational Leadership in AI Governance in Arts Education\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the activity show that school leadership has a central position in directing Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school art education in Yogyakarta. This finding can be seen from the involvement of school principals, deputy heads of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers in the process of interviews, observations, and Focus Group Discussions (FGD), which highlight the need for school policy directions related to the use of AI in art learning. Empirical data show that most school leaders do not yet have standard regulations regarding the ethics of using AI, but they are beginning to realise that AI needs to be controlled through a leadership approach that considers aspects of character, academic integrity, and student creativity. The statement of school leaders that \"AI is a tool, but character remains the main character\" shows the existence of a human-centred leadership orientation in facing digital transformation in schools. These findings are in line with the literature on transformational leadership that explains that school leaders play a role in building organisational culture, directing institutional change, and creating an innovation climate that supports responsible technology integration (Karak\u0026ouml;se \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;baş, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mayokhi \u0026amp; Mwila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of this study, school principals are not only positioned as policy administrators but also as agents of change who determine the direction of the use of AI in art learning. The literature also emphasises that transformational leadership serves to build effective communication with education stakeholders and maintain a balance between technological efficiency and humanistic aspects of learning (Davids et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Mehta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The findings of the study show that although schools have started to adopt AI Image Generators in art learning, school leaders are still in the early stages of formulating a systematic AI ethics policy. Thus, this activity shows that transformational leadership is the main foundation in building AI governance that is adaptive, contextual, and remains educationally value-oriented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(2) Analysis of Findings Related to Ethical Leadership and Academic Integrity\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of observations and interviews show that the use of AI in art education raises ethical issues related to the originality of works, academic integrity, and the mechanism of assessing student learning outcomes. Cultural arts teachers expressed confusion in assessing students' works made using AI, as can be seen from the interview excerpt, \"I am confused about assessing originality if students use AI.\" The statement shows a dilemma between the recognition of student creativity and the concern about \"machine plagiarism\" in the process of creating artworks. These findings are in line with the literature on ethical leadership that emphasises the importance of transparency, fairness, accountability, and the protection of students' rights in the implementation of AI in schools (Akingbola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Daamo \u0026amp; Arnejo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Davids et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of art education, ethical issues are not only related to the use of technology, but also concern the value of originality, artistic expression, and copyright of works produced through human and machine collaboration. The literature on AI governance in arts education also affirms that generative AI demands clear evaluation guidelines regarding work attribution, verification of authenticity, and fair judging mechanisms for AI-based works (Yan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; H. Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The findings of the study show that schools do not yet have operational standards regarding the use of AI in students' art assignments, so teachers tend to use personal interpretation in the assessment process. This situation shows that there is a gap between technological developments and the readiness of school regulations in maintaining academic integrity (Gruenhagen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Holmes \u0026amp; Tuomi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Otero et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the results of the FGD show that teachers need training that focuses not only on the technical aspects of the use of AI, but also on the ethics of AI and the mechanism of evaluation of digital works. Therefore, this study shows that ethical leadership is an important element in building AI governance that protects the value of students' creativity while maintaining academic integrity standards in high schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(3) Analysis of Findings Related to Digital Leadership and Teacher Readiness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch data shows that schools in Yogyakarta have begun to adopt digital technology in art learning through the use of AI Image Generators, computer labs, and technology-based learning tools. However, the results of interviews and observations show that the readiness of cultural arts teachers in facing AI integration still varies. Some teachers show enthusiasm for AI as a medium of creative exploration, while others feel threatened or do not understand the mechanisms of using AI pedagogically. These findings are related to the concept of digital leadership, which emphasises the ability of school leaders to build a digital vision, lead technological transformation, and increase teacher capacity and culture of innovation in schools (Chua \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Roberts \u0026amp; Richardson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, teacher readiness is not only understood as the technical ability to use AI, but also includes mental, pedagogical, and ethical readiness in integrating AI into art learning. The teacher's statement that \"We need training, not just instruction\" indicates the need for more applicable and contextual sustainable professional development. The literature also emphasises that the development of AI literacy for educators is an important requirement for the success of AI implementation in schools, especially related to the ability to understand algorithmic bias, data privacy, and critical evaluation of AI output (Akingbola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Chua \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Daamo \u0026amp; Arnejo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The results of the study show that schools have basic infrastructure that supports the use of AI, but not all teachers have adequate conceptual and pedagogical readiness to make optimal use of AI. In addition, the findings of the study show that digital leadership has not been fully institutionalised in school policies, so the use of AI is still partial and depends on individual teachers' initiatives. Thus, this study confirms that the success of AI governance in arts education is not only determined by the availability of technology, but also by digital leadership that is able to build a culture of AI-based learning systematically.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(4) Significance of Research and Answers to Problem Formulation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research has strong significance because it is carried out in the context of secondary school art education in Yogyakarta, which is known as a cultural and educational city with a developing art ecosystem. This significance can be seen from the real phenomenon of using generative AI in students' art assignments, while schools do not yet have clear AI ethics regulations. This research answers the formulation of problems regarding how school leadership's perspective on AI ethics, how AI ethics standards are needed in arts education, how teachers are prepared to deal with AI, and how ethical leadership frameworks can be formulated for AI integration in schools. The answer to the first problem can be seen from the interview data, which shows that school leaders view AI as a tool that needs to be directed through character values and school policies. The formulation of the second problem is answered through findings regarding the need for AI ethical standards related to the originality of works, attribution, and AI-based art assessment mechanisms. The third problem formulation is answered through teacher readiness data, which shows the need for technical and ethical training in the use of AI. Meanwhile, the fourth problem formulation is answered through the identification of the importance of synergy between transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership in building school-based AI governance. The literature provided also reinforces that successful AI integration requires a leadership approach that balances technological innovation, ethics, and the development of school organisational culture (Chua \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Davids et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Karak\u0026ouml;se \u0026amp; T\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;baş, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, this research provides an empirical contribution on how secondary schools deal with AI disruption in the context of art education, which has a high sensitivity to the issues of creativity and originality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(5) Research Contributions and Practical Implications\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe contribution of this research lies in the development of an understanding of AI governance in arts education that combines aspects of transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership. This research shows that AI in arts education cannot be understood only as a technological tool, but must be placed within a governance framework that pays attention to academic integrity, student rights, and the value of human creativity. Other contributions can be seen from the mapping of AI ethical dilemmas in art learning, the identification of the level of AI literacy of school leaders, and the overview of the readiness of cultural arts teachers in dealing with changes in learning technology. This research also provides practical contributions in the form of school policy development needs related to the use of AI, AI-based artwork evaluation mechanisms, and strengthening AI literacy for teachers and school leaders. The practical implications of the research can be seen from the need for schools to develop operational guidelines regarding the use of AI in student assignments, including rules for attribution of works, transparency of the use of AI, and limitations on the use of generative AI in the evaluation of art learning. In addition, this study shows the need for an ongoing training program for cultural arts teachers that not only addresses the use of AI applications but also the ethical dimensions, data privacy, and academic integrity. The literature provided also emphasises that the implementation of AI in schools requires a human-centred approach that maintains a balance between technological efficiency and human interaction in the learning process (Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Yang, Li, \u0026amp; Tong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Yin \u0026amp; Guo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This research also shows the importance of collaboration between schools, the Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, and local governments in building AI governance that is adaptive to the local context of arts education. Thus, the practical implications of this research could serve as a basis for high schools in crafting AI policies that are more contextual, ethical, and sustainable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(6) Research Limitations Based on Empirical Conditions\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research has several limitations related to empirical conditions in the field, as listed in the table of research activities. One of the main limitations is that there is still a conservative view among some teachers who think AI can undermine the purity of art and reduce the value of students' artistic expression. This condition affects the openness of some participants in discussing the use of AI in more depth. In addition, the limited time of school leaders to participate in in-depth interviews is also an obstacle in the collection of broader data on AI governance policies in schools. This research was also conducted in the context of high schools in Yogyakarta, so that the results of the research are contextual and describe conditions in the cultural environment and certain educational ecosystems. Another limitation can be seen in the implementation stage of AI in schools, which is still in the early stages, so school policies related to AI ethics have not been fully formally documented. In addition, the use of teacher readiness survey data is still limited to around 30 cultural arts teachers, so it does not describe the overall condition of art teachers in the wider area. The research documentation also shows that the practice of using AI by students is still diverse and not entirely structured in the school's official curriculum. However, these limitations actually show that AI governance in arts education is still a growing issue and requires more in-depth follow-up research. Therefore, this research is the initial basis for understanding the dynamics of leadership, ethics, and teacher readiness in facing the integration of AI in secondary school arts education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"V. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch on ethical transformational leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta shows that the integration of AI in art learning has become a real phenomenon in the school environment, particularly through the use of AI Image Generators in student assignments. The main findings of the study show that schools in Yogyakarta are starting to enter the digital technology adaptation phase, but not all of them have clear regulations related to AI ethics, academic integrity, and AI-based art assessment mechanisms. Interview data shows that school leaders view AI as a tool that can support learning as long as it is guided by the values of educational character, while cultural arts teachers still face confusion in assessing the originality of students' works using AI. This study also found that there is a gap between school leaders' policies and classroom learning practices, especially related to standards for the use of AI, protection of student creativity, and teachers' readiness to face digital transformation. In addition, the results of observations and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) show that students want the freedom to experiment with AI but still expect their creative process to be fairly rewarded by teachers. Other findings show that school readiness in AI governance is influenced by a combination of transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and digital leadership, which is reflected in the ability of school leaders to build a culture of innovation, technological ethics, and strengthen AI literacy in the arts education environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe direct benefits of this research activity can be seen in the increasing awareness of schools regarding the importance of AI governance in art education, especially related to ethical issues, originality of works, and academic integrity. Interviews, observations, and FGDs provide a space for reflection for school leaders and cultural arts teachers to discuss the challenges of using AI and the need for clearer school policies regarding the use of technology in art learning. This research also provides benefits in the form of an initial mapping of the level of AI literacy of school leaders, the mental and technical readiness of cultural arts teachers, and the identification of ethical dilemmas that arise due to the use of generative AI by students. For the researchers, this activity provides learning about the importance of a human-centered approach in the implementation of AI in schools, especially in art education, which has a high sensitivity to the value of creativity and artistic expression. The researcher also gained empirical experience on how school organizational culture, teacher readiness, and technology-based education policies influence each other in the AI adoption process in secondary schools. In addition, the data triangulation process with digital art ethicists shows that the development of AI governance not only requires technological readiness but also requires readiness for values, ethics, and educational leadership.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on all the research results, the program's sustainability recommendations are directed at developing a school policy framework regarding the use of AI in arts education that is more systematic, contextual, and ethics-based. Schools are advised to develop operational guidelines regarding the use of AI in student assignments, including rules related to work attribution, AI-based work evaluation mechanisms, and the protection of academic integrity. In addition, an ongoing professional development program is required for cultural arts teachers that includes AI literacy, AI ethics, data protection, and technology-based learning strategies. This study also recommends strengthening collaboration between schools, the Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum, and the Yogyakarta Education Office in developing AI governance standards in secondary school arts education. The sustainability of the program is also directed at the publication of scientific articles through the Research Square preprint and international journals Q1/Q2, as planned in the research activities, so that the research results can make a wider academic contribution. In addition, the results of this research are planned to be an additional part of the dissertation to strengthen the development of technology-based educational leadership studies and AI governance in the context of secondary school arts education in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkingbola A (2025) Post-Pandemic Era: Global Trends, Benefits, and Barriers in Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Public Health Education. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1648970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpubh.2025.1648970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlack J (2023) Past, Present and Tackling the Future of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education: Maintaining Agency and Establishing AI Laws. Open J Social Sci 11(07):442\u0026ndash;464. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2023.117031\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4236/jss.2023.117031\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChua CSK, Soo LMJ (2023) E-Leadership: Reconceptualising Teacher Leadership in the Singapore Digitised Educational Landscape. Asia Pac J Educators Educ 38(2):23\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2023.38.2.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21315/apjee2023.38.2.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaamo SE, Arnejo JM (2023) ICT Social and Ethical Competence of Secondary School Heads in the Division of Gingoog City. Int J Res Publications 129(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.47119/ijrp1001291720235266\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.47119/ijrp1001291720235266\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavids AIR, Camarero-Figuerola M, Camacho MdM (2025) Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Artificial Intelligence in Educational Leadership: A Scoping Review. Rev Educ 13(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/rev3.70101\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemartini CG, Sciascia L, Bosso A, Manuri F (2024) Artificial Intelligence Bringing Improvements to Adaptive Learning in Education: A Case Study. Sustain (Switzerland) 16(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su16031347\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su16031347\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGruenhagen JH, Sinclair PM, Carroll JA, Baker PRA, Wilson A, Demant D (2024) The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students\u0026rsquo; perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments. \u003cem\u003eComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHasan M (2024) Regulating Artificial Intelligence: A Study in the Comparison Between South Asia and Other Countries. Legal Issues Digit Age 5(1):122\u0026ndash;149. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2024.1.122.149\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17323/2713-2749.2024.1.122.149\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolmes W, Tuomi I (2022) State of the art and practice in AI in education. Eur J Educ 57(4):542\u0026ndash;570. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ejed.12533\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKamalov F, Calonge S, D., Gurrib I (2023) New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution. Sustain (Switzerland) 15(16). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su151612451\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su151612451\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarak\u0026ouml;se T, T\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;baş T (2024) School Leadership and Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Recent Developments and Future Prospects. Educational Process Int J 13(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.131.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22521/edupij.2024.131.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeith AJ (2024) Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Southeast Asia. Global Policy 15(5):937\u0026ndash;954. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13458\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1758-5899.13458\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayokhi B, Mwila PM (2024) The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing Teacher Motivation and Managing Change in Secondary Schools in Kigamboni Municipality. Craj 01(06). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.55677/craj/02-2024-vol01i6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.55677/craj/02-2024-vol01i6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMehta N (2025) Not Replaced, but Reinvented: AI Education Pathways to Prepare Future Physicians to Lead Healthcare Transformation. Perspect Med Educ 14(1):849\u0026ndash;859. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5334/pme.2233\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5334/pme.2233\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoravec JW, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Bravo MC (2023) Global Trends in Disruptive Technological Change: Social and Policy Implications for Education. Horizon Int J Learn Futures 31(3/4):147\u0026ndash;173. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/oth-02-2023-0007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/oth-02-2023-0007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOtero LC, Catal\u0026aacute; A, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Morante C, Taboada M, L\u0026oacute;pez BC, Barro S (2023) AI Literacy in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review. Int J Stem Educ 10(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRigley E, Bentley C, Krook J, Ramchurn SD (2023) Evaluating International AI Skills Policy: A Systematic Review of AI Skills Policy in Seven Countries. Global Policy 15(1):204\u0026ndash;217. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13299\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1758-5899.13299\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts A, Richardson JW (2024) The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Schools: A Case of Policy Formation. J Cases Educational Leadersh 28(1):136\u0026ndash;146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15554589241299320\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15554589241299320\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStix C (2022) Artificial Intelligence by Any Other Name: A Brief History of the Conceptualization of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Discover Artif Intell 2(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-022-00041-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s44163-022-00041-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie Y, Wang N (2023) The Connotation Evolution and Enhancement Strategies of Digital Leadership in China\u0026rsquo;s Universities in the Context of Digital Transformation. Adv Educ Humanit Social Sci Res 8(1):221. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.56028/aehssr.8.1.221.2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.56028/aehssr.8.1.221.2023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYan Y, Liu H, Chau T (2025) A Systematic Review of AI Ethics in Education: Challenges, Policy Gaps, and Future Directions. J Global Inform Manage 33(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.386381\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/JGIM.386381\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang S, Li S, Tong C (2023) The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Teaching Methods in Art Subject Classrooms. J Artif Intell Pract 6(7). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.23977/jaip.2023.060708\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.23977/jaip.2023.060708\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin L, Guo R (2024) An Artificial Intelligence-Based Interactive Learning Environment for Music Education in China: Traditional Chinese Music and Its Contemporary Development as a Way to Increase Cultural Capital. Eur J Educ 60(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12858\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ejed.12858\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang H (2025) Literary Writing and Ethical Issues in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. J Comput Methods Sci Eng 25(5):4539\u0026ndash;4550. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/14727978251337920\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/14727978251337920\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang J (2025) Artificial Intelligence Contributes to the Creative Transformation And Innovative Development of Traditional Chinese Culture. Int J Comput Experimental Sci Eng 11(1):516\u0026ndash;522. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.860\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22399/ijcesen.860\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Universitas Negeri Semarang","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"transformational leadership, ethical leadership, artificial intelligence, arts education, AI governance, teacher readiness","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9721460/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9721460/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e This study aims to analyse the leadership perspective on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in secondary school arts education in Yogyakarta, map the perception of school leaders regarding AI use, identify the ethical standards needed in AI-based art learning, examine the mental and technical readiness of cultural arts teachers, and formulate an ethical leadership framework in AI governance in schools. Research was conducted in 11 high schools in Yogyakarta, involving school principals, deputy heads of curriculum, and cultural arts teachers as main participants, supported by the Special Region of Yogyakarta Education Office (DIY Education Office) and Yogyakarta Cultural Arts Subject Teacher Forum. A qualitative case study approach was used, combining class observations, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, Likert scale surveys of teacher readiness, analysis of school policy documents, and review of AI-generated student artworks. Key findings indicate: (1) Students in several high schools are using AI Image Generators in art assignments; (2) Most schools lack standard ethics regulations for AI use in learning; (3) Cultural arts teachers are uncertain about assessing the originality of AI-assisted student work; (4) School leaders consider AI a tool to be guided by educational values; (5) There is a gap between school leadership policies and classroom AI practices; and (6) Teachers' readiness for digital transformation in art learning varies. The study concludes that AI implementation in secondary arts education requires an ethical leadership framework integrating technology, policy, AI literacy, and protection of students' creative values.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Ethical Transformational Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Governance in Secondary School Art Education: A Qualitative Case Study in Yogyakarta","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-18 06:02:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9721460/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6a9226ce-129e-4268-aaec-0f7b3c3a8cbb","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":68176060,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T06:02:24+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-18 06:02:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9721460","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9721460","identity":"rs-9721460","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}