The School Readiness Feedback Loop

What is your school's current policy position on the use of generative AI tools — by staff, by pupils, or both — and how was that policy developed?

We are asking you to describe: (a) whether your school has a written policy on generative AI (not simply an acceptable use policy for technology generally); (b) whether that policy distinguishes between staff use and pupil use; (c) who was involved in developing it — and critically, whether teaching staff, a union representative, and a designated safeguarding lead contributed to its content; and (d) when it was last reviewed. If no specific generative AI policy exists, please describe how staff and pupils are currently being guided on AI use in the absence of formal policy.

Many schools have robust general technology policies that predate the emergence of large language model tools such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot. A policy written in 2021 that does not specifically address generative AI is not a generative AI policy. The absence of a specific policy does not mean AI is not being used — it means it is being used in an ungoverned environment. Understanding the current policy landscape allows us to identify where governance scaffolding needs to be built urgently.

How would you describe the current level of confidence and competence among your teaching and support staff in using AI tools for professional purposes — and what formal training, if any, has been provided?

We are asking you to reflect honestly on the distribution of AI capability across your staff — not just the enthusiasts, but the full range. Specifically: (a) What proportion of your teaching staff would you estimate have used a generative AI tool for professional purposes in the last term? (b) Has any formal, structured training been provided — as distinct from informal peer-to-peer sharing or self-directed exploration? (c) Does that training, if it exists, cover prompt construction, data grounding protocols, cross-referencing source material, and an understanding of how hallucinations occur? (d) Are there staff members who have expressed significant anxiety about AI, and how has the school responded to that concern?

Staff anxiety about AI is one of the most consistently underestimated barriers to effective adoption in the education sector. A computing lead who is enthusiastic and technically capable may not accurately represent the readiness of a colleague who trained as a primary school teacher twenty years ago and has no professional framework for evaluating AI outputs. Both staff members will be expected to use AI tools once they are formally introduced. Training provision that does not address the full range of staff starting points — including the anxious and the sceptical — will generate uneven adoption, inconsistent safeguarding practice, and potential professional risk for individual teachers.

What specific safeguarding considerations has your school identified in relation to pupil access to, or interaction with, generative AI tools — and what controls are currently in place?

We are asking you to describe: (a) whether your school has conducted a formal risk assessment specifically for generative AI tools used in educational contexts; (b) what age-appropriate guidance has been developed or adopted for pupils at different key stages; (c) how the school manages the risk of pupils using AI tools to generate content that is harmful, false, or plagiarised; (d) what controls exist to prevent pupils from accessing AI tools in ways that could expose them to inappropriate content, or that could result in the disclosure of personal information to an external AI system; and (e) whether your Designated Safeguarding Lead has received specific training or guidance on AI-related safeguarding risks.

Generative AI tools introduce a category of safeguarding risk that is genuinely novel and for which most school safeguarding frameworks were not designed. The risks are multidirectional: pupils can use AI tools to generate harmful content directed at peers; they can be exposed to AI-generated content that is inappropriate or false; they can be manipulated by AI-powered systems in ways that mimic grooming patterns; and they can inadvertently disclose personal information — their own or that of other pupils — into systems that are not governed by the school's data protection framework. These risks require specific, not generic, safeguarding responses.

This aligns directly with the Department for Education's updated safety and procurement benchmarks for generative AI in educational settings.

Has your school identified any specific training gaps relating to AI literacy — for staff, for pupils, or for parents — and what resources or support do you feel you most urgently need to address those gaps?

We are asking you to be direct about where your school feels least equipped. Specifically: (a) Are there curriculum areas where AI literacy has been identified as a gap in teacher subject knowledge? (b) Has any assessment been made of pupil AI literacy — their ability to critically evaluate AI outputs, understand AI limitations, and use AI tools responsibly? (c) Has any communication been issued to parents or carers about the school's approach to AI, and have parents raised concerns that the school has struggled to address? (d) What resources — whether funding, training, external expertise, or policy guidance — would most help your school make progress in the next academic year?

AI literacy is rapidly becoming a core professional competency for teachers and a foundational digital skill for pupils. Schools that do not address AI literacy gaps in the near term will find those gaps widen as AI tools become more embedded in everyday life and in higher education and employment contexts. Understanding where schools feel most under-resourced — whether that is subject-specific knowledge, safeguarding expertise, curriculum time, or simply clear national guidance — is essential for designing support that is targeted and practical rather than generic and aspirational.

If your school were to introduce a generative AI educational assistant — a tool designed to support pupil learning through personalised feedback, question-generation, or revision support — what would you need to see in place before you would be confident that its introduction was safe, appropriate, and beneficial?

We are asking you to articulate your conditions for responsible AI adoption from your position as a school leader. Specifically: (a) What evidence of efficacy and safety would you require before introducing an AI educational tool — and from whom would you expect that evidence to come? (b) What governance structures — parental consent processes, data processing agreements, staff training protocols — would need to be in place? (c) How would you ensure that the tool supports, rather than undermines, the professional role of the teacher? (d) What would a meaningful evaluation framework look like — how would you know, after one term or one year, whether the tool had been beneficial? And (e) are there specific pupil cohorts — those with SEN, looked-after children, EAL learners — for whom you would apply a higher or different threshold before introducing AI assistance?

This question serves a dual purpose. It surfaces the genuine leadership thinking of headteachers about responsible AI adoption — thinking that is often more sophisticated and more cautious than technology advocates assume. And it provides You & AI with the intelligence needed to design school-facing AI tools and support materials that genuinely address the conditions school leaders will require before adoption. An AI educational tool that is designed without reference to the conditions experienced school leaders would impose is unlikely to achieve sustainable adoption, regardless of its technical quality.