Updated 1 October 2026
"There is no adequate policy framework yet for the use of AI in schools, and yet [AI] is already here," Helen Hayes, chair of the Commons Education Committee, told Tes on 23 September. Her committee has been investigating AI and edtech since February; she says a framework is "urgently needed".
The same week, Sir Anthony Seldon and Tim Bunting's report with Public First said parents, teachers, governors, school leaders and pupils are "crying out for trusted guidance". On 8 September, Pip Sanderson of the National Institute of Teaching told MPs: "They are desperate for really clear guidance and advice around what to do."
England doesn't so much lack AI guidance as lack AI governance. The rules schools already follow are spread across DfE, JCQ, KCSIE and Ofsted documents that mostly say "you may wish to". Until a national framework arrives, it falls to SLT and heads of department to pull them together into one policy their staff actually understand, and that job can't wait.
The real gap is local
In the NEU's February survey of 9,408 teacher members, half of teachers (49%) said their school had no AI policy at all. Two-thirds (66%) said there was none covering student use, the same as in 2025.
A Bett/YouGov poll of 1,033 UK teachers in June found 48% said their school had no policy on staff use of AI, and 19% didn't know. Where one existed, only 18% said they understood it well.
In DfE's own December 2025 teacher panel, 34% of secondary teachers didn't know whether pupils had been given guidance on using AI.
If a third of staff don't know whether guidance exists, it isn't governing much yet.
Do schools need an AI policy?
There's no single legal requirement for a standalone AI policy. But most secondary schools already need written AI rules, because JCQ, statutory safeguarding guidance and Ofsted all assume they exist.
JCQ requires exam centres to have a malpractice policy that covers AI: "what it is, when it may be used and how it should be acknowledged, the risks of using AI, what AI misuse is and how this will be treated as malpractice."
Keeping children safe in education 2026, in force since 1 September, expects online safety to be "a running and interrelated theme" across policies, and this year adds guidance on generative AI.
Ofsted doesn't directly evaluate AI tools, but inspectors "may look at the school's or provider's policy on pupils' use of AI in lessons, or at home, to complete homework and coursework assignments".
DfE's leadership toolkit leaves the format open: weave AI into existing policies, or "you may wish to create an AI policy".
What has DfE said so far?
DfE's position is permissive and scattered. Schools are "free to make their own choices" about AI as long as they meet existing duties. There are supplier standards and free training; the principles promised for schools haven't appeared yet.
The policy paper, last updated in August 2025, sees "more immediate benefits and fewer risks from teacher-facing use of generative AI".
The product safety standards were expanded in January 2026 to cover cognitive, emotional and social development, mental health and manipulation. They're aimed mainly at suppliers, though schools "may also find these standards helpful".
Free training materials, developed with the Chiltern Learning Trust and the Chartered College of Teaching, were updated in May.
The February 2026 schools white paper promised "clear principles for the safe and evidence-based use of AI in education". As far as we can find, they haven't been published.
Using AI to mark regulated qualifications is a separate matter for Ofqual.
What should a school AI policy include? A checklist
At minimum, cover who may use AI and for what, which tools are approved, data and intellectual property, how pupils acknowledge AI in assessed work, safeguarding, training and review. DfE hasn't published a model policy, but its toolkit lists the areas.
Scope. DfE says schools may limit AI to teachers, to admin, or to "particular subjects, year groups or key stages", and should plan for "unauthorised use cases".
Approved tools. DfE's data protection guidance tells staff to "check that the type of tool being used is approved by your school". So someone keeps the list, and puts some plain questions about data to suppliers first.
Data and intellectual property. DfE recommends keeping personal data out of generative AI tools, and says pupils' original work must not train AI models without permission or a copyright exception.
Safeguarding. KCSIE 2026 now lists AI-generated images and "generative AI applications that simulate" harmful contact among online risks.
What JCQ says about AI in coursework and marking
JCQ tells pupils to name the AI tool, date its output and save screenshots of prompts and outputs. On marking, JCQ is explicit: "Where centres do permit AI tools to be used to mark student work, an AI tool cannot be the sole marker." Even for mocks, that's the line we design Excelas Learn around: AI supports the teacher's marking, it never replaces it, and a teacher reviews and owns every final mark.
Here heads of department matter. As JCQ tells candidates, "the rules are different for different assessments and subjects". The whole-school policy sets defaults; departments define acceptable use in their own NEA, coursework and homework.
What should leaders do before a national framework arrives?
Don't wait. Map what's already binding, write one short policy staff can explain, let departments set subject rules, and diary a review so a framework becomes an update, not a rewrite.
This term, run the audit in DfE's leadership toolkit and check your malpractice policy's AI wording against JCQ's guidance before NEA starts.
Brief staff and pupils so it's understood, not just written. Bett/YouGov's 18% is the number to beat.
Give it an owner. The toolkit suggests an AI steering group and a link governor for AI or digital technologies.
Check tools against the product safety standards and ask the procurement questions you'd ask of any system.
Then plan a review for when the committee reports.
If a national framework arrives this year, good. Schools that have already done this work will have less to change, and meanwhile their staff will know where they stand. Whatever the committee recommends, we'll be reading it closely.