What the Profession Is Really Saying About AI in Schools

adamrichardjohnpub
Feb 18
4 min read

This week I had a constructive conversation with a senior national education body about artificial intelligence in schools. I will keep the individual and organisation confidential. What matters more than the names is the signal.

The signal is this: the profession is not asking whether AI will arrive. It is asking how it should be handled.

Across the system, three themes are emerging.

1. Teachers Do Not Want Hype. They Want Clarity.

There is very little appetite for grand claims about transformation. School leaders and classroom teachers alike are wary of exaggerated promises about workload reduction or instant impact on attainment.

What they want instead is clarity on:

What AI is actually good at
Where it is unreliable
How it should be governed
What professional boundaries look like

The most common anxiety is not job replacement. It is professional accountability. If a teacher uses AI support in planning or feedback, who carries responsibility? How do we ensure quality? How do we prevent dependency?

These are legitimate concerns. They deserve calm, structured responses rather than evangelism.

2. Workload Is the Entry Point

When unions and professional bodies discuss AI, workload surfaces almost immediately.

There is genuine interest in tools that reduce administrative friction, drafting time, or repetitive documentation. But there is also scepticism. Many staff have experienced “efficiency” tools that simply raise expectations.

If AI saves twenty minutes, will that time be protected, or will more be demanded?

This is where leadership matters. AI should be positioned as a tool for professional judgement, not as a productivity lever that increases pressure. Schools that get this wrong risk cultural damage.

3. Confidence Comes Before Classroom Use

Perhaps the most important insight is this: teachers need positive, low-risk experiences of AI before they will meaningfully integrate it into teaching and learning. If a teacher’s first interaction with AI is a safeguarding panic or a public mistake in front of students, confidence collapses. If, instead, their first experience is private, reflective, and professionally useful, confidence builds. That confidence is what allows teachers to guide students responsibly. To teach them where AI is strong. To teach them where it hallucinates. To teach them how to interrogate outputs rather than accept them. In other words, teacher experimentation is not optional. It is foundational.

Practical Suggestions for School Leaders

Based on these conversations, here are some grounded recommendations.

1. Separate Exploration from Policy

Give staff structured time to experiment with AI tools before finalising rigid policy. Exploration informs better governance.

2. Protect Professional Autonomy

Make clear that AI outputs are advisory, not authoritative. The teacher remains accountable. The professional judgement remains central.

3. Start with Professional Learning

Encourage staff to use AI for:

Planning refinement
Retrieval question generation
Meeting summary drafting
Coaching reflection

When teachers experience AI as a thinking partner, not a grading machine, scepticism softens into informed discernment.

4. Create Clear Guardrails

An AI policy for schools in the UK should address:

Data protection and GDPR
Safeguarding implications
Use of student data
Transparency with parents
Clear lines of accountability

If you are developing this at trust level, ensure consistency across schools. Fragmented approaches create confusion and risk.

You can read more about structured approaches to AI governance on the AI Strategy page and advisory support on the Consulting page.

A Note on Professional Learning

One reason I am optimistic is that, when teachers experience AI as a reflective tool rather than a surveillance mechanism, the response is often thoughtful and measured. Platforms such as Starlight were designed around this principle. Teachers upload a lesson recording and receive a private, coaching-style report focused on insight rather than grading. The emphasis is on professional reflection, not compliance. The positive experience of using AI in this way builds understanding of both its strengths and its limitations. That understanding is what ultimately equips teachers to guide students well.

Final Thought

The profession is not resistant to AI. It is cautious.

That caution is healthy. It signals professionalism.

If we want AI to be used responsibly in classrooms, we must first create the conditions for teachers to use it responsibly in their own learning. Confidence grows from experience. Discernment grows from reflection. And governance grows from leadership. AI in schools will not be shaped by the loudest voices. It will be shaped by the most thoughtful ones.

Adam Sturdee is a senior leader and co-founder of Starlight, the UK’s teacher-first AI-powered transcript-based coaching platform for educators. His work sits at the intersection of dialogic practice, instructional leadership and responsible AI strategy for schools and trusts.

He will be presenting his research on AI-supported coaching at the BERA Teacher Education and Development Conference 2026: https://www.bera.ac.uk/conference/bera-tean-conference-2026

He is also speaking at the annual gathering of the SOPHIA Network – European Foundation for the Advancement of Philosophy with Children: https://www.sophianetwork.eu