Written evidence by Mr Rhodri Smith (AIE0198)
Education Committee
The use of Artificial Intelligence and EdTech in Education inquiry
Submission prepared by: A senior cross-school leader responsible for digital innovation, teaching and learning across multiple London independent school settings. My core responsibilities include:
● developing digital and AI strategies alongside school-level guidance
● leading professional development to ensure staff use digital tools safely and effectively
● working closely with teachers, leaders and families to manage the practical realities of EdTech implementation
I am submitting evidence because discussions about AI and EdTech in education are too often polarised. They can become dominated either by optimism about what technology might achieve or by concern about what it might replace and the negative impact it has on children.
In schools, the reality is more practical. The impact of AI and EdTech depends less on the tool itself and more on the clarity of purpose behind its use, the quality of leadership, the confidence of staff, the strength of infrastructure, the robustness of safeguarding and a clear understanding of pupil needs.
1. Implementation, not adoption, is the core issue
The primary issue regarding AI and EdTech is rarely whether schools have access to digital tools. The more significant challenge is whether they have the conditions required to implement them well. Successful implementation depends on clear educational intent, leadership alignment and reliable infrastructure. It also requires staff training, safeguarding awareness and structured review processes. Too often, poor outcomes are attributed to the technology itself when they are in fact the result of weak implementation.
Recommendation: Government policy should place greater emphasis on implementation capacity, not simply on access, adoption or innovation, including providing structured national guidance on implementation models, evaluation frameworks and examples of effective practice across different school contexts.
2. Purpose should come before platform
AI and EdTech are most effective when introduced in response to a clearly identified educational need. The strongest use of digital tools happens where schools begin by asking clear questions: What is the learning goal? Which barrier are we trying to remove? What aspect of teaching or learning are we trying to improve? Technology is far less effective when adopted primarily because it is available, fashionable or assumed to offer efficiency.
Recommendation: Government guidance should encourage schools to articulate the educational purpose behind their use of AI and EdTech, supported by simple frameworks that require schools to justify how tools improve learning, inclusion or efficiency before adoption.
3. Infrastructure and strategic capacity remain uneven
Access to effective digital infrastructure and technical support remains inconsistent. Some schools and trusts have the strategic capacity to make informed decisions about platforms, implementation and security. Some others do not. In smaller settings, staff often lack specialist support and are expected to navigate procurement, infrastructure planning and risk assessment with limited expertise.
Recommendation: The government should strengthen support for schools in relation to digital strategy, secure procurement, infrastructure and implementation planning, including improving procurement processes. Schools can then more easily identify trusted, compliant tools, reducing duplication of due diligence and providing clearer national standards for EdTech and AI approval.
4. The role of the teacher remains central
Across all of the points in this submission, one principle remains constant: the role of the teacher or practitioner is central. AI and EdTech do not improve education in isolation. Their value depends on how they are selected, framed and used within human relationships, classroom routines and wider school systems. The strongest outcomes emerge when schools treat digital tools as part of a broader educational strategy, rather than as standalone solutions.
Recommendation: National policy should continue to reinforce the central importance of teacher expertise, professional judgement and human connection in any discussion of AI and EdTech, ensuring that guidance consistently positions AI as supporting, rather than replacing, professional practice. This should also be reflected within Ofsted frameworks, with a clear expectation that schools demonstrate a pedagogy-first approach to the use of digital tools through teaching, learning and leadership practices.
5. Opportunities for teaching and professional practice
AI and EdTech can support teachers in valuable ways. In practice, these tools can reduce time spent on lower-value administrative tasks, support lesson planning and resource design and help generate examples or scaffolds. This can create more space for teachers to focus on professional judgement, relationship building and responsive teaching. However, these benefits are only realised when staff understand both the strengths and the limitations of the tools they are using.
Recommendation: AI should be framed as a support for professional practice, rather than as a replacement for teacher expertise or decision-making, with clear national examples of safe and effective use cases for teachers across different phases and subjects.
6. Variation in staff confidence and readiness
Staff confidence in using AI remains uneven. Some teachers are keen to explore these tools but lack clarity about appropriate use, limitations and risk. Others remain cautious because they associate AI with workload, uncertainty, or a lack of sufficient training. In many cases, what appears to be resistance is actually a reflection of limited time and a lack of structured, practical guidance.
Recommendation: The government should support schools to provide ongoing, role-specific professional development that helps staff understand how to use AI safely and effectively within their own context, including funded CPD programmes and time allocation for training within the school year. This should also be included as part of teacher training.
7. Professional development must move beyond awareness
One-off awareness sessions are not enough. Staff need continuing professional development that is practical, phase-appropriate and rooted in real teaching contexts. This should include support with safeguarding, data protection, prompting, evaluation of outputs, subject-specific application and professional judgement.
Recommendation: AI-related CPD should be treated as an ongoing professional learning priority, rather than as a standalone briefing or one-off update, with national expectations for annual training and integration into existing professional development frameworks.
8. Digital literacy and AI literacy should be core educational priorities
Digital literacy in schools must now extend beyond traditional online safety messages. Pupils increasingly need structured support to understand how AI tools work, how outputs are generated, why those outputs may be inaccurate or biased and when it is appropriate to use them. They also need support to understand the wider ethical, social and cognitive implications of these technologies.
Recommendation: AI literacy and digital citizenship should be embedded explicitly within curriculum planning and wider school practice across all ages and the computing national curriculum should be reviewed and updated as a priority to reflect the rapid development of AI technologies and their impact on learning and society.
9. SEND, accessibility and inclusion must be central to the conversation
One of the most significant opportunities in this area is the role of EdTech in improving inclusion. Tools such as text-to-speech, dictation, screen readers, visual supports and alternative recording methods can improve participation, reduce frustration and increase independence. For pupils with SEND, technology may act not simply as a support, but as a primary means of accessing learning.
Recommendation: Accessibility should be treated as a foundational principle in national EdTech policy. SEND and inclusion should sit at the centre of implementation, not at the margins, with clear expectations that accessibility tools are available and routinely used where appropriate.
10. Inequality is shaped by more than device access alone
Digital inequality extends beyond whether a child has access to a device. It is also shaped by the strategic choices schools make, the quality of implementation, the accessibility of tools, the confidence of staff and the digital literacy of families. Without careful attention, AI may widen existing gaps rather than reduce them.
Recommendation: The government should adopt a broader view of digital inequality, addressing implementation quality, adult support, accessibility and digital literacy alongside hardware access, with targeted support for schools and communities where these gaps are most significant.
11. Assessment and demonstration of learning require renewed attention
The increased use of AI raises legitimate questions about the reliability of traditional assessment, particularly where work is completed outside the classroom. At the same time, digital tools can allow some pupils to demonstrate understanding more accurately than traditional methods permit. This is especially important where handwriting, spelling or recording demands mask what a pupil actually knows.
Recommendation: Government and exam boards should give further consideration to how assessment policy can respond to both the risks and the opportunities created by AI and accessible digital tools, including greater use of in-class assessment and alternative methods of demonstrating learning.
12. Safeguarding, data protection and professional judgement remain essential
As AI becomes more embedded in education, data protection and safeguarding cannot be treated as secondary concerns. Schools need to know how to evaluate tools in relation to pupil data, age appropriateness, transparency, bias and potential harm. Leaders also need confidence in deciding when not to adopt a tool. The safest and most effective use of AI depends on strong human judgement and clear boundaries.
Recommendation: The government should provide clearer, regularly updated, school-facing guidance on AI risk, safeguarding and responsible procurement and ensure that tools used in education are safe by design, including stronger regulation and restrictions on social media and technology companies where products are accessible to children.
13. Families need clearer communication and support
Many families do not fully understand how AI and EdTech are being used in classrooms. This lack of clarity can create understandable concern, particularly where school-based technology use is assumed to resemble passive screen use at home. Schools benefit from proactive communication. Families need to know which tools are being used, the educational rationale behind them and the safeguards in place to protect children.
Recommendation: Government and schools should place greater emphasis on supporting families to understand the purpose, boundaries and implications of AI in education, including the development of clear national guidance that schools can share with parents.
14. A clearer national framework for safe and consistent AI use is needed
At present, schools are making individual decisions about which AI and EdTech tools are appropriate, often with limited time and varying levels of expertise. This can lead to inconsistency in what is considered acceptable, particularly in relation to safeguarding, data protection and age-appropriate use. It also places a significant burden on school leaders to interpret risk without clear, standardised guidance.
Recommendation: The government should establish a clearer national framework for AI and EdTech use in education, including a regularly updated list of approved or compliant tools, minimum safety and data standards and guidance on appropriate use by age and phase, to support consistency, reduce risk and ease the burden on schools and this should be embedded within school monitoring processes such as book look cycles and quality assurance to ensure a consistent pedagogy first approach led by senior leaders.
May 2026