AI and the rules: who holds what

The facts behind this course

Every claim above is numbered to one of these records. Each gives the source’s own words where it can, the paragraph or section, and the date it was last read.

1. 01

   The DfE's "Using AI in education settings" materials are four modules and a leaders' pack, developed by the Chiltern Learning Trust and the Chartered College of Teaching, first published 10 June 2025 and updated 19 May 2026. They are free, ungated, under the Open Government Licence, and the DfE says they can also be adapted.

   “can also be adapted”

   Using AI in education settings: support materials, collection page. Dated 19 May 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

2. 02

   The DfE's staff module tells staff to follow their organisation's guidance on which tools are permitted, and stops there: nobody outside the school can write that guidance.

   “All staff should follow their organisation's guidance on which tools are permitted, particularly when it comes to student-facing AI tools.”

   Module 3 transcript (Using AI in education settings), page 7. Dated May 2026. Read 27 September 2026.

3. 03

   The DfE says schools and colleges are free to make their own choices about the most suitable use cases for generative AI tools in their settings.

   “are free to make their own choices about the most suitable use cases for generative AI tools in their settings”

   Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education, guidance text. Dated 12 August 2025. Read 28 September 2026.

4. 04

   Any content produced by generative AI requires critical judgement to check for appropriateness and accuracy, and the quality of any final document remains the responsibility of the professional who produced it and their organisation.

   “Any content produced requires critical judgement to check for appropriateness and accuracy”

   Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education, guidance text. Dated 12 August 2025. Read 28 September 2026.

5. 05

   Ofsted's inspection information for state-funded schools (for use from September 2026) says inspectors do not directly evaluate AI tools, there is no expectation that a school uses AI, and what they look at is the quality of decision-making about AI.

   “the quality of decision-making about AI”

   Inspection information for state-funded schools, for use from September 2026, the page, AI section. Dated 28 August 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

6. 06

   KCSIE 2026 does not require an AI policy, an AI strategy, a named AI lead, an AI training record, a stance on pupil use, or a ban on AI tools.

   Keeping children safe in education 2026, whole document. Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

7. 07

   KCSIE 2026 is statutory guidance, in force from 1 September 2026. Schools and colleges in England must have regard to it; it does not have the force of law in itself.

   “must have regard to it”

   Keeping children safe in education 2026, About this guidance, page 5. Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

8. 08

   A new explainer near the front defines nudes and semi-nudes for the whole document, and says the images may be digitally altered or wholly generated using AI, including deepfakes and deep nudes. Wherever KCSIE says nudes, it includes AI-made ones.

   “digitally altered or wholly generated using artificial intelligence, including what are sometimes described as 'deepfakes' or 'deep nudes'”

   Keeping children safe in education 2026, explainer on nudes and semi-nudes, page 6. Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

9. 09

   Contact risk now includes harmful online interaction with generative AI applications that simulate other users. KCSIE does not use the words "chatbot" or "companion".

   “being subjected to harmful online interaction with other users or generative AI applications that simulate this”

   Keeping children safe in education 2026, paragraph 165. Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

10. 10

    All staff should receive safeguarding and child protection training, including online safety and an understanding of their roles in filtering and monitoring, at induction, with updates as required and at least annually. The training paragraphs do not mention AI.

    “as required, and at least annually”

    Keeping children safe in education 2026, paragraphs 12, 153 and 154 (paragraph 12 points to 173 to 177 for filtering and monitoring). Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

11. 11

    The DSL should take lead responsibility for online safety, including understanding the filtering and monitoring systems and processes in place, and this should be in the job description. It is not a 2026 change: Annex C lists none.

    “understanding the filtering and monitoring systems and processes in place”

    Keeping children safe in education 2026, paragraph 127 and Annex B. Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

12. 12

    Governing bodies and proprietors have strategic leadership responsibility for their school's or college's safeguarding arrangements.

    Keeping children safe in education 2026, paragraph 84 (paragraph 87 on governor training). Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

13. 13

    Governing bodies and proprietors should ensure that a review of the effectiveness of filtering and monitoring is carried out at least once every academic year, by the SLT member responsible for filtering and monitoring with the support of the DSL and IT support, covering all internet-connected devices in all relevant locations, with a record kept of the checks. This is "should", and the consultation response says it adds no new requirement.

    “ensure that a review of their effectiveness is carried out at least once every academic year”

    Keeping children safe in education 2026, paragraph 173. Dated 7 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

14. 14

    JCQ calls it AI misuse when a candidate has used AI tools without properly acknowledging them and submits work that is not their own. Its examples include copying or paraphrasing AI output, using AI for parts of a task so the work no longer shows the candidate's own analysis, evaluation or calculations, and acknowledging AI poorly or not at all.

    AI Use in Assessments: Your role in protecting the integrity of qualifications, AI misuse (section on what constitutes misuse). Dated 30 April 2025. Read 28 September 2026.

15. 15

    Where AI use is allowed, the candidate references the tool by name, normally with the date the content was generated, and the sources the tool drew on; keeps a non-editable copy (such as screenshots) of the questions and prompts and of the AI output; adds a brief explanation of how it was used; and hands all of it in with the work. The coursework instructions for Project qualifications say the same.

    Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (GCE and GCSE) 2026/27, 4.3 (and jcq-coursework-instructions-2026). Dated September 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

16. 16

    For 2026/27, teachers must review all of a candidate's work and determine the mark it warrants regardless of the outcome of any AI tool, and the teacher remains responsible for the mark or grade awarded. AI must not be the sole or primary means of marking.

    “The teacher remains responsible for the mark/grade awarded.”

    General Regulations for Approved Centres 2026/27, 5.3(b) (NEA instructions 2026/27, 6.1, says the same). Dated August 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

17. 17

    The centre's malpractice policy must be reviewed and updated every year by a member of the senior leadership team, communicated within the centre, and must acknowledge the use of AI: what AI is, when it may be used, how it is acknowledged, the risks, and how misuse is treated. The clause is 5.3(x) in 2026/27; the AI document cites it as 5.3(z), its earlier number.

    “must also acknowledge the use of AI”

    General Regulations for Approved Centres 2026/27, 5.3(x). Dated August 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

18. 18

    Once the declaration is signed, the head of centre must notify the awarding body immediately on form JCQ/M1 of any suspected malpractice, and the awarding body decides the sanction, from zero for the piece of work up to disqualification. The M1 asks whether the AI information sheet was issued before the declaration was signed.

    Suspected Malpractice: Policies and Procedures, 4.5; the M1 form at Appendix 8. Dated September 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

19. 19

    Failing to report suspected malpractice is itself malpractice. Breaches of the assessment conditions are reported whenever they are found; concerns about the content of the work found before the candidate signs are dealt with under the centre's own procedures, with details recorded.

    Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (GCE and GCSE) 2026/27, section 9 (with jcq-suspected-malpractice-2026, 4.5). Dated September 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

20. 20

    Ofqual, alone, published "AI in coursework: resources for schools" on 9 March 2026: a senior leadership team briefing pack and a lesson plan. Its first action for leaders is "Speak to your exams officer". The page was updated on 7 September 2026 with no replacement materials.

    “Speak to your exams officer”

    AI in coursework: resources for schools, the page and the SLT briefing pack. Dated 7 September 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

21. 21

    For most personal data in a school the controller is, in the DfE's words, the school or the multi-academy trust.

    “the school or the multi-academy trust”

    Data protection in schools, Responsibilities. Dated 9 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

22. 22

    The DfE's data protection guidance for schools has a section on generative AI, updated 23 March 2026. It says to check with the DPO or IT lead before putting pupils' personal data into an AI tool, to make sure the data is protected and not used to further train the AI, to use only approved tools, to follow the product safety standards, and to describe any AI processing in the privacy notice. It never mentions a DPIA.

    “not used to further train the AI”

    Data protection in schools: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) and data protection in schools, the section. Dated 23 March 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

23. 23

    A DPIA is required before processing that is likely to result in a high risk to people's rights and freedoms, in particular where new technologies are used. It is not required before every tool that processes pupil data.

    “in particular using new technologies”

    UK GDPR, Article 35: Data protection impact assessment, Article 35(1). Read 28 September 2026.

24. 24

    The ICO's list of processing likely to be high risk starts with innovative technology, including AI, which needs a DPIA when combined with any other high-risk criterion from the European guidelines, such as vulnerable data subjects, which include children. The ICO's separate list entry on children is narrower: marketing, profiling, automated decisions, or offering online services directly to children.

    “including AI”

    Data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) guidance, When do we need to do a DPIA?; Examples of processing likely to result in high risk. Read 28 September 2026.

25. 25

    The ICO's AI guidance (updated 15 March 2023, under review) says that in the vast majority of cases the use of AI will involve processing likely to result in a high risk, so a DPIA is needed.

    “in the vast majority of cases, the use of AI will involve a type of processing likely to result in a high risk to individuals' rights and freedoms”

    Guidance on AI and data protection: accountability and governance implications, accountability and governance implications. Dated 15 March 2023. Read 28 September 2026.

26. 26

    A public authority must designate a data protection officer.

    UK GDPR, Article 37: Designation of the data protection officer, Article 37(1)(a). Read 28 September 2026.

27. 27

    Every maintained school, academy and college must appoint a data protection officer, because public authorities must designate one (UK GDPR Article 37(1)(a)).

    Data protection in schools, Role of data protection officers (with uk-gdpr-article-37). Dated 9 July 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

28. 28

    A personal data breach must be reported to the ICO without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours, unless it is unlikely to result in a risk to people's rights and freedoms.

    UK GDPR, Article 33: Notification of a personal data breach to the Commissioner, Article 33(1). Read 28 September 2026.

29. 29

    The DfE's product rules for generative AI are now "Generative AI: product safety standards". First published as expectations on 22 January 2025, they were renamed and extended on 19 January 2026 with new standards on cognitive development, emotional and social development, mental health, and manipulation.

    “to include new standards on cognitive development, emotional and social development, mental health, and manipulation”

    Generative AI: product safety standards, publication page, change history. Dated 19 January 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

30. 30

    The standards are written for edtech developers and suppliers; the DfE says schools and colleges may also find them helpful in assessing which AI products are safe for use in education. That is softer than "schools can use them to judge what is safe to buy".

    “These standards are for edtech developers and suppliers to schools and colleges. Schools and colleges may also find them helpful in assessing which AI products are safe for use in education.”

    Generative AI: product safety standards, introduction. Dated 19 January 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

31. 31

    An incident involving nudes or semi-nudes goes to the DSL as soon as possible. Staff must not intentionally view the image unless there is good and clear reason, and do not copy, print, share, store or save it, or ask a pupil to send or delete it.

    “must not intentionally view any nudes and semi-nudes unless there is good and clear reason to do so”

    Sharing nudes and semi-nudes: advice for education settings working with children and young people, initial response. Dated 11 March 2024. Read 28 September 2026.

32. 32

    JCQ does not require AI detection tools, names some as examples without endorsing them, and says their use should form part of a holistic approach to the authenticity of students' work, with all available information considered. A detector score is never proof on its own; JCQ does call detectors a useful part of the evidence, so "not accepted as proof of anything" overstates it.

    “The use of detection tools, where used, should form part of a holistic approach to considering the authenticity of students' work”

    AI Use in Assessments: Your role in protecting the integrity of qualifications, section 8, page 13. Dated 30 April 2025. Read 28 September 2026.

33. 33

    Ofqual's advice note to awarding bodies of 27 April 2026 says detection tools should be used as sources of evidence rather than as sole determinants, with the risk of false positives in mind.

    “should be used as sources of evidence rather than as sole determinants”

    Artificial intelligence malpractice and assessment: advice note, the note. Dated 27 April 2026. Read 28 September 2026.

34. 34

    Public First's poll for the report was an online survey of 4,021 people aged 11 to 24 in England, carried out from 18 to 27 August 2026, weighted by age, gender and region. "Secondary" means Years 7 to 11; "college" means college and school sixth form. Unweighted bases: 1,326 secondary pupils and 930 college and sixth form students unless a table says otherwise.

    AI in Education: polling tables (Public First for Seldon and Bunting), methodology sheet. Dated 22 September 2026. Read 27 September 2026.

35. 35

    13.2 per cent of secondary pupils and 24.9 per cent of college and sixth form students say a teacher has wrongly accused them of using AI.

    AI in Education: polling tables (Public First for Seldon and Bunting), Table 87. Dated 22 September 2026. Read 27 September 2026.