AI Ethics in Education: What Teachers Need to Know

AI tools raise ethical questions that most teachers have never needed to consider. When you use ChatGPT to draft a worksheet, who owns the output? When a pupil submits work through an AI marking platform, where does that data go? When an adaptive learning system decides a pupil needs easier material, is it helping or labelling? These are not abstract philosophical problems. They are decisions that UK teachers face every week, and the answers shape what kind of education pupils receive.

The Department for Education published its formal guidance on AI in schools in June 2025, establishing a framework that expects schools to balance the benefits of AI with clear ethical safeguards (DfE, 2025). This article translates that framework into practical decisions that classroom teachers and school leaders can act on immediately.

‍

The Five Ethical Dimensions

AI ethics in education is not a single topic. It covers five distinct areas, each with different implications for how you use AI in your classroom and your school.

Dimension	Core Question	School Responsibility
Privacy	Where does pupil data go?	Data Protection Impact Assessment for every AI tool
Bias	Does the AI treat all pupils fairly?	Regular audit of AI outputs across demographic groups
Transparency	Do pupils and parents know AI is being used?	Clear communication in school policy and parent letters
Autonomy	Are pupils developing thinking skills or outsourcing them?	Curriculum design that builds metacognitive independence
Accountability	Who is responsible when AI gets it wrong?	Teacher remains the accountable professional in all cases

These dimensions interact. A tool that is effective but not transparent creates accountability problems. A tool that is transparent but biased creates fairness problems. Ethical AI use requires attention to all five simultaneously.

‍

Data Privacy: The Non-Negotiable

Data privacy is the most immediate ethical concern because it has legal force. UK GDPR applies to all processing of pupil data, and schools are the data controllers responsible for compliance. When a teacher pastes pupil work into ChatGPT, that is a data transfer. When a school deploys an adaptive learning platform, that is data processing at scale.

The practical requirements are specific:

Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Required before deploying any AI tool that processes pupil data. The DPIA must document what data is collected, where it is stored, how long it is retained, and whether it is used for purposes beyond the school's intention (such as model training).

Data processing location. Tools that process data outside the UK must demonstrate compliance with UK adequacy requirements. Many popular AI tools, including the free tiers of ChatGPT and Google Gemini, process data globally. UK-based alternatives (such as Marking.ai) process data within the UK.

Model training opt-out. Some AI tools use submitted content to train future versions of their models. This means a pupil's essay could influence the AI's future outputs. OpenAI's enterprise and education tiers exclude data from training; the free tier does not. Teachers must check this before using any tool with pupil work.

Minimum necessary data. Only upload the data the tool needs. Remove pupil names, school identifiers and any personal details before submitting work to an AI tool. Use candidate numbers or initials instead. This reduces the data protection risk without affecting the tool's ability to provide useful output.

The DfE's 2025 guidance recommends that schools maintain a register of all AI tools approved for use with pupil data, updated annually and reviewed by the school's Data Protection Officer (DfE, 2025).

‍

Bias in AI Education Tools

AI tools learn from existing data, and existing data reflects existing inequalities. In education, this manifests in three specific ways that UK teachers should monitor.

Language bias. AI writing assessment tools are trained primarily on standard academic English. Pupils who write in regional dialects, code-switch between languages, or use culturally specific idioms may receive lower scores that reflect linguistic difference rather than academic weakness. Research on automated essay scoring in the United States showed systematic bias against African American Vernacular English (Bridgeman et al., 2012). Equivalent research on UK regional dialects is limited but the risk is structurally identical.

Length-quality conflation. Most AI grading systems correlate response length with response quality. A concise, well-argued 200-word answer may score lower than a rambling 400-word response that repeats the same point. This disproportionately affects pupils with SEND needs who may write less but with greater precision, and pupils who have been taught effective writing strategies like PEEL that produce structured, concise paragraphs.

Attainment gap reinforcement. Adaptive learning platforms that route lower-attaining pupils to easier content can create a ceiling effect. If the algorithm consistently provides simpler material, the pupil never encounters the challenge needed to progress. This mirrors the well-documented problems with rigid setting in UK schools (Francis et al., 2020), where placement in a lower set reduces exposure to higher-order thinking. AI differentiation must scaffold access to challenging content, not remove it.

The response is not to avoid AI tools but to build systematic bias checks into their use. Review AI-generated marks and feedback across demographic groups. Compare AI assessments with your own professional judgement. Where patterns emerge (a tool consistently underscoring EAL pupils, for instance), flag it and adjust your approach.

‍

Transparency with Pupils and Parents

Pupils and parents have a right to know when AI is being used in assessment and teaching. This is both an ethical principle and a practical one: trust in assessment depends on understanding how it works.

What to communicate:

A straightforward approach is a brief section in the school's assessment policy stating: "This school uses AI tools to support marking and resource preparation. AI-generated feedback is always reviewed by a teacher before being shared with pupils. No AI tool is used as the sole basis for any grade that contributes to reporting." This sets expectations without creating unnecessary concern.

Pupil understanding:

Pupils benefit from understanding what AI can and cannot do. A Year 9 class that knows their homework quiz was auto-marked by an AI tool can engage critically with the feedback: "The AI said my answer was wrong. I think my method was valid even though my answer differed from the expected one." This is metacognition in action: pupils evaluating the reliability of feedback rather than accepting it passively. Building AI literacy is part of preparing pupils for a world where they will encounter AI-generated content routinely.

Parental communication:

Parents do not need a technical briefing on AI architecture. They need reassurance that: (1) their child's data is handled securely, (2) AI supplements rather than replaces teacher judgement, and (3) the school has a policy governing AI use. A paragraph in the school newsletter or a dedicated section on the school website meets this need.

‍

Pupil Autonomy and Thinking Skills

The deepest ethical concern about AI in education is whether it builds or erodes pupils' capacity for independent thought. If AI generates the essay plan, checks the spelling, suggests improvements and produces revision materials, what cognitive work is left for the pupil?

Research on desirable difficulties (Bjork, 1994) suggests that struggle is not an obstacle to learning; it is a condition of it. When pupils wrestle with a problem, make errors, and work through confusion, they build stronger memory traces and deeper understanding than when the answer is presented fluently. AI tools that remove all friction from learning may inadvertently remove the conditions that make learning stick.

The practical question is where to draw the line. Using AI to generate a first draft teaches pupils nothing about writing. Using AI to provide feedback on a draft they wrote themselves builds their capacity for revision. Using AI to check factual claims teaches critical thinking. Using AI to generate the facts teaches recall without understanding.

AI Use	Builds Thinking	Undermines Thinking
AI provides feedback on pupil's own work	Yes: pupil evaluates and responds to feedback
AI generates the first draft		Yes: pupil skips the cognitive work of composition
AI generates retrieval practice questions	Yes: pupil engages with recall and spacing
AI summarises a textbook chapter		Yes: pupil bypasses comprehension and selection
AI offers scaffolding hints during problem-solving	Yes: pupil still does the reasoning with support
AI fact-checks a pupil's claims	Yes: pupil develops source evaluation skills

The principle: AI should support the learning process, not substitute for it. Use AI for the cognitive tasks that are genuinely low-value (formatting, surface error checking, resource generation) and preserve the high-value cognitive tasks (argument construction, evaluation, creative expression) for the pupil.

‍

Building a School AI Policy

The DfE recommends that every school has a written AI policy, and many Multi-Academy Trusts are now requiring one. An effective AI policy does not need to be lengthy. It needs to answer six questions clearly.

Policy Question	What to Include
Which AI tools are approved?	Named list of tools reviewed by DPO, with approved use cases for each
What data can be shared with AI tools?	No pupil names or identifiable data. Anonymised work only, via approved tools.
How is AI used in assessment?	AI for formative assessment only. All grades reviewed by teacher before recording.
What are pupils allowed to do with AI?	Clear rules by key stage. See academic integrity guidelines.
Who reviews the policy?	Named lead (often the computing lead or a deputy head), annual review cycle
What training do staff receive?	Minimum CPD requirement before using AI tools. Ongoing updates as tools evolve.

A one-page policy that answers these six questions clearly is more useful than a 20-page document that no one reads. The goal is a shared understanding across the school, not a compliance exercise. For guidance on creating your policy, see our guide to creating an AI policy for schools.

‍

AI Ethics in the Classroom

Beyond school policy, there is an opportunity to teach AI ethics directly as part of the curriculum. Computing and PSHE offer natural homes for this, but the principles apply across subjects.

KS2 (Ages 7-11): Introduce the concept that AI tools can make mistakes and that people need to check AI outputs. A Year 5 class can evaluate AI-generated text for factual errors, building both critical thinking and AI awareness. Frame it as: "The AI is a helpful tool, but it does not always get things right. Your job is to check."

KS3 (Ages 11-14): Explore bias in AI systems. A Year 8 class can test whether an AI writing tool gives different scores to the same content written in different styles or dialects. This teaches both AI literacy and awareness of systemic bias. Link to citizenship and critical thinking curricula.

KS4 (Ages 14-16): Examine the ethical implications of AI in society, including education. A Year 10 class studying GCSE Computing can analyse the data pipeline behind an AI marking tool: what data it uses, how it makes decisions, and where bias might enter. This connects to the computing curriculum's requirement to understand the "ethical, legal, cultural and environmental impacts of digital technology" (DfE National Curriculum).

These lessons serve a dual purpose: they build AI literacy skills that pupils will need beyond school, and they create informed users who can engage critically with AI tools rather than accepting their outputs uncritically.

‍

Environmental Considerations

AI systems consume significant computational resources. Training a large language model produces carbon emissions comparable to several transatlantic flights (Strubell et al., 2019). While individual queries have a small footprint, the cumulative impact of AI use across education is not negligible.

For schools, the practical implication is proportionality. Use AI where it adds genuine value (marking 30 quizzes, generating differentiated resources) rather than for tasks that are trivially accomplished without it (checking a single spelling, rewording a sentence). This is both an environmental and a pedagogical principle: if a task is simple enough that you do not need AI, doing it yourself is faster, cheaper and produces zero carbon emissions.

‍

Accountability: When AI Gets It Wrong

AI tools will make errors. An AI marking tool may misgrade an essay. An adaptive platform may route a pupil to inappropriate content. A chatbot may provide factually incorrect information. When this happens, the accountability sits with the school and the teacher, not with the technology vendor.

This is not different from any other teaching resource. If a textbook contains an error, the teacher is responsible for identifying and correcting it. AI tools are no different. The responsibility to review, verify and contextualise AI outputs rests with the professional who deploys them.

The practical safeguard is the "human-in-the-loop" model recommended by both the DfE and academic researchers (Kasneci et al., 2023). Every AI output that reaches a pupil passes through a teacher's review. Every AI-generated grade is verified before it enters a markbook. Every adaptive pathway is monitored for appropriateness. The AI accelerates the process; the teacher guarantees the quality.

‍

Starting Points for Your School

Implementing ethical AI use does not require a complete overhaul. Start with three concrete steps that any school can take within a term.

Step 1: Audit current AI use. Survey staff to identify which AI tools are already being used, how they are being used, and whether they have been reviewed by the DPO. Many teachers are already using ChatGPT or similar tools informally. The audit brings this into the open so it can be governed properly.

Step 2: Write the one-page policy. Using the six questions above, draft a policy that covers approved tools, data handling, and assessment use. Share it with all staff and include it in the staff handbook. Review it annually.

Step 3: Run one CPD session. A 30-minute session covering what AI tools can and cannot do, the school's approved tool list, and the data protection requirements. This does not need to be a full training day. A focused, practical session during a staff meeting is sufficient to establish a baseline of understanding.

For a broader overview of AI tools and their classroom applications, see our hub guide to AI for teachers. For assessment-specific guidance, see AI and student assessment. And for the related question of how pupils use AI in their own work, see our guide to AI and academic integrity.

‍

Further Reading