AI Policy · Est. 2026
AI Policy Framework
your school can defend
DfEOfstedJCQICOKCSIE
The Pack · In Detail
Staff AI Acceptable Use Policy
- Approved and prohibited AI tools
- Pupil data red lines and data handling
- Accountability and oversight expectations
- AI safeguarding provisions
- Reporting and escalation procedures
Student AI Acceptable Use Policy
- Permitted use for learning vs assessed work
- AI acknowledgement and evidence requirements
- Clear consequences for misuse
- Student-friendly language throughout
- Covers GCSEs, A-levels, and BTECs
Assessment Integrity Policy
- JCQ M1/M2/M3 malpractice reporting
- AI detection and evidence preservation
- Candidate interview procedures
- Internal appeals process
- Head of Centre responsibilities
- Staff training expectations (JCQ §6.14)
Optional ongoing update service: we revise your pack as DfE, Ofsted, JCQ, and ICO guidance changes — so your policies don’t drift out of alignment between reviews.
Delivered in 5 working days. From £495.
Need something else? We’ll build any custom AI policy document for your school.
Most schools don't have an AI policy that covers what actually goes wrong
JCQ now requires schools to address AI use in coursework, NEA, and controlled assessments (AI Use in Assessments, Revision 2, April 2025). DfE, Ofsted, JCQ, Ofqual, and ICO have all published guidance — but it is spread across multiple bodies, updates at different times, and none of it gives schools a ready-to-adopt set of policy documents.
Head of Centre is personally liable
If AI malpractice goes undetected, JCQ can open a formal investigation against the Head of Centre personally — not just the school. That means potential sanctions, suspension from the role, and a mark on your professional record.
Heads of Centre
You sign the annual JCQ declaration personally. If AI malpractice goes undetected, sanctions fall on you — not your exams team.
The Assessment Integrity Policy maps every reporting obligation to named JCQ sections, with a defensible paper trail for the governors’ file.
School Business Managers
You need a supplier who delivers on time with a PO-ready quote — not a subscription or a platform that drags procurement into another cycle.
Formal quote, 5-day delivery, editable Word documents. No ongoing commitment. Everything your procurement team needs to raise the PO.
Exams Officers
You’ve been handed policy responsibility that should sit with senior leadership — but no one has told you what needs updating, where to find the latest JCQ requirements, or how to handle AI malpractice reporting.
Every procedure mapped out: M1/M2/M3 reporting, evidence preservation, internal appeals, and a source register so you can show leadership exactly what each section is based on.
Trust Leadership
You need consistency across schools, but each Head of Centre is individually accountable. One inconsistent policy, one missed update, becomes a trust-wide risk.
Trust-level documents with school adaptation notes and a single source register covering up to 5 schools. Same foundation, adapted for each.
DSLs & Safeguarding Leads
The KCSIE 2026 draft adds explicit AI and deepfake safeguarding language. Existing policies will need updating before September.
Staff and student policies include AI-specific safeguarding provisions aligned with KCSIE and DfE AI safety resources. Ready before the September cycle.
Five things your current policy probably misses
Regulatory facts most school AI policies do not yet address.
49% of schools have no AI policy for staff or students. 66% have no student-specific policy. Three-quarters of teachers are already using AI in their daily work — most without any formal guidance in place.
This pack gives your school a complete, source-referenced policy set — customised and ready to adopt, not a blank template to start from.
Ofqual’s Chief Regulator demanded stronger enforcement of AI malpractice requirements. Schools without updated procedures face formal investigation — and the Head of Centre carries that personally.
Free templates published before March 2026 do not reflect this. The Assessment Integrity Policy in this pack does — customised for your school.
Suspected AI malpractice identified after the declaration of authenticity must be reported immediately via Form M1. “Immediately” is the standard — failure to report in time is itself malpractice.
This pack includes the full investigation-to-reporting workflow, not just a policy statement.
Where management failings — including lack of training — lead to undetected AI misuse, JCQ can redirect sanctions from the student to the Head of Centre. That means formal proceedings, potential suspension, and a professional record that follows you.
The pack addresses training expectations, evidence retention, and reporting timelines — customised to your school’s staffing and governance structure.
The draft KCSIE 2026 adds explicit language on AI and deepfake safeguarding risks, and directs schools to DfE AI safety resources. Existing safeguarding policies will need updating before September.
Staff and student policies in this pack already include AI-specific safeguarding provisions. A dedicated AI Safeguarding Addendum is coming soon.
Inside each policy
A one-page summary ships with every document — ready for leadership teams, governors, and staff briefings.
- You are responsible for anything you produce using AI
- Never enter personal or confidential data into unapproved tools
- Only use approved tools where the school maintains a list
- Always review AI output before sharing or publishing
- Report concerns promptly through normal reporting routes
Covers permitted use, prohibited use, and role responsibilities
- Your work must be your own — AI can help you learn, not replace your work
- Follow your teacher's instructions on AI use
- Always acknowledge when you've used AI
- Keep evidence of prompts and outputs for coursework and NEA
- Rules apply to all qualifications: GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs
Written in student-friendly language with clear consequences
- AI misuse is malpractice — JCQ treats it like other cheating
- Staff must verify authenticity before accepting assessed work
- Head of Centre is personally accountable for compliance
- Suspected malpractice after declaration must be reported immediately via Form M1
- Clear internal appeals process for students
Covers JCQ M1/M2/M3 reporting, evidence preservation, and BTEC requirements
Going deeper
See how the pack handles a real scenario
Beyond the at-a-glance summary, here’s a real extract from the Assessment Integrity Policy — the full operational detail for what happens when AI misuse is suspected after a student has signed the declaration of authenticity.
Procedure where AI misuse is suspected after declaration of authenticity
JCQ states that candidate content-related malpractice identified after the declaration of authenticity has been signed must be reported to the relevant awarding organisation immediately, normally using Form JCQ/M1. No specific number of days is prescribed — the standard is “immediately” and failure to report in the time specified may itself constitute malpractice.
The report submitted to the awarding body must contain: a statement of facts with a detailed account of circumstances, an objective description of all information gathered, details of any exculpatory information or mitigating factors, transcriptions or written statements from candidates signed and dated in the candidate’s own words, and a summary of actions the centre will take to prevent recurrence.
Full document covers 21 sections plus appendices, with JCQ section references throughout.
How it works
Send an enquiry
Use the form below or email directly. Tell us your school name, which pack you need, and any specific requirements.
Receive a quote
A formal quote with a PO reference field, suitable for your school's or trust's procurement process.
Customise
Complete a short customisation checklist — school name, exam boards, qualification mix, approval owner, key contacts, governance structure. We build the pack around your school’s specific context.
Documents delivered
Editable Word documents and PDF reference copies within 5 working days, with a revision round included.
How this compares
Free resources
- Generic — not written for your school
- Usually one staff-use document only
- No JCQ M1/M2/M3 malpractice workflow
- No Head of Centre liability coverage
- No internal appeals process
- No source register or evidence trail
- No student-facing policy or governor summary
- No revision round — what you download is what you get
This pack
- Customised for your school’s context
- Three coordinated documents
- JCQ M1/M2/M3 reporting covered
- Head of Centre liability addressed
- Internal appeals process
- Source register included
- Student-friendly AUP
- Slots into your existing policy framework
- Revision rounds until it fits your school
Full consultancy
- Bespoke engagement
- £3,000–£8,000 per year
- Typically 4–8 weeks delivery
- Right for complex needs
- Ongoing engagement required
- Often scope-creep prone
Who built this
I’m Luke Thomas. I mapped every AI-related requirement from DfE, JCQ, Ofqual, and ICO into a single set of school-ready policy documents — cross-referencing 29 sources across 5 regulatory bodies.
Every provision in every document traces to a named source and section number. The source register is included with every pack, so your leadership team and governors can verify what each section is based on.
I built this service because I saw schools struggling with fragmented guidance and no practical way to turn it into board-ready policy. Every section is referenced to the specific published source it’s based on — DfE, JCQ, ICO, Ofsted — so your governors can see exactly where each requirement comes from.
What education professionals say
“As a school administrator with over twenty years’ experience in data management, examinations, and whole-school operations, I know how demanding policy work can be — especially with fast-moving areas like AI. This service streamlines everything from AI-specific guidance to wider school and exam policies, helping senior leaders and exams officers stay aligned with current guidance without spending countless hours rewriting documents. It brings clarity, efficiency, and real support to a process that can easily overwhelm.”
Ready when the next inspection asks
AI policy documents your school can put in front of inspectors, governors, and JCQ — source-referenced and delivered in 5 working days.
Choose the level of support that fits
Starter Pack
Source-referenced documents customised to your school — ready to adopt, not rewrite.
- Three coordinated policy documents (Staff AUP, Student AUP, Assessment Integrity)
- At-a-glance summary for each policy
- Source register and delivery notes
- School-specific customisation checklist
- 1 round of revisions
- 5-day target delivery
School Plus
Fully adapted to your context with a review call, two revision rounds, and implementation support.
- Everything in Starter Pack
- 45-minute review call
- 2 rounds of revisions
- Leadership implementation notes
- Governor or trustee summary note
Trust Pack
Trust-level documents customised for each school in your trust, with adaptation notes and a single source register. Covers up to 5 schools.
- Trust-level policy documents
- School adaptation notes
- 45-minute review call
- 2 rounds of revisions
- Central source register and delivery notes
Every pack includes revision rounds — we keep working until the documents fit your school. Editable Word documents plus PDF reference copies.
Frequently asked questions
How is this different from free AI policy resources?
Free resources are generic documents written for no school in particular. They don’t carry your school name, they don’t reflect your exam board mix, and they don’t include a revision round to make sure the documents actually fit your setting. This pack is different: three coordinated policy documents customised for your school, a source register, JCQ malpractice reporting procedures, an internal appeals process, and revision rounds until the documents work for you. It is designed as a complete operational starting point, not a template you then have to rewrite.
How does this fit with our existing policies?
The documents are designed to sit alongside your existing safeguarding, data protection, behaviour, and assessment policies — not replace them. Cross-references are included where AI provisions connect to existing policy areas, so your governance structure stays coherent.
Can I adapt the documents for my school's context?
Yes — that's the point. Documents are provided in editable Word format with guidance notes to support adaptation to your setting.
Does this cover BTECs and vocational qualifications?
Yes. The Assessment Integrity Policy is structured around JCQ requirements (GCSEs and A-levels) and also references Pearson BTEC authentication and internal verification procedures, verified against the current BTEC Centre Guide to Internal Assessment (v3.1, 2025–26). OCR Cambridge Technicals are referenced at a general level. If your school delivers a mixed qualification offer and needs deeper vocational coverage, get in touch.
How current is the guidance?
Each document states its reference date. The pack reflects published guidance current as of that date. An ongoing update service may be offered in future.
Is this suitable for primary schools?
This pack is written primarily for secondary schools and assessment settings. Primary schools may find the staff-use and governance elements helpful, but the pupil-facing materials are not written for primary or EYFS use without further adaptation. If you are unsure whether the pack fits your setting, get in touch.
What does the service not cover?
This service provides practical policy documents and source-referenced drafting support. It does not provide legal advice, vendor due diligence, procurement support, DPIA completion, or certification outcomes of any kind. Where local legal or governance review is appropriate, that should still be done.
Is this legal advice?
No. This is informational guidance aligned with published sector recommendations. It is not a substitute for qualified legal advice. If your school faces a specific legal question about AI use, you should consult a solicitor or your trust's legal team.
Get in touch
Request the starter pack, ask about trust pricing, or ask a question. You can also email hello@schoolaipolicy.co.uk directly.