Schools can let teachers use free AI tools for planning and resource-making that involve no personal data. Anything touching student data, work or marking should use a school-licensed tool with a data agreement. England’s DfE warns that many free tools “use the inputs submitted by users to further train and refine their models”. Leaders should publish an approved list.
What is the risk with free AI tools?
Data and ownership, more than quality. The DfE’s policy paper on generative AI in education says:
| Issue | DfE guidance |
|---|---|
| Personal data | ”It is recommended that personal data is not used in generative AI tools” |
| Model training | ”Many free-to-access generative AI tools will use the inputs submitted by users to further train and refine their models. Some tools, largely paid tools, allow users to opt out” |
| Age limits | Schools should “comply with age restrictions set by AI tools and open access LLMs” |
| Pupil use | ”Pupils should only be using generative AI in education settings with appropriate safeguards in place, such as close supervision and the use of tools with safety and filtering and monitoring features” |
So a teacher pasting a student’s essay into a free chatbot for feedback may be sharing personal data and the student’s work with a model that trains on it.
What should a school-licensed tool guarantee?
The DfE’s product safety standards, updated in January 2026, set out what suppliers of AI products for education should meet. Among them, a product should:
- “not collect, store, share or use personal data for any commercial purposes, including further model training and fine-tuning”, without a lawful basis
- not use intellectual property created by learners or teachers for commercial purposes such as training, “unless consented to”
They note that “in the case of teachers, the copyright owner is likely to be their employer”. They also say “suppliers should not exaggerate the impact or capabilities of their tools”.
These are standards for England, but they make a useful checklist for any school buying AI. See the 12-point checklist for evaluating AI tools.
Can teachers use AI to mark work?
Only with a human in charge, and within board rules. JCQ’s guidance says: “Where centres do permit AI tools to be used to mark student work, an AI tool cannot be the sole marker. A human assessor must review all the work in its entirety” (JCQ, April 2025). Cambridge and Pearson have their own rules on AI in coursework. See AI marking for IGCSE and A Level: how accurate it is.
Which uses should leaders approve for free tools?
A simple three-tier framework, which we recommend:
| Tier | Examples | Tool allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Green: no personal data | Lesson ideas, worksheet drafts, quiz questions from the syllabus, explanations, translations of teacher materials | Free tools, with teacher checking for accuracy |
| Amber: school materials | Adapting the school’s schemes of work, internal documents | School-licensed tools preferred; no confidential data in free tools |
| Red: student data or work | Feedback on student work, marking, reports, anything with names or grades | School-licensed tools with a data processing agreement only |
Publish the list, train staff on it, and review it each term. The school’s AI policy should reference it. See the AI policy template.
What about quality?
Free tools can draft well, but teachers must check. AI-generated worksheets and questions can contain errors, wrong syllabus content or command words used differently from the board’s definitions. Checking against the syllabus is part of the teacher’s job. See teaching IGCSE command words. For tool recommendations by task, see the best AI tools for IGCSE and A Level teachers.
What should leaders do this term?
- Publish an approved-tools list with the green, amber and red tiers.
- Buy a licensed tool for red-tier uses, with a data processing agreement.
- Check age terms before any student use, as the DfE advises.
- Train staff on what can and cannot go into free tools.
- Record AI use in marking, with human review, under JCQ and board rules.
How schools do this with AI Buddy
AI Buddy is a school-licensed platform for red-tier uses: students’ work and marking. Teachers set past-paper-style questions, and AI Buddy marks them with feedback while teachers review results and keep the grading decisions. Before rollout, ask us in writing about data use, hosting and model training, and put the answers in your data processing agreement.
Frequently asked questions
Should schools let teachers use free AI tools?
For planning and resources with no personal data, generally yes, with accuracy checks. For student data, student work or marking, use a school-licensed tool with a data agreement.
Do free AI tools use your data for training?
The DfE says many free-to-access generative AI tools use inputs to train their models, while some tools, “largely paid tools”, allow users to opt out.
Can AI mark student work?
JCQ says an AI tool “cannot be the sole marker”; a human assessor must review all the work in its entirety.
What are the DfE product safety standards for AI?
DfE guidance, updated in January 2026, on what AI products for education should meet, including not using personal data or learners’ and teachers’ work for commercial model training without a lawful basis or consent.
Discover how AI Buddy helps schools strengthen teaching, learning and evidence-informed school improvement. Or start a short consultation with our schools team using the form below — we will get back to you directly.
Sources
- Department for Education, Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education (policy paper)
- Department for Education, Generative AI: product safety standards (updated 19 January 2026)
- JCQ, AI Use in Assessments (April 2025)