Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of generative artificial intelligence in schools.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. You will not be presiding over a heated political debate this afternoon, and I hope this is a good opportunity to openly discuss the enormous change that is upon us. Throughout the education world, a lot of thinking is being done about artificial intelligence and its implications. Most of that thinking is being done by teachers, and I hope we will contribute to some of the wider system and policy questions today.

In a November 2024 omnibus survey, half of teachers said they had already used generative AI in their role; about a quarter said they had no plans to; and the rest either planned to or did not yet know. The most common uses of generative AI are creating resources, planning lessons and communicating with parents.

In the same survey, 6% of teachers said that pupils were permitted to use AI in the work they are set. It is hard to pinpoint an exact number, but it is fairly safe to say that the proportion of pupils actually using AI to some degree in their work is rather more than 6%. The survey data that we have, incomplete as it is, suggests that somewhere between one in three and three in four children are using AI to some degree, with some frequency, in their homework.

In this rapidly changing world, I commend the Department for Education for its guidance update in January and the materials that came out on 10 June, made by the Chiltern Learning Trust and the Chartered College of Teaching. Those materials are easily accessible, but that does not mean that masses of people have seen them. This remains an area in which a lot of communicating remains to be done.

The DFE guidance talks about balancing the safety considerations of AI with the opportunities. Those are definitely two considerations, but they are not the only considerations, nor are they the most obvious. We always have to remember that at whatever pace we work at in this place, or that Whitehall works at, kids will work at about six times that pace.

The four areas I will briefly cover today are two areas of opportunity and two areas of risk, where we need some caution. The areas of opportunity are workload and enhancing learning, particularly for children with special educational needs. The areas of risk are the need for discerning and careful use of generative AI by pupils and, finally, the impact on homework, assessment and exams.

Workload is a big issue for teachers. Historically, along with pupil behaviour, it has often been the No. 1 issue in teacher retention. In a 2019 survey, it was encouraging to see that the reported workload had reduced by about five hours a week, or an hour a day. However, workload remains a stubborn issue, and the biggest contributors have been planning and preparation, marking, and data entry and analysis. There is also communicating with parents, dealing with behaviour issues and so on, but those first three all lend themselves to artificial intelligence.

In particular, the creation of teaching materials seems to be an enormous area of opportunity. Too many teachers spend their Sunday evenings at home, trawling the internet for resources to use during the working week, when much of that work could be done for them. I commend Oak National Academy for its work on the AI learning assistant.

As the Education Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), discussed just this morning, the national curriculum is, of course, a framework. It is not a precise set of things that children will learn, because we need diversity in provision. We therefore need to think about how AI can support that diversity. I hope the Minister will give us an update on the content store announcement of August 2024.

AI has plenty of other potential uses, such as for timetabling, for letters and emails home—although my special request would be that we do not add to the volume of communications that have to be consumed—and for report writing. But we need a clear code of practice, because for the trust of parents, and indeed of pupils, there needs to be clarity about when and in what ways generative AI has been used. Care will still be needed. How does a teacher tell children that they must write their own work, if that teacher is generating text through a machine?

The second area of opportunity is in supporting learning. There is clearly a lot of potential for learning personalisation, especially for certain types of special educational need, alongside the role of assistive and adaptive technology. For some subjects, AI will also be useful for dynamic assessment. But schools will have the same issue with AI as with all educational technology, which is that they generally do not have much idea which bits of it are any good. There are both great products and pretty low-grade products, and discerning one from the other is notoriously difficult. As with edtech in general, but even more so with AI, product development cycles do not lend themselves to randomised controlled trials to try to establish what is good. I suggest that schools require an extension of the principle established with the LendED product, which is made with the British Educational Suppliers Association: a sort of forum where teachers can see these products, distil the good and bad, and crucially get recommendations from other schools and teachers, because teachers tend to trust teachers.

With the input of biased data, large language models are liable to produce inappropriate, biased or factually incorrect outputs. Does the right hon. Member agree that if generative AI is to be rolled out to schools, actions such as introducing statutory regulations must be taken to limit any bias or misinformation taught to children and young people?

Funnily enough, I agree with the hon. Member, though not necessarily about statutory requirements. It is certainly true—in fact, he inadvertently leads me on to my next point—that we need to be careful and discerning in using these products. There are many risks, including the safeguarding risks inherent in technology, hallucinations, dud information and, as the hon. Member rightly says, biases.

There are some very direct and sharp risks to children. I am afraid that many misleading, unpleasant and cruel things can be done with AI. They can be done already but, as with so many other things, AI magnifies and turbocharges the problem. Some of those things can be done by adults to children; some of them are done by children to other children. We need to be very aware of those risks, some of which relate to existing practices and policy questions, such as how to deal with intimate image abuse and sexting. The problem further supports the case for a comprehensive school-day phone ban, to take cameras out of schools.

More generally, there is a need for media literacy and general discernment. I am reluctant and nervous to talk about media literacy, and more so about the phrase “critical thinking,” because it is too often conflated with the false dichotomy that occasionally comes up in the educational world: knowledge versus skills. Clearly, we need both. We need both in life, and we need to have developed both in school, but knowledge precedes skills because we can only think with what we know. However, it is really important in this context that children know how AI can make mistakes, and that they come to trust and know to look out for the correct primary sources, and trusted brands—trusted sources—rather than just stuff on the internet.

In the 2019 guidance on teaching online safety in schools, since updated, a fusion of the computing, relationships and citizenship curricula was envisaged. Children would be guided through how to evaluate what they see online, how to recognise techniques used for persuasion, and how to understand confirmation bias, as well as misinformation and disinformation. The new edition of “Keeping Children Safe in Education”, which came out yesterday, lists disinformation and misinformation as safeguarding concerns in their own right for the first time. The online safety guidance also included the importance of learning why people might try to bend the truth on the internet and pretend to be someone they are not. That was a start, but at this technological inflection point, it needs a huge scaling up.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about some of the dangers of using generative AI in the classroom, particularly around harmful content and activity? I read the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s “Viewing Generative AI and children’s safety in the round”, which gave examples of children creating deepfakes of other children in the class.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also share my concerns about children’s privacy and data protection, and the extent to which many of these edtech applications are created with the aim of minimising data protection? I understand he has concerns about regulation, but this seems to be almost entirely unregulated in the classroom. There is certainly a case for, at the very least, regulating data protection, data to third parties and—

Order. That was either several interventions or a speech, neither of which is permissible. I urge all participants to keep interventions brief.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) should not misunderstand me, as I am not against regulation. His points about data protection and privacy are really important, although they are probably too big to fold entirely into this debate. His first group of points and what the NSPCC talks about are the same risks that I am talking about.

There is an even broader point, as there is already a lot of blurring between fact, fiction and opinion online. There are all manner of news sources and influencers, network gaming, virtual reality and augmented reality, the metaverse—the whole concept of reality is a little hazier than it once was. With these machines, which in some cases almost seem to have a personality of their own, there is a danger of yet more blurring.

We all shout at our PCs sometimes. Indeed, adults using AI may start to give human form, which is called anthropomorphism, to the machine they are interacting with—I occasionally try to be polite when I interact with one of these interfaces. Apps such as character.ai take that to another level.

We have to think about the impact on children in their most formative years—on their sense of self, their understanding of the world and their mental wellbeing. That includes the very youngest children, who will be growing up in a world of the internet of things and connected toys. It will be that much more important to draw a line between what is real, what is human, and what is not. In time, when the system has had enough time to think about it—we are not nearly there yet—that may be yet another area for regulation.

Finally, I come to the most immediate risks, around homework, assessments and exams. Colleagues may already have had a conversation in which a teacher has said, “Isn’t it brilliant how much so-and-so has improved? Oh, hang on—have they?” They now cannot be absolutely certain. There are AI detectors, but they are not perfect. They can produce false positives. In other words, they can accuse people of plagiarising using AI when they are not. In any event, there is an arms race between the AI machine and the AI detector machine, which is deeply unsatisfactory. Of course, that is where the teacher’s skill comes in, because there is always classwork to compare. Most importantly, there is always the exam itself, and we need to keep it that way.

One concern I am beginning to feel is that, while acknowledging that the technological development is important, an over-reliance on generative AI runs the risk of limiting open-mindedness, independent thinking, literacy and creative skills. Does the right hon. Member agree that we must protect key critical thinking and reasoning skills in children and young people, for their future and ours?

The hon. Gentleman makes his point lucidly and well, and I think it stands on its own feet.

The bigger issue with more children taking exams on a keyboard rather than on paper is that exam boards would like to move entire exams online for all children. In a sense, that would be better because it would be equal; there would not be any difference in the speed of writing and typing.

Some might ask what is wrong with that, as long as it is the same for everybody, and as long as the internet, spellcheck and autocorrect are disabled. I suggest there would still be multiple types of security risk in having exams done en masse online. There is also a wider problem: if a GCSE is done online, how will students do a mock GCSE? They will do it online. How will someone do a year 9 exam? Hon. Members can see where I am going with this. It cascades further and further down the age range, until eventually people question why they are learning to write with a pen at all. Some are already asking that question.

By the time my child is an adult, people will not even be using a keyboard, but other types of communication and interface, and this will seem very archaic. There are important advantages to learning to write by hand, however. Handwriting and writing are not the same thing. The way someone develops their handwriting, learning the strokes and patterns and how letters join together is an important part of learning the skill of wider writing. There is also plenty of evidence that making marks on a page by hand aids visual memory. Handwriting helps us to understand things because, as we write, we synthesize what we are reading or hearing into our own words. There is even evidence to suggest that people do better in tests and have better recall as a result. Maintaining handwriting is therefore important in its own right, quite apart from maintaining the security and integrity of examinations.

DFE guidance states that teachers should keep up to date with this rapidly changing world. That is a tough ask. Over the months and years ahead, the Department will have to do a lot to provide teachers and school leaders with bite-sized, easily digestible chunks of information to keep them up to date with this rapidly changing area. A recent Ofsted report, on 27 June, said that there was not yet enough evidence to conclude what constitutes a good use of AI in schools, but that one common approach among schools that seemed to be using AI successfully was to have a champion who spreads good practice throughout the school. That seems to me a good approach.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate.

The use of generative artificial intelligence in education is a critical challenge of our time. As parliamentarians, we bear the responsibility for ensuring that this new technology is harnessed to support teachers and examining bodies and to enhance learning, while safeguarding our children’s intellectual and emotional growth and not undermining the critical skills and values they need for the future.

Although generative AI presents some distinct challenges, it sits within a suite of technology-related issues that have all significantly changed the landscape in which our children are growing up and being educated, including the use of smartphones and other devices and engagement with social media. Every generation of parents and teachers has to support children and young people to navigate something that they did not have to contend with in their own childhood—and so it is for our generation. We must understand the power and potential of AI and other technologies, and we must understand in detail the risks and threats. We must also give our teachers and school leaders, our children and young people the tools they need to harness its potential with good ethical and critical thinking, while safeguarding their wellbeing.

Generative AI holds immense promise across a range of applications in our schools. There are important potential applications in the context of rising teacher workloads, which it is vital to address if we are to improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in our schools; but the use of AI for lesson planning, assessment and marking cannot be a substitute for subject experts who work in person with their students, providing tailored teaching to meet the needs of individuals in the classroom.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for leading the debate.

I have to confess that I do not understand all about AI, but I do understand the need for it and that the technology is changing. Modern society has a new way of doing things, and I am not against the idea of doing that; it may just not be for me. But I do have children, and grandchildren in particular, who are so technically minded at a very young age. The knowledge they have absolutely overwhelms me, as they look to a society in which they want to play their full part.

I was just sitting here thinking about an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber a couple of years ago. Kevin Brennan, now in the House of Lords, gave a speech, and he never let on till the end of it, when he said, “That speech was written by AI.” Kevin was sitting behind me; I said, “Kevin, what do you mean?”, and he told me what he had done. His speech was a normal speech, except for one thing: it did not have the characteristics of Kevin Brennan. Those of us who know him know that Kevin is quite a witty guy, and his humour and other characteristics were not present in that speech. But it was a speech, done by AI, and he did that, not because he was committing himself to doing all his speeches with AI; he did it because he wanted to show the potential of AI. I always remember that. I said to him afterwards, “Kevin, I’ll always be writing my speeches. I’ll never be doing what you’re doing,” but that is just me talking personally.

We are seeing a progression within our schools, which must be used safely and appropriately, so it is great to be here to discuss this. My key issues are the very issues of protection, safeguards and using AI as we can, with the good potential that the right hon. Member referred to, but, at the same time perhaps, with that wee question mark in my mind. To give the Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do, only last month in Northern Ireland—just four weeks ago, to be precise—Ulster University, in conjunction with the Education Authority, launched a study whereby 100 teachers would trial Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in the classroom. So, it is part of life—and I suspect it will become a big part as we move forward. The study indicated that teachers themselves reported time management benefits, especially in admin and planning, but they also referred to a strong need for professional and thorough training. In a way, it was perhaps very much a first experience—or maybe not for them all, in all honesty. They outlined that this is something that needs to be done very thoroughly, with great protections and safeguards.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. I know he is incredibly passionate and pretty knowledgeable about this subject. I also thank the Government for the AI opportunities action plan.

I appreciate that there is a lot of fear around AI. Did we not learn from “Terminator” 1, 2 or even 3? However, AI does exist, and generative AI is already reshaping education whether we legislate for it or not. It is our duty to ensure that these technologies are used ethically and deployed equitably, and that they enhance the role of educators, not replace them.

We are seeing countries around the world use AI in schools. South Korea is leading the way: 30% of its schools now use AI-powered digital textbooks; AI is already being taught as part of the national curriculum; and it is considering making it a separate subject at all levels. Its goal is to become a global leader in AI talent, and I believe that the UK can learn a great deal from it.

We cannot ignore AI. It is changing how students learn and how we assess them. We need to think carefully about our current exam systems and whether they are still fit for purpose in this new world. Generative AI could be a big part of the answer. It could help teachers by saving them time, tailoring lessons to each student and making them more engaging, especially for students with SEN. That is a massive issue in Swindon. We are seeing a rise in children who have SEN. They need tailored lessons and support, so I really believe that this is something that we should be doing.

Almost half of teachers and most young people are now using these tools. Many teachers say that they help them to create lesson plans and materials and reduce their admin work. I think we can all agree that that is good, but with the opportunity comes responsibility. There are serious concerns around academic integrity and data privacy. I want to highlight the work of the Institute for Ethical AI in Education, which has created a practical framework to help schools and Governments use AI safely and fairly. This is not just about schools, but about holding companies to account. If the product is not ethical, it should not be used in education. AI is still new and evolving, but with careful planning, training and investment we can make sure it becomes a tool for inclusion and creativity. We owe it to our young people to get this right.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate.

AI use in schools has reached a critical juncture. According to Ofcom, 50% of children aged eight to 17 have already used AI tools. The Alan Turing Institute and LEGO report that 60% of teachers actively use generative AI. We have heard many colleagues across the Chamber today reference that. AI is everywhere, whether through explicit choice or integration into Google Workspace, Microsoft 365 Education and countless educational tools. The Government have funded AI development for teachers to speed lesson planning and reduce workloads, positioning AI as central to educational transformation. Yet, as 5Rights highlights, no statutory standards currently govern genAI use in schools.

The Government’s own AI opportunities action plan fails to address children and their rights and development needs, despite encouraging schools to

“move fast and learn things”

when piloting these technologies. With AI’s undeniable rise, the Government really need to address this head on, hence today’s debate is incredibly important.

We have heard across the room today that AI presents genuine opportunities for education. For teachers struggling with budget cuts from the last Conservative Government, AI can ease the burden of lesson planning, marking and administrative tasks. For students, responsible engagement with these technologies prepares them for tomorrow’s world of work. Those who understand technological change and harness AI effectively will thrive in today’s and tomorrow’s economy. They will be prepared for an AI-dominated world where critical thinking and analysis become even more vital.

However, serious concerns are emerging about generative AI’s impact. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology research indicates that