CPD for teachers, not a tech course
Your students already use it. Your staff need a plan.
This is not an AI course. It is professional development that happens to be about AI: six sessions, delivered in your school, after which the policy is written, the assessments are rewritten and the parent letter is drafted. Not promised. Done.
Before
Explain why the League of Nations failed in the 1930s.
Answered in one prompt. No knowledge required.
After
Below is an answer to “Why did the League of Nations fail in the 1930s?” produced by an AI tool. It makes four claims that are wrong or unsupported. Mark it: find the four, correct each one using what you know about Manchuria, Abyssinia and the League’s structure, then award it a grade and defend the grade in a paragraph.
Requires exactly the knowledge the original was testing.
First, name what fails
Your staff have already seen these not work
Every school we visit has tried at least one of the following. We name them in the first ten minutes of session one, because staff trust you more once you have said the true thing out loud.
Detectors
A detector score is a statistical guess with a false-positive rate the vendors rarely advertise. Accusing a student on the strength of a percentage is a disciplinary appeal waiting to happen, and the students know the tools are unreliable even if staff do not.
Blanket bans
A ban moves use out of sight, not out of existence. The students with the fewest scruples keep the advantage, the conscientious ones fall behind, and the school has no position to defend when a dispute lands on a desk.
The one-off assembly
An hour in the hall changes nothing by half term. Students hear rules, not reasoning, and the staff who set the homework that evening have not changed a single task. Behaviour follows the assessment, not the assembly.
Six sessions, three strands
The shape of the programme
Teaching with it
What the tools actually are, in plain terms, and where they genuinely save a teacher hours: schemes of work, differentiation, feedback drafts. Also where handing over is a mistake.
Assessing around it
The core of the programme. Teachers rewrite their own tasks so the AI’s answer becomes part of the question, and learn why detector-led accusations collapse under challenge.
Keeping students safe
Data, safeguarding and the policy itself. What must never be typed into a consumer chatbot, and a policy the staff draft in the room, in the school’s own voice.
The deliverables are the product
What the school leaves with
The sessions are how the documents get made. When we go, these stay: written in the school’s voice, owned by the staff who drafted them, ready for governors and parents.
- A written AI policy in the school’s voice, drafted by the staff in session six
- Rewritten assessments for every department that took part
- A letter to parents that explains the school’s position plainly
- A staff handbook covering day-to-day use, data rules and marking
- A one-page guide for students, written to be read by students
- A disciplinary process for suspected misuse that survives a challenge
Formats
Delivered the way your timetable allows
What schools say
“The session on detectors alone was worth the fee. We were one complaint away from accusing a student on the strength of a percentage. Now we have a process we could defend in front of a panel, and homework that does the policing for us.”
Deputy headteacher, 11–18 comprehensive, Midlands
Who it is for
Whole schools, school groups and districts, on an annual contract. We do not sell places to individual teachers: the policy only works when the whole staffroom writes it together.
Booking enquiry
Book a call
Tell us about the school and what prompted the enquiry. A real person replies within two working days, and the first conversation is advice, not a pitch.