90-Day AI Action Plan

A phased implementation template for headteachers and senior leaders introducing AI into their school. The plan runs across four stages: Listen (weeks 1-2), Prepare (weeks 3-4), Pilot (weeks 5-6), Review (weeks 7-8) and Scale (weeks 9-12). Each stage has named actions, example activities and assigned owners.

The plan is built around a set of principles: the rollout is staff-led, personal AI subscriptions are not used for school work, there is no unsupervised pupil-facing use during the pilot, and SLT holds oversight throughout. Everything is checked against the DfE product safety standards and KCSiE 2026.

KCSiE 2026 requirements are built into every stage. The plan accounts for the updated 4Cs of online risk (para 163), the expanded definition of nudes and semi-nudes to include AI-generated and deepfake images, filtering and monitoring requirements with a named SLT lead (para 171), cyber security as a safeguarding concern (paras 176-178), and data protection under DPA 2018, UK GDPR and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Governor reporting is included at each review point.  Click preview to download.

AI Policy and Safeguards Checklist

A compliance checklist for headteachers and senior leaders covering everything a school’s AI policy needs to address. Confirm each item is in place, then take the gaps to your working group.

The checklist covers eight areas: governance and ownership (named AI lead, working group, governor oversight, risk register), policy and acceptable use (approved tools, human checking of outputs, copyright, bias), data protection (DPIA, DPO consultation, personal data rules, privacy notice), safeguarding (KCSiE 2026 para 163 mapping against the four categories of online risk, deepfake response plans, child protection policy alignment with para 191), academic integrity (JCQ rules, malpractice policy, Head of Centre accountability), pupils and parents (age-appropriate use, AI-generated imagery awareness, parent communication), image and data exposure (pupil images, metadata, content audits), procurement (DfE product safety standards, filtering evidence, contract reviews) and training and review (staff CPD, filtering and monitoring roles under KCSiE 2026 para 12).

Lines marked as local practice are distinguished from statutory duties so schools can set them to suit their context.  Click preview to download.

Spot the Fake: Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation Lesson Pack

A complete, ready-to-teach lesson for PSHE, Online Safety or Computing at KS3 and KS4. The pack includes everything needed to deliver a 60 minute lesson on identifying and responding to misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and conspiracy theories.

The pack contains a lesson plan with full curriculum mapping to DfE RSHE Statutory Guidance (July 2025, mandatory from September 2026), KCSiE 2025 (paragraph 135, misinformation classified as a safeguarding harm under the 4Cs content category) and the PSHE Association Programme of Study. It also includes a 20-slide lesson PowerPoint, scenario sorting cards for group work, a student worksheet marked out of 18 covering all six learning objectives, exit ticket slips, and two display posters (one for students, one for staff) defining misinformation, disinformation and malinformation with a staff response protocol.

The lesson teaches students to distinguish between wrong by accident (misinformation), wrong on purpose (disinformation) and true but twisted (malinformation), using scenarios drawn from school life and social media. It includes a Source-Evidence-Motive-Impact evaluation checklist and differentiation for lower and higher ability students.  Click preview for download.

AI-Assisted Planning: More Impact, Less Time

A structured prompting guide for teachers using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot or any general-purpose AI tool to support lesson planning. The guide follows a three-step process: Specify (set context for the AI), Draft (build content section by section, checking each output before moving on) and Check, Fix, Build (review the full draft and generate the final resource).

The guide includes ready-to-use prompts for retrieval questions, content explanations, key vocabulary, worked examples with success criteria, model answers annotated against mark schemes, differentiated tasks, misconception identification, practice questions at different cognitive levels, plenary tasks and adapting existing resources for different year groups or ability levels. Each prompt comes with a check step (what to verify before moving on) and a reprompt (what to say when the output is wrong).

The guide opens with a data protection warning: never enter student names or any information that identifies an individual student into any AI tool. AI generates plausible content, not verified content. Everything must be checked before classroom use.  Click preview for download.

The Cognitive Debt Framework

Cognitive debt is the cumulative deficit that builds when students repeatedly produce correct outputs without constructing the underlying understanding. The student may not know it is happening. The work looks finished and the answers look right. The debt compounds over time until the student cannot build on what they appear to have learned. A knowledge gap is visible and a teacher can address it directly. Cognitive debt is hidden by the quality of the output.

The Cognitive Debt Framework is a five-stage model for using AI to deepen student thinking rather than replace it. Each stage defines the student’s role, the AI’s role, what the stage prevents, and an example prompt.

Stage 1, Surface: the student states what they already know. AI asks probing questions to surface misconceptions without correcting or teaching. AI role: Questioner. Grounded in Piaget (activating prior schemas) and Kelly (surfacing personal constructs).

Stage 2, Struggle: the student attempts the problem and gets stuck. AI gives hints, not answers, keeping the student within the zone of proximal development. AI role: Scaffolder. Grounded in Dewey (learning through experience), Vygotsky (ZPD), Wood, Bruner and Ross (scaffolding) and Kapur (productive failure).

Stage 3, Speak: the student explains their reasoning to a peer first. AI then pressure-tests the argument, playing devil’s advocate. AI role: Challenger. Grounded in Vygotsky (verbal mediation and social construction).

Stage 4, Show: the student explains how their thinking changed from Stage 1 to now. AI reflects the student’s own thinking back to them without supplying the answer. AI role: Mirror. Grounded in von Glasersfeld (meaning-making and reflection) and Kelly (refining constructs).

Stage 5, Spiral: the student returns to the concept weeks later at a harder level. AI retrieves earlier work and helps connect past and present understanding. AI role: Connector. Grounded in Bruner (spiral curriculum, revisiting at greater depth).

The debt test: if a student can produce an answer but cannot do stages 1, 3 or 4 out loud, the thinking was offloaded and the debt is accumulating. The protection comes from task design, not prompt enforcement.  Click preview for download.

DfE Verification Checklist for Schools

A document for headteachers and senior leaders to verify vendor claims about DfE compliance. When a supplier tells you their AI product meets the DfE’s Generative AI Product Safety Standards (January 2026), this checklist gives you a structured way to check whether that is true.

For each of the 90 DfE standards, record whether the vendor’s claim has been verified, how it was verified and what action is still required. The numbering matches the DfE guidance so you can cross-reference directly. The document includes verification guidance defining what counts as evidence (live demo, hands-on testing, published documentation, third-party audit reports, professional confirmation from your DPO) and what does not (taking the vendor’s word for it, reading their marketing materials, assuming compliance because the product is from a well-known company or because other schools use it).

The document includes a RAG summary page for reporting to governors or trustees, with a one-line status per section and space for key findings and priority actions. The final page records an overall decision: approved, conditionally approved or not approved, with space for an agreed date for outstanding actions and sign-off. Click preview to download.

DfE Self-Audit Checklist for Schools

A standalone audit tool for headteachers and senior leaders to assess whether AI products already in use in their school meet the DfE’s Generative AI Product Safety Standards (January 2026). No vendor paperwork is needed. Use it for any AI product your school has purchased, been given access to, or that staff or students are using.

For each of the 90 DfE standards, record whether the requirement is in place, what evidence you hold, what action is required and who is responsible for completing it. The “Don’t know” option is included alongside Yes, No and Partially, because for many of these standards the honest answer will be that the school has no way of determining compliance without asking the vendor directly. The document states clearly that relying on the vendor’s word alone is not evidence.

The document includes a RAG summary page for governors or trustees. The overall decision page has four options: continue use, continue with conditions, suspend use or cease use, with space for an agreed date for actions and a next review date. Click preview to download.

AI Wearables: What They Are and Why They Matter

AI devices no longer look like technology. Smart glasses, recording pendants, earbuds and rings can capture audio and video, transcribe conversations and connect to AI assistants while looking like everyday accessories. Most staff would not recognise them, and most school policies were written before they existed.

This free staff poster covers 13 types of AI wearable. For each one it shows what the device looks like, what it can do and the specific safeguarding risks for schools, from covert recording in changing rooms and on residential trips to discreet AI use during assessments. It also covers AI accessibility glasses, so staff can tell a legitimate SEND reasonable adjustment from prohibited use.

Display it in staffrooms and exam halls, use it in safeguarding briefings or give it to DSLs and exams officers reviewing device policies.

Need more than a poster? Meta Pedagogy delivers AI safeguarding training and INSET for UK schools and trusts, helping leaders update policy and prepare staff for the devices already arriving in classrooms. Get in touch to discuss training for your school.  Click Preview to download.