Reflections & Recommendations

Home › Reflections & Recommendations

Drawn from surveys, reflective journals, classroom observations and pupil voice, the review's overarching conclusion is that AI "functions most effectively as a collaborative partner in the planning process, amplifying teacher expertise rather than replacing it." The trial was undertaken in partnership between Julie Carson (Deputy CEO) and Mark Anderson (ICT Evangelist) — who together provided the inspiration, training and support for the colleagues taking part — with Sync supporting the work.

Key findings

Enhanced planning efficiency and quality. Weekly planning time fell from 10 to 4.75 hours (52.5%), returning more than five hours to each teacher's week — without compromising quality. Confidence that planning meets pupils' needs rose from 37.5% to 100%, and the perception of planning as efficient rose from 0% to 88%.

AI as a professional co-planner. Initial scepticism gave way to a sophisticated understanding of AI's capabilities and limits. Teachers learned to use AI "not as a source of ready-made solutions but as a thinking partner", strengthening pedagogical reasoning in a virtuous cycle; 100% described themselves as confident or highly confident by the project's end.

Enhanced inclusive practice. AI made differentiated, scaffolded and multi-sensory resources far quicker to produce, with staff confidence for SEND and EAL rising from 62% toward near-universal competence — and crucially, without stigmatising individual learners.

Increased pupil agency and engagement. Pupils described AI-supported lessons as more interactive, visual and relevant, with 91% of KS2 pupils preferring lessons involving "new ways of thinking".

Workload and professional wellbeing. The relationship proved "more complex than anticipated." AI dramatically reduced planning time, but freed capacity was "often absorbed by additional responsibilities rather than reducing total working hours." Wellbeing still improved — overwhelm fell from 75% to a rare experience — but the report warns that schools "must actively safeguard time savings" for them to translate into genuine wellbeing rather than more work.

Identified risks. Some AI content drifted toward task-based rather than conceptual learning objectives; effectiveness depended heavily on prompt quality; and access inequities emerged where paid tool versions were needed — underscoring the need for investment in both training and infrastructure.

Recommendations for the Trust

• Develop a comprehensive AI strategy articulating ethical principles, training pathways and evaluation measures, aligned to the Trust Development Plan.
• Build an AI Planning Toolkit — curated prompt libraries, SEND/EAL templates, ethical checklists and exemplar sequences — maintained as a living, collaborative resource.
• Invest in leadership with dedicated AI leads in each school, supported by Trust-wide networks for sharing expertise and moderation.
• Embed AI literacy into induction and leadership development so capability is not lost through staff turnover.
• Keep implementation values-driven, anchored in equitable outcomes for every pupil; protect and monitor time gains so wellbeing benefits are not reabsorbed.

Recommendations for the wider system

• Foreground professional agency and co-planning in national discourse, positioning AI as enhancing rather than replacing professional judgement.
• Develop education-specific ethical frameworks covering safeguarding, data protection and the particular vulnerabilities of child users.
• Fund innovation and research that combines professional development, infrastructure and practitioner agency — not technology procurement alone.
• Promote inclusive tool design, with developers and educators collaborating around Universal Design for Learning principles.
• Establish national learning communities to share prompt strategies, challenges and effective practice.