I’ve watched schools rush into partnerships with AI tutoring companies the way parents once snapped up slots at popular after‑school clubs: eager, hopeful and sometimes a little short on questions. As a parent and a journalist who covers tech and education, I want to be frank: AI tutoring can be brilliant, but it also carries real risks. Before you sign anything, there are clear, practical demands you should put to your child’s school. These aren’t legal tricks or technophobic stances — they’re common‑sense protections to make sure the technology serves pupils, rather than the other way around.
Ask for evidence of educational impact
First question I ask is simple: does it actually work? Vendors will wave around outcomes and testimonials, but schools should demand robust, independent proof that the tool improves learning.
Here’s what to ask for:
When a supplier points to research, ask who funded it. A study sponsored by the company can be useful but not definitive. I’ve seen examples where tools like adaptive platforms (Century Tech, for example) show promise in small pilots, but scale and classroom realities change results.
Demand transparency about the AI and how it’s used
“AI” is a marketing buzzword. Parents should insist on clarity about what that actually means in the product their child will use.
Insist that the school require the vendor to publish a simple, parent‑facing explainer: what the AI does, where it gets information, and what happens if the system is wrong.
Protect pupil data — insist on strict privacy and security clauses
Personal data about children is especially sensitive. Under UK GDPR and data‑protection law, schools must be careful about third‑party processors. I always tell schools to treat pupil data like a family heirloom — handle it with contracts, encryption and tight access controls.
Ask for specific contract language: retention periods, deletion procedures when a pupil leaves, and confirmation that data won’t be transferred outside the UK/EU without adequate safeguards.
Demand human oversight and clear teacher roles
AI should augment teachers, not replace them. In classrooms where AI tutoring is introduced, teachers must be central to planning, moderation and assessment.
When vendors promise “personalised learning at scale,” I ask how teachers will be freed to use the insights. If the technology ends up increasing teachers’ workload with false positives and admin, it fails kids.
Safeguard fairness and guard against bias
AI models can reflect and amplify bias in their training data. That can mean weaker support for pupils with certain accents, dialects, or learning needs.
Insist that the contract includes a remediation plan if bias or unfair outcomes are detected.
Protect against vendor lock‑in and preserve parental choice
Contracts that tie a school to a single company for years, with proprietary formats, can be a problem. I advise parents to demand flexibility so alternative tools or manual approaches remain possible.
Ask for clear safeguarding and content moderation policies
When pupils interact with AI — especially chatbots or generative tools — safeguarding matters. Schools should get explicit commitments on moderation, escalation and monitoring.
Negotiate transparency on pricing and hidden costs
Some vendors offer low introductory fees and then push expensive add‑ons — reporting dashboards, extra support, or premium content. Ask for a full cost schedule and what is included.
Request regular reporting and parent communication
Schools should commit to regular updates for parents: what the AI is being used for, what benefits are being seen, and how concerns are being handled.
| Demand | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Independent evidence of impact | Avoids hype; shows real learning gains |
| Strict data protections | Keeps sensitive pupil information safe |
| Human oversight | Prevents automation replacing teacher judgement |
| Bias testing & accessibility | Ensures fairness for all pupils |
| Opt‑out & exit rights | Prevents lock‑in and preserves choice |
When I speak to other parents and teachers, the same themes come up: we’re optimistic about tools that can boost practice and free teachers to do higher‑value work, but cautious about black‑box systems, untested claims and creeping data collection. If your school treats these demands as negotiable, it’s time to press harder — schools represent every child in the classroom, and those contracts should reflect that responsibility.
