Aipedia: Schools, academies and governors

Staff putting pupil data into AI tools

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-30

DfE recommends that pupils' personal data is not entered into generative AI tools, and that any use is first cleared with the DPO or IT lead on a school-approved tool. As controller, the school answers for any breach a well-meaning teacher causes.

Part of: AI in schools, academies and governors

In short

Teachers and office staff paste names, reports and SEN details into generative AI to save time. DfE's data protection guidance says most tasks can be done without personal data: draft from anonymised notes and add names afterwards. Where personal data is needed, the DPO or IT lead must confirm the tool is approved and that data will not train the AI, and the privacy notice must explain AI use. The school or trust is the controller, so breaches, complaints and ICO attention fall on it. Civil claims may sit under cyber, PI or RPA sections, but fines are excluded.

How pupil data ends up in AI tools

A form tutor pastes a draft report, with the pupil's name and attendance, into a generative AI chatbot to improve the wording. A SENCO uploads an educational psychologist's summary to pull out the key needs. An office manager asks an AI assistant to tidy a spreadsheet of free school meal eligibility. A head of year records a parent meeting and runs it through AI transcription. Each step moves personal data, sometimes special category data about health or SEN, to a supplier whose terms the school may never have reviewed. Personal accounts on free tools are the hardest to control, because the school has no contract with the supplier at all.

What DfE and data protection law require

DfE's Generative AI in education policy "recommends that personal data is not used in generative AI tools". Where it is, products must comply with the setting's data privacy policies, and pupils and parents should understand how their data is processed.

The Generative AI and data protection in schools section, last updated 14 October 2026, is more practical:

Use AI without personal data where possible, for example drafting from anonymised notes and adding the name afterwards.
Before entering pupils' personal data, confirm with the DPO or IT lead that the tool is safe and approved by the school.
Data must be protected and "not used to further train the AI".
The privacy notice must explain how AI tools collect, process and store data.
Tools may also collect location, IP address and browser data, which may be viewed or sold to third parties.

Separately, pupils' original work must not be used to train AI without permission from the pupil or a parent or guardian. The school or trust is the controller, and a DPIA is required for high-risk processing.

What can go wrong

Illustrative scenario: a teaching assistant uses a personal account on a free chatbot to rewrite a pupil's behaviour support plan, including the pupil's name, diagnosis and details of a family breakdown. The parent hears about it and complains to the school, then to the ICO. The school has to treat it as a possible personal data breach, investigate, decide whether to report and review its controls. The parent seeks compensation for distress, and the complaint asks why governors had approved no AI policy or tool list.

Less obvious routes cause similar problems: coursework uploaded to a tool that trains on inputs, or an AI plug-in added to the MIS without anyone checking where the data goes.

Where liability lands

The claim is against the school or trust as controller, not the individual teacher, although staff conduct becomes part of the investigation. How it is funded depends on the arrangement:

RPA members: Section 14 cyber covers increased cost of working and incident response after a Cyber Incident, with a limit of £250,000 per member per year. Section 6 covers breach of professional duty. Section 5 governors' liability responds to claims against governors, but excludes criminal fines and regulatory penalties.
Independent schools: commercial cyber commonly covers breach response and may cover data protection claims; PI or D&O may respond to related allegations, depending on the wording and any data exclusions.

Whether a staff member's misuse of an unapproved tool counts as a covered incident depends on the definitions, so it is worth checking. See cyber cover for education and pupil data and GDPR fines versus civil claims.

Practical controls

Publish an approved tools list, signed off by the DPO, and block or discourage personal accounts for school work.
Teach the anonymise-then-add-names habit, with examples for reports, letters and plans.
Check supplier terms on training, storage location and data sharing before approval.
Update privacy notices to describe AI use, and run a DPIA for higher-risk tools.
Make AI misuse reportable under the breach procedure without blame, so incidents surface early.
Report AI data incidents to governors as part of the AI policy review.

How Apex helps

Apex arranges governors' D&O for independent schools and academy trusts. A broker can check how your cover, or the RPA, would treat a breach caused by staff using an unapproved AI tool, and point out where governor liability and cyber sections stop.

Sources

Frequently asked

Can teachers use generative AI with pupils' names in it?

DfE recommends that personal data is not used in generative AI tools. If it is genuinely needed, staff should first confirm with the DPO or IT lead that the tool is approved by the school and that data will be protected and not used to train the AI.

Is a teacher using a personal AI account a data breach?

It can be. If pupils' personal data is shared with a supplier the school has not approved, the school as controller should assess it under its breach procedure, decide whether it must be reported, and respond to any complaint from the family.

Will insurance pay an ICO fine?

Usually not. RPA Section 5 excludes criminal fines and regulatory penalties, and charity trustee insurance cannot cover regulatory penalties under Charities Act 2011 s.189. Response costs and civil compensation claims are treated differently and may be covered, depending on the rules or wording.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start a PI quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.