A school AI literacy day should give pupils a clearer understanding of what generative AI can do, where its answers need checking and how to ask for help. The programme needs to fit the pupils, the school's rules and the time available. A product demonstration alone is unlikely to achieve that.
Planning starts with the school, not with a list of tools. Age groups, access arrangements, safeguarding, additional needs and the curriculum context all affect what can be taught responsibly. Pupils do not necessarily need individual accounts to practise questioning an AI-generated answer or comparing it with a reliable source.
This guide offers an illustrative planning framework for adult school leaders and coordinators. It is not a prescribed curriculum or a claim that one day establishes competence. Local requirements and the school's approved arrangements take priority throughout.
Agree what pupils should be able to do
Choose a few observable outcomes. Pupils might identify an unsupported statement, explain why a source needs checking or describe information they should not enter into an unapproved tool. Outcomes like these allow teachers to assess learning without relying on enthusiasm or a show of hands about confidence.
Distinguish awareness from independent use. A younger group may discuss prepared examples with a teacher; an older group may compare outputs within an approved supervised activity. The same session title can conceal very different expectations, so state the level of independence explicitly in the brief.
Connect the day to existing learning. A history class can examine whether a response refers to real evidence; a computing lesson can discuss how a system produces an output; an English activity can compare purpose and audience. The external session should support the school's teaching rather than appear as an unrelated spectacle.
Ask teachers what misconceptions are already present. Pupils may assume a fluent answer is authoritative, or that citing a website proves a statement. Use those observations to select examples. Avoid making broad claims about what all children believe or how every school currently uses AI.
Set the policy and safeguarding boundaries
Review the school's current AI, safeguarding and information-handling arrangements with the relevant leaders. Establish what demonstrations are permitted, which staff must be present and how a concern raised during the day will be handled. Visiting trainers should work within the school's procedures.
For schools in England, the Department for Education's AI policy material provides a relevant starting point. Other UK nations and international settings have their own guidance and requirements. Confirm the applicable context rather than treating one document as a universal school policy.
Agree who controls any live demonstration. Prepared outputs or a teacher-operated approved account may be more suitable than asking pupils to sign up. Provider eligibility, account settings and age conditions vary and can change, so check the selected product and institutional arrangement before the day.
Keep pupil records and identifiable work out of the enquiry and planning materials unless a specific authorised need exists. A trainer can usually design activities from year groups, learning aims and anonymised access requirements. The school should retain control over personal and safeguarding information.
Choose a delivery shape that fits the timetable
Decide whether the day is a single cohort workshop, a set of rotations or a staff-and-pupil programme. These formats require different preparation. A short assembly can introduce ideas, but it does not provide the same opportunity for practice and feedback as a smaller classroom session.
Map the actual school timetable, including transitions, breaks and supervision. A provider's standard “full day” may not match teaching periods. Agree how long pupils can work on each activity and what happens if a session starts late or a room change takes longer than expected.
Avoid trying to cover every year group with the same depth in one visit. A large school may need several days or a train-the-teacher approach. Be explicit about which groups receive direct teaching and which receive follow-up material delivered by school staff.
Specify the roles of teachers and support staff. They should know whether they are observing, co-teaching, supporting access or managing classroom routines. An external trainer does not replace the school's supervision arrangements. Clear roles also make it easier to continue the learning after the visit.
Use an illustrative rotation plan
The following example is a planning aid for a fictional school with three groups, not a recommended timetable for every setting. The school would adapt session lengths, rooms, staff and activities to the actual pupils and learning objectives before agreeing delivery.
- Shared introduction: explain the day's questions and the rule that an answer needs evidence.
- Rotation one: compare a prepared AI-style response with a short trusted source and identify a claim that needs checking.
- Rotation two: improve a vague request using a supplied task, audience and constraint, without entering personal information.
- Rotation three: discuss scenarios about privacy, academic honesty and asking a trusted adult for help.
- Closing activity: pupils explain one check they would make and one situation where they would stop and ask.
Keep a non-digital version of each activity where possible. Printed source packs and prepared responses allow useful learning during an outage or where account access is unsuitable. The alternative should address the same outcome rather than leaving some pupils merely watching others work.
Build in time for teachers to record questions and misconceptions. Those observations can be more valuable than a long list of products covered. Use them to identify which concepts need reinforcement in ordinary lessons after the external event.
Prepare examples that are safe and teachable
Use topics the relevant teacher can check. A prepared response containing a clear factual error supports a source-checking exercise without exposing pupils to uncontrolled content. Label fabricated examples appropriately in the teaching materials so staff understand what is real and what was created for the activity.
Avoid sensitive personal scenarios and exercises that require pupils to disclose their own experiences. A privacy discussion can use fictional characters and ordinary information choices. The school should review the materials in advance, including the examples, language and likely questions.
Show limitations without suggesting that every output is wrong. Pupils need a practical method for evaluating an answer, not a blanket instruction to distrust technology. Compare supported claims, unsupported claims and statements that remain uncertain because the supplied evidence is incomplete.
Our guide to teaching pupils to check AI answers includes original activity structures. Teachers can adapt the reading demand and subject content while keeping the core task visible: identify the claim, find suitable evidence and explain what can reasonably be concluded.
Confirm equipment and access before the visit
Check devices, network access, projection, audio and any content filters with the school's technical team. Test the approved setup rather than assuming a link that works at the provider's office will work on the school network. Avoid last-minute requests to weaken filtering or share unrestricted accounts.
Clarify who supplies equipment and whether pupils work individually, in pairs or through a teacher-led display. These choices affect participation and session pacing. If some pupils use different devices or accessibility tools, include them in preparation rather than treating compatibility as a problem to solve during teaching time.
Have a written fallback for a network outage or unavailable service. Prepared outputs, source cards and discussion activities can preserve the learning objective. A resilient programme should not depend on a model producing one particular answer live in front of a class.
The school AI tool checklist provides a separate review structure for accounts, information handling and access. Keep that technical and governance check distinct from deciding whether a particular activity is educationally useful for a given group.
Plan for accessibility and participation
Ask the school about relevant access needs through its normal process. Provide readable materials, clear instructions and alternatives to fast typing or public speaking. Pupils should not have to disclose a difficulty to an unfamiliar trainer in front of their peers to participate.
Keep instructions available in more than one form where appropriate. A spoken explanation can be paired with a short written task and a worked example. Allow time to read the source and discuss it. Fast-moving demonstrations can create the appearance of engagement while leaving some pupils unable to follow the reasoning.
Use grouping deliberately. Pair work can support discussion, but one confident pupil may otherwise control the device and answers. Give each participant a role, such as identifying a claim or checking a source, and rotate those roles where suitable for the class.
The W3C accessibility introduction is useful background for digital materials. Classroom inclusion also depends on teacher knowledge of the pupils, the language demand and the activity design. A website accessibility check alone cannot establish that the school event meets those needs.
Include teachers in preparation and follow-up
Offer a short briefing on the learning aims, materials and boundaries before delivery. Teachers should know which terms are used, what examples pupils will see and how to handle questions beyond the agreed scope. This makes the visit part of a coherent school approach.
Where staff training is included, distinguish it from pupil teaching. Teachers may need time to consider workload, assessment and approved professional uses. A brief staff demonstration at the end of a busy day is unlikely to meet the same goals as a dedicated practical workshop.
Provide reusable follow-up activities with guidance on adaptation. Identify any time-sensitive product references that need checking before reuse. Materials built around source evaluation and task definition are easier to maintain than instructions dependent on a particular button layout or a temporary free feature.
Agree who owns the follow-up. A school coordinator can gather questions and identify whether another session is needed. The external provider should not create an ongoing direct contact route to pupils or ask them to join a promotional mailing list as part of participation.
Evaluate learning with a short independent task
Give pupils a comparable question before and after the learning, using different examples. Ask them to identify a claim that requires checking and explain the next step. The aim is to see whether their reasoning changes, rather than whether they remember a slogan from the presentation.
Use the appropriate level of reading and subject knowledge. If an activity is too difficult for reasons unrelated to AI literacy, it will not tell you much about the intended skill. Teachers should review the examples and interpret the results in the context of the group.
Collect staff observations about participation, misconceptions and practical difficulties. Keep the evaluation proportionate and avoid unnecessary personal data. Aggregated findings can help plan future teaching without transferring individual pupil records to the provider.
Report limits honestly. A one-day event can introduce and practise selected skills, but long-term habits require reinforcement. Positive feedback shows that participants valued the experience; it does not by itself demonstrate safer independent use or improved attainment across subjects.
Scope the booking and price realistically
Give the provider the school location, intended dates, year groups, group sizes, format and learning aims. Include equipment arrangements and preparation requirements. These details determine the teaching and planning effort more reliably than a request for a generic “AI day”.
A quote should distinguish preparation, delivery, materials, staff briefing and follow-up. Larger cohorts, several rotations, specialist access requirements or international travel may change the scope. A published starting consultation fee should not be mistaken for a promise to deliver a whole-school event at that price.
The 114 Labs school training page provides a route for an adult representative to discuss the requirement. The initial request should use organisational information, with personal or safeguarding details handled through an appropriate later process if genuinely needed.
Ask what is confirmed at each booking stage. Availability, final content and supervision arrangements may require human review before the date is agreed. A clear written scope protects teaching time and helps the school compare providers on the outcomes and support actually included.
Confirm the day-before readiness check
Ask the school coordinator and provider to confirm the final groups, rooms, staff, materials and approved technical setup. Identify one contact for changes on the day. A short readiness check can prevent a planned rotation becoming a last-minute assembly because the expected room or equipment is unavailable.
Keep the fallback materials with the delivery team and the relevant teacher. Confirm that everyone understands which activities can continue without live access and which should be paused. This gives staff a workable response to an ordinary disruption without making an improvised change to the school's approved arrangements.
Use the day as a starting point
After delivery, review the agreed outcomes with the school team. Which activities produced useful discussion? Where did pupils still rely on the apparent confidence of an answer? Which access or timetable issues need changing? Use specific observations to shape the next step.
Keep a manageable programme of reinforcement in ordinary lessons. A short source-checking exercise or a discussion of a new approved tool can revisit the same principles. Teachers can connect the learning to actual classroom tasks without creating another standalone event for every product release.
Review the materials when policy, provider conditions or school arrangements change. Prepared examples may remain useful even when the tools evolve, but links and account instructions need current checks. Assign that responsibility so reusable resources do not become an outdated unofficial policy.
A well-planned AI literacy day leaves the school with teachable activities, clearer questions and a practical basis for follow-up. Its value comes from informed supervision and repeated thoughtful practice, with technology serving the learning rather than determining the programme.
Checked sources
Good questions.
Better operations.
A useful conversation begins with the work you want to improve. Tell us where the friction is; we can establish an appropriate assessment scope.
Explore school training ↗