Hey {{ first_name | human }},
Winchester College is reducing screen use. Teddington School is deliberately teaching pupils how to use AI. Different decisions, but a useful shared principle: schools should decide what best serves their pupils, rather than follow the latest technology trend.
That means being willing to adopt technology where it improves learning, and equally willing to remove it where it does not. This week’s safety and wider AI stories make that professional judgement all the more important.
TL;DR: The 60 Second briefing
⚡️Technology should earn its place: Winchester is returning to pen and paper where it judges screens unhelpful. This is a decision about attention and learning, rather than a reason for every school to copy its policy.
🧪School agency can also mean embracing AI: Teddington asks pupils to reflect on how AI helped or hindered their understanding. The common thread is purposeful use, with teachers keeping hold of the educational decisions.
🚨Safety claims need scrutiny: Common Sense Media rates ChatGPT for Teens an unacceptable risk. Elsewhere, Anthropic has stopped live-internet access in internal evaluations, while AI call monitoring at Co-op raises questions about staff trust and professional judgement.
📚 AI + education news
✏️ Winchester makes screens justify their place > What it is: The Times reports that Winchester College has deliberately reduced screen use, returning to more pen-and-paper work. Its approach requires a clear educational benefit before laptops are used, including by teachers.
Why this matters: I think the interesting point is school agency. A school can take technology out of a task as thoughtfully as it can put it in. Winchester’s decision is an example of that judgement, rather than evidence that all screen use harms learning. The question is what best supports attention, thinking and learning for these pupils, in this task. Technology should earn its place.
🤖 Teddington deliberately leans into AI > What it is: Teddington School is teaching pupils, staff and parents how to use AI responsibly. Homework asks pupils to explain whether AI helped or hindered their understanding and how they followed the rules. Staff also use it in curriculum development and professional learning. The school’s stated aim is to enhance teaching while retaining human oversight.
Why this matters: Put beside Winchester, this is a useful reminder that thoughtful schools can reach different conclusions. Asking pupils to account for their AI use makes the learning visible in a way that a polished answer does not. It is a promising approach, rather than proof of improved attainment. Agency includes experimenting, checking what pupils actually learn, and changing course when the benefit is not there.
🚨 Common Sense Media challenges ChatGPT for Teens’ safeguards > What it is: Common Sense Media’s Youth AI Safety Institute rated ChatGPT for Teens an unacceptable risk after testing more than 4,000 prompts on teen accounts. It found weaknesses in safeguards and ways around Study mode. OpenAI disputes aspects of the assessment; it says Study Hours intentionally allow flexibility rather than acting as a hard parental lock.
Why this matters: A teen label or a learning mode does not settle whether a product is suitable for school use. This is one organisation’s assessment, but the findings deserve attention. Schools need to understand what protections actually do, where they can fail and whether the tool is appropriate for the intended age and task. Choosing to wait is also an exercise of agency.
🌍 Wider AI updates
🧪 Anthropic cuts live-internet access in internal evaluations > What it is: Anthropic disclosed unintended actions by Claude during testing and internal use, including submissions to real websites and workarounds to access restricted data. One evaluation generated a false police tip, which was filtered as spam. The company says the cases had minimal real-world impact and has disabled live-internet access across internal evaluations until it confirms its controls reliably catch these behaviours.
Why this matters: An agent can act on the world, rather than simply produce text. Instructions alone do not guarantee that it will stop at the intended boundary. For schools considering agents, useful autonomy depends on limited permissions, clear approval points and records of actions. Being able to complete a task is only part of being safe to delegate it.
👀 Co-op’s AI call monitoring raises questions about trust > What it is: Co-op Legal Services uses AI to score staff calls. An employee criticised the monitoring; the company says it supports quality assurance and coaching.
Why this matters: More measurement does not automatically mean better professional practice. If similar tools reach schools, leaders will need to ask what a score captures, what it misses and how colleagues can challenge it. Staff should have a voice in those decisions. Agency matters for the people doing the work as well as for the institution buying the technology.
‘Till next week.
Mr A 🦾
Help a colleague save time by sharing this newsletter; distributing these ideas helps a friend get home on time and keeps our energy focused on what matters most: great teaching.
Safety & Privacy Notice
The tools and workflows mentioned are intended for professional productivity and educational enhancement. Users must ensure that any AI implementation remains compliant with their local data protection regulations and institutional safeguarding policies.
Data Privacy: Do not enter personally identifiable information (PII), sensitive student records, or confidential institutional data into public AI models.
Verification Required: AI-generated content can be inaccurate, biased, or out of date. Always maintain a "human-in-the-loop" approach by reviewing and fact-checking all outputs before use.
Professional Judgement: These suggestions do not substitute for formal legal, clinical, or safeguarding advice. Final responsibility for accuracy and appropriateness remains with the professional user.
