Sample Report
See What Your Audit Report Looks Like
This is a sample report for a fictional school. Your audit will produce the same detailed analysis, personalised to your school's documents and context.
Oakwood Academy
Overall Score
Developing
Oakwood Academy shows solid institutional foundations with established policies and infrastructure, but has significant gaps in ethical frameworks and professional development that need addressing to move beyond the Developing stage.
Dimension Profile
| Dimension | Score | Maturity Level |
|---|---|---|
| Student AI Literacy | 2 | Developing |
| Teacher AI Competency | 2 | Developing |
| Institutional Readiness | 3 | Established |
| Policy & Governance | 3 | Established |
| Ethical Framework | 1 | Exploring |
| Technical Infrastructure | 3 | Established |
| Professional Development | 2 | Developing |
| Assessment Integrity | 2 | Developing |
| Safeguarding & Risk | 2 | Developing |
Detailed Analysis
Dimension Breakdowns
Each dimension is assessed with evidence citations from your uploaded documents, gap analysis, and prioritised action items. Below are three example dimensions from this sample report.
Policy & Governance
Key Findings
A dedicated AI Acceptable Use Policy exists and was approved by the governing body in September 2025, covering student and staff use of generative AI tools.
The school development plan explicitly references AI integration as a strategic priority for 2025-2027, with named senior leadership responsibility.
No documented review cycle for the AI policy — the current version has no scheduled review date or version control history.
Evidence Citations
“All staff and students must use only school-approved AI tools for academic purposes. Personal AI accounts may not be used for school work.”
— AI Acceptable Use Policy, p. 2
“The Deputy Headteacher (Curriculum) will lead the school's AI integration strategy, reporting termly to the governing body.”
— School Development Plan 2025-27, p. 14
Gap Analysis
- No version control or review schedule documented for the AI policy
- Parent and carer communication about AI use not yet formalised
- No evidence of pupil voice in policy development
Recommended Actions
Add a review date and version number to the AI policy, with an annual review cycle aligned to the autumn term governance calendar
Draft a parent/carer information letter explaining how AI is used in teaching and assessment
Convene a student focus group to gather pupil perspectives on AI use before the next policy revision
Ethical Framework
Key Findings
No standalone ethical framework or principles document exists for AI use in the school. The AI policy references 'responsible use' but does not define what this means in practice.
No evidence of curriculum content addressing AI ethics, bias, or the societal impact of AI systems.
The school's broader values statement references 'digital citizenship', which could serve as a foundation for an AI ethics framework.
Evidence Citations
“Students should use AI tools responsibly and in accordance with the school's values.”
— AI Acceptable Use Policy, p. 1
Gap Analysis
- No ethical framework or principles document for AI
- AI ethics not embedded in any curriculum area
- No staff guidance on ethical considerations when using AI for assessment or reporting
- No process for evaluating new AI tools against ethical criteria before adoption
Recommended Actions
Develop a one-page 'AI Ethics Principles' document aligned to the school's values, covering fairness, transparency, privacy, and accountability
Identify 2-3 curriculum touchpoints (e.g. PSHE, Computing) where AI ethics can be introduced as discussion topics
Create a simple checklist for staff to evaluate the ethical implications of new AI tools before classroom use
Professional Development
Key Findings
Two professional development sessions on AI in education were delivered in the autumn term 2025, attended by approximately 70% of teaching staff.
No differentiated CPD pathway exists — the same introductory content was delivered to all staff regardless of existing AI competence or subject specialism.
No mechanism to track staff AI competence development over time or measure the impact of CPD on classroom practice.
Evidence Citations
“Training Day 2 (October 2025): Introduction to AI in Education — exploring ChatGPT, Copilot, and classroom applications. Led by the Head of Computing.”
— Staff CPD Calendar 2025-26, p. 3
“All teaching staff are encouraged to experiment with approved AI tools and share effective practice through departmental meetings.”
— Teaching & Learning Policy, p. 8
Gap Analysis
- No differentiated CPD pathway for varying levels of AI competence
- No tracking or assessment of staff AI skills development
- CPD limited to whole-school training days — no subject-specific AI training
- No peer observation or coaching model for AI-enhanced pedagogy
Recommended Actions
Design a 3-tier CPD pathway (beginner, intermediate, advanced) with subject-specific AI application examples
Introduce a brief self-assessment survey for staff AI confidence, to be completed termly
Establish 'AI Champions' in each department to lead subject-specific experimentation and peer support
Your full report includes detailed breakdowns for all 9 dimensions, with evidence citations, gap analysis, and action items for each.
Cross-Dimension Analysis
Connected Insights
The audit identifies connections between dimensions that reveal systemic patterns and strategic priorities.
The school's AI policy references 'responsible use' but there is no corresponding ethical framework to define what this means in practice. This creates a gap between policy intent and classroom implementation.
Suggested: Develop an AI Ethics Principles document that the AI policy can explicitly reference, creating a coherent governance chain from values to practice.
Professional development on AI has been delivered as whole-school training, but without differentiation or follow-up. Meanwhile, teacher AI competency scores suggest significant variation in staff readiness. One-size-fits-all CPD is unlikely to close this gap.
Suggested: Introduce a tiered CPD model with self-assessment, allowing staff to access training matched to their current competence level and subject area.
Technical infrastructure scores well (Level 3), suggesting the school has the tools in place. However, without stronger professional development and ethical guidance, there is a risk that technology deployment outpaces pedagogical readiness.
Suggested: Link any new AI tool deployment to a corresponding CPD session and ethical review, ensuring technology adoption is supported by staff capability and governance.
Your Full Report Also Includes
All 9 Dimensions
Detailed analysis of every dimension with evidence and citations
Downloadable PDF
Professional report ready for school leadership, boards, and inspection preparation
Action Plans
Prioritised implementation plans with effort/impact ratings and HOW guidance
Progress Tracking
Run follow-up audits to measure improvement over time
Department Views
Filter and compare by subject area or department
Comparison Tools
Compare two audits side-by-side with AI-generated narrative
Get Your School's Real Scores
Upload your school's policies and documents. Your first audit is free — no credit card required.