
EXCLUSIVE Schools are paying for Labour-backed AI software to set students' homework - but critics fear technology will make teachers 'lazy and incompetent'
Schools across Britain are paying thousands of pounds for AI software which teachers can use to set pupils homework and give them points based on their behaviour, MailOnline can reveal.
The government-approved software, called Team Satchel, boasts that it is 'giving teachers their weekends and evenings back'.
Its website is littered with high scoring reviews, including three from the same teacher in the space of four months, and claims to be used in a third of secondary schools in Britain.
Some secondary schools could be splashing out as much as £27,000 to have the management information system for three years, according to a pricing document.
As well as setting homework, staff can give or take points away from students depending on their behaviour where they are placed on a virtual 'leaderboard' for teachers to view.
'The ability to assign both positive and negative points to students, from the front of the class, means recognition is timely and supports positive reinforcements ,' the website reads.
But furious campaigners fear it will lead to 'algorithm-based' learning and mark the end of 'inspirational' teaching.
The 'AI revolution in the classroom' is being driven by the Labour government which in March committed £45 million of taxpayers' money into beefing up internet connectivity in schools.
Chris McGovern, chair of Campaign for Real Education, told MailOnline the software would 'provide employment protection for lazy and incompetent teachers'.
'Reliance on AI may have some administrative advantages but it will mark the end of inspirational teaching,' he said.
'Teaching will become algorithm-based and formulaic. It's going to be "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" and "Hello, Mr Deadly-Dull Robot".
'The growing use of such software by schools points to a desolate, depressing and dehumanised experience of learning for pupils.
'Dangerously, it will feed children's harmful addiction to digital technology at a time when they are suffering from a mental health crisis. Schools need to focus as much on "Mind Change" as they do on " Climate Change".
'According to The Children's Society we already have the unhappiest children in Europe. Schools should be encouraging kids to be less reliant on digital technology not strengthening its grip on them.'
Parenting group UsForThem has recently launched its Put The Brakes on EdTech campaign, which calls on secondary schools to suspend the use of pupil-facing technology.
Retired headteacher Chris McGovern (pictured), chair of Campaign for Real Education, said the software would 'provide employment protection for lazy and incompetent teachers'
Co-founder Molly Kingsley told MailOnline that 'tech such as this might well save teachers time but it's disingenuous to pretend that it is in pupils' bests interests'.
She said: 'The core purpose of teaching should be to encourage children to think critically and for themselves, but how can pupils be expected to do this if teachers are actively avoiding doing the same?
'The insertion of tech into the pupil-teacher relationship further erodes the bond between teacher and child and comes at just a moment that children are disengaging from the school system in record numbers.
'In addition, practice indicates that ed tech in general and AI enhanced ed tech in particular presents a whole series of concerns about data and privacy issues which schools are ill equipped to deal with.
'The vast majority of parents would prefer homework to be set by an involved and engaged teacher using nothing more sophisticated than pen and paper.'
Team Satchel was founded in 2011 by vegetarian Naimish Gohil, a former assistant headteacher at the then named Henry Compton Boys School in London and software engineer.
He told the Tech Talks podcast six years ago he wanted his company to become 'synonymous with education'.
'Our job is to serve the school leaders and decision makers to help schools, because if we can help them and provide them with solutions to help them run schools better then that is naturally going to cascade down to teachers, students, and parents,' he said.
James Bore, managing director of cybersecurity consultancy, Bores, has warned schools about using AI in education.
He told MailOnline: 'While everyone's very excited about AI, I cannot stress enough how important it is to recognise that most of the AI out there has absolutely no understanding.
'It is, to simplify, a very powerful predictive autocorrect - a language engine. There is no understanding of that language, there is no distinction between truth and fiction.
'AI, LLMs, can be a powerful tool, and can even be useful, but they cannot be relied upon to be accurate and so any use of them to educate must come with safeguards and human fact-checking to avoid hallucinations.'
The Department for Education said AI would help teachers focus on face-to-face teaching rather than time spent on 'burdensome marking and admin'.
But Britain's 'strictest headteacher' Katharine Birbalsingh has long voiced opposition against it.
The head of Michaela Community School in Brent, north London, warned in February it would 'dumb down lessons'.
The 52-year-old said: 'Your brain remembers stuff if you write it down, if you read it.
'The reason why our children are so literate and so articulate is because they do loads of reading and writing in the classroom.
'If you're on a screen, you're just not going to learn as much and the business of being on a screen actually dumbs you down, so that is devastating for kids that come from more challenging backgrounds.
'We strongly advise our families not to give them smartphones at all, so obviously smartphones aren't allowed in school, but we actually advise them just not to give them smartphones at all.'
Research carried out by the National Literacy Trust found two in five teachers had used generative AI in 2024 to create lesson content.
The rise of AI led the GMB union this week to warn ministers that the technology was 'dehumanising' schools.
In a letter to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, the union's national officer Stacey Booth warned that its members had 'expressed multiple concerns about the use of genAI'.
This included 'cheating and plagiarism, privacy, data security and online safety to the loss of human touch in education'.
Ms Booth said: 'In particular, members' concerns about the dehumanisation of certain areas of education remind us that the increase of technology in schools may lead to a devaluing of the tangible aspects of education, like the social and emotional development that schools support, and the workers who do this.
'This work must not be forgotten in the drive to introduce new technologies and genAI into education.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Powys County Times
27 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
MP calls for ‘chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites to be addressed
A Labour MP has called on the Government to address the 'chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. Mary Kelly Foy said planning decisions on these sites 'have frequently been underpinned by prejudice', with just 30 created over the past 30 years. The MP for City of Durham tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which proposes that Gypsy and Traveller sites are included in spatial development strategies. Speaking in the Commons, she said: 'Today I rise to speak to amendment 134, in my name, that works towards addressing a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system, the chronic under-supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. 'And my amendment seeks to increase fairness into the system to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. 'For too long, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system.' She added: 'The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029, if that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone, and that means by making space, literally and politically, for communities who have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten.' Ms Foy said just 30 sites have been created over the past 30 years, adding: 'Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. 'Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that's not met with political will or leadership. 'Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. And this absence isn't an accident, it's a result of years of structural marginalisation that this Bill must now correct.' Ms Foy said the UK is 'seeing a troubling trend' with the number of socially rented pitches declining. She argued that leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites from future strategies would be 'repeating mistakes of the past'.


Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'