At a glance
The nine domains
◆ marks a compliance-floor indicator, bound by the jurisdiction pack to legal requirements in force locally.
Leadership
Includes indicators on ownership, time, and budget.
Strategy
Includes indicators on planning and school improvement.
Governance◆
Includes indicators on approval routes, DPIAs and accountabilities.
Teaching & Learning
Includes classroom use, assessment and pupil capability.
Staff Capability
Includes baseline capability and training cycles.
Innovation & Evidence
Includes pilots, success criteria, impact evaluation and shared findings.
Safety & Risk◆
Includes acceptable use, incident response, and safeguarding.
Digital Infrastructure◆
Includes tool registers, data mapping and access controls.
Inclusion & Access
Includes pupil voice, parent engagement, additional needs and equity of access.
Scoring
Domain score is the mean of its indicator levels expressed out of 100. Overall score is the mean of the nine domain scores.
Flags
Indicators at 0 or 1 identify areas for attention. The evidence available determines which priorities are most useful.
Compliance floors
Governance 3.1 to 3.3 cap at Establishing without legally required elements; Safety & Risk caps at Establishing overall while any legally required element is absent.
Bands and gates
| Band | Score | Gate conditions | Public display |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emerging | below 37.5 | No gate | Private. "Indexed" participation mark available to every completing school. |
| Establishing | 37.5 to 62.4 | No gate | Band mark once compliance-complete; otherwise "Indexed, working towards". |
| Embedded | 62.5 to 87.4 | Compliance-complete, and no domain below Establishing | Band mark at either tier. |
| Leading | 87.5 and above | Compliance-complete, no indicator below Establishing, and Index Verified | Verified mark only. The top band cannot be self-assessed. |
Evidence and verification
The assessment uses organisational evidence submitted by the school. Evidence gaps and limitations affect what the findings can establish. Checking a document's date does not establish that its contents are accurate or its policy is followed.
A readiness result is based on the evidence available at the assessment date. It is not an inspection, accreditation or a guarantee of safety, compliance or educational impact.
Benchmarking
Relevant comparisons require enough suitable evidence from comparable schools. A comparison should state the cohort size, relevant characteristics, assessment period and method. Where the cohort is too small or unsuitable, comparison is not yet available.
Jurisdiction packs
Framework-anchored assessment is available anywhere.
Compliance floors and the Regulatory Radar are claimed only where a specific legal pack is complete. The generated report always states explicitly which jurisdiction pack was applied.
Live Packs
- England
In Progress
- Scotland
- Wales
- Northern Ireland
- United Arab Emirates
- United States
Anchor library
| Code | Framework Reference |
|---|---|
| G1 | OECD / EC AILit Framework |
| G2 | UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Teachers |
| G3 | UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Students |
| G4 | UNESCO Guidance for Generative AI in Education |
| G5 | ISO/IEC 42001:2023 |
| G6 | WEF Education Readiness for the Age of AI |
| G7 | OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026 |
| G8 | UNCRC General Comment No. 25 |
Limitations, stated plainly
- Readiness not impact. The standard measures the foundational conditions for safe and effective AI use, not the ultimate educational outcomes.
- Based on submitted evidence. The assessment describes readiness against its framework. It does not certify that every statement is accurate or every policy is followed.
- Early benchmarks are provisional. Percentiles and medians require statistical significance and will shift during the first year of adoption.
- Pack coverage applies only to supported jurisdictions. Without a specific jurisdictional pack, compliance floors reflect international consensus rather than local statute.