FutureLearning AI Readiness and Practice Audit — Principal / Senior Leader Survey

1 — Unaware: AI in teaching and learning is not on our radar. There is no school-wide conversation and no shared position.

2 — Emerging: Some teachers are experimenting individually for planning or resources, but there is no school position or shared understanding.

3 — Developing: We have a documented position on AI in teaching and learning. Staff have access to guidance, and teacher professional judgement is clearly the anchor.

4 — Embedding: AI use in teaching and learning is purposeful and consistent across most of the school. Professional learning is ongoing and connected to visible practice.

5 — Leading: We evaluate whether AI is improving learning outcomes, not just workload. Equity of benefit is actively monitored, and we contribute to professional learning beyond our school.

D1_P_I2 Does your school have a documented approach to AI marking tools that places teacher responsibility and oversight at the centre?

1 — Unaware: We have no guidance for students on AI use and no AI-specific approach to assessment authenticity.

2 — Emerging: Some teachers talk with students about AI on an ad hoc basis, but there is no consistent school position. We are aware of the NZQA authenticity requirement but our policy has not been updated for AI.

3 — Developing: We have an authenticity policy that explicitly addresses AI, meeting the NZQA requirement. Students receive a structured programme on AI literacy and academic integrity.

4 — Embedding: Authenticity policy is consistently applied and reviewed regularly. Student AI literacy education is developmental and cumulative. Students can articulate what academic integrity means in relation to AI.

5 — Leading: Students genuinely understand AI’s capabilities, limitations, and ethical dimensions. We actively monitor whether AI use is affecting equity of outcome across student groups, including Māori and Pacific learners.

Not applicable — we do not assess NZQA standards

1 — Unaware: No systematic effort has been made to develop staff capability around AI. Any knowledge staff have is personally acquired.

2 — Emerging: Some informal or self-directed learning is happening but it is uneven. Where PLD has occurred, it has focused on how to use specific tools.

3 — Developing: All staff have access to a structured programme covering what AI tools are, appropriate use cases, ethical dimensions, cultural bias, and privacy obligations.

4 — Embedding: Professional learning on AI is ongoing, differentiated by role and stage, and connected to visible practice. Staff can articulate the pedagogical rationale for AI use, not just how to operate tools.

5 — Leading: Staff capability is strong, broadly distributed, and sustained through professional culture rather than episodic events. PLD success is measured by improved outcomes for students, not teacher confidence alone.

1 — Unaware: I have not yet considered AI as a leadership matter for this school. There is no shared direction and no school position.

2 — Emerging: I am aware that AI is becoming significant in schools but have not yet formed or communicated a clear position. Our responses to AI questions are reactive rather than direction-led.

3 — Developing: I have a personal position on AI in this school and have begun to communicate it to staff. The board has had at least one substantive discussion about AI at a strategic level.

4 — Embedding: Leadership has a clear, communicated position on AI connected to our school’s vision and improvement priorities. The board understands its governance role and contributes to strategic direction.

5 — Leading: Our approach to AI is strategic, evidence-informed, and evaluated against equity and learning outcomes. The board exercises active scrutiny. We contribute to sector leadership beyond our own school.

FutureLearning AI Readiness and Practice Audit — Principal / Senior Leader Survey

School Code

Respondent Role