Have your say on EdTech safety: why schools and colleges should respond to the DfE certification consultation

On 10 November 2026 the Department for Education (DfE) opened a consultation on a proposed government-backed certification scheme for EdTech and AI products used in early years, schools and further education in England. It closes on 4 February 2027.  

What is being proposed?

The DfE proposes a single certification scheme that would give settings independent assurance that a product meets minimum safety criteria. In summary:

• Four product categories, each with its own criteria: filtering products; EdTech that carries out high-risk processing of children's data; student-facing generative AI tools; and student-facing personalised learning tools.

• The DfE's preferred option is to own the scheme and set the standards, licensing one or more third-party organisations to deliver it. UKAS would accredit independent certification bodies, which would assess products. Suppliers would apply, and pay a fee, to a certification body.

• Certified products would carry a badge and appear on a public DfE register.

• Full recertification every three years for most categories, with annual surveillance. Generative AI tools may need recertifying every year.

• The scheme will be voluntary at first, with expectations set out in statutory guidance, including KCSIE and the EYFS framework. The DfE is also seeking views on whether legislation may be needed in future.

• The scheme would only assess safety, leaving overall quality and educational effectiveness outside its remit unless they directly affect safety.

Some products are proposed to sit outside the scheme because the risks are considered lower: general office and communication tools, static content such as PDF textbooks, hardware and infrastructure, and staff-facing products (including generative AI tools) that do not carry out high-risk processing of children's personal data. The DfE also proposes not to certify technical monitoring products at this stage, although monitoring products may still fall into another category, such as high-risk data processing. Agents, custom AI tools or wrappers created by a teacher, school or college and used only within that setting would be exempt, with the setting remaining responsible for their safe and lawful use.

Have your say

Suppliers, certification bodies and specialist organisations all have strong reasons to respond. The perspective of the people who choose, configure and supervise these tools day to day is just as important, and it can be under-represented in consultations of this kind. Settings know where current due diligence breaks down, which risks they see in classrooms, and what support would make a scheme usable rather than another layer of paperwork.

Across the AiEd Certified community, schools and colleges have been building the policies, staff, AI literacy and systems thinking that this consultation asks about. AiEd Certified will create our own response to this call, but there is power in a wider response.  

You don't have to answer every question

The DfE states that most questions are optional, so you can focus on the ones where you have something to say. Some questions are aimed at suppliers and you can skip them entirely. From a school and college perspective, the questions we think matter most are:

• Q13: "How do we ensure that certification clearly signals that a product meets safety requirements, and does not reflect the wider efficacy or quality of a product?"

• Q14: "Do you agree or disagree that the following risks are the main risks DfE should seek to address through the proposed certification scheme:" Unlawful use of children's personal data; Exposure to harmful content; Harm to children's cognitive, social and emotional development and mental health.

• "Are there any significant risks from the use of technology in education settings that we have not covered? Please describe any additional risks and how you think they should be prioritised."

• "To what extent do you agree or disagree that product certification is an appropriate approach to meet the following aims?" Support safer decision-making on use of EdTech products; Reduce burden on education settings when purchasing EdTech products; Give suppliers a clear and proportionate route to demonstrate that their products meet robust, defined safety criteria.

• Q17: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that products in each of the following categories should be included in the scope of the proposed product certification scheme?" Filtering tools; High risk data processing; Student-facing generative AI tools; Student-facing personalised learning tools.

• Q21: "What kind of support and guidance would help education settings understand which products are in scope for product certification and which are not?"

• Q25: "Do you agree with the proposed certification criteria for student-facing generative AI tools?"

• Q26: "Please provide any feedback on the generative AI product safety standards."  

• Q29: "How can product certification criteria help education settings understand which products (or configuration of the product) are suitable for different age groups (for example those in post-16 education)?"

• Q30: "Where, in some cases, suppliers rely partly on platform and institution-level controls to meet certification criteria, how could they demonstrate that all relevant criteria are met and that the intended safety outcomes are achieved consistently? Please provide examples where possible."

• Q44: "Would the proposed approach of including a reference to the scheme within statutory guidance (Keeping Children Safe in Education) meet the goal of ensuring adoption of the scheme?"

• Q48: "Considering the proposals as a whole, do you think there are any risks or unintended consequences of implementing the proposed product certification scheme that have not been identified or adequately addressed in this consultation?"

If you have time for more, these are also worth a look:

• Q16: "What robust assurance mechanisms, if any, are already available to education settings and suppliers in England to meet the above aims?"

• Q28: "What features should be included or excluded when considering the impact on children's cognitive development or socio-emotional wellbeing and mental health?"  

• Q35: "Do you think the suggested approach is appropriate to maintain assurance that certified products continue to meet the scheme's requirements in a fast-developing landscape?"

• Q46: "Would the scheme benefit from inclusion in procurement frameworks and other solutions (in future)?"

Practical tips for responding

• Agree a setting or trust response

• Your DSL, data protection officer, IT or network lead, a curriculum or digital lead, and a governor or trustee will each see different issues.

• Describe a product decision you made, a DPIA that was hard to complete, or a tool you stopped using and why. Specific examples carry more weight than general agreement.

The DfE asks for responses through its online form wherever possible, with email and postal routes set out for anyone who cannot use the online system. The consultation closes on 4 February 2027.

View the link to the consultation page

‍