AI IS HERE TO STAY
Richard Human presents the case for dedicated human leadership in the age of artificial intelligence.
How can we help teachers use it best?
Artificial intelligence is no longer on the horizon of education — it is already inside the classroom. Yet across schools and school groups worldwide, its implementation remains uneven, inconsistent, and often reactive. The difference between schools where AI genuinely has the potential to transform learning and those where it generates anxiety and confusion increasingly comes down to one thing: designated, expert, human leadership.
The case for a dedicated AI lead is not merely intuitive. It is supported by a growing body of research — and by the hard lessons of every previous wave of educational technology have taught us.
Implementation Gap and leadership
A 2024 study published in Educational Technology Research and Development (Springer) suggests that GenAI is already being used by school leaders, especially for instructional leadership tasks and that schools benefit from clear guidance, training, and accountable leadership when adopting it. Schools where a leader adopted a proactive, empathetic stance towards AI were significantly more likely to implement it at scale and with consistency. Technical infrastructure, budget, and access to tools mattered far less than the presence of someone actively driving change with clarity and conviction.
This matters because it shifts the question. The barrier to effective AI adoption in schools is rarely technological — it is organisational. It is the absence of a trusted, knowledgeable figure who can translate fast-moving developments into practical guidance for staff, students, and families.
Leaving It to everyone — and no one
A 2025 scoping review in the British Educational Research Association’s Review of Education identified a critical gap in the field: despite AI’s rapid integration into schools, there remains remarkably little research examining how educational leaders are equipped to manage it. The implication is pointed. Schools are being asked to navigate one of the most significant technological shifts in a generation without dedicated guidance, consistent frameworks, or a clear locus of responsibility.
When AI is everyone’s problem, it quickly becomes no one’s priority.
Teachers feel unsupported. Leaders feel exposed. Students and parents receive mixed messages. An AI lead resolves this directly — providing a single point of accountability, a consistent voice, and a bridge between policy intent and classroom reality.
The Champion Model: evidence from adjacent fields
The most robust evidence for the value of dedicated technology leads comes from healthcare, where the “champion model” has been extensively studied. A systematic review published in BMC Health Services Research found that with a clear mandate, dedicated time, and proper training, champion roles significantly accelerated technology adoption — and that the firm anchoring of that role within the organisation was the single most important factor in its success. Champions were not merely enthusiasts; they were trusted intermediaries who reduced resistance, built confidence, and ensured that implementation did not stall at the pilot stage.
Education is not healthcare, but the dynamics of change management are strikingly similar. New technology meets professional identity, institutional inertia, and genuine ethical concern. The champion model translates directly: an AI lead who is respected, resourced, and empowered can do what no policy document or external consultant can — sustain momentum from the inside.
Consistency, ethics, and the risk of getting it wrong
A 2025 study in Frontiers in Education, drawing on survey data from over 300 school leaders, found that most remain at the early adoption stage of AI integration. Many are using AI tools in isolation, without shared frameworks, ethical guidelines, or staff support structures. The result, as researchers from Northern Illinois University have argued, is “inconsistency across classrooms” — a patchwork of use where some students benefit significantly and others are left behind.
This is precisely the equity risk that an AI lead is positioned to address. Their role is not simply to encourage adoption, but to ensure that adoption is safe, coherent, and grounded in the school’s values. They develop the policies that protect student data. They design the professional development that builds genuine competence rather than surface familiarity. They ask the uncomfortable questions about bias, accuracy, and appropriate use — before those questions become crises.
Not a luxury — a strategic necessity
There is a tempting assumption that an AI lead is a role for well-resourced schools, or a response to scale. In reality, the opposite is true. Smaller schools and tightly connected school groups are particularly vulnerable to the costs of poor AI implementation — reputational, pedagogical, and legal — and particularly well placed to benefit from consistent, trust-based leadership on the issue.
As AI becomes embedded in every dimension of school life — assessment, administration, safeguarding, curriculum design, communication with parents — the question is no longer whether schools need dedicated AI leadership. It is whether they can afford to continue without it.
The research is clear: implementation does not scale through technology alone. It scales through people. And it starts with one person who is given the mandate, the time, and the trust to lead.
Richard Human is AI Director at Globeducate
Key sources include: Bao et al. (2024), Educational Technology Research and Development; Karakose (2025), Review of Education, BERA; Berkovich & Bogler (2025), Frontiers in Education; Johansen et al. (2024), BMC Health Services Research; Creed & Junco (2026), NIU College of Education.
FEATURE IMAGE: by Getty Images For Unsplash+
Support Images: Our thanks to Richard, Ruliff Andrean For Unsplash+ & Getty Images For Unsplash+
Â
