AI assessment tools are arriving in schools faster than many leaders can evaluate them. If you build, market or sell one, it is tempting to lead with speed, scale and clever analysis. Of course those things are important, but in conversations with school and trust leaders, one question keeps coming up, and it is rarely “what can your tool do?” It is “what will my teachers still own?”
That makes teacher judgement less of a limitation to apologise for and more of a selling point to build on. Here is how to make that case well, in your product, your sales conversations and your marketing.
1. Start with the problem, not the product
School leaders are wary of adding another tool for teachers to manage. So before your next demo, find out what problem the school is actually trying to solve. Is it workload? Consistency? Insight into a class, a year group or a whole trust? Sometimes AI is the right answer, and sometimes it is only part of one. Sales and customer teams who help leaders think this through earn trust quickly. Those who lead with features and work backwards tend to raise suspicion.
2. Name what stays human
Buyers increasingly talk about “non-negotiable human thinking”, the parts of assessment they do not want to hand over. In writing assessment, that includes the final judgement. Say plainly, in your product and your marketing, what your tool does and what the teacher does, and present outputs as evidence for a teacher to examine, not a verdict to accept.
3. Be honest about what the tool cannot see
A tool can analyse what is on the page. It cannot know how independently a piece was written, how much scaffolding or modelling was involved, or whether a child made a deliberate choice or arrived at it by accident. These things sit at the heart of a secure writing judgement. Suppliers who acknowledge this openly come across as credible. Those who imply their tool sees everything invite exactly the scrutiny they hoped to avoid. Make sure everyone who talks to schools, from sales to support, can explain this clearly.
4. Plan for disagreement
AI and teacher assessments will not always agree, just as two teachers will not always agree. Schools will want to know what happens next, so have an answer ready. In moderation, where teachers compare and discuss their judgements, the aim is not to decide who is right but to reach a point where the judgement is secure, backed by evidence the teacher can explain and feel confident in. Disagreement with a tool should be treated the same way. It should not automatically mean the tool is wrong, and its output should never be accepted as final. Build your product so its reasoning is visible, including what evidence it is highlighting, so that teachers can test it against what they know about the child and the wider body of writing. A tool that helps surface the judgements teachers are least sure about, so that moderation can begin there, is genuinely valuable.
5. Show your evidence and safeguards
Expect detailed questions from schools and trusts. How has the tool been tested? How consistent are its judgements? How has bias been considered? How will pupil data be handled? Buyers will weigh your answers alongside their own processes for data protection impact assessments, safeguarding and procurement, so have clear, honest answers and evidence ready before they ask. Trust in your organisation matters as much as trust in your product, so be ready to explain how the technology works and what support staff will receive. Recognised standards are a helpful marker for schools choosing suppliers. At Pobble, being Backed by BESA means committing to BESA’s Code of Practice, including its standards on quality, transparency, safeguarding and responsible conduct.
6. Support the teachers who will use it
Introducing AI is a significant change in practice for a school. Teachers need to understand what a tool can and cannot do, and feel confident enough to question its outputs. That takes training, clear expectations and continued opportunities for professional discussion. It should not rest on one nominated “AI champion” in the school. Suppliers who build onboarding and training that creates shared understanding, rather than leaving it to chance, make adoption far more likely to succeed.
The stronger pitch
It can feel counterintuitive to emphasise what your product does not do. In reality, it is what school and trust leaders are hoping to hear. A tool that gives teachers a richer starting point, while leaving them confident to own the final judgement, fits how schools want to work. It is also easier to defend when governors and trust boards ask how assessment decisions are being made.
At Pobble, we work with schools, trusts and suppliers on one thing: making sure teacher judgement in writing is secure, confident and well supported. That includes our work alongside AI assessment partners such as Stylus and Air Education, but it reaches well beyond them, from moderation training and external validation to strategy support and a secure online moderation platform. What we see most is that the questions schools ask are rarely about the technology. They are about independence, intent, and who owns the judgement. If your product touches writing, assessment or teacher judgement, we are always glad to talk about how moderation can sit alongside it.
AI can support the process. Teachers own the judgement. Say that clearly, and you will be speaking schools’ language.
Head of Moderation and Education Services, Pobble Education
Author bio: Laura Bailey is Head of Moderation and Education Services at Pobble Education, a BESA member. She works with schools and trusts on curriculum development, assessment and moderation.