Teachers debate whether families’ authorisation is needed to use AI with students
One school has limited generative AI with its students because some families did not authorise it; other views hold that simply informing them is enough. The rules are clear: families must be informed, but between 14 and 18 their consent is not needed unless the tool requires it.
A conversation in ChatGPT-IA-edu reopened a common question in schools: whether using AI with students requires families’ permission. Several positions were put forward.
The first is caution. If even one family in a class group does not give authorisation, the tool should by default not be used with that group, so as not to create differences between students. In a school that has applied it this way, generative AI is not enabled for students and AI literacy is taught without using it, while teachers train during the school year and the staff meeting is expected to decide its strategy at the end.
The second holds that, when the tool is authorised by the education authority (for example Gemini or Copilot), there is no need to ask for permission, just as none is asked for using a platform such as Moodle. It would be enough to inform families, preferably with a published record, and what would matter is the backing of the School Council, the head teacher and the staff.
A third contribution pointed out that the XTEC page on minimum ages by platform, updated on 14 July 2026, says that most platforms ask for parental authorisation between 14 and 18, so in practice it has to be requested. In reply, the guidance from the Departament d’Educació, which the paper reported on 3 November, was cited. That reading was welcomed in the group as good news because of the leeway it gives schools, although, as was acknowledged, it does not end the argument in staff meetings. The question was raised of whether authorisation is needed while that document does not appear on the Departament’s website.
Clear guidelines follow from this. Families must be informed about which tool is used, with which account and for what. Their consent is not needed for students aged 14 to 18 to use the tools provided by the school or the education authority, although the Orientacions recommend collecting authorisation as a safeguard and offer a template in their annex 5. Authorisation is compulsory when the tool’s terms require it, for example if students have to open a personal account with a service that asks for parental permission for under-18s. For students under 14, the Orientacions state that they should not use general-purpose AI on their own, but that the teacher should operate it (OIA-01 and OIA-23); other regions set different criteria, which the paper will review in this Sunday’s report.
If a family objects, its decision affects its own child, not the group. The Regulation recognises the right to object (Article 21), which the Orientacions include in OIA-16, and their authorisation template already provides equivalent alternative activities for students who are not yet old enough, a solution that also works in this case. Stopping using the tool with the whole group is a teaching decision by the school, not a legal obligation.
Editor’s note: unlike other articles in this section, this one does not just summarise the conversation; the paragraphs on the rules were added in a manual review.
Teachers debate whether families’ authorisation is needed to use AI with students
One school has limited generative AI with its students because some families did not authorise it; other views hold that simply informing them is enough. The rules are clear: families must be informed, but between 14 and 18 their consent is not needed unless the tool requires it.
A conversation in ChatGPT-IA-edu reopened a common question in schools: whether using AI with students requires families’ permission. Several positions were put forward.
The first is caution. If even one family in a class group does not give authorisation, the tool should by default not be used with that group, so as not to create differences between students. In a school that has applied it this way, generative AI is not enabled for students and AI literacy is taught without using it, while teachers train during the school year and the staff meeting is expected to decide its strategy at the end.
The second holds that, when the tool is authorised by the education authority (for example Gemini or Copilot), there is no need to ask for permission, just as none is asked for using a platform such as Moodle. It would be enough to inform families, preferably with a published record, and what would matter is the backing of the School Council, the head teacher and the staff.
A third contribution pointed out that the XTEC page on minimum ages by platform, updated on 14 July 2026, says that most platforms ask for parental authorisation between 14 and 18, so in practice it has to be requested. In reply, the guidance from the Departament d’Educació, which the paper reported on 3 November, was cited. That reading was welcomed in the group as good news because of the leeway it gives schools, although, as was acknowledged, it does not end the argument in staff meetings. The question was raised of whether authorisation is needed while that document does not appear on the Departament’s website.
Clear guidelines follow from this. Families must be informed about which tool is used, with which account and for what. Their consent is not needed for students aged 14 to 18 to use the tools provided by the school or the education authority, although the Orientacions recommend collecting authorisation as a safeguard and offer a template in their annex 5. Authorisation is compulsory when the tool’s terms require it, for example if students have to open a personal account with a service that asks for parental permission for under-18s. For students under 14, the Orientacions state that they should not use general-purpose AI on their own, but that the teacher should operate it (OIA-01 and OIA-23); other regions set different criteria, which the paper will review in this Sunday’s report.
If a family objects, its decision affects its own child, not the group. The Regulation recognises the right to object (Article 21), which the Orientacions include in OIA-16, and their authorisation template already provides equivalent alternative activities for students who are not yet old enough, a solution that also works in this case. Stopping using the tool with the whole group is a teaching decision by the school, not a legal obligation.
Editor’s note: unlike other articles in this section, this one does not just summarise the conversation; the paragraphs on the rules were added in a manual review.
