AI 'must not replace teachers in Scottish schools': Union's manifesto call ahead of 2026 Holyrood election
The EIS teaching union has made a raft of demands in its manifesto ahead of the Holyrood election from AI use to college funding
Scotland’s largest teaching union has called on the Scottish Government to pledge that AI must not replace teachers in the classroom.
At the launch of its manifesto, the EIS set out a raft of demands for ministers around schools, universities and colleges.
Its key priorities include reducing class sizes to 20, reducing weekly class contact time to a maximum of 20 hours, and increase staff numbers for pupils with additional support needs (ASN).
The union also said education must be focused on “human-based” relationships and judgement, never on Artificial Intelligence.
“Scottish schools must retain the presence of GTCS registered teachers in classrooms to continue the fundamental role of teachers as leaders of learning, exercising professional judgement and skills in a human-centred system,” its manifesto reads.
Saying that education technology (Edtech) has the potential to enhance aspects of teaching, “it cannot replace teachers nor make decisions in place of teachers or other professionals; and it carries many risks in respect of reliability, cognitive growth, inbuilt bias, equality and data protection.”
The EIS says the use of Edtech and AI must be “collectively planned and agreed” with teacher trade unions before being rolled out.
Its manifesto is supported by independent research from the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland (IPPR Scotland), which has provided an analysis of the costs of the EIS policy proposals.
General Secretary Andrea Bradley said: “The key themes of our manifesto highlight the value of education to society, and the importance of investing in our schools, colleges and universities.
“The EIS would urge all of our members to read the manifesto, to question politicians and political parties over their commitment to Scottish education, and then to use their votes in this hugely important election.”
For school education, the EIS wants the number of Early Years GTCS-registered teachers to return to at least 2012, ideally 2007, levels.
Ms Bradley added: “There are, of course, costs involved in properly funding education, but this should be seen as an investment in our young people and in the future of our country and our society.
“Based on the independent research by IPPR Scotland , the view of the EIS is that these costs are entirely manageable for a wealthy country such as Scotland.”
According to the UPPR Scotland data, restoring the teacher ratios in the Early Years Sector to 2012 levels would require around 80 per cent more teachers in that sector at an annual cost of £50 million.
Reducing weekly class contact time to 20 hours would involve employing extra teachers at a cost of around £330m per year.
Dave Hawkey, senior research fellow at IPPR Scotland said: “The costs we have estimated for implementing these policies are not insignificant, but international evidence suggests it is highly plausible that these would be outweighed by the benefits.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said ministers “remain committed” to working with teaching unions and COSLA to “further improve educational outcomes”.
“We will continue working with unions, stakeholders, and COSLA to agree our approach to delivering a reduction in class contact time which is key to reducing teacher workload and improving educational experiences for our children and young people,” he said.
READ MORE: MSPs vote to pass controversial tertiary education bill that will change how colleges are funded
“Average class sizes in Scottish primary schools are smaller than any other country in the UK, and the ratio of pupils to teacher remains at near-record low levels.
“Scotland continues to have the lowest pupil-teacher ratio and the best paid teachers in the UK.
“Teachers undertake additional support needs (ASN) training as a requirement to meet General Teaching Council (GTC) standards.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.