AI could create a new divide for NEET young people

I've been reading Britain's Greatest Education Opportunity Ever, a landmark new report from one of Britain's leading voices on education, Sir Anthony Seldon and venture capitalist, Tim Bunting, examining how Britain's schools are failing to adapt to artificial intelligence (AI) with a Ten-Point Action Plan for Government. Most of the discussion about AI in education is familiar enough. The figure that caught my attention was in the polling.

Public First found that 87% of 11-24-year-olds in England have used AI tools. Among postgraduate students, that rises to 93%. Yet one in five young people who are NEET, not in education, employment or training, have never used an AI tool at all, compared with roughly one in eight overall.

The gap isn't huge, but it points the same way as most things in education. The report also finds a 13-point gap between the highest and lowest social grades, at 92% against 79%.

Education has always battled to spread opportunities evenly. The young people who are already engaged are usually first through the door. Those facing the biggest barriers are often slower to benefit, and sometimes miss out altogether. We've seen that pattern with enrichment, careers advice, work experience, technology and countless other initiatives.

The conversation about AI is largely happening within schools. Teachers are working out how to use it. Schools are developing policies. Trusts are thinking about governance, risk and safeguarding. All of that matters. But the polling made me think about a different group entirely: young people who are no longer in education (NEET) while AI becomes a normal part of learning, work and day-to-day life.

The report cites the NEU findings that about half of schools have no AI policy at all, and two-thirds have nothing covering pupils specifically. It also found that 71% of young people believe AI will reduce the number of jobs available in future. Whether they are right is almost beside the point. Perceptions of work, careers and opportunity are already being shaped by these technologies.

Some of the safeguarding data was interesting too. Two in five young people said they had used AI to discuss problems or feelings, and a similar proportion had used it for health advice. Schools and trusts should understand what role these tools are beginning to play. It also made me wonder about young people without a school or trust around them, who may be turning to these tools with fewer adults to ask.

I was surprised how little attention the polling chapter gives to the NEET finding after identifying it. For a report built around the opportunities AI might create, that feels like a gap worth exploring.

The education sector has spent years trying to narrow gaps in opportunity. If AI becomes as influential as many predict, the most engaged young people will probably be fine: they will have the access, support and motivation to make the most of it. The question is whether we pay enough attention to the young people already furthest from education to prevent this gap from widening.