The Educator Magazine U.K. Sept-Dec 2026 issue - Magazine - Page 22
Ai image manipulation how will you protect staff and pupils?
As AI technology rapidly evolves, schools are
facing new safeguarding challenges around
the misuse of online imagery. In this article,
Alex Dave, Safeguarding Lead at edtech
charity LGfL-The National Grid for Learning,
explores the growing risks of AI image
manipulation and synthetic imagery in
education settings. She outlines the
real-world impact this can have on pupils,
staff and school communities, while offering
practical guidance to help school leaders
reduce risks, strengthen policies and protect
children online.
Navigating the risk of AI image
manipulation in schools
As school leaders, our duty to safeguard
children and young people seamlessly
extends into online spaces. While
publishing images on our websites and social
media channels helps to share and celebrate
achievements and show the vibrancy of
school life, advancements in technology
have introduced an alarming risk:
the unauthorised harvesting and
manipulation of school imagery.
Perpetrators can use manipulated images
to blackmail individuals or the school itself,
demanding money under the threat of public
exposure.
• Significant risk to already vulnerable
children:
The non-consensual sharing and modification
of student photos directly compromises the
safety of vulnerable children, such as Looked
After Children or those on child protection
plans, by exposing personal data or location
routines.
• Profound emotional distress:
The emotional toll on the victims, whether
they are pupils or staff members, and their
families, is immense. Dealing with these
breaches is also heavily distressing for the
safeguarding teams managing the fallout.
And if deepfakes are shared on the web, they
are difficult to totally remove, and so the
consequences can be long term.
Understanding the harm and risks
Is this just fear-mongering? Whilst, of course,
we want to continue celebrating the
successes of our school and children, the
risk landscape has undoubtedly changed.
This is no longer a hypothetical scenario, and
neither is it victimless. If most parents and
carers knew that their child's image on a
website or social media channel could be
used to make very real looking, sometimes
violent abuse material, would they still
consent to their images being published?
The creation of synthetic intimate imagery
carries severe real-world consequences
• Vulnerability to blackmail:
o Implement quality controls - Publish
lower-resolution images online to hinder the
effectiveness of AI manipulation tools.
o Assess your social media channels Closed groups are always preferable when
posting photos, but any member can still
save, edit and share any images posted in
the group. If you continue posting images in
closed social media groups, regularly review
the security settings of the groups and their
memberships.
o Remind staff about reporting –
Staff should already be familiar with
how to report a safeguarding concern
and to avoid looking at, saving or
sending child sexual abuse imagery
(even AI-generated content) – see
UKCIS guidance for a reminder. But it
could be helpful to communicate to
staff about how to report concerns
relating to the synthetic imagery of
teachers/adults being created.
o Update your policies and AUPS Make sure this issue of image sharing
is covered in your policies, e.g. Online
Safety Policy and Acceptable Use
Policies. We will be updating our
template policies and AUPs shortly.
A growing concern is where photos
of pupils or staff are taken from
websites, social media channels and
marketing materials. These images
are then processed using artificial
intelligence tools - such as freely
available ‘nudification’ apps - to
create non-consensual, synthetic
sexual imagery, including AIgenerated child sexual abuse
material (AI CSAM). The AI tools
used to create such abhorrent and
illegal images (photos and videos)
are neither difficult to find nor use.
The reality of this threat requires our
attention and proactive leadership.
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has also
published recent data about the significant
increase in AI Generated CSAM being found
by their analysts, suggesting that this
technology is already in the wrong hands.
This has led to new guidance being published
this month by the UK Online Harms Early
Warning Working Group.
expertise.
Practical Actions
Senior leadership teams should arrange for
a review of what imagery of staff, children,
and leaders is publicly available, and then
consider the actions required to prevent
harm. Such as:
o Re-evaluate image necessity - Ask the
fundamental question: Are face-on photos
actually required? Why not replace direct
portraits with alternative angles, group shots,
or photos taken from a distance or over the
shoulder? We have seen some schools now
using avatars or drawings of school staff,
leaders and governors instead of
photographs.
o Utilise protective technology - Deploying
blur or manipulation technology on student
faces or background features makes imagery
harder to misuse*. Additionally, you can strip
out all embedded EXIF metadata (which can
reveal device details, times, and routines)
before uploading files. But this is not a quick
process and requires some technical
o Re-issue image consent forms - Ensure
that parents and carers (and children over the
age of 16 years) are aware of the risks, so can
make an informed decision about using their
child's photos. Opt in systems, rather than opt
out, would seem more responsible in this new
landscape.
* A warning on schools altering images
and Data Protection
While navigating these technological threats,
schools must exercise extreme caution
regarding their own use of AI tools to alter
images. Please see edtech charity LGfL’s AI
Policy Toolkit for further support with
adopting a safeguarding-first approach to
using AI in school.
Manipulating student images via unapproved
and unchecked AI can lead to privacy
breaches and violate UK GDPR obligations.
Completing a Data Protection Impact
Assessment on any AI tools used is
paramount to ensure schools are compliant
with legislation.
