The Education Ministry's AI guide (version 2.0): what changes for schools

In September 2026, Spain's National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training (INTEF) published version 2.0 of its Guide on the use of artificial intelligence in education. This new version arrives with a practical focus and with resources ready to use in the classroom.

For a leadership team, the question is what to do with it this year. The guide does not require anything, but it offers something many schools do not have: a shared framework for deciding how AI is used, instead of leaving each teacher to work it out alone.

What version 2.0 includes

The guide is organised around three profiles, and for each one it looks at opportunities, challenges and risks, and proposed actions:

• Students: AI literacy, critical use, and digital wellbeing.
• Teachers: the teacher's role as guide and mediator, and how to integrate AI into planning and assessment.
• The school: strategic planning of AI use as a school-level decision.

It also focuses on ethical principles, privacy, equity, transparency, and academic integrity, and pays attention to the environmental impact of these tools and to digital wellbeing, with its cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal effects.

Among the practical resources are learning situations for different stages, an AI use declaration template for students, and a questionnaire for students to reflect on how they use it. It is published under an open licence, in Spanish and English.

What the guide is not

It is important not to confuse it with a regulation. The guide is pedagogical guidance, and it does not set mandatory procedures or deadlines. Legal duties on AI come from somewhere else:

• AI literacy: since 2 February 2025, article 4 of the European AI Act requires those who use AI systems to take measures so that their staff have a sufficient level of knowledge about them. A school that uses AI tools falls within that case.
• High-risk uses: the Act treats certain uses in education as high risk, such as those involved in admission or in assessing students. They have duties of their own, which we explain in the European AI Act in schools.
• Data protection: the GDPR and Spain's LOPDGDD apply in the same way when data passes through an AI tool.

The guide helps with the first and with not stumbling on the third, but it does not replace legal analysis.

From the guide to a school plan in six steps

The most useful proposal in version 2.0 is to treat AI as a school-level decision. A simple plan for this year could have these six steps:

1. Inventory: which AI tools are already being used, by whom, and for what. Include the ones teachers use on their own, which are usually the majority.
2. Allowed and disallowed uses: a short document stating what can be done with AI in the classroom, in lesson preparation, and in administration, and what cannot. The most important rule: do not enter students' personal data into tools the school has not assessed.
3. Assessment and academic integrity: how tasks and assessment are adapted. The guide's use-declaration template is a good starting point for students to explain when and how they have used AI.
4. Training: an AI literacy plan for teaching staff and office staff, which also answers the duty in article 4.
5. Providers and data: for each tool that processes personal data, where it is hosted, what the provider uses it for, and whether there is a data-processing agreement.
6. Communication with families: what use the school makes of AI and with what safeguards. It is better to explain it before the questions arise.

AI in the running of the school

The guide focuses above all on teaching, but its school profile also affects administration. In the office, AI is already used to draft notices, prepare invoices, or answer families' frequent questions. The same principles apply:

• Human oversight: AI prepares, a person reviews and sends.
• Data inside the school's system: an AI built into the management platform, working with data the school already controls, is better than copying information into a generic chat.
• Traceability: knowing what was generated with AI and who validated it.

We develop this in AI agents in the school office.

Conclusion

Version 2.0 of the INTEF guide does not add duties, but it does give schools a shared language and concrete resources so they stop improvising with AI. Turning it into a short plan, with allowed uses, training, a review of providers, and communication with families, is a few weeks' work that orders the whole year.

If you want to see how AI built into school management works, with human oversight and without taking data out of the platform, meet Ena, Edena's AI.