European Teachers Concerned About AI's Rapid Classroom Adoption, Epson Survey Finds

A survey commissioned by Epson has found that teachers across Europe are broadly concerned about the speed at which artificial intelligence is entering education. The research, titled Educate to Empower 2026, polled 3,360 people in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, and the UK. According to the findings, 80% of educators worry about the pace of AI adoption in classrooms.

The survey also indicates that 68% of teachers believe AI use for homework negatively affects learning. In contrast, more than three-quarters of students expect to be able to use AI, and almost 90% already use it at least once a week for schoolwork.

Dr Sarah Henkelmann-Hillebrand, lead for education at Epson Europe, said in a statement that AI is developing quickly and students expect to use it, so it must be managed with proper governance, guidelines, and training. She also noted the importance of exploring how AI can enhance learning, suggesting that tools like projection combined with AI could support co-creation in immersive spaces and help students build skills for a future shaped by AI.

The survey's release coincides with the start of enforcement of the EU's AI Act, which requires schools in the European Union to ensure adequate training for any AI tools they use. The UK does not have an equivalent law, though businesses serving EU companies must comply with the Act.

Beyond concerns about student use, the survey found that 82% of teachers want more training to oversee student AI use, and 78% want training and guidance on using the technology in their own work. These figures suggest a demand for professional development on both fronts.

The findings point to a tension: while students are already using AI regularly, many teachers feel unprepared to manage it or to leverage it for their own tasks. The survey data does not indicate whether teachers' concerns translate into specific classroom policies or whether schools are actively implementing the training that educators say they need. Nor does it clarify how student AI use correlates with learning outcomes; the negative effect reported by teachers is a perception, not a measured result.

Epson, which commissioned the survey, sells projection technology and has an interest in promoting immersive learning environments that combine hardware with AI. That commercial context is worth noting when interpreting the company's framing of the results, particularly its emphasis on co-creation and projection-based solutions.

The survey offers a snapshot of attitudes at a moment when regulation is beginning to bite. It does not track behaviour over time or establish causation. What it does show is a gap between student adoption and teacher readiness, and a clear appetite among educators for guidance. Whether that gap will be closed by training, policy, or further technological integration remains an open question, and the survey alone cannot answer it.