Business

Bereaved families will face increased financial and administrative pressure following the government’s decision to include pensions in inheritance tax (IHT) calculations from April 2027, despite widespread opposition from both the public and the pensions industry.

Under the new rules, pension pots will be treated as part of an individual’s estate when calculating inheritance tax liabilities. The Treasury expects the policy to raise £1.46 billion per year by 2029–30, with 10,500 estates set to pay inheritance tax as a result, and a further 38,500 estates facing higher tax bills, according to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

The move has been described by critics as the Labour government’s most unpopular tax change to date. A recent AJ Bell poll of 2,050 adults found that 44 per cent opposed the change, with just 21 per cent in support.

Renny Biggins, head of retirement at The Investing and Savings Alliance, which represents over 270 financial services firms, said the decision was deeply disappointing.

“Despite significant pushback from the industry, pensions will now form part of inheritance tax calculations,” he said.

Initially, the government had proposed that pension scheme administrators would be responsible for calculating and paying any tax owed on pension pots. However, following intense lobbying from the pensions industry, the Treasury has shifted the burden to personal representatives, typically either solicitors or bereaved family members.

They will now be required to identify and report all pension assets and pay any IHT due within six months of death to avoid interest charges—placing yet another burden on grieving families.

The government’s summary of responses to the HMRC consultation published this week noted that although some supported the principle of taxing pension wealth, “the majority strongly opposed the proposal to make pension scheme administrators liable”.

Former pensions minister Sir Steve Webb warned that the changes risk overwhelming grieving families with complex bureaucracy at an already difficult time.

“Life is tough enough when you have just lost a loved one without having extra layers of bureaucracy on top,” said Webb, who is now a partner at consultancy Lane Clark & Peacock.

He explained that family members would now have to track down all pensions held by the deceased, obtain statements from each scheme, collate the data, and use HMRC’s online calculator to determine the IHT liability—then pay the tax within six months.

“Complications will no doubt arise when families cannot locate all pensions or when providers are slow to supply the necessary information,” Webb added.

He urged the government to rethink its penalty rules, warning that families could be unfairly fined for late payments caused by delays beyond their control.

“While the changes HMRC has made are undoubtedly good news for pension schemes and those who administer them, it is hard to see that they are good news for bereaved families.”

Critics say the inclusion of pensions in IHT calculations represents a major shift in how retirement savings are treated—reversing previous assurances that pensions would remain outside the tax net and could be passed on tax-free in most circumstances.

Industry experts have questioned the practical feasibility of the policy, warning that many individuals have multiple pension pots, often spread across different providers, with some dormant or difficult to trace.

With inheritance tax already considered one of the most complex areas of the tax system, the addition of pensions is expected to create a significant administrative burden, particularly for families with modest estates.

The Treasury insists the change is a matter of tax fairness, ensuring that pension wealth is treated in line with other assets like property and investments. However, the debate is likely to intensify as the April 2027 implementation date approaches—and as more families become aware of the additional red tape they may soon face during an already difficult period of loss.

Read more:
Families face red tape nightmare with inheritance tax on pensions from 2027

The European Union and the United States are close to finalising a trade agreement that would impose 15 per cent tariffs on most EU exports, in a move designed to avert a broader trade war but still likely to sting key European industries.

Diplomatic sources confirmed that member states were briefed on Wednesday by the European Commission about the proposed deal, which would mirror terms recently agreed between the US and Japan. The deal would apply to most goods, though exemptions are being considered for aircraft and medical devices.

In a bid to soften the terms, the EU has offered to cut its average most-favoured-nation tariff rate of 4.8 per cent to zero on selected products as part of an agreement in principle. However, if the deal proceeds, it would still leave the bloc worse off than the UK, which has secured a 10 per cent baseline tariff agreement with the US.

For the German car industry, the proposed 15 per cent tariff would represent a significant blow. While lower than the current 27.5 per cent rate, it is still more than five times the 2.75 per cent duty in place before Donald Trump returned to the White House earlier this year.

The agreement is now in the hands of President Trump, who has made reshaping trade relationships a cornerstone of his second term. However, the White House has yet to confirm the deal, with spokesperson Kush Desai cautioning that “any discussion of trade deals is speculation unless announced by the president.”

While negotiations continue, Brussels is preparing a sweeping package of countermeasures should Trump reject the deal. On Wednesday, the European Commission threatened to impose €93 billion (£80 billion) in retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of US goods.

This would include products from an earlier €21 billion list—featuring poultry and spirits—merged with a newer €72 billion list that targets high-value items such as cars and Boeing aircraft.

If approved by EU member states in a vote expected in the coming days, the counter-tariffs would come into effect as early as 7 August. EU diplomats have also discussed invoking the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), a powerful legal tool that could go beyond tariffs and allow the bloc to ban certain US services—a move that would significantly affect US tech firms operating in Europe.

Only France has called for immediate implementation of the ACI, arguing that the bloc must demonstrate it is willing to act decisively.

“The EU’s primary focus is on achieving a negotiated outcome with the US,” said Olof Gill, trade spokesperson for the European Commission. “But we are also preparing for all outcomes. To make countermeasures clearer, simpler and stronger, we will merge lists 1 and 2 into a single list.”

Some analysts argue the EU has already mishandled its negotiating position. Tobias Gehrke, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the bloc had failed to use its leverage after Trump issued his 30 per cent tariff threat earlier this month.

“There is a sense that the bloc has fumbled its hand, despite holding decent cards,” Gehrke said. “The EU should have immediately retaliated against US tariffs. While the mantra ‘negotiate from a position of strength’ was oft-repeated in speeches, any associated actions never materialised.”

A final agreement on tariffs is expected to be a key point of discussion in Thursday’s summit with China, which will bring together European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, EU Council president António Costa, and Chinese president Xi Jinping.

With pressure mounting on both sides of the Atlantic, the coming days will prove crucial in determining whether the EU and US can agree to a compromise—or escalate into a full-scale trade confrontation.

Read more:
EU and US close in on trade deal with 15% tariffs as Brussels prepares retaliatory strike

Santander UK is facing a growing backlash from small business owners after introducing charges to business accounts that were previously guaranteed to be “free for life” — prompting accusations of broken promises, misleading conduct, and possible regulatory scrutiny.

An open letter submitted this week to Santander’s top executives, and shared with Business Matters, outlines the growing frustration among SMEs who feel misled after banking with Santander for more than a decade under what they believed was a permanent fee-free agreement.

“This wasn’t a vague marketing statement — it was a binding commitment,” writes Steve Richardson, managing director of Full Production Ltd, who opened a business account with Santander in 2010 based on the written guarantee. “To revoke that commitment now, more than a decade later, under the guise of internal product migration, is both misleading and ethically questionable” .

Santander’s original marketing material from 2010 offered “Free Business Banking, For Life”, with a caveat that charges would only apply if laws or banking regulations changed. In the absence of any such change, customers assumed their accounts would remain free.

That promise was tested in 2012, when Santander attempted to reclassify accounts and impose fees. After public pressure, the bank reversed course and upheld the original free-for-life commitment — an act widely praised at the time by consumer groups and the press .

Fast forward to 2025, and the story has resurfaced — only this time, the change is going ahead. Santander claims the affected accounts were migrated to its “Business Every Day” product in 2015, and that the original terms no longer apply. But many customers say they were never informed that such a migration would void their lifetime fee guarantee, and feel blindsided.

Business owners speak out

The open letter — addressed to Mike Regnier, Chief Executive of Santander UK, and Enrique Álvarez Labiano, CEO of Retail and Business Banking — warns that thousands of SMEs could be affected and calls for Santander to honour its original commitment.

“If a bank cannot stand by its word — especially one given in writing and without caveat — what confidence can customers have in any future product or assurance?” the letter asks.

Some business owners have already submitted complaints to the bank and financial regulators, with calls for parliamentary and media scrutiny now growing. The issue has also caught the attention of The Guardian, The Telegraph, and the BBC, reviving concerns about long-standing trust issues between high street banks and small business customers .

The latest charges introduced by Santander include an annual £120 fee on what were previously free accounts. Customers are also being asked to consider migrating to alternative packages — none of which match the original free-for-life promise.

Critics argue that, in addition to undermining trust, the decision comes at a particularly difficult time for SMEs, who are already facing rising costs, squeezed margins, and a fragile economic environment.

While Santander insists it is acting within the terms of its account agreements, business owners and legal commentators are questioning whether a unilateral reclassification of accounts can override an explicit, written lifetime guarantee.

“The right to change an account type does not override or invalidate a specific and binding contractual promise,” the letter argues. “None of the [stated] exceptions — changes in law, regulation or tax — apply here” .

If regulators agree that the promise constituted a contractual assurance, Santander could face formal complaints and potential enforcement action. At the very least, it risks reputational damage at a time when trust in retail banking remains fragile.

Santander has yet to issue a detailed public response, though affected customers have already begun contacting their MPs and industry bodies. Business Matters understands that pressure is mounting for the bank to issue a revised statement — and potentially backtrack once again, as it did in 2012.

With legal claims now being explored and press attention intensifying, this story is unlikely to disappear quietly.

“This is not simply about fees. It’s about trust,” the letter concludes. “A promise made in good faith… should not be quietly abandoned.”

Read more:
Santander under fire as ‘free for life’ business banking customers hit with fees

The UK’s competition watchdog has said it will move to impose new rules on Apple and Google after designating them as holding “strategic market status”, a label reserved for firms with entrenched dominance in critical digital markets.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said the move is aimed at promoting greater competition and innovation in the mobile sector, which it says has become too reliant on the two US tech giants.

The regulator’s investigation, launched in January, found that Apple and Google effectively hold a duopoly over mobile devices in the UK through their iOS and Android operating systems, app stores and browsers. The CMA has now set out “roadmaps” to make changes it says are “proportionate, pro-innovation”, and in the interest of both UK consumers and businesses.

Areas of initial focus include reforming how the companies run their app stores, particularly the fees developers pay and restrictions on in-app payment methods. The CMA also said it will explore whether digital wallets should be opened up to competitors, citing Apple’s restrictions as a potential barrier to financial innovation.

“Apple and Google’s mobile platforms are both critical to the UK economy,” said Sarah Cardell, chief executive of the CMA. “But our investigation has identified opportunities for more innovation and choice. Time is of the essence: as agencies and courts globally take action in these markets, it’s essential the UK doesn’t fall behind.”

However, the watchdog stopped short of more sweeping reforms, such as requiring Apple to allow alternative app stores or third-party payment systems, decisions that have proven controversial elsewhere. These measures have been postponed for further consideration until at least 2026, prompting criticism from industry figures and campaigners.

Tom Smith, a competition lawyer at Geradin Partners and former CMA director, said the watchdog was “ducking major decisions” and risked acting too timidly.

“The CMA is proposing some useful measures, but it’s shying away from actions that would really threaten the entrenched positions of Apple and Google,” he said.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, whose company has been embroiled in global legal disputes with both tech giants, described the CMA’s position as “surprisingly weak”, comparing the UK app store ecosystem to a “Soviet supermarket”.

He said Fortnite’s return to Apple’s UK App Store, and the launch of Epic’s own mobile store, were now “uncertain”, even as the company prepares to re-enter other markets, including the EU, Brazil, and Japan.

Apple said the proposed rules could “undermine privacy and security”, threatening its ability to protect users and maintain innovation.

“We’re concerned the rules would force us to give away our technology for free to foreign competitors,” a spokesperson said. “We will continue to engage with the regulator to ensure these risks are understood.”

Google, meanwhile, said the CMA’s findings were “disappointing and unwarranted”, arguing that Android is open-source and pro-competitive, with benefits for users and developers alike.

“In 2022, Android generated over £9.9 billion for UK developers and supported more than 457,000 jobs,” said Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director of competition. “It’s vital that new regulation remains proportionate and doesn’t become a roadblock to UK growth.”

Being designated with strategic market status carries significant regulatory consequences. The designation, which lasts for five years, allows the CMA to enforce strict conduct rules and, in cases of non-compliance, impose fines of up to 10 per cent of global turnover.

The investigation is taking place under the UK’s new pro-competition digital regime, which is part of a wider government initiative to rein in big tech dominance and stimulate growth in UK digital markets.

But the timing of the CMA’s action has drawn scrutiny. The appointment of Doug Gurr, a former Amazon UK executive, as CMA chair earlier this year sparked concerns about independence, with some critics claiming the regulator risked being too soft on big tech. The government has rejected those claims.

The CMA has committed to consulting further before finalising rules, with more detailed proposals expected in 2026. Until then, pressure is likely to mount from developers and consumer advocates who have long argued that the mobile ecosystem is skewed in favour of the dominant gatekeepers.

As the UK joins other global regulators in challenging the dominance of Apple and Google, the success or failure of the CMA’s approach may shape the future of digital market regulation across Europe and beyond.

Read more:
CMA targets Apple and Google with new rules to open up mobile platforms to competition

UK car and van production has fallen to its lowest level since 1953—excluding the pandemic shutdown—after a bruising six months for the automotive sector marked by uncertainty over US tariffs, factory closures, and confusion around new electric vehicle (EV) grants.

Figures released by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) show that car output fell 7.3% in the first half of the year, while van production plunged 45%, driven in part by the closure of Vauxhall’s Luton plant.

The slump leaves the UK auto industry at its weakest point in seven decades, despite a modest uptick in June following the implementation of a long-awaited US-UK tariff deal that reduced tariffs on UK-built vehicles exported to America from 27.5% to 10%.

Mike Hawes, SMMT’s chief executive, called the figures “depressing” and said he hoped the first half of 2025 marked “the nadir” for the industry. However, he warned that the UK was unlikely to return to its 2021 output of one million vehicles annually by the end of the decade.

“The government’s 2035 target of 1.3 million vehicles per year is quite some ambition from where we are,” Hawes said. “We clearly require at least one, if not two, new entrants to come into UK production to achieve it.”

One bright spot was the production of electrified vehicles, which rose by 1.8%. Battery electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid models now account for more than two in five vehicles produced in the UK.

However, the SMMT raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the government’s new EV grant scheme, which offers up to £3,750 for vehicles priced below £37,000. While the return of incentives was welcomed, the criteria for eligibility remain opaque.

Grants will be awarded based on the carbon footprint of the vehicle and its battery during production, and only to manufacturers with verified science-based targets—but the government has yet to publish clear thresholds.

“The difficulty is, we don’t know. Nobody knows—not even government—really knows yet which models and which brands will qualify,” said Hawes. “Your dealer cannot tell you whether the model you’re considering is eligible.”

He warned that with September being the second-biggest month for new car registrations, clarity was urgently needed.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said that dozens of models were expected to qualify for the new grant and that £650 million in funding would be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. The government said it was engaging closely with manufacturers and had published guidance to support applications.

The UK’s second-largest export market for vehicles is the United States, and several manufacturers paused or scaled back production earlier this year amid uncertainty over President Trump’s shifting tariff policies.

The new US-UK tariff agreement, which took effect on 30 June, has already had a small positive effect on June production figures, according to the SMMT. However, Hawes stressed that sustained recovery would require long-term stability and greater policy clarity, especially around EV policy.

With the electric transition accelerating globally, the UK risks falling behind unless it can attract new investment in battery production, gigafactories, and domestic assembly.

“We’re seeing record EV production shares, which is a sign of strength. But the fundamentals are fragile,” said Hawes. “We need certainty, capacity and competitive conditions to turn recovery into growth.”

While the government remains optimistic that its EV grants and trade deals will provide a substantial boost, the SMMT’s warning paints a stark picture of an industry at a crossroads—caught between global headwinds and domestic policy delays, and in urgent need of momentum.

Read more:
UK vehicle manufacturing hits 70-year low as industry faces tariff turmoil and EV grant confusion

The UK’s electric vehicle mandate is at risk of being undermined by ongoing confusion over a new government grant scheme, with motor manufacturers warning they are “operating in a fog” as they try to hit this year’s regulatory targets.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), said that a lack of clarity over which electric car models will qualify for grant support is hampering strategic planning across the industry. Manufacturers were not consulted before the scheme was announced and are now grappling with unclear rules just as they head into key sales months.

“They thought, if I position this vehicle with this incentive behind it, it should deliver me this sort of market share,” Hawes said. “Now, you don’t know whether your competitors are suddenly going to have a price advantage on you, in which case your plans are worthless.”

The new grant, which aims to boost affordability at the lower end of the EV market, is set to come into force later this summer. However, eligibility details are not due to be released until August 11, leaving many in the sector without the data needed to forecast accurately or prepare their inventory and marketing strategies.

At the heart of the concern is the zero-emission vehicle mandate, which requires carmakers to ensure that at least 28 per cent of new car sales in 2025 are zero-emission models, rising to 80 per cent by 2030. Automakers that fail to meet the target could face financial penalties or restrictions.

The industry warns that an uneven rollout of the grant, or selective model eligibility, could distort the market and jeopardise compliance for those without qualifying models at the right price point.

“If they don’t have something in that volume and the market’s going into that sort of price level,” said Hawes, “then their sales forecasts are going to be more ambitious than the market.”

The concerns come against a backdrop of declining UK vehicle production, with car and commercial vehicle manufacturing falling by 11.9 per cent in the first half of 2025, largely due to global trade disruptions and continued economic uncertainty.

Despite the downturn in overall output, electrified vehicle production bucked the trend, rising 1.8 per cent to 160,107 units in the first half of the year—a record share. Electrified models, including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully electric vehicles, now make up 41.5 per cent of all vehicles built in the UK in 2025.

Still, industry leaders warn that policy uncertainty and poorly communicated incentives could squander momentum at a critical time in the UK’s green transition.

The Department for Transport has not yet responded to calls for early publication of the model eligibility list. With the mandate now in effect, manufacturers are left in limbo—unsure of how the market will shift once the grant terms are revealed.

As Hawes put it, without the clarity manufacturers need to plan, “the impact is real—and the risk is that some carmakers miss their mandated EV targets through no fault of their own.”

Read more:
EV grant confusion ‘means carmakers could miss targets’, warns motor industry chief

Elon Musk has warned that Tesla faces “a few rough quarters” ahead as the electric carmaker reported its steepest revenue decline in over a decade, missing Wall Street forecasts and rattling investors already uneasy about demand, tariffs, and political uncertainty.

Shares in Tesla fell 4 per cent in after-hours trading after the company revealed that second-quarter revenue dropped 12 per cent year-on-year to $22.5 billion, falling short of the $22.7 billion analysts had expected. Net income declined 16 per cent to $1.2 billion during the same period.

Speaking on an earnings call, Musk described the current landscape as a “weird transition period” shaped by the end of US EV tax incentives, Trump’s shifting trade policies, and growing regulatory uncertainty around autonomous vehicles.

“Does that mean we could have a few rough quarters? Yeah, we probably could,” Musk told analysts. “It’s not guaranteed, but plausible.”

Despite a 50 per cent rally since April, Tesla’s share price remains down 12 per cent year-to-date, weighed down by slowing electric vehicle demand, intensified competition in China, and Musk’s high-profile exit from Trump’s administration in May.

Some shareholders had hoped Musk would refocus his attention on Tesla after tensions with Trump and rising political noise. However, those hopes were dashed when the billionaire announced he would launch a new political movement called the America Party, further entrenching his role in partisan politics.

In its Q2 report, Tesla said it delivered 384,122 vehicles, a 14 per cent drop from the same period last year, though an improvement on the first quarter of 2025. The company said it had begun initial production of a lower-cost model, with volume rollout planned for the second half of the year.

The firm’s efforts to refresh its top-selling Model Y SUV have also had mixed results. The updated design, intended to rekindle demand, forced a temporary halt in production and reportedly led some customers to delay purchases in anticipation of the new version.

Tesla continues to battle mounting competition in China, where homegrown EV brands have gained market share and applied pressure on pricing and margins.

Compounding its challenges, the company faces the loss of a key federal benefit. From September, the $7,500 EV tax credit—a centrepiece of the Inflation Reduction Act—will no longer apply to most Tesla models. At the same time, President Trump is repealing emissions penalty schemes, removing another strategic advantage for Tesla, which has historically sold emissions credits to traditional automakers.

Investors are now pinning hopes on Tesla’s robotaxi programme, which launched pilot operations in Texas last month. Musk said the company aims to have robotaxis reach half the US population by year-end.

In typical form, the Tesla chief took aim at rivals, claiming Tesla leads the pack in autonomous technology. “It is important to note that Tesla is by far the best in the world at real-world AI,” Musk said. “Our naysayers are sitting there with egg on their face.”

Despite the shortfall in results and the looming policy headwinds, Musk insisted the company is staying the course.

“So far in 2025, we’ve done what we said we were going to do—even if not always on time,” he said.

As Tesla enters a pivotal phase in its evolution, the combination of political entanglements, shifting incentives, and growing competition threatens to make the rest of 2025 a far more volatile ride than shareholders had hoped.

Read more:
Tesla braces for turbulence as Musk warns of ‘rough quarters’ following sharp revenue decline

The UK housing market is set for a subdued year, as both Savills and Rightmove cut their forecasts for house price growth in 2025, reflecting a combination of weak buyer activity, rising property supply, and lingering geopolitical uncertainty.

Savills, one of the country’s leading estate agents, has downgraded its forecast from 4 per cent annual growth to just 1 per cent, citing a “weaker than expected” first half of the year. The revision follows a similar move by Rightmove, which now predicts a 2 per cent rise, down from its earlier estimate of 4 per cent.

The downward revisions suggest that real-term house prices are falling, as inflation continues to outpace nominal price growth. The latest data from Nationwide puts annual house price inflation at 2.1 per cent, compared with consumer inflation including housing costs at 4.1 per cent, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Lucian Cook, head of residential research at Savills, said geopolitical uncertainty—particularly stemming from President Trump’s escalating tariff policies—has made forecasting more complex and dampened activity in the housing market.

“Interest rates have fallen as expected, giving buyers more financial capacity, but a lot has changed in the past six months,” Cook said. “The prospect of future tax rises, particularly in the autumn budget, is likely to weigh heavily—especially at the top end of the market.”

Rightmove, meanwhile, pointed to a surge in housing supply as a major factor behind the slowdown in price growth. The property portal said stock levels are at their highest in over a decade, and that high levels of seller competition are limiting the ability of vendors to raise prices.

“More new sellers are conscious of this and are responding to the high-supply market with stand-out pricing to entice buyers,” said Colleen Babcock, Rightmove’s head of partner marketing.

Following the post-pandemic boom—driven by the so-called “race for space”—the market is experiencing a rebalancing, with supply now outstripping demand in many areas.

Despite the downgrade for this year, Savills remains broadly upbeat about the longer-term prospects for house prices. While it has cut its 2026 forecast from 5.5 per cent to 4 per cent, the firm has raised projections for 2027 through 2029 due to looser mortgage affordability tests and the expected continuation of falling interest rates.

Over the five-year period from 2025 to 2029, Savills now predicts a cumulative house price increase of 24.5 per cent, slightly higher than its previous estimate of 23.4 per cent.

“Falling interest rates in combination with relaxation around affordability tests will open up greater capacity for house price growth than would otherwise be the case,” said Dan Hill, research analyst at Savills.

This shift is expected to boost transaction volumes and unlock market activity that has been delayed by affordability constraints and broader economic uncertainty.

The housing market’s slowdown comes amid a fragile economic and policy backdrop. The threat of future tax increases, ongoing trade disruption due to Trump’s tariff war, and the potential impact of government regulation remain front of mind for buyers and sellers alike.

With the autumn budget on the horizon, economists and market watchers will be looking for further signals about housing policy, including potential adjustments to stamp duty, capital gains tax, and landlord regulation—all of which could influence confidence in the months ahead.

For now, the consensus is clear: the era of rapid house price inflation has paused, and a more balanced—but cautious—market is likely to prevail through the rest of 2025.

Read more:
Consensus grows that house prices will barely rise in 2025 as Savills and Rightmove slash forecasts

As artificial intelligence tools enter the education space with increasing speed, one major question looms for educators and policymakers alike: Is AI transforming the core competencies required to be a modern teacher?

While most conversations around teaching still center on curriculum standards, student engagement, and classroom management, the growing presence of AI tools like ChatGPT, adaptive learning platforms, and AI grading assistants is pushing the boundaries of what teaching entails—and what certification should reflect.

The AI Revolution in Everyday Teaching

AI-powered technologies are becoming commonplace in K-12 classrooms. Tools now assist with everything from differentiated instruction to administrative tasks. Personalized learning apps help students move at their own pace, while automated grading saves teachers hours of time. AI-driven platforms can analyze student performance and recommend targeted interventions.

But this digital evolution means teachers are no longer just content experts or facilitators—they’re becoming data interpreters, tech navigators, and digital ethicists. The profession now demands not just pedagogical skill, but the ability to critically evaluate and integrate complex technologies into the learning process.

Are Teacher Prep Programs Keeping Up?

Most teacher education programs emphasize foundational teaching principles, lesson planning, classroom behavior strategies, and meeting the needs of diverse learners. However, very few dedicate significant coursework to AI literacy, algorithmic bias, or tech ethics. The danger isn’t that future teachers will misuse AI, but that they’ll enter the workforce without the tools to question how it’s shaping pedagogy and assessment.

This mismatch may lead to a skills gap: certified teachers entering modern classrooms might be unprepared to handle the rapidly evolving tech environment their students are already immersed in.

The Ethics of AI-Assisted Learning

Another challenge lies in the ethical implications of AI in education. When algorithms recommend content or assign grades, how can teachers ensure equity? What happens when a student relies more on AI than their own learning effort? Who is held accountable when AI makes an instructional error?

These are not abstract concerns. Teachers are increasingly being asked to set boundaries for AI usage, to explain it to parents, and to defend its role to skeptical administrators—all while managing the usual pressures of teaching.

This added responsibility underscores the need to update professional development requirements and reconsider what competencies should be baked into certification frameworks. A modern teacher must not only teach—they must curate, moderate, and sometimes interrogate technology.

Redefining What Certification Should Mean

In states like New York, teacher certification currently emphasizes academic qualifications, student teaching experience, and mastery of state standards. But these criteria may need revision.

Should digital fluency become a requirement? Should teacher candidates demonstrate ethical decision-making around tech? Should AI integration strategies be included in portfolio assessments?

The shift toward AI-enhanced classrooms suggests that certification bodies must adapt to reflect these realities. Some progressive institutions and school districts are already piloting changes in professional development to address these concerns.

In fact, educators pursuing New York State teacher certification are likely to encounter evolving guidelines as state departments of education begin to respond to AI’s growing role in pedagogy.

Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers Today

To equip future teachers effectively, education colleges and alternative certification programs must:

Integrate coursework on AI and education ethics
Offer practicum experiences involving educational tech tools
Partner with edtech companies for sandbox testing environments
Train mentors to guide candidates through responsible tech use

More broadly, school leaders, unions, and policymakers must work together to ensure that certification standards match the demands of the classrooms they’re meant to serve.

Conclusion: A Certification System for a Changing World

AI is not a distant future technology—it’s already in classrooms, reshaping how students learn and how teachers teach. If the teaching profession is to remain resilient and responsive, the standards we set for who gets to teach—and how—must evolve too.

The question isn’t whether AI belongs in the classroom. It’s whether our certification systems are bold enough to prepare teachers for the world AI is helping create.

Read more:
Is AI in the Classroom Changing What It Means to Be a Certified Teacher?

Read more:
Subtitles Got Jokes: Testing AI Caption Generators for Comedic Timing and Sass