AoC warns of 2% limit to college pay recommendation for 2024/25

The Association of Colleges has warned that it will be “very hard” to recommend colleges give their staff a pay rise of anything more than 2 per cent this year.

In a Budget submission to the Treasury, the membership body outlined how the government’s decision to snub colleges from public sector pay awards means it is highly unlikely there can be an above inflation salary bump in 2024/25.

The AoC said colleges would require a £250 million injection to afford a 5.5 per cent pay rise.

Over the summer the new Labour government announced it would hand schools a £1.2 billion pot to help fund a 5.5 per cent pay rise for teachers, as recommended by the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB), but refused to stump up anything for colleges.

The AoC makes a pay recommendation each year which colleges use as a benchmark in their negotiations with unions that represent their staff. The membership body has delayed making a pay recommendation for 2024/25 since May.

The AoC team will meet with the five trade unions representing FE workers early in October to negotiate the offer.

But college staff may remain in limbo as the AoC said it could wait for the outcome of the October 30 autumn Budget. It is hoping for the removal of the “iniquitous” VAT charge on colleges, savings of which could be directed towards a staff pay rise.

In his letter to the Treasury chief secretary, AoC chief executive David Hughes urged: “We recognise how tight this Budget will be and understand that there are unlikely to be large spending increases announced.

“That is why I would urge you as a top priority to use the imminent extension of VAT to private schools to put right the iniquitous anomaly of colleges having no VAT relief despite their strong social inclusion and service roles.” 

The Department for Education previously blamed the “very challenging fiscal context” and the fact that FE does not have its own pay review body for chancellor Rachel Reeve’s decision to find cash for school pay rises but not for colleges.

Hughes urged the Treasury to fix this exclusion.

He said: “The funding decisions communicated to colleges will make it very hard for AoC to recommend anything more than 2 per cent. It would cost government around £250 million to bridge the gap to 5.5 per cent.

“This is hampering colleges from delivering government priorities and employer needs.” 

Last year the AoC made a 6.5 per cent pay rise recommendation for college staff, but this was only after the previous government found extra funding for the sector.

Additional funding was handed to colleges based on their 16 to 19 student numbers. The total pot was £470 million and was to be distributed over the next two academic years: £185 million in 2023/24 and £285 million in 2024/25.

In March, FE’s five trade unions submitted a pay claim for the 2024/25 academic year, calling for a 10 per cent pay uplift, or a £3,000 salary increase, to keep in line with the rate of inflation.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said the AoC needs to recommend a “realistic” pay rise above 5.5 per cent or allow the well-publicised £9,000 pay gap between schoolteachers and FE staff to widen.

She told FE Week: “If college teachers are again left wanting, there is a genuine risk Labour’s flagship Skills England strategy could unravel. You cannot reskill the nation on the back of a severely underpaid workforce.

“The AoC needs to recommend a realistic pay rise that will stem the flood of college teachers deserting further education for greener pastures.

“Meanwhile, we need strategic investment from Labour alongside a workforce strategy and new national bargaining arrangements in FE.”

Reeves will deliver the 2024 autumn Budget on October 30, accompanied by a fiscal statement from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR). The government has already warned that it will have to make “difficult decisions” on fiscal spending after identifying a £22 billion black hole in public finances.

Last month, Reeves reportedly told government departments to find savings, including £1 billion from the Department for Education.

The benefits of rebranding – and how to maximise them for your college

As the new academic year starts, so does the new student recruitment cycle in the never-ending world of FE marketing and admissions. Before you know it you’ll be at that first open event and your marketing team will be knee-deep in roll-up banners.

Busy as the start of the academic year is, it’s also the perfect time to review how your college is seen and perceived externally through your name and brand identity – because if you decide it needs some work, now really is the time to start.

Brand development in FE, given the wide range of markets, can take a full academic year from start to rollout, and the only realistic time to launch a new brand is the start of a new academic year.

But how do you decide if you need to undertake a rebrand? Ofsted are not going to tell you, and even if they did I’m not sure they’re a good representation of your various target markets, to be honest.

It’s hard to be objective about this sometimes, so start by asking those around you: students, your marketing team, other staff, governors, friendly employers and a couple of external stakeholders.

Ask them what they think of your brand and what your brand identity says about your college and your place in the market. Encourage them to be honest, really listen and be prepared to not necessarily like the answers.

If after this you conclude you do need to take a fresh look at your branding, get going and fast. Decide if you’re going to need external support. I’d wholly encourage this for creative work, if not also the project management and engagement work.

I’ve led on rebrand exercises for a host of other not-for-profits and for four FE colleges, most recently at Brooklands Technical College. Based on that experience, here are three stages I’d recommend to get the best results and give your marketing team a fighting chance of hitting those challenging recruitment targets.

The Listen Phase

This is arguably the most important phase, because a new brand identity needs to truly represent your college and resonate with your audiences.

Coming up with an amazing-looking solution that has no connection or relevance just isn’t going to work, so you really need to undertake a comprehensive piece of engagement work with as many stakeholders as possible – students, staff, employers and community stakeholders.

Ask them what they think of the college, what your unique traits or selling points are and how they think you should be best represented visually.

Summarise the themes identified and agree a direction for the creative team to explore, not forgetting that you operate in multiple markets.

The Create Phase

Share with your creative team the themes identified in your Listen Phase and let them get to work. The best creative teams will come back with a whole host of ideas – some of which you (hopefully!) will have never considered before.

Market-test the various creative options on a small selection of key stakeholders. However, remember that too many cooks spoil the broth.

Finally, decide on a chosen route and let the creatives finalise the design process while your marketing team plan the rollout. Changes need to take place at the start of the recruitment year, else you risk having a very confused set of applicants mid-year.

The Rollout Phase

Don’t underestimate how detailed this part can be; this is where your marketing team will come into their own. Consider website changes, social channels, uniform, lanyards and ID cards, stationery, vehicle graphics, advertising templates, email signatures and much more.

Decide on a launch day. At Brooklands, we went for the first day of term and it worked really well thanks to the outstanding work of the creative agency and the in-house marketing team. New students felt privileged to be the first students under the new look and the new recruitment year has started with a bang.

A new brand identity can do so much more than refresh your marketing and how you’re seen. It’s a great way to bring your staff together and symbolise a new era or strategic direction.

It’s a big job, but don’t be afraid to consider it.

The Staffroom: Why you should mark World Afro Day – and how

There are so many different days to celebrate so many different things from pizza to hats that’s its hard to keep up. But some celebration days are worth acknowledging. World Afro Day is one of them – and integrating it into FE spaces offers profound benefits.

This fairly new celebration came into being as a direct reaction to a discriminatory law passed on 15 September 2016 in Alabama, which allowed companies to deny jobs to people with dreadlocks. A year later to the day, the United Nations endorsed the first ever World Afro Day, and the movement is rightly gaining traction globally.

According to founder Michelle De Leon, “Black women in particular have been victims of both invisibility and hypervisibility at the same time in the workplace”.

In response, this day encourages Black people all over the world to wear their natural hair with pride. This year’s theme is “Fix the law and not our hair”.

Afro hair carries deep cultural, historical and political significance for Black communities. For many students, including those from the African and Caribbean diaspora, Afro hair is more than just an aesthetic; it is tied to their identity.

World Afro Day can serve as an opportunity for these students to feel recognised, validated and empowered. It also encourages the wider student population to engage with the rich heritage and cultural practices surrounding Afro hair.

This matters a great deal, because biases against Afro hair persist in education, workplaces and broader society. Students are still penalised or ridiculed for wearing their natural hair in its traditional styles.

For example, a teacher recently said about my friend’s ten-year-old son that “he seems more disruptive when he wears his hair in that style” (Afro). I suspect it was more likely the reaction the student got from his peers rather than his behaviour.

I also regularly hear staff referring to ‘normal’ hair to mean European, or describing a Black colleague as “the one with the crazy hair”. We haven’t progressed all that much from when teachers and children at my primary wanted to touch my hair and said it felt like Brillo pad.

Afro hair carries deep cultural, historical and political significance

College is a pivotal period in a young person’s life, when identity is shaped. For Black students, societal pressures around hair can have a profound impact on their mental wellbeing. Studies have shown that hair discrimination can lead to lower self-esteem and confidence, affecting overall academic performance.

That’s why celebrating World Afro Day should not be a one-off event but a springboard for wider work: reviewing anti-discrimination policies, training staff on racial sensitivity and ensuring dress codes don’t disproportionately affect Black students.

In 2019, Stoke Newington School and Sixth Form became one of the first schools in the UK to officially celebrate World Afro Day. The feedback from students was telling, particularly from those of African and Caribbean descent. All expressed a newfound pride in their hair and culture, and one even said it was the first time they’d felt truly comfortable wearing their hair naturally in an academic setting.

The school’s decision to celebrate World Afro Day also inspired other institutions to do the same. If you haven’t joined in the celebrations yet, here are some hints and tips for getting the most out of it.

My first tip is: You don’t have to wait until the next World Afro Day!

If you have a hair and beauty department, teach your students about the different forms of textured hair, particularly if they are learning and potentially working in diverse communities. This makes good business sense for all your students.

Invite guest speakers who have expertise in this area to talk to your students and train your staff.

Ensure your dress code is not indirectly discriminating against Black students because of Eurocentric notions of what is professional, acceptable or ‘normal’.

When you see or interact with someone with Afro-textured hair, don’t stare and NEVER ask to touch it. This is “othering”, embarrassing and potential triggering and harmful.

And finally, inform yourself. The Story of Afro Hair by Kandace Chimbiri is an excellent place to start.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 471

Mark Fell

Executive Principal, Milton Keynes College Group

Start date: June 2024

Previous Job: Senior Leadership Consultant, Guernsey Institute

Interesting fact: Alongside 20 years in FE, Mark also coaches semi-professional football teams. Having previously managed Nelson, Ramsbottom and Lancaster City, he now leads
Workington AFC.

Simon Gummerson

Campus Principal, Scarborough TEC & East Riding College Bridlington

Start date: August 2024

Previous Job: Vice principal, Scarborough TEC & East Riding College Bridlington

Interesting fact: Simon rides a 1960 Norton motorcycle.

Embedding digital literacy in training is key to closing gender gaps

We’ve come a long way in terms of supporting women effectively in returning to work after maternity leave, caring responsibilities or a career break, but there is still a gap that needs addressing: digital literacy.  

We continue to think about digital skills as an added advantage, instead of recognising them as a basic need. For women who have been out of the workforce for some time, not having up-to-date digital skills is a significant barrier.  

For FE providers, that means digital literacy must be at the core of every skills training programme. Otherwise, the gender gap in employment will continue to widen. 

At Successful Mums, we work with women from all walks of life, from baristas to barristers. We support those who had corporate careers, those on career breaks and those who have been made redundant.  

What unites many of them is a lack of confidence. But there’s also a shared feeling that they are out of touch with the digital tools and platforms that are part and parcel of most jobs. 

It’s just not enough to know how to use a computer or basic software; it’s about understanding how digital tools can be used to boost productivity, improve communication or create new opportunities for an employer, for example. 

Take the level 2 qualifications in digital skills, and in digital and IT skills we offer in partnership with Gateway Qualifications.

They are practical and flexible. They let us customise units to meet the specific needs and aspirations of our learners.  We can shape them to include topics that are directly relevant to the jobs market.

Moreover, and key to ensuring our learners get the skills employers are actively looking for, they allow us to emphasise emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR).

Not so long ago, these technologies were still niche. Today, employers expect candidates to know about them. So, we make sure that our mums can talk confidently about them and that they understand their applications.

Digital literacy must be at the core of every training programme

For example, our learners will be able to differentiate between narrow and generative artificial intelligence (AI) and understand how VR can be used for training. They are cybersecurity aware too.

This means our mums are job-ready and competitive, but the importance of digital literacy goes beyond just getting a job.  

For many women, going back to work is about rebuilding their confidence and re-establishing their identity outside of home and family. Digital skills can play a huge role in this.  

When you are confident in the digital world, you feel more connected, more capable, and more in control. This confidence trickles into other areas of life, from managing the online bank account to supporting children with homework. 

Digital literacy is not a one-size-fits-all. The mums we work with have different levels of experience and confidence with technology, and it’s vital that training programmes recognise this.  

Some of our mums need to start with basics like email and cloud computing, while others are ready to learn about more advanced areas like digital marketing or data analysis. 

The only way to achieve this is by being flexible and responsive, both in our delivery and in the qualifications we offer. 

Of course, employers have a role to play in closing the gender employment gap too.  

The pace of digital change means that skills are quickly outdated, and professional development is becoming more important when it comes to keeping up with the digital world.

It should always be on offer, no matter the job role. And of course, colleges and training providers are not just educators; they are leading and trend-setting local employers too.

At Successful Mums, we want to ensure that every woman coming through our doors leaves us with the digital skills they need. 

But we can’t make change at scale on our own. It requires a collective effort from awarding organisations, other ITPs, employers and policymakers. We all need to make digital literacy more of a priority. 

For the women we support, our work is not just about them getting a job, it’s about helping them to take control of their futures, both in their careers and in their personal lives. 

A poundshop approach to qualifications is a false economy

Along with millions of Britons, I occasionally shop “like a billionaire” through the online, Chinese poundshop, Temu. I’ve had a drone with two HD cameras for three quid, a Nintendo controller for a tenner, and some telescopic feather dusters for pennies.

But it’s just a bit of fun. The app for the drone never really works, the controller broke during a vigorous session of Street Fighter 2, and the feather dusters were… smaller… than I’d expected. I wouldn’t buy something I actually relied on, like a phone or a set of pans.

I’m the same about qualifications. I’ve recently been micro-learning my way towards certification in various programming languages via an app. I am under no illusion that any achievements will have any currency, in contrast to my quarter-century-old and largely-forgotten A level in Computing, which would still be my passport to the field, according to degree-apprenticeship entry requirements.

This is why I abhor the perennial calls for economically-disadvantaged students, who are nineteen months behind by 16, to be fobbed off with a different qualification, whether that’s AQA’s “let them eat Duolingo” or MEI’s “almostaGCSE”.

For a start, there’s an  unpleasant prejudice behind such proposals. (Anyone seriously advocating separate-but-equal routes for subgroups needs to resit their history GCSE). And aside from that, there are very practical reasons why alternative English and maths quals will never work.

As someone who transitioned from secondary teaching to FE, I can tell you that having a common qualification between sectors was pivotal in that move, because I knew I wasn’t de-skilling myself from future opportunities in schools. The benefits of cross-pollination between 3,500 secondaries and 200 colleges shouldn’t be closed down for an insular approach.

New qualifications also require significant investment in training and familiarisation. Think about the £76 million the DfE awarded the Education and Training Foundation for T level CPD. How many 5.5-per cent FE teacher pay rises could that have funded?

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that some of those calling for new English and maths qualifications are also funded by the DfE to deliver CPD.

There’s an  unpleasant prejudice behind such proposals

Then there’s the impact on timetabling. Let’s assume some students will still want to sit a ‘real’ GCSE, like the tens of thousands who resit each year despite already having grade 4s, for progression.

Then you are immediately hit with the timetabling and class-size inefficiencies of deploying staff across two qualifications rather than one. And this is being suggested while colleges are struggling to recruit for these subjects.

None of this is hypothetical, because we already have alternative qualifications in the form of functional skills (FSQs). If I had a pound for every time I’ve been told that they are “not fit for purpose”, I wouldn’t need Temu to feel like a billionaire.

FSQs already cause all of the problems above: isolating teachers in a niche qualification, necessitating bespoke training and causing inefficient deployment.

On top of that, they are on-demand qualifications available every fortnight, at five different tiers, offered by more exam boards than GCSE, but entered by a relatively tiny number, bringing inevitable issues of quality and viability.

FSQs were reformed as recently as 2019, but the truth behind the dissatisfaction is that the reforms didn’t magic up a 100 per cent pass rate. For any alternatives to be seen as “fit for purpose”, they will need to be easier than GCSE, and therefore worthless.

I’m certainly not saying the current GCSE is perfect. Not the maths one anyway. How it came through the 2015 reforms with three papers and still tiered is beyond me.

The English GCSE, on the other hand, with no tiers, complete freedom of text choice and built around creative writing is about as chef’s-kiss-perfect as we could ask for.

But whatever we choose as our acknowledged ‘gold standard’ should be open to all, without gatekeepers preventing other people’s children from getting in.

Worse, while we are continually distracted by the red herring of talking about qualifications, we’re not talking about pedagogy, curriculum or students.

Young people from low-income backgrounds deserve better than to be railroaded into poundshop English and maths just because it’s easier to blame qualifications than it is to improve quality.

Event Horizon: A singular chance to shape post-16 maths for the future

The Francis Review of curriculum and assessment promises to “ensure meaningful, rigorous and high-value pathways for all at 16-19”. Given the experiences of further education when it comes to inclusion in wider education reforms (and pay deals), it is good to see an explicit reference to the sector.

At Get Further, we partner with post-16 education providers across the country to deliver our tuition programmes to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds to gain gateway qualifications in further education. What’s clear to us is that GCSE English and maths are the key to a wide range of education and employment opportunities.

Without them, students are much less likely to progress onto higher-level study and more likely to drop out of education altogether. A young person without these qualifications is nine times more likely to be NEET by the age of 18. 

However, there is a real challenge around the pass rates of GCSE resit courses – especially in maths.

I began teaching maths in 2009, just before the last major curriculum review under the coalition government. Almost 15 years later, there remains much to do to help more young people pass GCSEs, including those resitting in colleges. But the principle that we will unlock opportunities for further work and study by ensuring that more young people have a strong foundation in maths and English is as relevant as ever.

That’s why I’m so delighted to be part of a new initiative: the Mathematics Horizon Project, which seeks to support the Francis review by carrying out a rapid review of the current maths curriculum and assessment systems in England. This group has been convened by the charity Purposeful Ventures, and consists of advisers from across schools, colleges, academia, industry and policy.

We want to explore different ways in which the curriculum can be structured, and explore the trade-offs and constraints between them. I am particularly interested in exploring how we can better support students with the lowest prior attainment to succeed in post-16 education.

I’m also keen to consider how courses can be structured and delivered to ensure that students studying maths in post-16 education are not entered into exams before they have had a meaningful chance to address the fundamental gaps in their knowledge that have prevented them from passing GCSE maths at school.

We want to hear from everyone who has an interest in this issue

Every young person has the potential to achieve a strong foundation in maths by the time they leave compulsory education. The Mathematics Horizon Project is ambitious to explore innovative and well-evidenced approaches to ensure this becomes a reality.

We want to hear from everyone who has an interest in this issue – including in the further education and training sector, and from those with experience of a less smooth progression through maths education.

Colleges are the largest destination in terms of post-16 maths study. The sector plays a particularly important role in supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Twice the proportion of these students attend colleges than school sixth forms. Most of the young people who miss out on a pass in GCSE maths at school go on to retake this qualification at a college. 

So to truly look at maths horizons, we need to hear the views from students in further education who have low prior attainment in maths. What would have changed their experience? What support do they need now to develop their skills?

As a country, we have never needed maths more. In surveys, employers consistently rank numeracy as among the top three factors they look for when recruiting school and college leavers. Make UK, which represents the country’s manufacturers, reports that three-quarters of manufacturers prioritise attainment in maths and English when recruiting apprentices.

In today’s world, almost everyone needs the basic mathematical understanding to be able to digest and interpret outputs produced by artificial intelligence, even in jobs that don’t seem mathematical. We need an education system that prepares young people for a more mathematical future.

I want all students to develop a strong foundation of mathematical knowledge, to understand the role and value of maths and to have a positive experience of the subject. And I passionately believe that every student can with the right support.

I’m proud to be part of considering how our curriculum and assessment systems can improve maths education and ensure that it meets the country’s needs going forward. Your input will be crucial in achieving that.

Click here to find out more about the Maths Horizon project

£500m skills bootcamps failing to boost job prospects

Almost two-thirds of skills bootcamp learners failed to achieve a positive job outcome in the second year of the flagship programme’s rollout, new government data has revealed.

And almost two in five bootcamp starters from this cohort dropped out before the end of their course.

The figures, finally published today for the 2021-22 financial year, come a month ahead of the autumn Budget when a decision could be made on whether funding for the programme will be extended beyond March 2025.

Experts say the results are “disappointing but not unexpected”, with some claiming the fast-track training programmes are a “waste of public money” while others say they should be retained as the courses are an “excellent option to upskill or retrain”.

Skills bootcamps involve a combination of training, work experience and a guaranteed job interview over a period of up to 16 weeks.

Despite being funded with more than £500 million between 2020 and 2025, little is known about whether the programmes are effective in helping people to progress in their career or move into a new sector as timely outcomes data has not been published.

What does the delayed data show?

Out of the 18,110 bootcamp starts between April 2021 and March 2022, 11,260 (62 per cent) learners completed the course and 6,480 (36 per cent) reported “positive outcomes”.

Positive outcomes can include a participant becoming self-employed with new opportunities, continuing in current employment with new or increased responsibilities, brand new employment or a participant gaining a new role with their current employer.

The government aims to train at least 150,000 people through skills bootcamps by next year. But the results data release calls into question former Conservative ministerial claims that the courses are a “great success” that result in “good” outcomes.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said the figures “leave more questions than answers”.

“We don’t know how many people who were out of work got jobs, nor how many of these might have found work without the bootcamp,” he told FE Week.

“Previous research showed half of participants already had a degree-level qualification and two-thirds were qualified to A-level equivalent. Is that really the right focus for limited public investment when participation in adult English and maths learning is down two-thirds in a decade?

“I worry this means skills bootcamps are both missing the point and failing to reach those that need the most help.”

But Simon Ashworth, deputy chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which represents many independent providers that deliver bootcamps, argued they are an “excellent option to upskill or retrain”.

However, he added: “Today’s dataset release dates back to 2021-22 though, so we would benefit from a more timely and better developed range of data being released.

“This would allow us to appraise skills bootcamps outcomes properly.”

Sue Pember, policy director for HOLEX, called the results “disappointing, but not unexpected”.

She added: “Although the concept of an intensive programme is fine in the right circumstances, there was not enough thought given to the needs of the students.

“The majority of the courses were classed as level 3. To be successful on a level 3 course, students would need to be confident in English and maths, but many students didn’t have these qualifications and were therefore set up to fail.”

Payment disputes causing delays?

One explanation for the data delay may stem from disputes between providers and the Department for Education over payments for achieving positive outcomes.

Bootcamp contracts stipulate that providers only receive 40 per cent of their fee for each learner up front, with the remaining 30 per cent when a participant has a job interview, and a final 30 per cent if they see a positive outcome.

After today’s data was released, one director of funding for a bootcamp provider claimed on social media that the DfE has previously refused to accept job evidence emailed from a learner because it only included their first name.

Spending figures for 2020 to 2023, previously obtained by FE Week through a freedom of information request, show that the bootcamps programme is hitting big underspends despite start targets being exceeded in each of the first three financial years of the programme.

Just £130 million of a total £206 million allocated over the 2020 to 2023 period was spent. In 2022-23 the government allocated £150 million but only spent £85 million.

Former Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive and skills policy expert Tom Bewick said the courses appear to be a “complete waste of money” due to the apparent lack of success measurement by the government.

He added: “The Treasury should be concerned that, with no proxy measure of success (like a valuable qualification achieved), the whole scheme is open to abuse, such as deadweight training, which would have gone ahead anyway. 

“The whole DfE scheme looks like money for old rope and the providers, of course, will always respond proactively to free government money when it is on offer.”

Following publication of this article, a DfE spokesperson claimed the two and a half year data release delay was caused by the Covid pandemic and the general election.

AI can pass almost all level 3 assessments, study finds

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools can pass almost all types of level 3 assessments, a new study has found.

The Open University found that AI performed “particularly highly” at this advanced level across a range of subjects, although its performance was lower at higher levels of 4 and above.

It also found that while markers’ ability to detect generative AI answers increased after training, this was undermined by an increased number of false positives.

Jonquil Lowe, senior lecturer in economics and personal finance, said that rather than focusing on detection, colleges and universities should use AI to design more “robust questions” that focus on the “added value” that humans bring.

He added: “This shifts us away from merely testing knowledge, towards what is often called ‘authentic assessment’ that requires explicit application of what has been learned in order to derive specific conclusions and solutions.”

The study confirms fears raised in a recent FE Week investigation, that students can ‘cheat’ their way through almost any non-exam assignment by using large language models of generative AI such as ChatGPT.

It also addresses concerns that AI detection tools are unreliable, giving rise to false accusations and a breakdown of trust between educators and students.

The study, funded by awarding body and education charity, NCFE, analysed generative AI’s performance by asking a group of 43 markers to grade almost one thousand scripts and to flag those they suspected were AI-generated.

A review of the results found that the most robust assessment types were audience-tailored, observation by learner and reflection on work practice.

While the study found that subjects did not affect AI’s performance, certain disciplines such as law, were easier to detect.

False positives emerged as “hallmarks” of AI-generated scripts, such as superficial answers or not focusing on the question, are also common in weaker students’ work.

The study recommends that institutions designing assessments should focus on question design marking guidance and student skills interventions rather than detecting AI misuse.

When students are identified as using AI in their assessments, institutions should focus on helping them develop their study skills.

Training for dealing with generative AI in assessments should also be ongoing.

Gray Mytton, assessment innovation manager at NCFE, said: “This report highlights the challenges in detecting genAI misuse in assessments, showing that training markers to spot AI-generated content can lead to an increase in the rate of false positives.  

“To address this, educators could help students develop study skills, including genAI use where appropriate, while awarding bodies can focus on creating more authentic assessments, which will also benefit learners as they enter the workforce.”

Read the full report here.