Ofsted is considering whether it should “withhold” reports for three months where education providers fail on safeguarding, but are otherwise ‘good’, so they have a chance to fix issues before publication.
The survey also comes against a backdrop of increasing legal challenges to Ofsted ratings by FE providers, as well as challenges to its “not fit for purpose” complaints procedure.
Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver will vow to listen to criticism and ideas for “big reforms”, reiterating “nothing is off the table”.
Many of the questions ask for wider feedback about the experience of schools, colleges and providers on four “priorities”: how Ofsted reports on findings, carries out inspections, the impact inspection has, and the organisation’s culture.
But there are some potential policy changes outlined.
Withholding reports plan
Following an internal review, the inspectorate is “considering” a change in approach so “where safeguarding arrangements are ineffective, but the school is good or better in all other areas, it could “withhold finalising a judgement for three months”, thus delaying the report.
Ofsted would then reinspect safeguarding and if the issues were fixed, rate it ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’.
This suggests that should the provider improve, its previous failing would not be reported, but Ofsted said no further details have been worked out as yet, and it is open to views.
While the consultation only appears to seek feedback from schools on this proposal, the watchdog confirmed to FE Week it also wants to hear from further education providers and if implemented, any change is likely to apply to FE.
In December, a coroner ruled that an Ofsted inspection at Caversham Primary School contributed to Perry’s suicide. The school had failed on safeguarding but was otherwise deemed to be performing well.
‘Every voice will be heard’
Speaking at the Association of School and College Leaders conference in Liverpool this morning, Oliver will say: “We need to listen to feedback. To criticism. To ideas for small changes and for big reforms … Every voice will be heard, and nothing, nothing, is off the table.”
School and college staff, education organisations and parents are urged to complete an online survey.
Ofsted will also commission a series of focus groups with “parents and professionals to gather views on Ofsted’s future direction”.
The watchdog will also seek views on whether to create a safeguarding judgement that is separate from leadership and management – something Labour has suggested it would take forward if elected.
But there is no specific proposal on axing single-word judgments, which would require a change in government policy. However, a free text box in the section of the consultation on reporting can be used for feedback on this issue.
Disadvantaged young people ‘at heart of reforms’
Oliver has pledged to “champion high standards for all children, especially the most disadvantaged and vulnerable”. Ofsted said poorer learners will be “at the heart of future reforms”.
Views are sought on the importance of reports making clear how disadvantaged students are supported, and includes separate sections aimed at further education providers, schools, the social care sector, and teacher training inspections.
On impact, the survey asks how the inspectorate can best “improve lives and outcomes”, including a question about whether it should be given the power to inspect part-time direct entry provision for 14- to- 16-year-olds in college as well as higher technical qualifications.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the consultation was an “important step in resetting the broken relationship between Ofsted and schools and colleges”.
Chief executive of the Association of Colleges David Hughes added: “Colleges have a unique role across children, young people, adults, skills and working with employers, which Ofsted must learn to both understand and appreciate.
“Ofsted has a wide remit, and we want to help support Martyn Oliver lead the cultural change we believe is needed and support inspectors to fully understand the complexity of the college work.”
The consultation will close on May 31. Findings will be published “later this year”.
England’s largest exam board will launch a free digital maths test to help teachers work out why students are struggling, but has delayed plans to introduce on-screen exams.
Developed by AQA over the past 18 months, the test is aimed at students in the first few years of secondary school or those preparing to study towards a maths GCSE resit.
The on-screen test is powered by “adaptive technology” that reacts to the answers a student gives. It will be available to all schools and colleges, regardless of whether they use AQA qualifications.
The exam board said it would allow teachers to “pinpoint gaps in a student’s conceptual knowledge – saving the teacher time and empowering students who then know what they need to do to improve”.
AQA is also working on “how this test data can be used at a large scale so that, for example, multi-academy trusts or colleges can see mathematical concepts students are struggling with across a wide number of schools and campuses”.
But a move towards on-screen GCSE exams has been pushed back by the board.
Last year, AQA said it aimed to launch its first digital mock exams for GCSE Italian and Polish reading and listening components in 2025.
They would then move to live exams the following year, subject to Ofqual approval.
More would follow until bigger subjects were partly digitally assessed in 2030 – meaning hundreds of thousands of on-screen exams.
But AQA said it was “continuing to talk to the regulator [Ofqual], school leaders, teachers and exams officers, and now plans to introduce digital Italian and Polish GCSE later”.
A spokesperson told FE Week the board recognised they “must get this right and maintain public confidence in our exam system, as well as give schools and colleges proper notice before making changes”.
“We will update when we can on a revised date for implementing these exams.”
It is understood the 2030 target has not changed.
The new digital maths test will involve each student being asked 30 to 40 questions from a bank of around 150. The test will analyse responses and offer the next question suited to their learning needs – dubbed a “Goldilocks approach”.
This will avoid questions “that are either too hard or too easy, and quickly establishes a young person’s level of conceptual knowledge”.
AQA CEO Colin Hughes said: “We know that many students struggle in GCSE maths because they don’t have a firm understanding of its fundamental concepts.
“Students have told us that they find the new test engaging, since it offers rapid feedback that tells them what they need to work on.”
FE Week recently revealed that councils have spent just one per cent of funds earmarked for SEND places with post-16 providers. Yet as a specialist college for young people with complex disabilities and learning difficulties, we are dependent on local authority funding for the provision that our 320 full-time students need.
The long-term squeeze on public sector budgets means we have had to find additional ways to fund skills-based provision – essential if we are to buck a disgraceful national trend which sees less than five per cent of people with learning disabilities in paid employment.
So eight years ago we launched our first supported internship programme with Severn Trent Water, giving our learners high-quality work placements with a realistic chance of securing a job at the end of the year. I’m delighted to report it’s still going strong.
This led to similar partnerships with other major businesses which saw the huge potential workforce in SEND specialist colleges, including Holiday Inn, West Midlands Police and Evtec Automotive.
In 2019 another employer partner, Premier Inn, opened a three-room training hotel at our Coventry campus, a significant investment and a huge vote of confidence in the college.
Five years on and Hereward is working with parent company Whitbread PLC to help deliver the national rollout of its Thrive programme, which aims to place mini training hotels across the country while delivering on a stated 100 internship places per year for young people with disabilities and learning difficulties.
We are now looking at two more mini hotels dedicated to the training of learners with SEND being constructed in new geographical locations by September.
Having run supported internships since 2016, we have never encountered a large employer which has been committed to enhancing the capital resources of specialist FE providers in the way Whitbread has.
Nationally, 4.8 per cent are in paid employment – a shameful statistic
Indeed, Janet Tidmarsh, head of inclusion and development at Whitbread, says the partnership is just as beneficial to the hospitality giant as I know it is for the college and its learners. The company recognises the value of a more diverse workforce, and employing more young people with special educational needs is an important part of its people strategy.
This innovative approach has brought a number of additional benefits to the college, alongside the private sector investment which we simply could not have achieved through the public purse in the current climate.
Last year, our supported internship programme had a 100 per cent retention rate and a 94 per cent pass and achievement rate for our 32 interns on 12-month employment placements. The very positive outcomes saw 81 per cent of participants going on to gain paid or voluntary work. This compares to only 4.8 per cent of people with learning disabilities being in paid employment in England – a shameful statistic.
This did not go unnoticed when a team of ten Ofsted inspectors, including a national lead for skills, visited our Tile Hill campus last April. We received the highest possible grade for skills while our high needs provision, which includes all of our full-time learners, was graded as ‘Outstanding’.
The college now wants to share its success to further the employment needs of young people with SEND. I currently chair the national employment forum for Natspec members and the Regional Colleges West Midlands SEND group. Deputy principal, Rosie Herbert has also joined the Natspec Centre for Excellence Communities of Practice programme which enables colleges to share best practice, network and discuss current issues.
The world of work has recognised the value of investing in inclusive workplaces and in staff that represent our whole communities. Every college should be reaching out to ensure their learners with SEND know the career pathways that are available to them and are empowered to access them.
For too long, a lack of aspiration for learners with SEND has held them back from being economically active and from finding the personal fulfilment that comes with that. We can’t let lack of funding be the new barrier to their progress.
Once upon a time in the ever-evolving land of Sustainabilityville, the residents were engaged in a perpetual game of “Guess What We Care About Today?”
At first, the villagers were all about saving the trees. “Paper is the enemy!” they declared, as they hugged every tree in sight. But lo and behold, a few months later, the trees were old news. Suddenly, it was all about reducing carbon footprints.
The residents traded in their tree-saving campaigns for carbon footprint dancing lessons. “Step lightly, my friends, for the Earth has a delicate dance floor!” they exclaimed, twirling around in their eco-friendly slippers.
Just when the carbon footprint craze reached its peak, a new fad emerged: Sustainable fashion! The villagers tossed their slippers aside and embraced clothes made from recycled fizzy pop cans. “Fashion with a fizz!” they proudly proclaimed.
Yet, as quickly as it began, sustainable fashion faded into oblivion. What came next?
The villagers of Sustainabilityville decided it was time to put down the recyclable fizzy pop can garments and do something more substantial. Recognising the need for consistency, they collectively concluded that a village-wide shift in mindset and a united approach to sustainable changes were the key. The forward-thinking villagers of Sustainabilityville set their sights on the heart of the village: education.
My choice of a story over a conventional blog post reflects our belief at Suffolk New College that education for sustainable development is about changing how we experience and engage with the world. By weaving a narrative, we emphasise the need for a more immersive, dynamic, and adaptable approach to teaching and learning – an approach that aligns with the essence of sustainability itself.
It’s not a static concept; it evolves, just like the characters and plot in a story.
For Suffolk New College, this is about long-term change and creating a culture of change. Sustainability demands that we experience the world in a different way, and that means teaching in a different way.
Our teacher development team have created a holistic CPD programme, aiming not only to integrate sustainability into curriculum areas but also to equip our staff with strategies to nurture sustainable mindsets in learners.
Essential components include critical and systematic thinking, alongside the ability to make decisions that are future-proof. By frequently revisiting these topics in various formats during CPD sessions, we hope to create an environment where sustainability becomes ingrained in our educational philosophy.
Our innovative approach to staff development has included escape rooms, Taskmaster tournaments, gamification activities and creative pledges during CPD days. Departing from traditional CPD formats, these activities prompted staff to reconsider their teaching practices by placing them in the learner’s role.
Our role as educators is not just to impart knowledge and skills but to instil values, attitudes, and a sense of responsibility in our whole college community. By prioritising sustainability in teacher development, staff members serve as genuine role models for environmental and social issues.
This awareness extends to the needs of others, including future generations and marginalised communities, motivating learners to contribute to positive societal change. These values have become ingrained in the culture of Suffolk New College, defining both learners and staff and establishing what it means to “Be Suffolk New College”.
The way I see it, our sustainability success relies on the importance of continuous learning, implementing innovative staff development programs, experimenting with teaching strategies and allocating dedicated time for research into green topics as pivotal components of a holistic approach to ecological stewardship.
Our acknowledgment as winners of this sustainability award is not merely a celebration but an invitation for others to embrace a journey towards a more sustainable and responsible future in education, by rethinking your staff development too.
Broadening the curriculum and bridging the divide between academic and technical qualifications are welcome ambitions within the Advanced British Standard (ABS). Research is clear that broader curriculums benefit students in numerous ways, and a high-quality skills system relies on establishing greater parity between academic and technical routes into employment. Colleges clearly could be well placed to deliver such a framework, with many already offering a high-quality mixture of academic and technical subjects.
However, it’s clear that such ambitious reform will require equally ambitious investment and planning. Given estimates suggest college spending per student in 2024-25 will be about 10 per cent below 2010–11 levels, further funding will be needed to help colleges make the ABS a success. Luminate Education Group is one of the country’s largest groups of colleges and while we’re broadly supportive of the vision behind the ABS, there are challenges that we’re eager to work with policymakers to solve.
Putting what is a predominantly positive vision for 16-19 education aside, it’s important to recognise that the proposals are largely unachievable within current conditions. Simply put, there aren’t sufficient teachers or capacity within our education settings to deliver the increase in teaching hours and assessments that form part of this broader curriculum.
Attracting additional teachers
The long-standing and well-reported challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers cannot be ignored. Last year’s inaugural release of the Department for Education’s annual statistics on the further education (FE) workforce revealed an average of 5.5 per cent of all teaching positions to be vacant across FE providers. Shortages are particularly felt within subjects like maths, physics, construction and engineering. The far higher pay of competitor occupations within these areas makes attracting teachers tremendously difficult.
As evident through the welcome introduction of £6,000 per year incentive payments for teachers of shortage subjects in their first five years, meeting even current demand presents an uphill battle. The ABS only increases this demand. Whether it be facilitating higher numbers of students opting to take a technical qualification or accounting for vast amounts more maths teaching, remedying recruitment and retention shortfalls will be vital.
Provided workforce demands can be met, ensuring some study of maths and English to age 18 has real promise. However, given core maths is complex to teach, upskilling current maths teachers would be needed to meet expected demand. Alongside maths and English, there must also be a focus on embedding digital skills throughout the broader curriculum.
Creating space to learn
At Leeds City College, we host over 20,000 learners and already operate at maximum capacity. Given projections for 200,000 additional 16-18 students by 2030, colleges will require more space. This is particularly acute in cities like Leeds, where there are already higher than average numbers of NEET young people. Investment will be needed to grow capacity, so colleges can offer the space more teaching time across a greater number of subjects requires.
Similarly, a broader curriculum naturally necessitates more assessments. Exam arrangements already pose a significant challenge for the sector. Alongside increasing capacity, there should also be a review of how to enable coordinated approaches within certain geographical areas so resources and space can be used efficiently.
The strong preference for summative, end-point-assessments within the ABS should also be avoided. Continuous forms of assessment could present a solution to assessment-based space constraints as well as a more effective means to judge learner ability, at least in technical subjects.
Unforgotten opportunities
In the early 2000s, the Tomlinson Report sought to move us away from exam-centric assessment. While the ABS proposals acknowledge the importance of practical skills, their emphasis on exam-based assessment undermines the value and practicality offered through a more holistic approach to assessment.
It’s also worth remembering that Tomlinson’s proposals focused on learners aged 14-19. To create greater parity between academic and technical forms of education, there might also be merit in exploring how best to introduce technical options of study from age 14 onwards.
The current ABS proposals are highly ambitious. Melding academic and technical qualifications into a single, broader framework would provide a serious upgrade to our post-16 landscape. To do so, it will need to be implemented correctly – and colleges can play a central role in ensuring its success.
It was fantastic to see employers of all sizes and politicians of all parties come together to celebrate the huge achievements of apprentices and the power of applied learning to transform during the recent National Apprenticeships Week. However, our system is at risk of wasting some of the important gains it has made and falling back again.
Apprenticeships are a huge asset to Britain. But as the digital economy and new technologies such as artificial intelligence transform the world of work, there is today a significant risk that apprenticeship opportunities may be unable to keep pace.
Almost two years ago, in May 2021, the Department for Education (DfE) took the decision to close the Apprenticeships Provider and Assessment Register (APAR) – the list of organisations able to deliver these vital apprenticeship opportunities. It has been effectively frozen in time ever since.
The implications of this decision are profound and far-reaching, particularly for apprenticeships in digital skills: by definition a fast-moving sector where agility and adaptability are not just advantageous but essential. In an age where technology evolves at breakneck speed and the frontiers of AI expand by the day, the rigidity of the current system has come to stand as a stark anachronism, a relic at odds with the dynamism of the digital age.
As a training provider which has helped thousands of learners gain the skills they need to thrive in the digital economy through coding bootcamps, we see first-hand how this damaging decision is constraining the quality and quantity of provision in the UK. And particularly so for the new and emerging skills needs crucial to fuel the growth of the tech sector, as those CoGrammar caters for.
More than 2,500 students have graduated from the government-funded bootcamps and short courses we’ve run in the past year, and we’re also partnering directly with Russell Group universities and employers. But, as things stand, learners going through the apprenticeship route are missing out on these life-enhancing opportunities. As long as the APAR keeps gathering dust, this will continue to be the case.
The rigidity of our system stands as a stark anachronism
Just last week, the government published data showing that graduates of these programmes have the potential to earn 55 per cent more than the national average, with average salaries in technology roles exceeding £70,000. Empowering learners of all ages and career stages with the ability to code professionally opens the door to new job opportunities, whether transitioning to an entirely new career path or advancing to a more senior role.
The current APAR system acts more like an exclusive club than a gateway to opportunity, stifling new, innovative provisions from entering the fray. This exclusivity not only limits diversity but also dampens the spirit of competition necessary for elevating standards and aligning them with the evolving needs of employers and the workforce.
The government is absolutely right to keep a laser focus on quality in provision, but there are also straightforward solutions which could ensure the quality guarantee of an apprenticeship is maintained whilst also allowing for competition and innovation.
One route is to remove any existing provider deemed ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, or those not actively delivering apprenticeships, as well as enforcing higher standards and vetting processes for providers on APAR.
At the same time, ministers could choose to focus on new providers in priority skills areas so that provision keeps pace with technological change. To keep apprenticeship opportunities aligned with evolving labour market demands, DfE could publish an up-to-date list of priority sectors and, where possible, provide a ‘fast track’ route for new providers in these sectors – particularly where providers have a proven track record of capacity to deliver at scale, meet benchmarks on completion rates and quality of delivery, or are existing suppliers to DfE for other programmes.
The question is not whether the apprenticeship system can afford to change, but whether it can afford not to. As the digital revolution marches on, the need for a more flexible, responsive, and forward-looking apprenticeship framework has never been more urgent. The future beckons—a future where apprenticeships are not just pathways to employment but conduits to innovation and engines of economic dynamism.
To deliver this more inclusive, competitive, and dynamic apprenticeship ecosystem, DfE should first revisit its stance.
The spring budget may have been the last substantial fiscal policy event this side of the upcoming general election. Sadly, further education was alarmingly absent from the policy changes on offer. Some 200 new apprenticeship places a year for British film and a £50 million pilot for apprenticeships in the advanced manufacturing, green and life sciences sectors are far from the fundamental reform we need.
In a budget designed to help win the next election, further education has been considered a distraction from the issues the public cares about. This is despite Public First surveys indicating that increased funding for apprenticeship programmes isn’t just supported by voters but is in fact preferred over twice as much as additional childcare support within educational spending, for example.
The value of apprenticeships as an affordable educational route is clear. Those starting a university degree in the past financial year are expected to graduate with a staggering £45,600 of student debt.
And yet apprenticeships have declined dramatically since the levy was introduced. The number of starts has fallen by 157,800, including a near halving of the number of people starting apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the four years since its implementation.
Change is now down to the next government. Whatever party forms that government, unlocking skills through apprenticeship reform must be a priority. With estimates that more than 30 million workers, over 90 per cent of the workforce, will need reskilling by 2030, increasing the uptake of apprenticeships and less formal skills development is necessary for a dynamic, innovative economy to continue growing and for raising stagnant levels of productivity.
A key move towards achieving this objective is removing the five per cent co-funding obligation for SMEs. Government must finance the entire cost to encourage more SMEs to participate in apprenticeship programmes. Easing the financial burden and streamlining the process by reducing the administrative burden associated with complex co-funding rules will make the system more user-friendly and minimise the hurdles SMEs face.
Further education has been considered a distraction
Additionally, offering levy-contributing businesses a financial incentive of £1,000 per employee for training could promote continued professional growth and development. This approach would make it easier for companies to engage with the apprenticeship system, potentially leading to formal apprenticeship agreements or, at a minimum, encouraging more staff training.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has reported a 19 per cent decrease in employer training and development investment over the past 13 years, with per-employee investment now half the average of the European Union. Reversing this decline and driving up investment in employee training is essential to improving productivity and growth.
These changes should not depend on harsh cuts in funding to other parts of the apprenticeship system but could be financed by fully allocating apprenticeship levy funds to apprenticeship programmes, as originally intended. Research by FE Week indicates that last year, the levy generated around £415 million more than was spent. From May 2019 to June 2022, more than £3.3 billion in revenue was returned to the Treasury because of strict rules on using unspent levy funds.
Beyond the kind of budgetary interventions that went begging this week, there is a lot more a serious potential government should offer. For example, the one-year minimum-length requirement does not guarantee quality, but it does hamper adaptability and frequently falls short of addressing the varied demands of both learners and employers.
Instead, a flexible model that modifies the minimum duration on a sliding scale according to level, from six and rising to 24 months, would enable greater accessibility. It would also suit the distinct needs of various industries and roles more effectively and see apprentices climb the ladder of opportunity more efficiently.
Rigid, inflexible rules are holding further education and skills development back. A government that was serious about growth and productivity would have begun to change those this week.
FE Week has uncovered significant evidence of the harm that generative AI is doing to the integrity of assessment, as educators and regulators are left struggling to catch up with the rapid pace of technological change
Students are now armed with the means to ‘cheat’ their way through almost any non-exam assignment by putting questions to a large language model (LLM) of generative AI such as ChatGPT, Snapchat’s My AI, and a multitude of new AI ‘study aid’ platforms.
They’re also being exposed to growing numbers of online influencers endorsing these new tools on social media.
But, the AI detection tools that educators are being told by the Joint Council for Qualifications to use to detect AI plagiarism are themselves unreliable, giving rise to false accusations and a breakdown of trust between educators and students.
Some educators are now questioning whether non-exam assessments are fit for purpose, with this summer’s exams series being seen as the first real test of the system against AI.
Social media AI minefield
Toby Rezio, an American Tiktoker with 92.5 million video likes
There are numerous videos on TikTok of young people endorsing AI tools, sometimes purportedly as a study aid but often more blatantly for cheating. Most of these tools are third-party apps using ChatGPT’s language model. Most of their endorsers are attractive young females.
But students can also cheat using the social media platforms they’re already socialising on.
Toby Rezio, an American Tiktoker with 92.5 million video likes, admitted to cheating using Snapchat’s My AI.
Snapchat – used by 90 per cent of 13- to 24-year-olds – unleashed its ‘my AI’ chatbot powered by Open AI’s ChatGPT language model on all its users in April 2023. They customise their avatar with human features and it tells them to “ask [me] questions about anything”.
While increasing numbers of young people are being exposed to new methods of cheating, they’re not all receiving guidance from their colleges about what they can and cannot use AI for.
A poll of 18 FE representatives at a recent meeting organised by the digital agency Jisc’s National Centre for AI found that a third were part of institutions which had produced AI guidance for learners, a third had not, with a third in the process of doing so.
The centre said its members had “noted that as AI becomes increasingly integrated into everyday tools, learners may encounter challenges in identifying what constitutes as AI”. It was also mentioned that “students may be aware of certain tools that staff are not”.
AI arms race
Snapchat’s My AI’s intro screen
As chatbots become more sophisticated, new and updated detection tools are being flogged to educators to get the upper hand. Last month, The Joint Council for Qualifications refreshed its AI use in assessments guidance to include an expanded list of detection tools, including Turnitin AI, Copyleaks and Sapling.
These tools are engaged in a war against platforms such as SteathGPT, whose website brashly advertises how it “not only eludes the discerning eyes of Turnitin but also enhances the writer’s voice, ensuring that the work reflects their unique style and intellect”.
But detection tools merely provide a rough probability of whether a learner has relied on AI. FE Week analysis found by that most of the “potential indicators of AI misuse” cited by the JCQ, such as default use of American spelling and a lack of direct quotations, can easily be overcome by using further chatbot prompts to write in specific styles.
Michael Webb, technology director at JISC, says he “managed to beat every AI detector” by telling the chatbot he was using to “use the word ‘and’ less”.
A recent international study of 14 widely used AI detection tools (including Turnitin AI) found them to be “not accurate or reliable enough to use in practice”. Around 20 per cent of AI-generated texts would “likely be misattributed to humans”, rising to half of the AI-generated texts that “undergo some obfuscation”.
It found that some AI detection tools, such as Writer are “clearly aimed to be used to hide AI-written text, providing suggestions to users such as ‘you should edit your text until there’s less detectable AI content’”.
Daisy Christodoulou, director of education for No More Marking believes that AI is being used for cheating far more than most educators realise. Christodoulou warns teachers that “if you spot one AI-generated essay, there’s probably another ten you haven’t spotted. You just haven’t spotted the students using AI well.”
Educators describe feeling like they’re engaged in an arms race when it comes to AI tools. Harald Koch, the author of a book about AI cheating, believes that “the development of AI is progressing far too quickly” for the detection tools to be relied upon.
“Before an AI checker has been rolled out in a meaningful way, the next level … of AI has already been released”.
Chatbot artificial intelligence
False accusations
The JCQ explicitly states that those accused of submitting AI-generated assignments “may attract severe sanctions”, including disqualification and being barred from exams. And if teachers with “doubts” about authenticity do not “investigate and take appropriate action”, this “can attract sanctions”.
The JCQ advises educators to use more than one detection tool and to consider “all available information”. Yet a growing number of students are now being falsely accused of AI cheating.
Daniel Sokol, lead barrister at Alpha Academic Appeals, says he now “deal[s] with AI-cheating cases regularly”.
In New Zealand last year, AI plagiarism detectors are believed to have falsely accused two high school students of cheating, with one parent describing the use of AI detection tools as playing “Russian roulette”.
An American study published in September 2023, which analysed 49 Reddit posts from college students accused of using ChatGPT, found 38 protesting their innocence. Another found seven AI detectors had wrongly flagged writing by non-native speakers as AI-generated 61 per cent of the time, compared to 20 per cent of human-written essays overall.
Webb admits the detectors are “particularly prone to false positives when English isn’t your first language, because perhaps you’ve got a more formal style”.
Caught in the act
A TikTok post from a student claiming they had been falsely accused by AI detection tools
As ChatGPT was released in November 2022, last summer was the first set of exams in which it was possible to cheat using generative AI. Cases of exam malpractice resulting in penalties rose from 4,105 in 2022 and 4,895 in 2023, although the proportion relating to tech devices remained the same (44.5 per cent).
The JCQ highlighted examples of students caught misusing AI on their coursework, including two AQA A-level history students, one of whom was disqualified, and two students on the OCR’s Cambridge nationals enterprise and marketing qualification who confessed to cheating and received zero marks.
One candidate claimed in their defence to believe that using ChatGPT was “no different to asking a teacher for advice”.
The JCQ last year advised educators to make students do some coursework “in class under direct supervision” to prevent AI misuse. But Christodoulou is calling for them to go further and “pause” all assessed coursework.
“The really high false accusation rate of AI detection tools can be corrosive for classroom relationships,” she warns. “And if a student knows that their friend is using AI and getting away with it, that’s destructive for the values you want to nurture. We must be really careful with these things.”
Scott Hayden, Basingstoke College of Technology’s head of digital, believes the sector needs “a moment to reflect” on AI’s impact. Assessments “need to change”, with essays replaced with “blogs, podcasts, and creative ways we can assess”.
Claire Whiting, initial teacher education lead at Wiltshire College, posted online that she uses Vivas “with no notice” to assess whether a student has “depth of understanding”.
“AI is here to stay, and is evolving too fast for staff training … essays are, quite frankly, useless to awarding organisations now.”
But a new tool being marketed on TikTok, Ecoute, provides real-time AI-generated responses to “hack job interviews” and could potentially be used for any oral assignments. “Invisible” Bluetooth earbuds available to buy on Amazon would make it difficult for teachers to spot such activity.
The regulatory gap
Ecoute, which advertises itself as being able to help with job interviews
DfE’s deputy director for digital, Bridie Tooher, admits that when it comes to AI, “things are moving so fast that … the tech will always overtake the regulations”.
AI governance expert Kay Firth-Butterfield points out that in the US – the birthplace of most AI companies – there are “lots of ongoing court cases around LLMs using other people’s data without paying for it” which educators “need to bear in mind”.
“Google, OpenAI and Microsoft are underwriting court cases which may arise from misuse of their tools,” she added.
Edtech investor Richard Taylor says because “the only real players” when it comes to AI edtech are based in America and China, this makes it more challenging to regulate the industry in the UK. “If you can’t control fundamentally the companies that are doing it, it puts us in a weak position.”
Educators raised concerns to DfE in its AI consultation that their students’ identity, grades or behaviour data may be input into Generative AI tools, with developers being “often opaque” about their use of such data.
Thea Wiltshire, the Department for Business and Trade’s edtech specialist, says “we have to be very careful” in inputting students’ work into LLMs because “allowing generative AI to learn from it is an abuse of their intellectual property.”
Another key concern is around colleges and young people not adhering to the age restrictions of AI platforms. An Ofcom survey last year found that 74 per cent per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK have used a GenAI tool. For 13- to 18-year-olds, parental consent is required for ChatGPT.
Webb says some educators see this as “just a US legal requirement” which is a “very risky strategy”.
Firth-Butterfield warns that in the business world, “the early adopters of AI are having to claw back what they’ve been doing because they didn’t put a good governance structure around AI in at the beginning”. She advises education leaders not to make the same mistake.
AI inequalities
Chatbots have the potential to level the academic playing field by giving more students access to personalised systems of learning, previously only available to those who could afford private tutoring. However, the digital divide could grow because of the rising cost of AI tools and access to online technology.
A recent Internet Matters poll found in households where income is less than £10,000 per year, only 11 per cent of children have used ChatGPT, rising to 45 per cent where income is £80,000.
And the most effective AI tools are the pricier ones: GPT-4, OpenAI’s premium LLM, costs £16 a month.
Webb estimates it costs a student around £80 a month for all the AI tools required to do well academically, giving those students “a significant advantage”. He admits “there’s no easy answer to that.”
Meanwhile, there is “inequality through variations of approach” within the FE sector.
While some colleges have banned generative AI, others are encouraging students to embrace it and are using it to generate lesson plans, crunch data, and help mark assignments.
Webb believes that new AI tools can be used by teachers to work “more efficiently and effectively”, allowing them to “spend more time building relationships with the learners, and help them develop soft skills”.
However, a teacher over-reliant on AI to do all their prep for them could create more “disengaged learners”. “It’s “how we implement these tools, not just the tool itself.”
The age restrictions of generative AI
What are colleges doing?
In a packed session at the Association of Colleges conference last year hosted by Milton Keynes College, around half its attendees said they had either “never used or heard of ChatGPT”, and “two or three said they were experts”, said Alex Warner, principal of its South Central Institute of Technology who led the session.
The college is choosing to embrace the AI revolution and gave every learner who joined last term an AI induction.
Basingstoke College of Technology is also making strides in engaging students around appropriate use of AI.
After a student survey revealed to Hayden that some of Basingstoke’s students were “hopelessly addicted to their devices and wanted help but were too embarrassed to admit it”, the college created a module on digital wellbeing, now delivered to all new learners.
But having spent the last seven years “encouraging the use of Snapchat and live streaming in the classroom”, Hayden admits he now feels “at a real crossroads” over “doing myself out of work” with AI. “I’m shaking my fist at those Google-Microsoft gods”.
A lack of official guidance around AI use from DfE is leaving many colleges unsure how to proceed. One teacher on Facebook recently described feeling “completely overwhelmed” and “unequipped” by the pace of change.
Webb suggests that teachers “discuss with students how to use AI to create assessments that are authentic and getting them ready for work”. He admits this is “not easy” and that the problem is “compounded by the complexity around advice” from awarding bodies, which “differs enormously” between them.
“Collectively, we need to get to a shared understanding.”
Making stuff up
My AI being used for homework
In the meantime, colleges shouldn’t rely on LLMs too much, because they really can’t be trusted. The JCQ warns that chatbots “often produce answers which may seem convincing but contain incorrect or biased information”.
“Some AI chatbots have been identified as providing dangerous and harmful answers to questions and some can also produce fake references to books or articles by real or fake people.”
Warner has concerns about “ethics, bias and transparency”.
“The most frightening is where it makes up references by making assumptions. It’s riddled with flaws. But that’s why it’s not going to replace our jobs.”
There are also deeper philosophical considerations about the impact of AI on young people’s faith in democratic systems, and how AI will influence their curiosity for learning.
Firth-Butterfield claims in the US, AI is “helping students to come up from D and C to B [grades]. But it’s not helping to create excellence”.
She believes the tools can really help teach young people who had dropped out of school, been in jail or pregnant and missed large chunks of education to catch up”.
“But it’s questionable whether these tools will help the people already doing well academically to develop innovation. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to become average? As humans, we need original thought to advance society.”
She’s particularly concerned about the impact of AI that interacts with young people in human-like ways, because “if it can understand how you feel, there’s the potential for it to manipulate”.
Webb says Jisc was in the process of drawing up guidance around AI when ChatGPT was unleashed, and has been in “reactive” mode ever since. But a “common roadmap” for the FE sector is in the pipeline.
“We just need to adapt and centre on what keeps us human. I’m hoping that AI will actually make us more human, because we’ve lost that as a society.”
Yet, amid this promising landscape, a critical gap persists—a gap not of representation but of perception. It’s time to transcend mere statistics and delve into the deeper narrative, to challenge the glass ceiling metaphor that still casts shadows over women in leadership. In an era where progress should be measured not just in numbers but in lived experience and stories told, the need to re-narrativise women in leadership echoes louder than ever.
As a doctoral student, I delved into the literature on senior leadership in further education, and encountered a surprising shortage of research, particularly concerning women leaders. The language used in many journal article titles suggested that women were perceived as the minority or disadvantaged group in FE leadership.
Titles such as ‘Managing Further Education: Is it Still Men’s Work?’, ‘Distorted views through the glass ceiling’ and ‘Educational Leadership: Where Are the Women?’ painted a narrative of struggle and under-representation for women in senior positions within FE institutions. Research even as recently as this decade evidences a social construct of further education senior leaders as “white, middle-class and male”.
However, my own experiences and the life histories of my research participants contradicted this narrative. The women leaders I interviewed didn’t see their gender as a barrier to their career progression. Rather, they perceived themselves as senior leaders, navigating their roles with confidence and efficacy.
The data from the Department for Education’s (DfE) workforce survey published in August 2023 painted a more positive picture, showing a significant shift in the gender composition of college senior leaders. The survey revealed that 55 per cent of leaders are now female—a testament to the progress made in achieving greater gender equality within the sector.
While the glass ceiling may no longer be a tangible barrier, perceptions and biases linger
Despite the positive strides, challenges persist. I noted a reluctance of women leaders in my research to share their “whole selves”. For example, while women leaders refrained from emphasising their roles as mothers or referencing their families in relation to their professional commitments, men embraced transparency about their familial responsibilities and were proud to talk about the impact of fatherhood on their leadership.
Indeed, I have reflected on my own reluctance to openly discuss my family commitments in professional settings in the past for fear of being perceived negatively. This highlights the lingering effects of gender stereotypes and biases in the workplace, which may influence how individuals present themselves professionally.
We should be proud of who we are; both our personal and professional identities inform our leadership. I know that being a mother of four daughters has shaped my leadership and my professional identity quite profoundly.
In light of these findings, I advocate for a re-narrativisation of women’s leadership experiences in further education. Amplifying success stories and sharing lived experiences of women leaders – of which there are plenty – can help align perceptions with reality and empower women to be more open about their identities and experiences.
Additionally, there’s a pressing need for updated research to offer a contemporary understanding of women’s leadership in further education, inspiring aspiring leaders to pursue such roles. This is a challenge I personally commit to undertaking, and I urge others to join in.
While my focus here has been on women in acknowledgement of International Women’s Day, it’s crucial to extend our efforts to promote diversity in leadership, including ethnic diversity, individuals who identify outside the gender binary, and those with disabilities or learning differences.
We need to recognise and celebrate the unique perspectives and contributions that individuals of all backgrounds bring to leadership roles. While the glass ceiling may no longer be a tangible barrier for women in further education leadership, perceptions and biases still linger.
By reshaping the narrative surrounding women leaders and fostering a culture of authenticity and inclusivity, we can continue to break down barriers and pave the way for a more equitable future in further education leadership.
