Scrapping extended writing coursework because of fears of artificial intelligence cheating is “never off the table,” Ofqual’s boss has warned.
Ian Bauckham is “evaluating” exam boards’ responses to his letter last month, which called for more action to crack down on AI misuse.
Little coursework remains in England’s assessment system after a cull by the Conservatives, but the chief regulator is concerned about extended writing essays that make up 20 per cent of history and English A Levels.
He told FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week there were “various possible courses of action”, adding: “The most obvious one that people talk about is just simply getting rid of non-examined assessment. And it may be that in some cases that is the right thing to do.”
Asked whether this was something Ofqual was considering, he said: “It can never be off the table.
“It’s worth remembering that we are in a reform process for GCSE and A Levels at the moment, and one of the key things we’ll be doing is making sure that where coursework is proposed in the revised qualifications, it can be delivered in such a way that it’s secure and authentic.
“If it can’t be, we have to ask the question, can we allow this to be included?”
But there were other options “if you genuinely believe that the process of researching and completing an assignment is an important part of the learning process”, he said.
This included more “checkpoints” where teachers reviewed the work with pupils and signed it off as authentic.
Pupils might have to increase source referencing and footnotes “so it’s clear you’ve not just asked ChatGPT to write 10,000 words for you”.
Boards’ ‘interesting proposals’
Bauckham is less worried about creative art coursework, where paint and pens are used in front of teachers. But questions remain around digital art.
He said boards have made “some interesting proposals for what they intend to do”. He also requested stronger arrangements to crack down on mobile phones in exam halls.
The four exam boards refused to provide copies of their letters to Schools Week.
The Joint Council for Qualifications, the boards’ members’ body, said it was “constantly monitoring these evolving risks and adapting our policies and processes appropriately”.
It would continue to strengthen its guidance and support for teachers, who “remain well-positioned to ensure students understand and follow the rules”. It would also continue to develop models to detect AI.
Exam boards ‘have business strategies’
Bauckham, appointed interim chief regulator in 2024 and then given the role permanently last year, has taken a strong stance on his relationship with awarding organisations.
For example, after announcing new powers to publicly “rebuke” rule-breaking boards last year, he said awarding organisations “didn’t like it very much, which gave me assurance that it might be effective”.
There is also tension around Ofqual’s proposals to initially limit on-screen exams to two subjects per board.
Colin Hughes, AQA’s chief executive, previously warned this was “unduly restrictive”.
“It means that exam boards like AQA, that have been developing and trialling digital exams for a number of years, will be inhibited in building that all-important base of evidence and experience.”
Bauckham said his job was to “steward” the exams system “to make sure it maintains its place in public esteem”.
“It doesn’t surprise me that some of the exam boards have been clear that they want us to go further in on-screen assessment. Exam boards will have their business strategies, they will see that there are benefits for them for greater on-screen assessment.
“But my job is not to do what exam boards want me to do. My job is to look after the national asset.”
Digital decision looms
Ofqual will publish its final decision on digital exams later this year, but Bauckham said the “public mood on tech in education is evolving”.
“When we first started thinking about on-screen assessment, before the pandemic, there was a more widespread assumption that more education would be on-screen and that would be the public expectation for education.
“But since then, the anxiety about excessive screen use by children and young people and excessive social media use, the damaging effects of doom scrolling … have risen in public consciousness.
“The public is now much more ambivalent about what they think about young people and screens. I think that has an impact on decisions that we’ll take about on-screen assessments.”
Future Ofqual
Reflecting on Ofqual’s role in the sector, Bauckham said the regulator was now “far more aware of the wider implications of the work it does”.
“Ofqual, in its first decade of existence, was a more internally focused technical organisation than perhaps it is now.
“That’s not to say that the technical work is less important, but I think we’ve just got a broader understanding of what qualifications are and what they do.”
It was a “legitimate to ask to what extent we think Ofqual needs to a brand that is very high in public awareness”. For example, Ofsted was a household name.
He referenced the Food Standards Agency. “When you buy your shopping, you’re not thinking about them, but without them, the food you buy wouldn’t be trustworthy.
“So there are ways in which we do want to be in the public’s mind as an organisation that safeguards the quality of qualifications.”
The regulator would be closely involved in curriculum and assessment reforms in the months and years ahead.
While Ofqual did not sign off subject content, Bauckham said it engaged with the DfE through the process – and he would not hold back if he disagreed.
“If the DfE makes proposals for content which I think will have a materially negative impact on the qualifications I will say absolutely, without fear or favour. But I’m pleased to say that the relationship is constructive. The process is working well.”