In less than a year since Bridget Phillipson announced a review of England’s curriculum and assessment system, developments in generative AI have obliterated some of our basic assumptions about assessment.
I’ve argued in the past that it’s fine for schools to take time to respond to new technology, and that they don’t have to change everything in response to passing fads.
But there comes a point where new trends are impossible to ignore. We are beyond that point now.
In the past two years, there have been dramatic increases in the numbers of students using generative AI to do their work. At university level, the number of students using AI for assessments went up from 53 per cent in 2024 to 88 per cent in 2025. Among 13- to 18-year-olds generative AI use went from 37 per cent in 2023 to 77 per cent in 2024.
Not only that, but you can’t spot its use: AI detectors don’t work. They miss real plagiarism and accuse human work of being plagiarised.
In the worst-case scenario, which may already be here, we end up with a kabuki dance where students pretend to write essays and teachers pretend to mark them.
In the best-case scenario, teachers and exam systems use AI in combination with human judgment to speed up providing grades and feedback on work that the students have done themselves.
Here are five things the curriculum and assessment review needs to do to make the best-case scenario more likely.
Review the performance of AI marking systems
There is a plethora of new AI marking systems out there. (Full disclosure, I work for a company who have created one.) Ofqual should carry out a research review into how different types of systems work.
Revise initial teacher training content
The widespread use of AI has exposed a number of misconceptions about assessments.
There is a lot of wishful thinking about how it’s fine to use AI for exams or classwork because that is what everyone will be using in the workplace. This is a fundamental category error about the purpose of education and assessment.
What matters in an assessment is not the end product; it’s what the end product tells you about the process the student went through to get there.
If a student turns in a perfect piece of work that’s been generated by AI, it’s like using a forklift truck to move weights at the gym or hailing a taxi to take you round the marathon course. Initial teacher training needs new modules on assessment and AI which explain this point clearly.
Eliminate non-examined written assessments
Around the world, everyone is waking up to the fact that unsupervised writing assessments are no longer viable. We need to return to in-person exams.
England’s regulated assessment system is mostly based around exams, which makes the review’s job easier. However, a wider systemic problem is that independent schools can take unregulated qualifications with significant proportions of non-examined assessment of the type that is ripe for AI plagiarism.
Keep handwritten exams
For years now, we’ve heard that exams need to go digital. But do they?
There are important cognitive benefits to handwriting, and if students know the final assessment is handwritten it will make them more likely to practise using that format too, and less likely to use AI. Plus, AI actually makes it easier to process and transcribe handwritten exam scripts.
At No More Marking, our software allows teachers to easily switch between an image of the original handwritten script and an AI transcription.
Investigate post-qualification university admissions
Currently, students apply to university with predicted grades. It would be much fairer if they applied with their actual results, but in the current system that is a fiendish logistical challenge.
If AI marking does work well, we could keep the exam calendar as is, get quicker results to students, and run a university admissions process using actual grades at the end of the summer term.
In sum, AI can widen inequalities, or it can help us close them. The Francis review will need to be judicious in ensuring it sets us on the right course as the technology continues to evolve.
You can read a longer version of this article here
This article is the latest in our series of sector-led, experience-informed recommendations for the Francis review of curriculum and assessment. Read them all here
Your thoughts