Transforming Education: Aligning Curriculum, Assessment, and Trust for Future Qualifications

Good afternoon. I am honoured to have the opportunity to address you today.

As the Chief Regulator of Qualifications, my primary responsibility is to protect and uphold the integrity of our qualifications system, which I consider a vital national asset.

The Significance of Qualifications in England

Why do I refer to it as a national asset? English qualifications have garnered a remarkable reputation across the globe and are integral to the soft power of our nation on the international stage.

GCSEs and A Levels are deeply embedded in our cultural consciousness; today’s teenagers’ parents likely completed GCSEs, while their grandparents may have undertaken A Levels. These qualifications significantly influence the educational journey of our students, shaping their experiences and opportunities.

Moreover, they are essential to the recent educational achievements we have witnessed in England, particularly in assessments like PISA.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that we exist in a rapidly evolving and often challenging environment. Maintaining a world-class qualifications system requires us to be adaptable and forward-thinking.

With this in mind, I would like to briefly discuss three key topics: V Levels, the transition to onscreen assessment, and the implications of artificial intelligence.

Introducing V Levels for Vocational Education

Let us begin with V Levels. Scheduled for introduction in 2027, V Levels will establish a robust vocational pathway for post-16 students, complementing A Levels and T Levels.

So, what exactly are V Levels designed for? These will be level 3 qualifications, akin to A Levels, yet distinct from T Levels, which are full-time courses focused on preparing students for specific occupational sectors.

In reality, many teenagers are uncertain about their future career paths and prefer to keep their options open. V Levels are smaller qualifications that can be pursued alongside two other V Levels or A Levels, creating a customised study programme. They will introduce students to various roles within a vocational field without the requirement for an industrial placement.

V Levels will be entirely deliverable in school sixth forms and colleges, and they may serve as a progression route for students who have opted for the newly announced vocational GCSEs during Key Stage 4.

A common question arises: are V Levels merely a rebranding of BTECs? To clarify, BTEC is a proprietary brand owned by Pearson, which dictates its content. It is concerning that decisions impacting a large segment of our 16 to 18-year-olds are determined by a private entity. At the GCSE level, all qualifications, irrespective of the examining board, are mandated to adhere to a uniform content framework established by our democratically elected government.

Ensuring Fairness in Vocational Qualifications

I see no reason why post-16 vocational students should not receive the same assurances. While BTECs are the most recognised brand, they are not the sole provider of level 3 vocational courses, and comparisons between different qualifications are often complex and inconsistent.

This disparity is unacceptable; we do not tolerate it at the GCSE or A Level levels, and it should not be permissible for vocational qualifications either. The V Level reform aims to address these long-standing issues, marking a significant advancement in the realm of vocational education.

The first three V Levels will be available in education and early years, accounting and finance, and digital systems and data, launching for teaching in September 2027, with a broader range following the subsequent year.

Embracing Technological Advancements in Assessment

Looking ahead is not solely about the qualifications we offer but also about the methods of assessment. This brings us to the question of whether we should transition to onscreen examinations. It is widely known that several exam boards advocate for a more rapid shift towards digital assessments, urging us to keep pace with technological advancements.

However, my responsibility is to prioritise the public interest in our qualifications system. The public must trust and embrace innovations of this nature, and assertions that exams should go digital simply because the world is evolving warrant further scrutiny.

In the UK, there is a tendency to believe we are lagging behind global standards, often prompted by comparisons with other nations. While countries like New Zealand, Israel, and Finland have made strides in this area, they are smaller systems with long-term IT investments in education.

Conversely, other well-resourced nations, such as Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, have paused or reversed similar initiatives. It appears that comprehensive systems, particularly those with high-stakes qualifications like ours, are cautious about moving to onscreen formats.

Concerns regarding the reliability of implementation, as well as broader societal implications related to the use of screens in education, must be addressed. There is also the pressing issue of fairness, given the unequal access to technology and devices – a digital divide that cannot be overlooked.

Addressing the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence

Further considerations include the readiness of educational institutions to manage large-scale computer-based examinations and the capacity of exam boards to run these systems reliably. Past experiences have shown that not all ventures in technology within examination boards have ended positively.

Nevertheless, there are potential advantages to onscreen assessments, such as the ability to present certain tasks more effectively and to accommodate specific educational needs. We are actively examining these issues as we determine the future of onscreen assessment in England’s educational landscape, and more information will be forthcoming.

Now, let us turn our attention to artificial intelligence. In the context of qualifications, we face three significant questions. Firstly, will qualifications still be necessary to validate students’ knowledge and abilities in a world where AI is anticipated to handle much of this? If the answer is no, then we face a fundamental crisis not only for qualifications but for education as a whole.

The Importance of Human Oversight in Education

If we conclude, as I argue we must, that qualifications remain essential, the next question is how to address the potential misuse of AI, including AI-driven cheating. Lastly, we must consider the extent to which AI should govern our examination and qualifications systems, along with the potential implications of such a shift.

To address the first question, it is clear that the workplace of the future will be enhanced by AI. However, this does not diminish the need for educated individuals. Future workers will require higher-level expertise to complement the work performed by AI, relying on specialised knowledge and sound judgement.

Those who cannot offer something distinct from AI will find their job prospects limited. Hence, the notion that we can cease teaching, learning, and assessment is unfounded. In fact, we will require more education, and qualifications will continue to play a vital role in framing and accrediting this learning.

Regarding the misuse of AI, we cannot permit it. Extended writing coursework is particularly susceptible to cheating, as I have often highlighted. Critics often cite universities that have embraced more contemporary assessment methods, yet I contend that many institutions are now recognising the importance of maintaining integrity in evaluations.

Preserving Educational Integrity in the Age of AI

For instance, Princeton University has reintroduced invigilated exams, citing concerns over AI and academic integrity. Closer to home, UCL Law School is revamping its assessments to be more resistant to AI interference. For qualifications to retain their credibility, assessments must authentically reflect the achievements of students, and we cannot allow them to be undermined by the notion that AI-generated work is a suitable substitute for genuine human effort.

This issue must not seep back into schools and colleges. While AI can be beneficial in supporting teachers and enhancing educational resources, relying on AI to do students’ thinking for them undermines the development of critical thinking skills and diminishes the value of education. Research consistently shows that students who use AI to shortcut their learning tend to perform worse than those who engage in the learning process themselves.

Over the past two decades, we have inadvertently granted young people unrestricted access to smartphones, resulting in significant harm. We must learn from this experience and avoid making the same mistake with AI.

The Ethical Considerations of AI in Education

Lastly, we must ask whether we should allow AI to manage our qualifications system. There are two perspectives to consider: one based on accuracy and efficiency, and the other rooted in ethics. While AI has the potential to enhance efficiency and reduce costs in certain areas, we must be cautious about its role in marking assessments, particularly complex responses such as essays and creative works.

Utilising AI in this context raises serious concerns. AI systems can exhibit biases and may not reflect human judgement accurately. Moreover, as generative AI evolves, it could autonomously extend marking criteria, removing human oversight from the process.

Education and qualifications exist for the benefit of humanity, not the reverse. The dignity of the individual demands that significant decisions regarding a person’s future be subject to human oversight. If AI were to dictate marking criteria, we risk allowing it to shape educational priorities, ultimately compromising the integrity of teaching.

Furthermore, the use of generative AI in marking presents challenges to the right to contest decisions. While human errors can be challenged, the same cannot be said for judgements rendered by opaque AI systems. Therefore, the question of AI transcends efficiency and cost considerations; it is fundamentally an ethical issue regarding our commitment to maintaining human oversight and control over education.

<p