Ofsted issued updated guidance for schools on how to record pupil use of generative artificial intelligence in assessed work, telling leaders that inspectors will look for clear attribution policies—not blanket bans that push use underground.
What schools must document
The guidance asks maintained schools and academies to keep a simple audit trail when AI tools assist drafts: which platform, which stages (brainstorming, outlining, grammar suggestions), and how teachers verified factual claims. Pupils should declare AI use on coversheets or in learning platforms where submissions are electronic.
Ofsted stressed it is not mandating a single vendor. Schools may continue blocking consumer chatbots on networks while allowing teacher-supervised tools with logging. The distinction matters for safeguarding reviews as well as academic integrity.
Inspection expectations
Inspectors will not penalise a school solely because pupils experimented with AI, but they will probe whether leaders set proportionate rules aligned with key stage expectations. At primary, oral checks and in-class writing still anchor authenticity; at GCSE, departments must show how moderated coursework samples account for AI-assisted drafting.
Union briefings welcomed language that separates “support” from “substitution.” If a pupil submits text they cannot explain under questioning, that remains misconduct regardless of whether AI generated it.
Teacher workload
The Department for Education’s parallel materials suggest template declarations to avoid bespoke forms per subject. Nonetheless, faculty leads said training time is the hidden cost—especially in humanities where essays are central and detection tools are unreliable.
Multi-academy trusts with shared data platforms are standardising metadata tags (“AI brainstorm”, “AI grammar”, “no AI”) so reports can be aggregated without naming individual pupils in board papers.
Limits of the guidance
Ofsted does not regulate independent schools’ internal policies beyond safeguarding frameworks, and colleges under different oversight will cross-reference Jisc playbooks. The document also avoids setting national penalties; exam boards retain malpractice rules for high-stakes assessments.
Leaders have until the October half-term to publish parent-facing summaries, a deadline timed before routine inspection blocks resume in earnest. Schools that already piloted disclosure forms in 2025 said the practical test is whether teachers adjust rubrics to reward process and source citation, not polished prose alone.
Special educational needs and access
Send coordinators flagged that some assistive tools use similar interfaces to generative chatbots, blurring lines for pupils entitled to speech-to-text or predictive text accommodations. Ofsted said inspectors will ask how schools distinguish mandated accessibility tech from optional AI drafting aids—documentation should name both categories on individual learning plans.
Local authority lawyers urged boards to align AI policies with existing plagiarism rules rather than drafting parallel disciplinary codes, reducing the risk of unequal sanctions across neighbouring schools in the same trust.
Governors were told to record which commercial tools are blocked on school Wi-Fi versus allowed on staff devices, because inspectors may ask how pupils accessed AI if incidents are referred upward.
