Ofsted released draft inspection guidance Tuesday on how secondary schools may use generative-AI tools to draft feedback on student work, after a pilot across twelve multi-academy trusts showed time savings on formative comments but inconsistent safeguarding logs when platforms stored pupil essays on US servers, according to the consultation document and trust leads who spoke with InfoHandle. The draft does not ban AI marking; it requires a named teacher to approve every grade affecting reported progress and bars inspectors from treating opaque model scores as evidence of attainment.
Which trusts and year groups
Pilot schools clustered in Key Stage 3 English and geography—subjects with extended writing where rubric-based feedback eats hours. Trusts used three commercial platforms under data-processing agreements; Ofsted’s draft lists minimum controls: on-shore or UK GDPR-compliant hosting, retention limits, and parent notices before trial classes begin. Year 11 GCSE cohorts were excluded from pilots because exam board rules still require human marks on high-stakes mocks.
What changes Tuesday morning
Heads of department must document which assignments allow AI assistance for drafting comments versus which remain pen-only. Unions welcomed workload language but warned trusts not to convert saved hours into extra teaching periods without consultation. ICO reminders on lawful basis for processing children’s writing apply regardless of Ofsted—vendors cannot rely on blanket consent forms.
Classroom reality
Teachers said models hallucinate praise on blank sections when OCR misreads handwriting; pilots mandated double-entry checks on every tenth book. Students reported faster turnaround on homework but less specific pointers when teachers skimmed AI paragraphs. Ofsted emphasises curriculum intent—if AI homogenises feedback voice, deep dives may question whether marking informs teaching or merely ticks boxes.
Consultation and limits
The draft runs eight weeks; final handbook text lands before spring inspections. MAT central teams may standardise prompts, but the guidance forbids cross-school league tables built solely on model-generated attainment predictions. For parents, the actionable ask is the data sheet sent home—read where essays are stored before signing.
Beyond marking
Department for Education generative-AI policy separates classroom experimentation from banned high-stakes uses; this Ofsted slice covers inspection risk only. Trusts still owe exam boards human marks on assessed work; AI remains a drafting aid, not an examiner. If your child’s school joins a autumn pilot, expect teachers to spend saved minutes on live questioning—not automatically on more books.
Trust governance
MAT boards must minute which vendors passed cyber checks; Ofsted’s draft says inadequate records can downgrade safeguarding judgments even when classroom practice looks fine. Local governing bodies in converter academies retain oversight of marking policy—chairs should ask for a redacted sample of AI drafts versus teacher finals before approving wider rollout.
Special educational needs coordinators flagged that generic AI praise can mask missing scaffolding for pupils with dyslexia; pilots that skipped SENCO review are cited as cautionary examples in the consultation annex. For supply teachers, the guidance demands the same approval chain—no substitute may publish AI comments without a permanent staff sign-off.
