Listen to this story Members can listen to an AI-generated audio version of this article. 1.0x Audio narration uses an AI-generated voice. 0:00 0:00 Become a member to listen to this article Subscribe Scrapping extended writing coursework because of fears of artificial intelligence cheating is 鈥渘ever off the table,鈥 Ofqual鈥檚 boss has warned. Ian聽Bauckham is 鈥渆valuating鈥 exam boards鈥 responses to his letter last month, which called for more action to crack down on AI misuse. Little coursework remains in England鈥檚 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 Schools Week there were 鈥渧arious possible courses of action鈥, adding: 鈥淭he 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.鈥 Asked whether this was something Ofqual was considering, he said: 鈥淚t can never be off the table. 鈥淚t鈥檚 worth remembering that we are in a reform process for GCSE and A-levels at the moment, and one of the key things we鈥檒l be doing is making sure that where coursework is proposed in the revised qualifications, it can be delivered in such a way that it鈥檚 secure and authentic. 鈥淚f it can鈥檛 be, we have to ask the question, can we allow this to be included?鈥 But there were other options 鈥渋f you genuinely believe that the process of researching and completing an assignment is an important part of the learning process鈥, he said. This included more 鈥渃heckpoints鈥 where teachers reviewed the work with pupils and signed it off as authentic. Pupils might have to increase source referencing and footnotes 鈥渟o it鈥檚 clear you鈥檝e not just asked ChatGPT to write 10,000 words for you鈥. Boards鈥 鈥榠nteresting proposals鈥 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 鈥渟ome interesting proposals for what they intend to do鈥.聽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鈥 members鈥 body, said it was 鈥渃onstantly monitoring these evolving risks and adapting our policies and processes appropriately鈥. It would continue to strengthen its guidance and support for teachers, who 鈥渞emain well-positioned to ensure students understand and follow the rules鈥. It would also continue to develop models to detect AI. Exam boards 鈥榟ave business strategies鈥櫬 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聽example, after announcing new powers to publicly 鈥渞ebuke鈥 rule-breaking boards last year, he said awarding organisations 鈥渄idn鈥檛 like it very much, which gave me assurance that it might be effective鈥. There is also tension around Ofqual鈥檚 proposals to initially limit on-screen exams to two subjects per board. Colin Hughes, AQA鈥檚 chief executive, previously warned this was 鈥渦nduly restrictive鈥. 鈥淚t 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.鈥 Bauckham told Schools Week his job was to 鈥渟teward鈥 the exams system 鈥渢o make sure it maintains its place in public esteem鈥. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 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. 鈥淏ut my job is not to do what exam boards want me to do. My job is to look after the national asset.鈥 Digital decision looms Ofqual will publish聽its聽final decision on digital exams later this year, but聽Bauckham said the 鈥減ublic mood on tech in education is evolving鈥. 鈥淲hen 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. 鈥淏ut since then, the anxiety about excessive screen use by children and young people and excessive social media use, the damaging effects of doom scrolling 鈥 have risen in public聽consciousness. 鈥淭he 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鈥檒l take about on-screen assessments.” Future Ofqual Reflecting on Ofqual鈥檚 role in the sector,聽Bauckham said the regulator was now 鈥渇ar more aware of the wider implications of the work it does鈥. 鈥淥fqual, in its first decade of existence, was a more internally focused technical organisation than perhaps it is now. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not to say that the technical work is less important, but I think we鈥檝e just got a broader understanding of what qualifications are and what they do.鈥 It was a 鈥渓egitimate to ask to what extent we think Ofqual needs to a brand that is very high in public awareness鈥. For example, Ofsted was a household name. He referenced the Food Standards Agency. 鈥淲hen you buy your shopping, you鈥檙e not thinking about them, but without them, the food you buy wouldn鈥檛 be trustworthy. 鈥淪o there are ways in which we do want to be in the public鈥檚 mind as an organisation that safeguards the quality of qualifications.鈥 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,聽Bauckham said it engaged with the DfE through the process 鈥 and he would not hold back if he disagreed. 鈥淚f 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.鈥