AI in the Classroom: Why Exam Boards Must Be Bold
By Antonia Berry, Rector of The High School of Glasgow
At the end of this exam season, while we do not yet have official statistics, I am certain that exam boards will report a rise in malpractice cases linked to artificial intelligence. More concerning are the cases that will never be detected. Skilled pupils can easily bypass detection software.
AI is now unavoidable. It is built into every search engine, embedded in word processors and integrated across the digital tools our young people use daily. In many cases pupils may not even realise the extent to which AI has already shaped their work. Universities in response have sought the certainty of 100 per cent examinations as a way of restoring confidence in their qualifications. UCL’s law faculty is just one example amongst many, of an educational institution returning to more closed, traditional exam conditions. I understand their reasoning, but it feels like a retrograde step, particularly when the Hayward Review invites us instead to embrace different forms of assessment for a modern education system.
I consider myself a skilful user of AI. I use it to edit, to generate ideas and to handle statistics. But my skill rests on the foundation of what I learned before AI: how to read critically, how to write fluently, how to recognise rhetoric and employ it effectively. Those skills now allow me to judge when AI is producing work of quality and when it falls into something formulaic and robotic. The danger for today’s generation, the native AI users, is that they may not build those same foundations unless educators and awarding bodies act decisively.
A neuroscience study at the University of Tokyo found that students using ChatGPT to solve problems showed reduced brain activity compared with those working independently. Some interpreted this as evidence that AI diminishes thinking. I believe the interpretation lacks nuance. If you handed a calculator to a student in a non‑calculator exam, brain scans would also show reduced activity. Swap the context and in the calculator paper you would find intense effort as they apply the tool to more complex problems. That is how we should treat AI, as a tool rather than a replacement.
Our pupils will enter a world saturated with AI. To thrive they must know how to use it skilfully, critically and responsibly. That requires teaching reasoning, critical thinking and the foundational knowledge on which those skills rely. Just as we still teach long division even though pupils will never be without a calculator, so too we must teach writing, reasoning and critical reading, so that AI becomes a servant of human intelligence.
The potential of AI is extraordinary. Last year researchers reported that AI helped design a new class of antibiotics targeting drug‑resistant bacteria, one of the most exciting advancements I have read in recent memory. If AI can drive innovation like that, imagine what it could do in education, research and creativity, if only we prepare learners to use it wisely.
As Rector of The High School of Glasgow I lead one of Scotland’s highest‑achieving schools, yet in truth my hands have been tied. Schools have little control over the curriculum. It is dictated by the awarding bodies, SQA in Scotland, JCQ in England and Wales, because they control the passports of qualifications. Of course schools can enrich provision, innovate around the edges. But pupils will always focus their energy on what earns the A grade.
And so we are not teaching skilful AI use. We do not have the licence to. Exam boards must be bold enough to offer a new model. When calculators were introduced we created a non‑calculator and a calculator paper. Why not do the same with AI? Imagine every subject with a non‑AI and an AI component. That would modernise curricula and spark innovation in schools, universities and beyond.
In Scotland, change is coming. The Education (Scotland) Bill has been passed and a new body called Qualifications Scotland will replace the SQA. This is a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity to build a qualifications system that lifts the ceiling on pupil achievement.
The challenge is stark: AI is not going away. The only question is whether we prepare young people to use it blindly or to use it brilliantly. Exam boards and qualification bodies, in their position of power, must choose the latter and now is the moment to act.
Bibliography
· Guardian. 'There's no simple solution to universities' AI worries' (2025). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/23/theres-no-simple-solution-to-universities-ai-worries
· Financial Times. 'Students must learn to be more than mindless machine-minders' (2024). https://www.ft.com/content/82d59679-0985-4c07-9416-06a0bec6e16a
· University of Glasgow. 'Hayward Review: Final Report Summary' (2023). https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/education/news/headline_976775_en.html
· Scottish Parliament. 'Qualification Reform – Final Report Summary Document' (2023). https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/education-children-and-young-people-committee/correspondence/2023/qualification-reform--final-report--summary-document.pdf
· SQA. 'Qualifications Scotland Transition Update' (2024). https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/100808.html
· Nature Medicine. 'AI designed a new antibiotic' (2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02233-2