Last updated: March 2026

6

Dimension 6 of 9

Assessment Integrity

Assessment integrity addresses how the school's assessment practices respond to the reality that AI tools can now complete a significant proportion of traditionally assessed work. This encompasses assessment policy, AI detection strategies, AI-resilient assessment design, and student guidance on acceptable AI use in assessments.

Why this matters

This is often the most urgent dimension for schools. It is where AI's impact is most immediately and viscerally felt. A student submitting an AI-generated essay creates an urgent, concrete problem that demands an institutional response. The key tension is the shift from a detection paradigm to a design paradigm — from 'how do we catch students using AI?' to 'how do we design assessment that is meaningful in a world where AI exists?'

The 5 maturity levels

Schools progress through five maturity levels, from initial exploration to sector leadership. Each level builds on the previous one.

1

Level 1: Exploring

Awareness stage

No consideration of AI impact on assessment. Assessment policies and practices have not been updated to account for AI.

Key indicators

  • No AI mentioned in assessment policy
  • No detection strategy of any kind
  • No student guidance on AI use in assessments
  • Assessment tasks are vulnerable to AI completion
2

Level 2: Developing

Policy and detection

Awareness of AI risks to assessment but no formal response. Teachers are aware that AI can be used for assessed work but have not implemented systematic responses.

Key indicators

  • Informal awareness of AI in assessment
  • Some teachers may use detection tools individually
  • No school-wide approach to AI in assessment
  • Students receive inconsistent messages
3

Level 3: Established

Assessment redesign

Assessment policy updated to address AI with detection tools. The school has formally addressed AI in its assessment policy with clear guidelines.

Key indicators

  • Assessment policy addresses AI-generated work
  • AI detection tools or strategies deployed
  • Clear student guidance on acceptable AI use
  • Staff trained on AI detection limitations
4

Level 4: Advanced

AI-resilient tasks

Assessment redesigned to be AI-resilient with authentic tasks. The school has moved beyond detection to proactively designing meaningful assessments.

Key indicators

  • Assessment tasks redesigned for AI-resilience
  • Students assessed on their use of AI, not just avoidance
  • Multiple assessment types employed
  • Assessment criteria include AI competency
5

Level 5: Leading

Innovative approaches

Assessment framework proactively leverages AI for learning. The school embraces AI as a tool for enhancing learning and assessment.

Key indicators

  • AI integrated into assessment design as a learning tool
  • Innovative assessment approaches published
  • Assessment research or action research programme
  • School influences sector assessment practice

What we look for

When auditing this dimension, we examine your school’s documents for evidence across these key areas:

Assessment policy that addresses AI-generated work

AI detection tools or strategies in place

Assessments designed to be AI-resilient (authentic, process-based)

Clear student guidance on acceptable AI use in assessments

Framework alignment

This dimension is benchmarked against leading international frameworks to ensure your audit reflects global best practice.

JCQ AI and Assessments Guidance

Joint Council for Qualifications guidance on managing AI in formal assessments across UK examination boards.

IB AI Tools Guidance

International Baccalaureate position on AI tool use in assessed work, including extended essays and internal assessments.

AIAS (AI Assessment Scale)

Framework for redesigning assessments on a scale from no AI to full AI integration, supporting principled assessment design.

Australian AI Higher Education Framework

National framework for managing AI in higher education assessment, adaptable to secondary school contexts.

Common gaps

These are the most frequent gaps we see when auditing schools in this dimension:

Over-reliance on AI detection tools — they are unreliable, biased against EAL students, and engaged in an arms race

Treating detection as the solution rather than assessment redesign

Inconsistency between departments on AI use expectations

Banning AI in assessment entirely — denying students the opportunity to learn appropriate use

Not aligning with examination body guidance (JCQ, IB, Cambridge)

Punishing students for using AI when guidance was unclear

How this connects to other dimensions

No dimension exists in isolation. Understanding these connections helps schools prioritise their improvement journey.

Depends on Policy & Governance — assessment policy sits within the broader governance framework

Depends on Teacher AI Competency — teachers must understand AI to redesign assessment

Depends on Student AI Literacy — students need to understand appropriate AI use

Enables Student AI Literacy — assessment signals what matters

Find out your school’s assessment integrity score

Upload your school’s policy documents and receive a detailed assessment across all 9 dimensions, with evidence-based scores and actionable improvement plans.

Run your free audit