AI and schools: progress since 2018

Sometimes a visitor to this blog can uncover one of the 1,750 posts that I have completely forgotten about. One such as a post about Artificial Intelligence (AI) that I wrote eight years ago after a Report from a House of Lords Committee AI and education – The view of the House of Lords Committee | John Howson

The DfE at that time were talking about creating some 8,000 new teachers of computing. Isn’t it  interesting how often politicians offer up the promise of large number of new teachers with no funding to allow schools to employ them, even if they could be recruited (think of the present government’s 6,500 promise).

In November 2018, according to the DfE’s Workforce Census, School workforce in England: November 2018 – GOV.UK there were 3,954 teachers of computing working in state secondary schools. Together they taught some 31,190 hours, mostly at Key Stage 3 (3,954) with only 964 hours at Key Stage 5, but 2,289 at Key Stage 4.

Fast forward to the 2025 Workforce Census, and the number of those teaching computing had increased to 7,784. Together they delivered some 64,923 hours of learning. An impressive increase, even against the increase in the number of pupils over the same period.

However, using the DfE’s methodology of counting teachers and subjects, the overall hours taught has changed little between 2018 and 2025, from 3,550,691 in 2018 to 3,553,755 in 2025. Overall teacher numbers teaching across all subjects also remained remarkably statics at 219,269 in 2018 and 219,296 in 2025.

Against these numbers, the increase in teachers of computing, or computer science as it is now termed, is noteworthy, at an increase 3,730, doubling the number of teachers teaching the subject. However, it is still 50% below the 2018 number of 8,000 additional teachers put forward by the DfE.

In my original 2018 post, I also wondered about the moral and ethical issues surrounding AI. I wrote the following:

‘The Committee recognised that the 2014 change to the curriculum on IT in schools across England needed time to take effect. However, the removal of any consideration of moral and ethical issues to do with social media and digital technology from the curriculum was regretted by some witnesses; no doubt more so over recent weeks as the various concerns over social media and the handling of personal data have emerged. Personally, I think the downgrading of Religious Education at examination level, where there was a real opportunity to discuss issues of ethic, morality and philosophy, by excluding the subject from the EBacc was a mistake.’

The hours taught for religious education have increased since then; rising from 117,408 in 2018 to 117,772 in 2025.  The percentage of teachers with a relevant post ‘A’ qualification has also increased from 64% to 81.5% for computer science – as it is now termed – and from 54.1% to 72% for religious education.

However, it is worth noting that at Key Stage 3, where pupils are introduced to subjects, the percentage of qualified teachers in 2025 was still only 76.1% for computer science and even lower at 65.9% for religious education.

It seems the foundations of both subjects in secondary schools are still being taught by those least likely to have a qualification in the subject. Whether or not they are also trained teachers isn’t possible to determine form the simple Teacher Workforce publications.

One wonders what the DfE’s policy for both subjects is in the Curriculum Review. Both are key subjects for our modern age, and I would like to thank the reader that reminded me of my 2018 post, and thus, prompted this one.

Could everyone study mathematics to 18?

Are there enough teachers of mathematics to allow all 16-18 year olds to be taught the courses required by the Prime Minister? Not surprisingly, the teacher associations state that in the middle of a teacher recruitment crisis then there certainly are not enough teachers. Are they correct?

Well, as a famous radio personality of the 1950s once said, ‘it depends upon what you mean by’. In this case it depends upon what you mean by a teacher of mathematics? The first problem is that those in the 16-18 year old age-group divide into four: those in the school sector; those in further education; those in apprenticeships or other work environments and finally the NEET group, not in employment, education or training for one reason or another. Some of these, such as the small group in custody could receive some maths education, but most, by the nature of the category, would be outside any scheme.

However, let’s concentrate on the school sector. Could adding perhaps two hours a week to the curriculum of those in Years 12 and 13 be staffed? The obvious answer is that yes it could be. After all, any teacher can be required to teach any subject to any year group while QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) remains just that, a certification to teach, not a curriculum limited certification as I have long advocated. Additionally, academies don’t even need to employ staff with QTS, so they could hire retired engineers or undergraduates from a local university interested in earning a bit of cash to support their studies.

With the Oak Academy, schools might just sit the students in a room and show them pre-recorded learning modules, especially if no assessment was required at the end of the course. After all, discipline shouldn’t be an issue with this age group that are still in schools.

Of course, schools would expect some more funding from the government for putting on more courses, even if they reduced other teaching hours so as to keep programme levels at the same overall package length for students.

The government has been developing strategies to improve the teaching of mathematics in schools with more maths hubs and CPD available, that will have made a difference to the skill set of the teaching force, but probably only a small impact.

More importantly is the number of new teachers, where there are far fewer in training than in recent years.

2013/142014/152015/162016/172017/182018/192019/202020/212021/222022/23
2125217024502545245021742145279226711834

The ITT Census number of 1,834 is by far the lowest for over a decade. With STEM subject trainee numbers also being lower, there is support for the position being taken by the teacher associations.

Even if the mathematics was in fact statistics and problem-solving father than pure mathematics, it seems likely that there would not be sufficient teachers to staff any normal method of delivery. Might this be a time to consider the use of technology in delivery of the curriculum?