Tag Archives: Royal Society

AI and schools: progress since 2018

Posted on by
Reply

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.

AI – a reminder from 2018

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes it is worth repeating an earlier post. This one about AI and education was from as long ago as 2018. The post dealt with a Report by a House of Lords Committee. The most prescient section was; 

“One witness warned the Committee, “that the idealised world represented on social media “leads to many illnesses including eating disorders … and serious mental illnesses”.   The implication being that schools must put in place strategies to prevent such outcomes among future generations exposed to the perils of the modern world.”

You can read the full post at: AI and education – The view of the House of Lords Committee | John Howson

So, way back before Covid, Westminster was being warned about serious mental illnesses- that might impact schools, my highlighting.

Well, post covid, the SEND demand has not been generated by physical needs. The government seems to have largely ignored the warnings and is now trying to put ‘the stopper back in the bottle’, to use a phrase popular with the BBC this week.

Can we save on defence sending if we use some of the education budget to help the next generation work with the developments created by AI?

As Ukraine and The Gulf have shown, the mental capabilities of the armed forces may be more important than the physical attributes in a defensive war. We won’t be fighting imperial wars again – or I hope not – Iraq should have been the last one, if Afghanistan is seen as punishment campaign not a land grab, but without an endgame strategy that the Americans seem so bad at understanding is an essential part of any military operation or war.

I am not sure that the curriculum Review – remember that damp squib – really took on board the changes AI would bring to society. The Microprocessor revolution that changed the 1980s; the internet revolution of the late 1990s and the Jave Enabled smart phone revolution of the second decade of our century each changed children’s lives. AI has already done so, and will continue to do so in ways someone of my age cannot even imagine.

I have found turning a blog post into a webinar in just minutes awesome. Creating a poster from the same text is improving all the time, and its outcomes can now be regularly seen on LinkedIn and other social media platforms.

We are a tech savvy nation; but not yet a tech savvy education system. Is it time for bodies like The Royal Society to make their voice known, along with those that represent our creative industries, equally affected by AI.

I wrote in another post that ’the market porter of the early 20th century was replaced by the forklift truck driver. They in turn were replaced by the software engineer creating automated warehouses. Now AI will make most software engineers redundant, in the same way as the forklift truck driver has started to disappear as a role in warehousing.

Radical change is necessary in our education system. Do we need a national conversation around what that change should be, and not just a professional curriculum review?