FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Training providers and educators
AI can help mark and give feedback, but in regulated qualifications Ofqual says it may not be used as a sole marker. Wrong or biased marks lead to appeals, delayed progression and claims against the provider.
Part of: AI in training providers and educators
In short
Providers may use AI to suggest marks, write feedback and check portfolios. Ofqual's July 2026 position is that AI may not be a sole marker in regulated qualifications, and marking must be accountable, explainable and open to challenge, with expert human oversight. Outside regulated work there is no specific rule, but the DfE principle that the professional remains responsible applies well. AI marking can be inconsistent or biased against some learner groups. PI usually responds to negligent marking claims, subject to the wording and any limits on certification work.
Marking is one of the most time-consuming parts of teaching and assessing, so it is an obvious target for AI. Providers may use AI tools to suggest marks against a rubric, write feedback comments on essays and portfolios, check short answers, flag missing evidence in vocational portfolios, and summarise learner progress for tutors. In corporate settings, an AI assistant may grade end-of-course knowledge checks that count towards a certificate of completion.
How much risk this carries depends on what the mark is for. Formative feedback on a draft is low stakes. A mark that contributes to a regulated qualification, a licence to practise or an employer's decision about a learner is high stakes.
Ofqual's approach to regulating the use of AI (republished 16 July 2026, replacing the April 2024 version) states that AI "may not be used as a sole marker" in any assessment that is part of a regulated qualification. Marking decisions must be accountable, capable of being explained and, where necessary, challenged, and Ofqual expects awarding organisations to ensure appropriate expert human involvement and oversight. A January 2026 Ofqual working paper set out principles for AI in high-stakes marking, and further guidance is expected.
AI support may be more appropriate for lower-stakes formative work. Outside regulated qualifications, there is no specific rule, but the DfE principle in its generative AI in education guidance that staff check AI output, and remain responsible for it, is a sensible benchmark for any provider.
AI marking tools can be inconsistent, can reward fluent writing over correct content, and can treat some groups of learners differently, for example those writing in a second language or using non-standard phrasing. Ofqual flags validity, reliability and fairness as the core questions.
Illustrative scenario: an apprenticeship training provider lets an AI tool mark portfolio units with only spot checks. Several learners are told they have not met the standard, delaying their end-point assessment and a pay rise tied to completion. On appeal, a human assessor finds the tool misread the evidence. The learners and their employer complain, and one employer seeks the cost of the delay.
A claim that a provider negligently marked or assessed work, causing financial loss, is the kind of risk a trainers' professional indemnity policy is usually designed to meet, subject to the wording. Some policies limit cover for awarding or certification activities, or treat regulated qualification work differently, so check how your policy describes what you do. Our page on training consultancy and certification insurance covers that distinction. Complaints and appeals that might become claims may need to be notified to insurers as circumstances; see circumstance notification explained.
Apex arranges PI for training providers and assessment centres. A broker can review how your policy treats AI-assisted marking and certification work. See the training providers Aipedia hub, the Ofqual, Ofsted and DfE rules explained, AI-generated assessments and whether trainers' PI covers AI mistakes.
No. Ofqual's July 2026 position is that AI may not be used as a sole marker in any assessment that is part of a regulated qualification. Expert human involvement, oversight and accountability for outcomes are expected, and marking decisions must be explainable and open to challenge.
Yes, AI can help draft feedback, especially in lower-stakes formative work. A tutor should still review comments before learners see them, because wrong or unfair feedback can lead to complaints and, where outcomes are affected, claims.
Keep the learner's submission, the AI suggestion, the rubric used, and the record of the human assessor's decision and reasons. This lets you explain the mark, correct it if needed, and show reasonable care to an awarding organisation or insurer.
Not usually by itself, but an appeal that alleges financial loss or threatens legal action may be a circumstance you should notify. Policies differ on when notification is required, so check the conditions and speak to your broker if unsure.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
