Ofsted’s inspection information for further education and skills providers, in use from September 2026, clarifies how artificial intelligence will be treated during inspections. AI use is not an explicit element of the inspection or regulation frameworks, and providers are not expected to use a particular tool or to use AI at all.
The guidance instead directs attention to the quality of decisions made about AI.
What does the guidance say?
Ofsted states that inspectors do not directly evaluate the use of an AI system or tool. There is no standalone expectation that a provider should adopt AI, and choosing not to use it is not itself a negative factor.
Where AI is used, the relevant question is how leaders and staff make decisions about that use. This shifts the emphasis away from technology adoption for its own sake and towards governance, educational purpose and accountable judgement.
Does this remove other legal duties?
No. The absence of a specific AI grading criterion does not displace existing responsibilities. Depending on the activity, providers may still need to consider data protection, safeguarding, equality, intellectual property, assessment integrity, cybersecurity and contractual terms.
For example, a tool that processes learner information may raise data-protection questions even though Ofsted does not score the tool itself. AI-generated learning material may also require human checking for accuracy, bias and suitability.
The practical point is that an AI decision can be relevant through the provider’s existing duties and quality systems, even when AI is not a separate inspection category.
What should providers document?
Providers do not need to create paperwork solely to impress inspectors. A proportionate record of important decisions can nevertheless help demonstrate responsible governance.
Useful records may include the purpose for adopting a tool, who approved it, what data it receives, how outputs are checked, which uses are prohibited, how staff and learners are informed, and how incidents are handled. The level of detail should reflect the risk and scale of the use.
Policies should also distinguish between low-risk assistance, such as drafting internal ideas, and higher-impact uses affecting assessment, safeguarding, admissions or learner support.
What does this mean for leaders?
Leaders should avoid treating the guidance as either an instruction to deploy AI quickly or permission to ignore it. The central message is technology neutrality combined with decision accountability.
A provider with no AI tools should be able to explain that choice if relevant. A provider using AI widely should be able to show that the deployment has a clear purpose, appropriate controls and meaningful human oversight.
The guidance therefore rewards sound judgement rather than novelty. Providers should align AI decisions with their existing educational, legal and safeguarding responsibilities rather than building a separate compliance exercise disconnected from day-to-day practice.
Source: Ofsted inspection information for further education and skills providers
This article is general information and does not constitute legal advice.