‘AI not the problem’ - Artificial intelligence expert warns CXC preparing students for ‘a world that no longer exists’

WESTERN BUREAU:

The Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) is preparing students for “a world that no longer exists”, by scrapping traditional School-Based Assessments (SBA) over artificial intelligence, says AI expert Christopher Christie, who argues that the move takes Caribbean education backwards.

For nearly half a century, the SBA has been a cornerstone of Caribbean secondary education, challenging students to research, analyse and apply what they have learnt beyond the confines of an examination room.

Now, facing what it describes as the growing threat posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI), CXC has announced that traditional SBAs in most non-practical Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) and Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) subjects will be phased out and replaced by Paper 032, completed under supervised examination conditions.

The changes will begin for CAPE candidates in 2027 and become mandatory for CSEC students a year later.

The decision has ignited one of the most significant debates to confront Caribbean education in years: Should schools attempt to outsmart artificial intelligence, or should they teach students to use it responsibly?

CXC says the answer lies in protecting the credibility of its qualifications.

In announcing the reforms, Registrar and Chief Executive Officer Dr Wayne Wesley stressed that preserving the integrity of CXC certifications remained paramount, describing the move as a necessary response to the rapid growth of generative AI and its potential to undermine confidence in coursework completed outside the classroom.

“The integrity of our qualifications is not negotiable,” Wesley said, adding that while CXC recognised the transformative potential of artificial intelligence, it also had a responsibility to ensure that qualifications continued to represent a student’s own knowledge, skills and abilities.

Assessments must evolve

Christie does not dispute that responsibility.

“I understand the concern. Academic integrity matters, and a CXC qualification must remain credible,” he wrote in a strongly worded editorial that has added fresh momentum to the regional debate.

His disagreement lies elsewhere.

“The problem is not AI,” Christie argues.

“The problem is that our method of assessment has not evolved quickly enough to accommodate AI.”

That distinction forms the foundation of his criticism.

Rather than viewing artificial intelligence as something to be shut out of the classroom, Christie believes education systems should recognise that it has already become part of students’ everyday reality and redesign assessment to reflect that reality.

“Placing students in more examination rooms, under more controlled conditions, will not prepare them for the world they are entering,” he wrote.

“In the real world, our young people will work with artificial intelligence, automation, digital research tools and intelligent systems. Their employers will not remove the technology, hand them an examination paper and ask them to solve every problem from memory. They will be expected to use technology intelligently.”

Broader question

His argument extends beyond CXC’s latest reforms.

It raises a broader question confronting schools, universities and examination bodies across the globe: How do educators preserve academic integrity while preparing students for workplaces increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence?

That conversation is already taking place in Jamaica.

Recent research by University of Technology Professor Paul Golding, previously reported by The Gleaner, found that artificial intelligence has become deeply embedded in learning, with almost all tertiary students surveyed and the overwhelming majority of secondary school students using AI tools to assist with academic tasks.

Golding argued that education itself would inevitably have to change, suggesting that what is taught, how it is taught and the methods used to assess learning can no longer remain static in an AI-driven world.

Christie agrees that assessment must evolve.

Where he parts company with CXC is over how that evolution should happen.

Instead of abolishing the traditional SBA, he proposes transforming it into what he calls an ‘AI-Transparent SBA’, an assessment model that embraces artificial intelligence while making its use visible, accountable and educationally meaningful.

Under the model, students would openly declare whether they used AI, identify the platform used, and explain exactly how it assisted their work.

Rather than submitting only a polished final assignment, they would also provide evidence of how the project developed through research notes, outlines, early drafts, teacher feedback and personal reflections.

The completed assignment would then be followed by a brief oral defence during which teachers could question students about their research, reasoning and conclusions.

According to Christie, a student who genuinely understands an assignment can readily explain the decisions made throughout the research process. A student who simply copied and submitted AI-generated material would struggle to do so.

He also proposes supervised classroom activities linked to the assignment, allowing teachers to compare independently completed work with performance under examination conditions.

Together, he believes, these measures would provide a stronger safeguard against academic dishonesty, rather than eliminating coursework altogether.

But Christie goes even further.

Instead of merely allowing AI, he believes students should be assessed on their ability to challenge it.

Imagine a history student being asked not simply to write about the Morant Bay Rebellion, but to analyse an AI-generated account of the event, identify factual inaccuracies or bias, and verify the information using credible historical sources.

An English student could critique and improve an AI-written essay.

A principles of business candidate might evaluate an AI-generated strategy for a Caribbean company, explaining why some recommendations fail to reflect local realities.

Even mathematics, Christie argues, presents opportunities for deeper learning, with students identifying errors in AI-generated solutions before demonstrating the correct method.

“The student who can question that information, verify it and make a sound decision has demonstrated a higher level of ability than the student who simply memorises facts for an examination,” he argues.

His position aligns with a growing international conversation about responsible AI use in education.

UNESCO has encouraged education systems to develop students’ understanding of artificial intelligence, including its opportunities, limitations, ethics and risks, rather than attempting to exclude it from classrooms altogether.

Christie believes the Caribbean has an opportunity to become a leader in that conversation rather than a follower.

He also cautions against relying heavily on AI-detection software, arguing that such systems can produce false positives and fail to distinguish between genuine student work and AI-generated content.

As an example, he points to a research paper he completed in 2016, years before generative AI became publicly available, which he said was recently identified by modern AI-detection software as being 98 per cent AI-generated.

“The strongest protection is not detection software,” Christie wrote.

“It is assessment design.”

He acknowledges concerns that students from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have equal access to artificial intelligence tools.

Rather than abandoning AI-aware assessment, however, he believes governments and schools should provide equitable access to approved platforms, while ensuring teachers receive the training needed to guide responsible use.

“Equity does not mean preventing every student from moving forward,” he argues.

“It means ensuring that no student is left behind.”

Ultimately, Christie is urging CXC to pause the wholesale removal of traditional SBAs and, instead, pilot what he describes as an AI-Transparent SBA across selected CSEC and CAPE subjects before implementing permanent changes.

Such a pilot, he says, should evaluate teacher workload, student performance, academic integrity and the effectiveness of oral defences and supervised checkpoints, while involving educators, universities, employers and technology specialists from across the Caribbean.

His closing message is directed as much to policymakers as to educators.

“We cannot prepare students for 2035 using an assessment philosophy designed for a world that no longer exists.”

Whether CXC ultimately revisits its decision remains uncertain.

What is beyond dispute is that artificial intelligence has already transformed the classroom. The challenge now confronting Caribbean education is not whether AI should be part of learning, but how students can be taught to use it responsibly while preserving the integrity of the qualifications that will shape their futures.

[email protected]