Does AI marking affect “independent writing” at KS2?

The short answer

Statutory teacher assessment of writing at the end of KS2 must be based only on writing a pupil produced independently. The Standards and Testing Agency's guidance now addresses AI head-on: writing a pupil has edited or rewritten following AI feedback is not independent, and writing produced by AI, in full or in part, must never be used to reach judgements — doing so risks a maladministration investigation.

What the guidance does not do is ban AI from a teacher's own workflow. It restricts what happens to the pupil's writing, not what informs the teacher's professional judgement. The line to hold is the same one teachers already hold with their own marking: the piece in the moderation collection must be the version the pupil produced without directed intervention — whether that intervention came from an adult's green pen or from an AI.

What does the STA guidance actually say?

From the Key stage 2 teacher assessment guidance (Standards and Testing Agency, updated 2 March 2026), section 6.2, “Independent writing”. The framing rule first:

“Teachers’ judgements must only be based on writing that a pupil produced independently.”

The guidance then lists what disqualifies a piece. Two bullets deal with AI directly. Writing is not independent if it has been:

“edited or rewritten following feedback from large language models or other forms of artificial intelligence (AI) — teachers should make it clear to moderators where they have used AI programmes to provide feedback, so this work can be excluded from the pupil’s collection of writing”

“produced, either in full or in part, using large language models or other forms of artificial intelligence — using this type of writing to reach TA judgements could result in the school being investigated for maladministration”

And for pupils who word process, the guidance advises:

“When pupils are using a word processor, it is advised that the spelling and grammar check functions, as well as any access to large language models, are disabled.”

Note the parallel with the bullet that has always been there: writing is also not independent if it has been “edited or rewritten because of direct intervention by a teacher or other adult” — for example where a pupil was directed to change specific words, or had punctuation and spelling errors indicated for correction. The AI rule extends a familiar principle to a new source of feedback; it does not invent a new kind of rule.

What does the rule mean in practice?

Independence is a property of how a piece of writing was produced and revised — not of what tools exist in the school. Three situations, three different answers:

• A pupil uses AI to write or improve the piece. Out, unambiguously. Text produced in full or in part by AI can never support a TA judgement, and using it risks a maladministration investigation.
• A pupil edits or rewrites their piece after receiving AI feedback. The reworked version is not independent. It is treated exactly like a piece reworked after directed adult marking: it can be excellent evidence of learning, but it cannot sit in the independent collection, and moderators must be told where AI feedback was used.
• A teacher uses AI to inform their own assessment of a completed piece. This is a different activity. The piece was finished before the AI saw it, so nothing about its production changes. The DfE's generative AI guidance treats this as legitimate professional use — provided the teacher checks the output and remains responsible for it.

How do you stay on the right side for moderation?

A practical list for Year 6 teachers building a writing collection this year.

None of this is new discipline. Teachers have always separated “response to marking” from independent evidence; the 2026 guidance simply says AI feedback sits on the same side of that line as the green pen.

Where does Howay fit?

Common questions

Does AI marking count as independent writing for KS2 moderation?

The question splits in two. A teacher using AI to inform their own assessment of a completed piece does not change how that piece was produced — if the pupil wrote it independently, it remains independent evidence. But the STA guidance is explicit that writing a pupil has edited or rewritten following feedback from AI is not independent, and writing produced in full or in part by AI must never be used for teacher assessment judgements.

Can a teacher use AI to help mark writing that will be moderated?

The STA guidance restricts what pupils' writing can go through, not what tools inform a teacher's professional judgement. The DfE's generative AI guidance recognises AI can support feedback, provided the professional checks the output and remains responsible for it. The discipline is the same as with your own marking: the piece in the evidence collection must be the version the pupil produced independently, not a version reworked after directed feedback — from an adult or from AI.

What happens if a pupil edits their writing after AI feedback?

That version of the piece is no longer independent. The STA guidance lists writing that has been 'edited or rewritten following feedback from large language models or other forms of artificial intelligence' among the things that make writing not independent, and asks teachers to make clear to moderators where AI feedback was used so the work can be excluded from the collection. Keep the original independently produced version as your evidence, and treat the post-feedback redraft as taught work.

Do teachers have to tell moderators they used AI feedback?

Yes. The guidance says teachers 'should make it clear to moderators where they have used AI programmes to provide feedback, so this work can be excluded from the pupil's collection of writing'. It mirrors the long-standing expectation that schools clarify any additional support a pupil received. A short note in your assessment records of where AI feedback was given, and on which pieces, covers it.

Can pupils use spellcheck or AI when word processing their writing?

Not for writing that will support teacher assessment judgements. The guidance advises that when pupils use a word processor, 'the spelling and grammar check functions, as well as any access to large language models, are disabled'. Writing produced with electronic aids that automatically correct spelling or punctuation is not independent — though the same guidance notes that with those aids switched off, word-processed writing can be.

Does using Howay affect a school's KS2 writing moderation?

Howay works on completed writing: the teacher photographs the finished page, the AI drafts feedback for the teacher, and the teacher edits and delivers it. The pupil's page is untouched and the original piece remains exactly as the pupil produced it. The rule to respect is what happens afterwards: if a pupil redrafts a piece following that feedback, the redraft is not independent evidence — so keep originals in the collection, flag where AI feedback was used, and let next steps feed forward into the next piece of writing instead.