CXC’s decision to replace take-home School-Based Assessments with invigilated exams in response to AI has sparked massive debate across the Caribbean. Is locking out technology the right move, or a missed learning opportunity? We discuss.

 

The Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) recently announced a seismic shift in how secondary school students across the region will be evaluated. Beginning in 2027 and fully implemented by 2028, the traditional take-home School-Based Assessments (SBAs) included as part of the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) and the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) will be scrapped for non-practical subjects. In their place, students will sit a modified, invigilated written examination under supervised conditions.

The SBA is a form of continuous internal assessment conducted by class teachers over a one-to two-year period to assess skills, attitudes, and practical competencies that cannot be easily measured in a single timed written examination. A range of written and skills-based subjects include an SBA component such as:

  • Written/non-practical subjects, for which SBAs will be phased out – Caribbean History, Economics, English A, English B, Geography, Information Technology, Mathematics, Principles of Business, Principles of Accounts, and Social Studies,
  • Skill-based/practical subjects that will retain SBAs – Agricultural Science, Biology, Chemistry, Food, Nutrition & Health, Industrial Technology, Performing Arts/Theatre Arts, Physical Education and Sport, Physics, Technical Drawing, Visual Arts, Music.

CXC officials, including the organisation’s Chief Executive Officer, Dr Wayne Wesley, have framed this decision as necessary to protect credential integrity in an era dominated by generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Source: Barbados Today). However, the announcement has sparked vigorous debate among regional educators, parents, and union representatives.

In this article, we consider the benefits and challenges AI presents to Caribbean classrooms and the examination process, and whether CXC’s proposed solution truly solves the problem, or simply changes the battlefield.

 

The AI double-edged sword of innovation versus integrity

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini have introduced both unprecedented educational opportunities and severe assessment challenges, which the Caribbean education system has been grappling with. Although policymakers are advocating for AI coding and prompt engineering, for example, to become part of the school curriculum, concerns have been expressed about ensuring students learn and determining how student learning can be properly assessed when AI tools are so easily accessible.

Having said this, some of the benefits of generative AI in the classroom are, first, it supports personalised tutoring by allowing students to break down complex topics, receive tailored explanations in real time, and practice skills outside classroom hours. Second, AI can make the research process more efficient by helping students organise outlines, brainstorm research angles, and explore diverse perspectives faster than traditional search engines allow. Finally, for students in under-resourced schools without access to private tutors or extensive libraries, access to AI tools can level the playing field by serving as an accessible learning assistant and writing coach.

On the other hand, there are also some challenges. For example, it is difficult to determine whether homework or an assignment completed in an unmonitored context or not directly supervised reflects a student’s true understanding or is just an AI-generated script. Further, evidence is emerging that an over-reliance on generative AI outputs disrupts critical thinking and erodes foundational skills, such as independent analysis and note-taking, being developed to the degree they would be if AI were absent. Additionally, increasingly there is an assumption that “everyone” is using AI, so with AI systems becoming better, it is becoming difficult to distinguish between the student using AI tools and those who are not, resulting in unfair suspicion and an administrative headache for teachers reviewing and grading submissions.

 

Evaluating CXC’s way forward

Under CXC’s new framework and as previously noted, take-home SBAs will be phased out for non-practical subjects. Instead, candidates will receive assessment topics up to a month in advance, during which they would be allowed to conduct research. They would then be allowed to bring their own prepared reference notes into an invigilated examination room to complete the paper under extended time. (Practical subjects will retain traditional SBAs with tightened moderation controls.)

The proposed plan has merit. First, and as stated by Dr Wesley, it has the potential to restore credibility by eliminating ghostwriting (by AI or a paid third party) and guaranteeing individual authorship inside an examination hall. Further, allowing students to bring prepared reference notes, it shifts the assessment away from pure rote memorisation toward analysis, evaluation, and data synthesis. Third, teachers will no longer be forced to decipher whether a student’s submissions were self-drafted or generated by an LLM. Finally, SBAs are marked by the teachers, with samples being submitted to CXC to moderate the grades and ensure regional consistency. However, a perennial complaint by CXC examiners has been weak SBAs, which can be at variance with teachers’ scores. This proposed approach eliminates teacher bias and provides an equitable basis for evaluation.

At the same time, the new framework highlights longstanding issues and potentially introduces new friction points. For example, academic dishonesty in SBAs did not start with AI. Reused projects from older siblings or students, teacher bias in marking, heavy parental intervention, unequal school resources, among other factors, were already straining the SBA model, but nothing was done about it. Now it appears that AI is being blamed exclusively, which oversimplifies systemic issues within the regional assessment construct.

Additionally, the purpose of the SBA was to facilitate a coursework assessment component that should provide a more comprehensive view of student learning. Eliminating the SBAs and introducing another high-stakes timed paper reinforces the performative nature of examinations, which do not necessarily assess student learning but rather whether students pass or fail an examination.

Finally, it would be remiss not to mention that there is a missed opportunity to foster greater AI literacy. Although students may be able to use generative AI tools to research and prepare for the examination, the new framework CXC intends to introduce appears to treat AI as a threat to education that must be locked out. However, the fact of the matter is that AI is a key technology that will govern the future, and which students must be taught to use ethically and critically.

 

The bottom line

Without a doubt, CXC’s commitment to preserving the integrity of Caribbean qualifications is understandable and necessary. However, protecting the status quo is not the answer. Moreover, high-stakes invigilated examinations should not become the only tool for evaluating students’ depth of learning

A balanced strategy is necessary to protect the value and integrity of terminal examinations, such as CSEC or CAPE. At the same time, the Caribbean education system must also equip our youth to navigate and master technologies and the technological tools that are defining the modern world. Shying away from using them is also not the answer.

 

 

Image credit:  Magnific (Magnific)