AI in Schools
Turnitin's APAC chief says teach AI, not catch it
Digital Attitudes, 12 June 2026
The pivot landing on Australian school and university desks this week is one most readers would not have predicted six months ago: the largest detection vendor in the market is now publicly arguing for teaching, the executive director of the ATN cohort is calling for institutional transparency, the data platform MD is naming the insight problem, and the interim Tertiary Education Commission is already issuing orders before its statute starts.
Turnitin's APAC chief argues teach AI, do not catch it
Anna Borek (Senior Director APAC at Turnitin) published an opinion piece in Future Campus on Wednesday 10 June arguing that Australian schools and universities should teach AI as a core skill rather than try to detect its misuse. Her line: "Just as students are taught how to research, how to write, and how to evaluate sources, they should also be taught how to use AI tools responsibly and effectively." Her capstone: "AI is for thinking, not just doing. Preparation, not prohibition, is what will ultimately close the gap." Future Campus on the Borek piece, 10 June.
Why this matters: For procurement teams at universities and schools running Turnitin's Originality product and the AI Writing Detection feature, the senior APAC director publicly arguing the company's own detection first frame is the wrong frame is the strongest signal yet that the next contract conversation needs to be about Turnitin's Clarity AI assistance product and the AI literacy modules, not the detection percentages on the marking screen. For TEQSA reading the revised academic integrity toolkit it shipped on 7 June against the casework load it actually carries, the buyer side at the largest detection vendor in the Australian market saying out loud that the detection approach does not work is the regulatory cover the September 2025 assessment reform pathways have been asking the sector to take. For independent and Catholic school heads sitting on Turnitin licences originally bought for plagiarism, the procurement question Borek's piece sharpens is whether the school's AI policy still names detection as the primary safeguard or whether the policy has now moved to assessment design.
ATEC orders UNSW to confirm governance before the legislation lands
Andrew Norton (scholar of higher education policy) revealed through Freedom of Information that the interim Australian Tertiary Education Commission's Student Profiles Branch issued a directive to UNSW Vice-Chancellor Attila Brungs requiring the university to confirm "early adoption" of the Education MINCO council governance principles and to provide a 750-word response on an "if not, why not?" basis. Stephen Matchett at Future Campus published the read on Thursday 11 June. The directive predates the formal commencement of ATEC under the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Act 2026 on 1 July. Future Campus on the ATEC directive to UNSW, 11 June.
Why this matters: For vice-chancellors and university councils reading the ATEC formal commencement of 1 July (Mary O'Kane stepping down as interim chief, Bart Glover stepping in, the Higher Education Standards Framework redraft tracking into Q4), Norton's FOI is the first hard evidence that the conditioning of future funding on governance compliance is already on the desk before the legislation hands the commission the formal power. For DVCs (Academic) drafting the institution's 2027 assessment paper against the TEQSA assessment reform pathways of September 2025, the operational read is that ATEC's "if not, why not?" frame is the same regulatory model TEQSA used in its 2024 institutional action plan exercise on generative AI, and the assessment paper now has to be defensible against both desks. For ed-tech vendors selling AI tutoring, AI feedback and assessment integrity products into the Australian university sector, the procurement signal Norton's FOI hands the buyer is that the next governance question on the procurement form is not just TEQSA's; ATEC is in the room from now.
Andy Marks tells ATN universities to disclose their own AI use
Dr Andy Marks (Executive Director of the Australian Technology Network of Universities) published a piece in Future Campus on Tuesday 9 June arguing universities have to put their own AI use in writing or stop expecting students to do it. The cohort the ATN represents (Deakin, RMIT, Curtin, the University of Technology Sydney and the University of Newcastle) is the same cohort running the largest AI assisted work integrated learning programs in the country. Marks' line: "If institutions at the vanguard of technological innovation use AI evasively then they endorse a pattern of behaviour that may become acceptable for graduates, business and wider society." Future Campus on the Marks piece, 9 June.
Why this matters: For pro vice chancellors (education) at the ATN cohort reading the institution's own AI assessment policy against the institution's own AI staff use policy, Marks' argument is the in-house version of the integrity argument Borek made the next day at the detection vendor: the asymmetry between the student facing rule (declare AI use) and the institution facing practice (do not declare AI use) is not defensible past mid 2026. For TEQSA reading the Universities Australia 15 May response to the AI toolkit, the public ATN call to make institutional AI use transparent is the first sector wide commitment line on the regulator desk that the AI assessment policy work needs a companion AI institutional use policy. For ed-tech vendors selling AI workflow products into the ATN cohort (the back office AI co-pilots, the AI lesson design tools, the AI marker), the procurement line Marks hands the buyer is that the vendor's own AI disclosure documentation is now an evaluation criterion, not just the product roadmap.
Tes Australia's Joffe names the schools insight problem
Jonathan Joffe (Managing Director of Tes Australia) published a piece in The Educator K/12 on Friday 12 June arguing Australian schools do not have a data problem, they have an insight problem. His line: "Schools don't have a data problem; they have an insight problem." His follow on: "The schools seeing the greatest impact are embedding AI into existing workflows to help leaders and staff make better decisions faster." Joffe's procurement read: leaders should ask "strategic questions of how they use existing information and underline where they can connect key data sources" rather than pursue new platforms. The Educator K/12 on the Joffe piece, 12 June.
Why this matters: For state Department of Education CIOs and independent school IT directors running the Compass, Sentral, Schoolbox, SEQTA and Synergetic stack alongside the wellbeing, behaviour and finance systems, Joffe's argument is that the next AI rollout the IT team puts on the leadership desk has to land on the existing data warehouse, not on a parallel platform that asks for another login on the deputy principal's tab strip. For business managers reading the term 3 budget against the data layer cost, the operational read is that the consolidating play (a single AI surface over the existing systems) reads better at audit than another platform line item. For ed-tech vendors selling AI dashboards and AI student support products into the Australian school market (the Compass analytics feature set, the Sentral reporting layer, the Schoolbox parent comms add on, the Tes platform itself), the procurement question Joffe hands the buyer is whether the product reads the school's existing data well enough to replace a query rather than add one.
The thread on Friday is that two vendor desks (Turnitin APAC, Tes Australia) and two adjacent desks (ATN Executive Director, the Norton FOI on the interim ATEC) all say the same thing about a sector that has spent three years buying detection, dashboards and "if not, why not?" governance: the answer is to teach the AI, put the institution's own use in writing, and connect what is already on the desk. More on the operational read at digitalattitudes.com.au.