At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 9th November Mike Swadling spoke about AI and the growth of complaints culture.
“its ability to embolden an already rampant complaints and appeals culture”
There is much speculation about how Artificial General Intelligence – or AI, as it is more commonly called – will impact all of our futures. I’ve seen one clear impact of what I increasingly think of as ACI, or Artificial Complaining Intelligence: its ability to embolden an already rampant complaints and appeals culture.
I want to apologise up front for the lack of specifics in this piece. This is to avoid breaching confidentiality for various organisations. I can, however, assure you that these are all real examples.
Some months back I was involved in running a local meeting for an organisation. A complaint was filed about the meeting, and on reading it, it was clear to me that not only was it nonsense (and I might add that it went nowhere), it was AI-generated nonsense.
“The complaint felt AI-generated, but I couldn’t say that for sure until I read basically the same tortured turn of phrase…. Clearly this was a standard complaint phase for the particular AI they both used”
At the time I couldn’t prove this, and to be fair I wasn’t 100% sure. There was, however, one particularly odd phrase, about how many people had spoken with them in agreement. I felt this was a phrase no human would have ever naturally used. That was until I received a complaint from a member of the public about a school I am involved with. The complaint felt AI-generated, but I couldn’t say that for sure until I read basically the same tortured turn of phrase, about how many people had spoken with them in agreement. Clearly this was a standard complaint phase for the particular AI they both used.
In recent years I have served on many panels and appeal panels for school staff complaints, parent complaints, staff disciplinary cases, and pupil exclusions. These are processes that generally involve someone with some independence writing a report into an event or series of events.
They often involve holding multiple interviews with relevant parties and considering other sources of evidence. They are generally supported by HR, school governance, or Special Educational Needs professionals as appropriate. These reports may be considered by the Head and/or Chair of Governors. For the most serious matters a panel of three governors is convened, again with appropriate support, to recommend any disciplinary action or overturn that previously recommended.
“For a pupil, a member of staff, or someone being complained about, this is time their academic or professional life is put somewhat on hold awaiting an outcome”
These are serious processes that, even with the best intentions and supportive staff and volunteers (many of those involved are volunteers), take two to three months to complete. That’s time not spent focusing on broader education. For a pupil, a member of staff, or someone being complained about, this is time their academic or professional life is put somewhat on hold awaiting an outcome. That period of waiting has, I believe, often a not insignificant psychological impact.
All too often every process is taken to the final stage, beyond which any further appeal would need to go to the courts with those associated costs. The most baseless complaints, and the most “bang to rights” exclusion or disciplinary processes, are appealed and appealed again. All with a knock-on impact on staff, pupils and volunteers, simply because they can.
This was a concern I had in a major way about a year ago. That was before everyone got a ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Grok or other AI account. The growth since then has become significant. What were already often near 100-page appeal documents for panels to read have become nearer 200 pages – full of assertions with no evidence, dripping with doublespeak, and, as one appellant admitted, clearly not even read by the person submitting the appeal.
I was thinking about this problem as I read the complaint from the member of the public I referenced earlier, which arrived on a Monday. I did wonder if it was just bad luck on my part, or if I’m just a bit of a cynic. Then, on the Wednesday of that same week, I attended a briefing for school governors where one of the major topics was the problem of AI-generated complaints.
“We need to introduce some jeopardy into the process that stops schools – and particularly headteachers – becoming piñatas that everyone can take a free swing at”
So what do we do? I’m sure this is a problem far outside education, but education is the sector I see and know about. We don’t want to stop complaints, or allow pupils to be expelled or staff fired without the right of appeal. But we do need some balance. We need to introduce some jeopardy into the process that stops schools – and particularly headteachers – becoming piñatas that everyone can take a free swing at.
I would like a small but reasonable fee attached to every complaint taken to a formal stage, or appeal against a decision already taken. An example of this could be £25 for a complaint at the formal stage (note: this is not for simply raising a concern; it’s for requesting that a formal process be undertaken).
If the complaint or appeal needs a panel to be convened, the fee might be £200. This is still far short of the true cost of convening such a panel, but it does show a level of commitment from the requester to the process. The fee could be refundable if the appeal or complaint is upheld, or if it is considered of reasonable merit even if overturned. However, the money would be forfeited if the appeal is just AI-generated garbage. This would no more completely stop needless complaints and appeals than the £500 deposit stops mischievous candidates running for Parliament. It would, however, I believe, stop the system being completely overwhelmed by them.
“An example of this could be £25 for a complaint at the formal stage….. If the complaint or appeal needs a panel to be convened, the fee might be £200.”