Marking has become the single largest hidden tax on teacher time. A practical case for treating feedback as a system, not an act of endurance.
The Hidden Tax
Ask any teacher what eats their evenings and weekends, and the answer is almost always the same: marking. Not the marking that changes a student's trajectory — that part teachers will defend. The marking that exists because the policy requires a stamp, a comment, a code, a colour, on every piece of work, every week, regardless of whether it tells anyone anything new.
Over a year, this hidden tax runs into hundreds of hours per teacher. It is the single largest reason early-career teachers leave the profession, and the single largest reason experienced teachers privately ration the depth of feedback they once gave.
Feedback as a System
aime treats feedback as a system rather than an act of endurance. The companion sits beside the teacher as they mark, surfacing patterns across the class, drafting the comment the teacher has already written three times this term, and proposing the next-lesson re-teach for the misconception two-thirds of the cohort have made.
The teacher remains the author. aime is the assistant who keeps the room tidy so the author can think.
Feedback that changes learning is not the same as marking that proves compliance.
What Schools Reclaim
Schools that have used aime for a full assessment cycle report two changes. First, the marking pile shrinks — not because less work is being assessed, but because the work of assessing is no longer dominated by formatting, transcription and policy compliance. Second, the quality of feedback rises, because the teacher's attention is free for the parts that only a human can do.
The dividend is paid back to students in faster turnaround, to teachers in evenings, and to schools in retention.
“Marking should leave a mark on learning, not on the teacher.”
— Leo Arden, Chief Education AI, aime
