Committee moves to add detailed academic‑integrity section to code, including guidance on AI

The Policy & Personnel Committee reviewed a proposed addition to the district’s Code of Character, Culture and Conduct that consolidates academic‑integrity rules and examples for students, staff and families. Chair Deborah Brooks introduced the presenters from curriculum and central office and the committee discussed merging the new section with existing Policy 5129.

Presenters told the committee the new section expands the code’s treatment of plagiarism, academic dishonesty and misconduct to include contemporary platforms and tools. They said the intention is to give families and students a clear, student‑friendly reference for what constitutes academic misconduct and how staff will respond. Committee member Nanette Malconeian said she welcomed the shared‑responsibilities language, calling it a “nice addition.”

Members asked for glossary entries to define terms cited in the new section—specifically plagiarism and artificial intelligence—so students have concrete guidance. Staff replied that Policy 5129 already contains a definition of plagiarism and that the code’s new language can either cross‑reference that policy or repeat a glossary definition; they recommended explicitly stating that representing another person’s ideas, words, media or data without appropriate acknowledgement—whether those ideas originate from a person or an artificial‑intelligence platform—falls under plagiarism.

The committee debated several wording issues. Members asked the district to standardize usage of the word "work" versus "assignment" where the distinction matters (for example, whether a submission is an assessment or a general classroom product). Members also pressed for clarity around unauthorized collaboration and how to treat similar outputs from legitimate group work such as lab groups versus identical submissions on an individual assignment. Presenters said the policy language is intentionally broad to allow case‑by‑case judgment and recommended linking the examples to the tiered consequences matrix already used by the district.

On investigation and interventions, the committee recommended making clear that an initial conference with the student will take place and that incidents will be investigated before disciplinary consequences are applied. Members suggested changing some "may include" phrasing in the interventions list to "will include" to ensure at minimum a restorative conversation and an investigation occur.

The committee discussed whether explicit reference to artificial intelligence should be included as a numbered example of dishonesty. Staff said the committee intentionally named AI so that teachers would be required to communicate whether and how students may use AI on specific assignments; authorized AI use would not necessarily constitute dishonesty if teachers set attribution expectations.

Presenters described a rollout plan that includes grade‑level visits, assemblies and a one‑page graphic for students and families to explain expectations. They also noted that external assessment agencies (for example, College Board) have independent procedures for identifying suspicious testing patterns and that the district will continue to follow those agencies’ processes.

The committee agreed to accept the redline version of the section for committee editing, asked staff to resolve glossary and wording items, and directed staff to bring an updated redline back for a public hearing and board consideration in June or July. The committee did not recommend other substantive changes at this time.