Below is the full classroom-ready policy. Local decisions are marked exactly where the instructor or school must supply the rule. # SECTION 1 — WHY THIS POLICY EXISTS This policy protects the work you are here to learn: reading closely, making an arguable claim, choosing evidence, explaining how that evidence supports your claim, and writing sentences that are your own. AI can help you understand a difficult passage, generate questions, or explore possible directions before you write. It cannot do the writing that the course is assessing. Your submitted sentences must come from you. The goal is not to catch people using technology. The goal is to make sure your grade reflects your own reading, reasoning, and writing, while still allowing useful support during the learning process. # SECTION 2 — WHAT YOU MAY DO You may use AI for the following purposes. These permissions apply unless an individual assignment gives you a narrower rule. * **Ask AI to explain a difficult passage in simpler language.** Why this is fine: You are using AI to support comprehension before doing your own analysis. * **Ask AI to define an unfamiliar literary term or rhetorical concept.** Why this is fine: Learning vocabulary helps you participate in the reading and writing work yourself. * **Ask AI to generate questions about a text that you could investigate.** Why this is fine: Questions can help you find a direction, but you still decide what you think and what you will argue. * **Ask AI to brainstorm broad topics or themes connected to a text.** Why this is fine: Brainstorming gives you possibilities. You still choose, narrow, and develop your own argument. * **Ask AI to name possible objections or counterarguments to an idea you already have.** Why this is fine: Considering other views can strengthen your reasoning. You must decide how to answer those views yourself. * **Ask AI to quiz you about a reading, vocabulary, literary devices, or argument concepts.** Why this is fine: Practice questions help you check what you understand. * **Ask AI to explain the difference between two concepts, such as theme and topic or evidence and commentary.** Why this is fine: You are getting instructional support, not submitting AI-written work. * **Ask AI to give you a checklist of questions to use while reviewing your own draft.** Why this is fine: A checklist can guide your revision without supplying sentences for the essay. When you use AI this way, do not copy its wording into your essay. Close the AI response or move away from it before drafting. Write from your own understanding and notes. # SECTION 3 — WHAT YOU MAY NOT DO The following uses are prohibited because they perform skills that this course is assessing. * **Do not ask AI to write a thesis statement that you submit, even if you change a few words.** Why this harms your learning: Forming an arguable claim is part of the assessment. * **Do not ask AI to write any sentence or paragraph that appears in your submitted work.** Why this harms your learning: Sentence construction and written expression are skills being assessed. * **Do not paste your draft into AI and ask it to rewrite, polish, improve, strengthen, or make the writing more sophisticated.** Why this harms your learning: Revision and style decisions are part of learning to write. * **Do not ask AI to write topic sentences, transitions, commentary, counterarguments, rebuttals, introductions, or conclusions for you.** Why this harms your learning: These parts show how well you can organize and develop an argument. * **Do not ask AI to paraphrase a source or literary passage and then submit that paraphrase as your own writing.** Why this harms your learning: Accurate paraphrasing is a writing and source-use skill you must demonstrate yourself. * **Do not ask AI to produce a complete essay outline that supplies your claims, evidence sequence, and paragraph-by-paragraph argument.** Why this harms your learning: Organizing an argument is one of the skills this course assesses. * **Do not give AI quotations from the text and ask it to produce the analysis that follows them.** Why this harms your learning: Explaining how evidence supports a claim is central to literary analysis. * **Do not use AI-generated information about a text as if you verified it yourself.** Why this harms your learning: You are responsible for reading the assigned text and checking evidence against the actual source. Minor editing does not turn an AI-written sentence into your own sentence. If AI supplied the sentence structure or wording and you mainly changed words, do not submit it. # SECTION 4 — THE GRAY ZONE Some uses do not fit neatly into a yes-or-no rule. These are the course rulings. **Scenario 1: You ask AI for ten possible thesis statements, then write a different thesis yourself.** **Ruling:** Allowed only as brainstorming, provided none of the generated thesis language appears in your submission. **Rationale:** You may explore possibilities, but the final claim must be formed and worded by you. **Scenario 2: You write a thesis and ask AI, “Is this arguable?”** **Ruling:** Allowed if AI only evaluates or asks questions about the thesis. Do not ask it to rewrite the thesis. **Rationale:** Feedback can help you evaluate your thinking without replacing the skill being assessed. **Scenario 3: You ask AI what a difficult quotation means, then analyze the quotation in your own essay.** **Ruling:** Allowed with disclosure. **Rationale:** Comprehension support is permitted, but your interpretation and written analysis must still be your own. **Scenario 4: You ask AI to point out places where your reasoning seems unclear without suggesting replacement sentences.** **Ruling:** Allowed with disclosure. **Rationale:** Identifying a possible problem can support revision, but you must diagnose and rewrite the passage yourself. **Scenario 5: You use predictive, generative, translation, or writing assistance because of an approved accommodation or required accessibility support.** **Ruling:** Follow your approved accommodation and the implementation guidance set by **(INSTRUCTOR: decide with the appropriate school support team)**. **Rationale:** Required accessibility support takes priority, but the course still needs a clear way to identify which writing skills you are responsible for producing independently. **Default rule when you are unsure:** Do not ask AI to produce or rewrite language for the assignment. Ask your instructor whether the proposed use is allowed before you submit the work. # SECTION 5 — DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ## When you must disclose AI use You must disclose AI use if you used a generative AI system at any point for the specific assignment, including permitted brainstorming, comprehension help, practice questions, feedback, or counterargument generation. Disclosure does not mean you did something wrong. Permitted AI use remains permitted. ## When you do not need to disclose You do not need an AI disclosure if: * you did not use generative AI for the assignment; * you used an ordinary dictionary, thesaurus, textbook, class notes, or teacher-provided resource; * you used basic spellcheck that only identifies possible spelling errors; * you used an approved accessibility tool according to a separate disclosure arrangement established through **(INSTRUCTOR: decide with the appropriate school support team)**. If a tool begins generating, rewriting, paraphrasing, or substantially completing language for you, treat it as generative AI for this policy. ## Where the disclosure goes Place the disclosure after the final paragraph of your essay and after the Works Cited page if one is required. Label it **AI Use Disclosure**. The disclosure is not part of the essay's word count unless **(INSTRUCTOR: decide)**. ## Fill-in disclosure block > **AI Use Disclosure** > AI tool used: ______________________________ > Date or stage of assignment when used: ______________________________ > What I asked the tool to do: ______________________________ > How I used the response: ______________________________ > I confirm that no sentence produced or rewritten by AI appears in my submitted work: Yes / No > If “No,” explain: ______________________________ ## Worked example: light AI use > **AI Use Disclosure** > AI tool used: ChatGPT > Date or stage of assignment when used: Before reading Act 3 closely > What I asked the tool to do: Explain the difference between dramatic irony and verbal irony. > How I used the response: I used the explanation to review the concept before returning to the play. > I confirm that no sentence produced or rewritten by AI appears in my submitted work: Yes ## Worked example: moderate AI use > **AI Use Disclosure** > AI tool used: ChatGPT > Date or stage of assignment when used: Brainstorming before my first draft > What I asked the tool to do: Give me questions I could investigate about how the narrator's reliability affects the story. > How I used the response: I considered the questions, chose one direction, reread the story, and developed my own claim from the text. I did not copy the generated wording into my essay. > I confirm that no sentence produced or rewritten by AI appears in my submitted work: Yes ## Worked example: heavy but permitted AI use > **AI Use Disclosure** > AI tool used: ChatGPT > Date or stage of assignment when used: Reading, brainstorming, and revision stages > What I asked the tool to do: Explain two difficult passages, quiz me on the reading, generate questions about competing interpretations, suggest possible objections to my argument, and give me questions to use while reviewing my draft. > How I used the response: I used AI as a study and brainstorming tool. I returned to the assigned text to verify my understanding. I made my own argument and wrote and revised every sentence myself. > I confirm that no sentence produced or rewritten by AI appears in my submitted work: Yes ## If you forget the disclosure If your AI use was allowed but you honestly forgot the disclosure, tell your instructor as soon as you notice. You will add or correct the disclosure. An honest omission by itself does not turn permitted AI use into prohibited AI use. Repeated failure to disclose after reminders may be addressed under **(INSTRUCTOR: decide based on institutional policy)**. # SECTION 6 — HOW COMPLIANCE IS CHECKED Your instructor will not try to determine AI use from writing style alone. Compliance will be checked through ordinary evidence of your writing process. The methods below are listed in order of reliance. 1. **Your normal drafts, notes, annotations, and planning work.** These can show how your argument and writing developed. You are not required to create fake extra drafts just to prove authorship. 2. **Version history when it already exists in the writing platform you normally use.** Your instructor may ask you to walk through relevant parts of it. Missing or incomplete version history is not proof of a violation. 3. **Writing completed during class.** Your instructor may compare your reasoning process, use of evidence, and ability to explain your choices across classroom work and submitted work. A difference in style by itself is not proof. 4. **A short oral follow-up about your essay.** You may be asked why you chose a quotation, how a paragraph supports your thesis, what you changed during revision, or what you mean by a specific passage. Difficulty answering one question is not proof of AI use. 5. **Your AI disclosure, when applicable.** The disclosure helps establish what support you used and whether that use fits the permitted categories. 6. **AI-detector output, if such a tool is available at all.** A detector score does not establish that you violated this policy. ## What the instructor will do with detector scores Your instructor may treat a detector result as one reason to look at the assignment process or begin a conversation. Your instructor will **not**: * treat a detector percentage or label as proof; * assign a penalty because of a detector score alone; * require you to prove that a detector is wrong; * describe a detector result as a finding of misconduct; * use a detector score as a substitute for reviewing actual process evidence. If the available evidence does not establish a violation, the work will not be treated as a policy violation. ## Exact wording of the first conversation > “I want to understand how you produced this assignment. I am not starting with an assumption that you broke the policy. Please walk me through how you moved from the reading to your main claim and then to this draft. Show me any notes, drafts, or version history you already have, if available. I may also ask you about a few choices in the essay. If you used AI, tell me what you used it for. Permitted AI use is not a violation. If you made a mistake with the policy, we will first work out what happened and what needs to be rewritten.” # SECTION 7 — WHEN THE POLICY IS BROKEN A policy violation should be based on evidence of a specific prohibited action. Examples include your own acknowledgment that AI wrote submitted language, process evidence that establishes AI-generated language was inserted into the submission, or another ordinary source of evidence that establishes the prohibited behavior. A detector score alone cannot confirm a violation. ## Tier 1: First confirmed violation **Trigger:** This is your first confirmed violation of this policy, including a case where you acknowledge that AI produced or rewrote submitted language. **Instructor action:** You meet with the instructor, identify the affected work, and complete a new version using your own writing. The instructor may require some or all of the rewrite to occur in class or through another ordinary supervised writing process. **Grade impact:** No grade penalty if the required rewrite is completed by **(INSTRUCTOR: decide deadline)**. The replacement work is graded according to the normal assignment criteria. **Record kept:** The instructor keeps a brief course-level note that the conversation and rewrite occurred. Whether any formal school record is required is **(INSTRUCTOR: decide according to institutional policy)**. **Appeal route:** You may ask the instructor to review the evidence and decision again. Any additional appeal route is **(INSTRUCTOR: decide according to institutional policy)**. ## Tier 2: Repeated violation **Trigger:** You have a confirmed new violation after completing a Tier 1 intervention. **Instructor action:** You meet with the instructor and complete a new, independently written version under conditions set by **(INSTRUCTOR: decide)**. The instructor reviews the earlier intervention with you and identifies what must change in your process. **Grade impact:** A grade consequence may apply. The amount or type of consequence is **(INSTRUCTOR: decide according to grading and institutional policy)**. Any consequence should apply to the affected assignment rather than unrelated work unless school policy requires otherwise. **Record kept:** The instructor keeps documentation of the specific behavior, evidence considered, conversation, previous intervention, and outcome. Formal reporting requirements are **(INSTRUCTOR: decide according to institutional policy)**. **Appeal route:** You may use **(INSTRUCTOR: decide institutional appeal route)**. ## Tier 3: Continued violation after prior intervention **Trigger:** You have another confirmed violation after earlier restorative intervention and a prior repeated-use consequence. **Instructor action:** The instructor documents the evidence, meets with you, provides any rewrite opportunity required by school policy, and follows the school's academic integrity process. **Grade impact:** The consequence is **(INSTRUCTOR: decide according to institutional policy)**. No consequence is based on a detector score alone. **Record kept:** Records are kept only as required by **(INSTRUCTOR: decide institutional policy and record-retention rules)**. **Appeal route:** You may use **(INSTRUCTOR: decide institutional appeal route)**. ## Self-report amnesty You may self-report prohibited AI use before the instructor contacts you about a concern and no later than **(INSTRUCTOR: decide time window after submission)**. For your first self-report, you will use the Tier 1 process: conversation, identification of the affected language, and an independent rewrite. There is no grade penalty if you complete the rewrite by **(INSTRUCTOR: decide deadline)**. For a later self-report, the response will be reduced by one tier from the response that would otherwise apply, unless institutional policy requires a different consequence. Self-report amnesty does not apply after you have been contacted about the specific concern. # SECTION 8 — READY-TO-USE MATERIALS ## 8a. Syllabus block AI may be used in this course for brainstorming and comprehension support. You may ask AI to explain a difficult passage, define a concept, generate questions, suggest possible counterarguments, or help you identify topics to explore. You may not submit any sentence produced or rewritten by AI. This includes thesis statements, topic sentences, analysis, transitions, counterarguments, conclusions, and edited versions of your own sentences. Your submitted prose must be your own. If you use AI during an assignment, disclose what tool you used, what you asked it to do, and how you used the output. We check compliance mainly through drafts, version history when available, in-class writing, and brief conversations about your choices. AI-detector scores are not proof of a violation. First concerns are handled through conversation and a chance to rewrite. Repeated violations may receive a grade consequence under this policy and school rules. ## 8b. LMS assignment-page reminder AI may help you brainstorm or understand the reading. It may not write or rewrite any sentence you submit. If you use AI, complete the disclosure block. Keep drafts and notes. Ask before using AI in a way not listed. ## 8c. Short email to families or stakeholders explaining the policy **Subject: AI Use in Grades 11-12 English** Dear Families and Caregivers, Students in this course may use generative AI for limited learning support, such as explaining difficult passages, reviewing concepts, brainstorming questions, or considering possible counterarguments. AI may not write or rewrite any sentence that a student submits for assessment. Literary analysis and argumentative writing require students to form claims, select evidence, explain reasoning, organize arguments, and make their own writing decisions. Students who use AI in permitted ways will disclose that use with their assignment. Compliance will be checked primarily through normal writing-process evidence, such as drafts, version history when available, in-class work, and conversation. AI-detector scores will not be treated as proof of misconduct. When a first violation occurs, the normal response is a conversation and an opportunity to rewrite before any grade penalty. Repeated violations may lead to consequences consistent with school policy. Please contact **(INSTRUCTOR: decide contact method)** with questions about the policy. Sincerely, **(INSTRUCTOR: decide name/title)** ## 8d. Five discussion questions for a first-week norming conversation 1. If AI explains a difficult passage and you later form your own interpretation, what work did AI do and what work did you do? 2. Why might asking AI to rewrite a weak paragraph interfere with learning even when the original ideas were yours? 3. What is the difference between receiving feedback on a thesis and asking someone or something to write the thesis for you? 4. What kinds of evidence would fairly show how a piece of writing developed? What evidence would be unfair to treat as proof? 5. If you accidentally cross the boundary in this policy, what would make it easier to tell the instructor quickly and repair the work? # SECTION 9 — INSTRUCTOR NOTES ## Provision most likely to be challenged: No AI-generated sentence may appear in submitted work **Likely challenge:** Students, families, or colleagues may argue that allowing brainstorming while banning AI-assisted sentence revision creates an artificial boundary, especially because many commercial writing tools now include generative features. **Recommended response:** Tie the boundary directly to the assessed construct. In this course, sentence construction, argument development, style, organization, and revision are part of what the grade represents. The policy therefore permits support before or around those acts but does not permit a tool to perform them in the submitted product. Apply the rule consistently. Do not permit one product to rewrite sentences merely because it is marketed as a grammar tool while prohibiting identical behavior from a chatbot. Regulate the behavior, not the brand. Verify how approved accessibility accommodations interact with this restriction. Some students may have authorized technology that predicts, translates, dictates, restructures, or otherwise assists language production. ## Provision most likely to be challenged: Oral follow-up and version history **Likely challenge:** A student may argue that being unable to explain a passage immediately, having sparse version history, or writing differently at home should not count as evidence of misconduct. That challenge is valid if those facts are treated as proof by themselves. **Recommended response:** Use these sources cumulatively and diagnostically. Ask concrete questions about choices the student made. Look for process evidence that already exists. Do not require a student to manufacture a particular drafting process after the fact. A student who drafts in large blocks, works offline, deletes drafts, uses speech-to-text, writes under variable conditions, or struggles with oral explanation may have little conventional process evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence that AI wrote the work. The instructor should document what evidence actually supports a finding rather than documenting a general impression that the writing “sounds like AI.” ## Provision most likely to be challenged: Disclosure of permitted AI use **Likely challenge:** Students may view disclosure as a trap or assume that admitting permitted AI use makes them more likely to be investigated. **Recommended response:** Make permitted disclosures routine and consequence-free. Consider modeling several disclosures in class. Grade the essay rather than the amount of permitted AI support used unless an assignment specifically assesses an independent process. An honest missing disclosure should normally be corrected rather than converted into an authorship violation. If nondisclosure itself will eventually carry a consequence, define that consequence separately and align it with institutional rules. ## Institutional policy checks before adoption Before using this policy, verify the following locally: * **Academic integrity definitions and required reporting.** Confirm whether the institution defines unauthorized AI use as plagiarism, unauthorized assistance, another category, or leaves the classification to the course. * **Teacher authority over grade consequences.** Confirm which penalties an individual instructor may impose and whether a rewrite may replace, precede, or accompany a formal consequence. * **Required due-process and appeal procedures.** Replace every appeal placeholder with the actual approved process. * **Documentation and record-retention rules.** Confirm what may be kept as a private instructional note, what must be reported, how long records may be retained, and who may access them. * **Special education, Section 504, multilingual learner, and accessibility obligations.** Confirm how approved assistive technologies interact with the prohibition on AI-produced submitted language. Do not create a classroom rule that overrides an approved accommodation. * **Student data and approved-tool rules.** Confirm whether students may enter assigned texts, their own drafts, personal information, or other course material into third-party AI systems. * **Age, account, and consent requirements.** Confirm which AI systems students are actually permitted to access under school policy. * **Existing institutional detector rules.** If the school provides or requires a detection product, clarify in writing that a score does not by itself establish a violation and determine what additional evidence the institution requires. * **Assignment-specific exceptions.** Decide whether any future assignment will intentionally teach AI critique, comparison, or evaluation. If so, give that assignment its own written rules rather than quietly changing this policy. The central enforcement principle should remain stable: identify a specific prohibited behavior, establish it through ordinary evidence, give the student an opportunity to explain the process, and separate uncertainty from proof. When the evidence does not establish the prohibited behavior, do not impose an academic-integrity consequence. I have kept all locally variable deadlines, penalties, offices, accommodation procedures, and reporting requirements as **(INSTRUCTOR: decide)** rather than supplying arbitrary values.