Academic Integrity and Transparency
Academic integrity in RUSD is defined as honesty, fairness, and authentic engagement with learning goals. While AI can be a partner in the learning process, it must not be used to bypass it.
Student Self-Reflection: The "Before, During, and After"
Before using AI, students should be able to answer "Yes" to these core questions:
- Permission: Did my teacher explicitly approve AI use for this specific task?
- Verification: Have I fact-checked the AI's output against trusted, non-AI sources?
- Originality: Does the final product reflect my own understanding and voice?
- Disclosure: Have I clearly cited how and where AI was used?
Unacceptable Uses of AI
The following behaviors undermine academic honesty and are strictly prohibited:
| Violation Category | Prohibited Action & District Examples |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation of Authorship | Submitting AI-generated work, text, code, or media that exceeds the assigned AI Level or lacks disclosure, such as presenting AI-drafted text as original work or omitting a required prompt log. |
| Assessment Interference | Using AI tools during tests, quizzes, or exams without explicit permission, including the use of AI-enabled devices, browser extensions, or chatbots during "closed-book" or formal assessments. |
| Information Falsification | Utilizing AI to generate fabricated citations, false data, or fake evidence, such as prompting AI to invent nonexistent authors, historical dates, or scientific data. |
| Identity Deception | Using AI to impersonate others through the deceptive manipulation or recreation of voice, image, video, or writing style, such as generating "Deepfakes" or drafting messages as another person. |
| AI-Enabled Harassment | Using generative AI tools to target, bully, or harm others, including the creation of offensive images, harmful messages, or the spread of AI-generated misinformation. |
AI Misuse: Detection and Due Process
RUSD prioritizes learning over detection software. When a violation is suspected (e.g., bulk-pasting in version history or "hallucinated" citations), the district follows a four-phase process to ensure due process:
Phase 1
Evidence Collection
Teachers will document irregular patterns via metadata (e.g., version history), establish a "human-generated baseline" for stylistic comparison, and verify citations. Assignments under review receive an "Incomplete" in the gradebook until resolved.
Phase 2
Preliminary Student Conference
The teacher will request to meet with the student within three school days to discuss the evidence. This may include a "verification quiz" where the student explains complex terms or the logic of specific sections in their own words.
Phase 3
Reporting & Documentation
If a violation is determined, the teacher documents the outcome in Aeries and notifies the parent/guardian within 24 hours. Remediation or consequences follow the school site's established disciplinary outline.
Phase 4
The Appeal Process
Students may appeal the decision to the Principal in writing within five business days. An impartial administrator will review the evidence log. The burden of proof rests with the school to show that a violation was "more likely than not."
Transparency & Clarity
To ensure clarity and transparency, teachers are encouraged to include an "AI Use Statement" in their course syllabi. This statement should (1) explain the teacher's policy on AI use in their class, and (2) provide a direct link to the RUSD Academic Integrity & AI Misuse protocol so students and families understand the steps for verification and appeal.
Use Citation
All staff and students must disclose AI involvement. When citing AI, RUSD follows standard academic formats: