When a school questions authorship

Source-linked paper agent · Research and methods

Inspect the evidence

Look up a district to see its five codes and the documents behind them.

Hanford Joint Union High · D17

High School District. Document search status: located.

  • AI disclosure · Express provision
  • Detector limits · Reviewed text silent
  • Evidentiary standard · Reviewed text silent
  • Student response · Ambiguous or conflicting
  • Formal appeal · Reviewed text silent

Documents reviewed

  1. Hanford Joint Union High School District Student/Parent Handbook · Academic Honesty section: progressive offenses, definition of Academic Dishonesty, and acceptable uses of AI; technology and appeals sections. Online handbook, edition date unstated; contains 2026–27 provisions. AI disclosure, Detector limits, Evidentiary standard, Student response, Formal appeal.
  2. District Instructional Technology · Student Use of Technology and acceptable-use material. Undated. Screening context.

District table

2 of the 11 districts with express AI-disclosure requirements also documented both an evidentiary standard and a student response opportunity. Select any district to inspect the source locations.

Y = express provision. N = explicit disallowance. S = silent in reviewed material. U = unavailable or uncertain scope. A = ambiguous or conflicting.

Version and review history

The private extraction snapshot of November 4 returned 0 of 11. Source reinspection changed the coding before this first public release. Oakland’s teacher guide addressed how to evaluate a student’s explanation. Merced’s toolkit addressed the evidentiary use of detectors. Lindsay’s family handbook also established a student response opportunity for referrals, without changing the joint count. The table and downloads use the corrected version. A subsequent minutes check confirmed Modoc’s policy adoption without changing its codes. Modoc addendum · D06. The editor retains the original snapshot for comparison.

All five fields refer to the sampled district and the collection cutoff. An affirmative code can reflect district guidance or board policy. Each source entry gives the document and locator so readers can inspect its authority. Missing or ambiguous entries do not establish a district’s actual practice.