With the school year barely begun, CHS students this year found themselves presented with something they’d never seen before: an honor contract.

This year, a new integrity policy has been enacted in an attempt to raise student awareness about the consequences of plagiarism and other forms of cheating. After reading the policy, which featured an extensive—but not exhaustive—list of examples of such dishonesty, students were asked to sign the bottom of the sheet.

The widespread plagiarism incident that occurred in one of last year’s AP Chemistry classes served as a factor in the decision to enact a set of new integrity guidelines when it spurred a considerable amount of discussion within the community.

The policy, which was presented to the school board last year before its current enactment, seeks to better define what is deemed unacceptable in academia, as well as outline possible penalties. However, it is not meant to strictly define set infractions and consequences. The policy was not meant to be “Draconian” but rather a guide, according to Principal Louise Losos, due to the delicate—and complex—nature of defining dishonesty.

“I believe there are layers of what could be considered cheating,” Losos said. “Do we treat someone who turns in someone else’s English paper the same as a kid who copies someone’s math homework? I don’t think we should… anytime we put something in black and white, it becomes stilted.”

Losos notes that the only official disciplinary policy that CHS employs is its drug and alcohol policy, the others being merely guidelines, as to allow maximum response flexibility.

Such flexibility is especially valued in the integrity policy, as every case is different—the number of infractions a student has already, the nature of the case, the impact overall. Since the number of elements that need to be considered is hefty, it is preferred that should such incidents occur—and they do, a couple times each year—the matter be kept between the student and teacher if possible.

Thus, a document for teachers was prepared as well, consisting of a list of general processes, including how to deal with cheating incidents in terms of who to tell. Though isolated incidents of cheating are usually unique in their circumstances and thus their consequences as well, Losos strives for response consistency within a department.

“In the past, we’ve had cases in which two teachers disagree,” Losos said. “One wants to do ‘X’ and the other wants to do ‘Y’.” In that case, either a compromise must be reached or a third party –perhaps an administrator—must step in and choose the penalty instead.

An ongoing debate within the English department, which has already had its first plagiarism incident this year, concerns the website turnitin.com, which could potentially serve as a guard against essay plagiarism. Papers uploaded to the site are checked against websites as well as a vast database of students’ essays for plagiarism, and phrases that come up with matches from either source are highlighted. The papers are automatically added to the collection for future use.

The site could benefit students as well, Losos said, as a check against inadvertent plagiarism.

“None of it is about a ‘gotcha’”, Losos said. “But, at the same time, as a school we need to be proactive and use the resources that are available to us.”

English teacher Adam Dunsker agrees.

“I would want to remove the temptation from students if it’s there,” Dunsker said. “In those cases that I’ve caught, there have been a couple sentences woven into the students’ own work. And the kids knew that they shouldn’t have been doing it. I think the website helps the student, who might be tempted, to take the process seriously and do his or her own best work.”

English teacher Sheri Steininger, however, is far from sold on the idea.

“I’m pretty opposed to it,” Steininger said. “I think it might have its uses, but I don’t want it to become standard practice here… I think the concept is predicated on the belief that we can’t trust students to do what they’re supposed to do, at least that we can’t trust enough of them, that we need to start screening everybody, and to me it’s a little bit like asking everybody to go through metal detectors before they come into the school.”

Another potential use of the website would be for students to upload papers themselves. In this way, they might avoid inadvertently plagiarized phrases.

“It sounds as though it might make it easier for students to cheat,” Steininger said. “‘Oh, look, they’ve highlighted this for me, I’m going to have to choose a couple of synonyms and then it won’t highlight it anymore’.”

Though online tools such as turnitin.com have potential, Losos is aware of their limitations as well.

“I know the students can game that system as well,” Losos said. “For every rule we create students try to find a way around it, and adults are no different. If there’s a loophole, they’ll drive a truck through it. It’s not magical… it won’t fix the issue.”

A much more perplexing issue than plagiarism, though, is that of collaboration. It isn’t easy to define broadly, another reason for the integrity policy’s flexibility, as collaboration could mean different things between individual teachers or departments.

“There is an extremely grey area between collaboration and cheating,” Losos said.

Though individual teachers harbor particular ideas as to define the terms, all seem to have clear ideas as to where to draw the line.

“It depends on the assignment, the objectives and the work within the group,” social studies teacher Paul Hoelscher said. “It is not easily definable, yet I think most teachers understand for each of their own students where to make a clear distinction.”

Other teachers have their own standards for defining the dividing line.

“Collecting data as a team in the laboratory is collaboration,” physics teacher Rex Rice said. “Discussing the results of the experiment with your lab partner is collaboration. Writing a conclusion together on a lab report that was intended as an individual assignment is cheating.”

Other teachers across departments hold the same opinion.

“[Collaboration] does not mean that an assignment is divided into parts and each student does his or her part and then the completed parts are combined into a finished product that each person claims as his or her own,” social studies teacher Rick Kordenbrock said. “In general I am not opposed to collaboration, at least as I define it, unless the assignment, such as an exam or essay, is specifically designated or clearly understood to be for individual work only. And I do think students know the difference between collaboration and cheating, even if they don’t want to admit it.”

Rice agrees.

“I’ve had students whose conclusions were obviously slightly changed versions of the same thing act surprised when I split the credit—intended for one lab report—between them,” Rice said. “In reality I think they knew they were wrong, and thought I wouldn’t catch it.”

No matter where the teachers—or administrators—stand on the issue, where collaboration definitely stops and cheating begins is where the academic integrity policy steps in. The same can be said for any issue concerning academic integrity—or lack thereof.

In the end, though, it’s on the students. Though, in the age of technology, smartphones, and the Internet, there will never be a failsafe way to prevent cheating and plagiarism—inadvertent or not.

“Integrity is what you do when no one’s looking,” Losos said. “What do you do when there’s no teacher around? And I think it’s on the student to decide what kind of person they’re going to be.”