Where and when I grew up, Saturday detentions were pretty common in high schools (don't know if they still are or for other parts of the U.S.). The movie 'The Breakfast Club' is based on Saturday detention. That gave me the impression back then, that they were pretty normal.
Saturday school was common when I was in school a while back. A girl I rode with was late and I had to do it a few times. They even tried to hold my transcript and said I needed to make one up after graduating but they sent it anyway.
If you had to work you could get out of it that weekend. You’d still need to make it up and if you worked every weekend maybe you’d get another punishment.
They can be cooperative. I had to work M-F and weekends and they let me serve detention during active school hours, typically during lunch hours or a study hall block.
The AI policy starts at the bottom of page 5. Students have to mention any use of AI, even generating ideas. They must include an appendix with "the entire exchange, highlighting the most relevant sections" and provide an explanation for how and why everything was used.
It seems overly strict to me, hastily written when ChatGPT became popular perhaps.
Pretty soon most students are going to be say "Hey Siri, help me with my homework it's about X" and get an AI answer - are they all academically dishonest?
Kids need to learn how to think and have their own ideas, then as adults if they want to give in to the mediocrity of offloading their thinking to machines they'll have that chance.
Tl;dr: a student was caught cheating on their project, admitted to such, was punished, and now the parents are suing the school in an attempt to salvage their child’s academic reputation.
The parents say that the student will suffer irreparable harm from the school’s punishment.
From the article:
> RNH was temporarily held back from joining the National Honor Society and parents want their offspring's academic records cleared of any mention of the incident. In addition, they want the student to receive a B grade for the project and the removal of any indication that cheating was involved.
The school’s defense is that students weren’t allowed to use AI for their research, and that the student failed to cite the AI as a source.
From the article:
> The school argues that RNH, along with his classmates, was given a copy of the student handbook in the Fall of last year, which specifically called out the use of AI by students.
> "RNH unequivocally used another author’s language and thoughts, be it a digital and artificial author, without express permission to do so," the school argues.
> "Furthermore, he did not cite to his use of AI in his notes, scripts or in the project he submitted. Importantly, RNH’s peers were not allowed to cut corners by using AI to craft their projects; thus, RNH acted 'unfairly in order to gain an advantage.'"
> a student was caught cheating on their project, admitted to such, was punished, and now the parents are suing the school in an attempt to salvage their child’s academic reputation
To be fair, the question is whether the student handbook's definition of cheating covered using AI.
Of course, the kid is almost certainly already rotten, given his parents couldn't find a better way to resolve this.
I'd reserve the judgement on the last one. It may become hard to get attention of the school, and the damage to the student at this stage is very real. However as stated in the article, the part about school policies, even the use of AI to research for the paper was forbidden. Well, maybe this is unreasonable enough... but I wouldn't be swift with decisions here.
I think there is at least also the question of how often student handbooks need to be provided/reviewed. "The fall of last year" is quite a bit ago, I would have expected that the rules are reviewed every year. Especially with new technological advances, I can understand some confusion / misremembering of the rules, and I think surprising rules should probably be re-addressed at least yearly.
What kind of school has weekend detentions? What if a student has a job. Even without that, weekends are often family time, and certainly unwind time.
I would never allow a school to punish my kid on a non-school day, no matter what they may or may not have done.
Where and when I grew up, Saturday detentions were pretty common in high schools (don't know if they still are or for other parts of the U.S.). The movie 'The Breakfast Club' is based on Saturday detention. That gave me the impression back then, that they were pretty normal.
Saturday school was common when I was in school a while back. A girl I rode with was late and I had to do it a few times. They even tried to hold my transcript and said I needed to make one up after graduating but they sent it anyway.
If you had to work you could get out of it that weekend. You’d still need to make it up and if you worked every weekend maybe you’d get another punishment.
They can be cooperative. I had to work M-F and weekends and they let me serve detention during active school hours, typically during lunch hours or a study hall block.
The motion to dismiss is revealing.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/10/15/dismiss.pdf
The AI policy starts at the bottom of page 5. Students have to mention any use of AI, even generating ideas. They must include an appendix with "the entire exchange, highlighting the most relevant sections" and provide an explanation for how and why everything was used.
It seems overly strict to me, hastily written when ChatGPT became popular perhaps.
Pretty soon most students are going to be say "Hey Siri, help me with my homework it's about X" and get an AI answer - are they all academically dishonest?
Kids need to learn how to think and have their own ideas, then as adults if they want to give in to the mediocrity of offloading their thinking to machines they'll have that chance.
Tl;dr: a student was caught cheating on their project, admitted to such, was punished, and now the parents are suing the school in an attempt to salvage their child’s academic reputation.
The parents say that the student will suffer irreparable harm from the school’s punishment.
From the article:
> RNH was temporarily held back from joining the National Honor Society and parents want their offspring's academic records cleared of any mention of the incident. In addition, they want the student to receive a B grade for the project and the removal of any indication that cheating was involved.
The school’s defense is that students weren’t allowed to use AI for their research, and that the student failed to cite the AI as a source.
From the article:
> The school argues that RNH, along with his classmates, was given a copy of the student handbook in the Fall of last year, which specifically called out the use of AI by students.
> "RNH unequivocally used another author’s language and thoughts, be it a digital and artificial author, without express permission to do so," the school argues.
> "Furthermore, he did not cite to his use of AI in his notes, scripts or in the project he submitted. Importantly, RNH’s peers were not allowed to cut corners by using AI to craft their projects; thus, RNH acted 'unfairly in order to gain an advantage.'"
> a student was caught cheating on their project, admitted to such, was punished, and now the parents are suing the school in an attempt to salvage their child’s academic reputation
To be fair, the question is whether the student handbook's definition of cheating covered using AI.
Of course, the kid is almost certainly already rotten, given his parents couldn't find a better way to resolve this.
I'd reserve the judgement on the last one. It may become hard to get attention of the school, and the damage to the student at this stage is very real. However as stated in the article, the part about school policies, even the use of AI to research for the paper was forbidden. Well, maybe this is unreasonable enough... but I wouldn't be swift with decisions here.
I think there is at least also the question of how often student handbooks need to be provided/reviewed. "The fall of last year" is quite a bit ago, I would have expected that the rules are reviewed every year. Especially with new technological advances, I can understand some confusion / misremembering of the rules, and I think surprising rules should probably be re-addressed at least yearly.