Students and parents press Tehachapi Unified to review AI‑detection and dual‑enrollment discipline
Loading...
Summary
Multiple students and a parent told the board that Turnitin and other AI detectors flagged essays in dual‑enrollment coursework, producing zeros for seniors and prompting calls for district oversight and clearer due‑process; superintendent said he will investigate and bring AI policy for review.
Several students and a parent addressed the Tehachapi Unified School District board Dec. 16 to describe academic‑dishonesty outcomes tied to AI‑detection tools used in a Cerro Coso dual‑enrollment English course, and they asked the district to coordinate a clear, consistent review process.
Emmett Williams, a dual‑enrollment student, told the board approximately 15 students are facing AI‑related academic‑dishonesty allegations in one course and urged district‑level oversight and coordination with Cerro Coso. Emmett cited Turnitin’s guidance that AI detection is probabilistic and should not be the sole basis for disciplinary action and asked the district to ensure “due process, consistency, and fair application of academic integrity policies for dual‑enrollment students.”
Kian Morgan and other students said some seniors received zeros on final essays after Turnitin and Originality AI reported high AI percentages; Kian said a single final essay was marked as 55% AI and received a 0, and he asked that detection tools be improved or that the district adopt clearer procedures. A parent, Stevie Campbell, said her daughter — also a senior in dual enrollment — was wrongly accused and described the emotional stress it caused during college‑application season.
Superintendent Bell responded that these concerns had not previously been elevated districtwide, that he will look into the cases and asked staff to place AI policy review on a future agenda. He suggested the board designate a liaison to coordinate among high school staff, Cerro Coso administrators and affected students so cases can be escalated and resolved with consistent due process.
No formal action was taken during the meeting; trustees requested follow‑up and signaled intent to return this matter to a future agenda with staff recommendations on policy, due process and liaison responsibilities.
