An IB academic honesty policy must explain what ethical academic practice looks like, who is responsible for maintaining it, and how the school handles concerns. It should guide teaching, coursework supervision, examinations, investigations, artificial intelligence use, and staff training.
The IB now generally uses academic integrity, although academic honesty remains a familiar term. A successful policy is not simply a compliance document. It is a practical framework that students, teachers, leaders, librarians, parents, and support staff can apply consistently.
What the IB requires from schools
The IB's Programme standards and practices requires schools to implement, communicate, and regularly review an academic integrity policy. The policy should establish the school's philosophy, define good practice and misconduct, identify stakeholder responsibilities, and explain procedures for addressing transgressions.
Having a published file is therefore insufficient. Schools should be able to demonstrate that the policy influences teaching, that students receive appropriate instruction, and that leaders monitor how consistently it is implemented.
The principal drafting reference should be the IB's current Academic integrity policy. Coordinators should also consult current subject guides, assessment procedures, examination instructions, and the 2026 DP general regulations.
The policy must distinguish between two situations:
- School-level cases are handled under published school procedures when work has not entered an IB assessment process.
- IB cases involving submitted assessment, examinations, or possible school maladministration follow current IB reporting and investigation procedures.
A school must not present its internal consequence system as the IB penalty matrix. The IB determines outcomes for cases under its jurisdiction.
Make the policy practical
A useful policy converts principles into repeatable decisions rather than leaving staff to interpret broad statements independently.
| Weak policy statement | Practical policy provision |
|---|---|
| Students must cite sources | Identifies who teaches citation, when it is taught, and what records students retain |
| AI must be used responsibly | Classifies permitted, restricted, and prohibited uses by task |
| Misconduct has consequences | Establishes an investigation sequence, decision-maker, and review route |
| Everyone is responsible | Assigns specific actions to each stakeholder group |
| The policy is reviewed regularly | Names an owner, review date, evidence sources, and approval process |
Teachers should be able to identify the applicable rule, reporting route, evidence requirements, and next procedural step. If these answers depend on informal precedent or the coordinator's memory, the policy is not yet operational.
Define misconduct through recognizable examples
The IB describes student academic misconduct as deliberate or inadvertent behavior that may create an unfair advantage, disadvantage another student, or threaten assessment integrity. The school policy should translate that definition into examples such as:
- copying or closely paraphrasing without acknowledgment;
- sharing individual coursework for another student to reproduce;
- submitting substantially the same work for multiple components;
- fabricating data, interviews, citations, or experimental results;
- receiving excessive editing from a tutor, parent, peer, or service;
- using unauthorized materials or communication during a test;
- incorporating AI-generated material without permission or acknowledgment;
- distributing protected examination content.
The policy should distinguish collaboration from collusion. Students may discuss ideas when collaboration is permitted, but individually assessed work must preserve each student's authorship. RevisionDojo's guide to plagiarism and collusion provides student-facing examples.
Assign responsibilities by role
General statements about shared responsibility should be supported by explicit duties.
| Role | Core responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Head of school | Approves the policy, provides resources, and supports consistent implementation |
| DP coordinator | Maintains the policy, briefs stakeholders, coordinates cases, preserves records, and contacts the IB when required |
| Teachers | Teach integrity practices, clarify task conditions, supervise authentic development, and report concerns |
| Librarian | Teaches research, source evaluation, citation, and information literacy |
| Students | Produce authentic work, acknowledge assistance, retain process evidence, and ask when uncertain |
| Parents and guardians | Support planning without writing, editing, or obtaining unauthorized assistance |
| IT and examination staff | Protect confidential materials, apply access controls, and report security concerns |
Feedback rules should direct teachers to the relevant subject guide and assessment instructions. Permitted assistance differs by component, so schools should not invent one universal rule for draft reviews. RevisionDojo's parent guide to supporting academic integrity explains how families can support the process without producing the work.
Establish a fair investigation procedure
A sound procedure separates suspicion, investigation, finding, and consequence. It might require the following steps:
- Preserve the original work and record the specific concern.
- Collect relevant drafts, sources, version history, task instructions, similarity reports, AI records, and supervision notes.
- Decide whether the case remains school-level or requires IB reporting.
- Explain the allegation to the student and provide an opportunity to respond.
- Have a named decision-maker evaluate the evidence using the published standard.
- Communicate the finding, reasons, consequence, educational follow-up, and review route.
- Store records securely under school policy and applicable privacy rules.
Similarity and AI-detection scores should prompt professional review, not function as automatic proof. Decisions should be connected to identifiable evidence and the student's documented working process. RevisionDojo's guide to academic misconduct allegations explains how drafts, notes, and source logs can support a response.
School consequences should be proportionate, consistent, and compatible with local requirements. The procedure should distinguish a limited classroom error from extensive or deliberate misconduct while recognizing that the IB definition can include inadvertent behavior.
Write enforceable AI rules
The IB does not impose a general ban on AI. Its guidance on AI in learning, teaching, and assessment states that AI-generated material used in assessed work must be clearly identified and appropriately referenced.
Permission and acknowledgment are separate issues. Citing an AI tool does not make its use acceptable when the task prohibits that form of assistance. Schools should classify uses clearly:
- Permitted: explanations, practice questions, or planning support where students retain authorship.
- Permitted with disclosure: uses requiring teacher approval, citation, an AI log, or prompt records.
- Restricted: editing, translation, coding, image generation, or analysis when the tool could perform an assessed skill.
- Prohibited: submission-ready writing, fabricated evidence, completed tests, or unauthorized use in controlled assessment.
Departments should add subject-specific examples. RevisionDojo's guide to responsible AI tutoring clarifies the difference between using AI to learn and allowing it to replace authorship.
Implement and review the policy
Implementation should include student and parent induction, subject-specific instruction, staged coursework checkpoints, common wording on assignment briefs, staff case calibration, secure incident records, and scheduled review. Students should practise citation, paraphrasing, collaboration, data handling, and source logging before high-stakes work begins.
The IB's DP academic honesty research report found that students primarily learned about integrity through classroom teaching. This supports repeated instruction rather than relying on signatures or one annual presentation.
Reviewers should examine incident patterns, consistency across subjects, training completion, student understanding, parent awareness, and changes in IB guidance or technology. The review group should include leaders, teachers from different disciplines, the librarian, students, and parent representation where appropriate. Each revision needs named actions, deadlines, and owners.
RevisionDojo's assessment integrity guide can support student education. Jojo AI may also be used for explanations or practice when the school's rules and task conditions permit it.
Conclusion
An effective IB academic honesty policy combines clear definitions with realistic examples, assigned responsibilities, fair investigations, specific AI rules, and regular evidence-based review. It must remain closely connected to everyday teaching rather than appearing only when misconduct is suspected.
RevisionDojo Study Notes, Questionbank practice, and carefully bounded use of Jojo AI can support authentic learning. Official IB documentation, current subject guides, and the school's published procedures must remain the controlling sources.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Academic integrity policy
- IB Programme standards and practices
- IB 2026 Diploma Programme general regulations
- IB guidance on artificial intelligence
- IB research report on DP academic honesty
- RevisionDojo guide to plagiarism and collusion
- RevisionDojo guide to misconduct allegations
- RevisionDojo parent guide to academic integrity
- RevisionDojo guide to responsible AI tutoring
- RevisionDojo assessment integrity guide
