Anyone’s province rolling out new AI curriculum guidance this fall?

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.

as a vice principal i'll say the gap between ministry guidance and what actually happens at the school level is enormous, and its where most of the real risk sits. we had a case last year where a student challenged a plagiarism finding and the family's lawyer specifically asked what provincial policy the school was following. we had nothing concrete to point to beyond board memos. Danielle, i'd suggest building your resource list around whatever your board's actual disciplinary policy says rather than provincial guidance, because that's what gets tested when things go sideways.

Worth noting there's a growing research gap here too. Most of the peer reviewed literature on AI policy in K-12 is American or British. A colleague at a university education faculty here told me they're working on a Canadian specific study but it won't be published until next year at the earliest. Until then we're mostly relying on board memos and anecdote, which Ray's point underscores well.

this is really helpful, thank you both. Ray your point about the disciplinary policy mattering more than provincial guidance in an actual dispute is exactly the kind of practical thing i needed to hear before i build this list.

Quebec's ministry put out something in late August, mostly framed around responsible use rather than detection or bans. it leans heavily on teacher discretion which i actually appreciate, though it does leave a lot of grey area for individual schools to sort out themselves. process over detection, always, and this guidance mostly reflects that philosophy even if it doesn't say it outright.