Quebec CEGEP AI Policy Update – What’s Changed and What Hasn’t
For those in the Quebec CEGEP system, a practical update on where things stand after the recent policy revisions.
The Fédération des cégeps issued updated guidance in March 2026. The key changes from the previous version: AI use for drafting is now explicitly addressed (previously it was left to institutional interpretation). The updated guidance says AI-assisted drafting must be disclosed and the student must demonstrate understanding of the final product.
what hasn’t changed: there’s no standardized testing requirement, no shared threshold for what constitutes “AI-assisted,” and no guidance on which detection tools if any should be used. Each institution is still interpreting this independently.
In practical terms: my CEGEP’s implementation differs significantly from the one two campuses over. We use a portfolio and process documentation approach. They are still primarily using detection scores and having very difficult conversations with students as a result.
anyone else in the CEGEP system want to share how their institution interpreted the March update?
5 Replies
Join the discussion.
Log In to Reply
Le constat est juste. La politique de la Fédération des cégeps laisse encore trop de latitude à chaque institution, ce qui crée exactement la variation que vous décrivez. Mon cégep a opté pour l'approche portfolio mais ce n'est pas universel.
Ce qui me préoccupe davantage: l'absence de formation systématique des enseignants sur ces nouvelles politiques. On nous dit quoi faire sans nous donner les outils pour le faire bien. Et sans formation, les enseignants vont répondre de façon incohérente - certains trop sévèrement, d'autres pas du tout.
confirms what Hao et al. (2025) found about institutional variation even within the same system. standardized guidance without standardized implementation produces more confusion than no guidance at all in some cases. sharing this with my colleagues.
from an admin perspective: the update is helpful but the implementation timeline is the problem. mid-semester policy changes require renegotiating course plans, informing students who already started, and updating syllabi. the timing of this directive creates real operational issues for fall planning.
the directive says "encourage critical engagement with AI." that sentence has no implementation in it. anyone can comply with that and do nothing.
j'ai participé à la consultation régionale en mars. ce qui était frappant c'est le nombre d'enseignants qui appliquaient déjà des politiques locales très strictes - souvent plus restrictives que ce que le ministère recommande. il va y avoir des incohérences importantes entre établissements même après la directive provinciale.