The following North Shore policies will be strictly enforced in my AP Biology class:

Cell phones: Cell phones, iPods, and other personal, non-school issued electronic devices are not permitted in areas other than the cafeteria or courtyard. This is an academic environment and these devices must be turned off and out of sight in all hallways and classroom spaces including the theatre, library, and gymnasium. Devices may be confiscated and turned in to an Assistant Principal. For repeated offenses, the device may retained until it can be picked up by a parent.

What is the IBO Academic Honesty Policy?

Excerpts from "Academic Honesty - IBO Diploma Programme"

See Prezi on academic honesty and plagiarism

"Academic honesty must be seen as a set of values and skills that promote personal integrity and good practice in teaching, learning and assessment. It is influenced and shaped by a variety of factors including peer pressure, culture, parental expectations, role modelling and taught skills. Although it is probably easier to explain to candidates what constitutes academic dishonesty, with direct reference to plagiarism, collusion and cheating in examinations, whenever possible the topic must be treated in a positive way, stressing the benefits of properly conducted academic research and a respect for the integrity of all forms of assessment for the Diploma Programme."

"An authentic piece of work is one that is based on the candidate’s individual and original ideas with the ideas and work of others fully acknowledged. Therefore all assignments, written or oral, completed by a candidate for assessment must wholly and authentically use that candidate’s own language and expression. Where sources are used or referred to, whether in the form of direct quotation or paraphrase, such sources must be fully and appropriately acknowledged."

"Although the Regulations clearly define plagiarism as the representation of the ideas or work of another person as the candidate’s own, this definition alone does not provide candidates with sufficient information or guidance on what constitutes plagiarism and how it can be avoided. Candidates must receive guidance on when and how to include acknowledgments in their work. Similarly, the practice of paraphrasing is a skill that must be taught so that candidates do not simply copy a passage, substitute a few words with their own and then regard this as their own authentic work. When using the words of another person it must become habitual practice for a candidate to use quotation marks, indentation or some other accepted means of indicating that the wording is not their own. Furthermore, the source of the quotation (or paraphrased text) must be clearly identified along with the quotation and not reside in the bibliography alone. Using the words and ideas of another person to support one’s arguments is a fundamental part of any academic endeavour, and how to integrate these words and ideas with one’s own is an important skill that must be taught."

"The Regulations define malpractice as behaviour that results in, or may result in, the candidate or any other candidate gaining an unfair advantage in one or more assessment component. Malpractice includes:
• plagiarism: this is defined as the representation of the ideas or work of another person as the candidate’s own
• collusion: this is defined as supporting malpractice by another candidate, as in allowing one’s work to be copied or submitted for assessment by another
• duplication of work: this is defined as the presentation of the same work for different assessment components and/or diploma requirements
• any other behaviour that gains an unfair advantage for a candidate or that affects the results of another candidate (for example, taking unauthorized material into an examination room, misconduct during an examination, falsifying a CAS record)."

"For most assessment components candidates are expected to work independently with support from their subject teacher (or supervisor in the case of extended essays). However, there are occasions when collaboration with other candidates is permitted or even actively encouraged, for example, in the requirements for internal assessment. Nevertheless, the final work must be produced independently, despite the fact that it may be based on similar data. This means that the abstract, introduction, content and conclusion or summary of a piece of work must be written in each candidate’s own words and cannot therefore be the same as another candidate’s. If, for example, two or more candidates have exactly the same introduction to an assignment, the final award committee will construe this as collusion, and not collaboration. It is essential that both teachers and candidates are aware of the distinction between collaboration and collusion. Teachers must pay particular attention to this important distinction to prevent allegations of collusion against their candidates."

"The presentation of the same work for different assessment components and/or diploma requirements is a duplication of work and therefore constitutes malpractice. If, for example, a candidate submits the same or a very similar piece of work for the in-depth study in history internal assessment and for an extended essay in history, this would be viewed as malpractice. However, it is perfectly acceptable for a candidate to study one aspect of a topic for internal assessment and another aspect of the same topic for an extended essay."

"Malpractice most commonly involves collusion or plagiarism. However, there are other ways in which a candidate may commit malpractice and thereby breach the Regulations. The following examples of malpractice do not constitute an exhaustive list and refer mainly to the written examinations:
• taking unauthorized material into an examination room (for example, an electronic device other than a permitted calculator, own rough paper, notes, a mobile phone) regardless of whether this material is used or potentially contains information pertinent to the examination
• misconduct during an examination, including any attempt to disrupt the examination or distract another candidate
• exchanging or in any way supporting, or attempting to support, the passing on of information that is related to the examination
• copying the work of another candidate
• failing to comply with the instructions of the invigilator or other member of the school’s staff responsible for the conduct of the examination
• impersonating another candidate
• stealing examination papers
• using an unauthorized calculator during an examination
• disclosing or discussing the content of an examination paper with a person outside the immediate school community within 24 hours of the end of the examination
• fabricating data for an assignment."

International Baccalaureate Organization. Academic Honest: IBO Diploma 
Programme. Cardiff, Wales: International Baccalaureate Organization, 2007. 2-4.