S1-S6 across subjects: assessment-integrity policy (four task categories, one in-class task per subject per term, a four-step process)

• StageS1-S6
• SubjectAcross subjects
• Learning strandthe basic principles of AI / human-machine communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI
• Official documentsBlueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools · AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools · Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools · Information Literacy Framework for Hong Kong Students · EDB Circular No. 156/2026 · EDB Circular No. 107/2026
• Time to agree itabout 90 minutes to agree the first version at a subject meeting; then reviewed once each term

A photocopiable school assessment-integrity policy: four categories of task (A done by hand, B tools allowed with a declaration, C tools as a process tool, D no tools at all), the category printed on the front of every assessed task, at least one category-A task completed in class in every subject every term, a four-step process for a suspected breach, and the boundary with internal examinations and school-based assessment.

• AudienceTeachers
• ThemeResponsible AI use

• EquipmentEditable Word document (photocopiable on its own); the school's current rules, examination regulations and task records
• Version1.0
• Last updated2026-10-29

The question a policy has to answer is not “did the student use AI” but “should this task have been done with AI at all”.

What this solves

Generative tools separate finishing a task from learning from it: work that can be handed in in ten minutes may have cost the student no thought at all. Schools usually respond in one of two ways, and neither works well.

• Ban everything. The ban cannot be enforced and it teaches nothing: whether a student uses a tool at home is invisible to the school, and “not allowed” says nothing to a teacher about how to set a task worth doing by hand.
• Allow everything, and add “please declare”. The declaration appears, but the task has not changed: a student can still have the whole thing produced for them and add one line at the end.

This policy takes a third route: each subject sorts every assessed task into one of four categories, and the category is printed on the front of the task. Once the sorting is explicit, students know where the line is, teachers know what they are actually assessing, and a suspected breach has a process to follow.

Name. This document is the assessment-integrity policy. Where the term first appears, it states the official English term it corresponds to, academic integrity. The two names mean the same thing, and the document uses “assessment-integrity policy” throughout.

This policy covers subject-level classification and the handling process only. It does not rewrite any task (that is the work of the homework redesign kit), it does not write a student code of conduct (that is the student AI-use code), it does not record a student’s thinking (that is the student AI-use process sheet), and it does not replace a whole-school AI-use policy.

This is a school-based document, not an EDB curriculum requirement. The Education Bureau has published the AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools and the Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools; they set out learning content and principles for learning and teaching, and no equivalent framework or procedure for assessment integrity at secondary level has been issued. The four categories and the four-step process are this policy’s own school-based arrangement.

Purpose

With this policy in place, a school can:

1. Sort every assessed task into one of four categories, and print the category on the front so students meet the line before they start.
2. Keep at least one category-A task completed in class in every subject every term — the one place where a student’s actual process can be seen.
3. Handle a suspected breach in four steps: check the process, hear the student, redo it in school, record only the category and the handling.
4. Draw a clear boundary between this policy and internal examinations and public-examination school-based assessment.
5. Produce a document that can be photocopied on its own, agreed at a subject meeting, and pinned up in a classroom.

The policy takes the values of nurturing the whole person, literacy first, application-oriented practice and technology for good, and in student terms it lands on thinking carefully and distinguishing right from wrong, applying a tool when it is the right time to apply it, human-machine collaboration, and technology for good: the four categories are what “applying it at the right time” looks like in assessment — not a judgement about whether a tool is useful, but a judgement about whether this particular task should use one. It is built around the three learning strands of AI literacy (the basic principles of AI, human-machine communication and collaboration, and reflection on the application of AI), and it asks teachers to provide professional gatekeeping in the design of learning and teaching: a task that cannot show whether a student thought about it is a problem with the task, not with the student.

How to use it

The file is a Word document in six parts, with a classification table, declaration samples and the four-step process attached; each part can be photocopied on its own.

Part 1 — four categories of task (four only)

There are no sub-categories. When a task does not fit, there are two moves: change the task, or place it in one of the four. Adding a fifth category, or grading within one, is not one of them.

Classification is not marking. This policy has no scores, grades or attainment columns, and the categories are not ranked: A is not “better” than D, the requirements are simply different. Rewards and sanctions point to the school rules; this policy sets no penalties of its own.

Part 2 — the category on the front of every assessed task

Every task that is marked carries one line on its front page:

This task is category (A / B / C / D). [For B or C, add the declaration requirement.]

Declaration sample (category B): “This task used ______ for the step of ______. I changed ______ myself, and I can explain why.”

Declaration sample (category C): “This task used ______ at the step of ______. My process record is attached: I asked ______, compared ______, and finally changed ______.”

The line on the front page exists so that the boundary appears before the student starts, rather than in an argument afterwards. A teacher reading it out when handing the task over does more than a sentence written on a report card.

Part 3 — one category-A task in class, per subject, per term

Every subject, every term, has at least one category-A task completed in class. Three notes:

1. This is a floor, not a ceiling: a subject may set more than one, and may use B and C categories in other tasks.
2. “In class” means with the teacher present, under a time limit, and without personal devices or personal accounts. That lesson is the only place in the school where a student’s real process can be observed directly.
3. The task is recorded in the subject’s task record: subject, class, lesson, date, teacher responsible. The record is for the subject itself, not a paper to submit.

Part 4 — four steps for a suspected breach

In this order, every time:

Step 4 is the one most easily broken. The record exists so the task can be fixed next time, not so a label can sit in a student’s file; rewards and sanctions are handled under the school rules, and this policy sets no penalty of its own.

Part 5 — the boundary with internal examinations and school-based assessment

• Internal examinations: handled under the school’s examination regulations. This policy does not cover them.
• School-based assessment in public examinations: set by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. This policy does not cover it; teachers and students follow the authority’s current requirements and guidance.
• What this policy does cover: everyday assessed tasks — classwork, homework, projects, and continuous assessment outside unit tests.

All three boundaries belong in the document, and in the briefing: pulling internal examinations or school-based assessment into a school-based policy means covering the authority’s requirements with a document that has no standing over them, and both sides end up wrong.

Part 6 — how this divides from other resources

This page does classification and the handling process at subject level. Four related but different jobs have their own documents:

• Rewriting individual tasks (especially at P4-P6) — homework redesign kit
• Writing what students do (a code of conduct and classroom posters) — student AI-use code and poster set
• Recording a student’s thinking — student AI-use process sheet
• A whole-school AI-use policy — school AI-use policy template

A suggested order for agreeing it

1. Subject meeting (about 90 minutes): read the four definitions, sort the subject’s current assessed tasks on the spot, and find the one or two that do not fit.
2. Two weeks: the academic affairs team collects the sorting from every subject, aligns the wording, and confirms which lesson carries that term’s category-A task.
3. Staff briefing (about 20 minutes): the four categories, the line on the front page, the four steps, the three boundaries.
4. Review once a term: look at the spread of categories in the record and the number of redos, and adjust the task design — not the penalties.

Review checklist

Before it is agreed, check each of these:

• □ The name is used consistently as the assessment-integrity policy, and the first appearance states the official term it corresponds to, academic integrity.
• □ There are four categories only: no sub-categories, no fifth category.
• □ There is no score, grade or attainment column anywhere, and the categories are not ranked.
• □ Rewards and sanctions point to the school rules; the policy sets no penalty of its own.
• □ It states that the category is printed on the front of every assessed task, with declaration samples for categories B and C.
• □ It states at least one category-A task in class per subject per term, and where that is recorded.
• □ All four steps are present in order (check the process, hear the student, redo it in school, record only the category and the handling), and step 4 explicitly records no label.
• □ It states that an AI-detector score is not used as evidence.
• □ It states that this is a school-based document, not an EDB curriculum requirement, and that no equivalent official assessment-integrity framework exists at secondary level.
• □ It states that internal examinations and public-examination school-based assessment are outside its scope, and that school-based assessment follows the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
• □ No commercial tool or supplier is named anywhere.
• □ The file photocopies on its own: the classification table, the declaration samples and the four-step process each stand complete without another page.

Files

Assessment-integrity policy (Word document, editable and photocopiable)

Six parts, the four-category table, declaration samples for categories B and C, a four-step flow for a suspected breach, and a one-page category sheet that can be photocopied for students. School name, subject, dates and teacher are left blank, and the whole document can be reused and adapted.

Official documents

Every resource in this library is written around the AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools and falls within the policy scope of the Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools.

This resource maps to:

• Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools (three-fold leaflet, p.2): asks schools to set out the strategy, resources and implementation timetable for digital and AI education in their development plan; assessment arrangements are part of that timetable.
• Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.1-6 to 1-10): sets out the three learning strands and progression across four key stages. The four categories sort tasks by which kind of process a given strand can actually be learned through.
• Supplement II: Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.2-4 to 2-9): sets out expectations for using AI across learning, teaching and assessment, and the teacher’s professional gatekeeping, and discusses outsourcing thinking and academic integrity; Appendix III’s foundation unit 7 and advanced unit 5 deal with assessment and feedback and with redesigning assessment. The four categories and the four steps follow it.
• Information Literacy Framework for Hong Kong Students (2024): read alongside this policy where it deals with academic integrity and the use of information.
• EDB Circular No. 156/2026 (Appendix I, sections 3 and 4; Appendix III, foundation unit 7 and advanced unit 5): sections 3 and 4 cover applying AI in learning, teaching and assessment with professional gatekeeping, and outsourcing thinking and academic integrity; the units cover assessment and feedback and redesigning assessment.
• EDB Circular No. 107/2026 (paragraph 4): build digital education into the School Development Plan and/or the Annual School Plan, and keep reviewing it through the self-evaluation cycle; this policy’s termly review can sit inside the same cycle.

Learning strands: the basic principles of AI / human-machine communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI

Official documents page: https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/it-in-edu/debp.html

This page is an independent teaching resource produced by Beets; it is not an official EDB document. The four categories, the four-step process and the record-keeping are this resource’s suggestion, and a school may adapt them to its own circumstances, subject to its school rules and to the requirements of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.

Feedback

If you have comments or questions about this resource, or a suggestion for the next one, tell us on the feedback page.