Sarah Eaton | Learning, Teaching and Leadership

Consequences of Teacher Cheating: A Canadian Case Study

July 3, 2026

A British Columbia arbitrator recently confirmed what the Vernon School District 22 board decided in 2024: Tasha Whitney, a continuing contract teacher at W. L. Seaton Secondary School, will not return to the classroom (Assman, 2026b). The arbitrator dismissed the union’s grievance and upheld her termination for cause. The ruling offers a case study in how academic integrity violations by educators differ from those committed by students, and why the consequences differ, too.

The facts, as reported by Assman (2026a, 2026b), are straightforward. Whitney invigilated a mandatory Grade 12 literacy assessment in June 2024. When one student, identified as CD, joked about having someone else write his exam, Whitney suggested other students who might do it. On the day of the exam, another student, AB, used CD’s login credentials to complete both his own assessment and CD’s, running out the clock on one screen with a video game while completing the other exam on a second screen. Whitney signed documents certifying that both students had written their own assessments. When a colleague noticed the irregularity, Whitney fabricated an explanation. She continued to minimize her role throughout the district investigation and the arbitration hearing that followed.

The arbitrator’s reasoning matters as much as the outcome. Had Whitney told the truth from the outset, the arbitrator indicated that termination would have been excessive; the district could have treated the incident as a serious error made under personal strain, with progressive discipline restoring her employment (Assman, 2026b). The union presented medical evidence that Whitney had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety following a violent workplace incident in October 2023, and a psychiatric assessment acknowledged that this anxiety likely affected her decision-making. The assessment found no causal link between the diagnosis and the fraudulent conduct itself. Dishonesty, sustained over months and through a formal investigation, severed the trust her employment required.

This distinction between error and deceit connects to an argument I make with my co-author Zeenath Reza Khan in our own work on ethics in teacher training. Zeenath and I contend that teacher training programs must include explicit instruction in ethical decision-making, not compliance training alone, because teachers model integrity for the students in their care (Eaton & Khan, 2022). The arbitrator’s finding in the Whitney case reflects this same principle, holding that facilitating cheating violated Whitney’s fiduciary duty to model ethical behaviour for the youth in her charge (Assman, 2026b).

A student who cheats on an exam violates a rule. A teacher who helps a student cheat, then invigilates the fraud, signs false certification documents, and misleads colleagues and investigators, violates the basis on which the school entrusts her with that role. I have written, with Zeenath Reza Khan, that academic integrity education for pre-service teachers remains inconsistent internationally, with many programs offering little beyond a brochure or a single workshop (Eaton & Khan, 2022). The Whitney case suggests what happens when that gap is left unaddressed at the level of professional judgement, particularly when a person under stress reaches for concealment rather than disclosure.

The arbitrator’s finding leaves a narrow but clear lesson for the profession: honesty in the aftermath of a mistake changes what an institution can offer in response. Whitney’s initial decision to encourage a workaround may have originated in a lapse of judgement. Her subsequent choice to lie repeatedly, to a colleague, to school administrators, and to an independent investigator, closed the door that honesty could have left open.

References

Assman, B. (2026a, February 10). Vernon teacher fired for helping student cheat on an exam. Castanet. https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/598708/Vernon-teacher-fired-for-helping-student-cheat-on-an-exam

Assman, B. (2026b, June 23). Vernon teacher’s firing upheld, after facilitating exam cheating and lying to cover it up. Castanet. https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/621104/Vernon-teacher-s-firing-upheld-after-facilitating-exam-cheating-and-lying-to-cover-it-up

Eaton, S. E., & Khan, Z. R. (2022). Ethics in teacher training: An overview. In S. E. Eaton & Z. R. Khan (Eds.), Ethics and integrity in teacher education (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16922-9_1

___________

Share this post – Consequences of Teacher Cheating: A Canadian Case Study https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/07/03/consequences-of-teacher-cheating-a-canadian-case-study/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Consequences of Teacher Cheating: A Canadian Case Study | academic integrity, education | Tagged: academic integrity, academic misconduct, British Columbia, Canada, education, exam cheating, K-12, Sarah Eaton, Sarah Elaine Eaton, speaker, teacher professional conduct | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

AI, Postplagiarism and K-12 Education in New Brunswick, Canada

April 25, 2026

This week, I had the opportunity to take part in two leadership events led by the New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development focused on artificial intelligence and education.

On April 22 I gave a workshop on academic integrity and assessment with generative AI to educational leaders, academics, and professional staff at the AI Leadership Summit. The next day, I delivered a keynote address on postplagiarism, education and artificial intelligence at a province-wide summit on AI and education attended by almost 250 people from across the province.

I had an opportunity to meet and speak with the Hon. Claire Johnson, Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Deputy Minister Ryan Donaghy, and Assistant Deputy Minister Tiffany Bastin, all of whom commented on how postplagiarism aligns with their provincial strategy and policy vision.

A group of people standing together. — (Left to right: Sarah Elaine Eaton, Sarah Rankin, Ryan Donaghy, Hon. Claire Johnson, Tiffany Bastin, Geoff Edwards, Robert Martellaci – April 2026, New Brunswick AI and Education Summit)

It was announced during the event that preparations are underway to integrate artificial intelligence into the provincial digital literacy strategy and educational curricula across all levels and subjects, with a plan to have AI fully integrated in time for the beginning of the next school year, starting in September, 2026. Staff at the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development are in the midst of updating curricula as we speak.

To my knowledge, New Brunswick is the first province or territory in Canada to integrate AI across the K-12 curriculum. They are investing in professional learning for leaders, education specialists and developers, and educators, to improve and increase AI literacy levels throughout the education sector. Throughout the two days, I spoke with leaders and educators from across the province who repeated the same message to me, that postplagiarism was a refreshing and forward-thinking way to think about academic integrity, ethics, and student success in an AI-enabled world.

It was exciting and energizing to be brought into education conversations that connected policy, pedagogy, and postplagiarism. The real world applications of postplagiarism are taking shape and I am inspired to see how others are are findings ways to implement the framework as a future-focused roadmap for ethical learning and teaching with advanced technologies.

About the author: Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and the Director of the Postplagiarism Research Lab in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary.

______________

Reposted from original: AI, Postplagiarism and K-12 Education in New Brunswick, Canada – https://postplagiarism.com/2026/04/25/ai-postplagiarism-and-k-12-education-in-new-brunswick-canada/

Comments Off on AI, Postplagiarism and K-12 Education in New Brunswick, Canada | academic integrity, artificial intelligence, education, plagiarisim, students, technology | Tagged: academic integrity, ai, artificial intelligence, Canada, ChatGPT, curriculum, curriculum development, digital literacy, education, ethics, framework, Gen AI, K-12, Literacy, New Brunswick, postplagiarism, Sarah Eaton, Sarah Elaine Eaton, speaker, student success, technology | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Breaking Barriers: Academic Integrity and Neurodiversity

November 20, 2025

When we talk about academic integrity in universities, we often focus on preventing plagiarism and cheating. But what if our very approach to enforcing these standards is unintentionally creating barriers for some of our most vulnerable students?

My recent research explores how current academic integrity policies and practices can negatively affect neurodivergent students—those with conditions like ADHD, dyslexia, Autism, and other learning differences. Our existing systems, structures, and policies can further marginalize students with cognitive differences.

The Problem with One-Size-Fits-All

Neurodivergent students face unique challenges that can be misunderstood or ignored. A dyslexic student who struggles with citation formatting isn’t necessarily being dishonest. They may be dealing with cognitive processing differences that make these tasks genuinely difficult. A student with ADHD who has trouble managing deadlines and tracking sources is not necessarily lazy or unethical. They may be navigating executive function challenges that affect time management and organization. Yet our policies frequently treat these struggles as potential misconduct rather than as differences that deserve support.

Yet our policies frequently treat these struggles as potential misconduct rather than as differences that deserve support.

The Technology Paradox for Neurodivergent Students

Technology presents a particularly thorny paradox. On one hand, AI tools such as ChatGPT and text-to-speech software can be academic lifelines for neurodivergent students, helping them organize thoughts, overcome writer’s block, and express ideas more clearly. These tools can genuinely level the playing field.

On the other hand, the same technologies designed to catch cheating—especially AI detection software—appear to disproportionately flag neurodivergent students’ work. Autistic students or those with ADHD may be at higher risk of false positives from these detection tools, potentially facing misconduct accusations even when they have done their own work. This creates an impossible situation: the tools that help are the same ones that might get students in trouble.

Moving Toward Epistemic Plurality

So what’s the solution? Epistemic plurality, or recognizing that there are multiple valid ways of knowing and expressing knowledge. Rather than demanding everyone demonstrate learning in the exact same way, we should design assessments that allow for different cognitive styles and approaches.

This means:

Rethinking assessment design to offer multiple ways for students to demonstrate knowledge
Moving away from surveillance technologies like remote proctoring that create anxiety and accessibility barriers
Building trust rather than suspicion into our academic cultures
Recognizing accommodations as equity, not as “sanctioned cheating”
Designing universally, so accessibility is built in from the start rather than added as an afterthought

What This Means for the Future

In the postplagiarism era, where AI and technology are seamlessly integrated into education, we move beyond viewing academic integrity purely as rule-compliance. Instead, we focus on authentic and meaningful learning and ethical engagement with knowledge.

This does not mean abandoning standards. It means recognizing that diverse minds may meet those standards through different pathways. A student who uses AI to help structure an essay outline isn’t necessarily cheating. They may be using assistive technology in much the same way another student might use spell-check or a calculator.

Call to Action

My review of existing research showed something troubling: we have remarkably little data about how neurodivergent students experience academic integrity policies. The studies that exist are small, limited to English-speaking countries, and often overlook the voices of neurodivergent individuals themselves.

We need larger-scale research, global perspectives, and most importantly, we need neurodivergent students to be co-researchers and co-authors in work about them. “Nothing about us without us” is not just a slogan, but a call to action for creating inclusive academic environments.

Key Messages

Academic integrity should support learning, not create additional barriers for students who already face challenges. By reimagining our approaches through a lens of neurodiversity and inclusion, we can create educational environments where all students can thrive while maintaining academic standards.

Academic integrity includes and extends beyond student conduct; it means that everyone in the learning system acts with integrity to support student learning. Ultimately, there can be no integrity without equity.

Read the whole article here:
Eaton, S. E. (2025). Neurodiversity and academic integrity: Toward epistemic plurality in a postplagiarism era. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2583456

______________

Share this post: Breaking Barriers: Academic Integrity and Neurodiversity – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/11/20/breaking-barriers-academic-integrity-and-neurodiversity/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Breaking Barriers: Academic Integrity and Neurodiversity | academic integrity, artificial intelligence, education, equity, inclusion, neurodivergence, neurodiversity, plagiarisim, postplagiarism, students | Tagged: academic integrity, adhd, artificial intelligence, autism, ChatGPT, education, GenAI, higher education, mental health, neurodiversity, Sarah Eaton, Sarah Elaine Eaton, speaker, student success, technology | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Beyond Student Compliance: Building a Culture of Shared Academic Integrity

November 17, 2025

The recent court case in British Columbia, Canada, involving a student suing instructors for alleged plagiarism at University Canada West raises an uncomfortable but important question: Should academic integrity policies apply only to students?

In this case, the court dismissed the lawsuit, noting that the university’s academic integrity policy explicitly applied to students, but not faculty. Although the legal reasoning is sound, the ethical implications are profound.

Integrity Is a Shared Responsibility

Academic integrity is not a student-only obligation. As Julia Christensen Hughes and I pointed out in our 2022 chapter on why academic integrity is about more than student cheating, faculty members are role models and gatekeepers of scholarly standards. When instructors are exempt from integrity policies, institutions risk creating a double standard that erodes trust and credibility.

Why does this matter?

Role Modeling: Faculty are the standard-bearers of scholarly conduct. When instructors fail to uphold integrity, it undermines the credibility of the entire educational process. This is an idea repeated over and over again in the Second Handbook of Academic Integrity and one that emerged in the Comprehensive Academic Integrity Framework: academic integrity includes, and extends beyond student conduct.
Trust and Fairness: Students trust that their learning environment is built on fairness. A double standard, where plagiarism policies apply only to students, erodes that trust. As I have written about elsewhere, trust has been a central theme of academic integrity for decades and is a foundation for education and it applies not only to students, but to faculty and administrators as well.
Institutional Reputation: Universities thrive on public confidence in their academic rigour. Ignoring faculty misconduct risks reputational damage far beyond the classroom.

What should change?

Institutions need comprehensive integrity policies that apply to everyone—students, faculty, and administrators. These policies should include clear definitions, reporting mechanisms, and consequences for violations. Academic integrity is a shared responsibility, and everyone in the learning community is accountable.

Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions

Expand and Unify Policy Scope: Ensure academic integrity policies explicitly apply to faculty, staff, and administrators, not just students.
Develop Reporting Mechanisms: Create confidential, transparent processes for reporting and investigating faculty misconduct.
Mandatory Training: Require regular integrity training for faculty, emphasizing ethical scholarship and teaching practices, as well as research ethics.
Institutional Culture: Promote integrity as a shared value through leadership messaging, recognition programs, and open dialogue.
Accountability Framework: Include consequences for faculty breaches in contracts and performance evaluations.

Call to Action

Academic integrity is a foundation of higher education. If we expect students to be honest in their work, then faculty must be held to the same (if not higher) standards. Universities and colleges should act now to close the policy gap, embed integrity in institutional culture, and hold everyone accountable. If we want students to take integrity seriously, faculty must lead by example. Anything less is hypocrisy.