A growing number of institutions have moved from banning AI to allowing it with disclosure, and recent summaries of university policies describe three common models: prohibition, permitted use with disclosure, and integration as a teaching tool. In the middle category, students are expected to explain how they used any tools, yet many teachers have not decided what makes a good disclosure or whether it should affect the grade. Without a standard, statements range from a vague line about using a spell checker to a half page of detail. A short rubric brings order to that variation.

The disclosure is useful for three reasons. It makes honest use visible and safe, it gives you information about how students are actually working outside your sight, and it encourages reflection on what the tool contributed and what it did not. Students who must write the statement think more carefully about where their own ideas end and the tool's suggestions begin, which is itself a valuable habit.

The statement should remain a small part of the assignment and should not be punitive. If students fear that admitting to permitted use will lower their grade, they will simply stop disclosing, and you will lose the information you were trying to gather. Grade the quality and honesty of the explanation, not the amount of AI used within the rules, so that candor is never the riskier choice.

What a good disclosure includes

A strong statement names the tool, describes the specific task it was used for, and explains what the student did with the output. For example, a student might say they asked a chatbot for counterarguments to their claim, selected one, and rewrote it in their own words with a quotation from the text. That level of detail lets you see where the student's thinking began and ended.

• Tool and purpose: names the tool and what the student asked it to do.
• Student contribution: explains how the student evaluated, changed, or rejected the output.
• Boundaries: confirms that final sentences and ideas are the student's own, within class rules.
• Reflection: identifies one way the tool helped and one limitation noticed.
• Honesty and clarity: gives a specific, believable account rather than a generic statement.

Scoring levels that stay simple

Use three performance levels so scoring stays quick: complete and specific, present but vague, and missing or inaccurate. Assign a small number of points, perhaps five percent of the assignment, so the statement matters without overwhelming the main grade. Provide one model example for each level, with the student details removed, so students know exactly what you expect before they write their own.

Make clear that an incomplete disclosure leads first to a revision opportunity rather than a penalty. A student who left out a tool they used can correct the record, with the only cost being a lower rubric score on that portion of the assignment. This approach reinforces honesty, avoids turning every omission into a disciplinary matter, and keeps the focus on the learning goals of the course.

Cross-check the statement against the work

The disclosure is most meaningful when it matches the writing. If a student says they used AI only for grammar checking but the essay reads far more polished than their in-class work, a friendly conversation about the process is appropriate. Treat mismatches as a reason to ask questions, not as proof of wrongdoing, since detection tools alone are unreliable and can harm students who did nothing wrong.

Pairing the statement with draft history or a brief oral explanation strengthens the evidence considerably. Students who genuinely wrote and revised the essay can usually describe their decisions easily, naming the paragraph they restructured or the quotation they swapped out and why. This keeps the process fair for honest students and builds a record of authentic effort that you can point to if questions ever arise.

Keeping the workload manageable

Scoring a short statement adds only a minute or two per student, but across a large class that time accumulates quickly. A rubric with clear levels, combined with a first-pass tool that proposes scores and comments for the teacher to review, keeps the time reasonable without removing judgment. The teacher confirms every score, so the final decision about honesty and quality remains with a person who knows the student.

Review the disclosures as a set at the end of each unit to learn how students are using tools. Patterns, such as many students using AI to start a draft, can inform your instruction and your policy updates. The disclosure then becomes not just a compliance step but a source of insight into how writing is changing in your classroom.