Academic Integrity Policy

This is the document we would hand the University of Canterbury on day one. It is written to be read by a student in thirty seconds and by a university in five minutes, and both readings should reach the same conclusion.

The line

Lighthouse is for understanding and practice. It is never for completing work that will be assessed.

Peer tutoring is ordinary and legitimate. Students have explained things to each other for as long as universities have existed. What makes it misconduct is not that help was given, but that the work submitted was not the student's own.

What is fine

• Explaining a concept the student has not understood
• Working through a practice problem together
• Reviewing marked work the student has already had returned, to understand where it went wrong
• Explaining how to approach a type of problem
• Talking through lecture material, a textbook, or a past exam paper
• Helping someone check their own understanding by asking them questions

What is not

• Doing an assignment, or any part of one, that will be handed in
• Sitting or assisting with a test or exam, online or otherwise
• Writing an essay, or drafting sentences that will be submitted
• Working through the student's actual assessed questions rather than equivalent practice ones
• Providing answers to be copied
• Handing over your own past assignments, tests or model answers for someone to use in work they are doing now
• Anything the student's course or the university has said is not allowed

The simplest test: if the tutor's contribution would end up in something being marked, it is not allowed.

The law

In New Zealand it is a criminal offence to complete, or arrange for someone to complete, an assignment or other required work for a student, to provide answers for an exam they must sit, or to sit it for them, with the intention of giving them an unfair advantage over other students. Advertising that kind of service is an offence too. The fine is up to $10,000. This is section 393 of the Education and Training Act 2020.

Lighthouse will never offer that service, and a tutor who does it through Lighthouse is breaking this policy and may be committing that offence. Australia has a similar law, and in March 2026 its Federal Court fined a large homework help company for providing answers to students' assessment questions. This is why the line above is drawn where it is.

How this is enforced in the product

This is not a policy that sits on a page. It is built into the flow.

Agreement at signup. Every student accepts this policy when they create an account, and every tutor accepts it again when they start tutoring.

Agreement at every session. Both people accept it again before a session can start. Not a link, an actual acceptance, every time.

A reminder on screen. During the session, both people see a reminder that this is for understanding and practice.

Reporting from the session screen. Either person can report that the other asked for, or offered, help with assessed work. It goes straight to a human review queue.

Records. We keep every agreement, every report, and every action taken, for 7 years after the last one involving that person.

Recordings. Online sessions, including the shared whiteboard, are recorded and transcribed by default, so a reported session can be checked against what was actually said. Only our administrators can see the recording. The transcript is seen by administrators, and by the two people in a session only while it is under review. Students can turn recording off in Settings; tutors must allow it while tutoring. Details are in the Privacy Policy.

For tutors: this protects you

If a student asks you to do their assessed work, decline and report it. That is not you causing trouble, it is you protecting yourself.

You are a UC student. If a student you helped is later investigated for misconduct, the record showing that you refused and reported it is the difference between being a witness and being a respondent. Use the button.

You will never be penalised on Lighthouse for refusing a request. Declining a session because you were asked to cross the line has no effect on your rating, your eligibility, or your standing.

What happens when something is reported

A person reviews it, and we aim to respond within 2 working days. If you also report a problem with the session while it is running, payment for it is held while it is reviewed.

Depending on what we find we may take no action, issue a warning, remove a tutor's eligibility for a paper, or remove an account entirely. Repeat behaviour results in removal.

We keep the record either way, including where we decide nothing happened.

Our relationship with the University of Canterbury

Lighthouse is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the University of Canterbury. It is a service that UC students choose to use.

We take the university's academic integrity rules seriously, and this policy is written to sit alongside them rather than against them. Where UC's rules for a particular course are stricter than this policy, UC's rules apply. Some courses restrict collaboration more tightly than others, and it is the student's responsibility to know what their course allows.

If the university has concerns about how Lighthouse is being used, we would rather hear from them than not. We will provide our records of agreements, reports and actions taken on request where we are lawfully able to.

Contact: lighthousetut@gmail.com

What we do not currently do

Stated plainly, because a policy that overstates its own defences is worse than one that does not.

Nobody watches sessions live, and not every session is recorded. Recording is on by default for online sessions, but a student can switch it off and in-person sessions are never recorded. We only look at a recording when a session is reported and a review is requested. So this policy still rests first on agreement, reporting and consequences, with a recording as evidence where one exists.

We think that is the right balance for peer tutoring between adults, and we would rather say so than imply more oversight than we have.