From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=33903&i-d
David A. Splitt
Primary Topic Channel: School Administration
In the June 2001 issue of eSchool News, I began a series of columns on acceptable-use policies (AUPs) and what they should entail. I've covered filtering, plagiarism, and law-breaking in some detail, and I've urged readers not to be vague: A good AUP is a policy document approved by the school board that spells out specific rules of computer conduct and the consequences for breaking these rules.
Now that you've got a solid foundation upon which to work, here's a final checklist of things to look for as you review your own AUPs.
First, make sure your AUP covers all aspects of high-tech use in your school district. Some AUP-drafting committees and school boards get so hung up on insulating their schools from the dangers lurking on the Wicked Wild Web, they forget that even schools without internet connections need an AUP. If you have computers, your AUP needs to address every way they are used, even if the machines aren't web-enabled.
Remember, if your computers have floppy disk or CD drives, anything (and I do mean anything) that can be found on the web could end up downloaded onto a hard drive in your computer lab. If you give students (or faculty and staff, for that matter) access to your system by having slots or drawers that accept portable media, then you must tell them that it is not OK to bring floppies loaded with games, shareware, pirated applications, or digital photos with the faces of the cheerleading squad superimposed on naked bodies.
The simplest policy is often the best. No outside application software of any kind—ever. Any programs loaded onto school computers must be screened and approved. Most schools allow students to transport homework or class assignments on floppies so they can work on home computers. Problems can be minimized if you have a system to screen disks for viruses and limit the types of files that can be uploaded.
The list of hardware dos and don'ts is pretty simple. Your AUP must include rules about respecting copyright. School computers should not be used for private business or personal gain. Vandalism against other computers or the school's information technology system must be on your "forbidden activities" list, along with all forms of hacking. Don't forget to make sure students understand that passwords are of little use if they are shared or published. Put it in your AUP.
Some AUPs are marvels of inclusiveness. All of the lists and explanations and promises and places for Mom and Dad and Junior to sign are there. They have all the proper philosophy for education in the solid state age. They also read like they were written by a committee of lawyers, technocrats, and the folks who write the instructions for how to assemble do-it-yourself backyard jungle gyms and lawnmowers.
This is the No. 1 (and most unforgivable) fault of many AUPs, in my opinion: Someone forgot to have the policy reviewed and rewritten by the English teacher with the best writing skills or (even better) the journalism teacher whose mantra in class is "be concise." Even if your review of your AUP turns up no technical holes or policy lapses, give it a hard look for plain old readability.
The best AUP is a policy that is straightforward and easy to understand. It has a lot of simple sentences and a dearth of dependent clauses. It eschews legalese and fancy educational or technical terms (in other words, it is written to educate and inform rather than impress someone). It uses analogies that compare high-tech offenses to traditional ones: No copies of Penthouse, no porno CDs; threatening eMails are no different from nasty handwritten notes; electronic mailboxes are no more private than student lockers. You get the picture.
Friday, June 1, 2001
Don't write unacceptable acceptable-use policies
From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=33446&i-d
David A. Splitt
Primary Topic Channel: School Administration
By now, you should know that every school district allowing the use of computers and the internet by students, faculty, and staff needs an acceptable-use policy (AUP) to establish the ground rules--and, in fact, most schools already have an AUP. In most cases, the AUP must be read and signed by each user and, if the user is a minor, the student's parent or guardian also must give permission.
While some schools have a special form, in many cases parental consent is accomplished by having the responsible adult sign (or countersign) the same AUP as the student. Either method is perfectly fine. But how can you tell whether your AUP is gonna do the job?
I have read more than a hundred AUPs, many of which arrive via eMail from a variety of sources. AUPs are the bailiwick of everyone from full-time school district IT directors to faculty members who have been dubbed "internet coordinator" on a part-time or ad hoc basis by principals who found out they knew that a WAN was more than a weak smile. Many of these AUPs are pretty good, but few are really well-written--and more than a few are really meaningless collections of vague language that mention computers and the internet.
The worst offenders fail to fulfill the three main reasons for having an AUP in the first place. The first, and core, purpose of an AUP is to establish a clear set of rules for using school computers to access the internet. This means you should make some definite choices, such as whether you will allow users to access chat rooms or subscribe to so-called "Usenet" newsgroups.
The second (and some school lawyers believe the most crucial) reason for an AUP is to provide notice. The AUP must inform users about the rules, limits, and consequences for misuse. More importantly, it must give parents sufficient information so that the permission they give for their minor children is truly "informed" consent.
Finally, the AUP must be a clearly written mechanism for users (and students' parents) to acknowledge that they have gotten notice of the rules and agree to use--or consent to allow their children to use--the internet in the manner allowed by these rules. If your AUP does not do a good job in meeting all three fundamentals, it's time to sharpen the pencils and rework it.
If you question whether your AUP is up to the task, ask yourself whether it really provides an unsophisticated parent who has never sat down in front of a computer and browsed the "wild, wide web" any idea of what his child may be exposed to as part of the internet educational experience.
One of the worst examples to grace my in-box recently came from a Michigan school system that shall remain nameless, but not shameless. The AUP is so vague that parents could not possibly rely on it to obtain any real idea of what they are being asked to consent to. It says, "Members having accounts on the network should be advised that they might locate material that could be considered offensive or controversial. Parents of minors should be aware of the existence of such materials and monitor home usage of the system." Yabbadayabbada ... that's all, folks.
The AUP then asks parents to acknowledge that "as the parent or guardian of this student, I have read the Electronic Access and Use for Educational Purposes Policy. [The school district] has taken precautions to prohibit access to inappropriate materials. However, I also recognize it is impossible for [the school district] to restrict access to all inappropriate materials, and I will not hold them responsible for materials acquired on the network."
Then, based on this underwhelming disclosure, parents are asked to sign the following release: "In consideration for the privilege of using the system ... I hereby release [the school district] and its operators and sponsors and its faculty and staff and all organizations, groups and institutions with which [the school district] is affiliated for any and all claims of any nature arising from my use, my child's use or inability to use, the network."
Of course, this release language is pretty much legally worthless, because it is based on inadequate, vague notice. It's sort of like asking a parent to sign a permission slip for a field trip to an undisclosed location by whatever means the school decides to transport them. In many cases, schools think they must use vague, merely suggestive language in their AUPs, because otherwise parents will withhold permission.
School officials who adopt this broad-brush approach usually agree that an AUP is an important tool. They just don't recognize the need to face the notice issues involved in creating an AUP that is more than just words on paper. If your AUP can't pass the vagueness test, check back in this space over the summer for a few tips on how to give it a tune-up.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=33446&i-d
David A. Splitt
Primary Topic Channel: School Administration
By now, you should know that every school district allowing the use of computers and the internet by students, faculty, and staff needs an acceptable-use policy (AUP) to establish the ground rules--and, in fact, most schools already have an AUP. In most cases, the AUP must be read and signed by each user and, if the user is a minor, the student's parent or guardian also must give permission.
While some schools have a special form, in many cases parental consent is accomplished by having the responsible adult sign (or countersign) the same AUP as the student. Either method is perfectly fine. But how can you tell whether your AUP is gonna do the job?
I have read more than a hundred AUPs, many of which arrive via eMail from a variety of sources. AUPs are the bailiwick of everyone from full-time school district IT directors to faculty members who have been dubbed "internet coordinator" on a part-time or ad hoc basis by principals who found out they knew that a WAN was more than a weak smile. Many of these AUPs are pretty good, but few are really well-written--and more than a few are really meaningless collections of vague language that mention computers and the internet.
The worst offenders fail to fulfill the three main reasons for having an AUP in the first place. The first, and core, purpose of an AUP is to establish a clear set of rules for using school computers to access the internet. This means you should make some definite choices, such as whether you will allow users to access chat rooms or subscribe to so-called "Usenet" newsgroups.
The second (and some school lawyers believe the most crucial) reason for an AUP is to provide notice. The AUP must inform users about the rules, limits, and consequences for misuse. More importantly, it must give parents sufficient information so that the permission they give for their minor children is truly "informed" consent.
Finally, the AUP must be a clearly written mechanism for users (and students' parents) to acknowledge that they have gotten notice of the rules and agree to use--or consent to allow their children to use--the internet in the manner allowed by these rules. If your AUP does not do a good job in meeting all three fundamentals, it's time to sharpen the pencils and rework it.
If you question whether your AUP is up to the task, ask yourself whether it really provides an unsophisticated parent who has never sat down in front of a computer and browsed the "wild, wide web" any idea of what his child may be exposed to as part of the internet educational experience.
One of the worst examples to grace my in-box recently came from a Michigan school system that shall remain nameless, but not shameless. The AUP is so vague that parents could not possibly rely on it to obtain any real idea of what they are being asked to consent to. It says, "Members having accounts on the network should be advised that they might locate material that could be considered offensive or controversial. Parents of minors should be aware of the existence of such materials and monitor home usage of the system." Yabbadayabbada ... that's all, folks.
The AUP then asks parents to acknowledge that "as the parent or guardian of this student, I have read the Electronic Access and Use for Educational Purposes Policy. [The school district] has taken precautions to prohibit access to inappropriate materials. However, I also recognize it is impossible for [the school district] to restrict access to all inappropriate materials, and I will not hold them responsible for materials acquired on the network."
Then, based on this underwhelming disclosure, parents are asked to sign the following release: "In consideration for the privilege of using the system ... I hereby release [the school district] and its operators and sponsors and its faculty and staff and all organizations, groups and institutions with which [the school district] is affiliated for any and all claims of any nature arising from my use, my child's use or inability to use, the network."
Of course, this release language is pretty much legally worthless, because it is based on inadequate, vague notice. It's sort of like asking a parent to sign a permission slip for a field trip to an undisclosed location by whatever means the school decides to transport them. In many cases, schools think they must use vague, merely suggestive language in their AUPs, because otherwise parents will withhold permission.
School officials who adopt this broad-brush approach usually agree that an AUP is an important tool. They just don't recognize the need to face the notice issues involved in creating an AUP that is more than just words on paper. If your AUP can't pass the vagueness test, check back in this space over the summer for a few tips on how to give it a tune-up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)