Included are important news articles from various sources that pertain to education today. Occassionally there are a few tips and tricks relating to education throughout the blog.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Google unveils online reference tool

From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=54679
From eSchool News staff and wire service reports

Primary Topic Channel: Web Resources

Wikipedia-like site allows anyone to contribute ... but not anonymously

For better or worse, Wikipedia--the online reference site that lets anyone add to its ever-growing body of knowledge--has changed the nature of internet research. Now Google is taking the wraps off a free internet encyclopedia of its own, designed to give people a chance to show off--and profit from--their expertise on any topic.

The service, dubbed "knol" in reference to a unit of knowledge, had been limited to an invitation-only audience of contributors and readers for the past seven months.

Now anyone with a Google login will be able to submit an article and, if they choose, have ads displayed through the internet search leader's marketing system. The contributing author and Google will share any revenue generated from the ads, which are supposed to be related to the topic covered in the knol.

The advertising option could encourage people to write more entries about commercial subjects than the more academic topics covered in traditional encyclopedias.

Since Google disclosed its intention to build knol (see "Google working on internet encyclopedia"), it has been widely viewed as the company's answer to Wikipedia, which has emerged as one of the web's leading reference tools by drawing upon the collective wisdom of unpaid, anonymous contributors.

But Google views knol more as a supplement to Wikipedia than a competitor, said Cedric Dupont, a Google product manager. Google reasons that Wikipedia's contributors will be able to use some of the expertise shared on knol to improve Wikipedia's existing entries.

With a seven-year head start on knol, Wikipedia already has nearly 2.5 million English-language articles and millions more in dozens of other languages.

Knol is starting out with several hundred entries. A quick perusal of the site on July 23 revealed the vast majority related to health issues, such as seasonal allergies or cataracts. Only a handful of entries--such as "Feminist Analytic Philosophy" and "The Decline of Women in Computer Science from 1940 to 1982"--covered what might be considered academic subjects as of press time.

Unlike Wikipedia, knol requires the authors to identify themselves to help the audience assess the source's credibility.

Google doesn't intend to screen the submissions for accuracy, Dupont said, and instead will rely on its search formulas to highlight the articles that readers believe are credible. (Readers can rate each article on a scale of one to five stars, just as they rate videos on Google's YouTube.)

Google has had mixed success so far in its attempts to expand beyond its ubiquitous search engine, which generates most of its profits. While products such as its eMail service and web-based productivity software have been hits, other forays--like a listing system called "Base" and a social network called Orkut--haven't fared as well.

Links:
Knol
Wikipedia

Warning raises new fears of cell-phone risks

From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=54672
From eSchool News staff and wire service reports


Primary Topic Channel: Research

Limit cell-phone use, cancer researcher cautions--though studies have shown no conclusive link

A warning from the head of a prominent cancer research institute has rekindled fears about the possible health risks associated with extensive cell-phone use, especially among children--and it comes as a growing number of children are using cell phones to communicate.

Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff on July 23: Limit cell-phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.

Herberman's warning is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell-phone use, as well as a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Herberman is basing his alarm on early, unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science, and he believes people should take action now--especially when it comes to children.

"At the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.

No other major academic cancer research institutions have sounded such an alarm about cell-phone use. But Herberman's advice is sure to raise concern among many cell-phone users--especially parents and educators.

Nearly one out of every two tweens (kids between 10 and 13 years old) and 83 percent of teens in the United States now own a cell phone, according to new data from Chicago-based C&R Research.

In the memo Herberman sent to about 3,000 faculty and staff, he says children should use cell phones only for emergencies, because their brains are still developing.

Adults should keep the phone away from their head and use the speakerphone feature or a wireless headset, he says. He even warns against using cell phones in public places such as a bus, because this exposes others to the phone's electromagnetic fields.

The issue that concerns some scientists--though nowhere near a consensus--is electromagnetic radiation, especially its possible effects on children. It is not a major topic in conferences of brain specialists.

A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies, including some that Herberman cites, with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes: "We found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."

Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.

"If there is a risk from these products--and at this point, we do not know that there is--it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency web site.

Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell-phone use to possible adverse health effects, including cancer."

"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell-phone use," he wrote in his July 23 memo.

A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, director of the university's center for environmental oncology.

"The question is, do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain?" she said in an interview with the Associated Press. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."

Of concern are the still unknown effects of more than a decade of cell-phone use, with some studies raising alarms, said Davis, a former health adviser in the Clinton Administration.

She said 20 different groups have endorsed the advice the Pittsburgh cancer institute gave, and authorities in England, France, and India have cautioned against children's use of cell phones.

Herberman and Davis point to a massive, ongoing research project known as Interphone, involving scientists in 13 nations, mostly in Europe. Results already published in peer-reviewed journals from this project aren't so alarming, but Herberman is citing work not yet published.

The published research focuses on more than 5,000 cases of brain tumors. The U.S. National Research Council, which isn't participating in the Interphone project, reported in January that the brain tumor research had "selection bias." That means it relied on people with cancer to remember how often they used cell phones. It is not considered the most accurate research approach.

The largest published study, which appeared in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2006, tracked 420,000 Danish cell-phone users, including thousands who had used the phones for more than 10 years. It found no increased risk of cancer among those using cell phones.

A French study based on Interphone research and published in 2007 concluded that regular cell-phone users had "no significant increased risk" for three major types of nervous system tumors. It did note, however, that there was "the possibility of an increased risk among the heaviest users" for one type of brain tumor, but that needs to be verified in future research.
Earlier research also has found no connection.

Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell-phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell-phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.

"We certainly don't know of any mechanism by which radiofrequency exposure would cause a cancerous effect in cells. We just don't know this might possibly occur," Muscat said.

Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy, a type of radiation that is a form of electromagnetic radiation, according to the National Cancer Institute. Though studies are being done to see if there is a link between it and tumors of the brain and central nervous system, there is no definitive link between the two, the institute says on its web site.

"If a person feels compelled [to] take precautions in reducing the amount of electromagnetic radio waves through [his body], by all means [he] should do so," said Dan Catena, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society. "But at the same time, we have to remember there's no conclusive evidence that links cell phones to cancer, whether it's brain tumors or other forms of cancer."

Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry, said the group believes there is a risk of misinforming the public if science isn't used as the ultimate guide on the issue.

"When you look at the overwhelming majority of studies that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals around the world, you'll find no relationship between wireless usage and adverse health affects," Farren said.

Frank Barnes, who chaired the January report from the National Research Council, said "the jury is out" on how hazardous long-term cell phone use might be.

Speaking from his cell phone July 23, the professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder said he takes no special precautions in his own phone use. And he offered no specific advice to people worried about the matter.

Barnes said it's up to each individual to decide what, if anything, to do. If people use a cell phone instead of having a land line, "that may very well be reasonable for them," he said.

Susan Juffe, a 58-year-old Pittsburgh special education teacher, heard about Herberman's cell-phone advice on the radio earlier in the day.

"Now, I'm worried. It's scary," she said.

She says she'll think twice about allowing her 10-year-old daughter Jayne to use a cell phone.

"I don't want to get [brain cancer], and I certainly don't want you to get it," she explained to her daughter.

Sara Loughran, a 24-year-old doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh, sat in a bus stop July 23 chatting on her cell phone with her mother. She also had heard the news earlier in the day, but was not as concerned.

"I think if they gave me specific numbers and specific information and it was scary enough, I would be concerned," Loughran said, planning to call her mother again in a matter of minutes. "Without specific numbers, it's too vague to get me worked up."

Links:
Advice from the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
Food and Drug Administration on cell phones

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The End of School as We Know It?

From: Teachaer Magazine
http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2008/07/23/42tln_norton.h19.html?tmp=189202055
edited by John Norton, TLN moderator

When a member of our TLN daily discussion forum asks a big question that demands fresh thinking, the responses can pile up faster than a stack of memos from administration. Not long ago, Bill popped this question: “Will technology change school organization as we know it?” He wrote, in part:

I'm reading Clay Shirky's new book, Here Comes Everybody. In it, he explores how technology is changing human interactions—and he shares an interesting example:

In 2007, several conservative parishes of the Episcopal Church in Virginia voted to break away from the American branch of their church. The parishes chose to align themselves with the Nigerian branch of the Episcopal Church—whose views aligned better with theirs.

Shirky argues that this shows a shift in our thinking about how we organize ourselves. Typically, humans have used geography as the primary factor when determining how to join together with others. Technology has made it possible to align with anyone, however distant, based on like-minded beliefs or other factors.

So my question is this: Will we eventually see similar changes based on the ways people think about schools?

Right now, in the public school sector, most people send their students to schools based on geography. You go to the building that is closest to you, whether you are satisfied with that building or not.

Is it possible that technology may change all of that and allow families to select schools based on design and ideas that best represent their personal preferences and values instead of choosing schools based on physical location?

And if so, how will that change our work as teachers? What impact will it have on us as taxpayers? On our nation's guarantee of providing a sound basic education for all children? On any efforts at all to provide a uniform curriculum?

Renee replied:

Interesting ideas, Bill. There is much talk in many circles right now about the 24/7 digital classroom and what "schools" of the future will look like. A meeting I attended last summer at Aspen Institute asked exactly that question, and the consensus among everyone EXCEPT the educators in the room was that schools of the future would certainly not be brick-and-mortar places or limited by geography.

At the very least, technology makes it possible for us to have a more fluid concept of enrollment for students and assignments for teachers. The question is—will this necessarily make the quality of that education better?

Parents could theoretically have greater (dare I say it) “choice” in the source of their children's instruction. Will school systems and legislatures make it possible for students to receive full credit for “a la carte” educations? Will colleges and jobs accept students thus prepared? Are they already accepting them?

Can you envision teachers as freelancing professionals, advertising to attract students (sort of like Socrates or Aristotle)? "Schools" might become learning cooperatives where several educators work together like lawyers or doctors in a practice together to provide either specialized or comprehensive learning services. (This could all be virtual, of course.) To quote one of my favorite authors ... "Oh, the places we could go!"

Marjorie wrote:

We’ve had open enrollment for a long time in our system—before technology. Parents can open-enroll their students in any school in the district (or state, if there is space). Here, space is supposed to be based on lottery. I would not have had my son in this public system if it were not for the open enrollment option to a diverse experiential school instead of the very traditional affluent neighborhood school.

However, it has also led to some big problems with what our district is now calling “stratification.” Without relying too much on euphemisms, what has happened is that as the population of certain schools became increasingly Latino, more and more of the middle and upper middle class liberal white parents in the neighborhood became uncomfortable and open-enrolled their kids in schools with more “familiar” demographics. Generally, it is the kids who are already privileged who have the means and desire to leave their neighborhoods. Would this happen in a virtual setting as well?

Kim wrote:

I think I'm an old fuddy-duddy who just doesn't see technology being as completely revolutionary in education as others do. There are still too many jobs—in fact entire career fields—where computer skills are a minimal part of the job. And for most students (at least most students that I work with), the primary draw is still the social interactions that they get during the day. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't give up my SmartBoard, document camera, or video streaming for anything, but the academics are only part of the reason kids come to school.

My high school is piloting a tech academy. It is project-based, they have their own bell schedule, and the kids are all assigned their own laptops. The kids have Internet access 24/7 and are supposed to be completely paperless (which drives their English teacher a little nuts because he is an English teacher and loves books). After the first semester, several kids dropped out because of the social limitations they felt in that program. Several more have opted out for next year so that they can go back to their districted schools to be closer to their friends. Athletic programs, music programs, drama, and art programs will also draw kids to a classroom where hands-on instruction is needed.

I have a friend who recently went to a teaching job that is completely on-line because she wanted to be able to work from home to be with her daughter. She said that most of the kids who are in her classes struggled with conventional school because they were already involved in professional activities or had been predominantly home-schooled. She also has said that she will be sending her daughter to a conventional public school and wouldn't let her stay at home all day just working on a computer.

Cossondra wrote:

Interesting question. I am assuming you mean a more "home-school" approach as the alternative to a traditional program, one which offers a technology-based, online delivery of services.

Such a program would indeed open up a diverse selection of possibilities for education opportunities for students, particularly those not serviced well in traditional settings or those seeking special offerings more geared towards their personal interests.

I do not see such programs replacing traditional schools. One of the most important parts of school is teaching non-content skills, like socialization, working with others, being on time, being prepared, learning to meet deadlines, dealing with a "boss," or simply being responsible to and for others in your group. An independent online learning experience would not be able to provide this skill set like a classroom setting can—and it’s a set often identified with “21st Century skills.”

Ellen wrote:

Bill wrote: Right now, in the public school sector, most people send their students to schools based on geography. You go to the building that is closest to you, whether you are satisfied with that building or not.

Not necessarily. I teach at a public charter school where kids from outside the city with long commutes attend. My school is a classic example of a school community aligned with people with similar values and beliefs about education, from the staff to the parents and children.

Speaking as someone who feels (almost) every day as if she's died and gone to heaven, I think it's wonderful. I love that my school is a school of choice. We work hard to include all of our stakeholders—parents, children, teachers—in our thinking and decision-making. Our school is supported by most of the people there because they've chosen us. Do we all agree 100%? Of course not! But when there is common agreement about some basic philosophical and pedagogical issues, as well as what we're trying to do with children, it makes everyone's jobs easier.

And responding to another question Bill asked, I'm going to say a "uniform" curriculum doesn't seem like something to strive for, necessarily. What is wrong with individualizing schools and curriculum to meet the needs of the specific children and families who are there? The needs differ from school to school; one-size-fits-all is ludicrous. I think the move toward more choice is good for teachers and students ... and their families. Or at least that's been my experience.

Mark wrote:

What schools produce today does not match what business requires. I believe that technology is coming to the point where there will be other options that are acceptable to employers.

In the chapter of Shirky’s book called “Publish, Then Filter,” there are two passages that really made me stop and think about what was going to happen to education. The first one is:

“. . . when new technology appears, previously impossible things start occurring. If enough of those impossible things are important and happen in a bundle, quickly, the change becomes a revolution. The hallmark of a revolution is that the goals of the revolution cannot be contained by the institutional structure of the existing society. As a result, either the revolutionaries are put down, or some of those institutions are altered, replaced, or destroyed.”

Schools’ bans on cell phones and iPods as well as highly restrictive content filtering, in my eyes, are schools’ attempts to “put down the revolutionaries.” I don’t know how much longer this will hold the revolutionaries at bay. How successful have recording companies been in reducing file sharing by suing the people who are sharing files?

The second passage:

“Many institutions we rely on today will not survive this change without significant alteration, and the more an institution or industry relies on information as its core product, the greater and more complete the change will be.”

Dissemination of information is the reason for the existence of schools. I think education is ill-prepared to deal with the change that is coming.

Ellen replied:

Mark said, “Dissemination of information is the reason for the existence of schools.” I would say that schools need to take a hard look at this viewpoint. With information widely and easily available from a variety of media, and the amount of information we value increasing exponentially, should we be focused on being disseminators of information? Or is a more process-oriented, deeply critical thinking model (where information is embedded) called for?

Nancy wrote:

I want to say something about the shrinking globe and aligning ourselves with those whose views match ours (isn't that the premise on which Fox News was built?)—

I am not excited about transcending "geography is destiny." It's just another manifestation of what Robert Putnam called "bowling alone"—where fear of rubbing elbows with those who are different keeps us from building genuine communities.

I'm a great proponent of virtual relationships, but only if they are accompanied by real human connections—and more importantly, if we are not allowed to escape our moral obligations to get along with, even care for, our neighbors, putting self-interests aside.

A couple of years ago, someone in TLN shared a video clip on how technology was molding and shaping our media exposure, based on preference. We no longer have to watch the same news as everyone else, or go to churches, schools, workplaces, or civic organizations where there is diversity. We can hang out with "just our kind" and never have to challenge our thinking. We can see and hear only what and who we are comfortable with. Is that an education? I think not.

Mark replied:

I guess part of what I'm saying, Nancy, is that we can stand back and say "that will never happen" and allow others to shape what education becomes or we can embrace the technological shift and shape what the new organization will look like.

I don't think real human connections will ever go away. I think new social structures will take the place of the social interactions children experience at school. There are a lot of opportunities for children to socialize that don't involve school. In my area, there is a relatively small but significant home school population. There are many structures in place that allow these home schooled children to interact. Social interaction is part of what makes us human. I don't see the need to socialize going away because of technology.

Bill opened another door:

Shirky also argues that technology will never replace human interactions primarily because humans are deeply drawn to face-to-face interactions. His point is a simple one: For most people, "digital worlds" and "the real world" aren't different spaces with different people. They are overlapping versions of the same groups. Technology just "greases the wheel" of interactions between individuals.

His quote: "The internet augments real-world social life rather than providing an alternative to it. Instead of becoming a separate cyberspace, our electronic networks are becoming deeply embedded in real life."

So what does this mean for schools? Do they become hybrids? Places where students from across disparate geographical areas primarily interact with one another electronically and then come together a few times a year?

Or do schools themselves stay largely unchanged—with the exception being that learning is extended far beyond the school day by electronic interactions with peers?

Or (as some people have suggested here), do people finally realize that they don't need formal school buildings at all—instead, building networks of learners "practicing" together both online and offline?

Whole Child on Facebook!

From: ACSD SmartBrief

Today marks the launch of ASCD's Whole Child Initiative page on Facebook. The page will help ASCD spread the word to parents, students, and the general public about the importance of ensuring each child is healthy, safe, engaged in learning, supported by caring adults, and academically challenged. It includes background information about the initiative, ASCD's whole child video, a wall where people can leave posts and other content, a discussion board, and feeds to both ASCD's Whole Child and Inservice blogs. Visit the page and take the first step in support of the whole child by becoming a fan today!

Are Google Maps good or evil?

From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/around-the-web/index.cfm?i=54659

Primary Topic Channel: Safety & security

Pop quiz: do you feel more or less secure with the arrival of Google Maps and other online mapping services?

I ran into that question when I got two very different news releases Monday. One argued that Google Maps helps awful people find you, but the other argued Google Maps helps you find awful people.

The first was from an outfit called Stop Child Predators, which launched a campaign to tell parents about the potential ills of Google Maps' Street View, which shows driver's-eye views of countless neighborhoods.

"This technology shows anyone in the world our communities, and exposes not only the routes from the bus stops to homes, but our children, without ever stepping foot in our neighborhoods," said Stacie Rumenap, the executive director of Stop Child Predators, in a statement.

On the other side was the announcement of CriminalSearches.com, a new service from PeopleFinders.com that said it shows where "sex offenders...thieves, violent offenders, murderers, or con artists" live in your neighborhood. The site shows people icons on a Google map; clicking an icon shows a person's photo, description, address, and criminal history.

"In a society where personal safety has become an important concern, CriminalSearches.com provides useful information that will help families feel secure in their neighborhoods and personal lives," PeopleFinders.com said, with President Bryce Lane adding, "We created CriminalSearches.com to help consumers make the most educated decisions about the people they let into their personal lives and the lives of their loved ones."

So what's the verdict? Do online maps creep you out? Or do you feel safer because they enable you to keep an eye out for threats?

Educators struggle with AUP enforcement

From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=54654
By Laura Devaney, Senior Editor, eSchool News


Primary Topic Channel: School Administration

As technology becomes pivotal to instruction, restricting students' access gets trickier

School districts create acceptable-use policies (AUPs) to define what is--and is not--acceptable behavior when using their computer resources. But at a time when computers and internet access are seen as increasingly important tools for instruction, many school leaders are struggling with how best to enforce these policies in the event that students transgress them.

Used to be, there was a simple answer: School leaders took away or restricted a student's computer access. But a movement growing in schools today says taking away a student's access to technology is akin to denying that student valuable learning opportunities--and so many school leaders are now searching for better alternatives.

Students are sophisticated technology users and often surpass the proficiency of teachers, said Jeanne Biddle, technology director for Kentucky's Scott County Schools, which has 13 schools and about 8,000 students.

Biddle's district has filtering systems in place to shield kids from inappropriate internet content, and its IT team works with students to help them understand how to keep safe online and practice responsible digital citizenship, she said.

Most students comply with the district's AUP, but others view it as a challenge to their technical expertise and will try to violate the policy by finding ways around the district's filtering systems, Biddle said.

Biddle and her team worked with the Kentucky School Boards Association to develop an AUP that demonstrates expectations for network use and what the consequences are if students use the district's network inappropriately.

Still, there are some drawbacks to the AUP as it's now written.

"One issue we have is that it has no teeth," Biddle said. "If a student does something inappropriate, do we take away internet access? Would you take a book away from a student if the student wrote in it?"

Biddle said her district is considering other disciplinary measures to confront AUP violations, hoping to address the problem without restricting students' access to learning materials.

It's a challenge about which more discussion "is desperately needed" among school leaders, said Bob Kehr, director of technology for California's Davis Joint Unified School District.

"There needs to be more collaboration and shared knowledge between school administrators responsible for disciplinary decisions and those with enterprise-level technical and security knowledge," Kehr said.

"Installing a keystroke logging program on the teacher's laptop is not the same as using an encrypted proxy to get around [a district's internet] filter--and I don't believe the appropriate discipline for either of these would be to remove internet privileges."

Kehr noted that AUP violations can include much more than inappropriate internet use; they can include such activities as hacking into school system databases or using cell phones to take pictures of other students without their knowledge (such as in locker rooms).

Other educators said they've put students who violated their district's AUP on non-networked machines, such as older laptops or desktops, to complete coursework.

Lori Minnis, technology coordinator for Montana's Cut Bank School District 15, recently discovered that several high school students had violated the district's AUP in varying ways.

"I have to say that it really opened our eyes when it actually came down to the lack of specifics detailed in our AUP" about how to deal with those behaviors, she said. The district has since written more details about enforcement into its policy.

Cut Bank students must sign an agreement accepting the district's AUP, and those students found guilty of violations lost their network or computer privileges or both for varying amounts of time--some for the remainder of the school year--as determined by the school's principal.

"Ultimately, the high school tech teachers had to develop alternative assignments for these students," Minnis said.

Teachers also came up with a plan to give the students computer access without putting them on the network.

"They...opted to set up stand-alone computers so [the students] could complete assignments. This virtually took away from the chance that the student would violate the AUP again," she said.

Because the incidents involved about a dozen students, Minnis said they prompted a "tremendous discussion" among district staff.

"Many felt that we needed to determine whether the use of technology is a privilege or a right in [students'] education," she said. "No matter what, we are entering new territory in student discipline issues and how to handle them."

Links:
Scott County Schools
Davis Joint Unified School District
Cut Bank School District 15

How to handle student AUP violations

Here are links to the AUPs of the districts mentioned in this story, including excerpts describing the disciplinary actions that educators are encouraged to take in enforcing these policies. An example of an AUP in an institution of higher education is also presented. It should be noted, however, that all three K-12 districts said they are reevaluating these disciplinary measures in light of how important technology has become to instruction.

Scott County Schoolshttp://www.dtc.scott.k12.ky.us/technology/aup/index.html

"Any user who violates the terms and conditions of this Acceptable Use policy will experienceimmediate degradation of services to 'read only access.' Loss of privileges may continue for aperiod of up to one (1) calendar year, and/or other disciplinary actions may be enforced as perthe discipline policy. The DTC, STC, or Network Director may convert an account to 'read only access' at any time as required. The DTC, STC, or Network Director, in cooperation with the building administrator, must notify the user, and user's parents in case of a minor, in writing within two weeks informing them of the reason for suspension or termination of an account."


Davis Joint USD
http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/district/studentinternet.pdf

"In the event there is an allegation that a student has violated this policy, the student discipline will be conducted in the manner set forth in the student disciplinary policies and regulations."

Cut Bank School District 15
http://cutbankschools.net/ms/mywebs/techpolicy.htm

"All use of electronic networks shall be consistent with the District's goal of promoting educational excellence by facilitating resource sharing, innovation, and communication. …. The failure of any user to follow the procedures will result in the loss of privileges, disciplinary action, and/or appropriate legal action."

Amherst College
https://cms.amherst.edu/offices/it/about/policies/acceptable

"This Policy applies to all persons who access or use the College's E-Resources (referred to in this Policy as 'users'), including without limitation the faculty, staff, students, alumni, and guests . This Policy applies to all information-technology and other electronic resources of the College. E-Resources may be used only for the purposes authorized by the College. These purposes generally comprise work, study, research, service, or student residential activities consistent with the College's mission and priorities… Above all, use of E-Resources for outside or personal purposes is always a privilege, not a right, and may not interfere with use for College purposes. All use of E-Resources must comply with: All College policies, procedures, and codes of conduct, including those found in the student, faculty, and employee handbooks; all laws and regulations applicable to the user or the College; and all relevant licenses and other contractual commitments of the College, as modified from time to time."