From: The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121339775502373623.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
This month 3,700 recent college grads will begin Teach for America's five-week boot camp, before heading off for two-year stints at the nation's worst public schools. These young men and women were chosen from almost 25,000 applicants, hailing from our most selective colleges. Eleven per cent of Yale's senior class, 9% of Harvard's and 10% of Georgetown's applied for a job whose salary ranges from $25,000 (in rural South Dakota) to $44,000 (in New York City).
Hang on a second.
Unions keep saying the best people won't go into teaching unless we pay them what doctors and lawyers and CEOs make. Not only are Teach for America salaries significantly lower than what J.P. Morgan might offer, but these individuals go to some very rough classrooms. What's going on?
It seems that Teach for America offers smart young people something even better than money – the chance to avoid the vast education bureaucracy. Participants need only pass academic muster and attend the summer training before entering a classroom. If they took the traditional route into teaching, they would have to endure years of "education" courses to be certified.
The American Federation of Teachers commonly derides Teach for America as a "band-aid." One of its arguments is that the program only lasts two years, barely enough time, they say, to get a handle on managing a classroom. However, it turns out that two-thirds of its grads stay in the education field, sometimes as teachers, but also as principals or policy makers.
More importantly, it doesn't matter that they are only in the classroom a short time, at least according to a recent Urban Institute study. Here's the gist: "On average, high school students taught by TFA corps members performed significantly better on state-required end-of-course exams, especially in math and science, than peers taught by far more experienced instructors. The TFA teachers' effect on student achievement in core classroom subjects was nearly three times the effect of teachers with three or more years of experience."
Jane Hannaway, one of the study's co-authors, says Teach for America participants may be more motivated than their traditional teacher peers. Second, they may receive better support during their experience. But, above all, Teach for America volunteers tend to have much better academic qualifications. They come from more competitive schools and they know more about the subjects they teach. Ms. Hannaway notes, "Students are better off being exposed to teachers with a high level of skill."
The strong performance in math and science seems to confirm that the more specialized the knowledge, the more important it is that teachers be well versed in it. (Imagine that.) No amount of time in front of a classroom will make you understand advanced algebra better.
Teach for America was pleased, but not exactly shocked, by these results. "We have always been a data-driven organization," says spokesman Amy Rabinowitz. "We have a selection model we've refined over the years." The organization figures out which teachers have been most successful in improving student performance and then seeks applicants with similar qualities. "It's mostly a record of high academic achievement and leadership in extracurricular activities."
Sounds like the way the private sector hires. Don't tell the teachers unions.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Mandated Tutoring Not Helping Md., Va. Scores
From: TheWashington Post
By Maria GlodWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 13, 2008; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html
Several States Find 'No Child' Provision Does Little to Improve Test Results
Free tutoring that federal law prescribes to help students at struggling schools has yielded little or no positive effect on student test scores in Virginia, Maryland and several other states, according to early evaluations.
Under the six-year-old No Child Left Behind law, certain schools in which too many students fail math or reading exams must use federal funds to offer after-school or weekend tutoring to students from low-income families. In the 2006-07 school year, $595 million went to the fast-growing industry of for-profit and nonprofit tutoring providers. But it remains unclear whether or how much those extra lessons are boosting student performance, even though the law envisions them as a key way to narrow achievement gaps.
In Virginia, researchers compared the performance last year of students with identical or very similar math scores in 2006 and found that those who were tutored did no better than their peers, according to an analysis the state Department of Education released in April. In a similar comparison of reading scores, students who were tutored lagged behind those who weren't.
Studies in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan and Kentucky also showed that the mandated tutoring, known as "supplemental educational services," didn't bump up test scores.
"This isn't helping poor kids," said Jack Jennings, president and chief executive of the Center on Education Policy in the District, which monitors implementation of the federal law. "All it's doing is taking money out of classrooms and putting it into the hands of private companies."
Jennings said that states don't have the capacity to monitor tutors effectively and that too many lessons aren't designed to build on the skills students learn in school.
In Maryland, students served by most of the state's tutoring providers in 2006 did not outperform students with similar academic profiles who weren't tutored. But students in three of the 29 state-approved programs did make bigger gains.
Steven M. Ross, executive director of the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis, which is conducting evaluations in Virginia, Maryland and several other states, said parents and educators generally give tutors good ratings. But, he said, "we're not seeing a big blip on the radar screen of raising standardized test" scores.
Ross cautioned that the assessments involve a relatively small sample of students. He said that tutoring might be helping them learn but that the help might not immediately translate into higher test scores. Some students who have fallen far behind, he said, could make progress but still fail grade-level tests. Or students might need more time with tutors.
"If I pour one gallon of gasoline in my car . . . I don't say it doesn't work if I don't go 100 miles," Ross said.
Turning to private tutors when public schools fall short is a key provision of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law. Under the law, schools that don't meet test performance goals for two consecutive years must allow students to transfer to higher-performing schools. Schools that fail to make progress for three years must offer private tutoring to children from low-income families. Those that continue to fall short face further sanctions.
As Congress considers revamping the law, the evaluations will fuel debate over whether tutoring is a wise investment.
Doug Mesecar, an assistant deputy secretary of education, said that officials remain confident of the value of the tutoring program but that more needs to be done to ensure quality.
"I think some providers are very effective as they work with students every day," he said. "The challenge we have is to figure out which ones they are."
Education Department officials point to a Rand Corp. study last year that found tutoring programs improved reading and math performance significantly in several large urban school systems.
In April, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced that she will use her administrative authority to promote participation in tutoring. Schools will have to improve outreach to parents about tutoring, and states will have more responsibility for ensuring that lessons meet students' needs.
Spellings also wants to require schools to prove that they've made an effort to recruit students into the tutoring before spending those funds elsewhere.
Nationwide, nearly 530,000 students -- 14 percent of those eligible -- participate, officials said. About 16,000 are in Maryland, Virginia and the District.
As schools work toward a goal of having every student proficient in reading and math by 2014, the number of children in tutoring is expected to rise. The number of providers has tripled, to more than 3,000, since 2003. Kaplan Inc., a subsidiary of The Washington Post Co., operates such tutoring programs in Maryland, Virginia and other states.
States have been slow to develop systems to gauge the effectiveness of companies and nonprofit organizations that work with students. Many schools report poor student attendance at tutoring sessions.
Some school officials say that even with those challenges, tutoring is making a difference. Chicago public schools found that students who were tutored outperformed peers in reading and math. Tutoring in Hawaii and Colorado has been linked to gains in math.
The District has not formally evaluated its tutoring programs, according to the office of State Superintendent of Education Deborah A. Gist. Evaluations are planned or underway in California, Texas, Florida and several other states.
n Maryland, where about 11,000 students were enrolled in tutoring programs in 2006-07, school officials say they support the effort even if it isn't producing big swings in test scores. The state spent more than $10 million in federal funding on tutoring last year.
"We see this is an opportunity for students to get ahead," said Maria Lamb, director of the Maryland State Department of Education's program improvement and family support branch. Lamb stressed that early evidence shows some students made gains.
Mrs. Dowd's Teaching Service was one of two Maryland tutoring providers linked to higher 2006 reading scores. (Another was linked to higher math scores.) Eileen Dowd, a former Cleveland schoolteacher, said her tutors work with, at most, three students at a time. Children who struggle, she said, get one-on-one attention.
Dowd's tutors work on campuses in Prince George's and Baltimore counties, enabling them to have close contact with teachers, she said. "It's collaborative," she said. "They will come and say: 'Tim is having a hard time focusing. What do you think?' "
Dianne M. Piché, executive director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, which supports No Child Left Behind, said the law gives low-income families access to a service that middle-class and wealthy families often use to give their children an edge.
Piché said that schools and tutors should work together more closely and that after-school help should be offered in places accessible to children.
"We need to push the schools and the providers to get it right," she said.
Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
By Maria GlodWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 13, 2008; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html
Several States Find 'No Child' Provision Does Little to Improve Test Results
Free tutoring that federal law prescribes to help students at struggling schools has yielded little or no positive effect on student test scores in Virginia, Maryland and several other states, according to early evaluations.
Under the six-year-old No Child Left Behind law, certain schools in which too many students fail math or reading exams must use federal funds to offer after-school or weekend tutoring to students from low-income families. In the 2006-07 school year, $595 million went to the fast-growing industry of for-profit and nonprofit tutoring providers. But it remains unclear whether or how much those extra lessons are boosting student performance, even though the law envisions them as a key way to narrow achievement gaps.
In Virginia, researchers compared the performance last year of students with identical or very similar math scores in 2006 and found that those who were tutored did no better than their peers, according to an analysis the state Department of Education released in April. In a similar comparison of reading scores, students who were tutored lagged behind those who weren't.
Studies in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan and Kentucky also showed that the mandated tutoring, known as "supplemental educational services," didn't bump up test scores.
"This isn't helping poor kids," said Jack Jennings, president and chief executive of the Center on Education Policy in the District, which monitors implementation of the federal law. "All it's doing is taking money out of classrooms and putting it into the hands of private companies."
Jennings said that states don't have the capacity to monitor tutors effectively and that too many lessons aren't designed to build on the skills students learn in school.
In Maryland, students served by most of the state's tutoring providers in 2006 did not outperform students with similar academic profiles who weren't tutored. But students in three of the 29 state-approved programs did make bigger gains.
Steven M. Ross, executive director of the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis, which is conducting evaluations in Virginia, Maryland and several other states, said parents and educators generally give tutors good ratings. But, he said, "we're not seeing a big blip on the radar screen of raising standardized test" scores.
Ross cautioned that the assessments involve a relatively small sample of students. He said that tutoring might be helping them learn but that the help might not immediately translate into higher test scores. Some students who have fallen far behind, he said, could make progress but still fail grade-level tests. Or students might need more time with tutors.
"If I pour one gallon of gasoline in my car . . . I don't say it doesn't work if I don't go 100 miles," Ross said.
Turning to private tutors when public schools fall short is a key provision of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law. Under the law, schools that don't meet test performance goals for two consecutive years must allow students to transfer to higher-performing schools. Schools that fail to make progress for three years must offer private tutoring to children from low-income families. Those that continue to fall short face further sanctions.
As Congress considers revamping the law, the evaluations will fuel debate over whether tutoring is a wise investment.
Doug Mesecar, an assistant deputy secretary of education, said that officials remain confident of the value of the tutoring program but that more needs to be done to ensure quality.
"I think some providers are very effective as they work with students every day," he said. "The challenge we have is to figure out which ones they are."
Education Department officials point to a Rand Corp. study last year that found tutoring programs improved reading and math performance significantly in several large urban school systems.
In April, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced that she will use her administrative authority to promote participation in tutoring. Schools will have to improve outreach to parents about tutoring, and states will have more responsibility for ensuring that lessons meet students' needs.
Spellings also wants to require schools to prove that they've made an effort to recruit students into the tutoring before spending those funds elsewhere.
Nationwide, nearly 530,000 students -- 14 percent of those eligible -- participate, officials said. About 16,000 are in Maryland, Virginia and the District.
As schools work toward a goal of having every student proficient in reading and math by 2014, the number of children in tutoring is expected to rise. The number of providers has tripled, to more than 3,000, since 2003. Kaplan Inc., a subsidiary of The Washington Post Co., operates such tutoring programs in Maryland, Virginia and other states.
States have been slow to develop systems to gauge the effectiveness of companies and nonprofit organizations that work with students. Many schools report poor student attendance at tutoring sessions.
Some school officials say that even with those challenges, tutoring is making a difference. Chicago public schools found that students who were tutored outperformed peers in reading and math. Tutoring in Hawaii and Colorado has been linked to gains in math.
The District has not formally evaluated its tutoring programs, according to the office of State Superintendent of Education Deborah A. Gist. Evaluations are planned or underway in California, Texas, Florida and several other states.
n Maryland, where about 11,000 students were enrolled in tutoring programs in 2006-07, school officials say they support the effort even if it isn't producing big swings in test scores. The state spent more than $10 million in federal funding on tutoring last year.
"We see this is an opportunity for students to get ahead," said Maria Lamb, director of the Maryland State Department of Education's program improvement and family support branch. Lamb stressed that early evidence shows some students made gains.
Mrs. Dowd's Teaching Service was one of two Maryland tutoring providers linked to higher 2006 reading scores. (Another was linked to higher math scores.) Eileen Dowd, a former Cleveland schoolteacher, said her tutors work with, at most, three students at a time. Children who struggle, she said, get one-on-one attention.
Dowd's tutors work on campuses in Prince George's and Baltimore counties, enabling them to have close contact with teachers, she said. "It's collaborative," she said. "They will come and say: 'Tim is having a hard time focusing. What do you think?' "
Dianne M. Piché, executive director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, which supports No Child Left Behind, said the law gives low-income families access to a service that middle-class and wealthy families often use to give their children an edge.
Piché said that schools and tutors should work together more closely and that after-school help should be offered in places accessible to children.
"We need to push the schools and the providers to get it right," she said.
Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Teachers: Give us better tech training, support
New report reveals continued barriers to using technology for classroom instruction
After more than decade of investment in school technology, educators say they still don't feel adequately prepared to integrate instructional software into their classrooms and aren't getting the technical support they need to fully impact student achievement, according to a joint study by the nation's two largest teacher unions.
Released June 10 by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the study--called Access, Adequacy, and Equity in Education Technology--examines the state of educational technology resources and support in public schools across the country, as reported by classroom teachers and instructional assistants.
Although they often have access to computers and the internet in their classrooms, many teachers don't feel adequately prepared to use technology to enhance their lessons, the report suggests. What's more, many teachers in urban schools say they have insufficient or outdated equipment and software.
"Teachers and students should have the same level of technology in schools that is being used outside of schools. How can we expect our teachers to provide kids with the education they need to join today's high-tech workforce without the necessary equipment and training?" asked NEA President Reg Weaver.
The report shows that most educators use technology for administrative tasks, but substantially fewer use it for instruction. Although most educators believe that technology is essential to teaching and learning, they are less likely to use technology when the technology is outdated and has not been maintained. Educators also say they would like better support and technical assistance for using both software and hardware, especially in urban schools.
"When you see the overall condition of many of our schools and the support they receive, it is really not surprising that so many schools are lagging in technology," said AFT President Edward J. McElroy. "This is just one more indicator that policy makers need to set a much higher value on supporting our public schools and our students."
More than half of the educators surveyed said they had no more than two computers available for students' use in their classroom--and fewer than half mentioned their classroom as the main location where students work on computers for class assignments.
Elementary-level teachers have more computers inside their classroom for student use, but they are less likely to be satisfied with the software for their students and are less likely to have high-speed internet access in their classroom, according to the study.
Although three out of five educators said their districts require them to take part in technology training, respondents indicated their training has been more effective for non-instructional tasks, such as how to use the internet for research and how to use administrative software. Only 46 percent of educators believe they were adequately trained to integrate technology into their instruction.
Most teachers say their own access to technology at school is sufficient to do their job, but they reported getting little help with access to technology outside of school. Fewer than a third of those surveyed said their district has provided them with a laptop for planning and instructional purposes inside and outside of school, and only one-fifth said their district offered assistance for them to buy a computer for use at home (such as through low-interest loans, grants, or discounts).
The report urges policy makers to increase access to technology both in the classroom and outside of school by providing more wireless and portable technology.
It also recommends establishing standards for student usage to integrate technology deeper into the school curriculum; bolstering professional development by providing more appropriate training; increasing access to technical assistance; and engaging teachers' unions in planning for and implementing technology in schools.
The report is based on a survey of nearly 2,000 public school educators. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, researchers said.
Link:
Access, Adequacy, and Equity in Education Technology
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Obama & McCain Ed. Advisors at AEP
From: inService
http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/obama-mccain-ed.html
Submitted by Naomi Thiers, Associate Editor, Educational Leadership magazine.
"Teachers are the intervention. Programs are not the intervention," Jeanne Century (of the University of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education) asserted when asked Obama's view on Reading First and good reading programs. Lisa Graham Keegan (of the Keegan Company) responded to the same question by stressing that rather than "waiting in the weeds" until one program is validated, teachers should follow key principles learned from Reading First—such as direct instruction and a base in phonics.
Century, an education advisor from Obama's campaign, and Keegan, an advisor for McCain, each spoke with passion and at times precision about their candidates' positions on education at the Great American Education Forum held June 6 as part of the Association of Educational Publishers conference in Washington, D.C. Both fielded questions from players in the media and education publishing world.
Sharp differences emerged when Joel Packer of NEA asked for each candidate's view on the balance between federal and state government in education policy. The important thing for McCain, Keegan said, is for states to take the lead in developing their own standards and accountability systems, possibly benchmarking against international standards. "The senator is not in favor of national standards," she asserted.
Century said standards are important to Obama, but "the federal-state balance is about more than standards." The federal government should play a key role in "making sure all parents have the resources to bring their kid to school ready to learn." Obama's plan, she stressed, includes measures to ensure all children have health care, high-quality childcare, and academic help beyond the school day.
To a question about merit pay, Century said Obama opposes tying teachers' pay to student achievement, but would consider rewarding teachers for a range of kinds of excellence, such as skill with specific populations or deep content knowledge. McCain, in contrast, believes teacher rewards should be tied to student performance, Keegan claimed.
Questions on NCLB and assessment also highlighted differences. Keegan said McCain believes we should explore "growth models" for measurement. Century stressed the need to reach beyond "rigid targets. . . . We should be assessing students' 21st century skills. Can students bring knowledge to novel situations? Can they use evidence?"
If schools are truly testing for 21st century skills, Century said, teachers can "teach to the test" in good conscience. What do you think about this statement? What parts of the candidates' education platforms do you agree or disagree with?
http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/obama-mccain-ed.html
Submitted by Naomi Thiers, Associate Editor, Educational Leadership magazine.
"Teachers are the intervention. Programs are not the intervention," Jeanne Century (of the University of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education) asserted when asked Obama's view on Reading First and good reading programs. Lisa Graham Keegan (of the Keegan Company) responded to the same question by stressing that rather than "waiting in the weeds" until one program is validated, teachers should follow key principles learned from Reading First—such as direct instruction and a base in phonics.
Century, an education advisor from Obama's campaign, and Keegan, an advisor for McCain, each spoke with passion and at times precision about their candidates' positions on education at the Great American Education Forum held June 6 as part of the Association of Educational Publishers conference in Washington, D.C. Both fielded questions from players in the media and education publishing world.
Sharp differences emerged when Joel Packer of NEA asked for each candidate's view on the balance between federal and state government in education policy. The important thing for McCain, Keegan said, is for states to take the lead in developing their own standards and accountability systems, possibly benchmarking against international standards. "The senator is not in favor of national standards," she asserted.
Century said standards are important to Obama, but "the federal-state balance is about more than standards." The federal government should play a key role in "making sure all parents have the resources to bring their kid to school ready to learn." Obama's plan, she stressed, includes measures to ensure all children have health care, high-quality childcare, and academic help beyond the school day.
To a question about merit pay, Century said Obama opposes tying teachers' pay to student achievement, but would consider rewarding teachers for a range of kinds of excellence, such as skill with specific populations or deep content knowledge. McCain, in contrast, believes teacher rewards should be tied to student performance, Keegan claimed.
Questions on NCLB and assessment also highlighted differences. Keegan said McCain believes we should explore "growth models" for measurement. Century stressed the need to reach beyond "rigid targets. . . . We should be assessing students' 21st century skills. Can students bring knowledge to novel situations? Can they use evidence?"
If schools are truly testing for 21st century skills, Century said, teachers can "teach to the test" in good conscience. What do you think about this statement? What parts of the candidates' education platforms do you agree or disagree with?
Monday, June 9, 2008
Friend or Foe? Balancing the Good and Bad of Social-Networking Sites
From: Digital Directions
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2008/06/09/01networks.h02.html
Vol. 02, Issue Spring/Summer 2008, Pages 15,17,20
By Michelle R. Davis
As educators begin to appreciate the influence these cyber networks are having in the world of teenagers, they are also mulling ways of drawing on that electronic muscle to forge a deeper educational connection between students and their studies. But experts say educators must have a clear vision and guidelines for doing so, or they will face serious technical and legal pitfalls. And, beyond those steps, experts say schools have a role to play in educating students about safely and appropriately using such sites.
“These things are very powerful,” says Tom Hutton, a senior staff attorney at the National School Boards Association. “More and more schools are realizing that it’s something we should find a way to tap into.”
'Very Little Precedent'
Students are using social-networking sites more than many school officials may realize. Despite the fact that most schools block access to such sites via school computers, 9- to 17-year-olds spend as much time using the Internet for social activities as they spend watching television—about nine hours a week, according to a 2007 study by the Alexandria, Va.-based NSBA. The study of more than 1,200 students found that 96 percent of those with online access had used social-networking technology—including text messaging—and 81 percent said they had visited a social-networking Web site at least once within the three months before the study was conducted.
More and more, those sites have become places where students engage in public actions or behaviors they probably don’t want their principals or teachers to know about. Students in New York City’s Staten Island borough were unmasked as graffiti artists earlier this year after posting pictures and video of their “tags” on MySpace and the video site YouTube. In York, Pa., 18 high school students faced disciplinary action after Facebook photos surfaced showing students with alcohol. The list of students nabbed for improper behavior through posts on social-networking sites reaches across the country.
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2008/06/09/01networks.h02.html
Vol. 02, Issue Spring/Summer 2008, Pages 15,17,20
By Michelle R. Davis
Principal Conn McCartan of Minnesota’s Eden Prairie High School had no plans to police the Internet and its social spheres. But in January, he was mailed a computer disk containing photos of students drinking alcohol, and the photos had been posted on the social-networking Web site Facebook. McCartan couldn’t ignore the rule-breaking.
McCartan and his staff interviewed 43 students; 13 of them were subsequently disciplined. Most were members of athletic teams and clubs that have specific prohibitions and penalties for underage drinking.
“Facebook is a public site, but we didn’t go out there looking for it,” McCartan says of the misbehavior that came to light. “Somebody sends us something, and we’re obligated to respond.”
With the advent and rapid growth of social-networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, an increasingly significant portion of school-age socializing takes place online. The result is that school leaders are being forced to deal with a host of unsettled and even unsavory issues—such as when to monitor students’ online activities, and how to deal with the very real results of online socialization that spills into school hallways.As educators begin to appreciate the influence these cyber networks are having in the world of teenagers, they are also mulling ways of drawing on that electronic muscle to forge a deeper educational connection between students and their studies. But experts say educators must have a clear vision and guidelines for doing so, or they will face serious technical and legal pitfalls. And, beyond those steps, experts say schools have a role to play in educating students about safely and appropriately using such sites.
“These things are very powerful,” says Tom Hutton, a senior staff attorney at the National School Boards Association. “More and more schools are realizing that it’s something we should find a way to tap into.”
'Very Little Precedent'
Students are using social-networking sites more than many school officials may realize. Despite the fact that most schools block access to such sites via school computers, 9- to 17-year-olds spend as much time using the Internet for social activities as they spend watching television—about nine hours a week, according to a 2007 study by the Alexandria, Va.-based NSBA. The study of more than 1,200 students found that 96 percent of those with online access had used social-networking technology—including text messaging—and 81 percent said they had visited a social-networking Web site at least once within the three months before the study was conducted.
More and more, those sites have become places where students engage in public actions or behaviors they probably don’t want their principals or teachers to know about. Students in New York City’s Staten Island borough were unmasked as graffiti artists earlier this year after posting pictures and video of their “tags” on MySpace and the video site YouTube. In York, Pa., 18 high school students faced disciplinary action after Facebook photos surfaced showing students with alcohol. The list of students nabbed for improper behavior through posts on social-networking sites reaches across the country.
Though most school administrators don’t spend their days trolling such sites for evidence of students’ unseemly actions—and don’t want to—they’re regularly faced with deciding when to follow up on tips or rumors.
“Does a school’s authority reach out to that wacky party on Saturday night that was documented by cellphones?” says Timothy J. Magner, the director of the U.S. Department of Education’s office of educational technology. “It’s clearly one of those evolving community dialogues.”
McCartan, the principal in the 10,000-student Eden Prairie school district, says even if school officials say they’re not going to monitor students’ behavior on the Internet, administrators need to be prepared when such a situation arises. At Eden Prairie High, school leaders had already talked with families about the importance of monitoring social-networking sites and discussed “what happens when we would receive this type of information and how we would react,” McCartan says.
“We thought this through ahead of time, and went through our own guidelines and consulted with legal counsel,” he says. “We knew if we proceeded this way with this information, that we were rock solid.”
Montana Miller, an assistant professor of popular culture at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and an expert on Facebook, says the issue remains complicated. Policies are still developing, and legal issues surrounding social-networking sites have not been settled.
“There’s very little precedent to go on, and it’s important to remember to take each case in its own context,” Miller says. “I do not think that schools should try to monitor and control Facebook the way they might try to monitor and control on-campus student expression in a traditional way.”
Miller acknowledges that the rules for school administrators are “murky,” but agrees that school leaders should discuss strategies for handling situations connected to social-networking sites before being faced with a dilemma.
“The key is that each school needs to have a discussion and come up with a policy, and then that policy has to be made clear to teachers, parents, and students,” she says. “Then that policy has to be followed. It’s really important not to play fast and loose with these policies, because that’s so hypocritical.”
From Virtual to Reality
All the cyber socializing by students in their after-school hours inevitably leaks into schools. In the 137,000-student Montgomery County, Md., public schools, Walt Whitman High School had two recent social situations that went from the virtual world to reality. In April, Whitman Principal Alan S. Goodwin handled two separate incidents in which taunting and name-calling on Facebook resulted in physical fights at school. Two of the students fighting were girls, and two were boys.
Goodwin put out an e-mail asking parents to closely monitor what their children were writing on Facebook and to consider calling the police if a student was being bullied online. A new Maryland law adds cyberbullying to the legal definition of bullying in the state and requires school boards to write anti-bullying policies by next year.
“One of the problems with Facebook is that people are more willing to say things there than they ever would to a person’s face,” Goodwin says. “If two kids are name-calling, their friends are on Facebook too, watching it. … They try to incite the situation.”
Many schools felt compelled to develop cyberbullying policies after the suicide last year of a 13-year-old Missouri girl, Megan Meier, who was the victim of virtual bullying through her MySpace page. Even so, some school officials still don’t understand the impact such harassment can have, says Miller, the Facebook expert.
“Never respond with ‘Just turn off the computer,’ ” she says. “That’s completely missing the essential nature of what it is to be a young person today. Facebook, MySpace, online communication, text messaging, and instant messaging are all integral parts of the social world of young people, and to tell them to turn off the computer is not the answer.”
McCartan says his approach to online bullying mirrors the one he’d take with verbal or physical bullying that occurs in person and off school grounds.
“We’ve been well served by reacting the same way we would to this information if it came to us any other way,” the Minnesota principal says. “Just because it exists online or in the electronic community instead of person to person, let’s apply the exact same standards.”
Hutton of the NSBA advises school leaders to first try mediating between the students and getting the parents involved. He says the same goes for situations in which school leaders may be alerted to pictures of students consuming alcohol or drugs, but in ways that don’t directly tie to school disciplinary infractions.
“School safety officers may be plugging in the name of their school [in an online search] and seeing what’s out there, but it doesn’t give them carte blanche to go after people,” he says. “We urge school boards and lawyers to talk through this and be very assertive about where your authority is.”
Social Networking TIPS
1. Establish a policy for dealing with incidents in which students break school rules and their inappropriate behavior is showcased publicly on social-networking sites.
2. Outline clear guidelines for administrators that spell out how schools should discipline students based on information garnered from social-networking sites, and let parents and students know about those rules.
3. Educate students about online-safety issues and how to use sites such as Facebook and MySpace responsibly.
4. Have a policy in place for dealing with cyber bullying.
5. If teachers are using social-networking sites for educational purposes, they should establish clear guidelines for how they intend to communicate with students via those sites.
Candidates Are at Odds Over K-12
From: Education Week
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/11/41election.h27.html?tmp=1022169873
By Alyson Klein and David J. Hoff
Vol. 27, Issue 41, Pages 1,19
But McCain and Obama Both Back NCLB Goals
The presumed November matchup produced by the long presidential-primary season that ended last week offers contrasting approaches to K-12 policy, along with some common ground on the basics of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who last week secured enough delegates to claim the Democratic nomination, both express support for the NCLB law’s goals and its use of testing to measure schools’ success.
But Sen. McCain would promote market forces as a way to spur school improvement, and would likely seek to freeze education spending as part of a review of the effectiveness of federal programs.
Sen. Obama, meanwhile, promises to search for new ways of assessing students and to invest significantly in efforts to improve teacher quality.
Although education wasn’t a prominent issue in the Democratic or Republican primaries, it could emerge more clearly in the general-election campaign, one political scientist said last week. He pointed particularly to the potential for a sharper focus on where the candidates stand on the requirements for testing and accountability under the NCLB law.
In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic and Republican nominees supported the idea that the efforts to improve schools should include regular assessment of student progress and measures to hold schools accountable for increases in student achievement, said Patrick J. McGuinn, an assistant professor of political science at Drew University in Madison, N.J., who has written extensively about the politics of the NCLB law.
“The country hasn’t had a great debate about the costs and benefits of test-driven accountability,” Mr. McGuinn said. “We’re ripe for it right now.”
Changes in Testing
On May 28, in his most extensive education speech of the primaries, Sen. Obama reaffirmed his support for the goals of the 6-year-old federal law, saying they were “the right ones.”
“More accountability is right,” he said at Mapleton Expeditionary School for the Arts in Thornton, Colo. “Higher standards are right.”
But, Sen. Obama added, the federal government must provide enough money and other assistance to help substandard schools turn around, and he advocated improving the assessments that are the cornerstone of the law’s accountability system.
“We also need to realize that we can meet high standards without forcing teachers and students to spend most of the year preparing for a single, high-stakes test,” he said.
During the primaries, Sen. Obama never criticized the NCLB law with the same ferocity as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his leading opponent for the nomination, or other Democrats candidates. Mr. Obama was not yet in the U.S. Senate when Congress passed the bipartisan measure in 2001 at the urging of President Bush.
‘Good Beginning’
Sen. McCain has said that he considers the NCLB law a “good beginning.”
He adds that the law needs to change to improve the way special education students and English-language learners are assessed. But he hasn’t suggested that he would change the way schools are held accountable for student performance under the law, which requires reading and mathematics tests in grades 3-8 and once during high school.
Sen. McCain has also said he would endorse federal programs that give parents broader school choice, such as vouchers for private schools, including religious schools.
Such initiatives are popular with Republican voters, but Sen. McCain’s strong support for the NCLB law isn’t widely endorsed by voters from either party, said one former Bush administration official.
Sen. McCain “is putting himself in a difficult situation by embracing NCLB so wholeheartedly,” said Michael J. Petrilli, the vice president of national policy and programs for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, who served in the U.S. Department of Education during President Bush’s first term.
“Everybody has acknowledged that the law needs some reworking,” Mr. Petrilli said, “and he has created this huge opening for Senator Obama, who can now embrace the ‘mend it, don’t end it’ platform, which is going to sound like the common-sense platform.”
Union Action
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/11/41election.h27.html?tmp=1022169873
By Alyson Klein and David J. Hoff
Vol. 27, Issue 41, Pages 1,19
But McCain and Obama Both Back NCLB Goals
The presumed November matchup produced by the long presidential-primary season that ended last week offers contrasting approaches to K-12 policy, along with some common ground on the basics of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who last week secured enough delegates to claim the Democratic nomination, both express support for the NCLB law’s goals and its use of testing to measure schools’ success.
But Sen. McCain would promote market forces as a way to spur school improvement, and would likely seek to freeze education spending as part of a review of the effectiveness of federal programs.
Sen. Obama, meanwhile, promises to search for new ways of assessing students and to invest significantly in efforts to improve teacher quality.
Although education wasn’t a prominent issue in the Democratic or Republican primaries, it could emerge more clearly in the general-election campaign, one political scientist said last week. He pointed particularly to the potential for a sharper focus on where the candidates stand on the requirements for testing and accountability under the NCLB law.
In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic and Republican nominees supported the idea that the efforts to improve schools should include regular assessment of student progress and measures to hold schools accountable for increases in student achievement, said Patrick J. McGuinn, an assistant professor of political science at Drew University in Madison, N.J., who has written extensively about the politics of the NCLB law.
“The country hasn’t had a great debate about the costs and benefits of test-driven accountability,” Mr. McGuinn said. “We’re ripe for it right now.”
Changes in Testing
On May 28, in his most extensive education speech of the primaries, Sen. Obama reaffirmed his support for the goals of the 6-year-old federal law, saying they were “the right ones.”
“More accountability is right,” he said at Mapleton Expeditionary School for the Arts in Thornton, Colo. “Higher standards are right.”
But, Sen. Obama added, the federal government must provide enough money and other assistance to help substandard schools turn around, and he advocated improving the assessments that are the cornerstone of the law’s accountability system.“We also need to realize that we can meet high standards without forcing teachers and students to spend most of the year preparing for a single, high-stakes test,” he said.
During the primaries, Sen. Obama never criticized the NCLB law with the same ferocity as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his leading opponent for the nomination, or other Democrats candidates. Mr. Obama was not yet in the U.S. Senate when Congress passed the bipartisan measure in 2001 at the urging of President Bush.
‘Good Beginning’
Sen. McCain has said that he considers the NCLB law a “good beginning.”
He adds that the law needs to change to improve the way special education students and English-language learners are assessed. But he hasn’t suggested that he would change the way schools are held accountable for student performance under the law, which requires reading and mathematics tests in grades 3-8 and once during high school.
Sen. McCain has also said he would endorse federal programs that give parents broader school choice, such as vouchers for private schools, including religious schools.
Such initiatives are popular with Republican voters, but Sen. McCain’s strong support for the NCLB law isn’t widely endorsed by voters from either party, said one former Bush administration official.
Sen. McCain “is putting himself in a difficult situation by embracing NCLB so wholeheartedly,” said Michael J. Petrilli, the vice president of national policy and programs for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, who served in the U.S. Department of Education during President Bush’s first term.“Everybody has acknowledged that the law needs some reworking,” Mr. Petrilli said, “and he has created this huge opening for Senator Obama, who can now embrace the ‘mend it, don’t end it’ platform, which is going to sound like the common-sense platform.”
Union Action
Still, some important new supporters of Sen. Obama will likely be urging him to recommend significant changes to the law.
On June 4, the day after Sen. Obama said he had the delegates to secure the nomination, the National Education Association announced it would endorse him in the general election. The 3.2 million-member teachers’ union is one of the most vocal critics of the NCLB law’s emphasis on testing.
While the NEA waited until Sen. Obama had essentially locked up the nomination before making any endorsement, the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers was an early supporter of Sen. Clinton and worked actively on her behalf.
Because neither national teachers’ union supported Sen. Obama during the primaries, he may have the opportunity to be a “different kind of Democrat,” said Joe Williams, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, a New York City-based political action committee that contributes money to Democratic candidates.
“He’s earned his independence so that he can really decide which of the unions’ positions he really wants to embrace and which ones he doesn’t,” Mr. Williams said. “The conventional wisdom is the time that you’ve got to pander to the unions is during the primary. He emerged victorious without [their help].”
For More Info
For more stories on this topic see No Child Left Behind news page.
For more information and analysis on education and the 2008 presidential campaign, read Campaign K-12.
On June 4, the day after Sen. Obama said he had the delegates to secure the nomination, the National Education Association announced it would endorse him in the general election. The 3.2 million-member teachers’ union is one of the most vocal critics of the NCLB law’s emphasis on testing.
While the NEA waited until Sen. Obama had essentially locked up the nomination before making any endorsement, the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers was an early supporter of Sen. Clinton and worked actively on her behalf.
Because neither national teachers’ union supported Sen. Obama during the primaries, he may have the opportunity to be a “different kind of Democrat,” said Joe Williams, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, a New York City-based political action committee that contributes money to Democratic candidates.
“He’s earned his independence so that he can really decide which of the unions’ positions he really wants to embrace and which ones he doesn’t,” Mr. Williams said. “The conventional wisdom is the time that you’ve got to pander to the unions is during the primary. He emerged victorious without [their help].”
For More Info
For more stories on this topic see No Child Left Behind news page.
For more information and analysis on education and the 2008 presidential campaign, read Campaign K-12.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
How 'Disruptive Innovation' Will Change the Way We Learn
From: Education Week
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/04/39christensen_ep.h27.html?tmp=925811046
By Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, & Curtis W. Johnson
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/04/39christensen_ep.h27.html?tmp=925811046
By Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, & Curtis W. Johnson
All students learn differently. Most of us know this intuitively. We learn best through different methods, with different styles, and at different paces. We remember being in school and struggling to master a concept while a friend of ours grasped it immediately. When a parent or a teacher would explain the same concept in a different way, however, we understood. We had friends who excelled in certain classes, but struggled in others. Academic research increasingly supports this notion. But although there is considerable certainty that people learn differently, considerable uncertainty persists about what those differences are. Some research suggests that people have multiple intelligences, whereas other research talks about people having different aptitudes.
In addition, within each type of intelligence or aptitude, people have different learning styles. Some learn better through visual means; others need to talk it through, write it down, play it out, and so on. Finally, people also learn at different paces—fast, medium, slow, and everything in between.
Just as it is intuitive to us that we learn differently from one another, it is also intuitive that because of this, each of us needs a different, customized learning approach to maximize his or her potential. When an educational approach is well aligned with one’s intelligence or aptitude strengths, understanding can come more easily and with greater enthusiasm.
Yet, there is far more standardization than customization in schools. Schools teach using a monolithic batch system. When a class is ready to move on to a new concept, all students move on, regardless of how many have mastered the previous concept (even if it is a prerequisite for learning what is next). On the other hand, if some students are able to master a course in just a few weeks, they remain in the class for the whole semester. And when a teacher teaches long division in the manner that corresponds to how she best learned and understood it, it does not matter whether a student grasps the idea and grows bored with the repeated explanations, or sinks deeper into bewilderment, unable to grasp the logic; the student sits in the class for the duration. Both the bored and the bewildered see their motivation for achievement shredded by the system.
Why is this? It’s not that teachers, administrators, and other actors in the school system don’t appreciate the need for customization. They do. The system in which they work, however, constrains their ability to customize.
To see why, picture Microsoft Windows. It, like schools, is highly interdependent—you can’t build or change one component unless you build or change the others, because each component affects the way the others function. Changing just a few lines of Microsoft Windows’ code would necessitate rewriting thousands of other lines. It would therefore cost millions of dollars to custom-configure Windows to meet your needs. The economics of interdependence mandate standardization.
Contrast this with a modular product or service architecture. Here people can change one piece without redesigning the other ones. This allows for affordable customization. Linux is a great illustration of this. Once Unix technology had matured sufficiently, an open-source operating system such as Linux became feasible. Linux’s architecture is modular and therefore can be customized—witness how the open-source-programming community continually updates and enhances it, kernel by kernel.
Schools are laced with interdependencies—from the fact that a student can’t study one concept in 9th grade unless he or she has covered another in 7th grade, to decisions at the state level, such as those regarding curricula and textbooks, that circumscribe the ability of teachers to innovate. This prevents simple, affordable customization. Instead, the economics compel standardization in the way schools teach and test. For evidence, look at how much it costs to tailor an education for students with special needs.
If the goal is to educate every student to the highest potential, schools need to move away from this monolithic classroom model and toward a student-centric model with a modular design that enables mass customization.
Computer-based learning is emerging as a disruptive force and a promising opportunity to make this shift. The proper use of technology as a platform for learning offers a chance to modularize the system and thereby customize learning.
But if this is the case, how does one explain the minimal impact computers have had in the classroom? The United States has spent more than $60 billion equipping schools with computers over the last two decades, but as countless studies and any routine observation reveal, they have not transformed the classroom, nor has their use boosted learning as measured by test scores.
That schools have gotten so little back from their investment comes as no surprise. Schools have done what virtually every organization does when implementing an innovation: Its natural instinct is to cram the innovation into its existing operating model to sustain what it already does. This is perfectly predictable, perfectly logical—and perfectly wrong.
The way to implement an innovation so that it will transform an organization is to implement it disruptively—not by using it to compete against the existing paradigm and serve existing customers, but to target those not being served or not buying what’s served—people we call non-consumers. That way, all the new approach has to do is be better than the alternative—which is nothing at all.
Disruptive innovations tend to be simpler and more affordable than existing products. This allows them to take root in simple, undemanding applications within a new market or arena of competition. Little by little, disruptions predictably improve. At some point, disruptive innovations become good enough to handle more-complicated problems—and then they take over and supplant the old way of doing things.
For computer-based learning to bring about a disruptive transformation, it must be implemented where the alternative is no teacher at all. There are many areas of non-consumption within schools where this is already taking place. For example, online learning is gaining traction in the advanced courses that many schools are unable to offer; in small, rural, and urban schools that cannot provide breadth; in remedial courses for students who must retake them to graduate; with home-schooled students and those who can’t keep up with the regular schedule of school; and for those who need tutoring. Online enrollments are up from 45,000 in 2000 to 1 million today, as organizations like the Florida Virtual School and Apex Learning lead the way.
Although in its infancy, computer-based learning possesses certain technological and economic advantages over the traditional school model that should allow it to grow and improve rapidly. Not only does it provide accessibility for students who otherwise would not be able to take the course, but it also enables one to scale quality with far greater ease. And as it scales, its economic costs should fall. In the United States, on average, it already costs less to educate a student online than it does in the current monolithic model. Furthermore, over time, computer-based learning can become more engaging and individualized to reach different types of learners, as software developers take full advantage of the medium to customize it by layering in different learning paths for different students.
Exciting possibilities are on the horizon for education. Employing a disruptive approach that is mindful of children’s differences presents a promising path toward motivating students to maximize their human potential and realize their most daring dreams.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Social-networking sites confound schools
From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=42038&i-d
From eSchool News staff reports
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=42038&i-d
From eSchool News staff reports
Primary Topic Channel: Community
Only 35 percent of the educators, administrators, and school board members who registered for the National School Boards Association's annual Technology + Learning (T+L) Conference and responded to an eMail survey given before the event was held in Dallas earlier this month said their districts had policies to address the use of social-networking sites by their students. Fifty percent of respondents said their districts had no such policies, and 15 percent weren't sure.The survey's findings suggest a degree of confusion on the topic that was reflected in forums held during the T+L Conference itself and in a separate webcast hosted by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) last week.
Among respondents who said their districts have a policy that covers social-networking web sites, the most common approach seems to be the use of a firewall or filtering software to block students' access to these sites while at school.
When asked what their policy says, about half of respondents to the NSBA survey indicated their policy is simply to filter such sites, while some educators also said they require students to sign an acceptable-use policy making it clear that unauthorized use of these sites during school hours is prohibited.
"Students at our school and their parents sign a form stating they will not attempt to use MySpace or other [such] web sites without permission and supervision of the teacher," wrote one respondent. Said another, "Acceptable-use policies have been put in place that define what is acceptable in an educational setting and the consequences of abuse. There are some sites that have been physically blocked. These policies undergo scrutiny on a regular basis and are updated as deemed necessary, as technology advances."
Interestingly, very few of the responses included teaching students about responsible use of online social networks--a point that Anne Bryant, NSBA's executive director, noted.
"It is important to keep in mind that just blocking access to social web sites at school is not the end of the story," said Bryant in a statement. "Most of the misuse of these sites takes place at home, but still affects the classroom. We have to teach our students about the safe and proper use of social web sites."
Thirty-six percent of those polled by NSBA said students' use of MySpace and similar sites has been "disruptive" to their school district's learning environment. Of these educators, about two-thirds said the posting of inappropriate content or personally identifiable information posed a problem; about 40 percent said cyber-bullying or "causing too much time off task" were problems; and one in four said the creation of false pages for administrators or teachers has been a problem.
A 'MySpace world'
The need to teach students about the proper use of such sites was a point of emphasis in CoSN's Nov. 15 webcast, titled "Keeping Students Secure in a MySpace World."
Whether the challenge is avoiding cyber bullies or potential online predators, educators have every right to be skeptical of the increasing popularity of social-networking web sites on campus, participants in the webcast agreed. Still, despite its obvious pitfalls, online social networking holds great potential as a learning exercise.
Jim Hirsch, associate superintendent for technology at the Plano Independent School District in Texas, said social-networking web sites can help connect students in the United States to their peers in other countries, providing invaluable lessons in foreign cultures.
But it's up to schools to "mitigate the risks as much as possible," said Harold Rowe, associate superintendent for technology at the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in Texas.
One way to do that, said Rowe, is to inform students of the dangers these sites pose--and outline tactics to avoid being victimized by online predators.
Though raising student awareness is essential to keeping kids safe online, webcast speakers said, it's not the only step schools should take.
Educators also must practice effective classroom management and oversight, while administrators should explore the use of not only federally mandated web filters, but also recording and monitoring technologies intended to determine where students are on the web--and where they're trying to go.
Thanks to the evolution of wireless networks in schools, where students now can access the web from almost anywhere on campus, Rowe said, it's no longer enough for teachers simply to patrol classrooms, peering over students' shoulders to ensure they haven't wandered into some forbidden corner of cyberspace.
Schools can contact MySpace and other sites to request that potentially harmful information posted by students be removed, but contacting online service providers to request these changes takes time, Rowe said. Rather than merely reacting in such situations, he said, schools should be teaching responsible use up front.
"Students sometimes don't fully understand the danger that they put themselves in," added Jeff Hunt, director of instructional technology for the Indian Prairie School District in Illinois.
By their very nature, explained Hunt, schools themselves are social-networking sites. Just as students congregate on the web to chat with friends on popular web sites, they gather in schools in the hallways and cafeterias to socialize. It's only natural that the internet would become an extension of that interaction, he said. For schools, the challenge is finding a way to harness that power, without compromising the safety and integrity of their students.
While school leaders continue to wrestle with the challenges presented by social-networking web sites, policy makers at the state and national level have been slow to adopt legislation to shepherd them through the process.
So slow, in fact, that Virginia--which passed a law earlier this year requiring schools to teach internet safety as part of its curriculum--remains the only state to have done so.
At a time when one in seven schoolchildren has received unwanted solicitations online and more than 21 million school-age children use social-networking web sites, Ron Teixeira, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance, says it's a moral imperative that schools educate their students about the dangers of cyberspace.
While social-networking web sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and others represent an effective vehicle for students to interact and form new relationships, he said, they also can be hotbeds of illegal activity.
To keep students from being victimized, Teixeira said, schools shouldn't wait for local and state legislatures to align outdated statutes with quick-moving technologies. Rather, he said, the key is to ensure that students, teachers, and parents understand what it means to be responsible online citizens.
He recommended that educators visit his organization's web site to download free resources, activities, and lesson plans for teaching online safety in schools. Eventually, he said, cyber security needs to become second nature for students, "just like looking both ways before crossing the street or never talking to strangers."
Postings, protection--and policies
Though education clearly is important, how should school board policies adequately address their students' use of social-networking technologies? And what are school leaders' rights and limitations when it comes to enforcing such policies if students misuse these sites?
In an online discussion hosted by NSBA during its T+L Conference, legal expert Kimberly Jessie, an associate at the law firm Bracewell Giuliani, sought to answer these questions.
Unless there is a "substantial disruption to the educational environment," school leaders are limited in their ability to take any action if students post offensive or inappropriate material outside of school, Jessie said.
However, when asked how school leaders can work with parents to address the bullying and ostracizing comments that often take place in these online environments, "when many of them do not view it as problem," Jessie recommended letting parents know that although schools are limited in their ability to discipline such behavior, teachers have been successful in filing individual lawsuits against students and their parents.
"One teacher recently won a $500,000 lawsuit for defamation because of this issue," she wrote.
Make sure your acceptable-use policies limit computer access to educational purposes only and prohibit access for personal uses, Jessie noted, adding: "Policies should inform students [and their parents] that disciplinary action may be taken against them when their off-campus speech causes a substantial disruption to the education environment or interferes with another student's rights. & Criminal action may be taken against [students] when their speech constitutes a true threat."
Links:
National School Boards Associationhttp://www.nsba.org/
Consortium for School Networkinghttp://www.cosn.org/
National Cyber Security Alliancehttp://www.staysafeonline.info/
Archive of online discussion: "Postings, Protection, and Policies: What School Leaders Need to Know About Online Teen Hangouts"http://boardbuzz.nsba.org/discussions/archive/session.110806.onlinehangouts.php
National School Boards Associationhttp://www.nsba.org/
Consortium for School Networkinghttp://www.cosn.org/
National Cyber Security Alliancehttp://www.staysafeonline.info/
Archive of online discussion: "Postings, Protection, and Policies: What School Leaders Need to Know About Online Teen Hangouts"http://boardbuzz.nsba.org/discussions/archive/session.110806.onlinehangouts.php
Social-networking sites confound schools
From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=42038
From eSchool News staff reports
At least half of school systems in a recent poll do not have policies to address students' use of MySpace, Facebook, and other such sites
Primary Topic Channel: Community
Only 35 percent of the educators, administrators, and school board members who registered for the National School Boards Association's annual Technology + Learning (T+L) Conference and responded to an eMail survey given before the event was held in Dallas earlier this month said their districts had policies to address the use of social-networking sites by their students. Fifty percent of respondents said their districts had no such policies, and 15 percent weren't sure.
The survey's findings suggest a degree of confusion on the topic that was reflected in forums held during the T+L Conference itself and in a separate webcast hosted by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) last week.
Among respondents who said their districts have a policy that covers social-networking web sites, the most common approach seems to be the use of a firewall or filtering software to block students' access to these sites while at school.
When asked what their policy says, about half of respondents to the NSBA survey indicated their policy is simply to filter such sites, while some educators also said they require students to sign an acceptable-use policy making it clear that unauthorized use of these sites during school hours is prohibited.
"Students at our school and their parents sign a form stating they will not attempt to use MySpace or other [such] web sites without permission and supervision of the teacher," wrote one respondent. Said another, "Acceptable-use policies have been put in place that define what is acceptable in an educational setting and the consequences of abuse. There are some sites that have been physically blocked. These policies undergo scrutiny on a regular basis and are updated as deemed necessary, as technology advances."
Interestingly, very few of the responses included teaching students about responsible use of online social networks--a point that Anne Bryant, NSBA's executive director, noted.
"It is important to keep in mind that just blocking access to social web sites at school is not the end of the story," said Bryant in a statement. "Most of the misuse of these sites takes place at home, but still affects the classroom. We have to teach our students about the safe and proper use of social web sites."
Thirty-six percent of those polled by NSBA said students' use of MySpace and similar sites has been "disruptive" to their school district's learning environment. Of these educators, about two-thirds said the posting of inappropriate content or personally identifiable information posed a problem; about 40 percent said cyber-bullying or "causing too much time off task" were problems; and one in four said the creation of false pages for administrators or teachers has been a problem.
A 'MySpace world'
The need to teach students about the proper use of such sites was a point of emphasis in CoSN's Nov. 15 webcast, titled "Keeping Students Secure in a MySpace World."
Whether the challenge is avoiding cyber bullies or potential online predators, educators have every right to be skeptical of the increasing popularity of social-networking web sites on campus, participants in the webcast agreed. Still, despite its obvious pitfalls, online social networking holds great potential as a learning exercise.
Jim Hirsch, associate superintendent for technology at the Plano Independent School District in Texas, said social-networking web sites can help connect students in the United States to their peers in other countries, providing invaluable lessons in foreign cultures.
But it's up to schools to "mitigate the risks as much as possible," said Harold Rowe, associate superintendent for technology at the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in Texas.
One way to do that, said Rowe, is to inform students of the dangers these sites pose--and outline tactics to avoid being victimized by online predators.
Though raising student awareness is essential to keeping kids safe online, webcast speakers said, it's not the only step schools should take.
Educators also must practice effective classroom management and oversight, while administrators should explore the use of not only federally mandated web filters, but also recording and monitoring technologies intended to determine where students are on the web--and where they're trying to go.
Thanks to the evolution of wireless networks in schools, where students now can access the web from almost anywhere on campus, Rowe said, it's no longer enough for teachers simply to patrol classrooms, peering over students' shoulders to ensure they haven't wandered into some forbidden corner of cyberspace.
Schools can contact MySpace and other sites to request that potentially harmful information posted by students be removed, but contacting online service providers to request these changes takes time, Rowe said. Rather than merely reacting in such situations, he said, schools should be teaching responsible use up front.
"Students sometimes don't fully understand the danger that they put themselves in," added Jeff Hunt, director of instructional technology for the Indian Prairie School District in Illinois.
By their very nature, explained Hunt, schools themselves are social-networking sites. Just as students congregate on the web to chat with friends on popular web sites, they gather in schools in the hallways and cafeterias to socialize. It's only natural that the internet would become an extension of that interaction, he said. For schools, the challenge is finding a way to harness that power, without compromising the safety and integrity of their students.
While school leaders continue to wrestle with the challenges presented by social-networking web sites, policy makers at the state and national level have been slow to adopt legislation to shepherd them through the process.
So slow, in fact, that Virginia--which passed a law earlier this year requiring schools to teach internet safety as part of its curriculum--remains the only state to have done so.
At a time when one in seven schoolchildren has received unwanted solicitations online and more than 21 million school-age children use social-networking web sites, Ron Teixeira, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance, says it's a moral imperative that schools educate their students about the dangers of cyberspace.
While social-networking web sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and others represent an effective vehicle for students to interact and form new relationships, he said, they also can be hotbeds of illegal activity.
To keep students from being victimized, Teixeira said, schools shouldn't wait for local and state legislatures to align outdated statutes with quick-moving technologies. Rather, he said, the key is to ensure that students, teachers, and parents understand what it means to be responsible online citizens.
He recommended that educators visit his organization's web site to download free resources, activities, and lesson plans for teaching online safety in schools. Eventually, he said, cyber security needs to become second nature for students, "just like looking both ways before crossing the street or never talking to strangers."
Postings, protection--and policies
Though education clearly is important, how should school board policies adequately address their students' use of social-networking technologies? And what are school leaders' rights and limitations when it comes to enforcing such policies if students misuse these sites?
In an online discussion hosted by NSBA during its T+L Conference, legal expert Kimberly Jessie, an associate at the law firm Bracewell Giuliani, sought to answer these questions.
Unless there is a "substantial disruption to the educational environment," school leaders are limited in their ability to take any action if students post offensive or inappropriate material outside of school, Jessie said.
However, when asked how school leaders can work with parents to address the bullying and ostracizing comments that often take place in these online environments, "when many of them do not view it as problem," Jessie recommended letting parents know that although schools are limited in their ability to discipline such behavior, teachers have been successful in filing individual lawsuits against students and their parents.
"One teacher recently won a $500,000 lawsuit for defamation because of this issue," she wrote.
Make sure your acceptable-use policies limit computer access to educational purposes only and prohibit access for personal uses, Jessie noted, adding: "Policies should inform students [and their parents] that disciplinary action may be taken against them when their off-campus speech causes a substantial disruption to the education environment or interferes with another student's rights. & Criminal action may be taken against [students] when their speech constitutes a true threat."
Links:
National School Boards Associationhttp://www.nsba.org
Consortium for School Networkinghttp://www.cosn.org
National Cyber Security Alliancehttp://www.staysafeonline.info
Archive of online discussion: "Postings, Protection, and Policies: What School Leaders Need to Know About Online Teen Hangouts"http://boardbuzz.nsba.org/discussions/archive/session.110806.onlinehangouts.php
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=42038
From eSchool News staff reports
At least half of school systems in a recent poll do not have policies to address students' use of MySpace, Facebook, and other such sites
Primary Topic Channel: Community
Only 35 percent of the educators, administrators, and school board members who registered for the National School Boards Association's annual Technology + Learning (T+L) Conference and responded to an eMail survey given before the event was held in Dallas earlier this month said their districts had policies to address the use of social-networking sites by their students. Fifty percent of respondents said their districts had no such policies, and 15 percent weren't sure.
The survey's findings suggest a degree of confusion on the topic that was reflected in forums held during the T+L Conference itself and in a separate webcast hosted by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) last week.
Among respondents who said their districts have a policy that covers social-networking web sites, the most common approach seems to be the use of a firewall or filtering software to block students' access to these sites while at school.
When asked what their policy says, about half of respondents to the NSBA survey indicated their policy is simply to filter such sites, while some educators also said they require students to sign an acceptable-use policy making it clear that unauthorized use of these sites during school hours is prohibited.
"Students at our school and their parents sign a form stating they will not attempt to use MySpace or other [such] web sites without permission and supervision of the teacher," wrote one respondent. Said another, "Acceptable-use policies have been put in place that define what is acceptable in an educational setting and the consequences of abuse. There are some sites that have been physically blocked. These policies undergo scrutiny on a regular basis and are updated as deemed necessary, as technology advances."
Interestingly, very few of the responses included teaching students about responsible use of online social networks--a point that Anne Bryant, NSBA's executive director, noted.
"It is important to keep in mind that just blocking access to social web sites at school is not the end of the story," said Bryant in a statement. "Most of the misuse of these sites takes place at home, but still affects the classroom. We have to teach our students about the safe and proper use of social web sites."
Thirty-six percent of those polled by NSBA said students' use of MySpace and similar sites has been "disruptive" to their school district's learning environment. Of these educators, about two-thirds said the posting of inappropriate content or personally identifiable information posed a problem; about 40 percent said cyber-bullying or "causing too much time off task" were problems; and one in four said the creation of false pages for administrators or teachers has been a problem.
A 'MySpace world'
The need to teach students about the proper use of such sites was a point of emphasis in CoSN's Nov. 15 webcast, titled "Keeping Students Secure in a MySpace World."
Whether the challenge is avoiding cyber bullies or potential online predators, educators have every right to be skeptical of the increasing popularity of social-networking web sites on campus, participants in the webcast agreed. Still, despite its obvious pitfalls, online social networking holds great potential as a learning exercise.
Jim Hirsch, associate superintendent for technology at the Plano Independent School District in Texas, said social-networking web sites can help connect students in the United States to their peers in other countries, providing invaluable lessons in foreign cultures.
But it's up to schools to "mitigate the risks as much as possible," said Harold Rowe, associate superintendent for technology at the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in Texas.
One way to do that, said Rowe, is to inform students of the dangers these sites pose--and outline tactics to avoid being victimized by online predators.
Though raising student awareness is essential to keeping kids safe online, webcast speakers said, it's not the only step schools should take.
Educators also must practice effective classroom management and oversight, while administrators should explore the use of not only federally mandated web filters, but also recording and monitoring technologies intended to determine where students are on the web--and where they're trying to go.
Thanks to the evolution of wireless networks in schools, where students now can access the web from almost anywhere on campus, Rowe said, it's no longer enough for teachers simply to patrol classrooms, peering over students' shoulders to ensure they haven't wandered into some forbidden corner of cyberspace.
Schools can contact MySpace and other sites to request that potentially harmful information posted by students be removed, but contacting online service providers to request these changes takes time, Rowe said. Rather than merely reacting in such situations, he said, schools should be teaching responsible use up front.
"Students sometimes don't fully understand the danger that they put themselves in," added Jeff Hunt, director of instructional technology for the Indian Prairie School District in Illinois.
By their very nature, explained Hunt, schools themselves are social-networking sites. Just as students congregate on the web to chat with friends on popular web sites, they gather in schools in the hallways and cafeterias to socialize. It's only natural that the internet would become an extension of that interaction, he said. For schools, the challenge is finding a way to harness that power, without compromising the safety and integrity of their students.
While school leaders continue to wrestle with the challenges presented by social-networking web sites, policy makers at the state and national level have been slow to adopt legislation to shepherd them through the process.
So slow, in fact, that Virginia--which passed a law earlier this year requiring schools to teach internet safety as part of its curriculum--remains the only state to have done so.
At a time when one in seven schoolchildren has received unwanted solicitations online and more than 21 million school-age children use social-networking web sites, Ron Teixeira, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance, says it's a moral imperative that schools educate their students about the dangers of cyberspace.
While social-networking web sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and others represent an effective vehicle for students to interact and form new relationships, he said, they also can be hotbeds of illegal activity.
To keep students from being victimized, Teixeira said, schools shouldn't wait for local and state legislatures to align outdated statutes with quick-moving technologies. Rather, he said, the key is to ensure that students, teachers, and parents understand what it means to be responsible online citizens.
He recommended that educators visit his organization's web site to download free resources, activities, and lesson plans for teaching online safety in schools. Eventually, he said, cyber security needs to become second nature for students, "just like looking both ways before crossing the street or never talking to strangers."
Postings, protection--and policies
Though education clearly is important, how should school board policies adequately address their students' use of social-networking technologies? And what are school leaders' rights and limitations when it comes to enforcing such policies if students misuse these sites?
In an online discussion hosted by NSBA during its T+L Conference, legal expert Kimberly Jessie, an associate at the law firm Bracewell Giuliani, sought to answer these questions.
Unless there is a "substantial disruption to the educational environment," school leaders are limited in their ability to take any action if students post offensive or inappropriate material outside of school, Jessie said.
However, when asked how school leaders can work with parents to address the bullying and ostracizing comments that often take place in these online environments, "when many of them do not view it as problem," Jessie recommended letting parents know that although schools are limited in their ability to discipline such behavior, teachers have been successful in filing individual lawsuits against students and their parents.
"One teacher recently won a $500,000 lawsuit for defamation because of this issue," she wrote.
Make sure your acceptable-use policies limit computer access to educational purposes only and prohibit access for personal uses, Jessie noted, adding: "Policies should inform students [and their parents] that disciplinary action may be taken against them when their off-campus speech causes a substantial disruption to the education environment or interferes with another student's rights. & Criminal action may be taken against [students] when their speech constitutes a true threat."
Links:
National School Boards Associationhttp://www.nsba.org
Consortium for School Networkinghttp://www.cosn.org
National Cyber Security Alliancehttp://www.staysafeonline.info
Archive of online discussion: "Postings, Protection, and Policies: What School Leaders Need to Know About Online Teen Hangouts"http://boardbuzz.nsba.org/discussions/archive/session.110806.onlinehangouts.php
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Technology Management: New tools make AUP enforcement easier than ever
From: eSchool News
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=36857&i-d
By Lee Sleeper
In a perfect world, public school acceptable-use policies (AUPs) wouldn't be necessary. However, school network administrators know that access to the internet and other network resources can be too tempting for students at times.
On any given day, abuse of the network can range from inadvertent to criminal, and the network administrator's challenge is to prevent minor annoyances from turning into major problems. The answer starts with comprehensive network monitoring software built on solid reporting functionality. At the Bullard Independent School District in Bullard, Texas, we use a product from California-based network services provider Lightspeed Systems called Total Traffic Control v6.0.
Total Traffic Control serves as our first step in identifying significant non-educational internet usage. When we first implemented this tool, the traffic hitting our T-1 line was averaging about 900 Mbps during peak times of the day.
Using Lightspeed's customized reporting tools, we identified a large amount of non-educational traffic hitting the internet from school computers. We shared this information with the district's campus administrators who, in turn, held a series of meetings with school staff to discuss the district's AUP. We also reinforced with all students the terms of the AUP agreement they signed along with their parents. Very precise reports gave us the tools to do that in a way that left no room for debate.
Second, we used Total Traffic Control's reports to quickly identify who and where the users and abusers were on the network. Using these reports, we began to realize that many of the bandwidth issues we were experiencing were the result of students using our computers as their own personal radio devices, downloading music files or sharing curious files.
After installing Total Traffic Control and sharing the reports with campus administrators, total bandwidth usage dropped 30 percent within two weeks. Music downloads, accessing inappropriate web sites, and anything else that contradicted the AUP was made more difficult, giving the district more available internet bandwidth.
Finally, we implemented procedures to provide appropriate reports to the district superintendent and principals when users violated the terms of the AUP. Total Traffic Control formats these reports to demonstrate compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act and, if necessary, to provide forensic evidence to law enforcement.
Total Traffic Control v6.0 also includes a desktop security agent that can be deployed to discover all known "good" programs running on the network. Based on this discovery process, and our AUP, network administrators can allow only permitted programs to run anywhere on the network, allow only permitted programs to "talk" on the network (i.e., "unofficial" programs can run locally only), and/or allow all programs to run. The software then allows for reports that identify any new programs installed on the network. After deploying these tools, Ballard now has a better handle on its network traffic patterns and the ability to control this traffic as necessary. Based on our district's experience, we've created this checklist for efficient, cost-effective AUP enforcement:
1. Select monitoring software with easy-to-read reports.
Your monitoring software should generate reports that are easy enough to be used and understood by non-technical district employees. Ideally, these non-IT individuals can be assigned administrative rights to access what they need directly.
2. Gather "before" and "after" snapshot reports.
Keep a snapshot of network traffic before you change anything. Then take another snapshot after implementing AUP enforcement actions. This includes blocking search results for inappropriate keywords and phrases, forcing Google Safe Search, blocking P2P traffic, etc. This approach will document the impact of AUP enforcement and guarantee the network is being used for educational purposes.
3. Identify and monitor key "Canary in the Coal Mine" reports.
For example, Total Traffic Control has several reports that can identify potential problems quickly. From these reports, we can drill down to actual machines to determine if our AUP is being violated. Sample reports include Bandwidth Traffic by User, which indicates potentially troublesome large downloads, and Suspicious Search Engine Queries, which detects anyone persistently trying to evade our filtering policy.
4. Be patient and thorough.
Monitor traffic--make sure to save reports for reference--and periodically review key reports for anomalies. Inadvertent AUP violations should not be your focus. Rather, systematic abusers are the users who most likely create substantial problems. If a clear pattern of inappropriate behavior is established, there is no chance that impermissible content arrived "by accident" on a user's desktop.
5. Involve appropriate personnel.
Some AUP violations are relatively minor and are best handled by IT staff blocking inappropriate activities. But others might have substantial personnel and even legal ramifications. Issues at this level are turned over to campus administrators and the district superintendent for appropriate action.
AUP enforcement is possible on a limited budget with a limited staff. Success requires sufficient investment in appropriate technology tools, as well as sound procedures--a small price to pay to protect children, ensure regulatory compliance, and uphold your district's reputation as an institution in which learning comes first.
Lee Sleeper is the technology director for Bullard Independent School District.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/minimizing-classroom-disruptions/articlesmcs/index.cfm?rc=1&i=36857&i-d
By Lee Sleeper
In a perfect world, public school acceptable-use policies (AUPs) wouldn't be necessary. However, school network administrators know that access to the internet and other network resources can be too tempting for students at times.
On any given day, abuse of the network can range from inadvertent to criminal, and the network administrator's challenge is to prevent minor annoyances from turning into major problems. The answer starts with comprehensive network monitoring software built on solid reporting functionality. At the Bullard Independent School District in Bullard, Texas, we use a product from California-based network services provider Lightspeed Systems called Total Traffic Control v6.0.
Total Traffic Control serves as our first step in identifying significant non-educational internet usage. When we first implemented this tool, the traffic hitting our T-1 line was averaging about 900 Mbps during peak times of the day.
Using Lightspeed's customized reporting tools, we identified a large amount of non-educational traffic hitting the internet from school computers. We shared this information with the district's campus administrators who, in turn, held a series of meetings with school staff to discuss the district's AUP. We also reinforced with all students the terms of the AUP agreement they signed along with their parents. Very precise reports gave us the tools to do that in a way that left no room for debate.
Second, we used Total Traffic Control's reports to quickly identify who and where the users and abusers were on the network. Using these reports, we began to realize that many of the bandwidth issues we were experiencing were the result of students using our computers as their own personal radio devices, downloading music files or sharing curious files.
After installing Total Traffic Control and sharing the reports with campus administrators, total bandwidth usage dropped 30 percent within two weeks. Music downloads, accessing inappropriate web sites, and anything else that contradicted the AUP was made more difficult, giving the district more available internet bandwidth.
Finally, we implemented procedures to provide appropriate reports to the district superintendent and principals when users violated the terms of the AUP. Total Traffic Control formats these reports to demonstrate compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act and, if necessary, to provide forensic evidence to law enforcement.
Total Traffic Control v6.0 also includes a desktop security agent that can be deployed to discover all known "good" programs running on the network. Based on this discovery process, and our AUP, network administrators can allow only permitted programs to run anywhere on the network, allow only permitted programs to "talk" on the network (i.e., "unofficial" programs can run locally only), and/or allow all programs to run. The software then allows for reports that identify any new programs installed on the network. After deploying these tools, Ballard now has a better handle on its network traffic patterns and the ability to control this traffic as necessary. Based on our district's experience, we've created this checklist for efficient, cost-effective AUP enforcement:
1. Select monitoring software with easy-to-read reports.
Your monitoring software should generate reports that are easy enough to be used and understood by non-technical district employees. Ideally, these non-IT individuals can be assigned administrative rights to access what they need directly.
2. Gather "before" and "after" snapshot reports.
Keep a snapshot of network traffic before you change anything. Then take another snapshot after implementing AUP enforcement actions. This includes blocking search results for inappropriate keywords and phrases, forcing Google Safe Search, blocking P2P traffic, etc. This approach will document the impact of AUP enforcement and guarantee the network is being used for educational purposes.
3. Identify and monitor key "Canary in the Coal Mine" reports.
For example, Total Traffic Control has several reports that can identify potential problems quickly. From these reports, we can drill down to actual machines to determine if our AUP is being violated. Sample reports include Bandwidth Traffic by User, which indicates potentially troublesome large downloads, and Suspicious Search Engine Queries, which detects anyone persistently trying to evade our filtering policy.
4. Be patient and thorough.
Monitor traffic--make sure to save reports for reference--and periodically review key reports for anomalies. Inadvertent AUP violations should not be your focus. Rather, systematic abusers are the users who most likely create substantial problems. If a clear pattern of inappropriate behavior is established, there is no chance that impermissible content arrived "by accident" on a user's desktop.
5. Involve appropriate personnel.
Some AUP violations are relatively minor and are best handled by IT staff blocking inappropriate activities. But others might have substantial personnel and even legal ramifications. Issues at this level are turned over to campus administrators and the district superintendent for appropriate action.
AUP enforcement is possible on a limited budget with a limited staff. Success requires sufficient investment in appropriate technology tools, as well as sound procedures--a small price to pay to protect children, ensure regulatory compliance, and uphold your district's reputation as an institution in which learning comes first.
Lee Sleeper is the technology director for Bullard Independent School District.
Friday, June 1, 2001
Give your AUP a fall tune-up--here's how
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.
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.
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)