School Technology Policies

This is part two of a four-part series. Please click here to read the first article, focusing on “Active vs. Passive” in this series. [Production: Insert link on the entire second sentence.]

Wells is the author of Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work! from Corwin Press, which was the American Association School Administrators’ April 2010 Book Club selection.

As noted in the previous article, these articles are a direct result of my communications with other school and district technology leaders who are seeking a more effective method to discuss online technology software selection. Without passing any judgment on your school or district’s philosophy for purchasing software, this model accommodates a wide variety of different software use philosophies.

This issue’s topic is the dimension of appropriate versus inappropriate online resources. While this may seem like a straightforward issue by asking the question, “Is this appropriate for the user?”, there are other considerations that are worth examining. After all, appropriate is a sliding scale, and what should be shown to a third grader is not the same as what should be shown to a tenth-grade student. When evaluating online applications and resources, “appropriate” can refer to age, gender, curriculum, content, developmental level, visual ability, and even motor skills. As an administrators and technology leaders, we are already skilled in choosing the right instructional resources for our students. When online software is brought into the picture, many administrators assume that there is a different decision-making skill that must be used. Do not believe such myths; you have the ability to continue making solid instructional decisions, regardless of the medium. (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 115)

Luckily, most administrators and educators have the ability to identify those learning resources that work for their students. It becomes much more troublesome when a potential site has a number of excellent learning resources but is connected to inappropriate content, as well. YouTube is an example of a website with thousands of videos that can be used for effective instruction, but if a student can use YouTube, he or she can also access millions of other videos that may be totally inappropriate. Such content is also difficult, if not impossible, to filter.

Look, for example, at online mug shot photos. A recent incident at a school in my district occurred when students were spending their time looking through local mug shots (displayed in “poster” thumbnail form on a single web page) to find people that they knew or were related to their classmates. Aside from being inappropriate uses of school technology, knowledge of the photos became disruptive in classes and in the hallways. I checked with the school police officers, to make sure it was okay to block these sites, and was give approval to prevent district network users from going to the sites. Almost immediately, several complaints emerged: assistant principals, school transportation office staff, and criminal science teachers all insisted that they needed these pictures.

How, then, does a school district (or even a school) provide controversial web sites to some people but not others? While segmenting populations to provide different levels of access to school community members may be possible, is it the correct action to take? In this case, we redirected people to the authenticated police force site that provided the same information, but did not show mug shots in a “poster page” form; each picture and infraction was noted by a text list and required the user to know the name of the arrested person, which still met the needs of all of the groups requesting access. In this example, what was appropriate for some groups is not appropriate for others, but the needs of the whole district or school should be considered when making such decisions.

1. Endpoint: Extremely appropriate web resources. When web sites are appropriate, some thought has been given to advertising, links, age appropriateness, and the users that would be exploring the pages on the site. One size rarely fits all students, but if the site is designed properly, the company supporting the web site should have guarantees or assurances that the site is both “student-friendly” and instructionally supportive. Education companies work hard to create such tools, and allow educators and technologies to provide feedback, too. Some companies, such as NetTrekker, BrainPOP, Discovery Education, and ProQuestK12, are all in the business of providing safe, appropriate content resources.
2. Midpoint: General-purpose web resources with filtering. It seems as though there are as many people working to expose students to inappropriate materials as there are trying to filter out content that should not be shown on school computers. Even the most sophisticated blocking and filtering software tools let some digital trash in, and students without clear learning objectives and mischievous fingers may find sites that are clearly not education-appropriate. (Robinson, Brown, & Green, 2010, p. 19) However, with a clear instructional goal, a solid Acceptable Use Policy, and a culture that supports appropriate use of technology, students will often police themselves when computers are used to view inappropriate materials. (Wells, 2010, Ch. 5)
3. Endpoint: Extremely inappropriate web resources. Would you give a third-grade student a magazine with a children’s article to read if there were pornographic advertisements on the sides of each page? While this may be an exaggeration, many students are faced with this every day, even when using free e-mail, such as Yahoo! Mail, or FaceBook. While school districts may say that such social networking tools are blocked to limit in-school distractions, there is a more compelling legal side as well: the Children’s Internet Protection Act, or CIPA. This law requires all schools seeking federal funding to have an internet filtering resource in place, and this should be used to the extent practicable. That means that we, as educators, are required to protect students from inappropriate material whenever we can, and that includes blocking most social networking sites. However, CIPA is much broader than just social networking, and schools and districts must constantly improve their protection strategies to keep students safe from inappropriate materials. (Bissonette, 2009, p. 57)

At the end of the instructional day, the appropriate vs. inappropriate dimension relies heavily on the educational leadership and school culture. The concepts surrounding finding the right online resources is one that may involve the entire school community, because parents, staff members, and even students want the right resources in their hands for solid education. As school leaders, we also must be mindful of our legal responsibilities in CIPA and the concept of in loco parentis, and this may flavor our perceptions of specific online tools and software. Should the rules be different for students and staff members? Is a software tool used in the eleventh grade also something that can be installed at elementary or middle schools? Only you know and your staff members understand how your district or school will answer those questions, and holding a frank discussion to explore the concepts of appropriate vs. inappropriate will help make more effective decisions when using online software.

In the next article in this series, we will be exploring the third dimension, “Public vs. Private”.

Learn More
For more on this topic, read Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work!, a joint publication with Corwin Press, AASA, and NASSP. His book is designed to provide ready, effective access to dozens of resources and processes to protect students using technology.

References
Bissonette, A. M. (2009). Cyber law: maximizing safety and minimizing risk in classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: the heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, L. K., Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2010). Security vs. access: balancing safety and productivity in the digital school. Washington, DC 30036-3132: International Society for Technology in Education.
Wells, C. (2010). Smarter clicking: School technology policies that work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

About the Author
Christopher Wells is the Director of IT Policies and Communications for Gwinnett County Public Schools, the largest school district in Georgia. With over 160,000 students in the district, he responds to the diverse, creative ways technology is being used in classrooms. By incorporating realistic examples and messages with humor, compassion, and vision, Christopher presents regularly to diverse audiences and leaves listeners focused and energized on the development of new resources for students and teachers. Email Christopher at cwells@schooltechpolicies.com or visit his web site: www.schooltechpolicies.com.