Acceptable Use Policies Becoming A Relic
Justin Bathon on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 3:29PM Just participated a great conversation with Sara Dexter of the University of Virginia for one of her Technology Leader Certificate courses. One of the questions concerned Acceptable Use Policies and the ramifications of parents failing or unwilling to sign them, so I wanted to sort of rehash my answer here.
Flickr: madmanOTLAcceptable Use Policies developed as a result of legislation that attempted to govern how schools allowed students to use the Internet. While legislation usually did not directly call for their formation, it was sort of the implementation of choice for most schools around the country. The policy is basically a signed agreement documenting what's acceptable in using the Internet at school (although as Karl Fisch stated, it is really an unacceptable use policy as most of them are just a list of things that kids cannot do). Parents and students had to sign the AUP before they were granted any Internet privileges at school. In that way, it was sort of like a contract between the school and the student's family.
Well, today I argued that such a structure should become a thing of the past. The contractual nature of these AUP's is an outdated concept. We regularly use these kind of parental contracts for extracurricular activities at schools. Parents typically have to sign one before field trips or playing football, etc. Basically, it's the same idea as student drug testing only of extra-curriculars. Because it is a privilege beyond the basic provision of curriculum, the school can put additional requirements on it.
So, as long as we viewed the Internet as extra-curricular, the idea of an contract-based AUP worked just fine. But, we are now starting to move past the era when the Internet was extra-curricular into the era when the Internet is the curriculum. Much of what teachers are teaching these days has Internet based components and even Internet based activities. When we view the Internet as a standard part of the curriculum, the AUP doesn't make sense as a contractual endeavor because the school cannot contract for the delivery of curriculum. We have compulsory attendance laws and those laws demand that students be provided curriculum, whether or not their parents sign some agreements beforehand. This gets to the question of what happens when a parent doesn't sign an AUP. but an Internet based-activity is a standard part of the course? ... Answer: Implement the curriculum including the Internet, whether or not the AUP has been signed.
Let me be clear, I am not arguing against the principles contained in those AUP's (although certainly they can be substantially improved). What I am saying is the principles in those AUP's need to be moved into the school's discipline code and schools need to retroactively punish students for violations just as we do for any other disciplinary violations. The proactive contract-based idea only works if you actually have discretion to not implement the terms of the contract. Well, as the Internet increasingly becomes a standard part of the curriculum, that discretion is waning. It is not a bad idea to articulate to parents how you expect students to use the Internet at school, but to hold out the idea that a student won't get the standard curriculum if they don't sign an AUP is just wrong.
Reader Comments (11)
I would add that these contracts also place teachers in an awkward position of having to make significant modifications to plans for the student who's parents did not sign.
On a related note, what do you think about consequences which remove internet access? These consequences cause some of the same issues, and could be thought of in the same manner. We don't take away a textbook when a kid writes in it, but removing internet privileges for misuse is very commonplace. Same, different, waning, ...?
Thanks for the comment Joel. I think you raise exactly the issue. You don't take a textbook away, but you do take the Internet away ... what happens when the Internet IS the textbook?
I am not sure it is waning yet, but it should start, hopefully. I think we need to do a better job of understanding the the Internet is curriculum, not extra in nature such that it cannot be removed just as we do not remove the current curriculum. Once we transition mentally to that place, these contractual AUP's won't make much sense anymore and district lawyers will start advising against them. But, until everyone understands the the Internet is central to teaching and learning, none of that is possible.
Let me just second your position on appropriate use. (I am differentiating between board policy and the guidelines). Forsyth County Schools (GA) made this move about 8 years ago. We embed those "rules" into the code of conduct. Students and teachers are just as accountable for those guidelines as they are for all the rest of the rules.
Interesting post. Got here via tweet by will richardson. You are dead right on. Acceptable Use Policy is so American, so doggone hand-wringingly solution-oriented protectionist short-sighted mindless and damaging it's remarkable, or it would be, if it weren't so typical and in a category alongside the PG-13 ratings. Do teachers send home AUP forms for the books they assign? Or for the discussions they hold? Or the questions they ask on exams?
Here's an idea. Why don't we somehow get a movement going to take back the Internet as an educational tool in public schools. I get a sense that the policies governing the use of the Internet in school, including (my big beef) the list of banned sites and the process for having a new site allowed (has anyone bothered to look at how many sites are created each SECOND?), are controlled by a handful of people in a school system -- the IT person, an administrator and, perhaps, a teacher or two. Mostly these are folks who are AFRAID of what might happen and who want to make sure that some angry parent doesn't come storming through the door with a lawsuit in his/her hand....
These policies and agreements are set up out of fear; fear generated the laws and regulations in Washington that have led to additional policies and regulations in the schools. And, sad to say, media frenzy over a few lurid Internet sicko tales just has all these folks clucking and saying "I told you so."
I run a nonprofit that tries to go in the side doors of schools. We have a Web site, youngwritersproject.org in which teens are actually allowed to use the f-word, write about what they like and share their thoughts about suicide and music and stress and being gay and getting drunk and being nice. And, surprise, nothing bad has happened to them. They learn from each other. We have some 3,900 student users in little old Vermont and they've submitted 14,000 finished pieces of writing for potential publication in 2 years and another 25,000 blog posts, forums, etc and some 70,000 comments in the last year. And they've grown; they've gotten to be better writers; they have created community and, whisper now, they have embedded YouTube clips.
I don't want you to think I'm nutty, but I AM nutty about the fact that so many Vermont schools (all?) BLOCK anyone from accessing YouTube. "Why? Don't you know you can access the White House through YouTube? You can see historical footage of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Martin Luther King and James Brown..." Response: "Yes but what about all the bad stuff on YouTube? We've got to keep the kids away from that."
Around the inauguration we assembled a great set of pages on Obama, on presidential speeches, on Inauguration speeches. We embedded sound, text and video. We had RSS feeds and all sorts of things. We posted it on our student site, youngwritersproject.org We posted it on our teacher site ywpvt.net and we put it on some of the private sites we've built for schools. We sent emails to teachers and students encouraging them to use it. What happened, teachers wrote back to say they couldn't access what we'd put together for them because YouTube, GoogleVideo, vimeo and other sites were blocked. Historical footage we're talking about here.
So, back to the point... You and your colleagues should start a movement. You have the credibility: Open the Schools to the World (Wide Web). Deluge school systems and school boards and newspapers (while they last) with bona fide information on how much students learn from using the Web. And here's a question: Do you know any teacher, student, school that has changed its policy and allowed the students to access anything on the Web as part of their course work? If so, promote that school system as a poster child. Do you know of any school that has, essentially, done away with the authorization forms?
I'm just a balding bearded guy who spent 32 years in journalism who jumped off a cliff and decided to make it my life's work to help kids write. Anyway we can. And to find them audience. Anyway we can. But you and your colleagues have juice, have power. Stop preaching to the choir (not really, but you know what I mean, I hope) and go after the naysayers. Convince the ones who are so tight with worry about the Internet their eyes bulge. Get them to change. Because the kids in their charge are the ones who are the real losers.
And if I can help in any way, just give a holler.
Cheers and thanks for reading. Mostly, though, thanks for the great post that got me going here.
geoff gevalt
youngwritersproject.org
@ Jill - That's good to hear. That is exactly what I expect to happen to all schools in the next decade or so.
@ Geoff - sometimes preaching to the choir keeps them singing, you know? But your points are very valid. The fear, and especially the fear of lawsuits, is largely misplaced and they need to hear that it is safe ... from lawyers. It is a slow process to change that, especially since most lawyers are inherently conservative and slow to change, but it is slowly changing. I applaud your work, however, on the writing project.
I am with you on this. My question is what about posting images and videos of students. Our current AUP requires parent permission to use images of students and, I think, even student work.
As a former journalist now in the field of working with kids and schools and in publishing their work in five daily newspapers each week, I can say that getting parental permission for "publishing" student work is fairly easy. I do think it's a good idea, actually, to get permission for this because it further connects the parents with what their kids are doing and gives added purpose to their kids' writing.
Images and video are a bit more difficult, but given the way things go viral on the net, it's probably not a bad idea. We find that schools that hit this issue head on fare the best; they seek permission to post student work, their images, their videos, their podcasts and that it's part of the publishing process and part of gaining authentic audience for their kids' work.
What my earlier comment was about was the objection that the AUP that deal with Internet use within the classroom -- often accompanied by Draconian site blocking -- seems needless, cumbersome and a detriment to teaching. And I suspect that it arises from fear -- of lawsuits, of angry parents, of the students natural proclivity to going to things THEY are interested in versus what the TEACHERS want them to be interested in. I say do away with those AUP's and figure out a way to do more teaching around the subjects that interest the kids most.
And if my comments are off base or misplaced here, I apologize.
geoff gevalt
youngwritersproject.org
I agree the Internet has a become an integral teaching tool/resource and parents, teachers and students should accept it as they would textbooks and library materials. Here is where the Internet is different. We control content in textbooks and library collection, but we are not able to control content on the Internet and kids and adults do end up in harmful places without or without intent. Yes, we teach students what to do when that happens and yes, we inform parents of our policies; however, the government requires more us if we want to qualify for its funding, which currently pays for our access to the Internet. This is why we install the filters nobody likes and why we require students, parents and teachers to sign acceptable use agreements. Until the laws are changed or public schools find the proverbial pot of gold, we are tied to these Draconian measures.
@ mm - that is a good point, but really a different thing than using the Internet. Authorization to take pictures and what not should probably be separate anyway, or at least require a separate signature on the AUP as it stands now. Going forward, such authorization will just be a separate deal.
@ gg - misplaced? This is a blog, anything goes. I think your perspective is very useful as someone that has used the Internet effectively to integrate into curriculum.
@ Chris - I get your point, but don't think it is that big of a deal. I cruise around the Internet everyday and I rarely stumble into anything I wouldn't want my kid to see. Now, of course, kids are going to push the lines, especially young men hopped up on testosterone, but I still think filtering is fine. You don't need to filter youtube entirely, just filter the X rated stuff. These kinds of filters are functional. Of course they make mistakes, but kids can look up some pretty borderline things in Encyclopedia Britanica too, and we have no problem keeping that on the shelf. But, your point on laws is well taken. The federal filtering policy is one that sort of skews the system toward over-regulation. Of course, a bunch of lawyers are always going to write a more conservative than necessary policy ... that's just how it works (see my post on CDC doctors today). Educators need to be advocating (basically telling the lawyers what they need) for more reasonable policies. The lawyers and politicians will listen, I promise. But, the story needs to be told in the right way, and I really don't see that story being told yet.
We are a high school. Our approach is an AUG... Acceptable Use Guidelines... not policy. Students and faculty alike sign the same agreement, which basically states that school equipment and network will not be used for non-academic purposes. This is an open-ended approach. Students who overstep the boundaries may have Internet access revoked for a period of time, or require close supervision while accessing resources from the Internet. Teachers sometimes have to plan alternate activities. Filtering is a different matter. Although filtering is a nice way to prevent youngsters from accessing offensive content, I believe it does not help teach students how to responsibly use the Internet. At the HS level, students are armed with proxy sites to get around the filters. How many parents are filtering at home, or monitoring what their children access online?
It’s an incredibly appealing subject! I apparently understand each paragraph and taken much interest to read more.