ISTE+Standard+VI+Reflection

ISTE Standard VI: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues

The message of ISTE Standard VI harkens back to some of our first discussions in EDLD 5306, and the incongruence between the needs of 21st century learners and the realities of a 21st century public school system (Williamson & Redish, 2009, pp. 124-127). Marc Prensky calls for a bridge the divide between digital “natives” and digital “immigrants” (Prensky, 2001, p. 4). Now, however, we see the term “digital divide” described in the stark terms of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, another step in the widening gap between what is and what should be in our schools. There is no question that such a divide of access is alive and well on my suburban Title I campus. Cases in point: during past school year, I had a parent conference with a mother who assured me in no uncertain terms that she could not possibly access a computer to check online grade book each week, a campus professional development proposal for Moodle-based student work soundly rejected because of student accessibility, and a student conference with a fifth grade student who had never had a working television in his house, much less an Internet-ready computer. My district recognizes the need to address universal accessibility for students, but this concern is one of many. Finances are scarce, and a downturned economy does not support much in the way of capital-heavy initiatives. We do have strong infrastructure in place within our schools, and we work to support students’ development of technological skills within the curriculum. To that end, our district has detailed filtering policies, with information available to district employees concerning the specific filtering criteria that the district has developed in conjunction with their Internet security software providers and processes for both teachers and students to apply to have sites unblocked. The Student Code of Conduct was also updated this year to outline specific expectations for online behavior using school resources, and the district spoke with educators directly concerning the monitoring and management of student computer use; however, I think that the current policy does not extend nearly far enough to ensure student accountability with district technology. Students sign the Code of Conduct, a 50-page document that includes only one page relating specifically to technology use in the classroom. There is no separate document related specifically to acceptable use for students to sign, although there is a permission slip for parents to sign so that students may log onto the Internet at school. Teachers in the district fare only marginally better in terms of preparedness for the realities of a digital workplace. While our district requires extensive professional development in the area of technology implementation, none comes in the form of acceptable use for teachers or students. In her book, //Cyber Law//, Aimee Bissonette (2009) underscores the need for proactive steps to alleviate problems with inappropriate student online conduct before it starts: “Schools need to draft and enforce school policies regarding appropriate conduct on campus. In fact, such policies are critical for schools that do not want to be held liable for inappropriate use of the school Internet system” (p. 25). Most teachers have informal discussion regarding acceptable use with students at the first of every school year, but there is no set component in the elementary curriculum regarding technology use. All teachers, students, and parents are required to sign the Code of Conduct at the beginning of each school year. The chain of command in reporting any incident involving classroom technology is identical to that of any other violation of the student Code of Conduct. This includes written documentation to the campus principal, then disciplinary consequences that are in line with the severity of the violation. If a violation appears to show a weakness in the district’s security filtering, the campus principal would report the incident to the district technology coordinator. While I see this policy as an adequate response to policy infractions and inappropriate behavior, I remain concerned at the lack of a more proactive approach in educating both students and teachers regarding this issue. Recently I completed a second round of professional development for use of the Moodle online course platform, which included a segment on developing discussion forums as part of the coursework. It is an amazing interface between teacher and students where students can receive resources, submit assignments, and share ideas with their peers. Throughout the training, however, I found myself considering issues of student speech and of my role in balancing student rights and an appropriate student learning environment. Prior to my coursework in school law, I would not have given such issues more than brief consideration. Now I realize that this area is still a battleground for determining boundaries for school accountability and student freedom, and those of us who jump into the breach must keep our eyes on that constantly moving target. In particular, the concept of ‘open’ vs. ‘limited’ forum is a vital one, addressed in the Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). As I developed discussion groups in my coursework, this ruling helps guide the framing the expectations for my students in this limited classroom forum. Because my campus has not previously utilized online discussion forums with students, I have acted as a trailblazer this new area of technology integration. My successes, and failures, in maintaining a healthy, respectful online classroom environment continue to act as a litmus test for future of such tools on my campus. A more thorough understanding of this standard, more than anything else, changed how I conduct my online personal life, and thereby affected the guidance that I give to others. For the 2010-2011 school year my district implemented new policies for employees regarding social networking sites. Prior to my investigation of the coursework and current case law in this area, the new policies gave me little pause. That has all changed. I now cast a much wider net as I consider the implications of any item that is posted not only on my site, but on other’s sites that reference me by name. While in certain circumstances I still maintain my rights to constitutionally protected free speech, U.S. Courts have given school districts broad discretion in governing the public perception a teacher presents. The implications for me are then twofold. On the one hand, a Facebook post announcing my support of the Rally to Restore Sanity is protected as a pronouncement of public concern, so long as my job performance has not otherwise be compromised. On the other hand, a tagged photo of me wearing a risqué Halloween costume will not be protected regardless of my other work circumstances. Where I falter is in the gray area of off-campus activities. (Bissonette, 2009, p. 31) Generally the advice for teachers is that for any person living in the public eye: the appearance of impropriety is as damaging as the fact of it. Much of teacher’s life is lived in the court of public opinion, and the discrepancy between what //ought// to be allowable conduct and what is //in fact// allowable conduct is a foggy hollow. Overall, this standard represents the area of technology integration that gives me the most pause as a classroom teacher and the one that inspires me most to work as a leader in order to create substantive change. With each new advance, each new resource, each new student stands a moment for both great benefit and great risk. At each of these moments, a true leader is needed to have not only the resources and knowledge but the sensitivity and presence to create a robust, safe learning environment for students.

References:

Bissonette, A. (2009). //Cyber Law: Maximizing Saftey and Minimizing Risk in Classrooms.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) Mt. Healthy Independent School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) Prensky, M. (2001, September/October). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. //On the Horizon//, pp. 1,3-6. Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards: What Every K-12 Leader Should Know and Be Able to Do.// Washington: International Society for Technology in Education.