technology, the law, and schools: emerging issues annual conference of the south dakota association...
TRANSCRIPT
Technology, the Law, and Schools:
Emerging Issues
Annual Conference of the
South Dakota Association of
School Business Officials
Pierre, South Dakota
September 28, 2011
Charles J. Russo, J.D., Ed.D.Panzer Chair in Education University of Dayton(937) 229-3722 (ph)[email protected]
Outline
I. Introduction
II. Technology and Students
a) Internet and Related Technologies
b) Cell Phones
III. Employees and Technology
IV. Recommendations
a) Internet
b) Cell Phones
II. Students a) Internet, Related Technologies
Key Issues
1. Student Free Speech v. Need to Maintain Safe and
Orderly Learning Environment
2. Who Owns the Computers/ Systems?
3. Where did the message Come From? (home, school)
II. Students a) Internet, Related Technologies
Schools Win (2011)
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools (WVA 4th Cir. 2011)
(created fake profile of classmate)
D.J.M. ex rel. D.M. v. Hannibal Pub. School Dist. No. 60 (MO, 8th Cir. 2011) (used “instant messaging” to
communicate a “true threat” to a friend about his desire to bring weapons to school to harm others
In re Keelin B. (N.H. 2011)
(affirmed a student suspension for sending emails containing sexually explicit language to principal and teacher under the name of a peer)
II. Students a) Internet, Related Technologies
Students Win 2011
Layshock ex rel. Layshock v. Hermitage School District (PA, 3d Cir. 2011) (fake vulgar profile of
principal created on grandmother’s home computer)
J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District (PA, 3d Cir. 2011) (8th grader used home
computer to create fake profile, suggested that principal was a drug addict, pedophile).
II. Students b) Cell Phones
Key Issue
1.Student Free Speech v. Need to Maintain Safe
and Orderly Learning Environment
II. Students b) Cell Phones
Cell Phone Ownership Data
2004 71% adults 45% teens (12-17)
2009 77% adults 65% teens
“Teens and Mobile Phones Over the Past Five Years: Pew Internet Looks Back” (August 2009)
II. Students b) Cell Phones
Schools win 5 of 6 cases
III. Employees
On the one hand,
“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers
shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503, 506
(1969)
III. Employees
But, on the other hand,
“[a] teacher's employment in the public schools
is a privilege, not a right.” Board of Education of
City of Los Angeles v. Wilkinson, 270 P.2d 82,
85 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
III. Employees
Thus, who wins . . . . balancing rights
Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
to
Garcettit v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
III. Employees
Dismissals
San Diego Unified School District v. Commission on
Professional Competence (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)
(fired for posting graphic photographs of himself
on Craig’s List soliciting sex)
Snyder v. Millersville University (E.D. Pa. 2008)
(student teacher dismissed for posting” Drunken
Pirate” Pictures on My Space)
III. Employees
License Issues
Professional Standards Commission v. Adams (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (one year suspension for failing to investigate students’ sex video properly)
Wax v. Horne (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (revocation for
sending profanity-laced, sexually explicit material to 16 7th graders)
Stueber v. Gallagher (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
(revocation for inappropriately accessing pornographic Internet sites on a school computer)
III. Employees
Teachers, Students, and Facebook . . .
A state trial court in Missouri enjoined a state statute
forbidding teachers from “friending” students while the
Dayton (OH) Board of Education recently enacted such
a policy.
IV. Recommendations-AUPs
1. Acceptable use policies (AUPs) should restrict
computer access to legitimate academic,
instructional, or administrative purposes.
2. Students, parents, and teachers, should sign
AUPs at the beginning of each school year.
AUPs should make it clear that those who refuse
to sign or fail to comply will be denied access to
district-owned technology, especially the Internet.
IV. Recommendations-AUPs
3. To the extent that that they are bought/ maintained
with board funds, AUPs should state that use of
computers/ tech can be limited. This is important
since by clarifying ownership, officials have
greater latitude in regulating access to and use of
tech.
4. AUPs should consider differentiated provisions
based on student age.
IV. Recommendations-AUPs
5. AUPs should warn against visiting inappropriate
websites and transmitting materials such as viruses,
jokes, and the like.
6. AUPs need to address privacy and use limits such as
preventing teachers from using school computers to
conduct for-profit businesses while clarifying
reasonable expectations of privacy, especially as it relates to
sending and receiving messages.
IV. Recommendations-AUPs
7. AUPs should identify possible sanctions ranging
from loss of computer privileges to suspensions
for students to like penalties leading to dismissal for
teachers who commit more serious offenses.
8. AUPs should be reviewed annually, typically
between school years, not during or immediately after
controversies.
IV. Recommendations-Cell Phones
1. Subject to controlling statutes, leaders should begin
by considering whether there is public support for
policies designed to ban/ limit cell phone use in schools
IV. Recommendations-Cell Phones
2. If communities are likely to support cell phone
policies, educational leaders should ensure that
they involve representatives of key constituencies
in crafting guidelines, both when they are first
developed and when they are being revised,
because ensuring such agreement can be of invaluable
assistance.
IV. Recommendations-Cell Phones
3. Policies should clarify whether students are
forbidden from merely possessing cell phones or from
using them in schools.
IV. Recommendations-Cell Phones
4. Key due process elements that policies should
include are that they should specify circumstances under
which cell phones can be taken away, who can take
them away, who can hold phones once they are taken
way from students, how long officials can maintain
possession of phones, in addition to specifying when and
to whom they can be returned.
IV. Recommendations-Cell Phones
5. Policies should address what must occur
before student cell phones can be searched.
6. Policies should be reviewed annually, typically
between school years, not during or immediately
after controversies.
