1

Julie Douberly FRIT 7132 September 29, 2010 In this ever-changing world in which we live in: The Role of Technology Ethics Policies in Todays Schools Facebook, Myspace,Youtube and Twitter. iPods, iPads, Blackberries and Droids--the world of technology that our students now inhabit is constantly and rapidly evolving. Its no secret that most students are more adept at keeping pace with this ever-changing virtual environment than most teachers and school administrators; yet Standards for the 21st-Century Learner in Action (2009) tasks those same teachers with enabling students to use information and technology ethically and responsibly (p. 32). This is where technology ethics policies come in. If students are taught to use current technologies in an ethical manner, then when the next big thing comes along, they should also approach it with the same integrity they have learned and been held to through technology ethics policies. In Media Specialists Policy & Procedure Writer (2010), Elizabeth Downs examines technology ethics policies from around the country. These policies typically focus on two areas: academic dishonestyplagiarism and cheatingand acts against otherscyberbullying and inappropriate videos and photographs (p.141). While cheating and bullying are certainly nothing new to schools, the means by which these acts are currently committed are now often tied to technology. Through the use of social networking sites, mass emails, and text messaging, bullies can access their victims any hour of the day, and they can reach much larger audiences electronically when spreading rumors and falsehoods (Bissonette, 2009, p. 5). Instead of cheatsheets, students are now utilizing their iPods to record facts to surreptitiously listen to during

tests (Bissonette, 2009, p. 84). While most schools have long had academic dishonesty policies, they may now have to update those policies to include hacking into the schools records to alter grades. Technology ethics policies may also include when and in what circumstances it is appropriate for a student to use his/her cell phone. Some districts may not have one umbrella policy for all issues involved in technology ethics; some schools may have a separate policy for academic dishonesty and another which specifically addresses cyberbullying. In either case, like any good policy, a technology ethics policy should begin with clear definitions of the misconduct being addressed. For instance, the Lake County School district of Tavares, Florida includes the following definition of cyberbullying in their Cyberbullying Policy: Cyberbullying is the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone, pager, text messages, instant messaging (IM), personal Web sites, and online personal pooling Web sites, whether on or off school campus, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to threaten or harm others or that substantially disrupts or interferes with the operation of a school or an individual students ability to receive an education (Downs, 2009, p. 138). The technology ethics policy should also designate the responsibilities of all parties involved. The cyberbullying policy of the Warwick School District in Lititz, Pennsylvania contains a section titled Delegation of Responsibility. Under this policy staff members are responsible for maintaining an educational environment free of bullying and cyberbullying, as well as gathering information to determine whether such bullying has occurred (Downs, 2010, p. 136). Each student is charged with respect[ing] the rights of his/her fellow students and to ensure an atmosphere free from all forms of bullying and cyberbullying and encouraged to report bullying or cyberbullying complaints to staff members (p. 136). It is left to the principal

to complete the bully-reporting form and to contact the parents or legal guardians of both the victim and the accused (p. 136). The consequences of the misconduct should also be made clear in the policy. Springfield Township High School of Erdenheim, Pennsylvania describes the Consequences and Opportunity for Learning in their technology ethics policy which deals primarily with plagiarism (Downs, 2010, 134). Students who are found to have plagiarized will receive a zero for the assignment and must meet with a special committee of faculty and administrators to discuss their behavior. The process may end there for some students; other students, however, may be offered a second chance to complete the assignment, either starting from the beginning or at a point in the project before the plagiarism occurred. Their zero will be replaced by a D if their teacher declares the work satisfactory. This particular part of the policy also states that repeat offenders will not be offered a second chance to bring up their grades (p. 135). Some misconduct, however, may require reporting to and action by organizations outside the school district. For instance, the Vigo County School Board of Indiana recently revised their policy on inappropriate or unlawful use of cell phones by a student to include language on sexting, sending, sharing, viewing or possessing pictures, text messages, e-mails or other material of a sexual nature in electronic or any other form on a cell phone or other electronic device (Loughlin, 2010, para. 3). If a student within their school is found in possession of these sexts, school officials must report it to law enforcement or Child Protective Services because it may constitute child pornography. One of the major debates surrounding the enforcement of technology ethics policies for issues such as cyberbullying and sexting is where the schools jurisdiction ends and the students right to free expression begins. It is important to understand two legal precedents that deal with

students right to free speech: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). The Tinker standard states that school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably predict that the expression would cause a disruption or interference of school activities or would invade the rights of others. This is often used to determine if schools can officially punish students for misconduct that occurs outside of school. For instance, if one student is posting harassing comments on Facebook about another student from a home computer, does the school have the right to step in and punish the first student for cyberbullying since the act did not occur on school property or through school facilities? The schools must prove that the bullyingwhile occurring outside of school interfered with the victims rights by disrupting his/her opportunity to learn. The Hazelwood standard allows school administrations to regulate expression within school-sponsored publications when the content conflicts with the schools educational goals. According to Nancy Willard (2007) in Cyberbullying Legislation and School Policies, Hazelwood further establishes that when students are using the district Internet system, the district may govern school speech (p. 3). She goes on to say that from Hazelwood it is clear that schools can require that all on-campus use of these personal digital devices [cell phones and laptop computers] be covered by the districts policy against bullying and harassment (p. 3). Further issues of students rights have come to public attention over cases involving sexting. Recently the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington has accused Oak Harbor School District of invading a students right to privacy by allowing administrators to search students cell phones. These searches are part of the schools sexting policy. While Oak Harbor states that the policy is an effort to prevent cyberbullying, a representative of the ACLU claims that searching telecommunication devices impinges on student privacy significantly more than a

traditional backpack or locker search . . . . administrators could determine a students political views, poke into their personal relationships, investigate their parents personal relationships, find out if the student is pregnant, or discover other private details that arent the schools business (Bhattacharjee, 2010, para. 2). Unfortunately, it seems that issues surrounding the ethical use of technology in schools have become highly litigious. Tresa Baldas sums up the schools predicament in As CyberBullying Grows, So Do Lawsuits, stating: If they punish a student for something they did off school grounds, they could get hit with a freedom of speech claim. If they do nothing, they could get hit with failure to act litigation (as cited in Bissonette, 2009, p.7). Its the quintessential darned if you do, darned if you dont scenario. Willard advises that school districts must carefully articulate technology ethics policies to avoid such litigation, stating that school policies directed at cyberbullying must specifically allow school officials to respond to instances of off-campus online speech that meets the Tinker standard, as well as address the use of district Internet system and any personal digital devices used on campus (p. 7). For

example, the previously mentioned Lake County School district includes language in their cyberbullying policy about the location of the behavior, stating that students may face disciplinary action for behavior that occurs off school property if the aggressive behavior substantially disrupts or interferes with the operation of a school or an individual students ability to receive an education (Downs, 2010, p. 104). Besides providing a clear technology ethics policy, schools should also provide ethics training for students. In Cyber-Law, Aimee Bissonette (2009) states that such ethics training should begin when children are first exposed to computers (p. 82). For many students this could be as early as Pre-K or kindergarten. Due to the fact that such young students are not able

fully understand abstract concepts, Bissonette also recommends relating real-world behavior (entering a neighbors house without permission) to cyber-world behavior (accessing someone elses computer without permission) in order to help students see the issue (p. 83). However, France J. Harris (2009), author of Ethics from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, offers a word of caution about teaching isolated ethics and character-building instruction: Students may be able to parrot back rules for ethical and responsible use of information and communication technologies . . .but still behave otherwise . . .continue to download copyrighted music, torment one another online, and otherwise misuse online sources (p. 61). She believes that teachers should weave ethics learning into application of the tool in the curriculum, rather than making ethics a standalone . . . lesson (p. 61). She also stresses that schools should not let fear of misuse of Web 2.0 tools such as social networking sites lead to all-out bans on such sites. Harris says that instead, it is essential to keep the conversation open, take advantage of the teachable moments, and demonstrate to students that school rules and limitations are the result of thoughtful consideration (p. 61). While creating an effective technology ethics policy may be a difficult task, it is by no means an impossible one. It is well within our powers as educators to provide students with the knowledge needed to ethically navigate the ever-changing world of technology and information.

References Bhattacharjee, R. (2010, Aug. 31). ACLU calls school sexting policy invasion of privacy. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/31 /aclu-calls-school-sexting-policy-invasion-of-privacy Bissonette, A. M. (2009). Cyber Law: Maximizing Safety and Minimizing Risk in Classrooms. London: Corwin. Downs, E. (2010). Media Specialists Policy & Procedure Writer. New York: Neal-Schuman. Harris, F. J. (2009). Ethics from web 1.0 to web 2.0: standing outside the box. Knowledge Quest, 37(3), 56-61. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Academic Search Complete database. Loughlin, S. (2009, May 18). School board revises sexting policy. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://tribstar.com/local/x1155810801/School-board-revises-sexting-policy Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying legislation and school policies: where are the boundaries of the schoolhouse gate in the new virtual world? Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://www.cyberbully.org/cyberbully/docs/cblegislation.pdf