Policy Analysis: Smart Policy for Smart Phones
Notre Dame of Maryland University
School of Education
EDU 622 Education and Policy Analysis for Changing Schools
Name: Michele Schuler
Evolution of a Policy
Date of Submission 5/1/17
ORCID ID#0000-0002-5659-0164
Honor Code: I hereby affirm that I have neither given nor received any help on this assignment.
Electronic Signature Michele Schuler
Smart Policy for Smartphones:Social Media in Schools
by Michele Schuler, MA
Social Media is a phenomena of the 21st century,that has policy makers and school boards across the country in reactionary mode, as social media evolves. Oxford Dictionary provides this definition for social media, “noun. Websites and software programs used for social networking, ... Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are changing the way people communicate, work, and shop.” In the late 1990’s, the technology of the cell phone, began to evolve and after the attacks of New York on 9-11-01, the demand for communication grew exponentially. American culture has rapidly embraced technology and changed the way that we communicate and connect with each other. Apple released the first smartphone in 2007, the handheld device that puts the world in the palm of our hands, has impacted everything in our culture since. Prior to 2007, social media was relegated to desk top home computers with slow modem speeds over a home phone line. Social media is a global presence and has a power to shape the consciousness of masses (Fowler, 2014, 35). The influence of social media on students in school has parents, teachers and policy makers attempting to keep control over online student presence and speech. . The purpose of the policy is to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment, by establishing guidelines for student online presence on social media. In the digital age policy makers are challenged with sociopolitical, cultural and psychological impacts of student use of social media on and off of campus’ that meet the educational goals set by the Board of Education.
Social Media Policy is in conflict with the community's value system in the new millennium. “Major ideas about society, politics, and economics are organized into a structured but simplistic set of ideas called an ideology” (Fowler, 2014, 107). Social media provides an outlet for ideologies, self-interest values, general social values (i.e. individualism) and democratic values. However, as computers, tablets and phones become smarter, educators and policy makers are balancing infused technology curriculum and social norms of technology use by students.
Social media has created value conflicts, that are difficult to remedy in the real world when the conflicts occur in a virtual space. Cyberspace provides an anonymity that previously never existed in society, students can hide behind a screen and in recent decades the number of student related harassment and bullying incidents has escalated at an alarming rate. According to data collected from i-Safe, 1:3 students report being cyber bullied and 25% of students report being bullied through their phone or internet (Cyber Bullying Statistics, 2017). National and local legislators have had to work quickly, to draft legislation, to meet the needs of the social media platform. Delicately balancing, in one hand protecting the rights of the individual, while in the other hand, protecting the rights of the community at large where people interact and engage online. “...unrestricted freedom always conflicts with the other freedoms” (Fowler,2014, 104). As is the case with social media and students, where students have virtually no limits to what they can say online, setting the stage for the need to balance individual freedom against other freedoms in the interest of protection of all (Fowler, 104).
The states privacy laws protect secondary students online privacy, however, there is no such language for students under the age of 18. The law is specific about the access by institutions that opened or provide social media access to students. The law does, leave latitude for interpretation for educational institutions for the purpose of conducting investigations, especially where student safety is concerned (Legislatures (NCSL)., National Conference of State, 2017). The United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit Court rendered it’s decision in C.R. vs. Eugene School District (2016), involving a twelve year old public middle school student suspended for two days for his off-school grounds, in person, sexual harassment of two other students. Challenging students first amendment rights, claiming school authorities lacked the power suspend. The decision of the court summarized the four types of student speech subject to restriction of school officials.
(1) vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech, Bethel School vs. Fraser (1986);
(2) school sponsored speech, Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeir (1988);
(3) speech promoting illegal drug use, Morse vs Frederick (2007); and
(4) speech that falls into none of these categories, Tinker vs. DesMoines (1969). (Vacca, 2017, p. 5)
Case laws and legislation provide the Board of Education with the evidence needed to generate policy for county student use of social media, both on and off of school campus’. A county defines the misuse of Social Media as,
Whether on or off school grounds, the use of social media in a manner that demeans, condemns or berates others, including students and staff, incites violence of any kind, embarrasses, defames, harasses or bullies others, including students and staff...or in any manner violates the Code of Conduct, Board Policy or other regulation, or other local, state of federal laws. (Superintendent, 2013)
Social Media issues in education have been in the headlines recently, including a racially charged “tweet” from students, that drew attention to a Baltimore County School. According to CBS News in Baltimore, a student from Eastern Technical High school in Essex, tweeted a racial slur, the student responsible was disciplined by administration, but school officials declined to provide details (Roberts, 2017). Student misuse of social media is on the rise, especially among adolescent children. Students can use social media to share, repeat or say things to another person that they would not necessarily have the courage to do without the cover of a computer screen. Cyber Bullying leads to discourse in the classroom when students are face to face. A review of the (County) policy, does not cite any specific discipline measures or progressive discipline practices as related to student misuse of social media, except in extreme cases.
The county Student Use of Social Media policy, has no language to deter students from misuse of technology. A social phenomena in the last year surrounding social media, has been live video feeds and other video recordings capturing levels of violence including, rape, murder, law enforcement and student on student violence. The current policy has no specific language included in its policy about discipline actions for students who participate, endorse, or capture violence on video, on or off of school property.
There are multiple technology policies that can be linked together, for example students and teachers are prohibited from having contact on social media, unless conducted on an approved application. Students must have parental consent for use of county technology or to download applications to personal devices. Students are provided with protections from teachers and county internet uses. However, it is worth mentioning, that there is no protection for teachers being videotaped by students in their classrooms. Several videos have popped up online and captured local and national news that show teacher misconduct in the classroom, however, County public school policy prohibits teachers from videotaping in their classroom without parental consent. Students are very aware of their freedoms being protected under the current policy, and while more students abide by individual classroom teachers rules regarding cell phone use in class, there are many who would attempt to trap or bait a teacher into a situation that might find the teacher on the receiving end of a disciplinary action by the board. Videotaping and live streaming in schools is a problem that is likely to escalate, unless there is intervention from policy makers. The balance of power in the classroom is at a tipping point in terms of social media, video and cellphones, that is infringing on the values and rights of students and teachers. Not addressing this videotaping or streaming video in the classroom soon, may result in serious consequences.
The County does not currently have the ability to provide one-to-one student technology in any classroom. Students are restricted to sharing, and teachers are responsible for creating a system where device users can be tracked. The County includes in its social media policy, some of the terms of student use of county owned technology (i.e. iPads, laptops, chrome books and desktop computers) that provides students access to some social media sites, that are approved for instructional purposes. These software applications include Edmodo, Google Classroom and others. Those devices are protected by the network and inappropriate content is blocked. However, students are often using the technology in ways that was not intended. When students are caught misusing technology owned by the county, students can be excluded from using technology in the future. The burden falls to the classroom teacher to enforce and report student misuse. The policy outlines the reporting protocol, but leaves disciplinary actions to administrators. Only in severe cases of misconduct, including, cyber-bullying, safety or security of a student will an investigation be conducted. The policy states that delinquent acts will be reported to the responsible law enforcement authority. The policy offers no definition of delinquent activities.
While the policy uses some legal language to cover a broad spectrum, there is ambiguity in some areas, where specific values language (i.e. Rallis) would benefit the stakeholders. The American Academy of Pediatrics published a report on the Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents and Families in 2011. At the time of the publication the primary use of social media included social networking, gaming, and entertainment. The report indicates that students, especially those of the middle school and high school age are limited in their capacity for self-control and susceptible to peer pressure, making experimenting on the internet and social media a risky behavior (Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, 2011, 800). The county policy was adopted in 2013, and does address some of the benefits to student use of social media, including collaboration, assignment help and exchange of ideas. However, the social media platform has evolved since the original publication and the policy does not respond to concerns of depression, sleep deprivation, inappropriate content, including sexting or digital footprints (Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, 2011, p. 802). At the time of the study, seventy-five percent of students had a cell phone (Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, 2011, 800) the access to cell phone or smart phone technology has overcome socio-economic demographic gaps. Parental regulation of phone use is also an unintended consequence of social media behaviors. Parents want to have access to their children via phone, however, even with parental involvement, many students disregard parental authority and continue to use cell phones during instructional time.
Texting, instant messaging (IM) or communications via social media apps is also presenting an opportunity for academic dishonesty. In addition to student’s ability to share answers on in class assignments and assessments, there is also the opportunity to cheat on National Tests that are conducted in classrooms, for example PARCC, AP, or ACT during instructional times. The guidelines for technology in the testing environments is made clear by testing authors, that all student technology is to be out of the testing environment. When testing begins, the testing facilitator reads the technology rules in the manual, and on average, at least 1 student does not comply and testing violations occur. In 2015, several teachers were reprimanded when students were able to snap a few pictures of the PARCC assessment. According to the article in Education Week, May 2015, the number of incidents of assessments leaked on social media, compared to the number of students participating online for testing, the percentage is low. However, again, note that the article provides no evidence that students were disciplined for the infraction. Teachers, who have little or no control over student actions were reprimanded for the student social media infraction (Gewertz, 2015). Teachers have no explicit power to confiscate phones in a testing environment, especially when students deny having them in the room. The PARCC Administrator's manual cites that student’s tests may not be scored if there is a testing violation, however, an educator could lose their teaching licenses. The unintended consequences for couties could be that the teachers will become disenfranchised. The current county policy does not address academic dishonesty or consequences for use of social media, during standardized testing windows.
In most cases, where misuse of social media occurs, students are less likely to be reprimanded. Teachers are expected to model responsible digital citizenship to their students, giving students access and opportunity to appropriate social media outlets, when students are less likely to be reprimanded of social media misconduct,
For example, in California, a student posted a slideshow on YouTube that depicted the killing of a teacher in his school.[xxi] The teacher came across the slideshow, and was understandably upset. She became ill and lost sleep.[xxii] The court held this was enough to foresee a material disruption to the school environment.[xxiii] In Mississippi the courts found the same. A student there posted a YouTube rap video that criticized a coach and included the lines: “looking down girls’ shirts/drool running down your mouth/messing with wrong one/going to get a pistol down your mouth” and “middle fingers up if you can’t stand that nigga/middle fingers up if you want to cap that nigga.”[xxiv] The coach stated he felt threatened and his teaching style was affected. This was enough for the court to hold that the video in fact caused a material and/or substantial disruption at school and that it was reasonably foreseeable it would cause such a disruption.[xxv] However, the Third Circuit has held that fake profiles of administrators, as long as they are not intended to reach the school or are so “outrageous” that no one would believe them, are not enough to forecast a substantial disruption.[xxvi] In one of those cases, the fake profile stated that the principal had interests such as: “detention, being a tight ass, riding the fraintrain, spending time with my child (who looks like a gorilla), baseball, my golden pen, fucking in my office, hitting on students and their parents .”[xxvii]... (Hazel)
Counties should consider a comprehensive review any policy regarding student use of social media that is more than 18 months old.. The policy needs to have clear values added language that would make the policy clear to all stakeholders. The policy needs to have consequences clearly outlined for student misconduct, it is not adequate to have the language in the policy refer back to other policies. The potential problems for not having measured results and consequences in the policy, could include law suits brought against the county or individual teachers. Law suits nationally have emerged because of social media posts, including cases where a student in South Carolina was suspended for “‘favoriting’ messages on a gossipy feed because she thought they were funny” (National Coalition Against Censorship, 2017).
The policy needs to address the use of video and/or live streaming video in classrooms. It would benefit students, teachers, staff and administrators if cell phones with picture or video capabilities were excluded from school campus’ altogether. There is no need for students to have a phone in the classroom, if there were a parental emergency, certainly a phone call to the school office would be sufficient. In the interest of student health, the policy should provide information about student health risks associated with the use of social media. It would be best for students to have access to technology in school, where students can be taught democratic values, global and digital citizenship in a forum that is safe and creates a learning environment that meets the Academy of Pediatric recommendations for social media interactions that promote beneficial socialization and communication practices for 21st century learners, including: collaboration, philanthropic events, and enhancement of individual and collective creativity (Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, 2011, p. 801). The county policy needs to include language that addresses the unlawful recording of teachers in class. Students, are not aware that the laws that protect their individual freedoms, also are applied to teacher’s freedoms. The policy should also address social media in test taking environments with explicit consequences for violations in these situations. In the digital age policy makers are challenged with sociopolitical, cultural and psychological impacts of student use of social media on and off of public school campus’ that meet the educational goals set by the Board of Education.
References
Cyber Bullying Statistices. (2017, April). Retrieved from Bullying Statistics: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html
Fowler, F. C. (2014). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Retrieved 2017
Gewertz, C. (2015, May 5). Students Snap Pictures of PARCC Test, Teachers Disciplined. Education Week's blogs: curriculum matters. Education Week.
Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, K. C.-P. (2011). The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. American Academy of Pediatrics, 800-804.
Hazel, M. (n.d.). Social Media: Students Behaving Badly. Millenium Magazine. South Carolina. Retrieved 2017
Legislatures (NCSL), National Conference of State. (2017, January 11). State Social Media Privacy Laws.
National Coalition Against Censorship. (2017). Watch What You Tweet: Schools, Censorship and Social Media. New york, NY.
Roberts, N. (2017, March). Maryland High School Students Protest Racist Social Media Post. Baltimore, MD.
Superintendent. (2013, April 17). Policy JCCC-RA - Student Use of Social Media. Regulation Student Use of Social Media. Annapolis, MD: Anne Arundel County Public School.
Vacca, D. R. (2017, April). School Disciplinary Authority and Student Off-School Grounds Behavior:Policy Implications. CEIP Education Law Newsletter, 15-5, 2-7.
