My sister is Mary Greenberg. She (and I agree with her) is disturbed by the school board replacing parental judgment. Who decides what is "inappropriate"? Also, at issue for me is that, with this amendment, the School is not addressing what the kids do; they are punishing what the kids publish and that gets into freedom of speech issue.
I am interested in what you think.
My sister, by the way, has been flooded with calls since she spontaneously spoke up at the school beard meeting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they are desperately trying to figure out how to keep MySpace and other such student activities from disrupting school. I wish them best in their quest for a good solution. I don't think this is it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see how the school can have that authority unless they can prove it was posted during school hours or from the school. How can they claim authority over what kids do outside of the school building?
FG
edit: (well, I guess they can kick them off a team for drinking outside of school, or doing drugs. But I don't see how this is equivalent)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought of it as the same thing as drugs outside of school will get someone kicked off the football team.
I agree that "inappropriate" is definitely too vague. Is this supposed to address hosting a porn site or dissing one's teammates' performance?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a person who is often in the Educational settings, I can very well see how this would be helpful. We have students slandering teachers and fellow students on their websites and this all ends up coming to school because parents don't think they need to deal with this. They come back with it is just kids being kids. And I don't think it is any different than dealing with the drinking and drug use. Extracurricular activities are just that...extra. If a student can not show that they can represent a school decently(whether they are at the school or not) they should not be allowed to represent the school. Plus they should pay for the time that is caused in the school education process with dealing with counselors and other faculty having to deal with "Jane said such and such about me on the computer and then Sally said such and such on her blog." Not being in the classrooms one may not realize what a huge disruption to the school day things like this have become.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. They don't get any more specific than "illegal or inappropriate". That is part of my issue. Drinking and drugs are both illegal activities and are already punishable.
And they aren't talking about either a school-hosted website or posting during school hours. This would be in effect 24/7/365.
Kristen, perturbs you in what way?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb: That was my brief "I have class in 15 minutes" response; I just reacted so strongly to reading it that I couldn't wait.
I don't see why that rule was necessary in the first place: if there is a normal photograph of a teenager drinking and it reached the school I think most schools would react accordingly.
Thus, I believe it to have more sinister implications about the public school, funded by the government, being able to monitor and control its students outside of school grounds.
Once again, I'll explain more fully if someone hasn't already said it better.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... now that I think of it, I can also see it from OSTY's point of view. While Mary Greenberg is right that it is a parental responsibility, we know that often parents don't rise to their responsibilities.
And we recently (here at work) had a situation where an employee had written something on a blog that was disparaging and inappropriate, and included our company name, and I understand that he was asked to take it down (or remove the specific company name from the text). Would we have a right to fire him if that didn't happen? Well, as a right-to-work state, I think we could without legal repercussions, but I don't know if it would be right to do.
FG
edit: okay I think I got my legal definitions wrong there. I meant to say Kansas is an "at will" state -- meaning you don't have to state a reason to fire someone, if I understand correctly.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
That is an interesting point. I think the difference here is that is is a public school, publicly funded - as are the extra curricular activities.
OSTY,
I can see the practical advantages (I used to be an inner-city school librarian) - I just don't think they outweigh the dangers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone post the relevant portion of the article? Once I registered for Chi-Trib and got a bunch of spam the next day, so I'm a little leery of doing it again.
My take: there's nothing wrong with school officials reading public information (which blogs are). It's not really "monitoring" so much as "reading."
There's a major problem with punishing someone for out-of-school speech. I can't quite tell what the school is advocating at this point in that regard.
However, if the writing or pictures contain evidence of in-school or extra-curricular-related infractions, the school is well within its rights to make use of that information.
Team hazing, for example, is often detected in this way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a move that has drawn national attention to this Lake County school district, the Community High School District 128 board unanimously passed rules changes Monday night that will hold students accountable for what they post on blogs and social-networking Web sites.
For Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools, the changes will mean that all students participating in extracurricular activities, including athletic teams, fine arts groups and school clubs, will have to sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action.
Officials of District 128, which includes the two schools, said about 80 percent of the district's 3,200 students participate in one or more extracurricular activities.
Associate Supt. Prentiss Lea said the changes are part of an effort to get the district community more knowledgeable about the growing Internet blog phenomenon and more aware of the pitfalls of such sites as MySpace.com.
"By adding the blog sites [to the student codes of conduct], we wanted to raise discussions on the issue," he said. "We have taken the first steps to starting that conversation."
quote: District officials will not regularly surf students' sites for rules violations, officials said. But they will monitor them if they get some indication--specifically, a tip from another student, a parent or a community member--pointing them in that direction.
School administrators would treat incriminating information found on the Web the same as they would any other evidence of wrongdoing, as pieces of a larger investigation into the offending behavior.
The new pledge will be used in all activities for the next school year, including those that start over the coming summer break, Lea said.
In the pledge, which both students and their parents must sign, the students agree that they won't use alcohol, tobacco or drugs or "exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school."
The code of conduct states that "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
(Dag - I just use www.bugmenot.com to get around those registration pages)
FG
(K- sorry I cut out your sister's part -- was just trying to show Dag the legal parts)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the most part the proposed 'pledge' seems okay, if perhaps due to misguided desires. However, this excerpt smacks of loyalty oaths, and of unconstitutional restrictions on student behaviors. For instance, under any normal reading of this, helping another school's team work out would be a violation, or just about any actions the school administration happens to not like.
quote:exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school.
It is part of a list of things students are going to be made to sign a pledge not to do.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the impression taht the school is officially reserving the right to punish kids using evidence gathered online. For instance, if a student alludes to cheating/drinking/drugs/whatever and the school is tipped off, they want to be able to use that info; particularly in the case of activities where having a clean record is already mandatory (like sports).
posted
It uses the words accountable in connection with illegal and inappropriate, and says information would be used as pieces of any larger investigation.
It doesn't exactly wave red flags for me. Keep in mind that high school students don't, strictly speaking, have constitutional freedoms yet.
P.S. I have trouble with spelling contraversy myself. It's a hard one to remember. I don't know if I got it right or if you care...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While students do not enjoy all freedoms, they certainly have plenty of constitutional freedoms.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. I don't have a problem with the school using what the kids publish as evidence for bad behavior. I do have a problem if they are considering the publication itself as an offense. Does that make sense? It is difficult to tell what they intend.
This part:
quote: "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
seems to indicate that the contents of a blog site could be an offense in itself.
edit: For example, if my nephew wrote about or posted pictures of his Aunt Kate getting arrested, that would be "depicting illegal behavior".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I correct in assuming this is only about students involved in extracurricular activities? If so, then I see no problem with it. You don't have a right to represent your school on a team or in a club, it's a privilege and if you do something against the code of conduct and evidence of that is available online, then you should lose that privilege.
The fact that they only mention the evidence online as being used as part of a larger investigation tells me that it would probably take more than just a single post in a blog - but if that post is incriminating and matches up with other evidence, then again I see no problem with the school exercising it's right to deny a student the ability to serve on an extracurricular team.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My big problem is just that I don't know why this needs to exist in the first place: it seems like if the school has documented evidence of the student's committing actions against their general EC policy, they will act as if it were photographs, videos, or, even word-of-mouth in some cases.
Perhaps a clause on the general contract that evidence online counts could be written, but why the fuss? Why the big meeting and special pledge? Sounds like they have another motive to me which directly involves monitoring and controling students or trying to garner attention. Something unsavory beneath it all, I tell you.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously the school does. And as the institution of authority in this case (that is, the school is the one with the ability to grant or refuse a student membership in a particular school sponsored group) that is exactly who should decide.
Would you, for example, consider a student posting a death threat against his math teacher grounds for dismissal from an extracurricular organization? I would.
That's a case where a post itself can be enough evidence, to me.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that threatening a math teacher - in person, over the phone, in an e-mail, on a website, in a letter - is grounds for discipinary action. I don't think that writing in your blog about someone threatening a math teacher - or even talking about how rotten your math teacher is - should be. This code doesn't differentiate between the two.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: Thus, I believe it to have more sinister implications about the public school, funded by the government, being able to monitor and control its students outside of school grounds.
Once again, I'll explain more fully if someone hasn't already said it better.
This is exactly my issue with it. Stating you'd like to kill your math teacher in your blog? Definately wrong and needs to be investigated. Saying your math teacher is an idiot? Free speech- but would a kid still get kicked off the team for it? That bothers me.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does "maintaining or being identified on a blogsite that . . ." mean that if you comment on someone else's blog that depicts illegal/inapropriate behavior you can get in trouble for it?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about a student who has very few friends, is in some sort of "nerdy" club, and it is the only place where he has any kind of confidence or social skills. There is a bully, or group of bullies, that pick on him constantly. He writes a blog about it and says something like "I wish they would all just die" or "If I could stand up for myself and beat them up I would." You get the idea.
It could be construed as a threat, even though it's harmless, but is that grounds for kicking the kid out of his club? I don't think so.
I can see this getting out of hand with blogs and bulletin posts being taken out of context, or exagerated to the point of someone innocent being prosecuted wrongly. Often a blog is a way to blow off steam, so that you don't do or say something that is inappropriate, IRL.
If a student doesn't have a place where they can rant, get rid of this extra tension, let someone know how they're feeling or express themselves, will there be other, unforseen, potentially dangerous results?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question. Right now it is vague enough to mean whatever the person deciding says it means.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have students slandering teachers and fellow students on their websites and this all ends up coming to school because parents don't think they need to deal with this.
It's called being picked on. It happens all the time, and it's very rare for a school to do anything about it.
I'm trying to read the story, but this registration process is too long, and I suspect it will cause me to receive many unwanted emails.
At any rate, the point is, as long as the students aren't doing anything ILLEGAL, I don't think it's the school's place to do anything about it. And if they claim that it is, well, then I'd like to see them do something more about the face-to-face harassment that takes place on school property first.
posted
This entire issue really isn't anything new - schools have been taking action against students for their blogs and online community accounts ever since they became popularized about 5 years ago.
I know a girl whose administrators wouldn't recognize that she qualified for NHS until she stopped posting derogatory commentary about her teachers on her blog. She refused to stop. Not only did she not get her NHS membership, her administrators actually contacted colleges she was applying to and told them about it and framed it as a very large scale disciplinary problem. It drastically affected her admissions.
Her parents took it to court. They lost - without the help of a poorly worded, vague rule.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
This wording is really problematic to me - it seems to imply that a student can get in trouble if they post on a site where the site is the entity depicting the illegal/inappropriate behaviour, regardless of whether or not the student in question has anything to do with said behavior. In other words, the location of the students' internet activity would have just as much weight, if not more, than the actual content of the students' posts. If that's actually what they mean (which I hope they don't!), then students could potentially get in trouble for simply posting anywhere, no matter what their posts actually say.
"Being identified" is questionable too - so a student who has not been posting "will be considered a violation of this code" if someone else talks smack about them erroneously?
And I agree, "inappropriate" is too vague and would need a lot more clarification.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see this along the same lines as "You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theatre." You have freedom of speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Kids in middle/high school, from what I have learned, use blogs as places to socialize. But blogs are also increasingly being used as a medium to bully people.
Alot of the kids who recently have been arrested plotting school massacres like Columbine, were discovered because they posted information on their plans within their blogs, or the blogs of others.
Children are often made the targets of bullies via blogs, chatrooms, and IM services. They are threatened and people often have their personal information accosted by deceitful or forceful bullys, who give that information to others bent on harming the individual.
Posting on the internet IMO is not "Private." Posting in blogs especially as they are designed to be read. If you have private things that you do not wish others to see, you can write them on your computer, in a book, but not on a public access realm on the internet. I just do not think the docterine of freedom of speech applies here, as freedom is surrendored when you in effect shout something in public, and there is reasonable cause to monitor in order to save lives.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with comparing the Columbine kids to bullies. And as I said, bullying is nothing new, and schools do relatively little about it even in more controlled environments where the emotional damage is much worse.
quote:You have freedom of speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Even if blogs do fall under this (which they don't, unless someone is being vicious and explicit enough to be sued for libel), it's not part of the school's purview to police this. It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The code as written seems both vague enough to allow for tremendous abuse by its administrators and to encourage students to "narc" on one another. It sounds like a student could easily get in trouble just for writing about their personal frustrations with their school or depression regarding elements of their social life.
Teenagers get a bad rap in the U.S. that they don't necessarily deserve. The technophobia of many adults who oversee them and often realize they don't have as high a level of understanding of "that stuff" isn't helping.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A senior at my school got suspended for content on his myspace. He was graduating and was about to be accepted to Virginia Tech, but after the suspension the College is reviewing his entry. He didn't post the blog at school, or during regular school hours. In fact, the school cop has taken it upon himself to browse through students web blogs without their permission. Apparently the cop got the idea that it is his responsibility to punish students because of web blog content.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. I don't have a problem with the school using what the kids publish as evidence for bad behavior. I do have a problem if they are considering the publication itself as an offense. Does that make sense? It is difficult to tell what they intend.
This part:
quote: "maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."
seems to indicate that the contents of a blog site could be an offense in itself.
edit: For example, if my nephew wrote about or posted pictures of his Aunt Kate getting arrested, that would be "depicting illegal behavior".
Actually someone being arrested would not be depicting illegal behavior. Showing the actions that caused that person to be arrested would be depicting illegal behavior.
As far as the code being vague, I think that is good it leaves the ability for administration to determine on a student by student basis what is acceptable and what is not. The main situation I see here is that the people who do the actions they are concerned about, rarly are a part of the extracurricular activities. But I will tell you once again, things that happen at home always seem to come to school and it always seems that the schools have to deal with these situations becuase parents don't think it is their responsibility any more (not all parents feel this way but it seems more and more do).
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But -- was what he posted illegal activity? (edit: this was to SoaPiNuReYe)
I mean -- I see that in the case of those kids planning Columbine-like attacks, and posted about it on their blogs -- well, then in those cases it doesn't matter what the schools do, because the POLICE will come in and get it for evidence.
But what types of things would the school find offensive enough for suspension, that wouldn't also involve the police -- because it is illegal?
quote:You have freedom of speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Even if blogs do fall under this (which they don't, unless someone is being vicious and explicit enough to be sued for libel), it's not part of the school's purview to police this. It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
I doubt they are saying "all students register their blogs with the school so we can monitor" its more "we reserve the right to monitor blogs that are brought to our attention as being malicious."
Teachers can monitor student behavior on school grounds just by watching or listening. Reading their public blogs is no different.
quote: don't agree with comparing the Columbine kids to bullies. And as I said, bullying is nothing new, and schools do relatively little about it even in more controlled environments where the emotional damage is much worse.
Why not?
quote: It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
Schools have a responsibility for their students during school and after school.
Bullying usually is not restricted to school hours. Its not like a kid gets pushed around and once the bell sounds he is left alone until school commences the next day. Often times these bullys simply go home and harass kids on IM services or chatrooms.
Again I don't think this is teachers monitoring these places so much as being liscenced to review sites that are brought to their attention and take neccesary action to prevent ill from befalling students under their responsibility.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: A senior at my school got suspended for content on his myspace. He was graduating and was about to be accepted to Virginia Tech, but after the suspension the College is reviewing his entry. He didn't post the blog at school, or during regular school hours. In fact, the school cop has taken it upon himself to browse through students web blogs without their permission. Apparently the cop got the idea that it is his responsibility to punish students because of web blog content.
A blog tends to state that I can look at it without permission. And again, I don't know what this student put in his blog to receive the suspension but obviously the administration deemed it necessary to punish him for his actions. Maybe it will send a good message to parents that they need to be a part of their children's online life and become aware of what they are doing on the internet.
I find it funny that parents worry about where their children go when they walk out the door of their house but do not when they walk out the house through the wires of a computer!
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if blogs do fall under this (which they don't, unless someone is being vicious and explicit enough to be sued for libel), it's not part of the school's purview to police this. It doesn't happen on school grounds or during school time, therefore it's none of their business.
Actually, my high school explicitly stated that any gathering of three or more students from our school, regardless of where we were, was considered associated with the school - and therefore the school had jurisdiction over what happened.
They used this to expel several of my classmates for drinking at a weekend party - a party that was not visited by the cops or parents.
It was a private school, though, and I'm not sure to what extent they're allowed to make up their own BS rules regarding what does and doesn't constitute an expulsion-worthy offense.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually someone being arrested would not be depicting illegal behavior. Showing the actions that caused that person to be arrested would be depicting illegal behavior.
I was arrested while engaging in "illegal" activity. The charges were eventually dropped.
Not that it matters - just trying to add to my..ahem...mystique. Heh.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Teachers can monitor student behavior on school grounds just by watching or listening. Reading their public blogs is no different.
It's very different. Especially considering that they're talking about policing blogs that aren't written on school property during schooltime.
I disagree with everyone who says that schools have to take more and more responsibility because parents don't want to do it. More accurately -- I don't disagree with the statement; I disagree with the sentiment. Just because parents don't want the responsibility doesn't mean that schools should take over for them. Parenting comes with a whole host of responsibilities, most of which I don't think you should be able to shirk because you don't feel like doing it.
And schools definitely shouldn't be your backup option to raise your kids.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate: Lets see . . . involved in a protest?
That a school might occasionally see information on blogs and perhaps use that information in the course of a disciplinary action I am okay with.
The requirement to sign a pledge to not "exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school" I am not.
That's a writ to persecute those the administration doesn't like.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm leery of commenting - the only sentence that raises any concern for me so far is the "maintaining or being identified..." sentence, which might be out of context, might just be very poor drafting, and might be a suggestion of something more sinister. It's the only one that suggests punishment based on expression alone, which I would have a HUGE problem with. Legally, student speech may be constrained, but they definitely still have a basic first amendment right to free expression.
I am a little confused by some of the concern shown about school administrators merely looking at blogs - these are public sites which encourage public viewing.
Beyond that, this doesn't seem Internet-specific to me from a legal standpoint. Schools have some authority to punish behavior outside school hours. There are some limits on their ability to reach such behavior, limits I do not fully understand.
Think about this, though. Schools have a legal duty to attempt to stop harassment - an activity which includes speech. If someone is advertising their blog which contains harassing speech at school (either by telling friends, IMing them, or whatever), is the harassment occurring at school?
It's a tricky question, one I would need to think seriously about.
Some speech on blogs is definitely within school purview. For example, if a football player not getting enough playing time posts the playbook online, he should able to be punished within the team.
The big concern is obviously retaliation for unflattering speech outside school time and property about the school or school personnel. That is well outside the bounds of acceptable exercise of authority and, if this policy leads to that, then it should be reigned in. Hard.
However, I'm actually more comfortable with the school admitting they're reading the blogs. I'm sure that some teachers take blog comments about them into effect in grades, recommendation decisions, and the like, often without mentioning the reason for the poorer treatment. Maybe now students will clue in to the fact that what they say matters in ways beyond mere exercise of free speech and take a little more care in expressing their opinions.
So while I see the concerns here, this is a very tricky issue with a lot of ramifications. I hope people think about all of it before condemning or praising this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The requirement to sign a pledge to not "exhibit gross misconduct or behavior/citizenship that is considered detrimental to his/her team or school" I am not.
My impression was that the code and pledge requirement existed already and that the blog language was being added to it. So I was only focusing on the new element.
Those codes exist across the country and are certainly worth of greater discussion (and some of condemnation). They're just not novel. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
