Blog

A colleague sent along this article detailing how some public schools are issuing PDAs to third, fourth, and fifth graders in an effort to render them comfortable with the technology, and as another medium through which they can learn.  For example, they can use it to draw pictures, write essays, study flash cards, and take photos.  The vast majority of schools are not this progressive, and most can’t afford such a program, but I think it’s ingenious and would love to see additional districts responsibly implement it.

Elementary schoolers do need to become familiar and proficient with these technologies (to keep pace with peers, and because learning about many things should start as early as possible).  Using them in school allows for a number of “teachable moments” to instruct kids on their proper use (and how they should not be misused).  Some educators expect parents to teach youth about cyberbullying and responsible social networking since parents see their children using the devices all the time (i.e., more than administrators and teachers see it).  Having the technology used in a positive way within the school system may induce and even compel educators to bear their share of the burden in promoting digital citizenship.  Furthermore, it may finally force teachers and administrators to get up to speed with the pros and cons of online communication tools if they are strongly encouraged (or even required) to use them to facilitate instruction during the new school year.

Justin and I have both blogged about the case where an assistant principal in Virginia was charged with possession of child pornography after trying to investigate a sexting case through the collection of evidence where a student emailed the evidence (a sexually-explicit picture of a minor) to his office computer.  The charges were eventually dropped, and the latest update is that the county school board has decided to remunerate him for his legal fees – which totaled to $167,621.64.  While I think the entire ordeal is highly regrettable, I’m pleased that the administrator will be able to recoup his legal expenses – a nontrivial gesture that should help him as he tries to move forward with his life.  The concern is that the entire ordeal will likely have a chilling effect on the way school administrators and educators do their job in safeguarding the youth under their care.  In fact, that is the general sentiment expressed by the school professionals with whom we share the story.  We have to push through the tendency to do nothing, or pass the responsibility to someone else, or trivialize the potential outcomes.  As mentioned in weeks past, my hope is that when an adult at school learns about sexting evidence, they immediately contact their school district attorney and local law enforcement.  These persons can then thoroughly investigate the case before advising that adult as to how best to discipline those involved.  With all of this said, we have got to communicate across counties and states to figure out exactly what policies districts are crafting (and how they are enforcing them) when it comes to students and cell phones in general.  I feel this is slowly happening with cyberbullying prevention and response strategies, but not with the issue at hand.

In this recent story from the West Coast, a 15-year-old high-schooler named Arielle was suspended for two days after surreptitiously capturing video on her cell phone of her chaotic algebra class.  Apparently, the situation was horrible with the teacher unable to control the students, who were participating in paper-ball fights, smoking cigarettes and marijuana, and acting out in other ridiculous ways.  Arielle attempted to inform administrators about the problem, but nothing seemed to change.  So, she attempted to document the madness, and this video was anonymously sent by her friend to the superintendent.  This led to the school punishment, as such videorecording violated the state education code.

This reminds me of the Requa v. Kent (2007) court case.  There, multiple students were involved in the covert recording, posting, and disseminating of video footage depicting and criticizing their teacher’s hygiene, organizational habits, and interactions.  The footage in this case was set to music and edited into a montage, and was done in a way that was crass, offensive, and mean-spirited.  The courts ruled that students *should* have the right to critique the performance and competence of their teachers – and that this right should not only be tolerated but encouraged.  However, doing so in an immature and offensive way was deemed unacceptable, and disrupted “the maintenance of a civil and respectful atmosphere toward teachers and students alike.”

I personally am disappointed with the school district’s decision in the current case.  Arielle informed administrators that her class was basically a joke, but the situation largely remained the same.   She was being denied an equal opportunity to learn in a public school funded by the government and thereby mandated to provide an environment where she and her fellow students felt safe and comfortable.  So, Arielle sought to document what was going on in an attempt to open some eyes and bring some much-needed change.

I think it is weak to blindly point at a policy and claim that privacy rights of the teacher and other students were violated through the cell phone video recording.  I think blanket disciplinary decisions when it comes to youth and technology at school are unwise, because each of these cases are highly unique in their motives, context, use of technology, and ramifications.  I hope that the suspension is overturned, because the policy was probably intended to  prevent adolescent mischief.  Arielle’s videorecording was used to blow the proverbial whistle on an out-of-control situation, and not done in an inappropriate manner.  I also think that this never would have (and never should have) happened had administrators listened to Arielle in the first place when she voiced her concerns.  I definitely messed around in some of my high school classes, but never to this extent, and never in a way that compromised everyone’s ability to learn.  This situation is unconscionable.

In April, Justin briefly blogged about this article from the Washington post entitled My Students. My Cellphone. My Ordeal. I’d like to follow up by saying that more educators are contacting us with questions on what to do in cases where students have cell phones with sexually-explicit pictures of other youth on them.  While the administrator in the aforementioned article probably could have done a few things differently to prevent the nightmare he experienced, I still want to encourage school personnel to hand it over to law enforcement immediately after they confiscate the incriminating cell phone and before they unwisely decide to search its contents.  While school administrators need a lesser standard of proof than law enforcement to perform searches at school, I believe that they should err on the side of caution and let sworn representatives of the law identify and work with sexually-explicit pictures or videos of youth.  Thankfully, the administrator was not convicted on any count, and the entire case was thrown out on the basis of a misapplication of the charges brought by the prosecutor.  The entire situation, however, was premised on a lack of information, understanding, and rationality on the part of the prosecuting team – which makes me concerned about future cases across our country.  If we are going to possibly implement more regulation and respond with greater formal sanctions in new technology cases, we must make sure that those in the criminal justice system with the power to drastically alter the lives of others need to intelligently interpret the Constitution, case law, and *all* the facts of a situation without allowing zeal, emotion, and sensationalism color their actions.

Qik – a new software application which can be downloaded onto your phone – allows for real-time web streaming of whatever you’d like to capture.  This means that anyone else can see exactly what you see as it is happening.  The software is being ported for different platforms and will soon be available for the iPhone.  I think that it’s a neat tool that can be used to get people to a certain location to promote a grassroots movement or to simply see something fascinating or unique.

I’m sure there will be future functionality to alert individuals when their peers are currently posting a new stream so that they can tune in.  With an increasing number of web-enabled cell phones, they won’t need to run to the nearest desktop or laptop machine – they can just connect to the Internet and watch the stream on their handheld device and then make a decision if they want to go personally check it out.  Furthermore, with optics continuing to improve and flash media capacities and data speeds continuing to increase on cell phones, we will soon have clear, non-jittery streams to watch.

As with any new communications technology, though, the potential for abuse is rife.  For example, an unsuspecting student can be tricked into saying or doing something he wouldn’t normally do while his behavior is video recorded and broadcasted to distant peers tuning in.  Though a stretch, blackmail and extortion can also happen in this setting, with a kid being bullied into compliance under the threat of being “outed” or publicly humiliated through this real-time video streaming.  Gang violence or riots can also be mobilized as the beginnings of fistfights or looting can be broadcasted to summon friends to come and participate.  These are just a few examples; I’m sure there are more.