Here’s a story worth following.
The students, their families, and outraged supporters say authorities are overreacting, punishing the kids not for any heinous behavior–no malicious acts are alleged–but rather because they outsmarted the district’s technology workers.
On the surface, this story seems to fly in the face of traditional common sense about students’ duties to demonstrate what they learn whether from an educator or extended by computer aided learning.
I know, “they done wrong.” They violated school rules. Yet, rule breaking (rule changing by definition) is precisely what moves organizations forward. Perhaps in this case, rule violators should have asked for permission first? I wonder.
I continue thinking about this situation. I’m not an attorney. I don’t know the law in PA. And I don’t want to Monday Morning Quarterback. So, congratulations to the school board for initiating a one-to-one computing program for students. That’s a brave move! Keep up the good work. But, something in this saga seems out of balance. It reminds me of a line in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Macado: “let the punishment fit the crime.” (Thank you, Mrs. Crane, for insisting I perform in our high school production of that operetta.)I’m curious why educators think they must “control” learning through punishment. Why wouldn’t they use negative reinforcement instead, as defined empirically by measuring changes of behavior in the direction intended by the administrators? Why not require the rule breakers help you establish new rules and IT improvements? The action of turning students over to law enforcement seems like a slippery slope for educators to take. Follow the law, yes. Honor school rules, yes. So too should educators. Are school personnel asking that someone also investigate rule violations among teachers and administrators? What actions have administrators taken against teachers who check personal email on a school computer, or who show in class an unauthorized video tape they recoded at home; to administrators who keep a personal diary on a school computer, or who use tax payer financed school phones to call home and check on a sick child; the administrator who drives an extra block past his house to pick up something before returning the school car to the car pool; or the athletic coach who uses school exercise equipment to prepare for personal participation in a non-school athletic event? These common sense actions occur in many schools. I don’t know about Kurtztown High. These actions, too, have the appearance of violating implied contracts with Federal and state tax payers that school resources are to increase student learning, not for the personal convenience of school personnel. Ah, maybe I’ve missed something that brings school actions with students and educators into balance.
Perhaps a class in digital citizenship (two sample links here and here )in addition to what they’ve already done (having people read and agree to the district AUP) might help the situation.It’s very difficult to find the school district’s actual acceptable use policy (I gave up after 30 minutes of noodling around their website — which needs help by the way). Some sample AUP’s from websense.
Good thinking, Scotty. I like the way you approach things. Straight forward, focused, and moving things along. Thanks for the links. They make sense to me.