UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

Charles County Public School AUP Critique

Classroom AUP and Security Project
Anna Newton EDTC 630 Summer 2012

Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) acceptable use policy is roughly a two page document that is a part the thirty-one page student code of conduct. It is published by the school board every year and is given to every student at the beginning of the school year. The AUP begins by describing what is considered computer and technology misuse and its consequences. In the next section, the purpose of internet use in education and the purpose of the rules of the AUP are addressed. There is also a disclaimer that while the staff will monitor students use of the internet, they are not liable if a student accidentally or willingly goes to an objectionable site. The disclaimer also states that the use of the internet at school is a privilege and not a right and that the code of conduct, which includes the AUP, must be signed in order to access the internet in school. The next two sections are the contracts that describe acceptable and inappropriate use of the internet for elementary and secondary students. The secondary students contract is much more detailed than the elementary students because secondary students have gained more knowledge and skill using the internet. There is the expectation that they will be using technology and the internet more often and extensively in school and outside school for many assignments. The student and parent must sign the acknowledgement form at the beginning of the code of conduct. It must be returned to school in order to use the internet at school and to get a locker issued to them. While the student AUP is issued by the county, there is no central AUP for the staff. Each school has a document that discusses what the professional expectations are for staff from appropriate dress to computer use. This information on computer and technology use is only two paragraphs and it stresses that the same rules in the AUP apply to staff and that the staff must model appropriate behavior, monitor students behavior, and use the internet only for instructional purposes. There is no official document to sign, however, every time a teacher or student logs into a school computer a shorter version of the AUP is a part of the log in process where clicking the ok button is acknowledgement of the AUP. The rules in the student and staff AUPs are broad, but they are realistic because they stress that anything that is being used on the internet, computer, or any technology is for school related work and that everyone is expected to be respectful and responsible online citizens. For example, no one should violate copyright laws or give out private information such as passwords. While the AUPs are realistic, the broad language in some cases can make the AUP

harder to understand what is expected in specific situations. For example, the phrase objectionable or offensive materials should be defined. The set-up of the AUP is not very logical because the consequences of breaking the rules are listed first under technology/computer misuse. It would make more sense to list types of misuse and then infractions, so the section would follow a cause and effect theme. The way the technology misuse and internet contracts sections are separated makes it seem that the consequences of technology misuse do not apply inappropriate behavior online. However, the explanation of disciplinary procedure for any type of disciplinary problem is discussed earlier in the CCPS code of conduct. This section explains what the disciplinary procedure is and what the possible consequences are in very general terms. This makes it difficult to understand what the consequences will be in specific situations and difficult to assess if the consequences are aligned appropriately with the infraction. It is up to the administrator to determine the appropriate disciplinary action for the incident based on the students actions and previous record. While you want to make the AUP practical and somewhat flexible in order to adapt to various situations, the lack of specific examples of disciplinary action that a student or teacher can expect for violating Web use as suggested by M86 Security (2010) can create a situation in which the disciplinary action and even the AUP itself can be challenged by a parent or teacher. Flexibility can lead to uneven application. The CCPS AUP is flexible, but its general language and filtering program can restrict learning in the classroom because the AUP does not clearly define what sites are inappropriate. In many cases websites with great resources that are appropriate for the students are blocked by the filtering program. This can be very frustrating because teachers and students are never sure what sites are blocked when they come to school. The CCPS AUP includes several important features, however, there are several features missing. According to Education World (2010), there are six features an effective AUP should include. They are: a preamble or introduction, a definition section, a policy statement, an acceptable uses section, an unacceptable uses section, and a violations/sanctions section. The CCPS AUP does not specifically include a definition section and the all of the other sections that are included are very general. Specific examples are not given for acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, and the preamble states that the internet is used to enhance learning and objectionable material is prevented, but does not explain why. The policy statement and violations section are vague and located in near the beginning of the code of conduct, which is several pages before the
2

section where the internet and technology rules are discussed. While the county publishes the code of conduct, including the AUP, every year; there is no way to know for sure when the last time the AUP has been updated. I have worked in the county for the past four years and based on my knowledge of the AUP during that time, little to nothing in the AUP has been updated. According to Bosco (2010), regular updates to AUPs for two reasons. First, information technology, including the internet, continue to develop and evolve and the perspectives of on teaching and learning that pertain to the use of ICT change. The second reason is to perpetuate ownership of them by those whose activities are affected by them (Bosco, 2010). If the county wants to prevent incidents with new technologies, such as Web 2.0 applications, and wants the teachers and students to take the rules seriously the CCPS AUP should be updated more often. Based on the weaknesses of the CCPS AUP, I have several recommendations to improve the policies to make them more current and effective. First, I would restructure the set-up of the AUP. The AUP can remain a part of the student code of conduct because it is practical to have all the policies and rules pertaining to the students together, however, I would suggest that the AUP should be appropriately labeled and include all of the sections that the Education World and M86 Security article discuss. These six sections, as previously discussed, should be clearly labeled in order for parents, students, and teachers to easily navigate the information in the AUP. In the policy section, the policy about internet use is a privilege and not a right should be explained because according to Flowers and Rakes (2000), a school district that limits Internet access could be subject to scrutiny for infringing on the rights of individuals (students as well as teachers) to access information or for censorship by imposing such limitations (pg. 362-363). I would also suggest that examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors section be included for both elementary and secondary students. Examples of these behaviors provide further explanation and allows for a deeper understanding of the expectations for students and teachers in the AUP. A definition section should also be added because some parents, students, and teachers may not know what the county considers objectionable or offensive materials, telecommunication devices, or related technologies are. These definitions would eliminate misunderstandings and help protect the school system from any legal action against them in relation to the AUP. To improve the staff AUP, an official document needs to be made that is just as detailed as the student AUP, instead of the very general two paragraphs in the staff expectations handout.
3

There should also be a form for staff members to sign to show that the staff is aware of and acknowledge the rules in the AUP. It is important for staff members to have a detailed AUP and to have and acknowledgement form to sign because they are responsible for monitoring students, modeling appropriate behavior for students, and enforcing the rules of the AUP. Since teachers have this responsibility they should be held to the same, if not higher standards than the students. The county should not assume that teachers are aware of the expectations. I also suggest that every year teachers should teach lessons about the AUP throughout the year in order to teach students about the expectations of the AUP and reiterate the expectations. If students know the rules and also see that the teachers take them seriously by having meaningful lessons on them, they are more likely to take the rules of the AUP seriously as well. Finally, I would suggest that the county have an AUP team that has representatives from the schools to review data about internet and technology use in schools, including incidents, in order to determine if modification is needed. Also, this team would review the AUP every year to determine if the AUP is reflecting the types of technologies that are being used in the schools. For example, blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 applications are not specifically mentioned in the AUP, but they are being used in the school. Some students, parents, and staff may be unclear how the rules of the AUP apply to these applications. The Charles County Public School AUP for students and staff is an average AUP. It has the basic information needed for students, parents, and staff to understand the expectations of technology and internet use. However, there are flaws that detract from its comprehensibility and could impede on its effectiveness, such as its set-up, the lack of a definition section, and little to no examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. The staff AUP needs significant work to make it a functioning AUP. It needs to have the same set-up and detail as the students AUP and an acknowledgement form, just like the students. The AUP should also be reviewed and modified regularly in order to make sure it keeps up with changing technology and learning practices. If improvements to the AUP are made, the Charles County Public Schools will have a strong and effective AUP that will protect students and teachers and allow them to make use of the large amounts of resources online to further their learning.

References: Bosco, J. (2010). Acceptable use policies in a web 2.0 era. Participatory Learning in Schools: Leadership & Policy: Consortium for School Networking. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/Portals/7/docs/Web%202.0/Acceptable%20Use%20Policies%20We b%2020%20Mobile%20Era.pdf Education World. (2011). Getting started on the internet: Developing an acceptable use policy (AUP). Education World, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr093.shtml Flowers, B. F., & Rakes, G. C. (2000). Analyses of acceptable use policies regarding the internet in selected k-12 Schools. Journal Of Research On Computing In Education, 32(3), 35165. M86 Security. (2010). Internet acceptable use policy best practices for k-12. Retrieved from www.m86security.com