Acceptable Use Policies

Public schools are entrusted with the critical task of preparing our students for life after high school and have a moral obligation to ensure that our resources, including technology in all its aspects, are used to support this task.  An acceptable use policy (AUP) helps to ensure that technology will be used as a tool, rather than a distraction, and that the safety of both students and staff will be protected in the process.

Education World echoes a suggestion from the National Education Association that an AUP include a preamble, a definition section, a policy statement, an acceptable uses section, an unacceptable uses section, and a violations/sanctions section.  As I surveyed AUP documents from school districts in the Twin Cities metro area, very few followed this structure, typically including a general policy statement, an unacceptable uses section, and a violations section.

In spite of following a similar, simplified structure, there is significant variation in the acceptable use policies from the schools I examined.  Minneapolis Public Schools and my employer, North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Public Schools (ISD 622) fall at one end of the spectrum, with policies that rely on relatively dense, legalistic language.  The formal tone is a result of striving for clear, specific policies.  The details included leave little room for interpretation in the policy and can provide a valuable tool for students, and the staff working with them, to understand what is truly meant by the prohibitions in the policy.

There are downsides, however, to a legalistic tone.  This approach also made the policies relatively long; the ISD 622 AUP is a full eight pages.  I suspect that few, if any, of my students have ever read our AUP.  In fact, I can honestly say this the first time I read the AUP in its entirety and I expect I am now one of very few staff who ever have.  If the purpose of an AUP is to guide students and staff in our use of district resources, can it truly be said to achieve that purpose if no one has bothered to read it?

Both St. Paul Public Schools (SPPS) and Stillwater Public Schools, by contrast, have relatively simple polices which each take up a single page.   This policies contains similar prohibitions to those in the policies from ISD 622 and Minneapolis Public Schools, but use much more general terms to describe acceptable vs. unacceptable uses.  I suspect that most of the students in SPPS and Stillwater have been through every word of their AUP multiple times thanks to the readable, student-friendly language of these documents.

Just as a legalistic approach has its downsides, so does a student-friendly tone.  The simple, brief document is, by necessity, relatively vague, relying on a certain amount of understanding from students or explanation from adults.  For example, SPPS prohibits "posting private information about another person", but does not provide any details as to what this means.  A student who has grown up posting every thought to Twitter and Instagramming daily occurrences will have a very different idea of what is considered private information than a teacher who has never used social media.  The ISD 622 AUP, on the other hand, follows a similar prohibition with nearly a full page defining what is and is not considered private information, as well as details of possible exceptions, ensuring that a student who has read the AUP will know what exactly is considered private.

This less detailed approach, however, presents a powerful opportunity.  Rather than focusing on a long list of specific rules and sanctions, the more student-friendly documents imply a belief that students and staff can learn to use technology in appropriate, responsible ways and can develop the judgement to interpret more general expectations.  This attitude transforms the AUP from a simple set of rules into a powerful learning tool.  In addition, if students can be trusted to learn to self-regulate their use of technology, then Internet filters become less necessary and websites such as forums and social media can be made available, allowing teachers to harness their potential for learning and collaboration.

Beyond the classroom opportunities, there is value in teaching students to self-regulate their use of technology.  When they sit down to study at home or open their laptop to write a paper at college, they won't have a teacher telling them to put their cell phone away or a district filter keeping them away from Tumblr and Twitter.  To be successful, students need to recognize on their own when they should turn off the notifications on their phone and how to manage the social expectations that come with instant communication.  These kinds of skills will be much more valuable in the long run than learning how to bypass a district filter or switch windows when the teacher walks by and a good AUP must leave room for this learning.

References

Bugno, T.  (2013, September 13).  A 21st century troglodyte.  Adventures in college & career readiness.  Retrieved from http://avidcollegeready.org/college-career-readiness/2013/9/13/a-21st-century-troglodyte.html

Education World.  (n.d.).  Getting started on the Internet: Acceptable use policies.  Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr093.shtml

Minneapolis Public Schools.  (2009, May 26).  Student internet policy.  Retrieved from http://whittier.mpls.k12.mn.us/internet_acceptable_use_policy

North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Public Schools.  (n.d.)  Internet acceptable use policy.  Retrieved from http://www.isd622.org/cms/lib07/MN01001375/Centricity/Domain/44/InternetAcceptableUseEM-02021.pdf

St. Paul Public Schools.  (2011).  Acceptable use of internet and e-mail resources.  Retrieved from http://connect.spps.org/acceptable_use_of_internet_and_e-mail_resources

Stillwater Public Schools.  (2013).  Internet use agreement.  Retrieved from http://www.stillwater.k12.mn.us/sites/default/files/public/downloads/13-14%20AUP.pdf