This post appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on December 12, 2011

by Larry Magid

Credit: YouTube

Google has launched a YouTube for Schools service to make educationally relevant videos available for use in school. It’s a great idea, but for it to actually be used in schools, many districts around the country will have to modify their filters to allow teachers to access at least this portion of YouTube.

Most schools have some type of filters in place designed to block pornography and other inappropriate material, and it’s common for these filters to also block social media, including all of Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Schools that accept federal E-rate funding are required to block materials that are obscene, depict child pornography or are harmful to minors — but there is nothing in the federal rules that require schools to block social media.

Treat social media like books and sports

It’s a good thing schools don’t treat books and sports the way most treat social media.

There have always been books that are inappropriate for a school setting. But rather than ban all books, schools allow the ones that support their curricula and encourage children to explore literature in general. When it comes to sports, schools recognize that there are dangers — every year, lots of children are injured and some die from sports related injuries. But rather than ban sports, schools embrace them and make sure that kids have good coaches, safety equipment and rules to ensure fair play.

Of course we could just let the kids play in the street without any training, Of course we could just let the kids play in the street without any training, supervision or mandatory safety equipment. That’s how many schools approach social media — including such things as videos on YouTube or resources on social networking sites.

It’s not as if kids are staying away from social media just because they can’t use it at school. They’re using it at home, at friends’ houses and — via their mobile devices — anywhere they happen to be. It’s not as if kids are staying away from social media just because they can’t use it at school. They’re using it at home, at friends’ houses and — via their mobile devices — anywhere they happen to be. Their non-school hours are filled with use of technology and social media. Maybe schools ought to put a sign at the front gate that reads, “You are now leaving the 21st century.”

Teachers and parents as social media partners

It’s time for teachers — and parents — to become young people’s partners in the use of social media. Just as we teach reading and supplement the use of books with great mentors in the classroom and encourage fair play and skill development with coaches on the athletic field, we need to incorporate educators into our kids’ use of social media.

I’m not suggesting that kids be allowed to polish off their Facebook profiles in school or dish the dirt with their online friends while they should be paying attention in class. But completely blocking domains like Facebook.com or YouTube.com denies kids access to some incredibly useful material.

There are thousands of Facebook pages dedicated to a wide variety of subjects that can be used in schools. If you search for “Facebook education,” you’ll find links to numerous ways that Facebook and other social media can help teachers supplement their existing materials. One article that comes up in that search, “100 Ways You Should be Using Facebook in Your Classroom” lists some incredibly useful projects like encouraging kids to follow news feeds relevant to course material, share book reviews, practice a foreign language, create their own news source, keep up with politicians, post class notes, brainstorm and lots more.

Even more than Facebook, Google’s YouTube can be an incredibly useful resource in school. Sure, there are plenty of inappropriate videos on the user-supplied service. But there is also a wealth of resources from a very wide variety of sources, including the Smithsonian Institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UC Berkeley, PBS, TEDTalks and the amazing educational videos from Kahn Academy, which are used in schools throughout the world. You can find some of this material — along with tips on how to use YouTube in the classroom — at YouTube.com/teachers.

Because many schools simply ban YouTube, these incredible resources are not available for use in the classroom. Kids can watch them at home or on the way to school via the mobile devices, but not on school computers. Preventing distractions such as videos of cats dancing on a piano or keeping kids from age-inappropriate videos in school makes sense, but not at the expense of preventing kids and teachers from accessing a vast library of educationally sound videos.

As part of the launch of “YouTube for Schools” (schools can sign up at youtube.com/schools), Google is encouraging school districts to open up their filters so that teachers can access YouTube.com/edu. Hopefully school administrators will see the value in this and find ways to unblock at least this portion of YouTube.

Disclosure: Larry Magid is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from Facebook and Google.

The Federal Communications Commission last week approved new rules for the E-Rate program that will modernize broadband for schools and libraries.

Established by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, E-Rate taps into the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for by telecommunications subscribers to provide telecommunications and Internet access to schools and libraries. When it was first implemented, many schools were still on dial-up and those that had broadband were typically connecting at relatively show speeds. It was also before anyone (let alone school kids) had smartphones.

Fast-forward to 2010. As Internet service providers and municipalities deploy fiber and other high-speed technologies, it’s now possible to move way beyond what we used to call broadband — speeds that often hovered at or below 1 megabit per second. Now we’re talking about a gigabit, which is a thousand times faster. This faster connectivity makes it possible for schools to employ modern tele-learning tools both to consume and host multimedia content. And in case you think a gigabit or more is overkill, consider that the bandwidth often needs to be shared by multiple classrooms and, in some cases, thousands of students.

Another reality of 2010 is that the Internet is no longer something we access only when sitting at a desk. Smartphones, tablets, netbooks and even the iPod touch and portable gaming devices make it possible to access the Net from anywhere. So instead of just providing broadband access to classrooms, the new E-Rate rules are designed to fund mobile pilot programs to enable students to access the Net from wherever they happen to be. Schools are increasingly using smartphones in and out of the classroom. For example, at Lincoln Middle School in Ypsilanti, Mich., teachers use smartphones provided by Sprint to learn how to create graphs and charts.

The new E-Rate rules also take note of the fact that schools are part of communities and, potentially, a way to bring high-speed Internet to people in their neighborhoods. Last week’s ruling made permanent an earlier provisional waiver that allows schools to offer community access to their bandwidth during nonschool hours.

Shortly before the vote, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski mentioned how a school in West Virginia used its broadband connection to facilitate a “command center” during the Upper Big Branch coal mining disaster in April. Beyond letting people use campus facilities, I’m not sure how schools might extend broadband beyond the campus. But it’s certainly possible to do so wirelessly, especially if they use the so-called “super Wi-Fi” spectrum that will be facilitated by the unlicensed access to the “white space” between TV channels that the FCC also approved at the same meeting.

While the new E-Rate program is a great boon to schools and communities, there is one troubling aspect to it. In 2000, Congress passed a well-meaning law called the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which requires that schools and libraries that receive E-Rate funds “employ technological protections that block or filter certain visual depictions deemed obscene, pornographic or harmful to minors.”

While hardly anyone would disagree with Congress’ intention to keep minors away from such material, the CIPA has brought about some unintended consequences because many of the filters used in schools block more than just indecent and violent material. A great many also block social networking sites, which didn’t even exist when the law was passed. There is nothing in the CIPA that requires filters used in schools to cast such a wide net but they typically do, which means that some of the very technologies kids are using on a daily basis out of school are not available in school.

I’m not suggesting that kids be allowed to use Facebook or other social media services to socialize during school hours. But if we’re going to encourage 21st-century learning, we need to take note that students are no longer simply consumers of knowledge, they are also creators and sharers. A great deal of what young people learn comes from collaboration with their peers. And while there is always the possibility of access to inappropriate material or posting text images or videos that can be harmful to themselves or others, there is the far more likely possibility of creative use of these services to enhance their learning.

The FCC didn’t address filters or the CIPA during its discussion of modernizing E-Rate but I did raise the issue of students using social media to share and create content when I interviewed Genachowski after his appearance in Mountain View at a “Back to School Event” sponsored by Common Sense Media. “It’s a wonderful learning opportunity,” he said, adding “we see more and more teachers and students working together to incorporate that kind of energy and creativity into class work. It’s very promising and it’s teaching the skills the next generation will need to know to participate in the word that’s coming.”

So, hats off to the FCC for modernizing E-Rate. Now let’s hope schools modernize their attitude toward the use of technology to embrace rather than try to block some of the technologies students are using in their daily lives. Besides, about the only people who don’t know how to bypass filters at schools and libraries are teachers and staff.

There was a time when to misbehave in school you had to be in school. These days technology makes it possible for youth to reach through both space and time to harass or bully classmates, regardless of physical location. For example, a group of kids could each be sitting in their own homes on a Saturday night, using their computers to contribute to a website or MySpace or Facebook social-networking page that demeans, harasses, defames, or impersonates a fellow student. The activity is taking place off campus, outside of school hours, and no school equipment is being used. Yet come Monday, that online activity could have a very real impact on campus. Not only might fellow students have seen it prior to arriving at school, they might also access that page at school on school computers or their own mobile phones. It could have a negative impact on the victim(s) or even cause a disruption school-wide.

Bullying is not new. It’s probably been going on in one form or another since humans started inhabiting the planet. What is new is that it’s now possible for kids to use the Internet, their cell phones, social-networking sites, and even game consoles to harm, impersonate, or embarrass others. And because the data is digital, it can be forwarded, archived, and searched pretty much forever.

It is also possible to express oneself in ways that are lewd and offensive and even to appear in or distribute nude or sexually suggestive photos via computer or cell phone that can be viewed from both off and on school grounds. We now have a term for that—sexting—and it too is becoming an issue for educators.

Is it at school, at home, or both?

When we explore the example of kids posting malicious content online on their own time, it’s happening outside the reach of school officials. But is it really outside their jurisdiction? Even though the behavior may be taking place away from school, it could be having an impact on campus. Even though students are creating the webpage away from school, others may be reading it as school.

So what are school officials to do? Should they ignore the behavior, discipline the students involved, or look for an alternative way to deal with the problem? The answer isn’t obvious.

The problem is that technology has complicated a reasonably clear set of policy directions set down by the United States Supreme Court in two landmark cases. In the 1968 case Tinker et al. v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court grappled with a situation in which a group of students was suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The students took the district to court, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor.

Speaking for the court, Justice William Brennan wrote, “The record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred.” He added, “They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.”

Score one for the right of kids to express themselves on campus.

In 1983, in Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Supreme Court did place some limits on student speech. In that case, Matthew Fraser was suspended for using sexual innuendos in a student government nomination speech of a fellow student.

Fraser was suspended for disruptive activity and, after a series of legal decisions and reversals, the Supreme Court finally ruled that it was appropriate for the school to take action. The court found a big difference between the political protest of the Tinker self-expression and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “Democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. But these ‘fundamental values’ must also take into account consideration of the sensibilities of others.” He added, “The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.”

To simplify these two rulings, it could be said that schools must not punish political expression as long as it doesn’t lead to disruption, but they can impose sanctions against certain types of lewd speech that go beyond the “boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.” Based on that ruling, it would seem pretty obvious that schools have the right—some would say responsibility—to intervene in cases of harassment or cyberbullying. But the case law refers to activities that took place on campus. These landmark cases were decided long before students started using cell phones and Internet browsers that could reach across time and space.

Let’s put this in a modern context. As I said at the start, kids don’t have to be in school to impact what happens in school. Let’s say a group of students decide to create a webpage stating that “Susie is a slut.” Susie might have grounds for a civil lawsuit based on defamation (though she may have difficulty finding a lawyer willing to take such a case), but the students’ statement is clearly not a violation of any criminal law. But what happens if, on the next day at school, other kids start laughing at Susie or making lewd or mean comments? Suddenly the students’ off-campus behavior is having an impact at school and could even jeopardize Susie’s ability to obtain an education.

In that case, says Nancy Willard, executive director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, the school may have grounds to intervene. “When it’s outside of school, officials only have the authority to respond if the impact of that speech is going to come to school and will substantially disrupt school or interfere with the rights of other students at school,” she says. “But they don’t have the authority to respond to every- thing else or seek to impose moral values or respond to speech contrary to the school’s mission.”

Willard, who is not a practicing attorney but does have a law degree, believes that schools can and should intervene if the off-campus actions cause “a hostile environment for a student that is preventing that student from receiving an education.” And she adds, “If [the action] applies to a protected class—racial, sexual, or disability—there is a probability that officials have an obligation to respond.”

Scott Laurence, an administrator with the Palo Alto (Calif.) Unified School District, agrees with Willard. He states, “We have the right to intervene if [the activity] has spilled into the educational system and has a direct impact on the educational learning environment. Jurisdiction is always hard, but when you see it has a direct impact I believe that is when we have the right and responsibility to intervene.” Laurence says it is similar t an off-campus fight on a Saturday night that spills over a school. We don’t need to go back to the fight, he says, but we have the responsibility to make sure it’s a good environment on Monday morning.

Jennifer MacLennan, a school-law attorney with Arizona law firm Gust Rosenfeld, says, “The test for being able to discipline the person who set up the site is whether there is a nexus or connection from the off-campus activity or comment to activities occurring on the school campus.” For example, if other kid are discussing the webpage while at school and treating the victim differently, then MacLennan says there is enough of connection that you can discipline the students who create site. Like others, she points out that administrators may get into a battle of competing rights. “The district could be sued for disciplining a child or failing to discipline a child,” she says.

A Dissenting view

American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Aden Fine challenges the right of schools officials to take any actions for behavior, however offensive, that occurs off campus. “When students are not in school, it’s for parents to decide what students can and can’t say. It is not for the schools to be involved.” Fine says speech on the Internet is protected like all other speech. Even if there is an impact at school, he believes that does not justify suppressing or punishing speech. If a disruption at campus occurs, officials should punish the students who are being disruptive, not students whose speech may or may not have inspired that disruption.

If school officials are to act against a student accused of off- campus online harassment, then districts should gather information about where and when it occurred. “Is it related to a larger pattern of bullying and harassment that’s taking place on and off campus?” asks Sara Levitan Kaatz, school-law attorney with the California law firm of Lozano Smith. She says that courts want to see substantial disruption—not that a kid pulled out a printout of a MySpace page in class and caused a distraction. Rather, districts need to document how many kids are talking about it, if they are accessing it on campus, and if and how it is disrupting the educational experience at school for the victim.

Kaatz says there is a balancing act between free speech and the district’s commitment to keeping a safe environment. “I don’t know a single administrator who wants to violate a student’s free-speech right, but I do know a lot of administrators who wake up every morning wanting to make sure this is a safe school environment for everybody there,” she states.

In 2005, the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania heard the case Latour v. Riverside Beaver School District, in which 14-year-old Anthony Lautour and his parents sued the school for expelling him for writing rap music in his home and publishing it online. The child, who never wrote music at school or brought his songs in, posted a song that contained violent language as part of a rap battle with another musician. The school worried that the songs contained terrorist threats and harassment. Speaking on National Public Radio, Latour’s attorney Kim Watterson said, “You can’t punish based upon words alone… [You need to determine] whether the speaker means to communicate an expression of an intent to do serious bodily harm.” In a preliminary injunction, the court ruled in favor of the student, who was reinstated at school. The settlement included a $90,000 payment and the district’s agreeing to amend its policy regarding circumstances as to when it can exclude students from school based on speech.

In Weedsport Central School District v. Wisniewski, however, the court ruled in favor of the district after an eighth-grader sent messages to friends from home that contained an icon depicting a pistol firing at a man’s head with the words “Kill Mr. VanderMolen,” the student’s English teacher. The Second Circuit District court judge concluded that the icon was not protected speech because it constituted a true threat.

Tom Hutton, senior staff attorney for the National School Board Association, sees it both ways, acknowledging that there is a good deal of uncertainty. Hutton observes that technology changes much faster than law and policy; because some of these issues “play out in schools before they do in the rest of society, school officials need to make decisions before they have clear guidance from the law.”

Hutton notes that states are passing cyberbullying laws asking schools to tackle the problem, while at the same time schools are being accused of overreaching and acting like Internet police. “No matter what you do, a lot people are going to be unhappy,” says Hutton. “You can’t win that debate.” Hutton recommends that school officials become familiar with their state’s cyberbullying laws. Several states are considering cyberbullying laws and at least 13 states have already passed one, including Arkansas, California, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington.

The specifics of the laws vary by state. Some simply require school boards to have a policy while others are more detailed. California law AB 86 went into effect in January 2009, giving schools the authority to suspend or expel students for bullying via the Internet, in text messages, or via other electronic means. The bill covers activities on school grounds, while going to or coming from school, during lunch period whether on or off campus, and during or while going to or coming from a school- sponsored activity.

Steps schools can take

Hutton, along with every other expert interviewed for this article, argues that disciplinary action shouldn’t be a first response. “If you are confronted with the situation, you need to think of the full range of options you have,” he says. “It may be that in the final analysis some discipline is warranted, but you should ask yourself if there’s a way to solve the problem that doesn’t bring up these legal issues.”

Short of unleashing disciplinary action, there are a wide range of actions available to staff, including confronting the child, bringing in the parents, or even contacting the social- networking sites involved to see if they have any remedies. Hutton says educators also can make sure kids know that actions have consequences. Make sure they are aware that college admission counselors and employers know how to search for names, and victims have rights and can sue the students. In addition, students also can be expelled from social- networking sites for violation of terms of service, which universally prohibit bullying, harassment, and impersonation along with nudity and other inappropriate content.

Molly McCloskey, director of constituent services for the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, feels that conversations with students often can go a lot further than confrontations and disciplinary actions. “I come at this from a school-counselor lens,” she says. “Once kids are in school, the adults in school are responsible for the health, safety, and support of each child in that building. Whether it happens off campus or on, it impacts the building and the ability of each child to be successful. So the school needs to respond from a climate lens rather than a punitive lens.”

Regardless of whether the school has jurisdiction to officially intervene in something that happened off campus, it has—in McCloskey’s opinion—the responsibility and moral authority to educate and try to prevent bullying before it becomes an issue. “The school is responsible for what happens inside the building, but the most powerful way that schools and communities can deal with this situation is to be aligned way before it happens,” she states.  Coordination with other agencies is the key to success. “If the value of school, social-service agencies, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other groups are all in harmony, then this sort of situation is less likely to happen,” asserts McCloskey.

Camille Townsend, an attorney and Palo Alto, Calif., school board member, advises parents and educators to start with a non- disciplinary approach: “If your kid is being bullied, you look for help wherever you can find  it. If the student is being a bully, certainly their parents don’t want that to happen either. Rarely do you get a parent that doesn’t want that to stop.” Getting both sets of parents involved can often stop the problem.  “The school can operate with a pretty gentle glove to get things to the point where they need to be,” she says.

This article first appeared in the Summer 2009 issue of  Threshold, a now-defunct magazine published by Cable in the Classroom.