Social Media: Abstinence Only?

There has been a lot of discussion in my neck of the woods lately regarding the effect of social media use on our students (I teach in a high school). This is partially due to our own experiences dealing with teens and social media, partially due to some recent tragedies in our community, and partially due to a recent article in The Atlantic.

This is an important and necessary conversation to have with our students, and one we should be having all the time, not just when tragedy strikes. But one response that some folks have been advocating concerns me - the idea of having "technology-free" days or weeks. To be perfectly clear, I am not saying this is always a bad idea and, for some folks, this is probably a good thing. But that's the key idea, it's good for "some" folks. But I worry that this is another case of the "adults" suggesting a one-size-fits-all solution in the hopes of solving a complicated problem with a simple solution.

My concern is that instead of focusing on how to use social media well, we may be sending the message that the solution is to get off of social media for some amount of time (and perhaps do that on a regular basis). To be sure, that may be a good strategy for some of our students, but if we don't focus more on how they handle social media when they are not taking a break from it, I think we are missing the bigger picture.

The analogy that comes to mind is sex education. This is obviously a controversial topic for many folks, but I think the parallels are pretty striking. Teenagers are going to use social media, just like many teenagers are going to have sex. Our choice is to ignore it completely, address it with a simple solution that is unlikely to work, or address it with a more complete, complex and complicated approach that might actually make a difference.

The obvious comparison is to the "abstinence only" approach that is advocated by some folks for sex education. The argument is complicated, but many folks suggest that the only 100% effective "solution" to teenage sex is to avoid having sex altogether. Longtime readers of this blog won't be surprised that I don't agree with that approach, but agree with the much more comprehensive approach of talking about healthy relationships (including sexual relationships), as well as talking about practicing safe and responsible sex.

Part of my concern around "abstinence only", whether it is applied to sex or to social media, is the implied moral judgment that comes with it. It is not just that we are trying to protect our students, but that we are implicitly making a judgment on their behavior and trying to apply our own moral code to all of our students (some of whom may disagree with our moral code).

I'm a parent of a teenage daughter, so this is not just a theoretical situation for me. Like most parents, I would prefer that she not have sex until after I'm dead. But, barring unforeseen accident or illness, that is pretty unlikely, so we have had many conversations with her about healthy relationships, the physical and emotional impacts of having sex, and our belief that sex goes along with long-term, stable, and healthy relationships (note: there is still some moral judgment there, but we also talk about how she may come to her own conclusions that are different than ours), and that practicing safe and responsible sex is important.

While I am by no means a historian of this topic, I feel that much of the response to teen sex - and now to teen social media use - comes from our Puritan heritage in the United States. I would suggest this is not all that helpful for our students today, and that there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in some of the positions we take. By definition, almost all parents have had sex and, in the United States at least, the majority of them had sex before they were married. Similarly, when we wring our hands in angst over teen social media use, how many of us are doing that wringing via Facebook or Twitter? (Quick quiz - how many of you first came across that Atlantic article via some form of social media?) Plus we seem to be mighty picky in what solutions we advocate. As a friend of mine pointed out, we know that homework also has tremendous mental health implications for our students (and arguably more than social media), yet very few schools are advocating for a "homework-free" day or week (or month, or year).

So, what's my solution? Well, like the articles I linked to above demonstrate, as well as danah boyd's book - it's complicated. But I fear that when we advocate for "technology-free" days or weeks, we lose many of the nuances and are perhaps hoping for a "solution" that is quick and easy instead of being willing to do the hard (and on-going) work necessary to help our students be safe, responsible, and productive users of social media.

A Teacher Walks Into A Bar

I don't drink alcohol, nor do I smoke tobacco. (Even though I live in Colorado, I don't smoke anything else, either.) In fact, I've always had antipathy towards both practices. I've fully supported the campaign to make smoking tobacco less socially acceptable, more inconvenient, and more expensive (with taxes that go toward smoking prevention efforts or health care costs). I would support a similar campaign with alcohol, given the tremendous negative behavioral outcomes associated with it's use, as well as the tremendous health care costs it creates. In fact, I would probably even support the reinstatement of Prohibition if it wasn't for the inconvenient fact that it doesn't work. Why am I sharing this information with you? So that we're clear during the rest of this post that I'm not writing this out of some defensive stance because I want to preserve the ability to do something I like, or even others' ability to do something they like.

This past spring our School Board, at the suggestion of district staff, approved a revision to Policy GBEE-R: Staff Use of District Technology. (The date at that link says as of this writing that it was last revised September 27, 2012, but I think that just hasn't been updated yet, since this was revised last spring.) Please take a few minutes to read it. Pay special attention to the portion in Section II: Social Media, under the heading "Guidelines," as this is the part that was recently revised (you'll have to scroll down a bit to find this part). Go ahead, I'll still be here when you get back.

There's a lot to think about here. Item 8 under Guidelines seems interesting:

8. Photographs relating to alcohol or tobacco use may be deemed inappropriate.

Really. Huh. So the district is saying that if a staff member engages in behaviors that are perfectly legal for adults and posts a photograph of it somewhere on their own personal social media, it may be "deemed inappropriate" by the district and

may form the basis for disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Termination. Wow. Thank goodness it's still okay for staff members to post "photographs" (I assume that includes "images", but it's not specific) of themselves smoking marijuana (or crack cocaine). Now, many of our staff members live in neighborhoods where our students live as well. I wonder if it's okay for them to smoke or drink in their backyards where they might be seen by students? To be safe, they should probably only do that within the confines of their own home, and be sure to pull the shades.

I wonder if the district is going to start firing staff members who get pregnant? After all, once a pregnant staff member starts showing, it's pretty darn obvious when they walk in the building that they've been having sex. Surely that could be "deemed inappropriate", especially if they post pictures of their pregnant selves on social media. And, of course, especially if they aren't married. There's even lots of precedence for this, since women teachers used to have to quit when they got pregnant and, before that, when they simply got married. You know, I always thought that the 'P' in 'LPS' stood for 'Public'; I wonder when it turned into 'Puritanical'?

There is a lot of Board Policy, so perhaps I missed it, but so far I haven't found the Policy that tells me what I'm allowed to say to students and parents when I run into them at the grocery store. Or at the Mosque, Temple or Church. Nor have I found the policy that tells me what is appropriate to say on the phone if I call them, what's okay to say in class, or what I'm allowed to write on a student's paper when I give them feedback. Probably just an oversight. In the meantime, just to be sure I'm not in violation of district policy, I think I won't have any communication with students' parents, or with students outside of the classroom. I'm struggling a bit with what to do in the classroom, though, perhaps only show approved movies so that I don't have to talk?

Let's see, what else. Ahh, yes, there's this,

Promotion of professional events must be posted on a previously approved professional social media website.

I'm really not sure what this means. Typically, Board Policy tries to be very specific so, if I read this as written, this seems to say that if I, as a staff member, want to promote some "professional event" of mine on the web, I need to get district approval. So, for example, if I want to advertise the speaking that I've done on occasion, or perhaps I do yard work or painting in the summer, or maybe I tutor students or run some kind of business out of my home selling cosmetics or something, or maybe I run a summer sports camp, apparently if I want to advertise on the web I have to get permission from the district first. I'm really not sure why that's any of their business, but since I can be "terminated" if it's deemed inappropriate, I suppose I must comply.

The above are concerning, but actually are not my major concern with these "guidelines." While these seem to restrict my personal behavior, which is troubling, I'm more concerned with the impact these guidelines will have on learning. For example,

Staff members are discouraged from communicating with students, their parents, and guardians through personal social media platforms/applications or texting. 

So I can call students and parents. I can email them. I can talk to them face-to-face at school or if I see them outside of school. I can send them a letter, a postcard or a telegram. But I'm discouraged from "communicating" with students and parents via text or social media. It's strange, previously I've always been encouraged to interact and communicate with students and parents, we typically call that "relationship building." But, for some reason, if I build relationships through texting or social media, it's considered bad. Again, probably just an oversight in Board Policy, I'm sure there will be new policy shortly discouraging those other forms of communication as well. It's a shame, though. Just like Willie Sutton replied when asked why he robbed banks, "Because that's where the money is," I would think we would want to interact with our students in social media spaces (and via texting), since "that's where the students are."

It is somewhat problematic, though. You see, about 75% of the staff members at my school have children in our school district. So I guess I'm not allowed to interact on social media with them or text them any more. And my daughter goes to my school, as do many of her friends, so I guess I'm not allowed to interact on social media or text any of those friends or their parents. Come to think of it, I suppose I'm also "discouraged" from interacting on social media or texting my own daughter. The more I think about this, the harder it gets. I mean, I don't know how many of the folks I connect with on social media or text might have some connection to a student in my school district. I guess to be safe I just have to close all my social media accounts and get rid of my texting plan.

---

It's curious. It appears as though my district doesn't trust its teachers on social media or via texting, so why in the world do they trust us with students face-to-face? (While the policy applies to all "staff," it's clearly targeted towards teachers. We are going to be "in-serviced" on this by district personnel during a faculty meeting in a couple of weeks. As far as I know, they do not have similar meetings scheduled with secretaries, custodial staff, kitchen staff, bus drivers, or parent volunteers.)

I don't know, but I believe this policy is going to be presented in terms of "student safety" and "staff protection." While I'm not questioning whether that's the intent of the folks who've created the policy, in the end it's the result, not the intent, that matters. And this policy does nothing to protect students. That's uncastrated male bovine excrement. (Just to be safe, I don't want to swear on my personal blog, as that might be deemed "inappropriate" or reflect poorly on my "professionalism".) This policy will do nothing to stop a "bad" adult from doing something harmful to students. The only thing this policy does is provide coverage to the district if such an unfortunate event should occur.

Much like many of the "rules" we have in place for students, this policy simply prevents the positive uses of social media and texting and does nothing to prevent the negative uses. It prevents the vast majority of staff members who will use these tools well, simply to protect against the very rare misuse of them. Just like punishing the entire class (or entire student body) for the actions of a few, we are unilaterally disempowering our entire staff because of the potential future abuse by the few (or the one).

So what's my solution? Err on the side of open. Remove these revised "guidelines" and rework the policy to focus on learning, on the positive aspects of texting and social media. Let's focus on "Responsible Use Policies," not on discouraging or prohibiting. Let's stop acting out of fear, and instead lead. Let's work with our students, and in the places our students frequent, instead of avoiding them because we're worried about getting sued.

As it's currently written, I could shorten this to the first four words of the second paragraph under guidelines,

Staff members are discouraged.

"A teacher walks into a bar." Kind of sounds like the beginning of a joke, doesn't it? But it's not funny.

Update August 4th: Was called in for a "discussion" today about this post. Received further clarification that it's about student and staff safety (I still don't see it, but don't question the good intentions of folks involved). Also received further clarification that for any "private" communication with students that is not verbal face-to-face (email, text, written letter, social media, presumably anything direct to the student online) we are supposed to cc the parents or another responsible adult.

Monitoring Student Use of Social Media

This past weekend a story regarding Pearson monitoring social media for "security breaches" related to PARCC was a popular topic of conversation in my network (original story, although the server often has trouble handling the traffic). I'm not going to focus so much on that story here, as many others have written about it, other than to point out one thing. While students don't seem to have the opportunity to agree or disagree to the terms of service of PARCC, our states, school districts and schools do. We all agreed to this, this is part and parcel of administering PARCC to our students. (Not sure if it was just Colorado, but as a proctor I had to sign a form agreeing to the terms of service.) So I think it is worth some conversation at the state, district and school level about whether we are okay with this or not. Schools can't really blame Pearson for doing what they said they would do (although others can).

In response many folks have wondered why we aren't outraged by the many school districts that are also monitoring students' social media use. Now, to the best of my knowledge, my district is not actively monitoring our students use of social media. But in some respects, I am. Let me explain.

As part of my presence on Twitter I engage in at least two activities that wander into the territory of monitoring. I have a search column set up for the name of my school, primarily so that I can retweet mentions of my school and occasionally answer questions or address concerns. And - as a result of various interactions over the years - I follow some students, both former and current. On occasion, both of these activities have resulted in me coming into contact with student behavior that I have acted upon. This ranges from contacting a student to suggest that a particular tweet might not be looked favorably upon by a college admissions officer or future employer (and discuss digital footprint with them), to meeting with a student and their counselor because there is some concern the student might be engaging in behaviors that could be harmful to themselves or others.

Now, I don't think this is "actively monitoring" my student body. I am not attempting to monitor all student accounts, nor am I actively looking for "misbehavior" on the part of our students. But I readily admit that this could be a slippery slope. It's all well and good for me to say that I'm not surveilling our students, but are they just supposed to trust me on that?

This is something I've thought about a lot. A. lot. And I'm still not completely comfortable with where I've landed, because I think this is a very complicated subject and the parameters around it are constantly changing along with the uses of social media. But, at the moment, this is my best attempt to thread the needle of privacy vs. obligation. If we see a student in need, are we not obligated to try to help? I've chosen to err on the side of caring, but that doesn't mean I might not cross the line.

Part of the way I'm currently viewing this is through the lens of a parent. I ask myself as a parent of a teenager, if another caring adult noticed something of concern in my daughter's social media activity (or any activity for that matter), would I want them to ignore it? I would not. On the other hand, I wouldn't want her school (which, conveniently or inconveniently, is also my school) to be searching through her social media activity looking for something we deemed "inappropriate." It's a fine line.

Because this is such a tricky issue, some school districts have implemented policies to limit or forbid employees' use of social media in relation to their students. My district does not currently have such a policy, but they are working on a draft of one (including possible rules around texting). I think this is a mistake. We don't have policy around whether a teacher can talk to a student in the grocery store or at a volleyball game, whether they can call a student's home or what they are allowed to say to them in the hallway, so we don't need policy specifically regarding social media. Our existing policies cover social media just fine, we don't need a new policy for every new technology or social media platform that is created. As near as I can tell, these policies are really not about student safety, but about school district liability. I don't think anyone believes that simply having a policy in place would stop an adult who means harm toward a student to not act, the policy is just there so the school district can say we have a policy against it.

Our students are active in these spaces. We have a choice, we can ignore these spaces and implement policies designed to protect our institutions, or we can thoughtfully engage with our students and try to help them learn, grow and stay safe. I'm reasonably comfortable with my current position, although I'm constantly reexamining it to see if my thoughts have changed. I'm curious as to how others navigate this issue. Is it okay to "infringe" on a student's privacy if they are at risk? How do we determine they are at risk? Who decides?

What Do Your Last Five Tweets Say About You?

What do your last five tweets/posts/snapchats/instagrams/fill-in-the-blanks say about you?

What do you want them to say about you?

(I'd appreciate it if non-Arapahoe folks hold off on commenting for a couple of days as we'd like our students and staff to respond first. Feel free to add a comment if you'd like beginning on Sunday, October 5th. Thanks.)

We Are Not Just Studying Human History, We Are Shaping It

Warning: Contains mature content and a few brief graphic images.

Update: There are some questions about the credibility of these folks. (And this.) Before my original post I did some brief checking and it seemed legit, and it still appears as though this is a real issue that we should take on, but perhaps the Invisible Children organization is not quite as straightforward as it first appeared.






Update 3-12-12: Invisible Children responds to critics with this video.

Update 3-14-12: And another critique. And more response.

Tools I'd Like My Future Principal To Consider: Twitter

From the article Meet Your New PD Tool in Scholastic Administrator magazine:

"I really think anybody who doesn't spend a little time building a personal network is doing themselves and their school a disservice. If we're not modeling this stuff for our teachers and students, then I don't think we're doing our jobs."
                                                             (p. 31, quoting Patrick Larkin, @bhsprincipal)

I'd like my future principal to consider that statement and ask themselves if they are modeling what it's like to be a lifelong learner, a connected learner, for our students if they aren't actively using and harnessing the power of social media. I'd like my future principal to not only have an active presence on Twitter, but I'd like them to engage their administrative team and the entire faculty in a discussion of how best to leverage these new tools (as well as the possible negative aspects that are indeed present). I'd like them to lead a discussion about how the staff could use tools like Twitter for their own personalized professional development:

For Sheninger, tweeting is like directed Googling. "Instead of doing a Google search, you're harnessing human power, a human-generated search engine driven by education professionals who are passionate and have determined that having an online presence will have a dramatic, positive impact on their professional practice."
                                                              (p. 31, quoting Eric Sheninger, @nmhs_principal).

I'd like them to lead a discussion not only about how to leverage tools such as Twitter to broadcast information to our community, but how to also use those tools to engage our community as learners. I'd like that discussion to extend to ways to have our students engage with other passionate learners around the globe - safely, meaningfully, and effectively.

I'd like my future principal - and their entire administrative team - to know what #cpchat is, and what folks are referring to when they talk about the Connected Principal's blog, or CASTLE. I'd like them to know not only Patrick and Eric, but Chris and Lyn and George and Josie and . . . the list goes on and on (including lots and lots of folks that I don't know . . . yet, or perhaps ever, it doesn't matter as their network will be personal to them.)

I'd like them not to be surprised by some of the things Eric says in this video:



Video credit: http://www.scholastic.com/administrator/

"24/7. When I need it. From anywhere in the world. To me that's power. It's helping my students see a new world. It give me goosebumps every time I think about it." - Eric Sheninger in the video

I want my future principal to help our students see - and participate - in this new world.

Quotes I'd Like My Future Principal to Ponder: Participatory Media Education and Civic Education Are Inextricable

From the article titled "Head of State" in the print edition (subscription required, although if you are in a school you most likely have access to it through one of your library subscription services) in the November 7th, 2011 issue of Time magazine:

Whereas US Envoys once filed secret cables to Washington late at night, Clinton has pushed her ambassadors to expand the use of Twitter and Facebook - State now has 192 Twitter feeds and 288 Facebook accounts - and her daughter Chelsea calls her TechnoMom. "We are in the age of participation," Clinton said at her husband's charity even in New York City in September, "and the challenge . . . is to figure out how to be responsive, to help catalyze, unleash, channel the kind of participatory eagerness that is there."

Clinton is trying to ensure these changes are permanent: she requires every diplomat who rotates through the foreign-service institute to get training in social media. (p. 31, emphasis mine).

The United States Secretary of State is requiring every diplomat to get training in social media - sure seems like perhaps we should be doing the same with and for our students. Yet typically social media participation is looked down upon in schools and, in fact, banned outright and blocked by our Internet filters. I'd like my future principal to reflect on the above quote and then lead our faculty in a discussion of whether we are truly preparing our students for their future when we block most if not all social media, much less work with our students to help them unleash the potential power of it.

That reminds me of another quote, this one from the National Council for the Social Studies Position Statement on Media Literacy:

The 21st century world is media saturated, technologically dependent, and globally connected. We live in a multimedia age where the majority of information people receive comes less often from print sources and more typically from highly constructed visual images, complex sound arrangements, and multiple media formats. The multimedia age requires new skills for accessing, analyzing, evaluating, creating, and distributing messages within a digital, global, and democratic society. The acquisition and application of critical analysis and media production skills are part of what constitutes media literacy. The Internet and the everyday use of social networking technologies, together with the expansive growth of corporate entertainment media and the integration of popular culture, also require us as social studies educators to link participatory media literacy with civic education. (Emphasis mine.)

If the majority of information people receive comes less often from print sources, then I'd like to see my future principal engage our faculty in a conversation around whether that is also true of our classrooms. If not, should it be, and what might that look like?

And the money quote cited in that same article, from Howard Rheingold:

“In the twenty-first century, participatory media education and civic education are inextricable” (Rheingold, 2008, p. 103)

So, in other words, if we aren't teaching participatory media, then we aren't teaching civics. Since we're required to teach civics, I'm hopeful that my future principal would help us as a faculty figure out how best to incorporate that into our classes.

Board of Education Social Media/Networking Discussion

On Thursday, March 10, 2011, sometime between 7-8:30 pm Mountain Time (depends on how the agenda goes), we will be having a discussion with our Board of Education surrounding Social Media/Social Networking and K-12 schools. Details are still to be ironed out, but we expect to host a web page with the presentation and a CoverItLive live blog session embedded side-by-side, and also plan to have a live stream that can be opened separately.

Update 3-7-11: Here's the page with the Cover-It-Live and the Prezi.

Some of the questions/issues we’re likely to address are:

What is social media/networking? How is it different? Why is it important?

What is the social value of social media/networking?

What are the realities and what are the myths? What are the risks and what are the benefits?

What are the organizational, communication, and learning power of these services?

How can these be used for learning and collaboration, not just echo-chamber and group think?

What is their role in K-12 education? (Note: I’m in high school, so that’s my focus, and I imagine most of the focus in this discussion will be age 13 and up, but thoughts on younger ages are welcome as well.)

What should Board policy look like surrounding social media/networking? Should there be policy? If so, should it be just for this, or should it fall under our current code of conduct and we don’t need a separate policy?

What should our Internet filter policy be for this? What about students that use their phones/own connection to the Internet while at school and therefore aren’t restricted by our filter?

We’ll use the hashtag #BoardChat

Proposed Prezi Presentation (First Draft 2-20-11, feedback to Dan Maas).

Please leave any thoughts you have about the above items – or additional related items not listed -in this Google Doc. Thanks in advance.

More Than a Passing Trend Part II

On the heels of my previous post I came across this video by Erik Qualman - some interesting observations in the comments to his post. I'll present it here without comment of my own, other than I think there are some interesting ideas to consider here.



Oh, one more thing. I believe this falls into the category of "D'oh!" Any chance you think they'll do retroactive revenue sharing?