_________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Board agenda for February 14

My very quick summary of topics on tonight’s board agenda: A legislative update; a report on post-secondary readiness (see also this post); a quarterly financial report; and an update from the Integrated Pest Management task force. At the work session, we’ll talk more about the bond proposal; we’ll hear about the district’s planned 1:1 computer policy; we’ll discuss the district’s policies about student use of cell phones. We'll also consider a resolution supporting the existing collective bargaining laws. And more! Full agendas here, here, and here.

7 comments:

Karen W said...

I'm sad to see that the District Network is a sarcasm-free, humorless place. :(

I hope you all will spend some time actually marking up the Acceptable Use of Technology Policy. So what if a student sends a message without remember to sign it? Maybe peripheral devices needs a definition. I can understand prohibiting actual bullying and harassment, but anything that could be interpreted as bullying or harassment seems pretty broad. Also too broad, the prohibition on sending unsolicited messages. Surely one can occasionally write first! And so on.

There doesn't seem to be any real information about the 1:1 devices themselves. Will parents be expected to take responsibility for the devices? What if we don't want them coming home--will schools make arrangements for them to be left securely at school?

As for the cellphone policies, how well are they being enforced? Is there any follow up/tracking to ensure enforcement?

Karen W said...

I want to extensively mark up the GO Bond materials, too. (What's with the font that looks like it is inserting spaces in the middle of words after lowercase "L"s???) On the timeline sheet, shouldn't the date of the last FMP revision be January 2017? And shouldn't the demolition of Hoover be listed under future projects w/ secured funding? Other FMP projects funded through PPEL are listed.

Mary Murphy said...

Chris,

I echo Karen W's concerns about the Acceptable Use of Technology Policy and have further concerns as well.

Student privacy is a huge issue (see https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/five-principles-to-protect-study-privacy/). I expect the district to protect student privacy to the greatest extent possible. Under no circumstances do I want my students' information used to identify them or for marketing or research purposes, etc. At a minimum, FERPA and any other applicable laws must be followed; however, I would expect the district to go much further in protecting student information.

The technology policy draft should not be adopted in its current form. Also, what protections for students and data concerning students will be put into vendors contracts, what training will be done, how will the district audit its privacy policies to ensure they are followed, etc.



Anonymous said...

What's a passing score on AP exams?

amy said...

How exactly does any privacy policy at all reconcile with the use of Chromebooks? Google has everything the kids do on there. A few years ago, too, I had a look at the legalese on the Josten's website used for making the elem yearbook, and it basically said, "Any photos you use in making your yearbook here are ours and it's on you to get permissions from any other kids' parents; we'll use at will. Forever."

As for phones...unless you guys manage to turn the schools into cell-dark areas, the kids are going anywhere they want. There aren't banned sites. If they can reach the sites via cell data plans, they're there.

Anonymous said...

When are you going to make your post about the Feb 28 agenda? The board docs are already posted and. I would like to make a comment about something

Chris said...

Anonymous -- Sorry it took so long. It's up now. Looking forward to hearing your comment.