Terms of use, whether you like it or not

SOMETHING I FOUND OUT SINCE I POSTED THIS:

A teacher got a letter-in-the-file for not using our school data management computer enough. Without divulging the name of the system (I don't know how many schools have it), it is accessible from school computers through an https:// address. This is the first time I've heard that someone has been formerly disciplined about the use (in this case, the non-use) of computer data. It doesn't look good.

For the 100th time: WHERE IS THE UNION???

---

A blog I wrote a couple of weeks ago about my first experience with ARIS — that’s the system the DoE bought when it went on a technological shopping spree with taxpayer money — made me reassess my relationship with school computers.

Don't get me wrong, I like computers. I especially like them when I have a fair degree of control over who gets to know when I’m online, what kind of stuff I’m doing there and whom I’m writing to. ARIS will not give me those pleasures, and I will probably resist using it as long as I can.

Within a week of that post, I was refused access into my school email account and could only get back in by re-registering and accepting the DoE’s “Acceptable Use Policy” (AUP). I don’t remember doing that before, but maybe I did, when I was less burnt by this system. In any case, I hope that their forcing me to re-register was part of a general housekeeping exercise and that they weren't just targeting me. Did everyone’s access to nycboe get cut within the past couple of weeks?

Being wary of anything the DoE does at this point, I decided to actually read the AUP they were telling me to sign off on before I could get back onto the system. If you're interested in the whole text, it's online here.

It’s not that I oppose a system that tells you what you can and cannot do when you're on it. What I thoroughly oppose is that we've been forced into having a DoE email account in the first place and then told all kinds of stuff about how it has to be used.

For one thing, by making us sign the AUP, someone — whether it’s a local administrator or a higher-up at Tweed — is telling us to give up a right to privacy. While it is true that privacy is not an iron-clad Constitutional right, courts over time have sought to give it some definition, as explained in this passage:

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

Here's the 9th Amendment, for those who haven't memorized it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Way down in the AUP's clause on Privacy, there's this startling remark:

e) System users have no privacy expectation in the contents of their personal files and records of their online activity while on the Department system.

Must we agree to this? Backing up a bit, there’s this:

a) The Department reserves the right to use "cookies" on its site. Cookies are computer programs that . . . store information about a user on a computer hard drive or disk. Information stored includes, but may not be limited to, the date and time a user visits the site and information about the user’s activities while online. Any information gathered is obtained solely for the purpose of improving the Department’s services and providing the system with statistical information to assist in improving teaching and learning by teachers and students respectively.

Except as otherwise provided in this Internet Acceptable Use Policy, the Department will not use cookies to gather personal identifying information about any of its users. Personal identifying information includes, but is not limited to, names, home addresses, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.

I’m not so worried about the “personal identifying information” mentioned in the 2nd paragraph above. What I am very worried about is the kind of “statistical information [the DoE will gather] to assist in improving teaching and learning.”

That’s because I don't much trust the DoE’s methods to improve teaching and learning. Just look at its abysmal record on class size reduction, the misrepresentation of test results and graduation records, its campaign against senior teachers and the way it stocks schools with so many uncertified and possibly transient educators, and its fake accountability/grading systems to achieve the data outcomes they desire.

Users should be aware that their personal files may be discoverable in court and administrative proceedings and in accordance with public records laws.

At this point, I’m saying to myself I really don’t want any part of this thing.

And right after that I’m asking: Don’t we have a Union to object to our being forced to sign onto such an invasive system?


It’s worth noting some other things in the AUP, like the section on “Freedom of Expression," which talks solely about the items set forth in the Bill of Student Rights and Responsibilities: there's absolutely no mention of free speech for staff.

I’m also not crazy about the clause in “Inappropriate Language,” which tells users not to use “rude, inflammatory . . . abusive or disrespectful language” or engage in “personal attacks,” but I can live with it, since there are so many other places where we can talk about the BloomKlein debacle — and talk about it we really must.

It's rather quaint that we have been given permission to engage in "incidental use" during our duty-free time ("staff may be permitted to use the Internet for purchasing a book for personal use during their lunch hour"), though I don’t know many teachers who have luxury of a duty-free lunch. Maybe that's what goes on at Tweed.

The AUP says that teachers who make their own web pages must “provide a resource for others." They don't mean like this one, of course, though I frequently quote from primary sources. Web pages created on DoE computers must “reflect well upon the Department, district and school,” which is really the kind of thing we used to expect from the Soviets or Chairman Mao.

There's a fair amount of talk about violating these AUP rules: employees breaking the rules "will be handled by appropriate discipline.” It's not that I’m intending in my lifetime to surf salacious sites on school computers or hurl obscenities at anyone in Outlook Express. But, there’s a good deal of ambiguity here. Just how critical of Joel Klein and Tweedledom can one be on a DoE computer without being disciplined? Have they assigned a team of übersnoops to monitor the internet activity of critics like myself? And what might be that "appropriate" discipline alluded to above that would keep me and others like me in line?

If the truth be known, I saw a ray of hope in this sentence:

The Department may revoke Internet access in its sole discretion.

That would suit me just fine, because then I wouldn’t have to read all that self-serving crap administrators always circulate to staff. And if my principal really wanted to speak to me, she’d have to send me a note in my mailbox or just pick up the phone, without an infinite number of people getting CC or BCC copies.

Talking about e-mails, the AUP not only orders us to use it “frequently," but be sure to do certain things when we’re on it, like delete unwanted messages “promptly.” Fine if the system were optional, but it isn’t. First they force us to have an account, and then they tell us how and how often to use it. It's as if they have boundary issues or something.


Lastly, I would be remiss in not citing these paragraphs on the DoE’s “Acceptable Use Guidelines” for emails.

"Acceptable" e-mail activities are those that conform to the purpose, goals, and mission of the DOE and to each user's job duties and responsibilities . Users shall have no right to privacy while using the DOE's internet or e-mail system . E-mail may not be used for personal purposes during working hours, except that users may engage in minimal e-mail activities for personal purposes, such as family correspondence, if the use does not diminish the employee's productivity, work product, or ability to perform services for the DOE.

"Unacceptable" use is defined generally as activities using DOE hardware, software, or networks at any time that does not conform to the purpose, goals, and mission of the DOE and to each user's job duties and responsibilities . . .

NOTE: Users may be subject to limitations on their use of e-mail as determined by their supervisor. The DOE reserves the right to examine any/all e-mail or Internet correspondence for security and/or network management purposes.

Violation of this e-mail policy may result in disciplinary action.

The underlining is editorial, and on the grounds of these bits alone, we should all consider boycotting the whole system.


Weingarten, you're a lawyer. Doesn't any of this offend you?

Obama highs, DOE lows

AVoiceIn just alerted me to this tidbit by Yoav Gonen in Saturday's NY Post, which I hadn’t seen.

Administrators at a Bronx elementary school interrogated a class of 7-year-olds individually about their teacher - and then threatened to suspend those who told their folks, several fuming parents told The Post.

Education officials confirmed yesterday that they were investigating claims that as many as 20 second-graders at PS 70 in Mount Eden were pressured by Principal Kerry Castellano and other administrators to compose written statements about teacher Jonathan Alejandro's disciplinary methods.

Parents said they hit the roof when they heard about it. Students were promised McDonald's and other goodies for keeping mum, parents said.

"It's appalling! I'm raising my daughter not to hide things from me, and they're telling her to lie," said Rosa Caceres, who described her daughter, Loreal Luna, as an "emotional wreck" ever since last month's incident.

Angely Miliano said her 8-year-old son, Michael Mateo, was equally torn.

"My son was crying hysterically because he thought he was going to get in trouble with me," she said.

Administrators denied to parents that they had instructed the kids to keep quiet, but Miliano said she asked her son three times whether it was true.

"He said, 'Yes, they told me not to tell you nothing,' " she recalled.

Alejandro declined comment. Castellano did not respond to an e-mail and a phone call seeking comment.

Looking past the hype (it’s the Post, after all), we have a big problem here in this city. It’s the culture of insinuation, interrogation, and criminality that bedevils our profession and poisons our schools.

Each day since the inauguration, one columnist after another has tried to put into words how good it feels to breathe again, knowing that someone is finally at the helm of this great ship of state who can think, listen, evaluate, contextualize, and act appropriately to fight for the things Americans hold dear.

And then something like this story comes along, and we're reminded that if you're in any way connected to the school system here in New York City, your life is pretty much determined by the questionable vision of a single man, Joel Klein, and the enterprise he’s created at Tweed.

I suspect Obama’s going to make some decisions we won’t all like, but we’re happy to let him take the helm of this great ship of a country and do his best. That’s because his best mostly resembles the best in ourselves.

Not so with Joel Klein.

With him and educrats like him running inner city schools across the country, a lot of people will continue living under a pall, much like the one George Bush and his immoral oligarchy fashioned for us. It won't be made out of transparent cloth like Klein tries to tell us, and it won't be comforting. It will feel heavy, ominous and stifling, to teachers and to parents.

The sad part is that the more our new president gleams at the national level, the more we’ll see this chancellor and others who emulate him for what they are, fundamentally the wrong kinds of people to make decisions for our profession or for the kids we teach.

Sharp-shootin'

Two great new posts by the indefatigable Norm Scott over at Ednotes.

The first for the picture — "Three Amigos"— and you'll have to see who these nasties are for yourself, since I've cut their heads off here. (A metaphorical pleasure, it turns out.) Then do what he says and let the NYC Parents blog connect the dots for you.

The second is Scott at his best, taking shots at BloomKlein, Tweed, McCain, Sharpton, the widening achievement gap between white/Asian and other populations, the decrease in the number of minority teachers, and the contemptible non-transparency and stonewalling of this chancellorship that gives "reform" a very bad name — all in under 400 words.

It's like watching a pit bull do its thing.