Social Networking Laws
We need to fix them.
Social Networking and Education
Existing Federal Laws
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act 1974
Giving parents rights to access to student records, FERPA has been in play since 1974. Grades and teacher feedback to students should be kept private in order to protect the minor's information, as well as any other documentation that is maintained by the school about a student. When the child turns 18, the rights to the student records transfer to them.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act 1998
This law is more concerned with the collection of information from minors under the age of 13. With revision passed in 2013, websites must:
- Clearly post their privacy policy;
- Provide notice to parents about the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for children under age 13;
- Receive prior consent from a parent or guardian
- Give parents access to the minor's collected information and the right to revoke its use at any time;
- Protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of minor's collected information;
- Retain the information only as long as necessary for the purpose it was collected
- Must not require more information than is necessary from the child.
Children's Internet Protection Act 2000
Tied to federal funding, schools who accept money from the government for certain programs must abide by the guidelines in this bill. This law requires schools to filter internet access to protect children from unsuitable or harmful content.
Why it is not enough
The first problem is that social networking opens up information to the entire class. In order to overcome this problem, schools must be transparent in how they are using information. Also, if using something like an online discussion board, then teachers must not provide feedback in a way that others can see. This limits the teacher because they can then not join in the conversation as a teacher-participant.
The second problem is that students sometimes abuse social networking. We hear about cyberbullying or inappropriate student-teacher relationships in social networking on the news all the time. Because students (and sometimes teachers) don't use the sites appropriately, many schools are concerned about allowing it in their institutions. One of the problems is that if a student posts slanderous or disruptive content on the personal social networking site, the school's potential actions are limited. They can't require a student to take down the information from their personal social networking account, even if it is accessed on school computers. It is easier to deny students access on school provided technology rather than to try to combat it any other way. So, despite the fact that students can access social networking sites on their personal phones, many school computers have blocked these sites.
The third problem, and I think the the most important, is that students are using the social networking sites anyway. There is no going back. Schools might deny access on school computers, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Students sometimes don't even know the problems that come with social networking. They need adult guidance to learn how to use it responsibly.
Influential Cases regarding privacy
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier
Recommendations
- We need a law to protect the rights of schools regarding social networking and digital content. This law should allow teachers to engage in discussion on social networking boards, but not provide graded feedback. This is an important difference because it allows teachers to do their job: to guide students in the way to properly use social networking.
- Schools should be given options for how to handle social networking when it becomes a problem that significantly disrupts school. What this means needs to be clearly and deliberately explained. A general statement is not sufficient, we need to know precisely what type of student behavior on social networking can be dealt with by the school and in what way.
- Schools need incentives to use social networking. This could come in the form of financial support to pay for an employee to monitor and maintain social networking on campus. It also come from the executive and legislative branches making statements about their commitment to expanding the use of these particular digital technologies in classrooms.
Additional Reading
Bureau of Consumer Protection Business Center. (2013). Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved at http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/0493-Complying-with-COPPA-Frequently-Asked-Questions
Casey, G. & Evans, T. (2011) Designing for learning: Online social networks as classroom environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7).
Clark, L. & Gould, M. (2001). American Library Association files lawsuit challenging Children’s Internet Protection Act. American Library Association. Retrieved at http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/federallegislation/cipa/alafileslawsuit
Engel, E. (2013) Reps Engel, Schakowsky, Grimm seek to protect online content. Retrieved at http://engel.house.gov/latest-news1/reps-engel-schakowsky-grimm-seek-to-protect-online-content/
Federal Communications Commission. (2014). Children’s Internet Protection Act. Retrieved at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act
Gov Track. (n.d) H.R. 5319 (109th): Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. Retrieved at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5319
Krasnow, M. (2014). State Social Media Account Laws for Educational Institutions. Dorsey. Retrieved at http://www.dorsey.com/eu_psm_social_media_laws_educational_institutes/
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. New York: Routledge.
Mendels, P. (1997). Supreme Court throws out Communications Decency Act. The New York Times. Retrieved at http://partners.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/062697decency.html
Spring, J. (2011). The American school: A global context from the Puritans to the Obama era. New York: McGraw Hill.
Student Press Law Center. (2008). Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier: A complete guide to the Supreme Court Decision. (White paper). Retrieved at http://www.splc.org/pdf/HazelwoodGuide.pdf
University of North Carolina- Wilmington (2014) FERPA in the Age of the Internet Classroom. Retrieved from http://uncw.edu/generalcounsel/documents/FERPA.pdf
US Department of Education (2011) FERPA General Guidelines for Students. Retrieved at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html
US Department of Education (2011) Safeguarding Student Privacy. Retrieved at http://www.naicu.edu/docLib/20110411_DeptEdExplanFERPARegs4-11.pdf
US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, & United States of America. (1973). Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens. Retrieved at http://www.justice.gov/opcl/docs/rec-com-rights.pdf
US Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Fair Information Practice Principles. Retrieved at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_policyguide_2008-01.pdf
Wagner, M. (2011). Knowledge is Freedom: CIPA, COPPA, and FERPA Explained Succinctly. EdTech Team. Obtained at http://www.edtechteam.com/cue2011/legal
White House (2010). National Incentive for Cybersecurity Education relationship to President’s education agenda. Retrieved at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files /rss_viewer/cybersecurity_niceeducation.pdf
Winn, M. R. (2011). Promote digital citizenship through school-based social networking. Learning & Leading With Technology, 39(4), 10-13.
Yunus, M., Salehi, H., Chenzi, C. (2012). Integrating social networking tools into ESL writing classroom: Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching, 5(8).