Archive for the ‘Operations and Maintenance’ Category

Sanctioned Snooping

June 28th, 2010 by Susan Brooks-Young

Does your district provide cell phones to employees?  A ruling by the U.S. Supreme on June 17, 2010 may impact you.  The court agreed unanimously that governmental agencies may access and read an employee’s text messages under certain circumstances.

The case that was brought to the Supreme Court involved a police officer in Ontario, California whose text messages were reviewed when department officials became concerned that SWAT team officers were using department-issued pagers for too many personal text messages.  And sure enough, in one month alone, of the 456 text messages sent or received by the officer in question, 400 were personal.

The city does have a policy stating that employees have no guaranteed right of privacy when using communication devices provided by the department, but officers had been told informally that their messages would not be audited as long as they paid for additional charges.  So the officer and three others sued the department for violating their constitutional right to privacy.  A lower court ruled in the officer’s favor, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision on the premise that the search itself was reasonable.

The decision is the court’s first related to Digital Age technologies and 4th amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure.  While the court did not provide broad guidance on employees’ privacy rights, the decision did identify conditions that must be met before government agency may review an employee’s personal texts.  They are:
• The cell phone must be provided by the agency.
• The employee must be told in advance that any messages sent using the device may be monitored by management.
• There must be a legitimate work-related reason for reviewing the messages.

As increasing numbers of education agencies provide cell phones to some employees, it is critical that policies be created that outline acceptable use and privacy expectations.  It is equally important that these policies be enforced in an even-handed, consistent way.

How does your agency handle this issue?

Don’t Just Say No

October 26th, 2009 by Bob Blackney

Should we allow students to bring electronic files to school?  Every district faces this question.  What’s more, it’s an issue that does not warrant a simple yes or no answer because it pits two foundational goals against one another.

On one hand, we are educational institutions.  Our base purpose is to foster our students’ learning.  There is certainly educational benefit to students being able to move their files from home to school and back again.    Preventing access to external files makes learning more difficult for students and teaching more difficult for staff.

On the other hand, we have a mandate to provide a safe and secure environment for learning.  Free file exchange between home and school comes with serious risks.  Some students may bring inappropriate videos or photos.  Disgruntled students or pranksters may introduce viruses  or other malicious software.  Even the most responsible students may, by opening an innocent looking email attachment, spread malware that brings down networks and takes an already overworked technical staff weeks to locate and eradicate.

Districts have sought a secure, effortless and cost effective method to allow students to safely transfer appropriate files to and from school.  Unfortunately, most approaches are less than ideal.  Yet, without a secure technological solution, how do you balance the need for educational support and technological security?

In Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, we rely on the professional judgment of our site technology leaders.  They work with staff to analyze each situation thoughtfully and make daily decisions on student safety.  To maintain a balanced policy, site leaders work with teachers and other staff to consider factors such as:

  • Is there a compelling educational need to transfer files?
  • Are the students likely to use the resources well?
  • Can accessing district servers from home provide the needed resource?
  • Does the staff member making the request have the technical skills to assure it is used safely?
  • Is the educational pay off on the proposed activity worth the risk?

Weighing the nuances of the potential rewards and mitigating the district’s exposure to risk requires information, assistance and judgment.  Such deliberation is not unique to technology; the same process applies when considering the value of other proposals such as field trips, school assembly programs, or even tuning in to the President’s speech to students!

It is incumbent on technology leaders to help all staff members understand complicated technological issues as well as to be open to the needs of staff members.   We have relied on site staff for a number of years and have not had any serious issues to this point.  We trust, communicate, and partner with all staff to keep our network safe and our students learning.

Staying afloat—and on course!

July 16th, 2009 by Tim Landeck
Queen Mary 2

Queen Mary 2

Times are hard.  According to a recent report, 48 of the 50 states are grappling with $166 billion in budget deficits for the coming year.  California’s share of that is at least $26 billion.  Districts are cutting librarians, music programs, sports, counselors, assistant principals, nurses, buses, and increasingly, teachers.  In California alone, over 26,000 teachers received pink slips this past spring.  With all of these cuts, how can the cost of supporting the technology infrastructure be justified?

Times may be hard, but times have also changed.  Today’s school district is nothing like it was 10 years ago.  In our district, for example, all of our computers are connected to the network and use the network to function.  People are saving and retrieving files constantly; network servers are hosting the programs that we access for student software, financial records, attendance, assessment, payroll—you name it, technology handles it.

Today it is virtually impossible for an office worker to accomplish anything without the use of a functioning, network-connected computer.  If the network connection goes down, it’s time to take an early lunch.  Imagine a bank today without access to its network.  It is the same in a typical school district office: everything comes to a screeching halt when the network goes down.

How can we not fund the positions that keep this technology functioning?  Is it realistic to think we can just hope the technology keeps working long enough to ride out the tough times?  I don’t think so.  I liken technology support to an ocean liner.  Cut the engines and for awhile, the ship will keep pointing in the right direction and moving quite quickly.  All too soon, however, even the QM2 will find itself adrift and out of control.

Let’s insist that technology in the schools be a high priority as we struggle to keep the engines running and our educational enterprise on course.