MD2Assign1GrantA

docx

School

Walden University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

8046

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by anthonymg84

1 Case Study: Location-Based Regulation of Internet and Technology use Within Schools Anthony M. Grant Post Masters Cert in EPLM, Walden University EDPD 8046: Education Law, Policy, and Governance Dr. John Cowan September 10, 2023

2 Student technology use is regulated by board-approved policies that are checked against case law by attorneys. As a Director of Technology, all implemented codes of conduct, technology protocols, and end-user agreements are forwarded to the school’s attorney for legal compliance review before being published for the entire school community. In the digital age of learning, providing equitable access to technology tools such as laptops, wireless hotspots, headphones, and software for distance learning comes with the cost of regulation to maintain safety standards and reflect student interest. For regulating student cell phone and laptop use in the classroom, educational leaders must cite case law, retain legal counsel for routine reviews of technology policies to maintain inclusive learning spaces, and focus on processes that reflect the mission of each campus to foster positive academic and social growth (OECD, 2016). To regulate student interest and technology use as school officials, the legal rationale centers around case law and peer-reviewed articles to support initiatives toward a particular issue. When taking on cell phone use, case law such as Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), Price v. New York City Board of Education (2007), and Klump v. Nazareth Area School District (2006) to establish sound protocols that reflect the mission of each school. In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the court acknowledged that schools could stop disruptive behavior according to their educational mission. At the same time, Price v. New York City Board of Education (2007) asserted that teachers can enforce the principal’s directive on banning cell phones despite an objection to constitutional rights based on possession of the devices (Diamantes, 2010). The course in Klump v Nazareth Area School District ruled that a teacher confiscating a student’s device for misconduct was acceptable as the actions were not to implicate the student in an illegal activity but to remove the distraction in class. From these cases, a precedent was established for educational leaders to create policies that

3 regulate technology use towards reducing distractions in the classroom, eliminating disruptive behavior, and removing the possibility of inappropriate student actions while in class. School districts take great measures to protect student information, regulate safe search protocols for research on the internet, tackle cyberbullying and harassment, and teach digital citizenship. Regulating laptop use as it relates to funding comes down to case law and ethical considerations. School principals must show the relationship between sanctioned and unsanctioned use of classroom laptops for learning and social development. Additionally, coordination with technology departments is critical to implement protocols such as restricting chat apps, installing safe search software, and enforcing the need for one-to-one deployment to reduce the digital divide in school communities. Student behavior is about developing an educational practice where laptops are integrated, not seen as a misuse of funds or a distraction (Tallvid et al., 2015). More so, a school principal can establish a code of conduct to define acceptable use and apply learning principles such as the Universal Design for Learning to show how laptop deployment re-enforces personalized learning (Tallvid et al., 2015). Regarding case law and legislation, in New Jersey, school boards must develop Acceptable User Policies that reduce potential liability, notify students of the potential dangers of using technology for illegal purposes, and explain the purpose behind network access pursuant to statute N.J.S.A 18A:35- 4.17 (Riker Danzig, 2016). A school leader can cite state standards to justify using funds for laptops and show how students will be protected from inappropriate acts. Further protections regulating fighting words, obscenity, vulgar, communications, and disruptive material Technology can also be cited (Riker Danzig, 2016). Regulating the use of devices cannot deter student interest nor interrupt a teacher’s ability to develop an inclusive learning space for all learners.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 References DIAMANTES, T. (2010). Recent Court Rulings Regarding Student Use of Cell Phones in Today’s Schools. Education , 131 (2), 404–406. OECD. (2016). School governance, assessment and accountability. Links to an external site. In PISA 2015 results (volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264267510-8-en. Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/pisa-2015-results- volume-ii/school-governance-assessment-and-accountability_9789264267510-8- en#.WK5sDm_yvZ4#page1 Riker Danzig. (2016, October 30). Technology in the schools: Legal implications for students . https://riker.com/publications/technology-in-the-schools-legal-implications-for- students/ Tallvid, M., Lundin, J., Svensson, L., & Lindström, B. (2015). Exploring the Relationship between Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Laptop Use in a 1:1 Classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 18 (1), 237–249.

MD2Assign1GrantA

Related Documents