Community

Social Media Policies

Nov 30

Seems lots of people are working hard these days to establish policies specific to social media and online interactions with staff and students. Specifically, many of these policies are focused on the ways staff are engaging social media both inside and outside the classroom.

My district has recently started exploring the possibility of establishing our own policy, and that drove me to start looking around at what others are doing. What I’ve found has been quite fascinating.

I’m not yet decided on how I think we should approach this exercise, exactly. I do know, however, that I want to make sure we take an approach that will establish policy which will not serve to preclude teachers from using social media. Seems that might prove difficult. As I continue my research, I’m looking for what approach will work best to provide sound guidelines and protections for our students and staff while still affording both the opportunity to actualize the benefits that such media forms present. And I’m left to consider the following items that I’ve come across so far in my work.

We must be mindful of free speech considerations. Though, this is a difficult road to navigate given the complex nature of how the First Amendment has been interpreted for public employees. See Garcetti as an example.

My previous district just passed their social media policy. See section 5:135. I’m very curious to see how their policy takes shape as they are now working to create their procedures. There are several issues in the policy that I think might prove very difficult to implement. Especially the parent permission piece.

Papillion-La Vista School District entirely prohibits teachers from engaging students on social networks and strongly discourages them from doing the same with parents or guardians. I’m not sure that’s the way I want to go, but it seems the way many are taking at present. *Update 12-1-10- Please see Josh’s comment below for clarification on Papillion-La Vista School District’s policy. I’m afraid I misrepresented it here, so please read his helpful clarification.

There are also several interesting resources surfacing intended to help institutions with this issue. This site aims to help you quickly build your own policy for your business or district. And recently, the Common Craft folks released their social media in the workplace video to help people better understand the issues involved.

The American School Board Journal also had an excellent article in its December 2010 edition on the subject. The first portion of the article can be found here (my apologies to those of you who don’t have a subscription to read the rest).

As we move forward and see more and more districts begin to policy social media and electronic communications, I hope we’ll see a movement away from the full restriction and more will allow common sense to prevail. Because it seems to me much of this is an old conversation repackaged into a new container. Yes, social media tools are new. But social isn’t. And we’ve been doing that inside and outside of schools for a very long time now. And in many cases, we already have policy for that. And if we restrict teachers from using social media or electronic communications with students, does that mean we restrict them from going to a student’s game or performance after school? Or from answering a phone call in our classroom from them after hours when they need help with homework? Maybe those are unfair comparisons, but they don’t really seem to be to me.

I’d love any direction, feedback, insights, ideas, examples, etc. that you might have on this issue as I know I could use more help on the topic as we explore our options for addressing concerns with social media and electronic communications in our district.

Thanks to Matt Hamm for the use of the Flickr image.

ASCD Podcating Presentation

Mar 08

The following are my notes, reflections, and slidedeck from my ASCD podcasting presentation.

I presented this session with Jeff Arnett, the Chief Communications Officer for Barrington Community Unit School District 220.

Jeff and I began the session asking the question, “What can you accomplish when you merge communication strategy and innovative instruction?” As Jeff is the Chief Communications Officer for our district, he is constantly working to ensure our district is communicating effectively with our community. Often times a role like this in a district ends up being more of a public relations role wherein the individual works to shape and control the stream of communications coming from a district. Jeff, however, works very hard to maintain open dialog with the community about what is happening throughout our district, and in particular, what is happening with our students as they are learning. This is evidenced in his use of Facebook and Twitter as a strong component to our district’s communication plan.

My focus as Instructional Technology Coordinator for the district is on engaging students in learning experiences through technology. I work to help teachers establish and identify their learning goals, and then we move to extend the learning experiences students are engaging in a way that moves them beyond the point that was possible with traditional learning tools.

A year and a half ago, Jeff and I began discussing the potential of establishing a district podcast where we can both accomplish goals for our respective areas of work. What we came up with is the content for our presentation.

Ascd Podcast Presentation 2010

View more presentations from Ben Grey.

We spent the first portion of the presentation talking about the why of this project. Why did we do it, and why do we believe in it? We framed the discussion around three main points; purpose, power, and product. We each answered how our goals worked in these three points. We then talked about the process that got us to a district podcast.

The questions we posed for each point were:

Purpose-

Jeff- How are your current communication strategies engaging your stakeholders?

Ben- What are you doing to create engaging learning experiences for students?

Power-

Jeff- What you are doing to create ownership of your message and brand?

Ben- What are you doing to release ownership of learning to your students?

Product-

Jeff- Is your product adaptable to emerging technologies?

Ben- Are your learning experiences adaptable to emerging technologies?

We presently have three different shows in the network. Elementary Insights, where our Superintendent of schools has a discussion with elementary students about issues and topics of interest happening in our district. The Midpoint, where members of our Board of Education have discussions with middle school students about what is taking place in the district. The Barrington 2:20, where high school students report on stories from the community. To hear a short sample of each show, click here.

We started the network a year ago, and if you look at our blog, you will notice a serious lapse in new content. We spent the fall and early winter in a targeted effort to transition to a new content management system for our district, and once that transition is complete, we will move all our podcasts to our new platform. This work is nearly at the point where the podcast network can begin again, and in fact, we recently recorded new content for Elementary Insights and The Midpoint. Both should be released within the next week or two.

I believe a partnership with communications and instruction can yield powerful results for students, teachers, and the community. I could talk a whole lot on this subject, but I’ll leave it at this. If you have any questions on this project, please feel free to let me know.

Who Do We Belong To?

Dec 18

network
I have to establish from the outset, I’m not yet determined in my thinking on this topic. I’m also not sure that the conversation will get us any further than what Mr. Jakes likes to call a “taffy pull.” But it might. Might not, either. We’ll see.

Many of us are moving in and out of a very large space that extends well beyond us. We move through the space with great fluidity, and each movement we make creates waves that extend outward and touch the movements of others. Our ideas make connections, and the connections form a web of interconnected knowledge and thought that soon can’t be separated one from another. Many call this a network.

I really like George Siemens’ explanation of our connections and the networks they create.

Thinking of it as the way we identify and arrange the inputs, or nodes as Siemens calls them, creates in interesting point of discussion. Because we arrange the nodes the way we desire and the way we think best meet our needs, does that mean the network belongs to us? Should it? Can it?

The creation of a network is an inherently personal experience. We are innately involved in the process. However, does our involvement ultimately yield a network that belongs to us individually? Many are prone to calling this concept a “personal learning network.” I wonder if that’s accurate.

I keep returning to what Dave Cormier said in a recent “Not EdTechWeekly“. He maintains that it isn’t a personal network as the network doesn’t belong to us. We belong to it.

This is where the taffy pull pundits enter and say it doesn’t matter and the conversation is circular and recursive and won’t really get us anywhere. I’m not so sure I agree.

Because if we started looking at the network as something we belong to, rather than the possessive way we tend to describe it, we begin to realize just how much of what takes place in our lives, and our thinking, and our relationships don’t really belong to us personally, they belong to all of us collectively.

I’m writing this post. I can easily say it’s mine, and grow possessive of the content, or general lack thereof, and chide anyone who I think is using it unjustly. I can place my personal value in this network on what I’ve produced, and expect others to see my value in the same way.

Personally, I think that’s an awfully dangerous place to be. Because I have no idea how much of this post is really mine. In fact, I’d say most of it came from my interactions in a learning network at some point in time and that really makes it yours as much as it is mine.

And that’s why I think the personal might matter. I am personally part of the network, but my ideas and thoughts, and my learning are also part of the network. They aren’t entirely mine. Yes, I shaped my specific nook of the network to fit my needs, but it still remains a part of the whole. If I go away, the network remains. My arrangement of the nodes may disintegrate, but the nodes themselves will still exist.

And knowing that frees me to learn and contribute collectively in the network and rid myself of any potential conflict I might have about gaining value in the network by what part of it all I own. Or how I’ve assembled my part. Or how important I think I am based on what I’ve created, which is probably influenced by the network far more than I could ever realize.

I don’t know. Maybe I have this all wrong. Maybe the conversation doesn’t really matter.

But I’ve a sneaking suspicion that it does. That it matters quite a bit.

Thanks to eskimoblood for the use of the Flickr image.

Our Ideas are Interactive

Nov 29

Living together - 187/365

I read a great post by a student in my grad class last week that has me thinking again about the idea of a backchannel. I wrote about this a while ago, but it seems the topic has surfaced again recently about the value of a backchannel.

The past several conferences I have attended have tried to implement a conference-wide backchannel discussion, and most have failed. Whether due to poor wifi, poor implementation, or simply lack of interest, it seems to me the idea has started fading a bit. I don’t know if I think that’s good or bad.

Certainly the story that surfaced this week about the backchannel gone bad at the Web 2.0 Expo is evidence of how this idea can be a complicated matter. This spurred much discussion on Twitter, and the experience leaves many wondering what is the value in having a simultaneous chat running while a person is presenting his or her ideas. I still believe, if done well, the chat can add a great deal for both the presenter and the conference attendees. I really do. However, as some have noted recently on Twitter and in other conversation spaces, it seems that often times the backchannel fails to connect to the message being presented and breaks down into a virtual cafeteria where the kids are all talking about any and all topics other than the ones being presented.

I found the post above by Michael to be most interesting. It leaves me wondering what the role of this experience could be in the classroom. Could it be that if we built this the right way, kids could greatly benefit from the chance of moving from passive listeners to active engagers of what is happening around them? The idea of allowing students to backchannel during a read aloud is fascinating to me. It takes courage for teachers to try such a thing, but if, like Michael, the end turns out to yield something of value for students, I think we should try it more. Allow them the chance to mix their ideas with their peers in a nonconventional way to see what the recipe ends up making.

Maybe it won’t work for your students, or your teachers, or your presentation audience, but I still do believe there’s something to this idea. It just takes some work and effort to keep the connections aligned with your learning goals, and obviously sometimes we fail at that in our endeavors to get students to invest in their learning through technology. But if our work with technology does indeed increase student investment, then I say turn on the backchannel and see what you can hear, so to speak.