A Failing System?

The failing system, so it seems, is the education system in America. And, boy, is there a lot to discuss here.

One story that has been captivating America rather recently comes from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The story broke after a controversy stirred over the monitoring of school-issued laptops via webcams when student Blake Robbins called foul on the school system which suspended him after catching him engaging in what they referred to as “improper behavior” (according to CNN’s Student News Podcast, he was accused of “pushing drugs”) after intentionally accessing his computer remotely via the integrated webcam. According to the school, the parents were aware of the school’s ability to monitor the students’ computer activities, going as far as to say that the parents even signed a consent form wherein they were informed of the school’s monitoring program. According to the parents, the school has overstepped its bounds and has trespassed on the privacy of a student.

Now, Michael and Holly Robbins, the parents of the student in question, are suing the Lower Merion School District in response to their actions.

“It was an invasion of privacy. It was as if we had a peeping Tom in our house,” stated Holly Robbins in an interview with CNN’s Student News.

According to CNN writer Nicole Bliman, "In an 'acceptable-use' agreement, the families are made aware of the school's ability to 'monitor' the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. [Lawyer David Young] termed that a mistake."

Firstly, let me be clear: I understand that the parents supposedly signed a contract which stated that the school held the right to probe and monitor the laptops in the event that the laptops, which are technically school property, went missing or were vandalized, etc. Further, I also understand the need for these measures. If the school is allowing students to travel to and fro between the campus and the students’ homes, then there must be a security measure in place so that the laptop may be retrieved in the event of thievery or should the student lose the laptop.

However, what I do not understand is (1) why the parents would sign a contract which stated that the district could monitor the computers and thereby the students via built-in webcams and (2) why the school would even begin to think that pulling a student aside and providing a punishment on the basis of a photograph taken from a webcam was at all deemed as appropriate disciplinary action and, further, in any way within their rights. The entire story is shady at best, but it got me thinking about past arguments in regards to student rights.

To say the least, there has been much discussion over the years regarding the privacy of students and where disciplinary action falls into the crosshairs of a school district. From the plight of school integration and the famous 1969 case of Tinker vs. Des Moines to today’s arguments of metal detectors and student dress code and freedom of speech, the fight for student rights has been an intriguing movement for the past century. Other discussions have included the supposed unfairness of locker and backpack searches with or without reasonable doubt, the misuse of computer systems found on school property, and the use of information gathered from the context of student social networking sites (something which has actually resulted in suspension of students).

Does the school have the right to search lockers and/or backpacks? The simple answer is yes, though that does not mean that there are not limitations. Regarding the lockers, there is really no argument needed. The school owns the lockers. The lockers are on school property and therefore in the jurisdiction of the school district. Therefore, unless one somehow manages to remove a locker from campus, the school is within their rights to search through their own property at any point in time, with or without reasonable evidence of any wrong doing. End of discussion.

It is, however, the backpack discussion that broadens the spectrum. Backpacks are technically, at least in most cases, the property of the student. However, the backpacks are on school property. This is where the line blurs. Do the students have the final say over random searches regarding their own property, or does the school hold the final say because the backpack is found on school property? In my humble opinion, I feel that there is really only one logical response to this dilemma (and we must remember, since many seem to forget: it is important to be logical). The school should only be able to search a backpack if they have reason to suspect that a student is concealing something which could potentially harm and negatively influence another student or faculty member, namely through the use of illegal drugs or the concealment of weapons, be it anything from firearms to pocketknives.

As for the social networking profiles that I mentioned briefly before: I'm sorry, but the last time

that I checked, our right to state our less-than-stellar reviews on our teachers (or anything which falls within the celestial lines of the universe) was protected in the first amendment, presumably filed under free speech. I do not believe the school reserves any right to check those profiles and use the information they gather (be it from pictures or comments) to discipline a student. However, this is just a general statement. While I am typically against any type of authority figure taking what they find on social networking sites into consideration when considering a pending decision regarding a student, that does not mean that anything that they find on the social networking site should be thrown out the window.

As I noted before, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution. Thus, I don’t think that a school has the right to take something which is stated on a social networking site and use it against a student. It simply does not make sense. If it is not affecting another student and if it is not harming anyone physically, then it should just stay where it is: on the internet. However, if the school were to stumble across a picture of a student or students engaging in an illegal activity - such as drug consumption, drug trafficking, bullying, weapon concealment, stealing or vandalism – on school property, then that begins to fall into the laps of school administrators because the acts in question were occurring on school property when the specific photograph was taken. To me, it just seems that simple.

As far as this specific story is concerned, the way that the school used the technology seems invasive and inappropriate. As I understand it, the school had no evidence that the student had been engaging in any foul behavior, thus bringing about the question of why they felt the need to remotely access the laptop in the first place. I feel that once that laptop leaves the campus and enters into the home of a student, the school no longer holds the right to remotely access it unless they have reason to believe that the computer has been stolen or vandalized (only 18 of 44 laptops have been retrieved this way according to CNN). To be honest, it makes me genuinely sick to think that this school is defending their position as though it is actually ethically acceptable.

The school has since disabled the security feature after the superintendent stated, “…there was no explicit notification that the laptop contained the security software. This notice should have been given and we regret that was not done.”

The question still resting in my mind is whether they have taken this invasive measure with other students. I doubt that this one student was the only victim to this monitoring. I think it fairly common knowledge that teenagers do some questionable things in their free time, but some of those things are intrinsically private and they should not have to question whether or not they are being watched by someone fifteen miles away. I am also questioning whether or not this event, despite it being an isolated event, will cause a disruption in the movement to have students connected, particularly those who are less fortunate and cannot afford a computer. If that is the case, then the Lower Marion school district has a lot of people to whom they owe apologies.

Another story comes from Central Falls High School in Central Falls, Rhode Island where 88 teachers were fired in response to academic expectations were not being met by the educators or the students. The school, according to CBS.com, loses 52% of their students between the 9th and 12th grade. According to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, only 7% of the students are proficient in mathematics and nearly all of the students live in poverty. It may seem extreme, but according to Cooper, it is one of six options approved by the federal government when dealing with a situation this extreme. He also alludes to the fact that the teachers turned down an original proposal which would have saved their jobs in exchange to negotiate a new salary of $72K.

Apparently, because of the rejection of the original proposal, Superintendent Frances Gallo had no other option but the make the radical decision of firing all 88 faculty members.

I am a logical person, and though I may not agree with a viewpoint, I can usually understand it. I understand that these teachers are working with less-than-privileged teenagers and I gather that, like many poverty stricken towns, Central Falls has a higher than average rates of crime in regards to murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, and motor vehicle thefts (according to AreaConnect.com). I understand that the safety of the teachers could be in question. I understand that many students may simply be less lively than corpses when it comes to education. I understand it would be very difficult for these teachers to do their jobs with ease.

But who told them that being a teacher was easy?

For my mind, it was fairly easy to see