|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton Unified School District is considering the adoption of an online monitoring program intended for student safety after the Board of Trustees unanimously agreed Tuesday to dive deeper into the matter.
The public hearing did not generate any comment from audience members, while the board’s discussion after a staff presentation lasted about 10 minutes before voting.
With online learning becoming more common, administrators said they “have a need to ensure that students are safe in these spaces” and will consider “24/7 real-time computer-based and human monitoring” as a potential solution.
“Students engage in a variety of online activities that can provide indicators of thoughts or intentions to participate in behaviors that are unsafe to themselves or other students,” district staff wrote in a report. “There are now solutions available that can routinely monitor student activity in district-provided learning spaces to identify these types of online behaviors and interactions.”
A committee of PUSD staff and community members will explore using two services called Gaggle and Securly for monitoring district-issued Google accounts to “identify activity patterns that could indicate that a student is considering harm to self or others.”
The systems have limits, however, so flagged activity would be reviewed by a person to help determine the appropriate response based on a risk assessment.
“Our reviews are only done after a situation occurs. We do not currently have systems in place that can preventatively monitor student Google accounts for activity that might suggest a student is hurting and is considering harming themselves or other students or adults in our community,” said Amy Nichols, PUSD senior director of procurement and technology. “Another way of saying this is that we have reactive monitoring capability but not proactive monitoring capability.”
The district report did not provide any specifics about what type of language or content could be flagged.
When asked by Trustee Steve Maher whether any confidentiality or privacy issues are anticipated, Nichols replied, “That’s really the big question about this.”
“Students don’t have or shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy in the nature of the communication that they engage in when they’re using their Google accounts,” Nichols said. “But there is still, I think, a psychological difference about what a student is going to say in the classroom, in front of a bunch of adults that they can see, and what a student is going to say in their own bedroom.
“That’s really the crux of the importance of this question for the board and the community to think through, is how could we weigh our duty, obligation, just protective need to make sure that our students are safe with our need to ensure that our families and students are also afforded privacy,” she added.
Money for the pilot program has been allocated from the Sycamore tech fund. Depending on the vendor selected, the program would cost between an estimated $50,000 to $100,000 annually for district-wide 24/7 monitoring of all student Google accounts, including the “human component to actually interact with the content.”
The committee will start meeting in February and is expected to give its recommendation to the board in March.
Why not microchip them too? And give Mark Zuckerberg a key to the playground while you’re at it.
Don’t see any privacy concerns with the school district monitoring the online activity of students who are using district-issued Google accounts. Seems like appropriate oversight to me.
Oh, I get it. This is a part of an book review assignment that they’re just institutionalizing. “Student, you didn’t understand 1984 when you read it? You will now.”
The no-expectation-of-privacy argument is bogus. The students are not employees. They are citizens in a government-run program. The courts have repeatedly reminded schools that the students have their Constitutional rights intact, with limited exemptions. This doesn’t feel like it would be one of them. I encourage the district to avoid becoming a test case.
I see no issue if they are using it to monitor school issued accounts. My bigger issue will be around what decisions they take based on it. Context, tone, etc are not easy to pick up
I was interested that no one was there to comment. Parents are not watching board agendas; of course they weren’t there. A simple solution is available, BEFORE you spend needless staff time on this project, survey the parents. And heaven forbid they try to put this in place without that response—they better have opt out clauses.
Are students required to have a district account? Are students warned to use it only for school matters? And if the students only use it for school related matters, then why do we need to monitor them?
@Grumpy wrote “ The no-expectation-of-privacy argument is bogus. The students are not employees. They are citizens in a government-run program.“
The students are MINORS. Your argument would perhaps have more weight if we were talking about adult students at a university or college.
As a parent I’ve had instances when my children have tried to pull out the “privacy” card on me concerning their online activities, telephone calls, their bedroom, etc.. I’ve told them that I will make reasonable efforts to respect their privacy but as their parent I have a duty and responsibility to keep them safe, and that if push comes to shove that duty and responsibility as a parent overrides their privacy concerns. That’s the way it is until they turn 18. If they say they don’t like it, I tell them tough cookies.
Ok Wombat, as a parent that is absolutely one of the many responsibilities you hold. It is not, however, the job of the district. If they like sending mailers so much, how about one explaining the district email, rules, and guiding parents to keep their children safe there as well? Who would be monitoring the people monitoring your children?
@Kathleen wrote “ Ok Wombat, as a parent that is absolutely one of the many responsibilities you hold. It is not, however, the job of the district.”
Seriously, Kathleen, these are district-issued student Google accounts. The district, not parents, has super user like privileges over account activities. If some student tragedy were to occur and it were discovered that there were warning signs of the impending tragedy among the online activities of PUSD students using district-issued student Google accounts, you would be among the first people in Pleasanton climbing onto your soapbox and decrying PUSD for not properly monitoring student online activities using widely available enterprise-level tools such as the Gaggle and Securly monitoring services discussed in this article.
Wombat, Well, no, that assumption is wrong. I would not abdicate my role as a parent to someone who may misuse and cause possible harm to a child in the name of safety. I have zero expectation for this to be a role for the district or third party software. As I asked, who would be monitoring the people monitoring your children?
@Kathleen wrote “As I asked, who would be monitoring the people monitoring your children?”
You do realize that PUSD and selected employees already have access to abundant confidential information about PUSD students including grades, counseling records, teacher comments, etc., don’t you? You do realize that PUSD and its employees are already entrusted with our children’s safety and confidential information, right? So I’m guessing from your question that you don’t have a problem with all of that, but that for some reason which is unclear to me that you feel that PUSD would be stepping over the line if they were also given the power of monitoring the online activity of students using district-issued student Google accounts. I think that you need to fill in a lot of blanks about what your question is all about.
I do realize. I had a huge problem with that data going to the library, if you want to find it.
When you, as a parent, aren’t in control, can’t opt out, there is a temptation for monitors to give that information to others, like google, gaggle, securely, etc. Parents need an opt out. These are children and teens. There’s enough trouble they can get into—which is why you choose to monitor them—without adding others into monitoring where you have absolutely no control over it.
I agree, parents should have an opt out option. PUSD is not in the business of raising children. PUSD is in the business to educate children, parents are in the business to raise children.
Online monitoring of their computers means access to their laptops and computers which means access to their cameras
How long till the video of your daughter naked in her room shows up on the
internet
. Then how will you feel .
Do you trust these people that much. I dont
Wombat, minors have rights. What sort of argument are you trying to make? That they shouldn’t?
There’s plenty of case law on this. Students have a right to expression, and the extension to a right to privacy is obvious. The carve outs that do exist would cover reasonable fears of violence, that that carve out exists for adults too, to a large extent.
I think the district’s goals here are not entirely noble, and sit on a boundary that they need to be more gentle with. Not that I think they want to do bad, but rather that they see they have the commercial power to purchase these tools, heard the companies make the pitch the way they do to other companies, and are feeling like a purchase is not out of the ordinary. They need to be reminded that they are a government function, not a private commercial one, and need to follow a greater standard of care.
After that, if they carefully and thoughtfully come up with a good reason and use case, and can show how rights are protected, I’ll have no complaints. It just doesn’t sound like that’s what they’ve done so far.
“…cost between an estimated $50,000 to $100,000 annually….”
The PUSD is constantly pandering for money and this does not seem like a wise use of funds to me. There’s already enough spies on the internet, PUSD doesn’t need to join them. Parents do their job and schools do their job.
@Grumpy wrote “ There’s plenty of case law on this. Students have a right to expression, and the extension to a right to privacy is obvious.“
You think so? Are you a lawyer? If so, then try telling your theory about students’ “right to expression” and “right to privacy” concerning online activities to Harvard.:
“Harvard Rescinds Acceptances for At Least Ten Students for Obscene Memes”
“ Harvard College rescinded admissions offers to at least ten prospective members of the Class of 2021 after the students traded sexually explicit memes and messages that sometimes targeted minority groups in a private Facebook group chat.”
“In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, according to screenshots of the chat obtained by The Crimson. Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups. One called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child “piñata time.””
“ After discovering the existence and contents of the chat, Harvard administrators revoked admissions offers to at least ten participants in mid-April, according to several members of the group. University officials have previously said that Harvard’s decision to rescind a student’s offer is final.”
The Harvard Crimson: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/
– – – –
“Money for the pilot program has been allocated from the Sycamore tech fund. Depending on the vendor selected, the program would cost between an estimated $50,000 to $100,000 annually for district-wide 24/7 monitoring of all student Google accounts, including the “human component to actually interact with the content.”
“The committee will start meeting in February and is expected to give its recommendation to the board in March.”
First, This is not the intended use of the Sycamore Fund. The corpus (raided many times in the last decade) was to remain untouched and ONLY the interest from the investment was to be used for upgrading laptops and other devices. If the fund is used in this way the district will burn its way into the corpus, and you can bet there will be more bond elections that include purchasing those tech devices (as was done with the last bond, Measure I1).
P. J. O’Rourke has a quote that, sadly and too often, speaks to issues like this: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
And who will be responsible when there is a data breach, the vendor or PUSD? The PUSD will be the first line of fire in a lawsuit in this situation. Then they will need yet another bond to pay for that.
It’s the school’s system. They can monitor all they want, and should. It’s really no different than being at work, where your employer can monitor all you do. I have zero problem with it.
You can still have your own systems and data access outside the school system. Let your precious little school shooter hang out there if you are so worried about them being monitored. A lot of people on this site must have some pretty messed up kids, if they are concerned about this.
Bill, except you are an adult who knows what you’ve signed up for.
I wonder if they are going to monitor staff—all staff—the same way. As someone who had to redact emails (different district), you’d be surprised what teachers and administrators say.
I have no problem with my kids internet use being monitored on school issued equipment. I expect the school to do this, and they have my full consent. My only question/concern would be if these monitoring records would be subject to public records request. I do not support any information about students being disclosed publicly.
Wombat: for your education: Tinker v Des Moins ICSD (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District), and so on. There’s a lot of law and cases on this. I’m surprised you are so vehement when the cases are fairly clear… The court recognized famously that students don’t shed their rights at the steps of the school. That doesn’t mean there aren’t limits—preventing disorder is allowed, but that’s just a sloppier version of not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Preventing bigotry and obscenity are unique for minors, but that’s not the point the article we’re commenting on discusses.
As for Harvard, surely you remember that Harvard is not a taxpayer owned government institution, but a private school. Private organizations can set their membership criteria freely, so long as they aren’t racist or such. PUSD may do no such thing. It’s government.
@Grumpy
“Tinker v. Des Moines” was a case from 1965 involving the First Amendment free speech right of students to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands in school. That’s a very, very far reach from the question of whether a school district has the right to monitor online computer activity by students on district-issued student Google accounts. No one here, including Kathleen, has made the claim that this is a First Amendment free speech issue. Even you didn’t made the claim that this is a First Amendment issue. You were claiming all along here that this was a “right to privacy” issue, remember?
The Harvard example that I brought up was in response to your student online activity “right to privacy” claim, not the issue of free speech. IF the issue were First Amendment free speech rights, then you would be correct in saying that Harvard, as a private institution, has more latitude than PUSD in dealing with disagreeable speech.
(P.S.: You didn’t answer my question about whether or not you are a lawyer.)
as long as the kids KNOW this is happening…I’m okay with it because it is being school-district owned/run accounts. But this is a mix of Pandora’s box and a very slippery slope. how about getting real with parents of our early elementary kids and telling them how all this social media, technology, overly-scheduled life of our kids today is totally wrecking havoc on their minds…..and that informed, caring parents would–with the overwhelming evidence that is now finally surfacing ‘out there’ would (remove all this from their kids’ lives). oh, it will be quite painful to do this, for sure…but, heck–wouldn’t we all take a bullet for our kids? so the pain of (monitoring their interaction with unhealthy social media habits) has to be less of a burden than losing their life over (the bullet-for those not following). it is really that simple. this is NOT the school district’s job or position. Give the ‘monitoring’ over to each parent. maybe it would wake up the ones who have no clue, (really?) as to what their kids are dealing with out here. My oldest, now 31, called me a few years ago to thank me for not letting her (watch most TV, Movies, magazines, etc.) but she said it is what has made her the heathy-minded woman she is. that whole ‘comparison’ thing was not part of her world–(granted, social media was only just in its infancy then)… just my two cents.
Wombat, Grumpy, by rules of this site, doesn’t have to answer about being a lawyer, anymore than you have to use your real name.
IF a parent is fine with this intrusion, that’s fine. As long as others can opt out. BUT:
Survey parents first about monitoring their children. Setting up committees that will reinforce what staff wants are a waste of time.
The Sycamore Fund was never intended for this type of use. The corpus was to remain untouched and only the interest used for upgrading devices. It is clear the Sycamore Fund will once again be drained, and the governance team will use this excuse for bond dollars to be spent on what the Sycamore Fund should be doing, just like bond dollars being used for maintenance due to neglect.
Do you have any idea how many students actually use a district email for regular social communication? I think it is low. By the time these young people are in middle school, they have Snap Chat and Tic Tok and Instagram and name the newest tool to talk to each other.
Why not just create a guide for parents on how to monitor their children’s accounts? How are you protecting whomever is on the other end of a student’s email? How much of what might be communicated is the business of the district, let alone a third party?
@Kathleen wrote “ Wombat, Grumpy, by rules of this site, doesn’t have to answer about being a lawyer, anymore than you have to use your real name.“
Oh, OK, thanks for the info Kathleen. I didn’t know that. I thought that by the rules of this site if I asked him really, really nicely then according to the site rules he was forced to answer.
LOL. $50,000 – $100,000 annually of taxpayer $$ into the cloud for an unproven vendor service. PUSD can you get back to basics first? They can’t keep up environmental hygiene & safety (pay outside vendors for emergency deep cleaning services), can’t cut their grass apparently, much less eliminate the vaping going on campuses, won’t enforce their own dress codes, so kids are forced to be in a classroom distracted by the night club apparel of so many classmates. Try to attend a parent information event and you are forced into a room with the fire exits blocked by hordes of people. Someone was sick in my kid’s class this winter and the custodian used the gloved hand that was used to clean up the vomit to then open the door handle of the classroom upon exiting
I am trying to dig into this issue a little more by trying to figure out why students were ever issued gmail accounts in the first place. It is my understanding there are better teacher/communication services available, but I am just learning about them. Do others have expertise in this arena?
@Kathleen
District-issued student Google accounts are used so that students can quickly work on and edit their online student assignments including essays, speeches, poster projects, student web sites, etc., from multiple platforms, and so that they can easily work in collaboration with other students on joint projects by their being able to all work on the same shared online documents together. It’s a great improvement from the old days when one had to edit a document and then email it out to project collaborators for them to add their edits and then figure out how to combine all of their individual edits into the original document. (Ask me how I know.)
No, district-issued student Google accounts are not some frivolous feature and, yes, they really do greatly improve student productivity. They also prepare the students for the sort of computer workflow environments they can expect to encounter when they go out to college and then get jobs in the real world.
Which budget is this coming out of? Pleasanton is the only school district I’m aware of that has more than one Asst Superintendent. Why do we need so many?
Wombat, I appreciate that information. I have never been a fan of that platform, but I realize the power it has. I do not think google, however, is the only software that can do those functions. Zoho for one or Cryptpad are alternatives without all the lack of privacy. But, like I said, I’m just now looking at the possibilities.
CT, they want to use the Sycamore Fund, originally set up so the interest from the fund could be used for purchasing tech device upgrades and replacements. The fund has been raided many times to the point it wasn’t earning interest at all. The fund has been repaid, but I don’t know how long you can pay $50-100K a year (and assuming the price doesn’t increase over time) and not start dipping into the principal (the core amount that was never meant to be touched—except to maybe build a high school).
“Bill, except you are an adult who knows what you’ve signed up for.”
Even better reason to monitor them. They are children. If it’s on a school provided service, by all means monitor their activity on school websites and services. It’s common sense. Cheers to the school board for considering this.
Bill, I am wondering if you have children in PUSD schools, or grandchildren, or anyone who would be subject to monitoring. I’ll guess no based on the “little school shooter” comment.
I have asked whether staff members will be subject to the same scrutiny. The board member has not responded yet. What’s good for the goose . . .
Cheer if you wish, but parents should do the monitoring, and it won’t cost the district anything.
@Concerned Taxpayer
SRVUSD has at least 3 (Human Resources, Educational Service, and facilities)
SFUSD has 3 Deputy Superintendents
I suppose it is much easier to make ignorant claims then spend 5 minutes on the internet to learn some facts.
Kathleen, I implore you to know the facts before posting and spreading misinformation as truth here.
Do the research on Google apps for education. Do you know about email within education accounts? Are you aware of the security wall already built around these applications? Are you aware of employee monitoring within PUSD, using district provided devices including email?
Have you read the acceptable use policies and contracts that every PUSD parent and student signs every year? Have you visited the PUSD website to see the information for parents to monitor safe tech use, because it’s there.
As a parent of kids at elementary, middle and high school, I read the information, I became informed because PUSD provided it in multiple modalities. I can’t make board meetings, but the website has much of this information and it’s available in four languages!
Knowing you, and working with you in PAUSD, a district with the same programs in place, you know these things, and if not, know how to access the PUSD website to get the truth. It’s fine to question this new software, I’m doing that research currently, knowing the truth is always important though. I’m grateful this information is readily available from the district, and as parents we were given the opportunity to voice our opinions. I hope those posting here are aware of why this is even an issue.
GE, of course I use the district website, but I had no reason to look for that information until recently.
My points have been to ask parents first about their level of support for their children being monitored, to question what programs other than google are available (it’s worth at least considering), and to point to the reality that at a certain age students aren’t using that email for social interactions.
So what misinformation?
Concerned Taxpayer- I hope you’re sitting down…..have you heard of “job sharing”. I kid you not. 2 people 1 job….both get benefits
Got to give it to the union……”how do we increase dues without incurring any more work”…..got it got it….job sharing 2x the represented group, 2x the collective bargaining size; negotiating on behalf of 2x the population for the same amount of work content…..and still summers off.
You can’t make this sh1t up
Kathleen, you write, “My points have been to ask parents first about their level of support for their children being monitored” and/or “Parents are not watching board agendas; of course they weren’t there” Does that not tell you something? About parents?
Raising this issue, with successful son and his friends, from classes of 2000-2003…it’s about time. They would welcome the monitoring if it meant not slowing down their learning processes. Children/young adults learn better from within their peer groups. Provide it a chance.
Yes. Parents are very busy. They know about and are active at the schools their children attend. The district office might as well be on the moon—not for everyone, but for many. But they will respond to a survey. Why put all the time into a committee and meetings without that simple mechanism?
Do your son and his friends have children? My kids do. They watch theirs. It’s their job. I don’t know why anyone would be comfortable with a third party watching students. Are parents still allowed to opt out of providing contact information to the armed forces so they can recruit? We can do that but not opt out of monitoring?
As to learning from peers, certainly. Students use just about any other platform to communicate on a social level. And it is the social aspect the district wants to monitor, not projects and school work.
How about online surveillance of the PUSD decision makers, how do they keep coming up with these ideas ?? Let’s get back to the real issues- WHERE IS OUR NEW SCHOOL??
No on M !!
OK Everyone, let’s move past the privacy & $$$ concerns (both of which are very important)
Let’s analyze 2 hypotheticals:
1) A PUSD student has composed numerous e-mails on their PUSD issued gMail account stating that they are going to commit suicide.
2) A PUSD student has composed numerous e-mails on their PUSD issued gMail account stating that they are going to kill as many of their fellow students as possible.
The AI software flags both of the above examples as “unsafe activity”.
What’s next?
Take action, or not?
Who, or what agency is called?
What expert analyzes the e-mails to determine if the threat is real?
What liability does PUSD have if they fail to act?
What liability does PUSD have if they act?
Are the police called?
Serious questions which should be considered.
I encourage everyone to attend the Mental Health discussion facilitated by Alameda County this Thursday Feb 13 at the senior center.
Bry
Bryant, thank you for the very thoughtful questions. I would add one more question, to which others may have the answer.
What happens if the district/school calls the police first?
I know, for example, that if a student acts out on campus (to self harm or hurt others), the police can take the student off campus and to a hospital for observation before parents can get there. I understand that can be necessary, but I’m not certain parents are aware.
Something to consider as New Mexico AG sues Google for spying on and collecting data from students: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/technology/new-mexico-google-lawsuit.amp.html
This is over the top. All I have to say is thankfully, our kids are grown.