Policy Thursday, July 08, 2010

Tonight was a meeting in response to the webcam court order. There are several policies going for a first read Monday night. Check www.lmsd.org for the meeting agenda, hopefully with attachments.


Full board except Lyn Kugel
also Chris McGinley, Ken Roos, Michael Kelly and George Frazer

4 people in audience

on agenda are Policies 134, 390, 893, Local Board procedures, 224

Policy 134

There is a discussion of who there policies apply to - just 1 to 1 people or anyone using a LMSD computer?
Roos: this is policy/agreement to use the network
Novick: asks why we are mixing up policies this way. There should be general policies, and then specific policies
Roos: this is Sunguard's recommendation
Novick: but it isn't clean - he wants to see it cleaned up; there is a lot of repitition
Frazier: this was his idea; he wants to see a single controlling document so administrators only have one policy to deal with

So now the definition of LMSD-net will be changed

There is a discussion of who signs the agreement - one parent? Both parents? The kids starting at grade k? Novick wants to have both parents sign. Roos says legally one parent is enough

Guthrie asks about civility language - missing from this policy. Most board members want something added. Roos: this creates an expectation that we will enforce the policy. It is already in the "best practices" - attachment E. A long discussion about why gambling is included in the policy and bullying isn't.

Guthrie: why are we allowing non school-related use of computers?
Roos: we are trying to create something to enforce, but not so strict that everyone violates it
Guthrie: this is taxpayer provided - why are we letting them use it for non-school use at all?
diBonaventura: too specific creates too many holes
Guthrie: what is "incidental" anyway?

Doucette-Ashman: isn't there an option for parents to restrict access to certain social networking sites?
A couple dozen parents opted for this restriction

diBonaventura: how much of this (holds up thick stack of papers) goes home?
Attachment D goes home, everything else is on the web
(but Attachment D references A, B, etc - they will be sending a lot home)

Novick is freaking out about language being repeated all over the place - dangerous to repeat so much. Hard to revise, bulky.
McGinley: we need to be very specific to comply with court order
Doucette-Ashman: this is taking too long, we will be here all night
They check the wording of the court order - cant find the court order right away

Guthrie: section 4b - there are statements saying we won't access remotely; but do we have some rights to remote access? Where are these spelled out
We give them time to remove all the evidence?
diBonaventura: can we remotely lock the computer?
Frazer: a savey kid will get around this
diBonaventura: can a student save on the computer itself
Frazier: yes
Guthrie: so we have no recourse
McGinley: we can always take the laptop
They all check to see is they can take a laptop without allowing a kid to wipe it clean. They can, but they need a consent form? No, they can, they just cannot do anything remotely.

Roos: Absolutely cannot remotely look at files on a computer without parental consent
The court order says that they cant to this. Absolutely, no way.

Another discussion about how messy all this is. They decide to leave the mess as is, and see how it goes.
[my thought: Yikes - really?]

Doucette-Ashman: asks about the "boot camp" program for the kids; it was a private conversation, we aren't informed

audience questions:
Q: how long do the signatures last? 6 years seems like a long time
A: Roos: it is enforceable, better if you update it now and then
discussion: Balancing administrative burden vs usefulness
Susan comes up with compromise - just tell people they are signing for the entire time in the building. Decide to get people to sign every 3 years or so (K,3 or 4,6,9)

Friedlander leaves

Policy 134 AR

The policy wants to see a person responsible for enforcing a policy. Novick doesn't see this requirement in the Court order. They show it to Novick.

Attachment A

Doucette-Ashman wants a better intro sentence - used to be there
Doucette-Ashman also wants parents to be financially responsible for problems the kids cause

audence Q: can you really make people financially responsible for what their kids do without going to the court?
Roos: without this language you cant.
Chris M wants to come back to this in November. Unclear if they will add the line or not.


Attachment B

Doucette-Ashman: would you ever have to access a file remotely
Frazier: maybe (ie having trouble with margins)

Another discussion about taking a students computer to look at files



I have to leave now…...