This is my latest pet peeve. I've had several conversations in recent months with CIOs and technicians about this topic. It doesn't happen everywhere, but willful destruction of technology seems to occur far too often. A few examples:* CD trays in computer labs with gum or paper inside
* CD trays in computer labs with gears stripped or missing bands, rendering them useless
* Headphone jacks with the plugs broken off
* USB ports with any number of items stuffed inside
* Pens/pencils jammed in monitors, speakers, etc
* Writings/markings/carvings on the technology
There are other examples, including outright thievery, but my point here is more about vandalism. It's wrong, but I'm getting the impression that the technology staff doesn't see this being treated as such in their buildings. It's confusing to me, which has led to this post. In most school policy manuals (everyone subscribing to KSBA's service, for example), Section 9.421 deals with "Care of School and Personal Property". Quoting, in part:
Any pupil, organization, or group of pupils participating in activities who destroys, defaces, damages or removes school property shall be subject to disciplinary action and liability for the cost of restoring the property.The same section notes that parents are liable for property damage caused by their minor children. That comes from KRS 405.025. I'm sure I'm asking a loaded question here but, if the policy is so straightforward, why does it not seem to be enforced? I've talked to one or two districts who are ready to install security cameras in computer labs. There would seem to be laws on the books now that would allow a district to pursue reimbursement for vandalism of technology. It may not be considered practical, but is it more or less practical than security cameras in an environment where there may or may not be penalties for such willful destruction?
In addition, when they have reasonable belief that a violation has taken place, principals shall immediately report to law enforcement officials when an act has occurred on school property or at a school-sponsored function that involves damage to school property. For the purposes of determining when to make this report, damage to school property shall refer to instances involving:
1. Intentional harm, and
2. Damage beyond minor loss or breakage, excluding normal wear and tear.
One desktop technician estimated that 75% of his hardware issues were related to items that seemed tdo be purposely broken. Is that an accurate estimate? Even if it's a high estimate, what percentage of your technicians' time is spent repairing what has been purposely broken? If the child were spray-painting the school walls, would we say that it's "normal wear and tear" or "kids just being kids"?
Open questions to any readers - does this abuse occur in your district? Why or why not? If it occurs and isn't appropriately addressed, why do you think that is? I'm genuinely curious.
On that note, I'll end the rant... :)
6 comments:
This occurs in our district. It is different with each school. The schools that have a very strict discipline policy have already had instances where students (or parents) were forced to pay for damaged equipment. The other schools that haven't been enforcing on their own, were all given a reminder early this school year that the district was paying for repairs the first instance (they all had instances over the summer / first week of school and we needed to expedite quickly), but after that the responsibility fell on the school and the students/parents. It is amazing how the culture has started to change. The principals in those buildings have really tightened down and "put the fear of God" not only in the students, but the teachers as well. Because they believe, just as I do, that good classroom management can avoid many of these instances. There are always going to be some that slip through the crack, but we are starting to get a very good handle on this district wide.
That's good to hear. An enforced AUP is the key to so much of this. I wondered if we had documented instances where students/parents had to pay for damaged equipment.
I agree that the school level is the best area to address this. In a few cases, it seems that computer damage is treated like they damaged your (CIO's) computers rather than the school's computers.
It sounds like you're ahead of the curve in addressing this. Thanks for the read and comment. JR
I agree with JD's comments about putting the onus on the school. In our district, ANY repair that is caused by vandalism falls on the school (though I WILL try to get the machine repaired by the vendor if it's under warranty).
Honestly, though, we don't have THAT MUCH vandalism, and when we do, it can almost ALWAYS be traced back to a lack of supervision by the teachers.
Bryan
I agree 100% that vandalism can almost always be traced back to a lack of supervision. What prompted me to make this entry was that, in some cases, little is being done at the school/user level once the vandalism is discovered.
It's good to hear of some examples where this is being properly addressed. Thanks for the read and comment... JR
Sounds great but ultimately we are here to support instruction and trying to figure out who is guilty takes away time that a broken device can be used by a student.
We have seen our fair share of vandalism however, it is odd that the less we block and the more access to games students have then the less vandalism we see. Soooo... the real culprit is available time not focused on instructional tasks. The kids want a way to waste time or fill time that is available due to a lack of work.
In the worst examples I've heard, there seems to be a pretty good idea as to "who's guilty." It just needed to be dealt with.
John, spot-on point with the real issue being too much available time. I see a decent compromise being the inclusion of some decent semi-educational 'games' on the images of the lab machines. The concept of 'reward time' has become embedded, but not everyone understands the impact on bandwidth with some of these games and videos.
Agree also that this isn't the job of "technology" to solve. I suppose we can provide evidence of breakage and web traffic analysis to instructional leaders and ask for support from them as needed.
Post a Comment