Showing posts with label liability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liability. Show all posts

Friday, November 6, 2009

Willful Destruction of Technology

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.

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.

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?

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... :)