Online Grading Access- The Truth about Aspen
Date: November 2, 2015
In this article, I explored an issue of particular concern in the school environment after being approached by an anonymous parent about information only available to teachers. After interviewing several teachers who requested to remain off the record, I was able to discuss the issue with both the school principal as well as some students, to reveal exactly what was happening and why it was allowed to happen. For me, this was a very significant article to write for my student audience, as I had never been aware of the possibility of teachers viewing entire transcripts, and the involvement of the entire school community in my research allowed the best coverage possible.
During last week's parent-teacher conferences, one parent, who prefers to remain anonymous, sat down in a meeting where they expected to hear a teacher explain how their daughter was doing in that class. But at the end, the teacher said, "Make sure to see this teacher. Your daughter is getting a lower grade in there."
What seemed to be innocent advice soon revealed a little-known fact about Aspen: one teacher can view all of their students' transcripts, rather than just that particular class. The parent, shocked, claimed that this was a "violation of privacy" and asked that if a student was embarrassed to be struggling in one class, why all their teachers should know? The anonymous parent also told the Breeze that many teachers they spoke to, as well as employees of other school systems that they knew, were all against this aspect of being able to view an entire transcript.
Although many thought it was a mistake, a new system may come immediately with problems, and someone administration may not have caught that teacher restrictions were not given.
But this point was refuted by Principal David Lanczycki. "It's important for teachers to have that information. This happens at the middle school and you guys don't even know about it." Mr. Lanczycki said, "They have team meetings, where, since large groups of kids share the same schedule, they can meet and talk about how students are doing. But with every student having a different set of teachers and a different schedule, Aspen makes it easier for teachers to get information they could without trying to organize some mass team meeting." The teachers have also in the past always been able to contact an "intervention team", where a teacher can report a student and the team will try to look at what's happening, Mr. Lanczycki summarized, saying that Aspen only makes this easier for students to get the help they need.
While the practicality of it was obvious, with Mr. Lanczycki emphasizing that teachers can "better understand and help their students by being able to pinpoint why they might be having trouble", the question remained of whether this was an invasion of privacy. While one anonymous SBRHS teacher I spoke to agreed with the parent in saying the program was "useful, but it doesn't feel right that it is so easily accessible", many students held varying opinions. Some were flabbergasted after finding out that their grades weren't just for their eyes, demanding an explanation; others remain apathetic, saying that their teachers weren't going to make fun of them or anything. When asked how students might feel about being attacked by teachers for their grades, Mr. Lanczycki brought up that "Our teachers are professionals. 90, 95% of them have masters degrees, and 100% of them have the student's needs at heart." Junior Veronica Fisher agreed, commenting that, while it "was a little unsettling that she didn't know, she knows that it will do good in the long run as teachers are more able to intervene when a student is having a problem". Other issues brought up, such as by the anonymous teacher, was that teachers could form biases against students, seeing that their transcript from last year was "all C's, meaning they walk in the room without a clean slate", but also between teachers, as one could view others as an "easy grader" or "too difficult" if they share many students. While many students emphasized agreement with their concern of the first point, Mr. Lanczycki hoped to assuage their fears, saying that "My door is always open. If a teacher has an issue with how they are being treated, which none have, or if a student feels targeted, I can look into it, guidance can look into it. But our teachers are professionals who care about the students before anything else." But if a student or parent does have an issue with the system, it doesn't seem like it is going anywhere. The school administration emphasized that, while they care about concerns, the benefits of the system outweighs any negative aspects. "Students come first. We have parents come in with complaints about many issues the school has, from parking lots to grading systems. While we appreciate they came forward, we can't always just react. We need to think about all the students. If one feels uncomfortable with their grades being seen, they also need to take into account of what the needs of the school are." The overall purpose of the transcript availability in helping students transcends the issue of privacy, Mr.Lanczyzki said, and that students come first at Somerset Berkley.
Date: November 2, 2015
In this article, I explored an issue of particular concern in the school environment after being approached by an anonymous parent about information only available to teachers. After interviewing several teachers who requested to remain off the record, I was able to discuss the issue with both the school principal as well as some students, to reveal exactly what was happening and why it was allowed to happen. For me, this was a very significant article to write for my student audience, as I had never been aware of the possibility of teachers viewing entire transcripts, and the involvement of the entire school community in my research allowed the best coverage possible.
During last week's parent-teacher conferences, one parent, who prefers to remain anonymous, sat down in a meeting where they expected to hear a teacher explain how their daughter was doing in that class. But at the end, the teacher said, "Make sure to see this teacher. Your daughter is getting a lower grade in there."
What seemed to be innocent advice soon revealed a little-known fact about Aspen: one teacher can view all of their students' transcripts, rather than just that particular class. The parent, shocked, claimed that this was a "violation of privacy" and asked that if a student was embarrassed to be struggling in one class, why all their teachers should know? The anonymous parent also told the Breeze that many teachers they spoke to, as well as employees of other school systems that they knew, were all against this aspect of being able to view an entire transcript.
Although many thought it was a mistake, a new system may come immediately with problems, and someone administration may not have caught that teacher restrictions were not given.
But this point was refuted by Principal David Lanczycki. "It's important for teachers to have that information. This happens at the middle school and you guys don't even know about it." Mr. Lanczycki said, "They have team meetings, where, since large groups of kids share the same schedule, they can meet and talk about how students are doing. But with every student having a different set of teachers and a different schedule, Aspen makes it easier for teachers to get information they could without trying to organize some mass team meeting." The teachers have also in the past always been able to contact an "intervention team", where a teacher can report a student and the team will try to look at what's happening, Mr. Lanczycki summarized, saying that Aspen only makes this easier for students to get the help they need.
While the practicality of it was obvious, with Mr. Lanczycki emphasizing that teachers can "better understand and help their students by being able to pinpoint why they might be having trouble", the question remained of whether this was an invasion of privacy. While one anonymous SBRHS teacher I spoke to agreed with the parent in saying the program was "useful, but it doesn't feel right that it is so easily accessible", many students held varying opinions. Some were flabbergasted after finding out that their grades weren't just for their eyes, demanding an explanation; others remain apathetic, saying that their teachers weren't going to make fun of them or anything. When asked how students might feel about being attacked by teachers for their grades, Mr. Lanczycki brought up that "Our teachers are professionals. 90, 95% of them have masters degrees, and 100% of them have the student's needs at heart." Junior Veronica Fisher agreed, commenting that, while it "was a little unsettling that she didn't know, she knows that it will do good in the long run as teachers are more able to intervene when a student is having a problem". Other issues brought up, such as by the anonymous teacher, was that teachers could form biases against students, seeing that their transcript from last year was "all C's, meaning they walk in the room without a clean slate", but also between teachers, as one could view others as an "easy grader" or "too difficult" if they share many students. While many students emphasized agreement with their concern of the first point, Mr. Lanczycki hoped to assuage their fears, saying that "My door is always open. If a teacher has an issue with how they are being treated, which none have, or if a student feels targeted, I can look into it, guidance can look into it. But our teachers are professionals who care about the students before anything else." But if a student or parent does have an issue with the system, it doesn't seem like it is going anywhere. The school administration emphasized that, while they care about concerns, the benefits of the system outweighs any negative aspects. "Students come first. We have parents come in with complaints about many issues the school has, from parking lots to grading systems. While we appreciate they came forward, we can't always just react. We need to think about all the students. If one feels uncomfortable with their grades being seen, they also need to take into account of what the needs of the school are." The overall purpose of the transcript availability in helping students transcends the issue of privacy, Mr.Lanczyzki said, and that students come first at Somerset Berkley.
Administration Cracks Down on "Wifi Piracy"
Date: May 5, 2016
In this article, I explored a current event within my own school, as a simple email sent by the principal turned into an email frenzy that sparked protest by students. While having access to the student point-of-view through my inclusion on the email chain, I found the opportunity to sit down with the principal soon after the events transpired to give students a better explanation from the administration's perspective. Through covering both sides, I was able to best give the news to my audience in an unbiased manner.
Wednesday morning, all Somerset Berkley Students received an email from Principal Lanczycki addressing the school's WiFi system. The initial message served as a warning, stating that students should make sure that they are only using the student WiFi services, and not the faculty or administration WiFi. This seemingly innocent email set off a tension through the school, with students claiming the move was "unfair" and "totalitarian", as some students were temporarily kicked off all WiFi. Defending the move, Principal Lanczycki stated that there were "three WiFis, one for everybody" and that the rules must be followed, equating hacking on to the banned WiFis to "pirating", also arguing that "if you did that at a job, you'd be fired." When asked if there was a specific event that caused a crackdown on the illegal access, Principal Lanczycki responded that the IT department had been seeing students accessing the other networks, and when addressing the issue, students claimed that teachers had given them the password, or that they had bypassed the locked setting. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The school tried to be flexible with the WiFi system, but we need to be more stringent if rules aren't followed." Lanczycki said.
While much of the response to the email was focused on how the school was "taking away student rights" and how students should protest, much of this was due to misinterpretation. The administration's goal was to keep students on their own network, and prevent WiFi piracy, not take away student internet access. Yet many students missed this information, and instead used the "Reply All" to vent their opinions. With over 960 members of the school community, including all students and administration, on the email list, certain students chose to spam accounts throughout Wednesday night. Soon, responses developed from critical of the administration's efforts to those protesting the critics themselves. One student, Geoffrey Souza, defended the WiFi separations, sending "..You should be happy you're able to [use the WiFi] and understand the fact that using the [other WiFis] isn't faster or better if 400 students plus the people who are supposed to be on it [are all using it]." Yet the tirade of emails continued, much to the frustration of the nearly 1000 people who were constantly receiving the messages. Soon, the emails stopped focusing on the debate at hand, and instead became a place for banter and inappropriate conversation, being involuntarily seen by every student at the school, as well as Principal Lanczycki, Assistant Principals Ms. Brelsford and Mr. Laurence, and Superintendent Schoonover.
Mr. Lanczycki addressed this issue by saying that, in the future, students would not have the option to "Reply All" in school wide emails. He defended his decision, however, not to immediately end the chain. "We're taking disciplinary action against the most inappropriate emails, of course. But there are 960 students at this school, and only around 10 were involved in this. Those 10 kids are showing their true character to everybody at this school, and people reading it are able to make their own judgement of what kind of kids those involved are."
Changes made as a result of this situation include the new access to social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, which Principal Lanczycki stated had been "blocked by default" when a new WiFi system was installed. Yet some students stated these sites should be blocked, arguing "... when you unblock something like Twitter you open up a can of worms that could explode into in-school Twitter fights or inappropriate content." Principal Lanczycki concurred saying that "Sometimes not having access means students will rethink what they were going to say." Students should use these new privileges responsibly, lest they be lost. Principal Lanczycki summarized the unblocking perfectly in saying, "Be careful what you wish for."
Date: May 5, 2016
In this article, I explored a current event within my own school, as a simple email sent by the principal turned into an email frenzy that sparked protest by students. While having access to the student point-of-view through my inclusion on the email chain, I found the opportunity to sit down with the principal soon after the events transpired to give students a better explanation from the administration's perspective. Through covering both sides, I was able to best give the news to my audience in an unbiased manner.
Wednesday morning, all Somerset Berkley Students received an email from Principal Lanczycki addressing the school's WiFi system. The initial message served as a warning, stating that students should make sure that they are only using the student WiFi services, and not the faculty or administration WiFi. This seemingly innocent email set off a tension through the school, with students claiming the move was "unfair" and "totalitarian", as some students were temporarily kicked off all WiFi. Defending the move, Principal Lanczycki stated that there were "three WiFis, one for everybody" and that the rules must be followed, equating hacking on to the banned WiFis to "pirating", also arguing that "if you did that at a job, you'd be fired." When asked if there was a specific event that caused a crackdown on the illegal access, Principal Lanczycki responded that the IT department had been seeing students accessing the other networks, and when addressing the issue, students claimed that teachers had given them the password, or that they had bypassed the locked setting. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The school tried to be flexible with the WiFi system, but we need to be more stringent if rules aren't followed." Lanczycki said.
While much of the response to the email was focused on how the school was "taking away student rights" and how students should protest, much of this was due to misinterpretation. The administration's goal was to keep students on their own network, and prevent WiFi piracy, not take away student internet access. Yet many students missed this information, and instead used the "Reply All" to vent their opinions. With over 960 members of the school community, including all students and administration, on the email list, certain students chose to spam accounts throughout Wednesday night. Soon, responses developed from critical of the administration's efforts to those protesting the critics themselves. One student, Geoffrey Souza, defended the WiFi separations, sending "..You should be happy you're able to [use the WiFi] and understand the fact that using the [other WiFis] isn't faster or better if 400 students plus the people who are supposed to be on it [are all using it]." Yet the tirade of emails continued, much to the frustration of the nearly 1000 people who were constantly receiving the messages. Soon, the emails stopped focusing on the debate at hand, and instead became a place for banter and inappropriate conversation, being involuntarily seen by every student at the school, as well as Principal Lanczycki, Assistant Principals Ms. Brelsford and Mr. Laurence, and Superintendent Schoonover.
Mr. Lanczycki addressed this issue by saying that, in the future, students would not have the option to "Reply All" in school wide emails. He defended his decision, however, not to immediately end the chain. "We're taking disciplinary action against the most inappropriate emails, of course. But there are 960 students at this school, and only around 10 were involved in this. Those 10 kids are showing their true character to everybody at this school, and people reading it are able to make their own judgement of what kind of kids those involved are."
Changes made as a result of this situation include the new access to social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, which Principal Lanczycki stated had been "blocked by default" when a new WiFi system was installed. Yet some students stated these sites should be blocked, arguing "... when you unblock something like Twitter you open up a can of worms that could explode into in-school Twitter fights or inappropriate content." Principal Lanczycki concurred saying that "Sometimes not having access means students will rethink what they were going to say." Students should use these new privileges responsibly, lest they be lost. Principal Lanczycki summarized the unblocking perfectly in saying, "Be careful what you wish for."