|
Articles Conference Reviews |
20071571BeaudinSession 7.1: Roundtable: Crafting a Position Statement in a Culture of Fear: Implications of FERPA in the Networked Classroom
Charles Lowe (Grand Valley State University), Gina Maranto (University of Miami), Martine Courant Rife (Lansing Community College/Michigan State University) Overview The presentation began with the moderator summarizing the abstract: in essence, some university administrators want to limit university student writing due to the Federal Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA (or, perhaps more accurately, interpretations of FERPA) may at times be in conflict with freedom to teach/freedom of speech. The goal of the session: after the presentation of issues concerning FERPA and the teaching of writing (particularly in regards to multimodal composition and online spaces), attendees would help to craft a position statement. Understandably, the standard disclaimer “I am not a lawyer” (IANAL) is in effect for all parties (including the reviewer). Foundations Gina Maranto set the scene by explaining what FERPA encompasses and its aims. FERPA deals with educational records, defined by the act as “any record from which a student can be personally identified and is maintained by the university.” Typically the Registrar’s Office is in charge of these records, and registrars often rely on the guidelines set by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). Relevant Case Studies Maranto directed us to a Wiki that links to FERPA case law, precedents, and questions concerning interpretations. She presented two examples of the impact of the Act on educational practice. UNC students are required to sign a waiver if they contribute to a wiki as part of class work (this was corroborated by an attendee, who noted that students needed to use university-sanctioned wiki/blog space). A more troubling example is Falvo v. Owasso, in which the court deemed that students grading each other’s tests in class and calling out grades was a violation of FERPA. The decision brings into question what may be interpreted as educational records under FERPA—quizzes? blog entries? posts to a discussion board? Privacy Protection vs. Free Speech Martine Courant Rife picked up the thread by questioning whether reading aloud was an act of the institution, and whether the test scores constituted an educational record. Because of the language of the act, it is unclear whether, for instance, student content in blogs and wikis (or communal writing spaces hosted outside of university networks) are covered by FERPA. Many institutions are beginning to implement policies in an attempt to curb possible violations—for instance, requiring student waivers (which can become a bookkeeping/record maintenance concern) or limiting publication space (which could be detrimental to service learning programs). Rife argued for a balance between free speech and protected rights; will instructors be restricted as to ‘where’ they can talk in online spaces/ campus speech zones? It is time to develop a policy before it’s developed for us. Consequences of Restriction Charles Lowe brought up that we are teaching in an “age of document construction,” later adding, “If we want to teach civic rhetoric, the internet is important space to be doing that.” Though we may have pedagogical foundations for requiring public writing in our courses, we may lose the right to have our students write publicly. Maranto interjected that the training manual for registrars specifically recommended that online class writing be in a protected space (i.e., behind a security wall) and still required a written release. Speaking from the audience, one professor related his use of blogging for a class, bringing up that some students used their names, and that the site itself had some numeric reference to the class. The panel argued that this could be construed as a violation of FERPA. A flurry of questions followed: What if students develop their own accounts? (If it’s a requirement, it could still fall under restrictions.) Can students have a choice to participate? What about students choosing not to remain in the class? (Does this mean that departments need to guarantee sections that do not require public writing or technology?) Should a consent statement be included in the syllabus? (Some argued that it was a step towards protecting one’s assets; others argued to “avoid waivers as a first line of defense.”) A recurrent theme to this conversation was that interpretation is key: the educator’s perception of, say, a safe space and the administrator’s perception of a safe space may be quite different. How Did This Happen? Many in the audience were incredulous. Some did not even understand what all the “fuss” was about. It was hard for many to comprehend how an act theoretically designed to stop grades from being posted on department bulletin boards can be so broadly interpreted as to bar teachers from posting comments on student blogs. Rife noted that the laws were in place before the digital age, and the laws have not been revised to reflect new technologies. Institutional administrations are generally cautious due to liability concerns. Options and Consequences Lowe had presented two options to the audience: craft a letter to the Department of Education requesting clarification of FERPA in regards to public writing, or draft a position statement that would clarify the pedagogical soundness of teaching public writing. Would a position paper, no matter how well-drafted, carry weight? It would have no legal backing, and therefore zero effect on an administrator who fears liability. If a letter to FERPA brings an unwelcome response, recourse may be limited. Brainstorming and Reverberations Voices around the room chimed in: One sentiment uttered (to which many nodded in assent) was that the implications of restricting expression were “naïve and patronizing—you can’t be out there writing.” What about the implications for the students? Employers often Google prospective employees. If students are not “out there,” are they writers? Service Learning could be seriously threatened, as students could be seen to be producing some type of (published) “record.” What of the failure of FERPA? One instructor recounted that at Michigan Tech, personal information (name, address, phone, email) is available online through an opt-out system. A student used this available information to send his paper to his teacher at home. Such a release of information without the individual’s consent would seem a breach of privacy, yet it is perfectly legal under FERPA. Ultimately, the lingering question was one of interpretation: does work in digital spaces constitute an educational record? As many stated in a multitude of ways, the issue is pedagogy, not the outcome that ends up in a transcript. Writing for Change As the session was ending, the collaboration on a position statement had begun: While we see a reason for FERPA, we also recognize that it was designed before the digital age. We want to preserve spirit of protection but intervene in some of the dangerous processes of implementation.
Comments? |