Kids and the internet. It's a combination that can make educators and librarians break into a nervous sweat. How can libraries with public internet access ensure that computers, tablets, and other library technologies are used acceptably by younger patrons? What does "acceptable use" even mean? I'd like to break down my own library's acceptable use policy. As a patron and staff member at Gail Borden Public Library, I bear witness to kids using the internet every single day. We have computers and tablets that students and their caregivers can use, as seen in the photos below.
How does my library distinguish between acceptable (and unacceptable) use of this technology? Through policy, of course! My library's policies are available for everyone to see on the library website. First, I found the list of library policies on our policies webpage. Then, I found the webpage for the Internet Access & Technology Use Policy.
Are kids included in this policy? Technically, yes. A better question to ask might be, how well are they included? As a public library, all ages use the space (and the technology in that space). Regarding kids using technology, the policy addresses particular passages to kids and caregivers. I found it interesting that caregivers - specifically, "parents or legal guardians" - were listed as the ones responsible for children's internet usage. This designation of responsibility can be seen in the following passage from the library policy: "Parents or legal guardians, not Library staff, are solely responsible for deciding which internet resources are appropriate for their own children. We encourage parents to learn about the Internet so that they can teach their children how to use technology properly and responsibly."
I found this verbiage interesting, since it alludes to digital citizenship (learning about the Internet and using technology responsibly). This responsibility is assigned to the parents or legal guardians, rather than the library. I wondered, what about the kids who visit the library with a teacher, such as a school group on a class visit? What about kids who visit the library with babysitters? What about teens who visit the library independently? The library doesn't factor in the age of children or factor in other types of caregivers in their policy. This makes sense from a legal standpoint (a clearly designated point person who's held fully responsible). However, it doesn't translate as effectively from a practical standpoint, speaking as a staff member upholding our policies with many types of caregivers (and with teens who are old enough to be in the library without a caregiver).
Speaking once more as a staff member, I can attest that children sometimes misuse technology. Writing defamatory language in the search bars of public catalogs, for example. Renaming Minecraft worlds on the IPADs with offensive verbiage, as another true story. These instances could fall under the "harmful," "obscene," or "otherwise inappropriate" transmission of material outlined in the "prohibited" computer usage. This broad brush of a policy is helpful in the sense that staff have plenty of wiggle room to determine which materials are inappropriate (and to define "transmission" broadly). On the flip side, it's not as helpful from the perspective of a child or caregiver reading the policy. It's so broad that it's murky about which behaviors may fall under the prohibited category, particularly when it comes to kids. If I were to revise the policy, I wouldn't want to get overly specific, making my policy brush too thin. Let's say the policy said, "kids should not create or rename Minecraft worlds or characters with inappropriate or offensive language." This policy would likely backfire horrendously, giving kids a tantalizing idea for inappropriate technology use. At least in my overactive imagination, they'd be racing to the IPADs to concoct increasingly devious world names.
Minecraft aside, I wish that the policy was a little more specific. I also wish that it was written in a way that's more accessible to kids. As is, the language is geared toward adult patrons, making it inaccessible to kids utilizing library technology. As an example of a library policy created with kids in mind, I'd recommend perusing the Acceptable and Safe Use of Electronic Resources Policy by the Portland Public Library. In my perspective, this policy was written with kids and families as primary readers of this policy. The policy also includes specific library resources for parents to teach their children appropriate technology use, framing the library as an institution that "support[s] parents and their children in the safe and effective use of the Internet." Compared to my library's policy, the language is much more welcoming and accessible to the patrons (including young patrons) who are expected to abide by this policy. It also promotes digital citizenship more directly and more encouragingly. The importance of accessible, encouraging language is discussed by former Technology Director Thomas Murray in their article Acceptable or Responsible? What's Your Use Policy? This article recommends outlining expectations in a positive manner, as well as making the policy easy for students to understand. Between the Gail Borden Public Library policy and the Portland Public Library policy, it's crystal clear that the latter policy better embodies these guidelines.
As a whole, my library's policy emphasizes what patrons shouldn't do, as demonstrated by the eight bullet points under prohibited computer use. There are five should-dos for technology use; however, the should-dos often include should-nots. For example, technology users should "protect all personal passwords and PINS." In the same breath, the policy says, "Personal passwords and PINS should not be written down nor should they be shared with others." As another example, users should, "Consider carefully before giving out personal information over the Internet." In the same breath, the policy says, "It is strongly recommended that users under the age of eighteen do not give personal information without parental consent." (Text highlighted red for the sake of emphasis in this blog post; the text is not red in the policy on the library website.)
In addition to making the policy more specific and more kid-friendly, I'd recommend making the policy more relevant. The policy was last updated on March 10th, 2015. Although updating library policies can be a lengthy process, I believe that it would be worthwhile to consider updating the technology use policies to reflect current technologies that are used by patrons. One such technology that could potentially be included in the policy is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). As far as I can tell, neither the public technology policies nor staff technology policies mention AI.
On the subject of staff policies, there are several technology policies listed in the Personnel Handbook, including the following: Library Telephone and Other Communication Device Use; Use of Computers and Electronic Communication; Personal Cell Phone Use; and Telecommuting. In contrast to the public policy on technology use, the staff policies were much more specific. For example, the library updated the Personal Cell Phone Use policy in 2021, adding the following passage: "Employees may need to use their cell phones for work purposes including receiving two-factor authentication codes to access certain computer programs." This information was likely added to the policy in light of the fact that Microsoft Outlook started requiring two-factor authentication, which by and large, means using personal cell phones to receive verification codes.
This addition demonstrates the importance of updating policies to reflect current technology use. I believe that the patron policies could definitely be revised to more accurately reflect (and more positively reflect) how kids and adults can best use library technology. This revision could be spearheaded by librarians and other managers. These leaders could then include opportunities for all staff to provide suggestions and feedback on potential policy revisions. Gathering feedback from staff who work directly with the patrons using our technology (including Library Associates like myself) would be paramount to effectively revising these technology policies.
Aside from benefitting library patrons and library staff, policy revisions could also be helpful for the overall security of the library institution. As of the date of this post, the K-12 Cyber Incident Map showcased 1,619 "cybersecurity-related incidents reported about U.S. K-12 public schools and districts from 2016 through 2022."
.jpg)
Hi Aron,
ReplyDeleteI thought your ideas about how to improve you library's acceptable use policy was great. Something related to technology that hasn't been updated since 2015 can definitely have a lot of things that might need to be accounted for that weren't common or weren't even around in 2015. For example, looking at/describing if and how AI is acceptably-used in your library's devices is something that would likely be included in an updated version of AUP-I know you touched upon that in your post, and I think it could be especially relevant in a library where patrons are not using a personal device. I also liked your idea about making the AUP more about what patrons should be doing, as opposed to what they should not be doing, and for some of the same reasons you cited-it feels much more empowering as a patron when the guidance is about all of the great ways that you can/should use a tool, as opposed to feeling restricted by what you cannot do. Wording the policy in a way that communicates a sense of guidance a trust would align much more with the purposes that you described.
Hello, Adam! Thank you for reading and for sharing your insights. I agree that it can be much more empowering for patrons to learn how to use a tool, not just how not to use a tool (a lot of nots, but that's how it is in many AUPs!) Trust is an excellent framework as well. If we're only telling patrons, especially young patrons, what NOT to do, it could very likely establish a culture of distrust, demonstrating that librarians don't trust patrons to use technology wisely. The should nots are still important, because using a tool incorrectly can damage the tool and the wielder of that tool; it just ought to be accompanied with information and positive instruction on how to best use that tool (and dare I say, have fun using these technology tools!)
DeleteAron, I really like how you linked Portland Public Library's policy as an example of a great acceptable use policy for libraries. I agree with you that their policy was more welcoming, understandable, and accessible. I feel like many public libraries try to cover their bases so they are not liable for any misuse with technology, but fail to remember that their audience includes children who may not understand the vocabulary used. Therefore, policy should be broken down for them to understand. I also think libraries should link references to help explain digital citizenship further (whether through online courses or library materials). If we want policy to be read and understood, let's make it engaging and informative. Thanks for sharing, you post was really insightful!
ReplyDeleteHello, Mary Lee! Thank you very much for sharing your own insights. Even as an adult, some of the vocabulary used in AUPs can be difficult to understand. Seeing these policies from a child's point of view definitely serves as a reminder to make the policies accessible to all patrons, including our youngest patrons. I agree that liability likely plays a key role in the development of AUPs. Excellent point. It makes me wonder, is an AUP written with the library organization in mind? Or with the library patron in mind? I prefer AUPs that encompass both audiences, making it accessible to library patrons and applicable to library organizations. Thanks again for reading and discussing!
Delete