Why do we get staff and pupils to sign the AUP?

[AngryTechnician]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute here because I've been thinking about this recently, and a post in another thread yesterday reminded me of it again.

Why do we get people to sign the AUP?

For staff, it's an official school policy just like all the other school policies. Following school policy is a contractual obligation. We don't get anyone to sign any other policy, including the separate safeguarding policies which are at least as important

For pupils, the AUP forms part of the school rules that they are expected to follow, just like (for example) the anti-bullying code, which neither they nor their parents sign separately.

So, what makes the AUP so special that it needs signing, when almost nothing else does?

[tom_newton]

Not sure signing an AUP could be particularly binding for kids - maybe better have their parents sign it. I wonder if we have a whitepaper on this. I'll poke the relevant folks and find out.
It is a good way to focus peoples' minds on behaviour online though.

[AngryTechnician]

Not sure signing an AUP could be particularly binding for kids - maybe better have their parents sign it.

Agreed, but we don't have their parents sign things like anti-bullying codes either. Have updated the OP to reflect that.

[elsiegee40]

It is a very good point.

Signing the AUP and returning it to the Bursar, at our school, shows that the staff member has received the training that accompanies it. From the student's point of view, I suppose it draws the parents' attention to our side of the bargain as well as their little darlings' (such as pupils will never use the school's computers unsupervised)

I can only think that this started because it was a 'new' policy on top of the million others that we know we have to abide by. On introduction, training was done and staff signed to acknowledge this...

... but you're right, in many ways it doesn't make sense.

[Finch7]

I suppose if you had something in there about parents being responsible (paying) for any damage caused by their child then a signature is better than non.

[witch]

I think that perhaps it is because the teachers need to be reminded that the laptop is NOT their personal possession. It is a bit of an anachronism but to my mind all staff members should sign one piece of paper covering ALL the policies that they are expected to read and follow, and children as well

[DavidYoung]

Agreed, but we don't have their parents sign things like anti-bullying codes either. Have updated the OP to reflect that.

We do, we have a Home-School agreement which covers behaviour, anti-bullying, dress code, etc. For staff, we have to sign a code-of-conduct each year which includes child protection, work ethic, dress code, heath and safety, etc. Both of these include the IT AUP as a section.

[joe90bass]

I think that perhaps it is because the teachers need to be reminded that the laptop is NOT their personal possession.

Along with the fact that when they move rooms they do not have to take the PC, printer, monitor, etc with them as their new room already has them in..... with the same apps..... and network access........and access to their documents......

Back to the OP, it's a good question and I like Witch's suggestion of having staff/pupils sign to say they've read all policies

[X-13]

I think that perhaps it is because the teachers need to be reminded that the laptop is NOT their personal possession. It is a bit of an anachronism but to my mind all staff members should sign one piece of paper covering ALL the policies that they are expected to read and follow, and children as well

A policy for all policies?

Does it include itself?


Also, I agree with the "teachers need to be reminded laptops aren't their property", but I would extend it to all staff.

To quote a cleaner "it's MY hoover. Not yours." Erm... no, it isn't. It belongs to the school.

[elsiegee40]

Back to the OP, it's a good question and I like Witch's suggestion of having staff/pupils sign to say they've read all policies

But realistically, who has?

We printed off all ours because the ISI inspectors wanted hard copies and filled 3 lever arch files. The only person who can, hand on heart, claim to have so is the poor registrar whose job it is to proof read and amend the darn things!

[witch]

But realistically, who has?

From an accountability point of view that doesn't matter - what matters is that they have agreed to follow what is written so that if they DON'T the school can take steps.

[elsiegee40]

But when you sign your contract of employment, there is a line (well there is in our contract) saying that you agree to abide by all school polices or words to that effect. Why do it twice?

[witch]

That's true - I think for us the AUP came in later so the staff had to sign it as a separate issue.

[sonofsanta]

As @elsiegee40 says, it's probably to do with it being a new policy. I don't know tbh, I just assumed that it would need doing and went along with it.

I don't expect anyone to read the actual AUP I've written (12,000 words or something) so the signed-sheet providing a one-page summary is a useful way of getting the gist of it in front of eyeballs. I think it's useful with the kids, certainly - a lot of them think that anything done on a computer isn't real, it's all just a game (cf. 90% of Facebook bullying) so explicitly spelling out some rules helps there.

We get the parents to sign it as well for KS3/4 although we don't check if the signature is real, as far as I'm concerned if a parent comes in, has the AUP put down in front of them and says "that's not my signature!" then the little darling is in even more trouble than before and I'm even more entertained.

[Landi]

Its essentially just a 'tick box' task. We have some cases of students smashing monitors and their parents saying "why should we pay for the damage when did you tell my child they couldent break stupid school monitors that are c**p anyway" -well in the AUP it states... Its amazing how many times we have refered back to that one document -for staff as well!

Do agree its odd other docs dont have this as well, maybe because teachers assume its obvious you shouldent punch a child but not so obvious you shouldent punch a monitor (with IT being comparativly new compared to social expected behaviour?).