Division Implementation Rubric for §22.1-70.2 Acceptable Internet use policies for publicand private schools. (1999, c. 64; 2001, c. 269; 2006, cc. 52, 474.)

Code Requirement

A. Every two years, eachdivision superintendent shallfile with the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction anacceptable use policy (AUP),approved by the local schoolboard, for the Internet.

At a minimum, the policyshall contain provisions that(i) are designed to prohibituse by division employeesand students of the division’scomputer equipment andcommunications services forsending, receiving, viewing,or downloading illegalmaterial via the Internet.

At a minimum, the policyshall contain provisions that(ii) seek to prevent access bystudents to material that theschool division deems to beharmful to juveniles asdefined in §18.2372.

At a minimum, the policyshall contain provisions that(iii) select a technology forthe division’s computershaving Internet access to filteror block Internet accessthrough such computers tochild pornography as set outin §18.2-374.1:1 andobscenity as defined in§18.2-372.

At a minimum, the policy shallcontain provisions that(iv) establish appropriatemeasures to be taken againstpersons who violate thepolicy.

The policy may include suchother terms, conditions, andrequirements as deemedappropriate, such as requiringwritten parental authorizationfor Internet use by juveniles ordifferentiating acceptable usesamong elementary, middleand high school students.

B. The superintendent shalltake steps as he deemsappropriate to implement andenforce the division’s policy.

Meets Expectations

Documentation validates thatevery two years, the divisionsuperintendent has filed withthe Superintendent of PublicInstruction an AUP,approved by the localschool board, for theInternet.

The AUP contains provisionsto prohibit use by divisionemployees and students ofthe division’s computerequipment andcommunications services forsending, receiving, viewing,or downloading illegalmaterial via the Internet.

The division’s policycontains provisions that seekto prevent access bystudents to material that theschool division deems to beharmful to juveniles asdefined in §18.2372.

The division’s policycontains provisions thatidentify a selectedtechnology for its Internet-accessible computers to filteror block access to childpornography as set out in§18.2-374.1:1 andobscenity as defined in§18.2-372.

Appropriate measures areclearly defined for personswho violate the policy. Thepolicy references federallegislation and Virginia statelaws regulating Internet safety.

OPTIONAL

Divisions are encouraged toprovide appropriate evidencefor additional terms,conditions, and requirementsas deemed appropriate bythe division for inclusion in thelocal policy.

The division’s policy shouldcorrelate with local Continuityof Operations Plan (COOP).

The division superintendenthas clearly defined and takensteps deemed appropriate toimplement and enforce thedivision’s policy.

Progress towardExpectations

Documentation indicates thatthe division superintendent isin the process of revising thedivision’s AUP. To date, therevised AUP document hasnot been filed with theSuperintendent of PublicInstruction.

The AUP contains provisionsto prohibit use by divisionemployees and students ofthe division’s computerequipment for illegalactions. However, thedefinition of illegal use isnot specified to includesending, receiving, viewing,or downloading illegalmaterial via the Internet.

The division’s policycontains a statement that thedivision will seek to preventaccess by students tomaterial that the schooldivision deems to be harmfulto juveniles as defined in§18.2372. However, thestatement does not identifyspecific provisions toprevent student access toharmful material.

The division’s policycontains a statementaddressing the need forInternet filtering. However,provisions are not providedfor the selection of a filteringand blocking technology.

Measures are not clearlydefined for persons whoviolate the policy.

N/A

The division’s policy iscurrently under development.Implementation has not takenplace to date.

Below Expectations

Documentation is notavailable to validate that thedivision superintendent fileswith the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction an AUP.

The AUP does not containprovisions to prohibit use bydivision employees andstudents of the division’scomputer equipment andcommunications services forsending, receiving, viewing,or downloading illegalmaterial via the Internet.

There is no evidence that thedivision seeks to preventaccess by students tomaterial the school divisiondeems to be harmful tojuveniles as defined in§18.2372.

There is no evidence of thedivision filtering or blockingInternet access to childpornography as set out in§18.2-374.1:1 andobscenity as defined in§18.2-372.

The policy does not establishappropriate measures to betaken against persons whoviolate the policy.

N/A

The division superintendenthas not defined steps deemedappropriate to implement andenforce the division’s policy.

2

Division Implementation Rubric for §22.1-70.2 Acceptable Internet use policies for public andprivate schools – (v) a component on Internet safety that is integrated in a division’s

instructional program. (1999, c. 64; 2001, c. 269; 2006, cc. 52, 474.)

Program Criteria

The AUP Internet safetyprogram contains adescriptive statement(s)regarding the division’sinstructional philosophiesand strategies to besupported by Internet accessin schools.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram specifies the rolesand responsibilities fordivision personnel (includingbut not limited toadministrators, teachers,counselors, instructionaltechnology resourceteachers, library mediaspecialists, building resourceofficers, and informationtechnology coordinators) andstudents with regard to theacceptable use of electronic-based resources and Internetsafety. An overview andoutline of the program isavailable in electronic formatfor all to view.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram specifies roles andresponsibilities forcommunity stakeholders withregard to the acceptable useof electronic-based resourcesand Internet safety.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram specifies safetymeasures in place, includingfiltering and monitoringprocedures. The planidentifies measures for futureimplementation.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram describes methodsby which the divisionensures data and networksecurity. The division’s policyshould correlate with localContinuity of OperationsPlan (COOP).

Meets Expectations

The program contains astatement(s) regarding thedivision’s instructionalphilosophies and strategiesto be supported by Internetaccess in schools.

The program clearly definesroles and responsibilities forall division personnel andstudents. There is anestablished schedule for thereview of roles andresponsibilities. Adjustmentsare made as needed. Acurrent overview and outlineof the program is availablein electronic format for all toview.

The program specifies rolesand responsibilities forcommunity stakeholders.Mechanisms are in place forstakeholder feedback duringthe evaluation process.

The filtering and monitoringprocedures address currentissues of concern.Procedures are reviewedand evaluated on a regularbasis. The program outlinesprocedures for developingsafety measures that willaddress emergingtechnologies not currentlydeployed in the system.

Methods to ensure data andnetwork security have beenreviewed annually. Anypresent and potentialproblems have beenidentified, evaluated, andaddressed.

Progress towardExpectations

The program contains ageneral statement(s)regarding the division’sinstructional strategies to besupported by Internet accessin schools; however, it isunclear how Internet accessrelates to the philosophiesand strategies.

The program defines rolesand responsibilities for alldivision personnel andstudents; however, it isunclear if these roles andresponsibilities have beenreviewed periodically.

AND/OR

The program includes rolesand responsibilities for alimited number of divisionpersonnel and students;however, it fails to identifyor specify the roles andresponsibilities for allappropriate divisionpersonnel.

The program specifies rolesand responsibilities forcommunity stakeholders.Stakeholder feedback is notaddressed.

AND/OR

The program identifiescommunity stakeholders butnot their roles orresponsibilities.

Procedures are reviewedand evaluated on a regularbasis. However, there is noindication the reviews haveresulted in follow-up actionsor policy revisions.

AND/OR

The program does notoutline procedures fordeveloping safety measuresthat will address emergingtechnologies not currentlydeployed in the system.

Methods to ensure data andnetwork security have beenreviewed annually. Thereare no apparent plans foraddressing potentialproblems.

Below Expectations

The program contains nostatement(s) regarding thedivision’s instructionalphilosophies and strategiesto be supported by Internetaccess in schools.

The program does notidentify roles andresponsibilities for anydivision personnel orstudents.

The program does notidentify communitystakeholders.

Current filtering andmonitoring procedures havenot been reviewed.

Methods to ensure data andnetwork security have notbeen reviewed.

3

Program Criteria

The AUP Internet safetyprogram describestechnology-basedapplications and hardwareprohibited for employee andstudent use. It identifiesassociated penalties.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram describesprocedures to addressbreaches of Internet andintranet security and safety.Legal actions resulting frombreaches have beenreviewed.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram describes ongoingprofessional developmentopportunities for eachstakeholder group. Itincludes an overview ofboth the needs assessmentand evaluation processes forprofessional developmentand community outreachprograms.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram describescommunity outreachactivities that are consistentwith the program’s goals. Itincludes an overview ofboth the needs assessmentand evaluation processes forcommunity outreachprograms.

The AUP Internet safetyprogram describes thedivision’s procedures for theevaluation and revision ofthe AUP, including theInternet safety program.

The AUP and Internet safetyprogram have beenimplemented, enforced,evaluated, and adjustedwhen needed.

Meets Expectations

Prohibited uses oftechnology-basedapplications and hardwarewithin the division havebeen identified. Infractionsare reviewed promptly asthey occur. Stated penaltiesare enforced.

The program clearly definesprocedures that addresssecurity and safetybreaches. Legal issues havebeen reviewed, withappropriate informationincorporated. Theprocedures address issuesranging from minorinfractions to catastrophicevents.

Professional developmentopportunities have beendeveloped based on aneeds assessment conductedfor each group ofstakeholders. Professionaldevelopment is consistentwith the program’s goals.An evaluation processfocuses on the role ofprofessional development inthe level of effectiveness forInternet safety andcommunity outreachprograms.

Specific events andresources have beendeveloped and/or providedbased on a needsassessment of the communitymembers. The events andresources are consistent withthe program’s goals. Anevaluation plan focuses onprogram improvement.

The program includes anevaluation plan thataddresses five areas ofconcern: accountability,effectiveness, impact,operations, and utility.Revision procedures areclearly outlined andrealistically scheduled.

The AUP and Internet safetyprogram have beenpresented to and approvedby the local school board.Programs have beenimplemented, enforced, andevaluated followingprocedures outlined in theplan. Programs and policyhave been adjusted asneeded.

Progress towardExpectations

Prohibited uses oftechnology-basedapplications and hardwarewithin the division have notbeen identified or reviewedas they occur.

AND/OR

Stated penalties have notbeen enforced consistently.

The spectrum of issues isnarrow and does notinclude the full scope ofpotential problems.

AND/OR

Appropriate personnel havenot reviewed legal issues.

It is unclear if a needsassessment has beenconducted or if professionaldevelopment offerings andresources are consistent withthe program goals.Evaluation procedures areunclear or not evident.

It is unclear if a needsassessment has beenconducted or if outreachactivities and resources areconsistent with theprogram’s goals. Evaluationprocedures are unclear ornot evident.

The program describesprogram evaluationprocedures but does notconsider all areas ofconcern: accountability,effectiveness, impact,operations, and utility.

AND/OR

Revision procedures areunclear.

Planning has occurred, andthe division is in the initialstages of implementation;however, it is unclear if thepolicy is being enforced orif revisions are being madeas needed.

Below Expectations

Prohibited forms oftechnology-basedapplications and hardwarehave not been identified.

Procedures to addressbreaches of Internet andintranet security and safetydo not exist.

No professionaldevelopment plans havebeen made for anystakeholder group.

There is no evidence ofcommunity outreach.

Procedures do not exist forevaluating and revising theprogram and policy.

The AUP and Internet safetyprogram have not beenimplemented, enforced,evaluated, or adjusted.

4