# data[].attributes.body
In the field of education, I believe that it is our job as educators to provide a safe, nurturing environment for all students to achieve and learn. As a future administrator, it is important that proper analysis occurs of all situations to ensure that the school is functioning in a legal and ethical manner. This guide will primarily focus on the topic of cell phone use and recording in classrooms. This guide also discusses social media and disciplinary action regarding online posts with students and teachers. This guide is intended to target administrators of campuses, but can be applied to any educator wishing to gain a broader perspective of the legalities of cell phone usage in our current educational system. I chose this topic because I have ran into situations where students pull out their cell phones in class to record myself and others. I was curious about what is legal, and what can result in disciplinary action, especially since videos can be altered. I wanted to expand my knowledge on this topic since I know that I will likely face a situation regarding cell phone recording or social media use amongst students as an administrator where I will have to analyze and evaluate the situation to ensure that all decisions made are ethical.

# data[].attributes.body
I interviewed Stacy Hurst, the current principal at Wester Elementary in Lubbock, TX. She was able to provide insight on her experience, as an administrator, with then use of cell phone recording in the classrooms. The link to Mrs. Hursts' school website can be found here: https://www.lubbockisd.org/Page/61

During the interview, I gained knowledge on why the topic of cell phone recording in classrooms is important and how it impacts the field of education. Mrs. Hurst (2022), stated that  cell phone recording "has the potential to impact the classroom either positively or negatively. It can be used as a tool for the teacher or a resource for students. It can also be harmful in recording student interactions". Hurst (2022) mentioned that she has had incidents where students will bring in recordings of bullying or sexual content on social media platforms that occur during school hours, which ends up becoming a disciplinary issue. Hurst (2022) provided an example of how cell phone usage has impacted her in her role as principal. One example she mentioned was that "I had a student that threatened to kill another student in a social media platform. The student was arrested and had to attend DAEP. I have also had to visit with teachers regarding the content the have posted".  Clearly, cell phone usage impacts the education field as it has done at Wester Elementary.

After discussion with Mrs. Hurst, there are some best practices that administrators can take to help remove themselves from a legal issue or problem:
1. Ensuring that teachers' cell phones are only being used for instructional purposed, such as Class Dojo.
2. Providing professional development to teachers so they understand that they are never allowed to record student behaviors as this could result in a litigation issues.
3. Continue to participate in school district trainings on the legal implications regarding cell phone usage in classrooms.
4. Continue to follow all laws regarding this topic and privacy.

An area-emerging issue that educator's should watch for and see how things play out is the use of social media and how disciplinary action takes places amongst teachers and students. Hurst (2022) reminded me that students and teachers have "...the right of people being able to post their thoughts about issues publicly even if it goes against the district or is political". People have freedom of speech, but when is it okay for repercussions to take place? And, are people allowed to post videos and photos of others without permission? These issues have been a hot debate the past several years, which will continue to evolve.

Mills, S., & Hurst, S. (2022, March 1). Cell Phone Use in Classrooms . personal.

# data[].attributes.body
Catlin Tucker (2015), discusses tips on how she manages mobile devices in her classroom. Tucker (2015) states that she welcomes cell phones in her classroom, but only with established norms and expectations. This blog can be useful for administrators to help teachers create policies in their classrooms in which students are respectful with technology so privacy is not breached. Some examples Tucker (2015) discusses are having students establish the norms on the first day so they feel ownership over the expectations, and ensuring that students need to ask permission from others before recording or taking photos. Tucker (2015) utilizes cell phones as a learning resource in her classroom.

Link: https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/five-tips-for-managing-mobile-devices

Tucker, C. (2015). Five Tips for Managing Mobile Devices . ASCD. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/five-tips-for-managing-mobile-devices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To process a transaction with a Purchase Order please send to member@ascd.org

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Brewer, D. (2019). Smile, You’re on Camera: A Discussion of the Privacy Rights of Teachers in the Modern Day Classroom. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2019(2), 139–166.

Link: http://heinonline.org.easydb.angelo.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/byuelj2019&div=11

This article informs current state of issues:
*Brewer (2019) discusses the varying viewpoints and laws regarding privacy and cell phone recordings. The article mentions several examples of teachers, custodians, and school personnel who were recorded and reprimanded. The article also mentions students using their cell phones to record private incidents of teachers, such as a teacher from Kentucky whose students recorded a video up their teacher’s skirt. Many of these recordings end up on social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and more.
*There are inconsistencies in court cases determining what is considered a privacy violation in regards to cell phone recording, which could alter the way a teacher is treated after a recording.
*Students and people can alter the video and audio aspects of a recording, misconstruing the original recording.
*Principals and school administrators will have the public eye on them once a video is posted online of their school in a negative light, so their actions need to ensure that student safety is the number one priority when responding to the posts. However, the law is not clear on what can be concluded as a fireable offense from a video, as discussed in the previous listed court cases.
*There have been cell phone policies in place in most schools, but these are not 100% effective as students still tend to sneak phones.
*Teachers and students alike can be uncomfortable with the thought of being recorded at any time and that being used against them.
*Cell phones and recordings can provide people and students with a sense of security to be able to record or make calls for protection.
*Some parents may feel as though cell phones are a personal item, as they fund them, and those items can not be taken away.
*Cell phones have been known to distract students from learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Engle, J. (2021, January 29). Should Schools Be Able to Discipline Students for What They Say on Social Media?Je. The New York Times . Retrieved March 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/learning/should-schools-be-able-to-discipline-students-for-what-they-say-on-social-media.html#:~:text=These%20days%2C%20most%20courts%20have,and%20threaten%20to%20disrupt%20them

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/learning/should-schools-be-able-to-discipline-students-for-what-they-say-on-social-media.html#:~:text=These%20days%2C%20most%20courts%20have,and%20threaten%20to%20disrupt%20them

The article informs current state of issues:
*Engle (2021) discusses how a cheerleading student was kicked off of cheer for a year after posting a picture of her flipping off the camera and complaining about school and the cheer program, since she was upset about making JV. The post happened outside of campus and school hours, so it was determined by the court that this infringed on her right to freedom of speech.
*This article reinforces the idea that schools can not punish a student for freedom of expression on social media platforms outside that take place outside of school hours.
*This article also raises the question of "when does it become necessary to take action for posts made outside school hours"? This is important to ask because many schools are dealing with cyber threats occurring outside of school hours, but later becoming a school disciplinary issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.
A student makes an offensive joke on Instagram. A student posts a photo of the food in the cafeteria on Snapchat and writes that it looks disgusting. A student makes fun of another student on social media and gets hundreds of likes from classmates.
When and how should schools address social media posts by students? Does it matter if they were created at school, during school hours or off school grounds? Should schools have the right to censor or even punish students for things they say online if they believe it is disruptive or harmful to the community? Or would those actions violate students' right to freedom of speech?

In "A Cheerleader's Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown," Adam Liptak writes about a student who sued her school district after she was suspended for a post on Snapchat:

It was a Saturday in the spring of 2017, and a ninth-grade student in Pennsylvania was having a bad day. She had just learned that she had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and would remain on junior varsity.

The student expressed her frustration on social media, sending a message on Snapchat to about 250 friends. The message included an image of the student and a friend with their middle fingers raised, along with text expressing a similar sentiment. Using a curse word four times, the student expressed her dissatisfaction with "school," "softball," "cheer" and "everything."

Though Snapchat messages are ephemeral by design, another student took a screenshot of this one and showed it to her mother, a coach. The school suspended the student from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to "avoid chaos" and maintain a "teamlike environment."

The student sued the school district, winning a sweeping victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia. The court said the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.

Next month, at its first private conference after the holiday break, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., No. 20-255. The Third Circuit's ruling is in tension with decisions from several other courts, and such splits often invite Supreme Court review.

In urging the justices to hear the case, the school district said administrators around the nation needed a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on their power to discipline students for what they say away from school. "The question presented recurs constantly and has become even more urgent as Covid-19 has forced schools to operate online," a brief for the school district said. "Only this court can resolve this threshold First Amendment question bedeviling the nation's nearly 100,000 public schools."

Mr. Liptak details the key legal precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District from 1969, when "the Supreme Court allowed students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War but said disruptive speech, at least on school grounds, could be punished." Then, he writes:

Making distinctions between what students say on campus and off was easier in 1969, before the rise of social media. These days, most courts have allowed public schools to discipline students for social media posts so long as they are linked to school activities and threaten to disrupt them.

A divided three-judge panel of the Third Circuit took a different approach, announcing a categorical rule that would seem to limit the ability of public schools to address many kinds of disturbing speech by students on social media, including racist threats and cyberbullying.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote that he would have ruled for the student on narrower grounds. It would have been enough, he said, to say that her speech was protected by the First Amendment because it did not disrupt school activities. The majority was wrong, he said, to protect all off-campus speech.

In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the school district's appeal, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association said the line the Third Circuit had drawn was too crude.

"Whether a disruptive or harmful tweet is sent from the school cafeteria or after the student has crossed the street on her walk home, it has the same impact," the brief said. "The Third Circuit's formalistic rule renders schools powerless whenever a hateful message is launched from off campus."

The student, represented by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Supreme Court that the First Amendment protected her "colorful expression of frustration, made in an ephemeral Snapchat on her personal social media, on a weekend, off campus, containing no threat or harassment or mention of her school, and that did not cause or threaten any disruption of her school."

Students,

Should schools be able to discipline students for what they say outside school or on social media? Why or why not? Give some examples from real life or hypotheticals that you think should be censored or punishable by schools and other examples you believe should be protected by free speech.

What is your reaction to the story of B.L. and how she was suspended from the cheerleading team for comments and a picture she posted for friends on Snapchat? The school says the punishment was necessary to "avoid chaos" and to maintain a "teamlike environment." Do you agree with that justification? If you were part of the school administration, how would you have handled the incident?

Does your school have a policy on students' use of social media? Do you think that it is appropriate, fair and constitutional? Why or why not?

In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the school district's appeal, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association said the Third Circuit's ruling "renders schools powerless whenever a hateful message is launched from off campus." However, the student, represented by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Supreme Court that the First Amendment protected her "colorful expression of frustration, made in an ephemeral Snapchat on her personal social media, on a weekend, off campus, containing no threat or harassment or mention of her school, and that did not cause or threaten any disruption of her school." Which aspects of the arguments for each side do you find most persuasive? Which do you find less so, and why?

On Jan. 8 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. How would you rule if you were one of the nine justices? Justify your answer using evidence from past cases cited in the article, such as Tinker v. Des Moines.

About Student Opinion read the entire article and then tell us:
* Find all of our Student Opinion questions in this column.
* Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it.
* Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning.

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Be Able to Discipline Students for What They Say on Social Media? (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The case of a high school cheerleader who was suspended from her team for comments she made on social media is heading to the Supreme Court. Do schools have the right to censor or punish students for speech outside of their grounds?

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Judicial Law

Citation: Roberts v. Houston Independent School District 788 S.W.2d 107 (1990)

Link to Law: https://www.lawpipe.com/Texas/Roberts_v_Houston_Indep_Sch_Dist.html

* Roberts v. Houston Independent School District is a case in which a science teacher was recorded in her classroom and lost her job because of what she said during the recording.
*The court determined that her classroom is a public place in which privacy should not be expected.
*As educators, it is important to remember that the classroom is a public place, so it is important that we uphold our best practices each and everyday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roberts v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist – Case Brief Summary (Texas) | Lawpipe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Roberts v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 788 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.App.--Houston 1st Dist. 1990, writ denied), the court held that a public school teacher had no legal complaint against a school district for audiotaping and videotaping her classroom performance because a teacher has no reasonable expectat…

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Statutory Law

Citation: Texas Penal Code § 16.02

Link to Law: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm

* Texas is a one-party consent state, meaning that a person has the right to record another person, as long as one person in the situation is aware of it.
*This indicates that a student could have the right, as seen in the law, to record conversations with teachers and school personnel.
*It is important for teachers and staff members to be aware of what the ethics and laws are, so they do not put themselves in a situation for questioning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PENAL CODE



TITLE 4. INCHOATE OFFENSES



CHAPTER 16. CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, INTERCEPTION OF WIRE OR ORAL COMMUNICATION, AND INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE



Sec. 16.01. UNLAWFUL USE OF CRIMINAL INSTRUMENT OR MECHANICAL SECURITY DEVICE. (a) A person commits an offense if:


(1) the person possesses a criminal instrument or mechanical security device with the intent to use the instrument or device in the commission of an offense; or


(2) with knowledge of its character and with the intent to use a criminal instrument or mechanical security device or aid or permit another to use the instrument or device in the commission of an offense, the person manufactures, adapts, sells, installs, or sets up the instrument or device.


(b) For the purpose of this section:


(1) "Criminal instrument" means anything, the possession, manufacture, or sale of which is not otherwise an offense, that is specially designed, made, or adapted for use in the commission of an offense.


(2) "Mechanical security device" means a device designed or manufactured for use by a locksmith to perform services for a customer who seeks entry to a structure, motor vehicle, or other property.


(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is one category lower than the offense intended. An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a state jail felony.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Amended by:


Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 814 (H.B. 2577), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.


Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. (a) In this section:


(1) "Communication common carrier," "computer trespasser," "contents," "covert entry," "electronic communication," "intercept," "interception device," "investigative or law enforcement officer," "oral communication," "protected computer," and "wire communication" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(2) "Immediate life-threatening situation" and "member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.201, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(3) "Readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, a communication that is not:


(A) scrambled or encrypted;


(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication;


(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;


(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication;


(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under Part 25, Subpart D, E, or F of Part 74, or Part 94 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; or


(F) an electronic communication.


(b) A person commits an offense if the person:


(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;


(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to another person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person knows or has reason to know the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;


(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person knows or is reckless about whether the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;


(4) knowingly or intentionally effects a covert entry for the purpose of intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications without court order or authorization; or


(5) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any interception device to intercept any oral communication when the device:


(A) is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other connection used in wire communications; or


(B) transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of communications by radio.


(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that:


(1) an operator of a switchboard or an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication intercepts a communication or discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of the communication, unless the interception results from the communication common carrier's use of service observing or random monitoring for purposes other than mechanical or service quality control checks;


(2) an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier provides information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who is authorized as provided by this section to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;


(3) a person acting under color of law intercepts:


(A) a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception;


(B) a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is acting under the authority of Chapter 18A, Code of Criminal Procedure; or


(C) a wire or electronic communication made by a computer trespasser and transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer, if:


(i) the interception did not acquire a communication other than one transmitted to or from the computer trespasser;


(ii) the owner of the protected computer consented to the interception of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer; and


(iii) the actor was lawfully engaged in an ongoing criminal investigation and the actor had reasonable suspicion to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications likely to be obtained would be material to the investigation;


(4) a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if:


(A) the person is a party to the communication; or


(B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act;


(5) a person acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication if:


(A) oral or written consent for the interception is given by a magistrate before the interception;


(B) an immediate life-threatening situation exists;


(C) the person is a member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to:


(i) respond to and deal with life-threatening situations; or


(ii) install interception devices; and


(D) the interception ceases immediately on termination of the life-threatening situation;


(6) an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission intercepts a communication transmitted by radio or discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment and in the discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Federal Communications Commission in the enforcement of Chapter 5, Title 47, United States Code;


(7) a person intercepts or obtains access to an electronic communication that was made through an electronic communication system that is configured to permit the communication to be readily accessible to the general public;


(8) a person intercepts radio communication, other than a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between a cordless telephone handset and a base unit, that is transmitted:


(A) by a station for the use of the general public;


(B) to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;


(C) by a governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system that is readily accessible to the general public, unless the radio communication is transmitted by a law enforcement representative to or from a mobile data terminal;


(D) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or


(E) by a marine or aeronautical communications system;


(9) a person intercepts a wire or electronic communication the transmission of which causes harmful interference to a lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference;


(10) a user of the same frequency intercepts a radio communication made through a system that uses frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted; or


(11) a provider of an electronic communications service records the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service towards the completion of the communication, or a user of that service from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of the service.


(d) A person commits an offense if the person:


(1) intentionally manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells an interception device knowing or having reason to know that the device is designed primarily for nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications and that the device or a component of the device has been or will be used for an unlawful purpose; or


(2) places in a newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication an advertisement of an interception device:


(A) knowing or having reason to know that the device is designed primarily for nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications;


(B) promoting the use of the device for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications; or


(C) knowing or having reason to know that the advertisement will promote the use of the device for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications.


(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (d) that the manufacture, assembly, possession, or sale of an interception device that is designed primarily for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communication is by:


(1) a communication common carrier or a provider of wire or electronic communications service or an officer, agent, or employee of or a person under contract with a communication common carrier or service provider acting in the normal course of the provider's or carrier's business;


(2) an officer, agent, or employee of a person under contract with, bidding on contracts with, or doing business with the United States or this state acting in the normal course of the activities of the United States or this state;


(3) a member of the Department of Public Safety who is specifically trained to install wire, oral, or electronic communications intercept equipment; or


(4) a member of a local law enforcement agency that has an established unit specifically designated to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations.


(e-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (d)(1) that the interception device is possessed by a person authorized to possess the device under Section 500.008, Government Code, or Section 242.103, Human Resources Code.


(f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (d) or (g), in which event the offense is a state jail felony.


(g) A person commits an offense if, knowing that a government attorney or an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization to intercept wire, electronic, or oral communications, the person obstructs, impedes, prevents, gives notice to another of, or attempts to give notice to another of the interception.


(h) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 889, Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005.


Added by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 738, ch. 275, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 31, 1981. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4878, ch. 864, Sec. 1 to 3, eff. June 19, 1983; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1166, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1270, Sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Amended by:


Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 889 (S.B. 1551), Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005.


Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1169 (H.B. 3228), Sec. 9, eff. September 1, 2009.


Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 85 (S.B. 653), Sec. 3.023, eff. September 1, 2011.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (H.B. 2931), Sec. 2.01, eff. January 1, 2019.


Sec. 16.03. UNLAWFUL USE OF PEN REGISTER OR TRAP AND TRACE DEVICE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device to record or decode electronic or other impulses for the purpose of identifying telephone numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on a telephone line.


(b) In this section:


(1) "Authorized peace officer," "pen register," and "trap and trace device" have the meanings assigned by Article 18B.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(2) "Communication common carrier" has the meaning assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor is:


(1) an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier and the actor installs or uses a device or equipment to record a number dialed from or to a telephone instrument in the normal course of business of the carrier for purposes of:


(A) protecting property or services provided by the carrier; or


(B) assisting another who the actor reasonably believes to be a peace officer authorized to install or use a pen register or trap and trace device under Chapter 18B, Code of Criminal Procedure;


(2) an officer, employee, or agent of a lawful enterprise and the actor installs or uses a device or equipment while engaged in an activity that:


(A) is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of property of or services provided by the enterprise; and


(B) is not made for the purpose of gathering information for a law enforcement agency or private investigative agency, other than information related to the theft of communication or information services provided by the enterprise; or


(3) a person authorized to install or use a pen register or trap and trace device under Chapter 18B, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.


Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 587, Sec. 6, eff. Aug. 26, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 958, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, Sec. 10, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (H.B. 2931), Sec. 2.02, eff. January 1, 2019.


Sec. 16.04. UNLAWFUL ACCESS TO STORED COMMUNICATIONS. (a) In this section:


(1) "Electronic communication," "user," and "wire communication" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(2) "Electronic storage" has the meaning assigned by Article 18B.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(b) A person commits an offense if the person obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while the communication is in electronic storage by:


(1) intentionally obtaining access without authorization to a facility through which a wire or electronic communications service is provided; or


(2) intentionally exceeding an authorization for access to a facility through which a wire or electronic communications service is provided.


(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor.


(d) If committed to obtain a benefit or to harm another, an offense is a state jail felony.


(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that the conduct was authorized by:


(1) the provider of the wire or electronic communications service;


(2) the user of the wire or electronic communications service;


(3) the addressee or intended recipient of the wire or electronic communication; or


(4) Chapter 18B, Code of Criminal Procedure.


Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 958, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, Sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (H.B. 2931), Sec. 2.03, eff. January 1, 2019.


Sec. 16.05. ILLEGAL DIVULGENCE OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS. (a) In this section, "electronic communications service" has the meaning assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.


(b) A person who provides electronic communications service to the public commits an offense if the person knowingly divulges the contents of a communication to another who is not the intended recipient of the communication.


(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that the actor divulged the contents of the communication:


(1) as authorized by federal or state law;


(2) to a person employed, authorized, or whose facilities are used to forward the communication to the communication's destination; or


(3) to a law enforcement agency if the contents reasonably appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.


(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under Subsection (b) that involves a scrambled or encrypted radio communication is a state jail felony.


(e) If committed for a tortious or illegal purpose or to gain a benefit, an offense under Subsection (b) that involves a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted:


(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the communication is not a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication; or


(2) is a Class C misdemeanor if the communication is a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication.


(f) Repealed by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, Sec. 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1166, Sec. 17, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 16.04 by Acts 1990, 71st Leg., 6th C.S., ch. 12, Sec. 2(24), eff. Sept. 6, 1990. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, Sec. 12, 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (H.B. 2931), Sec. 2.04, eff. January 1, 2019.


Sec. 16.06. UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE. (a) In this section:


(1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object.


(2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.


(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.


(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person:


(1) obtained the effective consent of the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle before the electronic or mechanical tracking device was installed;


(2) assisted another whom the person reasonably believed to be a peace officer authorized to install the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency; or


(3) was a private investigator licensed under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, who installed the device:


(A) with written consent:


(i) to install the device given by the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle; and


(ii) to enter private residential property, if that entry was necessary to install the device, given by the owner or lessee of the property; or


(B) pursuant to an order of or other authorization from a court to gather information.


(e) This section does not apply to a peace officer who installed the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.828, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.


Amended by:


Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1122 (H.B. 1659), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16. CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, INTERCEPTION OF WIRE OR ORAL COMMUNICATION, AND INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PENAL CODE TITLE 4. INCHOATE OFFENSES CHAPTER 16. CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, INTERCEPTION OF WIRE OR ORAL COMMUNICATION, AND INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE Sec. 16.01. UNLAWFUL USE OF CRIMINAL INSTRUMENT OR MECHANICAL SECURITY DEVICE.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Constitutional Law

Citation: U.S. Const. amend. I

Link to Law: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

*People have the right to freedom of speech.
*This law indicates that students and teachers both can post believes or factual information on social media accounts in which should not be punished.
*Administrators must assure that students, teachers, and stakeholders have their right of freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Administrative Law

Citation: Educator Code of Ethics, 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247.1

Link to Law: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=1

*The Educator’s Code of Ethics states that “The educator shall comply with state regulations, written and local school board policies, and other state and federal laws” (19 T.A.C. § 247.1).
*This is important for the principals to remember when designing a cell phone policy. Sometimes, the law and policies are conflicting, or hard to determine because of the “gray” area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) In compliance with the Texas Education Code, §21.041(b)(8), the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) adopts an Educators' Code of Ethics as set forth in §247.2 of this title (relating to Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators). The SBEC may amend the ethics code in the same manner as any other formal rule. (b) The Texas educator shall comply with standard practices and ethical conduct toward students, professional colleagues, school officials, parents, and members of the community and shall safeguard academic freedom. The Texas educator, in maintaining the dignity of the profession, shall respect and obey the law, demonstrate personal integrity, and exemplify honesty and good moral character. The Texas educator, in exemplifying ethical relations with colleagues, shall extend just and equitable treatment to all members of the profession. The Texas educator, in accepting a position of public trust, shall measure success by the progress of each student toward realization of his or her potential as an effective citizen. The Texas educator, in fulfilling responsibilities in the community, shall cooperate with parents and others to improve the public schools of the community. This chapter shall apply to educators and candidates for certification. (c) The SBEC is solely responsible for enforcing the Educators' Code of Ethics for purposes related to certification disciplinary proceedings. The Educators' Code of Ethics is enforced through the disciplinary procedure set forth in Chapter 249 of this title (relating to Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanctions, and Contested Cases) pursuant to the purposes stated therein. (d) As provided in §249.5 of this title (relating to Purpose; Policy Governing Disciplinary Proceedings), the primary goals the SBEC seeks to achieve in educator disciplinary matters are: (1) to protect the safety and welfare of Texas schoolchildren and school personnel; (2) to ensure educators and applicants are morally fit and worthy to instruct or to supervise the youth of the state; and (3) to fairly and efficiently resolve educator disciplinary proceedings at the least expense possible to the parties and the state. (e) The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (1) Abuse--Includes the following acts or omissions: (A) mental or emotional injury to a student or minor that results in an observable and material impairment in the student's or minor's development, learning, or psychological functioning; (B) causing or permitting a student or minor to be in a situation in which the student or minor sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the student's or minor's development, learning, or psychological functioning; (C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to a student or minor, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the student or minor, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline; or (D) sexual conduct harmful to a student's or minor's mental, emotional, or physical welfare. (2) Applicant--A party seeking issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of a certificate from the Texas Education Agency staff or the State Board for Educator Certification. (3) Code of Ethics--The Educators' Code of Ethics codified in this chapter. (4) Complaint--A written statement submitted to the Texas Education Agency staff that contains essential facts alleging improper conduct by an educator, applicant, or examinee, the complainant's verifiable contact information, including full name, complete address, and phone number, which provides grounds for sanctions. (5) Contested case--A proceeding under this chapter in which the legal rights, duties, and privileges related to a party's educator certificate are to be determined by the State Board for Educator Certification and/or the State Office of Administrative Hearings commencing when a petition is properly served under this chapter. (6) Disciplinary proceedings--Any matter arising under this chapter or Chapter 249 of this title (relating to Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanctions, and Contested Cases) that results in a final order or finding issued by the Texas Education Agency staff, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, or the State Board for Educator Certification relating to the legal rights, duties, privileges, and status of a party's educator certificate. (7) Educator--A person who is required to hold a certificate issued under the Texas Education Code, Chapter 21, Subchapter B. (8) Endanger--Exposure of a student or minor to unjustified risk of injury or to injury that jeopardizes the physical health or safety of the student or minor without regard to whether there has been an actual injury to the student or minor. (9) Good moral character--The virtues of a person as evidenced by patterns of personal, academic, and occupational behaviors that, in the judgment of the State Board for Educator Certification, indicate honesty, accountability, trustworthiness, reliability, and integrity. Lack of good moral character may be evidenced by the commission of crimes relating directly to the duties and responsibilities of the education profession as described in §249.16(b) of this title (relating to Eligibility of Persons with Criminal History for a Certificate under Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 53, and Texas Education Code, Chapter 21), or by the commission of acts involving moral turpitude, but conduct that evidences a lack of good moral character is not necessarily limited to such crimes or acts. (10) Intentionally--An educator acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his or her conduct or to a result of his or her conduct when it is his or her conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. (11) Knowingly--An educator acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his or her conduct or to circumstances surrounding his or her conduct when he or she is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his or her conduct when he or she is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (12) Minor--A person under 18 years of age. (13) Moral turpitude--Improper conduct, including, but not limited to, the following: dishonesty; fraud; deceit; theft; misrepresentation; deliberate violence; base, vile, or depraved acts that are intended to arouse or to gratify the sexual desire of the actor; drug or alcohol related offenses as described in §249.16(b) of this title (relating to Eligibility of Persons with Criminal History for a Certificate under Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 53, and Texas Education Code, Chapter 21); or acts constituting abuse or neglect under the Texas Family Code, §261.001. (14) Neglect--The placing or leaving of a student or minor in a situation where the student or minor would be exposed to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm. (15) Recklessly--An educator acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his or her conduct or the results of his or her conduct when he or she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or that the result will occur. (16) Sanction--A disciplinary action by the State Board for Educator Certification, including a restriction, reprimand, suspension, revocation of a certificate, or a surrender in lieu of disciplinary action. (17) Sexual harassment--Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (18) State Board for Educator Certification--The State Board for Educator Certification acting through its voting members in a decision-making capacity. (19) State Board for Educator Certification member(s)--One or more of the members of the State Board for Educator Certification, appointed and qualified under the Texas Education Code, §21.033. (20) Student--A person enrolled in a primary or secondary school, whether public, private, or charter, regardless of the person's age, or a person 18 years of age or younger who is eligible to be enrolled in a primary or secondary school, whether public, private, or charter. (21) Texas Education Agency staff--Staff of the Texas Education Agency assigned by the commissioner of education to perform the State Board for Educator Certification's administrative functions and services. (22) Under the influence of alcohol--A blood alcohol content of .04% or greater and/or lacking the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol. (23) Worthy to instruct or to supervise the youth of this state--Presence of those moral, mental, and psychological qualities that are required to enable an educator to render the service essential to the accomplishment of the goals and mission of the State Board for Educator Certification policy and this chapter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) In compliance with the Texas Education Code, §21.041(b)(8), the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) adopts an Educators' Code of Ethics as set forth in §247.2 of this title (relating to Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators). The SBEC may amend the ethics code in the same manner as any other formal rule.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #10: Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #10: Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule 

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Lubbock ISD Student Code of Conduct, 2022

Link: https://www.lubbockisd.org/Page/5037

This school board policy states:

1. “Students shall not use a telecommunications device, including a cell phone, or other electronic device in violation of district and campus rules” (Lubbock ISD Student Code of Conduct, 2022).

2. “Students shall not record the voice or image of another without the prior consent of the individuals being recorded or in any way that disrupts the educational environment or invades the privacy of others.” (Lubbock ISD Student Code of Conduct, 2022). This can be hard to define what is considered a disruption of the educational environment, or what privacy of others includes.

This policy is vague, leaving things up to interpretation. Especially when trying to decide what "disrupts" the educational environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Code of Conduct (English/Versión Español) / Student Code of Conduct (English/Spanish Version

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lubbock ISD adopted a tax rate that will raise more taxes for maintenance and operations than last year's tax rate. The tax rate will effectively be raised by 5.34% percent and will raise taxes for maintenance and operations on a $100,000 home by approximately $48.70.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethical Code Item: Texas Educator's Code of Ethics Standard 3.2

Citation: 19. Tex. Admin. Code § 247.2

Link: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=2

This code of ethics states that "the educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor" (19 TAC § 247.2). This applies to the topic of this guide because it reminds educators that it is their responsibility to ensure that students feel safe at school. With that being said, students should feel safe and not feel the need to post or record about their teacher, classmates or school in a negative manner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #12: Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #12: Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards 

# data[].attributes.body
After thorough analysis of the laws and ethics regarding cell phone recording, social media posts, and disciplinary actions schools can take on the matter, I am able to make better decisions as a principal regarding cell phones in schools. I feel like I have a better understanding of policies I can set in place at my campus, as a future principal, that allow students and teachers to keep their rights but also protect others. I now also have a better understanding that students have a right to freedom of speech, and that there should be no privacy expected in a classroom. For example, I know as an educator, that a student can record me in a classroom, and this footage be used against me. I know that I need to continue to remain professional and ethical in every minute of everyday. I feel that this can be scary, but it can also be expected. We live in such a technology-driven world, that educators should expect that cell phones could be used for recording at any moment. I also feel assured that I have investigated what other schools and administrators are doing to write campus policies. The interview was beneficial because I was able to gain insight into specific examples of principals dealing with situations one a daily basis regarding the topic. Moving forward as a principal, I will not discipline for posts made outside of school hours, off of school grounds. Again, this investigation has prepared me to me a more mindful educator.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #13: Bulleted List of Recommendations/Best Practices for Compliance 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #13: Bulleted List of Recommendations/Best Practices for Compliance 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Follow all laws and ethical standards related to the use of cell phones, recordings, and social media posts.
2. Continue to attend professional development provided by the district to learn about new policies, and train teachers on these each year.
3. Implement a policy where teachers do not record student behavior, and phones at school should only be used as an educational tool/resource.
4. Report to your immediate supervisor with any situations that may arise regarding this topic.
5.  Establish school-wide norms to where students only take photos or videos of each other with permission.
6. Educate students on cyber bullying, digital harassment, and overall digital citizenship so they understand the implications regarding cell phone and social media use.