How would you like it? E-mail use is becoming a problem for teachers

For better or worse, computers are accumulating in schools and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. However, an unregulated and ill-disciplined approach to the impact of e-mail communication on workload, privacy, and personal and job security could have disastrous consequences.

The early ad hoc introduction of computer hardware, software and systems into schools accompanied by much the same in policy and procedure, and professional development and training, has changed. Major syllabus review and the introduction of mandatory computer testing have pushed the change. Parental and community expectations have assisted. Schools and systems have responded to the demands with long-term strategic planning and investment in infrastructure and staff training. Visit any one of a large (and growing) number of school websites for evidence of this.

But while most schools have now addressed the need for acceptable-use policies regarding the Internet and school intranet by students and staff, there remains a disturbing gap in the area of e-mail communication between staff and students/parents.

The great majority of non-government schools provide individual e-mail addresses for their staff. Increasingly these are becoming available to students and parents, often being published in school newsletters and on the school website.

Some schools publish staff e-mail addresses on the Internet with hyperlinks that open directly to an e-mail 'new message' screen, inviting easy access beyond the school community. Also providing an easy target for scammers of, for example, the 419 frauds (those unexpected large 'inheritances' that occur frequently from Nigeria) who have developed web crawlers to discover just these types of e-mail address lists on the Internet to target their victims.

Preliminary research conducted by the NSW Independent Education Union (IEU) indicates that students and parents are increasingly using e-mail to communicate with teachers to get work/homework explained, ask for information and references, obtain lost handouts or assignment sheets, obtain sport or excursion information, explain absences, raise pastoral care concerns, submit assignments/homework, etc.

Within the school, e-mail is increasingly used for daily communication of memos regarding news, events, timetable changes, exam/class supervisions, faculty meetings, etc. What was once received in a pigeonhole is now received via e-mail and printed off for reference during the day.

What does this change mean for teachers? What worries them about the new technology?

On the whole, teachers see many advantages of e-mail communication for their work. However, they are also aware of the problems; in particular the looming workload problem. And this just at a time when they already feel overwhelmed by a ballooning workload of administrative and legislative tasks that take them away from their key role of teaching.

Look at one teacher's response:

"e-mail is too easy - once, parents thought they would take up an issue but having to write or phone would mean that they often didn't get round to it unless it really was serious - now they find it too easy to send off an e-mail requesting teachers to follow up on quite minor matters." (IEU preliminary survey, unpublished)

For example, a Year Co-ordinator reported they had spent two hours tracking down and sorting out a complaint from a parent that an attendance record for a Year 8 child was incorrectly given on the term report card (three days absent had been given rather than two, the parent claimed). The parent had e-mailed from her work address and requested a response before the end of the working day. Two hours of unexpected work was quite a burden to that teacher's day.

The experience of university lecturers should be taken as a warning of what does happen when the use of e-mail develops without attention to workload. In her book Digital hemlock: Internet education and the poisoning of teaching (UNSW Press, 2002), Tara Brabazon quotes one lecturer:

"During 1997, I was able to complete 2 hours of research and administration before my teaching day started. By 1999, these 2 hours were filled with answering e-mails. After teaching in the morning, though, I was able to go to the library some afternoons. By the middle of semester one, 2000, I was unable to complete any administration through the course of a working day …The number of e-mails has permanently changed the shape of my working day. Hour-long blocks are set aside to read and reply to an ever increasing stream of professional, academic, research and teaching inquiries. Administration and research are now conducted early in the morning, late at night and on weekends."

Teachers and schools must consider this experience and negotiate e-mail protocols that will allow them to retain control of their working day and manage their workload.

Privacy is a second concern that has been raised by teachers.

Many schools reserve the right to randomly monitor e-mail communication as they see fit, without notification to the writer that their e-mail has been monitored and without requiring any substantiated reason for accessing the e-mail account. Some school policies warn staff of this, others don't. Legally the computer system and all that resides on it is the property of the school, and legally the school can proceed in this way. But is this really necessary, or productive, or professional?

There are better, fairer policies that promise to protect the privacy of e-mails except when required by law or substantiated complaint to open them - and that promise to notify the holder of an account when their e-mail has been opened. Fairer policies give specific directions to technical-support staff to keep private and confidential the contents of e-mails that they read in the course of their work, and direct all staff to respect the privacy and confidentiality of colleagues' e-mail. Fair policies promote better work relationships and workplace environments that can only benefit productivity.

Then there is the question of teachers' names and e-mail addresses being published on the Internet. Think again of the Internet fraudsters and their schemes. Is it a breach of privacy if staff have not been consulted and have not given their individual consent for their names and addresses to be published on the school website? Is publishing on the Internet different to publishing in newsletters or school magazines ? Teachers think so, and want the opportunity to say so.

A third issue regarding e-mail communication in schools is that of security. Personal security (confidence in safety from harassment, vilification and hoaxes) and job security (confidence that e-mail communications will not result in parental complaints or academic malpractice appeals - such as HSC appeals - that could threaten employment).

The simple solution is that teachers should not engage in e-mail communication with parents or students. After all, teachers cannot currently write to parents or students on school letterhead without authorisation. Why should electronic letterhead be any different?

Some schools filter incoming e-mails. That is, all e-mails go to one address, and are re-directed to appropriate staff. This solution has merit, especially for the potential risk of harassment, vilification, and hoax. Further, this type of filtering system slows down communication, overcoming the other blight of e-mail - the expectation of instantaneous response.

Most schools, however, do not filter e-mail. Staff receive them directly, no matter what the content, and are expected to respond promptly. As anyone who uses e-mail will affirm, it is easy to make embarrassing mistakes by attaching the wrong document to a message or forwarding e-mails that include another writer's confidential comments.

It is just as easy to use incorrect grammar, punctuation and expression. The fact that e-mail seems to have grown its own mode of expression and language code for common usage is irrelevant, as parents have high expectations of teachers' use of the written word, and will complain about professional incompetency when informal or 'incorrect' language is used.

It is absolutely easy for recipients to misinterpret the tone of an e-mail that lacks the visual and aural cues of speech and the formalities of a letter. Consider the earlier scenario of the report card and school attendance. A response such as "will look into this as soon as I get time" can be read in several different ways by the parent, dependent on their state of mind or composure.

The potential risk of complaint by parents and students is high, and perhaps dangerously high in relation to 'stressed-out' Year 12 students whom teachers report are the greatest (and most demanding) users of teacher-student e-mail communication at this time.

Already, teachers report receiving e-mails from Year 12 students at all times of the day and night, including weekends and holidays. They expect to be answered … now! What will happen when the teacher is out, away, or just plain tired and fails to respond? What if the student feels their major assessment mark has suffered due to the lack of response by the teacher? Accusations of professional negligence?

These are the areas of threat to job security, especially in independent schools where some students/ parents have unrealistic expectations and/or undue influence.

The possibility of making errors with expression, tone and/or content compounds with the pressure for speedy, perhaps hasty, response. The expectation for quick response does not apply to other forms of communication between teachers and parents and students, it is part of the e-world mantra. Schools must question the e-mail expectation or run the risk of increasing complaint and decreasing staff morale.

And all of this raises the question of what type of student is being created? A student who takes responsibility for study and problem solving? Who develops independence in learning? Or one who becomes dependent, complacent and lazy because they can always get another assignment sheet, or answer, or direction, with just a few clicks of the finger?

It is time to think, discuss, and then to take action to achieve sensible and reasonable protocols in schools that allow the benefits of e-mail communication to be retained, but that avoid the risks teachers foresee if authorities refuse to listen.