Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Media Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upper Dublin SD policy committee reviews rewritten social media policy; debates monitoring, comments and logo use
Summary
The policy committee examined a new draft social media policy that shifts focus from individual conduct to governance of district accounts, discussed whether district accounts should be designated public forums, debated expectations for monitoring and removal of comments, and asked administration to return with edits.
The Upper Dublin SD policy committee reviewed a newly rewritten social media policy that would replace the district’s prior language and set governance rules for district-owned and affiliated accounts.
The committee discussed whether district-owned and district-affiliated social media accounts should be operated as designated public forums, how broadly the district should monitor and remove comments, limits on third-party use of district logos and branding, and how student likeness and opt-out preferences should be handled online.
Administration presented a single new draft (referred to in the meeting as “social media 8 17”) and explained the intent: to move conduct rules about staff-student interactions into an existing boundaries policy and to focus this policy on how the district will manage and operate social media platforms. “One of the elements … was around some of the conduct elements of how there are staff and student interactions on social media platforms. But as we went back to review it again, those rules of conduct apply beyond social media,” the staff presenter said, noting the shift in emphasis toward governance and definitions for three categories of accounts.
Board members probed several specifics. One board member asked whether the policy intends that all district-owned and affiliated accounts “will operate as designated public forums” or whether they may be configured differently; administration said the draft intends the district-owned accounts to be open to public comment. The committee heard that legal counsel has advised the district that if an account is treated as a designated public forum, the district cannot selectively allow or deny comments on individual posts and must make a district-wide choice to permit or disable comments.
Members debated what “monitor” and “maintain” should mean in the policy. One board member said, “If we’re going to make that available, I actually want to direct the district to monitor because I don’t want to find out that there’s hate speech or something horrible on one of our pages that we have not taken down.” Another committee member cautioned about capacity and described current practice in which the communications director monitors posts and alerts administration if a post “got some buzz,” while noting the district historically has not engaged in back-and-forth responses to comments.
On advertising and promotional content, members asked that the policy not be read to prohibit typical school fundraisers (for example, “dine and donates”). The draft was amended in discussion to clarify that promotional content is not permitted “outside of promoting school events or groups.”
Board members also sought clearer language on third‑party use of logos and branding. One member proposed broadening a clause that would require superintendent approval before using the district’s logo so it would explicitly include individual school logos and other district marks (the committee discussed a “We Are UD” mark used by the district). Administration agreed to explore language about logos and branding and to consult standard branding guides for recommended wording.
The committee asked whether parents could opt out of posting student likenesses; administration said district practice is to use registration opt-outs and FERPA guidelines to control paid and free use of student images on district-owned accounts and that third‑party accounts fall outside district control. Administration said it plans to implement online verification for families this summer to record likeness opt-outs.
No formal vote occurred. Committee members asked administration to revise the draft to clarify: (1) that district-owned accounts are intended to be designated public forums or specify otherwise; (2) a clearer standard for “monitoring” (several members suggested “routine monitoring” tied to removal of posts that violate district rules of communication); (3) a statement that social media is not an official intake mechanism and that no expectation of reply should be created; and (4) expanded language on logos/branding and student-likeness opt-out processes. The committee agreed to bring the revised policy back to policy for additional review.
The committee also requested that the administrative regulations (AR) include practical guidance — for example, a pinned disclaimer on district pages that social media is not an official intake channel and a process for custodial or communications staff to replenish and check pages regularly.
The administration will rework the draft, address the monitoring and branding language, and return the policy to the committee for further consideration.
