A new world in the classroom.(Local)

TEN YEARS ago, there was no Facebook. There was no YouTube, no Twitter, no MySpace. Few high schoolers owned a mobile phone.

Today, social networks are ubiquitous, with one or more intertwined in the daily life of millions of Americans, particularly teenagers. Three out of four teens now have a cellphone.

These devices are changing so quickly, reshaping communication so dramatically, that teachers can hardly keep pace. By the time plans are developed to teach about a specific technology, a newer one often has already replaced it.

Even the state Board of Education acknowledged as much this year when it approved the 2010-2015 technology education plan.

"Students have discovered -- often outside school -- that new technologies offer excitement and challenges; these technologies, like mobile phones, worldwide interactive gaming, and social networks, are just now finding a place in schools. ... To oversimplify the daunting goal of the next six years, educators must find ways to maximize the positives of the Internet and other technologies while preparing students and their families for the potential negatives."

To find ways to maximize the positives of the Internet and warn about the negatives, teachers need to be familiar -- and involved -- with the technologies used by their students.

So far, local and state education officials have mostly cautioned teachers and other employees to use common sense and not to engage in inappropriate behavior online.

This month, the state Board of Education will consider going further. It will vote on guidelines barring teachers from communicating with students through systems like Facebook's chat function. The guidelines, as The Pilot's Hattie Brown Garrow recently reported, are part of a larger model policy aimed at preventing sexual misconduct.

Local districts will still have the freedom to craft their own policies based on as much or little of the state's model as they want. The premise of the state policy -- that teacher-student communication on private systems should be public and viewable to other adults -- is worthy. There have been too many instances in which teachers and coaches have used technology to develop inappropriate relationships with students.

If a student and teacher need to discuss a confidential matter online, the conversation should take place through the district's e-mail system.

Teachers, coaches and advisers do need to be accessible to students through the channels that have become so popular and so ingrained in daily life for so many Americans. State officials deserve credit for stepping back from their initial suggestion to ban teachers from being "friends" with students on social networks.

They and local education officials would be equally wise to avoid specific restrictions that risk stifling curricular innovation or hindering teachers from fulfilling the state's vision for incorporating digital technology in the classroom.