Web filtering in schools: unnecessary or necessary evil?
- Image via Wikipedia
Are we really protecting students or simply making it inconvenient for them to access the web?
What about the teachers? Should they be blocked as well?
There has been a lot of discussion by educational technology folks in the blogosphere about web filtering in schools. I came across a post at the excellent Dangerously Irrelevant blog that piqued my interest and caused me to look into this a little further. Several questions zipped through my mind. Why do we have a web filter in place? Is it required by law? What would happen if we ever removed the web filter? I needed some answers.
When the subject of the web filter is brought up, typically, the “off the cuff” response is that it is required by CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act.) CIPA ia a law passed by Congress in 2000 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The act provides for three different types of funding: 1) aid to elementary and secondary schools; 2) Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants to states for support of public libraries; and 3) the E-rate program that provides technology discounts to schools and public libraries. This means that any school accepting E-rate program money from the federal government, must have an Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place. An Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) are obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors).
I am in agreement here. Although most of these same minors will have access to adult magazines, movies or other inappropriate adult “stuff” at home, I completely agree that schools should be obligated to block these images.
Here’s where things start to get a little fuzzy:
The act also requires that schools and libraries subject to CIPA adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them.
I have several questions about this section of the act. First, how was it decided who the person or people were that made the decisions whether content should be considered “inappropriate matter?” What might be appropriate for little Johnny may not be appropriate for little Sally. Should the same level of “appropriateness” be applied to ALL students regardless of their grade level? In many districts, it is.
Secondly, it would appear that, aside from blocking access to pornography, the rest of the act mainly deals with educating our students on the dangers of the web. When did the education of our students become simply blocking them from anything that someone feels may be inappropriate?
Am I missing something here? If not, why then can’t students get to YouTube? Last I checked, Google does a pretty good job of filtering out any pornographic material that gets uploaded to “the Tube.” In fact, according to Digital Ethnography at Kansas State University, 6% of all uploads to YouTube are related to education. That’s 6% of over 150,000 daily uploads.
Why can’t students get to the amazing new Google Life image archive in some districts? There’s no pornography there.
That begs another questions…why are students blocked from using images.google.com but are able to access images.google.ca or images.google.uk in some districts? Where is the pornography in many of the social networks that are being blocked by districts?
Another GIANT question I have is why are we blocking teachers at all? Teachers, in many district, are bound by the same web filter rules that students are bound by. Do we not have enough respect for the professionalism of educators to make their own decisions with regards to the web? If we do not, why are we allowing them to teach our children? It is so frustrating to me, as a technology specialist responsible for technology integration, to find an amazing video on YouTube or a great new web tool that I know can enhance a teacher’s curriculum only to find out that it’s blocked by the web filter. What are we doing? We are making it even more difficult than it already is to reach these kids. This one video or website might be the key to opening the eyes of student Mary, who is new to the school and is very shy or student Johnny, who just isn’t getting that math or science concept.
Why do school districts continue to require that teachers include technology in their lessons, then bind them to the rules and regulations of these ridiculous web filters that are in place?
Another question…is it unethical for a teacher to use a proxy website or other method of bypassing the web filter in place to access a great educational resource? Help me with this one…I’ve been close to showing teachers how to do this, but have restrained myself for fear that there could be repurcussions. We all know the students know how to do it. What do we do with these students that use a proxy to access their Photobucket account to retrieve an image that they uploaded there for a school project that is due today? Do we discipline him/her?
There are so many more questions than there are answers. I hope at some point we start treating our students and teachers with a little respect and stop thinking that everybody is going to use an “open web” for illegal or illicit purposes.
We are not allowing teachers to be creative with the requirements of technology in their lessons, we are holding them back.
We are not protecting students, we are hampering their development.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Can’t Educators BE the Net? Safety Net, that is.
- Australia planning to block 10000 websites
- Tear Down the Walls (a little crumb at a time)
- Dangerously Irrelevant: Tech coordinator pushback
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
As a Library/Media Specialist, I am frequently frustrated by what the beaurocracy views as appropriate and inappropriate content, but have been able to work pretty well with the current restrictions. Our job description has changed dramatically over the years (even in the last ten years!) due in no small part to the increased access to the Internet, and the ability to have so much information at our fingertips. Access to (and knowledge of) sources of information have always been the realm of the librarian, although now, instead of merely knowing where to find needed information, we must be able to separate the kernels of good and reliable information from the chaff of all that is “out there”.
I have accepted the fact that there are filters in place in the schools. If it were easy to access pornographic sites, kids would do it just for the shock value to others in the vicinity. I'd rather not have to police that, thank you very much. Are filters fool-proof? Of course not. (Do the presence of specific laws prevent criminal activity? I wish it would.) I do concur that educators should be able to choose from all the information that is available, adapting that information and the technology to his or her own teaching style. Do some teachers have a cavalier attitude toward ethics? It's a shame, but it is so. Filtering content from everyone based on the possibliity of ethics violations by some, seems too much like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
So, at least in my world, I haven't had too much problem with the filters we have in place, although I acknowledge that there is some information that will not be available. Ironically, the vastness of the World Wide Web is actually an advantage–if one cannot locate needed information from a filtered site, that information will more than likely exist on hundreds of other sites that will be available. Sometimes, you just have to dig a little more.
I think it is warrented to look at additional factors that web filters provide a great assistance to. Most importantly is the amount of malicious web sites and sites that contain spyware or viruses that can bring down the schools network. With a web filter in place, their is an additional level of security that works with AV, by automatically blocking access to sites that contain malicious code and viruses. With web filtering, having this type of software on home computers will also help with securing the system, while also protecting kids from the bad stuff that is online. The internet is a great tool, but there is just so much material on it that are inappropriate for kids.
JC,
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you to a certain extent. I agree that a web filter an help with virus protection, but the filters have been taken much too far that it is affecting the way our teachers can teach. Certainly, there is no risk of a virus infection from YouTube or Google sites, yet many districts block them anyway. It makes it difficult to do our jobs at times.
Tim,
Thanks for the comment. I'm not talking about removing the filter for pornographic material. In fact, we are bound by law to do so. I am simply referring to the dozens and dozens of legitimate websites and we tools that are being wrongly blocked. I do agree with you with regards to teachers. If an unethical teacher is going to use the “open web” for inappropriate things, then that teacher should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. However, in the current situation, we penalize all of the ethical teachers (certainly the large majority) for the “potential” actions of a very small minority.
Hello all,
I am a technology professional at a school district. Unfortunately it is the collection of ignorance stated in this article and its subsequent comments as to why a web filter is imperative at a school district. To many people believe that there is “there is no risk of a virus infection from YouTube or Google sites”. Try working on computers for a living for even a month and you would encounter endless examples of virus’s coming from “safe” sites like myspace, google images, or youtube. Not to mention that everyone forgets that technology professionals protect servers that contain your financial info, addresses, SSID’s, etc. Everyone wants those protected but complains at the necessary steps to keep that data secure. Get over yourselves teachers! Do your research at home (gasp! work outside of our 7.5 hours a day/ 192 days a year, insane! ), save files to a flash disk that you want to show at school and try for once to understand someone besides yourselves….
Jerry,
Doing some online research on web filtering, and believe it or not ran across your site here! Nice job! I thought to myself . . . does that really say citrushightechnology.com? Could it be our Citrus High? Ha. I look forward to hearing how your FETC presentation went.
Mike