Re: Web Access Policies and related issues
EDTECH Editor-Beil
Happy Holidays. Of course, a few days away from the daily fray allows a
bit more time to think - maybe you have some insights for the following
quesitons. Thanks in advance.
I am working with several folks on campus to write a filtering policy -
well, we'd really like to call it a Web Access Policy to put a more
positive spin. I would appreciate any policy language you have found
useful, or a whole policy, to help us wrap our heads around what all it
needs to say.
I'm also interested in seeing how the filtering/web access policy
interacts with the school's AUP language.
The third related piece we are crafting is a Graduating Standard, a
delineation of what our graduates should know in the realm of technology.
We finish at 8th grade. We're very much in the rough draft stage. And if
anyone has such a Graduating Standard in place, for any level, that we
might use as a partial model, it would be extremely helpful.
Thanks so much - that is three big questions at once!
Dorcas Hand
Annunciation Orthodox School
Houston TX
---
Edtech Archives, posting guidelines and other information are at:
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~edweb
Please include your name, email address, and school or professional
affiliation in each posting.
To unsubscribe send the following command to: LIST...@H-NET.MSU.EDU
SIGNOFF EDTECH
EDTECH Editor-Beil
> X-From: Dorcas Hand
> I am working with several folks on campus to write a filtering policy -
> well, we'd really like to call it a Web Access Policy to put a more
> positive spin. I would appreciate any policy language you have found
> useful, or a whole policy, to help us wrap our heads around what all it
> needs to say.
This will be long - sorry. I have been working on "rethinking" on this issue. I
have also posted this as a blog.
<http://csriu.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/web-access-management-a-new-approach/>
I also submitted comments to the FCC on the new CIPA requirements for Internet
safety education. The FCC also asked for guidance on two other issues that
relate to this information request: How schools are interpreting the CIPA
language "harmful to minors" and issues around overriding the filter.
As you might recall, CIPA requires blocking obscene material, child
pornography, and material harmful to minors. The definition"harmful to minors"
basically also described obscene material - this is totally grounded in adult
sexual materials. The FCC asked for insight into how schools were determining
what material is harmful to minors and including community standards with this.
This question is absolute nonsense. Schools are not determining any of this.
They are totally reliant on the decisions made by filtering companies - that do
not disclose how they are deciding what to block. Essentially what schools are
blocking is the categories developed by the filtering companies that appear to
block adult sexual material. The fact that the FCC thinks schools have any
other ability to choose is really weird.
The other thing they asked for comments on was the provision about disabling
that reads: An authorized individual may disabled the technology protection
measures for adults in order to enable bona fide research or other lawful
purposes. It is exceptionally important to understand how this provision
operates. Under CIPA, schools must block access to "porn" sites - but ONLY
"porn" sites. Not anything else. So the disabling provision refers to disabling
the filter to access porn sites for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.
And all of the other material that a school "chooses" to limit access to using
a filter is up to the school.
And, for the record, there is material in the first CIPA regulations that
indicates a recognition that filters are imperfect. So, no it is not necessary
to block access to the blog sites category because some blog sites allow adult
material.
So let's talk about what is happening in the real world - outside of the myth
of CIPA. when the Internet came into schools, a misperception was disseminated.
That is that it is possible to prevent student and staff Internet misuse of the
Internet by using filtering. And thus, it became the tech services dept's job
to prevent misuse. Preventing misuse was no longer a shared responsibility. And
because the filters were preventing student misuse, it was perfectly okay for
teachers to take students to the computer lab to "surf the Internet" because
this was educational and the filter would prevent misuse. Many of you are
laughing at this point in time because you know there are still teachers in
your schools who believe this. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE GET PREVENTING MISUSE
BACK TO A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.
Why? Because at the same time that the federal government was requiring schools
andf libraries to install filtering, another branch of the federal government
was providing funding for the creation of technologies to allow people to
bypass filters. You think I am joking, right. Well, will you believe PBS's
Frontline: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/internet/tech.html>
"With the exception of Psiphon, which receives funding from George Soros' Open
Society Institute, all these programs (referring to circumventioun programs)
have received some support from the U.S. government. Peacefire and Freegate
receive funding from the Voice of America and TOR began as a project of the
U.S. Naval Research Lab." And there are moves in Congress to encourage more and
better technologies to undermine the Internet restrictions of repressive
leaders.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-arlen-specter/attack-the-cyberwalls-the_b_227114.html>
Now, most students were not inclined to use proxies to gain access to porn, but
with the explosion of social networking sites, this bypass technology was
quickly discovered. Google "bypass Internet filter." I just did and got
1,530,000 hits. Hey, including a couple of YouTube instructional videos.
So to think that filters are preventing students from going anywhere they want
online is a JOKE!!! And maybe we ought to start admitting this. Don't you
think? And maybe we ought to look for other ways to effectively manage student
Internet use. The ONLY thing filters are good for right now is preventing the
rare accidental access (which can be prevented pretty effectively by setting
search engines to "safe search" and keeping your computer security up to date)
and defining possible boundaries (the site you are trying to reach may not be
appropriate).
This is why preventing misuse must be a shared responsibility. And we need to
shift from a ridiculous reliance on ineffective blocking to more effective
staff supervision and technical monitoring.
But there is another problem that we need to deal with. The filtering companies
are trying like crazy to deal with all of the bypass technologies. And it
appears that the techniques they are using are preventing more and more access
to RELEVANT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES!!!
So now we look at the other side of this picture. The very fine research of the
Speak Up/Project Tomorrow folks has consistently found that filtering blocking
student and staff access to relevant instructional resources is the NUMBER ONE
barrier to the effective use of the Internet for instruction.
<http://www.ednetnews.com/story-2332-3.html> If teachers and students are
constantly frustrated that they can never count on being able to access the
material that is relevant for instruction, they are not going to even try to
use the Internet for instruction. And this pretty much describes what is
happening. So all of the money schools are pouring into instructional
technologies is not resulting in educational change in part BECAUSE of the
filters (there are also some other minor concerns like NCLB, lack of funds for
professional development, and the like).
So here is my radical suggestion: Under CIPA schools ONLY have to block access
to "porn." They can allow the filter to be disabled to provide access to "porn"
sites - for a legitimate purpose (And, yes, I have having a hard time figuring
out what this legitimate purpose might be). All of the other categories are
blocked at the discretion of the school. There are no federal dictates
whatsoever on this.
So why don't we start treating teachers like professionals (radical thought,
eh?) and give all instructional staff the authority to bypass the filter - on
their own discretion - to access sites in any other category than the "porn"
category and maybe some other categories that the district really does not
think ought to be allowed without some level of administrator review and
approval, like hate sites.
Yes, some teachers will not be responsible. Some may not understand other
concerns, like bandwidth. But districts can come up with clear standards for
when using the bypass authority is appropriate, bandwidth "hogs" are pretty
easy to detect, and bypasses are recorded so a periodic random review ought to
be effective in identifying teachers who are misusing this authority.
And then perhaps, maybe, after a decade of trying to deal with the wrong
solution, we can shift to a management approach that will support the effective
use of technology for instruction. I say this with some exacerbation because I
was saying the same thing way back in 2000. Here are the materials I submitted
to the COPA Commission and the NRC committee that was studying these issues
<http://csriu.org/documents/nwnas.php> wherein I quoted:
"When we fall into the trap of believing or, more accurately, hoping that
technology will solve all of our problems, we are actually abdicating the high
touch of personal responsibility. *** In our minds at least, technology is
always on the verge of liberating us from personal discipline and
responsibility. Only it never does and never will. The more technology around
us, the more the need for human touch." Naisbitt, Megatrends.
And I stated: "Regardless of issues related to the use, effectiveness, and
appropriateness of technology tools, laws, and labeling systems, the simple and
plain truth is that virtually every young person in this country will, at one
time or another, have unsupervised access to the Internet through an unfiltered
and unmonitored system. Any young person who desires to access the "darkside"
of the Internet will be able to find a way to do so. Technology tools, laws,
and labeling systems are insufficient means to prevent such access. The more
important question, therefore, is how can we help young people gain the
knowledge, decision-making skills, and motivation to make safe and responsible
choices when they are using the Internet."
Which is the path I have been on for a very long time.
Nancy
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwil...@csriu.org
Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social
Aggression, Threats, and Distress (Research Press)
Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the
Internet Safely and Responsibly (Jossey-Bass)
EDTECH Editor-Beil
Well said Nancy. I do educational technology professional development
around the country for McREL and see this issue popping up more and
more. We now have to send a long list of educational websites to each
client to make sure they are unblocked (at least temporarily) so that we
can conduct our workshops without a bunch of frustration. Nonetheless,
many of the wonderful Web 2.0 applications educators learn to use in our
workshops just end up blocked again when the teachers try to use them in
their classrooms. This is a big problem. I have come across forward
thinking districts that have found ways to be safe but allow real-time
access for teachers to any educational site they want. These districts
need to set the example and speak out to bring the other blocking
districts along.
Sincerely,
Matt Kuhn
Lead Consultant - Educational Technology
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL)
4601 DTC Blvd., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80237-2596
P: 303.632.5628
F: 303.337.3005
mk...@mcrel.org
http://www.mcrel.org