Technology+Report



A great deal of attention has been given to the question of content filtering of our district’s Internet access. This is required by the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Additionally, “CIPA requires that schools monitor the online activities of minors and have a policy in place that addresses the “safety and security” of minors when online” (Richardson, 2009). Another way our district ensures the safety of our students and their appropriate use of the Internet is through the Acceptable Use Guidelines document that all staff, students and parents sign each year. Student access to the Read/Write Web and the need for them to learn 21 st Century skills are hot topics in education. It is clear that, in order to prepare our students for a future where their ability to access and use technology appropriately is crucial, we must allow them the opportunity to use the tools available to them. How, then, do we balance the need to protect our students with the need to allow them to fully and successfully explore technology tools? The Acceptable Use Guidelines are in place to help our district staff and students determine what is permissible. However, many times the language is of a technical nature and “it appears highly unlikely that students will be able to translate what they read in these technical acceptable use policies to generate practical guidelines for their actual Internet use.” (Niederhauser, et. al., 2007) Another issue is actually produced by the adoption of the AUG and the implementation of filtering software. “This attention to controlling student access to inappropriate information at the administrative level may lead many teachers to believe that this issue is not their responsibility.” (Niederhauser, et. al., 2007) Will Richardson, a well-known proponent of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom, stresses that it is not enough to avoid the issue by shutting down the Internet. “Safety is now about responsibility, appropriateness, and common sense….it’s our obligation to  teach them what is acceptable and safe and what isn’t.” (Richardson, 2009). Students will access the Internet, participate in chat rooms, and create accounts on social networking sites regardless, and they are doing it at progressively younger ages. Many times, student technology savvy far outstrips their ability to understand the dangers inherent in accessing the Internet. They are simply not as mature socially and intellectually as they are technologically. If we are to use the tools available to us to prepare our students for the future, we must also prepare those students for the kinds of  situations they may encounter with that use. The AUG is only as useful as the students’ and parents’ ability to understand it. “One way to accomplish this is by having teachers translate their schools’ AUP into language that is accessible to parents and students.” (Niederhauser, et. al., 2007) This also establishes a connection between the students and the teacher, and allows the student to recognize the teacher as someone to go to when they have questions or when questionable situations arise. Another factor to consider when filtering or blocking web sites is that the technology is imperfect and, as more and more sites are created, it becomes increasingly more difficult to filter content successfully. “As much as we may try to stop all forms of inappropriate content from being accessible from school, the reality is that some is not filtered.” (Richardson, 2009) There are a couple of options available to us. The first option is to indiscriminately block certain kinds of sites, for example Weblog or Wiki hosting sites. Unfortunately, “this eliminates millions of sites from student access and blocks not only the questionable sites but the large majority of perfectly appropriate sites that might be relevant to learning.” (Richardson, 2009) This also prevents the students from actively using Web 2.0 tools, like blogs and wikis, to publish their work and interact on a broad scale with the world available to them via the Internet. There is a second option and it is one already mentioned: “to teach students the skills they need to navigate the darker sides of the Web safely and effectively.” (Richardson, 2009) We cannot keep students totally safe from the negative elements and, even though we may deny them access in school, they will find ways to access these sites outside of school. We also need to consider what the students themselves are posting. Students tend to forget that the Internet is international and that traces of their interactions are easily left behind to be tracked. Indeed, “colleges, universities, and employers are now looking through MySpace and other social networking Web sites to see if candidates have a profile and what is in that profile. Employers are also doing Web searches on a candidate’s name to see what else is out there online. If it’s not flattering, a student could lose a potential job or not get into the college or university he or she wants.” (Hitchcock, 2007) The best choice continues to be to teach them that they have a choice as to how they respond when faced with questionable content or interactions on the Internet. It won’t be easy, but it is necessary. “One of the most difficult roads to navigate in the world of the Read/Write Web is how to balance the safety of the child with the benefits that come with students taking ownership of the work they publish online.” (Richardson, 2009) References Niederhauser, D. S., Lindstrom, D. L., and Strobel, J. (2007). Evidence of the NETS*S in K-12 classrooms: Implication for teacher education. // Journal of Technology and // Teacher Education, 15 (4). 483-512.

Hitchcock, J. A. (2007). Cyberbullies, online predators, and what to do about them.

Multimedia & Internet@Schools, 14 (3), 13-15.

Richardson, W. (2009). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (pp. 12-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.