Katkin’s weBLOG

PROLOGUE

The question of how much or how little we need to filter Internet content for our students is a 21st century conundrum for most educators today. We are struggling for consensus in this transitory time where we are talking about developing 21st century learning skills, but simultaneously obstructing the means by which we can move forward in acquiring these skills. Even though the emergence of Web 2.0 tools and access to open source software brings new challenges to educators, it is increasingly difficult to ignore the realization that these new resources also “bring tremendous learning advantages to our students” (Hall, 2008).

THE PLAYERS

• Students
  • often several steps ahead of most adults when it comes to navigating the Internet (both their parents and their teachers included)
  • active participants in social networks and comfortable in using Web 2.0 technologies
  • required “to power down” at school
  • lack experience in using “new literacies” such as critical thinking, ethics and responsibility
• Teacher-Librarians
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • offer expertise in using “new literacies” such as critical thinking, ethics and responsibility
  • frustrated by restricted access to online resources and Web 2.0 tools
  • advocates for intellectual freedom
  • concerned about “making waves” when jobs are on the line (Bell, 2008)
• Classroom Teachers
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • frustrated by restricted access to online resources
  • seeking instructional support in implementing “new literacies” such as critical thinking, ethics and responsibility
  • concerned about “making waves” when jobs are on the line (Bell, 2008)
• School-based administrators
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • obligation to the students, parents, staff and community
  • obligation to the school board trustees and superintendents
• Information Technology Directors and Supervisors
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • responsible for setting and maintaining the levels of access on the network filter
  • responsible for responding to requests to unblock resources
  • often make decisions regarding what students and teachers have access to at school
• School Board Trustees and Superintendents
  • believe student safety and well-being are paramount
  • have a legal obligation to the students, parents, staff and community
  • can be “set up for litigation if students are exposed to questionable content” (Media Awareness Network, 2009)
  • rely on the expertise of information technology directors and supervisors
  • have concerns for placing teachers’ careers in jeopardy without filters in place

ACT I – What we know…

We can all agree that when it comes to our children, we want to ensure that they are always as safe as possible while working online, both at school and at home. In our “Acceptable Use Policies,” we recognize that “the Internet is a valuable resource for students, and [that] students need to know how to use the Internet effectively and safely” (LRSD IT Acceptable Use & Safety, 2005). Even so, most school divisions filter web content from the Internet by restricting words or meanings that may be considered offensive or inappropriate for children. Filters can also shield students from obscenities, profanity, slurs, blasphemous terms, and slang terms for items such as drugs. For the most part, filters provide schools with “a reasonably high degree of protection from objectionable material when using online resources” (Hall, 2008).

According to Robert Losinski in “Patrolling Web 2.0,” it takes more than just blocking harmful sites to keep students from accessing them.” Reports on how “students can get around a standard filter and gain access to just about any site imaginable” (Losinski, 2007) continue to raise questions about how effective filters are in protecting our children. In the United States, the Children’s Internet Protection Act or CIPA, was legislated to “address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers.” As outlined in CIPA, schools and libraries receiving federal funding must purchase content filters to “prevent users from viewing objectionable material” (Villano, 2008). Despite the high financial costs required to support CIPA’s conditions, students admit that it is not difficult to slip by the filter using “anonymous proxy servers” (Losinski, 2007). By relying heavily on web filters to protect us from unseemly content, it seems as though we may be developing a “false sense of security” by putting all our faith in an unreliable technology.

ACT II – What we are learning…

As web filtering continues to be an issue of concern, both students and teachers are experiencing frustration in being unable to retrieve the information they need to access while at school. In the article “What are we protecting them from,” author Matt Villano concedes that often schools that operate filters at the highest settings may actually be doing their students a disservice by blocking access to quality information as well.

In “I’m Mad and I’m not going to take it anymore,” Mary Ann Bell states that “not allowing access can be dangerous, as it keeps us from teaching kids to be safe and smart online when they are on their own.” (Bell, 2008). She adds that filtering can lead to “laziness” because “it is easier to widely block a list of words than [to take the time] to carefully evaluate materials” (Bell, 2008).

We have also learned that “web filters can’t stand alone in an effective online safety strategy” (Losinski, 2007). Students also have access to computers outside school where content is not filtered and supervision varies depending on parent involvement. Therefore, it becomes more important than ever that students become educated in how to protect themselves online. “Educating students to make wise decisions and to evaluate the source and quality of information and communication they receive” (McDonald, 2007) are essential skills for today’s learners.

In “Justifying the social tools: improving the conversation,” Stephen Abram states that restricting access to the Internet has the potential to “damage the teacher-librarian’s key roles in preparing learners to research well.” For teacher-librarians, collaboration and critical thinking are not new skills… but, perhaps more than ever, students need to be able to find, edit and evaluate information in an authentic environment.

The teacher-librarian provides leadership and instructional support to both students and teachers. Developing critical evaluation skills, designing effective search strategies and respecting intellectual property are becoming core skills for student success online. David Warlick refers to this shift as an “ethical imperative” which means we must “teach children to be their own gatekeepers” when it comes to being “literate in the new information landscape” (Warlick, 2007).

ACT III – What happens next…

Finding consensus between student safety online and student access online has become the essence of the filtering conundrum in our schools. In “Patrolling Web 2.0,” author Robert Losinski comments on the irony of how school divisions provide students and teachers with Internet access as a resource to complete research assignments… yet filter the exact content that would enable them to actually carry out their inquiry-based research. Mary Ann Bell echos this concern when she observes that “state standards call for online collaboration that is hindered by overly restrictive filters. Thus, schools are working environments that keep them from achieving their own goals” (Bell, 2008).

Even though school filters may restrict our Internet access at work, both students and teachers spend the majority of their time in an “unfiltered world” outside of school. This is our reality and we need to know how to deal with it more effectively. Filtering online content in our schools works in direct opposition to our need to increase experiential learning. Blocking access to electronic learning sources can affect curriculum delivery.

Teacher-librarians are well-positioned to play an important role in transforming teaching and learning in our schools. In reflecting on my own teaching and learning, I can envision a personal action plan that has the potential to impact favorably on student learning during this transitory time.

• ask pertinent questions in regards to filtering standards in our school division
• ensure that Acceptable Use Policies “respect the rights of both child and school,” emphasize “supervision and guidance,” rather than “surveillance and control” (Media Awareness Network, 2009)
• refocus our attention on the Canadian Library Association’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom
• develop an action plan for teacher-librarians to take the lead in preparing students and teachers to become fluent in new 21st century literacies, that emphasize critical thinking, evaluating and editing
• create a technology hearing committee comprised of representatives of all the stakeholders (students, teachers, classroom teachers, principals, parents, community members, technology directors, senior administrators and school board trustees) to address the question of content filtering in our schools. In “Filtering woes redux,” Mary Ann Bell reminds us that stakeholders like “librarians, teachers, and administrators need to work together to use the best the Internet has to offer and to help students be successful and safe searchers” (Bell, 2006).
• bring current literature and research findings on filtering to the attention of all stakeholders.
• advocate for the empowerment of curriculum coordinators and school-based teachers to become actively involved in making filtering decisions
• investigate ways in which to educate and inform parents more effectively in regards to filtering in schools. In “Web 2.0: the virtual wild, wild west,” Don Hall advocates for building “a parent-education program about Internet safety and content filtering in the home” (Hall, 2008).
• propose a filtering system that is built on a “sliding scale,” that releases restrictions as students advance in age and move through their formal school education
• “create a list of highly effective, district supported Web 2.0 resources that are aligned to your instructional program” (Hall, 2008). Our division has already embraced Photostory in this way, perhaps there are others we might add… Voicethreads, for example.

EPILOGUE

Although filtering web content in our schools may appear to be all about safety, it is also becoming more about disabling our students and teachers. We acknowledge that information is everywhere, but we are reluctant to admit that filters in our schools just don’t work in the way that they should in this time of transition. In many ways, filters actually jeopardize what it means to be literate in the world today.

As we work our way through this conundrum, it will be necessary to ensure that students, educators and parents become educated in how they can navigate this new landscape critically and prudently, rather than “fighting over which Web sites to block” (Hall, 2008). As Doug Johnson ponders in “Changes from the radical center of education,” … “The solution to most of the world’s problems will rely on effective education,” … and the filtering conundrum is no exception.