Professional Journal/Article Response (In Addition to Utne Reader)

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1998

Answers

Professional Article "To Filter of Not to Filter?" by David Loundy, Classroom Connect. November 1998, pgs. 4-6.

In "To Filter of Not to Filter?" by David Loundy, the topic of Internet filtering is discussed in both a legal and common sense perspective. Like Loundy, I question the use of filtering in schools to monitor Internet content.

Loundy cites the most common misconception of filtering to support his argument: filtering will get out the bad stuff and leave in the good stuff. Clearly, filters do not examine web sites comprehensively. Filtering is deeply flawed because keywords will not necessarily block out all graphical images. While text based sites might be blocked, image based sites will still slip their way through. Filters may also block out everything on a topic  even if the site does not contain offensive material (i.e. A student doing a legitimate research project on drugs or homosexuality has the potential to be filtered).

Filters also pose one last threat. Filters give educators, parents and community members the false security that Internet surfing is morally sound. Through my own experiences, I have seen educators allow students to surf without supervision because a filter is on. Loundy cautions that since Internet law is so "trendy", sensibility must exceed blind faith in this area where legislation is only beginning to travel.

Personally, I believe filtering is not the key. If images of naked women (or men) were the worst thing to look at on the Internet I would probably not be so concerned. However, students are meeting strangers over this communication device. They can easily (stress easily) get information on how to make a bomb or buy drugs. Yes, the common statement holds true, "If a student wants to do it, they will find a way. However, the Internet makes it incredibly easy to do.

When using the Internet in education, it is only one source to use for properly assigned research. It can be a great, informative source. The power of the Internet is awesome. However, it is irresponsible to allow student to "surf" without purpose or direction. It is only when the dangers of the Internet are fully realized and absorbed, that the positive potential of the Internet will be realized within education.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1998

December 1998 Professional Journal Responses to: Erin Marsman and Cherese Pearson

-- Anonymous, December 09, 1998

Professional Article Number Two: "The Net Changes Everything" by Michael J. Miller, PC Magazine. February 9, 1999, p. 4.

Michael J. Miller clearly defines the impact of the Internet into the modern world. Communication is increasing -- people can contact their loved ones quickly and cost effectively. E-mail in the workplace also saves valuable time to accomplish specified tasks.

The ability to gather information has also changed. Consumers can price shop with the click of a mouse. Search engines that support price comparisons will find what you need at the price you are willing to pay.

Entertainment has also changed. Obscure books and movies are now ours for the taking. Live broadcasts and updated news are just a reload away. The Internet is a live, interactive place that makes the world a very small place to live.

What interested me that most is what the article did not say. It did not talk about performance packages or student test scores. It did not mention schools or education. What it did describe was the evolving world of the Internet and services provided to other areas. Yes, I know that PC Magazine is not the greatest venue to find educational topics. But think about that  education was not mentioned once as a driving force to technological changes. Not once. Not even as an example.

That sends up a huge red flag to me. If the Internet is such a powerful force in our professional and personal lives, why wasnt one example of schools utilizing technology mentioned? Is it because schools are not to the same technical level that businesses are at? Is it because schools are not of interest to business world? Are schools simply not keeping up? These are interesting questions. However, I am afraid that these questions probably have some very sad answers.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Jodi,

I believe that schools are not keeping up in the technology area. We simply don't have the funding necessary to keep up with all the changes. In the school I work in, teachers don't even have computers to use. We have to go to the library or the ONE resource room (I work with over 100 regular education teachers in my building). We did end up getting a grant for technology; however, our board office and support staff are the ones getting new equipment. The teachers will get the old machines, and who knows what the students will get. I agree with your assumption that we are so behind in the area of technology that we are not even mentioned as an example with internet uses. Isn't it a shame. I also read your first "other journal" response about the internet being filtered. It is a bunch of crap. How can we possibly find a way to filter out the "Bad" from the "Good" when, as you said, there are so many cross references of various topics both good and bad. Even if I had internet access for my students, I don't know how I would handle this problem. Thanks for your thoughful responses.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 1999

Professional Article Number Three  Due: April 7, 1999

"Court to School District: You Cant Stop a Kid From Creating a Personal Web Site Critical of Your School" eSchool News. February 1999, Volume 2, Number 2. Pg. 11.

The headline of this article grabbed my attention  the content of it encouraged me to write a response. In Marble Hills, Missouri, a student created a web page that criticized the "official" school web page and school he attends. This student created his web site from a home computer on his own time. His page was allowed to be linked with the schools homepage. Once linked, the school found his site offensive and told him it would be removed. On his behalf, his parents sued the district because his right to free speech was violated. To counter that claim, the school asserted that the site was a disruption because of its "profanity and slanderous speech". In essence, the student slammed the school.

I believe this is a classic example of technology in education. The big push seems to be on acquiring new technology "things" that can be carted around as progressive, forward movement. A little bit of forethought (as well as technology-educated individuals) could have saved this district a lot of time and money.

--First, why did the school Webmaster allow student links to be created in the first place? Whoever created and uploaded the information is accountable for content they upload. Web content should be closely monitored and always be educationally based.

--Second, why didnt Administration and the School Board pass a policy that all student links are not permissible, and no longer a part of the web site when the problem first surfaced? The students web site could still exist on its own with free speech rights intact.

--Third, Where was the Technology Coordinator/Director or expert (as well as a lawyer) in technology issues? Their knowledge could have diffused the whole situation by providing adequate knowledge on technology and/or legal issues.

Sadly, their web site and the possible repercussions to it were not thought out. If they were, they would not have had an issue like this. The school deserved to be sued; they did hinder free speech. The district erred in the handling of this problem. My opinion? I think I should pack up my bags and go to law school to be an Internet lawyer. With mistakes like these, I have the potential to become a millionaire.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 1999

Jodi Smolnikar-Joki Reflection Paper Due: May 26, 1999

Internet filtering is a serious issue in education. School officials believe filters will resolve the Internet problem in their district by monitoring and controlling its content. As we progress in our technologically advanced society, it is clear that Internet filtering is not the answer. The use of filtering provides for two things: a false sense of security and a clear example of censorship. Only through utilizing an enforced Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), suitable training and proper supervision will the Internet be properly managed in an educational setting. With these three steps in place, Internet filtering could be eliminated to the benefit of education.

Through filtering, a sense of security is given to administrators who believe their students are safe. Most people believe that porn and smut are examples of obscene or offensive topics to surf onto. As a society, we are beginning to realize porn is the least of our concern. Pedophiles are infiltrating chat rooms to meet our children, large databases of personal information is gathered on each individual logged on and downloads are literally making viruses a click away. Internet filtering does not address these issues. Senator John McCain backs a self-titled bill that pushes for filtering as a solution to the Internets problems. Critics argue that his bill is a "fraud, offering . . .citizens false security that filters will somehow protect their children" (Berry III and St. Lifer, 1998, pp. 6). Filtering provides a dangerous sense of false security to parents, staff and administrators by blocking out their perceived dangers while admitting others unbeknownst to them. Consequently, the premise of filtering is misleading because absolute protection is not and cannot be guaranteed.

The issue of censorship conflicts dramatically with Internet filters. Many students who perform searches on lesbianism or witchcraft may be filtered out because school administrators consider these subjects morally wrong. Their freedom of speech is clearly infringed upon for two basic reasons. First, students are working on a topic pre- approved by their teacher, which is suited for their curriculum. Second, the instructor approval signifies that their topic is not in violation of school policy. Prior approval or topic and communication between the technology staff and teacher allows these two steps to research their chosen topic. The student then has every legal right to gather information on it without biased filtering.

In defending the right of free speech in a public building, advocates in Loudoun County, Virginia, challenged their public library on their use of filters to protect minors from objectionable Internet data. U.S District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that filtering devices installed on all computers violated the First Amendment (Goldberg, 1999, pp. 14). Subjective morality issues play a major role in Internet filtering. A second instance of filtering run amuck is displayed in Surfwatchs decision to squash online publishing of the Starr Report. Surfwatch claims that the Starr Report was nothing more than a "sex story" that it "may be a federal document, but it is not one that 12-year olds should be exploring by themselves" (Borenstein, 1998, pp. 9). CyberPatrol (Surfwatchs competitor) counters their claim by stating the Starr Report is a "public document, of public importance" (Borenstein, 1998, pp. 9). The filtering issue and the Starr Report are clearly moral issues that should be handled locally in schools. An instructor must have the freedom to choose what topics are appropriate for their students and their curriculum without judgement passed by a public entity.

To curb against inappropriate literature, a three-tiered step must be taken to replace the use of Internet filtering in education. These steps include a district adopted Acceptable Use Policy, proper training and proper supervision. An Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is a legal document that students and parent/guardians sign. The AUP outlines acceptable technology based material, content and behavior within a district. This legal safeguard holds the students accountable for their behavior on and off the Internet in regard to technology. The AUP "establish clear ground rules and expectations, as well as the consequences of any violations." (Marcroft, 1998, pp. 52). Any content that would violate sexual harassment, weapons, racial, violence or other district policies will not be accepted. The AUP will educate the students and parents/guardians in what is or is not acceptable Internet content and outline proper punishment for violations. The form, co-signed by the parent/guardian, is a tool to overview the Internet with their children. The AUP must be enforced with options ranging from suspension to expulsion if policies are violated. This policy, defined by the School Board, will clearly reflect what the district deems acceptable or unacceptable Internet content and technology utilization.

Suitable training of all staff is crucial in making a non- filtering environment successful. Administrators must be Internet savvy to understand the perils of the Internet. "Technology is too often treated as an add-on to the teacher education curriculum" ("More Teacher Training" 1998, pp. 39). All teachers, regardless of subject matter, must learn how to teach and productively use the Internet. Technology-based staff must be experts on every facet of web-based content. In many cases, students have outpaced adults in technological literacy. Schools must keep up with the technology revolution and painstakingly train their teachers and staff. The Internet is a serious place with serious issues. It is not an area to be treated lightly or ignored. When filtering is removed, educated, trained and knowledgeable individuals must step in to make it work. Money and time must be expended to educate the staff on acceptable Internet usage. Through Internet and district policy training, the staff will ultimately realize the positive and negative forces of the Internet and supervise accordingly.

Proper supervision is the third element in the elimination of Internet filtering. After the AUPs are signed and the staff is educated on the Internet, technology-based staff must step in to train students and staff on Internet policy. Properly paid, properly educated individuals will enforce the AUP policies and provide ongoing training in current issues to staff. Although Marcroft believes in filtering and asserts that "nobody can look over that many (childrens) shoulders at once", she does allow that "monitoring" is a major element in Internet guidance (Marcroft, 1998, pp. 19). Technology experts will provide a source for guidance on Internet policy and procedure by creating further guidelines for students and staff. A student to Examples of proper supervision may include no access to chat rooms or e-mail, monitoring of screens and printing restrictions. The far-reaching brush stroke of deeming a particular topic (i.e. lesbianism) would become taboo. Instead, elements of the topic could be researched (life style, discrimination, legal issues, etc.). Clearly, proper supervision will not infringe on a students right to research a specific topic, but guide them in their journey. The combination of these technology guides and proper training will ultimately eliminate the need for Internet filtering.

Internet filtering is a dangerous area for education and educators to lean upon. The false sense of security conveyed to parents and staff is clearly unwarranted. There is much Internet content to be wary of as there is legitimate information to embrace. Broadly categorizing certain subject areas as taboo is clearly censorship. Proper safeguards such as instructor approval and consent will define allowed topics to work within a restricted curriculum. Through the implementation of an Acceptable Use Policies, proper training and proper supervision, Internet filtering will successfully cease to exist. Consequently, education will interactively lead Internet research instead of being fearful of it.

Works Cited

Berry III, J. N, and E. St. Lifer. (1998). Senator McCain's phony "protection". [Online]. Library Journal, v123, 6. Available: Doc. No. A20458062

Borenstein, S. (1998, September 11). Internet filtering company says Starr report too obscene for kids; blocks it out. Knight-Ridder/ Tribune News Service p911K4400.

Golberg, B. (1999, January). "Loudoun County Library Loses Filtering Lawsuit." American Libraries pp. 14.

Marcroft, T. (1998, November). Filtering Ensures Safe Passage to the World of Online Information. Technology & Learning, 119, 52.

Technology & Learning (1998, January). More Teacher Training Urged. Pp29.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999