Re: [LM_NET] LM-Net question on filtering

[Nancy Willard <nwillard@CSRIU.ORG>]

Hilary sent this message to me. So I am also responding to the list. Sorry.
I try to respond to the messages posted to this list that I have some
expertise in (or at least an opinion ;-)).

> Ms. Willard,

Ya'll can call me Nancy. Ms. Willard always sounds like my mother.

> I posted this on LM-Net earlier today.  Another member suggested I
> forward it to you for your opinion.
> 
> I have a couple of questions regarding web filtering.  Our district
> (correctly) has asked the media specialists (degreed librarians) to be
> the gatekeepers for the web filter.

Yeah, rah. In my presentations on this issue I say the following: ·
Library media and curriculum staff should have primary authority for
decisions related to selection of filtering categories to be blocked. They
are the districtıs most highly trained professionals on issues related to
the appropriateness of materials for students.

Each media specialist has the only
> unblocked computer in the building to peruse sites.  If a site is
> blocked, we vote on
> whether we should open it and if that is our decision someone in the
> technology department will make it available.  If a site is unblocked
> and should be blocked, same process.

Here is a process problem related to time. If a teacher has developed a
lesson at home at night and comes to school to find a key site blocked and
needs that site that day, this process is too slow. Or consider when the
"Macaca" video on YouTube came out and was in the news. Every political
science teacher in the country should have had immediate access to YouTube
to have students view the video and discuss the implications. You are going
to lost "teachable moments" with this process.

This approach is appropriate for total unblocking - but not for immediate
overrides which are very important.

For a more effective process, a ground rule needs to be in place: Students
are using the Internet in school only for educational purposes, defined as:
Class assignments. Extra credit projects. High quality teacher-selected
work-completion ³reward² activities. Approved independent research. To
achieve this standard, schools need to provide professional and curriculum
development and establish clear expectations for teachers. If you are
allowing your students to use computers, this will only occur when you have
a lesson plan, plus work completion projects. I still hear from librarians
and computer lab coordinators who complain that teachers bring their
students to the lab and expect the librarian or lab coordinator to make sure
the students do not engage in misuse, when there is no effective lesson
plan. This has to stop.

So presuming that the "educational purpose" expectation is clearly in place,
then there should be a rapid process by which a teacher (who is a
professional) can request a rapid override from either the librarian or
technical services department if that teacher has reviewed the site and can
enunciate the educational purpose for which access is needed. By rapid, I
mean within 15 - 20 minutes. So if a teacher comes to school and has worked
on the lesson the previous night that teacher can quickly check the links
and if one is blocked achieve an override by the start of first period.

But the other people who need IMMEDIATE override authority to look at any
material anywhere online are your safe school personnel. If a student comes
to a counselor, principal, or school resource officer and reports that he or
she saw something posted online by another student that raised concerns,
these safe schools folks are going to be totally incapable of finding this
material without that student's guidance. So either these folks need to know
how to override and have the authority to do so - or there must be a
technical services personnel who can accomplish an override on the computer
in their office IMMEDIATELY! Both a Columbine shooter and the Red Lake
shooter had posted material online that raised significant concerns.

> Over the summer, the tech department decided to block the download of
> all executable files, mp3 downloads and wav downloads.  As you can
> imagine the music, band and many elementary teachers want their songs
> back.  We are getting 2-3 sites every couple of days from teachers
> asking to have them unblocked.  Most requests are mp3 for songs.  To me,
> the tech dept has created this problem and dumped it on the media
> specialists.  I understand that they don't want staff and students
> downloading music or programs because that might  mess up the computer
> but I
> contend they shouldn't be.

All of these executable files can cause significant concerns with bandwidth
and security. I think you need more information and a better strategic plan.
Who is asking for what? What is the educational purpose? What are the
security and bandwidth concerns? If your staff want the MP3s for "recess"
activities, this is not something that should be supported. But if there are
educational uses that are now being restricted, then some changes need to be
made. 

> As I read CIPA, we should be blocking "visual depictions that are
> obscene, and child pornography as well as visual depictions that are
> 'harmful to minors'."  Executable files, mp3 and wav files don't fall
> into that category.  None of these is visual.  (I can see where they
> could be but for the most part they aren't.)
 
:-) Someone who read the statute. I have had tech directors tell me that
they have to block access to MySpace because of CIPA. Not so.

All CIPA requires is the use of a technology protection measure (and I was
told by a FCC staff person that this does not necessarily mean filtering) to
protect against what is essentially obscene materials. There is no legal
requirement to seek to restrict access to anything else. However, as a first
line of defense, it is reasonable to seek to block access to other sites in
categories that are clearly not educational or when there are
security/bandwidth concerns - as long as there is the ability to achieve a
prompt override if a site is needed for an educational purpose.

As for access to obscene material, what I say in my presentations is that if
you district is truly reliant on filtering to prevent students from
intentionally accessing this kind of material, then this is clear proof that
your educational use standards, supervision, and monitoring are totally
deficient! 

> Also, is there anything to the fact that I personally can't open up a
> site for a student or staff member to use immediately (short of putting
> them on a totally unblocked computer away from the rest of the class in
> my office).  Days can go by before a site might be opened.  As I read
> CIPA, I should have the
> ability to open it for a student or teacher to use if I deem it
> acceptable.  Maybe
> I am wrong.

You are totally correct. You should have the ability to provide an immediate
override. Let's look at the language from the Supreme Court decision on
CIPA. This was in the case brought by the ALA related to public libraries.
And a major focus of that case was on adult access, as will be evident in
the statements. Evidence was introduced about the concerns of overblocking,
but also on how easily filters could be overridden.

Following a discussion on the concerns of overblocking, the lead Rehnquist
opinion stated: "Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents
constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease
with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron
encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at
least in the case of adults) disable the filter."

Kennedy concurring opinion: "If, on the request of an adult user, a
librarian will un-block filtered material or disable the Internet software
filter without significant delay, there is little to this case. The
Government represents this is indeed the fact.

So essentially THE REASON that CIPA was held to be constitutional, despite
concerns of overblocking, WAS the evidence that the filter could be rapidly
overridden to provide access.

Note also the terms "ease with which," "only need ask," and "without
significant delay." Teachers and librarians are educational professionals.
You have much greater insight into the appropriateness of sites for students
than any of the low-level techies working for the filtering companies. Duh!

The only major problem is those teachers who do not understand the need to
focus on educational use. I did have a conversation with a teacher once who
was complaining that the tech department had blocked all of the games her
children liked to play. In questioning her further, I found no evidence that
these games were at all educational. She was just using the Internet for
"recess" activities. So set up a system to achieve accountability. When
someone requests an override it must be in writing and the purpose for
access must be noted.

> Can anyone confirm this or point me to someone who can answer my
> concerns?  It appears that the tech dept wants to stop kids and adults
> from doing things and the media specialists are trying to open up as
> much as possible.
> 
This is a challenge that is being faced in schools throughout the country.
My opinion is that primary reliance on filtering must shift to greater
reliance on technical monitoring - on top of the strong focus on educational
use and supervision expectations.

The other problem is all of the Web 2.0 interactive technologies which
require more sophisticated management.

> Part of our problem (a huge problem) is that we can't distinguish any
> levels of use.  A teacher is just as blocked from sites (or as open to
> sites) as the average kindergartener who sits at a computer screen.
> What is appropriate for a high school student may not be appropriate for
> a first grader and yet the high schooler is blocked from sites because a
> first grader might stumble upon it.  The tech dept says they can't
> differentiate among the users.  Everyone district-wide sees the same
> internet unless a particular computer is unblocked (like the one in my
> office).

Which is why you need to establish rapid override. In my opinion, the
primary protection approach for elementary students should be white-listing
of sites and carefully controlled open searches.

Another problem is the viewpoint discrimination involved in these products.
Do a check to see if you can access support and information sites addressing
sexual orientation issues or non-traditional religion. These are two areas
where the filters are frequently blocking based on viewpoint discrimination.
In most cases, the filter itself has combined perfectly acceptable sites in
the same category as sites that are definitely of concern. For example,
blocking access to GLSEN and GLAAD in the same category as sexual technique
and multiple partner relationships or WICCA in the same category as cults.

And then there is the one major filtering company with close corporate
relations with the American Family Association - a radical right wing
religious organization. <sigh>

> Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  I am gearing
> up for a meeting with the head of technology and want to be as
> well-versed on CIPA and web filtering (or more so) than he is.
> 
I hope this helps. I clearly need to write an article on this - and will try
to do so shortly.

Nancy

> Thank you so much,
> 
> Hilary L. Grant
> Media Specialist/US History
> Highland Middle School
> 305 N. John Street
> Highland, MI  48357
> granth@huronvalley.k12.mi.us
> 248-684-8007

-- 
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
http://cyberbully.org
http://cyber-safe-kids.com
nwillard@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)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
 3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
 * LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------