Fixing Internet Censorship In Schools 207
jcatcw writes "Schools and libraries are hurting students by setting up heavy-handed Web filtering. The problem goes back for years. A filter blocked the Web site of former House Majority Leader Richard Armey because it detected the word 'dick,' according to a 2001 study from the Brennan Center of Justice. The purpose of schools should be to teach students to live in a democratic society, and that means teaching critical thinking and showing students controversial Web sites, says Craig Cunningham, a professor at National-Louis University. He quoted from a National Research Council study: 'Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks ... [or] teach them to swim.' Web filtering also leads to inequities in education based on household income. Students from more affluent areas have access to the Internet at home and, often, more enlightened parents who can let them access information blocked in schools and libraries. Poorer students without home access don't have those opportunities."
bad analogy? (Score:3, Insightful)
'Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks ... [or] teach them to swim.'
I'm tired & slow today... someone please explain this analogy with respect to internet porn (which is the context from which the quote was taken). The possibilities seem endless.
The purpose is not to protect children... (Score:3, Insightful)
...it is to protect teachers and adminstrators against religious zealots.
It's completely pointless. (Score:4, Insightful)
Many kids I know nowadays have a phone with web access enabled. Why bother trying to block facebook when they can just simply browse over their cell phones?
Heck when I was in high school I had a teacher use a wireless air card to get onto youtube since the district tech staff were blocking so many websites for no reason whatsoever.
My local swimming pool... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't let children under 8 enter the pool without an adult accompanying them. and staying close by. Seems a fair enough analogy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Webfilters, a great motivator! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really want a kid to learn how computers work, put a filter between them in the internet. They'll figure out a way to circumvent it if they're smart. And if they're too stupid to break out, think of it as a your-kid filter for the internet and not an internet filter for your kid.
Everybody wins!
Re:The purpose is not to protect children... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to truly do that is to become as crazy as the zealots. Anything short of that and you will still find objections.
Fuck them, drag them into 2010. Or at least (in the case of America) remind them that they can't simultaneously chant LAND OF THE FREE and omg, censor that.
Critical thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Children aren't taught critical thinking because they might grow up to be... critical thinkers.
Unthinking, uncritical people are easier to control and/or coerce to your will.
No answer will be perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
No single solution will be perfect in a "for the children" argument.
Here is what I would do/suggest.
1) Make a sensible AUP for school computers. No Porn, etc.
2) Have sensible punishments for breaking the AUP. (No cops, no expulsions. Detention sure, suspension/parental notification, if you have to.)
3) Leave the net _wide open_ for each student.
4) Log all activity so that in the event it is suspected a student broke the AUP you can verify the infringement took place and apply a sensible punishment.
5) Break the AUP too many times and you can only use school computers under strict filters, or under direct supervision (read: someone watching over your shoulder) in addition to normal punishment.
Don't coddle. Don't expell. Don't freak out. Just teach the kids what is and isn't acceptable and let them learn how to deal with rules and sensible punishments.
Yes, this means kids might get exposed to hardcore porn from time to time. Big f'in deal. For me the net wasn't around and I saw good ol' VHS tapes. It happens whether you threaten death as a punishment or cookies as a reward. It will still happen.
But in my opinion. School is there to learn, not stifle. Teach and use the full brunt of the tools we have to do it.
Sadly, probably won't happen because little miss perfect's perfect mother will sue the school because her daughter heard that another student might have seen a naked picture on a school computer.
Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how a blog post that simply states, without evidence, that web filters lead to income-based educational inequalities is simply asserted in TFS as a fact. Also how TFS chooses to copy text directly from said blog post without using quotation marks.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kids in poorer homes probably miss out on a lot of opportunities. Are you going to legislate that away too ?
Re:So much slips past the filters... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do a search for "yiff" or "yiffing" on a filtered computer or search engine.
No. No thank you. I'd rather not.
We live in a world that promotes the Nanny state (Score:2, Insightful)
The purpose of schools should be to teach students to live in a democratic society, and that means teaching critical thinking and showing students controversial Web sites, says Craig Cunningham, a professor at National-Louis University.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/25/teachers-leave-boy-stranded-tree-school-policy/ [foxnews.com]
That is a story about a 5 year old being stranded in a tree. The teachers "watched from afar" because of a school policy. A passerby stopped to help, and now faces possible legal action. That example happens to from the UK, but there is plenty of the same sort of thing going on in the US. We are being conditioned to not to do anything without the approval and assistance of the government.
The Nanny state would not like it if people could think critically all on their own without the government there to make sure they don't hurt themselves.
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the sense that it affects what students have the ability to research, I don't think it's a stretch.
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Things are always going to be somewhat unfair so we shouldn't ever try to make them more fair."
Re:CIPA Compliance (Score:3, Insightful)
"I personally preferred not having to filter and teaching personal responsibility"
I prefer this method as well, but I also know that there is no such thing as "personal responsibility" any longer. Blame Parents, Blame Teachers, Blame the Superintendent Office, Blame Liberals, Blame Right Wing Religious Nuts.
Sue!
Doing nothing has its problems as does doing something. And I'm not sure which is actually worse (given the status quo).
As long as there is a lawyer around, and money to be had, and someone to take offense at something, there is going to be problems. And, if you've been in Educational Technology, you'll know I am completely accurate.
One of the things CIPA does, is require certain baseline filtering, which lawyers cannot sue the district over. It is set by law, protecting the districts from random lawsuits by people who want to promote their own agenda.
The pool analogy is flawed (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you DO teach the kids to swim, that doesn't necessarily mean its safe to allow young kids to swim without supervision.