Our Duty to Protect through Education

Posted on | November 22, 2007 | 5 Comments

The outline by Gordon McKinlay of his views on issues around filtering and domain-blocking in schools is, I believe, a fair and accurate description of the thinking by many wholly sincere and thoughtful people about the rationale for such practices. However, I think this kind of rationale misses out on one of the critical issues around this difficult question: how do we teach our young people to make responsible use of the web tools and resources at their disposal if we are completely unable to access them in school? It would be naive to assume that our children, when out of school, do not have access to all the websites that we block as a matter of course when they are in school. Do we, as educators, not have a fundamental responsibility, a duty indeed, to teach our young people how to thrive and survive in the real world in which they live?

I think, rather than dealing with the issue responsibly, we are in fact running away from the problem by excessive filtering and domain-blocking. It is too easy for teachers, aided by those who decide that blocking content is a reasonable action to take, to shirk our responsibilities as educators of the young in this critical area.

Aside from the key issues of safety and protection, of course, there is the other question of teachers’ professional judgement. We do not currently search teachers’ bags each morning to ensure that they are not bringing ‘unsuitable’ materials into the classroom for use with students. Rather, we trust to their professionalism and to their sense of responsibility to use appropriate resources in their teaching. Why then do we choose not to trust their judgement in relation to those Web-based materials they might choose to use? Why does the Web cause us to engage in double standards here?

Of course, one of the key issues to be addressed is the fact that many teachers simply do not have the knowledge or experience of the Web to be able to take on this mentoring role in relation to the dangers of the online world. But the failings of such teachers should not be used as an excuse to restrict the professional judgement of those in the profession who are able to take such issues seriously and who do have the knowledge to deal with the issues maturely and responsibly. Teachers are fine dealing with the dangers of crossing busy roads, the dangers of talking to strangers, the dangers of deep water, railway lines…..and so on. We do not teach children to avoid being run over by a bus by telling them never to cross a road! Why then do we choose to neglect such an obvious and real danger to our children by sidestepping the need to teach responsible use of the Web in this way? And if there are teachers who are unable to undertake this task, they should either be given the necessary training they require, or they should perhaps not be in teaching today at all.

I’m afraid I also feel the need to take to task Gordon’s view on Glow in relation to this debate. There is nothing in the Glow specification that should allow it to be set up as some kind of walled garden – indeed, it was specifically designed not to be such. The notion of content sitting ‘inside’ Glow is not a simple concept, since Glow, through federated authentication tools such as Shibboleth, will enable content from outwith the immediate system to be made fully available to Scottish schools, where they choose to do so. In any case, as a web service (which, at heart, is what Glow is), there should be nothing in principle to stop Glow users accessing content from wherever they wish across the Web. Whatever the principle, of course, the practice is dependent on the choices made in regard to ’safe’ use of the Web by our local authorities.

I sincerely hope that this is a debate that is not allowed to slide into hostile claim and counter-claim – it is too important for that. Talk of ‘men in grey suits’ by those who denigrate current policies is, apart from being sexist, really not very helpful, and in this I agree with Gordon. But Gordon and others do need to tell us how schools can successfully educate our young people for the lives they are already living when we establish school as a wholly sanitized version of the big bad world out there.

Technorati Tags: we safety, filtering, domain blocking, glow

Category: duty, education, glow, learning, principle, safety, schooling, security, teaching

Comments

5 Responses to “Our Duty to Protect through Education”

Robert Jones
November 22nd, 2007 @ 7:56 pm

I agree with you in all respects here John, but I doubt that we will achieve anything by explaining how unreasonable and detrimental the current situation is. We’ve been doing it for years now, and I haven’t noticed anyone rushing to remove filters.

The problem is systemic. The people who have the real power to decide whether or not to filter Internet access are not judged on the educational performance of the young people of Scotland. They are judged on whether or not porn appears on computer screens in classrooms. How can we expect them to agree to the removal of filters?

Given that the problem is systemic, the only way forward is to change the system. Make pupils and teachers responsible for what appears on computer screens in classes. Do it very explicitly. Make it absolutely clear that the IT team are not responsible. Then maybe we can discuss this issue more fruitfully.
Gordon McKinlay
November 22nd, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

Thanks John for your response. I didn’t get into my very real sense that we need to educate children and young people to behave safely. I have talked about that before. In this case I was reflecting some of the very real areas of concern that we face if we were to leave the gates, doors and windows wide open. Very few folk now would say that physical school security systems are a bad thing. They tend to keep inappropriate people from wandering into school. That doesn’t mean we don’t teach the kids what to do when approached by strangers on the way to and from school. We just need to reflect deeply on the same issues when we thing about Internet safety and kids in school.

As far as GLOW is concerned, you may say that it is not a walled garden for lots of very good reasons but it does allow chat in a safe place, it does allow instant messaging safely, etc. Most importantly from where I am sitting, our IT department is happy to play ball!

An important debate that we probably need a pint in our hands to debate properly
John Connell
November 22nd, 2007 @ 8:46 pm

That sounds like a good idea, Gordon (the pint, I mean) – and you are, of course, absolutely right about the safe use of chat, sms, etc within Glow. The analogy about strangers and kids is an appropriate one. I guess I get the feeling that, for too many in our schools, the strangers and dangers that lurk on the internet are not fully understood, and so the response is to hide it away and ignore it. As i say in my post, it is our teachers, firstly, who need to be educated in this so that the issues can be dealt with openly and honestly with our kids in school. But those who run our networks need to play a part too, and simply banning comprehensively many sites that could be (and are) put to good use by knowledeable teachers is not the answer.

i wonder if our friends at LTS might be persuaded to sponsor and organize a day-long conference to allow Scottish education to do what it is best at: talking through issues and coming to some kind of consensus for us all to try to live with. What do you think?
John Connell
November 22nd, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

Robert – interesting perspective! I think you’re right that the issue is a systemic one. If systems have to change, they like it to be planned and programmed – what we need is a step-by-step process that details how we get from where we are to where we ought to be.

I’m increasingly attracted by the idea of a conference to enable open discussion of the issue from all sides and all points of view. Maybe Scotland could show others the way here.
Robert Jones
November 22nd, 2007 @ 10:09 pm

Quite right John – we need a plan! BTW, I came across a link to Psiphon a minute or two ago – looks like the days of filtered Internet access may be over soon whether anyone likes it or not.