Filtering Dilemma
I am a primary decision maker for web content filtering in a school. We continually see comments with the groans, and the sighs about schools who "over filter" or block entire sites. We also hear the frequent "they don't get it!" label slapped onto the decision makers.
I'd like to point out something of interest. Not one of those who sigh or are critical of filtering decisions has their job on the line should Johnny access inappropriate content. Would those who are frustrated sit beside me in court or defend me in the court of public opinion? They certainly would not have to sit in the principal's office and explain to the sobbing mother who is clutching her book of faith.
For those who can't believe that YouTube is blocked, have you approached the Superintendent and volunteered to assume liability for the District should a student, parent, or family launch a lawsuit? As it stands today, many AUPs identify the Technology Coordinator, Technology Director, or Superintendent as the individual responsible for safeguarding students.
I have not yet read about the Instructional Technology Coach, the edublogger, the Ed. Tech consultant stepping up to assume responsibility and liability. It's sad but we live in a litigious society.
You see, I'm charged with making reasonable efforts to keep out inappropriate content. Is allowing YouTube reasonable? Is it reasonable to believe that a student browsing or searching YouTube will come across content that is inappropriate. So long as the law and the policy charge me with making reasonable efforts to keep out the inappropriate, YouTube and other services that allow inappropriate content will likely be on the black list.
Yes, we should use "accidental" access to inappropriate content as learning experiences. They should be viewed as an opportunity to learn to safely navigate the web. In reality, what happens is the parents call the office and the filtering policies, procedures, and decisions are challenged. "But I thought we had a filter??" "Why are we paying thousands of dollars for a filter if it doesn't keep out the bad stuff?"
In an effort to make this post part of the solution and not merely a rant, let's not continually bash the filtering decision makers. Rather, let's come together as a learning community and popularize those sites that only allow appropriate content. TeacherTube is a fine example. TeacherTube allows the filtering folks to safely open up the world of online video. Where's eduFlickr???
I know, I know... the walled garden is not the WORLD WIDE WEB.
Secondly, let's work with legislators to make sure that schools have a means to safely access Internet resources without having a single individual have to put his/her job and reputation on the line. Perhaps Scott can put a legal spin on this. What is my liability as the Technology Director should a student access inappropriate content? How can I act in a manner that is reasonable and prudent and still allow access to the dynamic Internet?
I'm the one sitting between the rock (filter) and the hard place (web) and being criticized by many. HELP!
Tags:
