+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
vBCms Comments Thread, Article: To Block or Not to Block, that isnít the question! (but is a point for discussion) in ; You can view the page at http://www.edugeek.net/content.php?r...-the-question!...
  1. #1

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Thank Post
    Thanked 1,814 Times in 1,126 Posts
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Article: To Block or Not to Block, that isnít the question!

  2. #2

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Thank Post
    Thanked 2,729 Times in 2,308 Posts
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power
    Many good points but as always there are two sides to every story:
    Off the top of my head:
    2) That's fine as long as you do not still try to blame your tech staff when little Jonny finds dodgey stuff because of something your tech staff warned you about. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    5) But they do
    22) yay, teach, pleeeeessssseeeee!!!!

    There are lots of great points there, it's ashame that 'common' sense must be codified and indexed but there it is. The other big takeaway that was magically not included is that you can't take responsibility off the tech staff and still blame them if stuff goes wrong. The cake is a LIE!

  3. Thanks to SYNACK from:

    GrumbleDook (24th August 2012)

  4. #3

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Thank Post
    Thanked 1,062 Times in 817 Posts
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power
    I started by typing a huge reply to this, realising I was going off on rather a large tangent.
    I think it would require such a change of the way we do things - there are plenty of schools already using education, teaching responsibility, rather than blocking everything in sight. We, as a country probably feel that's how we work as opposed to China being quite a good example but even now, day by day the average internet user might feel slightly more walled in. Those walls, we're told, are there for our own protection.
    But can you define the best protection? Putting a bigger bumper on the front of your car, or being taught to drive responsibly? Or a mixture of both?
    The key thing is "just in case". I suspect the majority of schools would rather be safe than sorry for good reason, and most are acting on a "What If". Policies used throughout will no doubt mirror that.
    "Don't add students, ex or current, to your social media contacts/friends lists" because "what if you get accused of something". That accusation can have a hell of a lot of bad consequences for the individuals and the school.
    It's also worth noting the above post is American so it would probably be worth wondering if some of the points would translate. Especially ones like point 19 (very American) and point 7, particularly "The number of reported incidents in the news of this occurring is zero".
    I did originally go on about how the media is so corrupted, and how official and governmental organisations are also so (apparently) corrupted, how could anyone actually know what is actually going on? Try being judge and jury on that
    I sit quite firmly in the camp of making sure people do not have access to things that would not be in the best interests of school work. There's damn obvious reasons why. Plus, it's pretty much what we're used to, and used to being told that's how we should operate. Despite that, there's a lot of truth above about the evilisation of things like Facebook and Twitter. Again there's a lot of what ifs you could apply to it all.
    I could probably summarise most of it very easily in single words.
    What If.

  5. #4
    Voodoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Thank Post
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    We used to have a network in the early 2000's that was pretty much open and unrestricted. Everyone (staff and pupils) was told and expected to behave responsibly and professionally. It didn't work and led to a culture of misuse.

    Restrictions eventually had to be introduced, and although we used Becta and accepted good business practice as a guide, we are now seen as being oppressive...despite the fact that the misuse was brought under control, and we don't have anything particularly draconian in place.

    We are now being pushed from all angles to return to the "free for all" days.

    Having seen both sides of the coin, I would say that most of the points being made above are falsehoods, and I the use of our computer systems to degenerate back to the "culture of misuse" days.

    How can Senior Management and organisations achieve the most basic of IT Compliancy if they don't have good control over what's going on their network or on the internet? I think they need tools like filtering to help them achieve that...or some extraordinary policing method that I think we'd all be keen to hear of...I'm definitely all ears for that!

  6. #5
    mthomas08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Thank Post
    Thanked 170 Times in 148 Posts
    Rep Power
    Like others I question a lot here and like others we too had limited filtering back in the day. This was at a time when no one knew what the internet was, let alone all what you could access. Now everyone knows what the internet is and what you can get online.
    5. Sadly its not 5% who abuse it, it is much higher. When proxy sites are detected they spread quicker than virus's and within a day its spread to 30 kids.
    6. No you can never promise 100% safety but you have to do your best to protect children, like it or not you can educate them all you want but even adults can do "silly" things on the likes of Facebook. There is a reason why kids require parent permission, because they are simply not old enough to understand no matter how educated they are.
    7. The online predators in todays world is a real and serious threat, having dealt with sensitive cases it is actually happening.
    9. You have to expect the worst, which is why there is legal requirements on fire exits and alarms. You can't simply believe all the students will be safe regardless.
    10. Having been there before with "loosening up" the abuse that was occurring was paramount.
    13. Walled Garden is actually a good idea, it allows students to use the internet for what they need to: An Education resource, not sitting on facebook chatting to their friends about the weekend.
    14. Again we have had incidents involving staff and facebook and outside people witnessed something they shouldnt have. We strongly advise staff not to be friends with students, some of what you mentioned are on a personal level.
    17. It is easy to supervise a group of kids in a lesson environment compared to watching what each student has on the screen. If they use a book its easy to tell when they are page turning but on the internet its easy to hide several pages and go off topic.

    Students should be educated in why the filtering systems exist. Would you give students administrator access to your whole network?

    They should be educated in the dangers of the internet, they still will not listen or care about such things. They are being given more sex education especially in protection, yet underage unprotected sex is on the rise. Even with all this education, as much as you can educate them the dangers of e.g Facebook - they will still have an account. They will still post a picture they shouldnt, they will still add other kids as their friends even though it will cause problems. Maturity is a big part of life and under 16s still have much to learn.

  7. #6

    Ephelyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Cheshire, England
    Thank Post
    Thanked 332 Times in 204 Posts
    Rep Power
    I agree with @GrumbleDook that a lot of this does sound like a shout-out for senior leaders to take more responsibility, but I do think it's also shot through with the type of libertarian ethos that works well in the right environment, but without those "controlled conditions" as it were, you can still run into problems. The other issue that I take with a lot of publications of this nature is the potential progression from what's written to, in some leaders' minds, the view that when a technologist "blocks" or advises against something, they need to be put in their place as they couldn't possibly have a full picture of the situation. I believe that's just as negative as saying a technologist should have the final say-so on all IT-related matters with no moderation whatsoever.

    But my responses to each point would be:

    1) Absolutely. The Head and the Governors should have oversight of every "domain" of knowledge/activity within the school, and they must always retain the power of veto. Just as long as we're not confusing "oversight" with "taking the credit for other people's work".
    2) Sorry, no. This technology always brings with it its own concerns (and laws), which don't outweigh the overall core purpose of the school - to educate children - but they may outweigh individual avenues of pedagogical practice. I also tend to find that the person with the "bigger picture" view of any IT-related issue in a school is more often than not the most senior IT person, rather than the most senior teacher. This would be different if we had leadership teams that didn't consist almost entirely of teachers (unlike in every other sector), but we don't. Balance is necessary in all things - my response to an Answers.com question here explains more of my view on this one. Ultimately, "educational technology" is just that: a fusion of technology and pedagogy. Likewise, the senior technologists and senior educators should ideally make decisions about it in partnership. There's no need to be so divisive; the technologist needs to remember that they're not the overall boss, while the Head needs to remember that they appointed an expert for a reason (right?).
    3) Quite right - the issue is always with how the technology could be used. Just be sure you've thought of everything in that regard; oh look, you did actually appoint a technological expert within your ranks, didn't you? (You did, right?) Maybe what you call scare-mongering is the same thing your parents were doing when they advised you not to engage in X illegal/dangerous activity - and they were right, weren't they? (Trying not to stray into the realms of Transactional Analysis here...)
    4) I'd have to disagree with this as it's the same kind of attitude that's led to there being no specific guidance available on e.g. how to assess risk arising through the use of technology. Sometimes the gadgets bring with them nothing fundamentally new; sometimes the possibilities are entirely new; or (most of the time) it's just a much faster and more private way of doing the same thing - which DOES warrant a rethink if you ask me.
    5) Because of what the 5% might do; quite often this technology can bring with it consequences that are significant, immediate and permanent - to the extent that we really do need to think "safety first" a lot of the time I'm afraid. In fact, various laws will often oblige us to do just that. Also, I agree with @mthomas08 that, statistically speaking, YMMV. Finally, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of ethos here; we are not "penalising" the 95% in respect of the 5%, we are "protecting" the 95% from the 5%. This is based on a core principle that we often see in life: It Only Takes One™. One child, one time. Having actually BEEN that One on occasion in my youth (as quite a lot of younger technologists have), I'm very aware of this fact. Then, once you grow up, your approach to security tends to end up as "not on my watch". Is that evil?
    6) In spite of the above, this is a very good point and we must be sure not to get overzealous with our safety - just so long as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. My problem with Scott's points is that they seem to be veering dangerously close to advocating precisely that.
    7) The key word here is "reported". Also, on the subject of technology, grooming can occur in other ways; myself, I was one of the teenagers who was effectively "groomed" online by older hackers to misuse the school IT facilities, encouraged to find ways around restrictions, imbued with a rather sinister culture of "for the challenge" and "only playing for sport" that stands upon the edge of a knife. It took me a long time to get over that, and I certainly didn't report it.
    8) I'm afraid in England we do have plenty of legal principles and precedents that demand the approach of seeking to eliminate the risk first, mitigate second. If you disagree with that ethos, then you need to look at "improving" the legal landscape FIRST, BEFORE you implement a new ideology. Trying to do it the other way around will end in tears (looking at you, Ofsted).
    9) That's true, but you'll always get the ones who will do what they want anyway, regardless of what you expect of them. And I'm really not interested in all these arguments suggesting that that's a myth - it's not. Some people - perhaps even most - you can save. Others, you just have to contain. The restrictions we put into place are precisely for this purpose: containing those who will not be guided. Again, having been one of those myself and having seen a fair few others (the 5%), I'm not blind to their existence and I'm sure as heck not letting them compromise the system that provides such a benefit to the remaining 95%. Doesn't sound so silly now, does it?
    10) Very often not true - it's just that the problems are hidden. Some Americans tried this approach with the geodesic dome communes decades ago; what they found was that the control element was still going on unseen (because, for the last time, it's human nature), but the damage was far less visible, often because (in the interest of "not expecting people to be bad") no-one was looking for it.
    11) Agreed 100%.
    12) Agreed again, as long as this term "overzealous" is defined properly.
    13) Assuming this is in reference to taking a "whitelist" rather than a "blacklist" approach to the Internet, agreed again.
    14) I think the interpretation here is too literal - "friendship" on Facebook is not the same as "friendship" in real life and this should be acknowledged. I don't believe it's appropriate for teachers and pupils to be "friends" while the pupils are still in school, but after that I don't see a problem.
    15) Agreed that the first response should be "How can we make this work?", just so long as it's accepted from the outset that there might not be a realistic answer. Scott recognises the potential to be overzealous with the "blocking first" principle; I would ask him to recognise that it's also possible to be overzealous with the "educating first" principle. Again - balance.
    16) Absolutely - but do also remember that there ARE other needs in any modern organisation too, and - oh look - you employ people to think about those, don't you? So stop ignoring them every time their answer (based on their measured professional opinion) isn't quite what you wanted for your latest pedagogical idea. They are probably just thinking more broadly than you; one key component of broader thinking in technology management is to put "what you want to achieve" in a box and add it to all the other factors, not place it on some high altar and have all the other factors worshipping it. If your technologist perceives that you're doing the latter, they will probably move to block it (assuming you can't be dissuaded) as they know where this is going. Arrogance? Experience.
    17) Agreed in principle, but I'm afraid we do see some instances where staff actually aren't acting responsibly. Some of these were highlighted at an e-safety conference I attended last November.
    18) Absolutely true. Ideally procedures should always be simple to navigate.
    19) Again, that's a worry and a good point.
    20) Agreed again.
    21) Absolutely agreed, but then, if you want to use mobile phones in lessons while telling the children they shouldn't cyberbully - doesn't that sound like the kind of policy you can't enforce? Especially when you consider that mitigation after the fact may be less effective here than you think. If you truly believe in this principle, try analysing all your current technological principles and practices to see whether they would fit it.
    22) Quite a lot of people actually. School's good too, but please stop seeing yourselves as the "last bastion" in this cause; the rest of us are laughing at you.
    23) To be honest, the negative reaction Scott is implying here is the same one I feel when I watch those "hate piracy" adverts in cinemas - but I'd still admit that, were it not for the legal implications, I'd probably download music every now and then from artists who I know (or believe?) get enough sales. "Apprehension of consequences" is not in principle an ugly way of keeping society working - it's just how it gets used in practice that can be a problem (sound familiar?).
    24) As long as you do so without ignoring those other arguments/concerns; without disrespecting them and their supporters; without believing your own goal or concern must always be "better"; without the arrogance to believe that there will always be a way to get what you want; and without forgetting that you might just learn something along the way. Just as Scott says it's difficult to understand the positive sides of technology without being familiar with it, it's difficult to understand its negative sides without being familiar with it too. But again, oh look, you did appoint somebody for that, didn't you?
    25) Oh, come on - they've plenty of time, you know! There are many, many aspects of adult life that we "block out" for children (including teenagers up to 18) because they're not ready for it yet. Amazing how they don't all flounder the instant they're exposed to it - this is where the practice of introducing little bits of it gradually comes in.
    26) No, it's not. It always, always SHOULD be, but that doesn't mean it is. Ultimately you may remove a risk by educating about risks, but what about the trail of devastation you might be leaving behind you - are you even thinking about that? Finally, we've seen throughout history what happens when it's left to one person to make the decision on things like this. A leader must lead, yes, but a leader who leads without proper regard for ALL their stakeholders is called a dictator. And as far as technology leadership is concerned, the only thing worse than a dictator is an uninformed dictator.

    As for the Bonus Point, my response is: it might look as if it's working for now, but Gorbachev had the same thought back in the 80s.
    Last edited by Ephelyon; 13th January 2013 at 11:05 PM.

  8. Thanks to Ephelyon from:

    SYNACK (13th January 2013)

  9. #7
    Watty08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Thank Post
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    Sorry for joining this late on but I was just having a quick search to see how everyone adapted their filtering to match their school.
    One point not really mention on with filtering is although at a fundamental level your putting policies in place to protect the network and learning time. You are also put these in pace to safeguard both STAFF and students. When questions are raised about safe guarding you know you have done your part by stopping staff access to sites such as Facebook in school.
    I know I can safely say if member of time was questioned on their usage in work, they were not on such sites during work time.

+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

    By ChrisLinaker in forum Network and Classroom Management
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12th September 2012, 06:38 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11th July 2008, 09:45 AM
  3. To Go Or Not To Go - That Is My Dilema
    By mattx in forum General Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 19th February 2008, 10:32 PM
  4. To VOIP or not to VOIP, that is the question
    By localzuk in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11th December 2006, 10:16 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 15th September 2006, 09:01 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts