sippo Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 This is an interesting one. A lot of students would probably have completely unfiltered internet at home. Today we had some sixth formers come in and ask why our internet was filtered when other colleges aren't. As a school we have to 'safeguard' all our staff and students. Some say that it should be down to the individual to take responsibility. With 3g/4g signals, there is nothing stopping students browsing the internet on their devices. What are everyones thoughts? As times move on, does web filtering become less stringent, or do you think web filtering in schools will always be about?
fairm010 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Hmm interesting you bring this up as our head has been hinting recently that he'd like to open up YouTube / Twitter etc and teach the kids the skills to be safe online.
tommej Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I often think the web filtering is more to keep the kids on track than 'safe'. 3
Chuckster Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 We're slowly devolving our stringent filtering system and have in the past opened up sites to YouTube, Twitter and the like. Staff have unfiltered access.
Pyroman Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) You obviously have to have some degree of filtering to avoid kids accessing the darker bits of the internet. Last thing you want in schools is kids e-mail around beheading videos, p0rn etc. You could have graduated filtering where you're given more access as you progress through school or show you can be trusted but i think there's always got to be a certain level of filtering. Yes kids have unfiltered internet at home but that's on the parents to filter/monitor. Just because kids can access what they want on their personal devices in their bedrooms/homes doesn't mean that should be the norm and have the same level of access in schools. As far as Youtube and Twitter goes i'm not sure. YEs we should be teaching kids about social networks and their uses and risks but does that mean they always need access to them? You could unblock it for certain lessons for educations sake but then block it again for general use Edited January 30, 2015 by Pyroman 1
Oaktech Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I often think the web filtering is more to keep the kids on track than 'safe'. Totally this... there are often so many ways around filtering, and there are so many inappropriate things ping up in totally legitimate searches that the filtering is less a safeguarding thing and more to stop them playing mindless flash games and spending their time on Facebook/Asos. I think that the effect gets more pronounced the older the kids get.
rich_tech Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) I get both sides of the education of kids to be safe online/ why it has to have filtering for e-safety argument with this and I tend to sit on the fence a bit with this and have an overview of it, I do think it is a little bit pointless when they can access what they like on their personal devices on 3/4g these days, but I understand the need for safeguarding/child protection online is mostly down to legal requirements and matters. Though I could be wrong as I am no expert on any of these matters I will say here. My understanding of this whole issue though was that things tend to largely revolve around the dreaded L word of liability these days from what I have seen, in that "If its done on a school computer, over the schools internet" it brings the school into matters of disrepute, whereas if little Jonny is doing something on a personal device, then that's their own property essentially which the school has no real control over (confiscation perhaps in some places). Liability does get overlooked a fair bit I think in these matters. (Not saying that any filtering solution is perfect either and cannot be bypassed or gotten around if the person is determined enough!) Edited January 30, 2015 by rich_tech
pcstru Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 We have a duty of care to our students (and our staff) to provide services and equipment which is safe and appropriate for use. I don't think it is possible to argue that the internet does not contain material that would be illegal, age inappropriate or just inappropriate. Giving students access to an unfiltered internet on the basis that it is their responsibility not to look at this material would be like putting them in a room full of power tools and saying it is their responsibility not to use them the tools in ways that might be dangerous. That would not be properly exercising our duty of care and any injury would likely result in someone being prosecuted for negligence. This isn't just a liability issue, the primary interest is the safety and well-being of students (and staff!). If we don't do that, then we may find we are financially liable for damages and the reputation of school is damaged in addition to the damage to individuals. IMO filtering will always be a compromise. Some inappropriate stuff will get through and some legitimate content will be blocked. I don't see any real alternative to that, No filtering at all would be ... extremely unwise. 2
caffrey Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 The parents get quite shouty here if their child has seen something inappropriate online, pretty much the reason why youtube is blocked here. We are here at the end of the day to protect the wellbeing of the students.
tommej Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) The parents get quite shouty here if their child has seen something inappropriate online, pretty much the reason why youtube is blocked here. We are here at the end of the day to protect the wellbeing of the students. I think I would almost prefer if they were doing those things in school, getting caught and being educated (heh) appropriately in response, rather than in private on their personal devices and potentially getting into trouble down the line! Having said that I know O2 have some filtering enabled until you remove it (usually with a small debit card test charge) and home internet seems to be heading in this direction too. It's interesting really. Lets wrap the kids in cotton wool and when they do eventually run into these things they wont have a clue what to do! Edited January 30, 2015 by tommej
DevilsAdvocate Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I often think the web filtering is more to keep the kids on track than 'safe'. Agreed. We often have teachers coming to us asking for a site to be blocked because little Jimmy won't stay on track in lesson.
3s-gtech Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Some of the blocks provided do also serve to stop our servers getting filled with torrents and malware, so there's another side too.
Michael Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 It is an interesting question - schools have had filtering for years, yet most homes probably don't implement any form of filtering. You could argue the Government are now looking at this and encouraging ISPs to block all adult content by default, unless the customer requests otherwise. I personally think this can only be a good thing, but and it's a big but, I can see down the line we may end up with the great Firewall of the UK as other types of categories are blocked by default. I presume at some point the Government will also roll this out to phone providers, seeing as there's a big push on 3G, 4G and eventually 5G and the fact more younger people using mobile devices rather than PCs. Overall I think something is better than nothing - even if something does get through, the probability was reduced due to the filtering doing its job. It's too late now, but I think when the internet was invented and domain extensions grew every year, there was a lot of focus on websites with their country domain extension, such as .co.uk rather than what content the website was hosting. I think if domain extensions were more so based on the content of the website, such as .pron then the internet would be easier/safer to police, but who owns the internet?
IrritableTech Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I doubt there is any school or college that has 'unfiltered' internet. At the very least ISPs are likely to block the IWF list of really horrible stuff and are likely to insist on a minimum additional level of protection. After which, there are degrees of filtering. Filtering should be age appropriate but will also depend on the schools willingness to monitor and educate. After years of being with providers who did little monitoring, but blocked anything even remotely questionable many schools are now increasing their staff and student knowledge of good internet etiquette, how to spot dangers, and who to speak to if there is a problem. Monitoring is increasing, where filtering is becoming less strict. The latest Ofsted guidance reflects this trend and recognizes that it generally provides better levels of safeguarding and allows students to achieve more. The other thing to consider here is that Ofsted also want to see evidence of where eSafeguarding matters go beyond the school gate. How does the school educate and prepare parents and learners in their own home for a safe internet experience. Monitoring the internet is far more important than over blocking. Partly to ensure students are on track, but much more importantly to ensure the school can intervene if there is a safeguarding or child protection concern. Karl Rivers wrote an interesting blog a little while ago with some thoughts on his findings in schools in Denmark who take a very different approach. The British obsession with web filtering - ClassThink.com 1
caffrey Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Personally I'm not fond of filtering, I see the filtering more of a benefit along the lines of what 3s-gtech said regarding network security - when you see personal laptops coming in full of malware etc. you realise how effective it is. Internet usage education is severely lacking across all ages. *edit* nice article there @IrritableTech, pretty much my views - the comments are interesting too. Edited January 30, 2015 by caffrey
pcstru Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Karl Rivers wrote an interesting blog a little while ago with some thoughts on his findings in schools in Denmark who take a very different approach. The British obsession with web filtering - ClassThink.com It is an interesting article but : "For many schools this protectionism is an excuse for the way we teach in the UK. The Danish education system is liberal and open. There is no curriculum to speak of, no exam results, and teachers and trusted to educate students in the way they see best. This system gives Danish teachers room to breath, and students the freedom to make mistakes." is the crux of it. And that might spark debate about the political approach to education in general. So how do we stack up : Index Ranking | Index | Pearson | The Learning Curve. vs Denmark, it seems we do better.
mthomas08 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Hmm interesting you bring this up as our head has been hinting recently that he'd like to open up YouTube / Twitter etc and teach the kids the skills to be safe online. Going to be frank when I say this - Educating the kids in to better safety is making little to no impact. If Students choose to visit websites that are unsafe - they will. I am a strong believer of "Safety" and "Educating" but only both together do you actually make an improvement. If adults can make mistakes even though they know better what hope do our children have, especially teenagers who will purposely rebel. I find "lack of training" a poor excuse for those not willing to admit the truth and this is aimed at many things not just safety for kids. If other Colleges are willing to have open access, that's their responsibility. In my time I have seen incidents/accusations of Facebook (prime example) which occurred on site at a previous job. Luckily enough the School was covered because it was proved that no access occurred on site. There was a huge fuss, social services and the police were involved in this incident. It was through our pursuit of tighter internet access that not only covered the Schools back but cut down the Students potential risks. May or may not agree with me on this but if the Head asked about opening access further I would simply present the risks. I know some may say we can police it better if we can monitor kids on Facebook but the problem is you don't see what the kids are doing on it just by checking the history.
Quackers Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I think it depends on their age. If its primary school age I'm more in favour of a basic filter to help stop the accidental stuff popping up, at high school I'm more in favour of less filtering and more educating and hope they will take what they have learned back home and apply it where they will likely have no filtering and no supervision. But then if Facebook for example was not filtered how much of a distraction would it be in lessons? Which then comes down to classroom control and is it right to keep using the technology to keep the kids on task when we are really just talking about the modern equivalent of passing notes round the classroom or bringing in a porn mag. Give it 5 years (if that even) and every child will have a smartphone in their pocket (which a lot now do) accessing what ever they like, so i think in the end it should all come back to the schools behaviour policy. I think its going to be a painful transition as it gets harder to filter, and what we try to filter becomes more accessible.
daveyboy Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Everyone here is unfiltered EXCEPT for 'file downloads' and whats on the IWF watch list.
Ex-MGSTech Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Ok, bear with me here... Oh hello Mr Ofsted Inspector, how may I help you? Oh, you would like to see what mechanisms we have in place to discharge our duty of care to each student? What do you mean we must take reasonable precautions and be able to demonstrate how we do this? Yes of course we understand that parents expect a higher moral standard be applied by schools than by parents themselves.. How would we deal with a front-page news article that we provided unfiltered Internet access and failed in our duty of care at even a basic level to protect a student from inappropriate online material? All this without even considering the use of the schools network to download inappropriate or illegal material? Filtering in schools is nothing more that students can expect once they leave education and take up paid employment, Try surfing p)rn in the offices of your local business and see how quickly you get the sack! Appropriate filtering is everywhere, just not on your home broadband connection. Setting boundaries is essential in preparing young people for the world of work, getting to your new job and saying its my right to access social networking whenever and wherever I like is likely to get you the sack! Steve PS, Oh and yes I have worked in some high end automotive (Arrows F1, Honda F1, TWR Engineering) & IT (Digital Equipment, Compaq, HP)companies and at each I've seen staff dismissed for inappropriate use of the companies systems, given the contents of their desk and escorted off the premises. Edited February 2, 2015 by elsiegee40 2
Ex-MGSTech Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Then you are lucky as not all inspectors ask the same questions, if I asked as a parent "what mechanisms do you have in place to discharge your duty of care to my child by preventing access to inappropriate websites" How would you answer?
synaesthesia Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I can't imagine going unfiltered. Yes, in an ideal world we should be able to teach kids the rights and wrongs and have they accept it word for word, and then not waste time on the internet or get hold of inappropriate material. But that is just not going to happen, at least not in our generation. We need to be able to show we take safety and security of the children in our care seriously. There's a good reason all filters come with clear categories and as long as the ones that present an actual danger to children are blocked as much as possible, the rest would be down to policy and common sense. As has been said, social media would certainly serve more of a distraction than anything else and that goes for staff (myself included) as well as students. There's no point allowing people access to download sites; they can't and should not do anything with what they download. Game sites; like social media, due care and attention is paid to what sort of thing is appropriate. We are not fussed about what games are played as long as they are appropriate for their age. You can absolutely guarantee the moment you announce there is minimal filtering in place, parents would be up in arms - despite not having family protection turned on at home because Daddy enjoys Hornpub when Mummy's asleep.
daveyboy Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 @MGSTech & @synaesthesia Sorry for not getting back sooner - went home ill and have just got round to 'tinternet. The ONLY answer I could give is to direct them to our Child Protection Officer. Internet filtering is not within my remit here at the school - just like uniform policy, behavior policy, H&S, Staff Code of Conduct, etc, etc. In my capacity I have advised, re-advised, strongly recommended (in writing) - but alas, it is viewed that is is down to the SMT & the CPO to set the policy and the 'Professional in the Classroom' to enforce. Possibly a strange idea - BUT that is how it is here.
mthomas08 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 @MGSTech & @synaesthesia The ONLY answer I could give is to direct them to our Child Protection Officer. Internet filtering is not within my remit here at the school - just like uniform policy, behavior policy, H&S, Staff Code of Conduct, etc, etc. In my capacity I have advised, re-advised, strongly recommended (in writing) - but alas, it is viewed that is is down to the SMT & the CPO to set the policy and the 'Professional in the Classroom' to enforce. You did the right thing, if you have it in writing that you gave them the advice then what more can you do. Covering your own back is exactly what I would do and if/when an incident occurs I hope it's only a minor one. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now