Welsh Government - Recommended web filtering standards for schools in Wales

[localzuk]

It is YOUR assertion that this guidance is the work of one woman who you initially dismissed as a "celebrity psychologist" that is nonsensical and childish. YOU then downgraded your ad-hominem to "single person" (your words - not mine) which I rightly poke fun at in my reply. You are entitled to your opinion but so far that opinion seems to be simply dismissing a report based on ad-hominen, rather than actually dealing with any substance.

 

Nope, reread my initial comment. I stated "It all seems to be based upon the views of one celebrity psychologist Tanya Bryon." I did not say the guidance was her work, but that it was based on her work. My rejection of the guidance is based on it being based on the work of a single person, who produced a report that was not peer reviewed.

 

Is it wrong of me to want my government guidance to be produced based on work done using the correct methodology, and reviewed by other experts in the field? We have "the scientific method" and it works pretty well. It works to eliminate bias, for example, and methodological mistakes. It requires more than one study, it requires more than one person. I don't see what your argument here is to be honest. You're arguing in support of a report that does not follow universally accepted norms when studying things like this. Further to that, you're arguing in support of guidance produced by un-named persons based on non-peer reviewed evidence.

[GrumbleDook]

It all seems to be based upon the views of one celebrity psychologist Tanya Bryon.

 

It seems to ignore the issues with ensuring children are on task, for example. It also seems to ignore the issues with things like copyright infringement or network security (and the requirements to protect data).

 

Address a range of points in this post, not just the above statement.

 

The document references 3 reports, one from OFSTED and 2 from Prof Tanya Bryon ... all three of those reports have a body of other materials behind them which is both extensive and has stood up to a lot of discussion in the past.

 

Before anyone goes on about the categories and how they are used, these are pretty similar to previous recommendations from the NEN, and those (and I gather these) have been part of discussions with the main filtering providers out there.

 

Yes, there is the emphasis on education of learners rather than purely relying on a walled garden or avoiding risk completely.

Yes, that will fly in the face from advice from folk like Dr Brian Bandey who is a strong advocate of ensure ALARP at *all* times.

Yes, this does mean that more responsibility has to be taken on by the school and classroom teachers for classroom management.

 

It clearly states the risk ...

• Unless there is a full programme of support and guidance for senior leaders, governors, teachers and education staff around safe and responsible use of the internet for themselves and for their students, schools will still be reluctant to engage with social media technologies and the wider teaching and learning opportunities presented on the web.
  
• The Welsh Government recognises that there is a challenge for local authorities to deliver the proposed standards and for some schools in embracing the full range of opportunities offered if the standards are adopted.
  
• It is expected that the categories identified in this document will change over time and it is therefore vital that these standards are reviewed with stakeholders annually to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose.
  

And I don't think they differ that much to anything anyone else has previously said around this.

 

They are not saying things are perfect ... they are saying that this is work in progress and it is based on a lot of investigations from a range of folk including friends at SWGfL, Estyn and those dealing with curriculum change.

 

The report reads very similar to materials that used to come from Becta and perhaps people are not used to being advised anymore.

 

There is the odd category that I would query but I can understand why each has been recommended as it has ...

Personally ... it is a good report and well done to those involve for actually getting something out there ... even if it is just to spark of the discussions and thought processes again.

[GrumbleDook]

Is it wrong of me to want my government guidance to be produced based on work done using the correct methodology, and reviewed by other experts in the field? We have "the scientific method" and it works pretty well. It works to eliminate bias, for example, and methodological mistakes. It requires more than one study, it requires more than one person. I don't see what your argument here is to be honest. You're arguing in support of a report that does not follow universally accepted norms when studying things like this. Further to that, you're arguing in support of guidance produced by un-named persons based on non-peer reviewed evidence.

 

You are saying that published guidance by a Govt body should show you all the behind the scenes working on it? Every person that reviewed, fed back, argued, etc? It is not published by an un-named person.

 

It is not a research paper. It is a Govt document based on their guidance and instruction. They have shown how they have gathered it and why they had done it. Please do not mistake this for academic research.

 

Also, do not mistake academic research for publications that are always peer-reviewed and/or are free of bias. People have said that this report is too blue skies? I think expecting academic research to be free of bias would fall under that too.

[localzuk]

You are saying that published guidance by a Govt body should show you all the behind the scenes working on it? Every person that reviewed, fed back, argued, etc? It is not published by an un-named person.

 

It is not a research paper. It is a Govt document based on their guidance and instruction. They have shown how they have gathered it and why they had done it. Please do not mistake this for academic research.

 

Also, do not mistake academic research for publications that are always peer-reviewed and/or are free of bias. People have said that this report is too blue skies? I think expecting academic research to be free of bias would fall under that too.

 

I'm saying that the research that government guidance is based on should be peer reviewed and follow proper scientific principles. The guidance itself isn't going to be peer reviewed, but it should be clearly based on evidence that was.

 

Many of the "research projects" that government departments start are so full of methodological errors so as to make them entirely useless, yet the results of those projects end up controlling how we do things. We see the results of these little projects regularly in schools, and its why we end up with nonsense like "PDAs are great in classrooms" without any actual proper plans or evidence on how to do so successfully. Not to mention, evidence is not the opinions of people - it is facts. Numbers, outcomes, observed changes etc... I was taught in university that if a report contains "I believe" then that should be setting alarm bells ringing unless it is during a prediction or opening brief. Yet there are 30 examples of it in the original report here.

 

Research should be repeatable, and through repeatability be able to confirm those same conclusions. If you can't, then the research just isn't sound.

[GrumbleDook]

You say you know the document not to be research, but then say it has to adhere to those standards?

 

This report pulls in research from the previous reports yet these are not admissible to you?

 

Are you questioning the previous research that formed the basis of such reports?

 

Really struggling to see your point on this.

[localzuk]

It's quite a simple point that I have repeated multiple times. I want government guidance and policies to be based on peer reviewed research properly conducted using the scientific method. This report is not and has not. The guidance is therefore not based on per reviewed research.

 

I don't really know how to be clearer.

[pcstru]

You could just stop digging.

 

The huge Irony is that the very process you say worship, which is essentially conducted in and around the institutions of academia, institutions who venerated the person you attacked as a "celebrity psychologist" so much so that two (York and the Open university) awarded her honorary doctorates (in addition to the one she earned herself in part by conducting and publishing original, peer reviewed research) essentially for promoting the public understanding of science and that very scientific method you would have us believe you revere. I'll repeat because it's worth it, argument by authority is not always a fallacy. The point about the court was not that there is only one expert available, but that sometimes you have to make decisions and there simply is no peer reviewed research available. You are not reproducing a controlled experiment, the P values are huge, you need to ask someone so you call an expert.

 

Other than you, a "single person" dismissing a government report based on it's association with someone you seem to think is a rank amateur when it comes to the potential harm to children of various 'categories' of 'content', I don't actually see you arguing any substance. We need to make decisions *now* about filtering. If there is peer reviewed research which they are ignoring, do please bring it to the party. Otherwise, in the absence of a quality of evidence which would satisfy your criteria, who exactly do you suggest we call on?

[GrumbleDook]

It's quite a simple point that I have repeated multiple times. I want government guidance and policies to be based on peer reviewed research properly conducted using the scientific method. This report is not and has not. The guidance is therefore not based on per reviewed research.

 

I don't really know how to be clearer.

 

So you are stating that this, and any reports that it pulls from (and I am presuming that you are referring to the reports from Tanya Byron) have no research background and no peer review?

 

Can you qualify how you are able to make that statement? Presuming you will follow the established methods for doing so...

 

Can you also clarify who you would expect the peers to be when reviewing such reports?

[synaesthesia]

My only issue with this report/advice is the contradictions therein. A lot of schools need help deciphering a lot of this technobabble as it is, it probably needs de-crapifying and translating to plain English (or Cymru if that's right? ) in a clear and concise manner.

[localzuk]

Oh come on, are you both just being belligerent for the sake of it. Do I really need to go into what the scientific method is and what the concept of peer review is?

 

I'm giving up, neither of you have presented any reason for me to think that the report it is based upon are consistent with accepted methodologies when performing research. I've not seen any peer review publications supporting this research and neither of you have presented any. You're just arguing against me but my base point still seems to stand.

 

Let me put it this way. Simply having experience and qualifications doesn't mean you are infallible. That is the purpose of a peer review.

 

I'm not on my own holding the view that government policies should be based on scientific peer reviewed research. The State of California has it enacted such a requirement into law. They expect all such policy to be referred for independent external scientific review, for example.

[GrumbleDook]

Unlike a lot of England, there are still folk on the ground in most places that can help there ...

 

For everything else, there is EduGeek

 

To be honest, if in Wales and unsure on eSafety, chat to the eSafety Wales team. SWGfL have done a cracking job and there are a lot of other folk out there too in LAs.

[GrumbleDook]

Tony, of course I am being belligerent.

 

My problem with your stance is that each report has to have its own set of verifiable research and that you are ignoring base data. The Byron reports were heavily evidence based and those involved in review agreed with the methodology behind them.

 

Using the scientific method is not the only way of conducting research either, and you know this as well. There are times when application is not always possible so pure observation takes a key position. You can follow this from application of laws.

 

Another one to agree to disagree probably, but before you knock the report consider that it has been reviewed by experts who have applied their own healthy weight of experience to their comments and recommendations on it.

[pcstru]

Let me put it this way. Simply having experience and qualifications doesn't mean you are infallible. That is the purpose of a peer review.

Remind me again, who are these peers that review the research? Would you expect someone of Professor Tanya Byron's stature to be such an ... authority when it comes to 'peer review' of the possible harm to children of being exposed to certain types of content vs the educational benefits of exposure to that content?

[PotNoodleTech]

I'm just happy to have guidance for once. Guidance always makes it much easier to follow!

[GrumbleDook]

I'm just happy to have guidance for once. Guidance always makes it much easier to follow!

 

Or as a discussion item to see what exceptions or changes you might want to make ... and get people to justify them.