DfE EdTech Strategy / Online Harms

[Opendium_Steve]

I've spent a lot of time over the past week wading through the DfE's new education technology strategy and the DCMS "Online Harms" white paper, and my conclusion is that neither of the papers actually say a lot of substance about filtering, monitoring and online safety in schools. They have a lot of waffle, and not the good type with chocolate sauce

 

I'd expected to see some improved guidance, so wondering if anyone here has had a read through them and got any opinions? To me it looks like the main points are:

• A push to improve internet speeds at schools, both through improved internet connections and better WiFi provision, although the timescales they discuss are really long, heading off into the 2030s!
  
• A big push toward cloud hosted services
  
• The establishment of "testbed / demonstrator" schools to help pilot new technologies
  

[elsiegee40]

@GrumbleDook is most likely among us to have read this

[FishCustard]

Not entirely sure what moving to the cloud has to do with safeguarding...

[elsiegee40]

Not entirely sure what moving to the cloud has to do with safeguarding...

 

Because... Cloud... obvs...

 

Along with all their other Cloud pronouncements pushed recently

eg http://www.edugeek.net/forums/behind-red-door/205661-new-dfe-guidance-moving-your-school-cloud.html

[FishCustard]

If it's about the potential safeguarding/DP implications of cloud services (e.g. data locations, etc.) then sure - if it's "move to the cloud because it'll make safeguarding easier" then some minister or other needs a fish slap.

[Opendium_Steve]

Not entirely sure what moving to the cloud has to do with safeguarding...

 

I was citing the points that I thought were relevant to the "Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall" forum - migrating to cloud services in general isn't directly related to safeguarding but is related to things like sizing your internet connection.

 

On the other hand, you can do your filtering/monitoring either on-premises or in the cloud, so there is a choice there... It isn't a clear "cloud is better/cheaper" choice though. For one thing, cloud services tend to be priced per user whilst the hardware part of on-prem systems is usually a fixed(ish) cost, so whether moving into the cloud is cheaper or more expensive often depends on the size of the school. And there are certainly pros and cons to both on-prem and cloud options - the pros/cons that are important to you won't be the same as those that are important to a different school.

 

(I've been running a lot of numbers related to cloud filtering pricing recently, and you certainly can't point at either cloud or on-prem as being the most cost effective solution for every school).

 

I noticed that the broadband purchasing guidance for schools (published on April 3rd) only talks about the ISP providing filtering and there's no mention of schools sourcing the connection and filtering services separately...

[FishCustard]

Ahhhh gotcha.

 

Agreed re: not one-size-fits-all. I have absolutely nothing against cloud (we use plenty of cloud services here), just something against Govt. pushing something because its buzzwordy.

[GrumbleDook]

The EdTech Strategy is pretty high level at the moment and it is pretty split in the community about whether it is any good or not.

 

You have those who worked on previous strategies or used those strategies to have their schools in the good place that they are now (or were until they couldn't afford things anymore) ... and you have those that see this as a step forward, but with more work to do.

 

You may have already guessed it ... but I am on the fence. I do think it is a good start, but I would like to see it mapped against stuff that had been done before ... a) so that we can look at what lessons were learnt from previous projects /programmes of work, b) so we can using existing good advice / practice and c) so we can better plan for the the changes in tech / educational understanding since those projects / programmes were last run.

 

The Online Harms paper is interesting ... it has identified areas that need work on and it seems that, after a few years of not very much, there will be another push again on education.

 

There will be groups looking at what is needed and some familiar faces will, no doubt, feed into those. I don't have any details of who will be involved but I would be surprised if both Kent and UKSIC are not represented in there. I do think there is scope for EG/ANME to work on something together to get involved but that involves members being active about the things it needs to address ...

 

Remember, there is no standard for filtering within education. There is some guidance and I would recommend reviewing the guidance from Wales (https://learning.gov.wales/docs/learningwales/publications/150629-recommended-web-filtering-standards-en.pdf) and from UKSIC (https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/advice-centre/teachers-and-school-staff/appropriate-filtering-and-monitoring) but there is no standard. The work to look at this with BSI was not funded in the end and the sector couldn't see any commercial advantage to self-fund evenly (there is no point only one filter provider funding it ... it needs to be an equal split).

 

There is still a fair bit of work being done in silos ... it is getting better but people need to go and hunt for good practice rather than having it easily laid out to them.

 

I would keep an eye out on Prof. Sonia Livingstone's work to pull things together ... there will be some school related aspects in there. Also continue to keep an eye on UKSIC too.

 

I'll be blogging a bit more about these areas over the next few weeks, hopefully, including the consultation on the draft Age Appropriate Design CCode of Practice.

[Opendium_Steve]

Thanks for these replies - lots of really good resources!

 

 

The Online Harms paper is interesting ... it has identified areas that need work on and it seems that, after a few years of not very much, there will be another push again on education.

 

Online Harms did touch on the need for improved online safety education, but rhe bit that I thought was missing was ensuring that the service providers work with schools rather than against them.

 

For example, we have Google, Facebook et-al pushing encryption technologies such as certificate pinning, TLS 1.3, DNS-over-TLS, etc. and completely ignoring anyone that raises concerns over how that impacts with safeguarding in schools. We've tried and failed to engage with the big tech companies, other filtering suppliers have found the same and even people from the Home Office have said off the record that the likes of Google feel untouchable and won't engage with them either.

 

I'm certainly not saying that the general public's security should be compromised, but it does seem that the balance is wrong and the government needs to legislate to force the big businesses to stop and listen for a minute instead of dragging everyone kicking and screaming in the direction they decide, regardless of any concerns being raised.

I would be surprised if both Kent and UKSIC are not represented in there.

 

UKSIC have already said that they will be working with the government on this, although I wouldn't like to say whether that's been confirmed or just a reasonable assumption on their part.

 

I do think there is scope for EG/ANME to work on something together to get involved but that involves members being active about the things it needs to address ...

 

Reminds me that I must give ANME a chase.

Remember, there is no standard for filtering within education.

 

One of the things that came up at last year's CTIRU conference was that although allowing schools to make their own risk-based decisions on filtering is right, they could definitely use more guidance on how to handle apps that cannot be effectively filtered, and also how to manage 4G. KCSIE just says this about mobile access: "Many children have unlimited and unrestricted access to the internet via 3G and 4G in particular and the school and college should carefully consider how this is managed on their premises." - the feeling was that guidance that wishy-washy doesn't really cut it.

 

So, we have technologies such as Skype and Whatsapp which can be used for a lot of good, but they can also be used for bullying, grooming, etc. On the one hand, a school can just block access to those things on their BYOD network and can kiss goodbye to all the good stuff they can be used for (and the kids will go off and use them anyway on 4G, rather than staying in the relative safety of the school network). On the other hand, the school can allow those technologies even though they can't be monitored and might then be held responsible if something bad happens. Indeed, one of our (boarding school) customers was reprimanded by Ofsted for choosing to block Skype, as it made it harder for the children to keep in touch with their parents.

 

The same obviously applies to unfilterable/unmonitorable apps that don't have a clear educational use - if you block them you push students off the wifi and lose safeguarding opportunities from monitoring other traffic, if you allow them you open the school up to potential liability. There aren't any easy answers, but schools definitely feel that they need better guidance on this stuff.