Do you block Youtube for Students?

[Driftingashore]

New leadership has told me that other schools completely block Youtube for students, and wants it blocked for all students; at the moment we use Restricted:strict for up to year 9, and Moderate for 10-11. We also have safeguarding monitoring software installed to catch anything the filter misses.

 

Admittedly we're SEN, but with the amount of educational resources on Youtube I find it a dubious claim, so thought I'd ask to see if I'm out of touch: Do you completely block Youtube for students? Appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

[ITGuyNW]

Yep Youtube completely blocked for students. Teachers access only.

[Rob_D]

We block YouTube as standard for the students (with exceptions made on request). - although we might be behind the times on this.

AFAIK, blocking it for students was pretty standard up until 8ish years ago.

 

Are the Restrcited:strict/moderate things you mentioned something from youtube/google or part of your webfiltering solution?

[robintech]

Not blocked but enforced restricted mode with Smoothwall

[ITGURU]

used to but apparently SLT state has 'educational resources' on so we use it in restricted mode, but has now become the place for searching 'unblocked school sites' - joy!

[LeMarchand]

3x KS1/2 blocked for all students or they watch it during lesson time if they can and staff were letting them watch not age-appropriate vids during break. If it's for educational purposes, the teacher can show it.

[sigma]

Blocked completely for "random browsing" (timewasting and inappropriate content).

 

Sites used in school that have embedded YouTube are allowed to run those videos and and particular videos that staff ask that pupils can access are allowed. This is easily set up in a few lines with Netsweeper, but I imagine other filters have a similar facility.

 

This applies to other streaming video platforms such as Vimeo.

[36Degrees]

Yep Youtube completely blocked for students. Teachers access only.

 

^^^ Same here (Head Teacher's decision)

[jthompson]

Turned off for students in Google Workspace, but any YouTube videos posted in Classroom classes are watchable for them there (iirc YouTube videos embedded in Classroom are served from youtubeeducation.com).

YouTube is generally available for them when not signed in to Google, however. That'll be subject to our web filtering, which adds the special YouTube headers, or whatever (I can't remember).

[chazzy2501]

Not blocked and available to pupils not restricted. Edited November 29, 2023 by chazzy2501

[mavhc]

always in restricted mode, but variously anyone who didn't abuse it, now: only 6th form

 

restricted mode isn't that restricted at all, I'd rather only an allowlist of channels, blocked if not logged in, but not sure if that's possible

[3s-gtech]

Blocked for pupils only here. Calls for it to be unblocked here have always tended to be pretty half-hearted, as staff can already access it.

[Guest Guest]

New leadership has told me that other schools completely block Youtube for students, and wants it blocked for all students; at the moment we use Restricted:strict for up to year 9, and Moderate for 10-11. We also have safeguarding monitoring software installed to catch anything the filter misses.

 

Admittedly we're SEN, but with the amount of educational resources on Youtube I find it a dubious claim, so thought I'd ask to see if I'm out of touch: Do you completely block Youtube for students? Appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

 

We’re a SEN school for Autistic kids

 

We allow both students and staff to access YouTube in restricted mode.

 

Not worth the incidents blocking it would cause

[Aprice]

Not blocked for most here, but looking through the logs I'm not sure how much of the kids usage could be considered educational.

[Olliedawg]

Allowed for all students in restricted mode, staff have moderate. I have often wondered if its worth having unblocked for students, as im sure most just pi** about on there, although i've never had any concerns raised by any teaching staff.

 

Both have usage monitored using FastVue / Sophos XG

[Rob_D]

restricted mode isn't that restricted at all, I'd rather only an allowlist of channels, blocked if not logged in, but not sure if that's possible

Based on the demo I saw at BETT last year Fortigate can do per channel unblocking.

[Driftingashore]

Are the Restrcited:strict/moderate things you mentioned something from youtube/google or part of your webfiltering solution?

 

Google (applied via our web filter (Smoothwall), and also the Google Chrome ADMX group policy because I'm paranoid).

We’re a SEN school for Autistic kids. We allow both students and staff to access YouTube in restricted mode. Not worth the incidents blocking it would cause

 

Us too. If this goes ahead I'm expecting a lot of laptops needing repair, along with urgent calls to unblock Youtube for a student because they're dysregulated.

 

That said, I agree with others that have mentioned that Youtube's restrictions suck, but with monitoring, staff reporting, and a limited number of students, personally I think it's easier to manage on a "you've been bad on Youtube, no Youtube for you for 24 hours" basis.

[RLR]

Blocked for all students up to year 9. Year 10 and upwards are allowed it in restrictive mode.

[psydii]

Large secondary. We do not block Youtube. Never have. Also strong argument that blanket blocking YouTube fall foul of the current KCSIE guidance to not over-block.

We do make use of restricted mode, so by default it is very limited. If users sign in (using their school AzureAD/365/Google account) they can also get access to additional videos and channels that have been specifically authorised by staff.

 

We have an additional group policy that works in conjunction with the above to block specific users who have had that sanction applied. I haven't used it in over four years.

[Sylv3r]

Our primaries have no student access.

 

Our secondaries is Sixth Form only.

 

That's what has been in place for years - I would be more inclined now to give more student access in restricted mode - possibly for Year 10 and 11.

[Driftingashore]

Also strong argument that blanket blocking YouTube fall foul of the current KCSIE guidance to not over-block.

 

Yeah, that's the position I've stated to our DSL who would probably rather not have to take a side between me and the new leadership who just want it blocked without an explanation beyond "it's what other schools do".. but I suspect she'll side with the greater powers on this one.

[mavhc]

the only way to keep people from being distracted by the internet when in lesson is to allowlist a bunch of specific sites

[CHiLL]

We block YouTube for students but not staff. We use "override codes" in Sophos, where a teacher can provide a code to allow access to YouTube for the duration of that authenticated session. The only disadvantage is that the code can be used anywhere if the students get or remember the code.

 

It was better with Smoothwall, because we could use location blocking based on name. For example, I could create a group that contains specific hostnames of an IT suite (PC01.domain.local, etc) and also replicate the timetable for the lessons/periods. With those two configured and liaising with subject staff, I could specify that YouTube was unblocked on those specific computers for a specific period.

[psydii]

... to take a side between me and the new leadership who just want it blocked without an explanation beyond "it's what other schools do".. .

 

If you feel strongly about this, you might want to start looking for another role / promotion elsewhere. It sounds like there is a considerable gap between your vision and that of the incoming leadership, at a time when the national guidance aligns more with how you have had things running. Hiding behind "that's how other schools do it" is not a sign of strong/good leadership, and this might just be the first of many decisions that make things worse. IMO. YMMV.

 

We have almost zero problems with off-task kids on YouTube. Occasionally a new-to-the-school senior leader questions things, but they quickly come around when they see the benefit of our teachers running classes where they don't rely on techincal power to keep the class on task. Some teachers do struggle, but they either up their game or leave.

 

I will say that the architecture of the building supports us here. All our IT Suites are U shaped so the teacher at the front can see all screens (and student body language) at a glance, and that where laptops are in use teachers are advised to be on their feet roaming from the back of the class to keep a similarly comprehensive view of the students and their laptop screes. In the laptop scenario, when the teacher is at the front talk-and-chalking, students are required to put their laptop screens at 45deg to send a clear physical signal they are engaged with the teacher and not distracted by a screen. (in a traditional IT Suite, they are required to physically turn to face the front or return to the desks in the middle of the class.

[Driftingashore]

If you feel strongly about this, you might want to start looking for another role / promotion elsewhere. It sounds like there is a considerable gap between your vision and that of the incoming leadership, at a time when the national guidance aligns more with how you have had things running. Hiding behind "that's how other schools do it" is not a sign of strong/good leadership, and this might just be the first of many decisions that make things worse. IMO. YMMV.

 

To be honest I think it's going that way regardless of the filtering situation. I've happily worked here for nearly 20 years, though the school is currently lurching from total crisis to total crisis and it's hard to see a long term future here anymore (but hey, the IT is working). I'm feeling that it's time to retrain / polish up the CV and get out of education.