Is over-blocking a result of over-responsibility?
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 06:41AM Scott McLeod shared a rather expected reaction to his purposefully divisive 26 Internet Safety Talking Points. A technology director lamented:
This is just sad that you’re setting up this adversarial relationship between administrators and IT with the tone of your letter here and if you think that’s going to help the situation by getting IT departments angry, because that’s what this article will do.
The 26 Internet Talking Points were pretty tough on IT directors. And while we need dope slapping fairly regularly, Scott needs to hold other educators responsible for allowing over filtering to happen as well. The issue of filtering is a dilemma, not a problem, and its management will be ongoing.
In an nearly ten-year-old article, a Good Policy for Policies, I wrote:
For some reason, many schools have not yet figured out how to create good policies and rules about technology use .... Under the worst circumstances poor or non-existent policies have created what seems like a new range war between not cattle ranchers and sheep herders, but between educators (too often librarians) and the technologists. Judging from what I hear, it sounds like the techies are winning by default since they have, as one librarian puts it, the know-how to check “the little box.” [on the Internet filter]. Knowledge of what is possible and not possible with technological devices combined with a carefully selected sharing of that knowledge gives techies power and credibility, and makes rules they would like to set difficult to dispute.
Add to this a great deal of misunderstanding (and simply bullshit) about CIPA, and the dilemma seems to be getting worse, not better. Yet how many schools have tried my simple, but effective, means of managing the situation?
So who in a school should ultimately make the technology rules? In our district, these decisions are made by our district technology advisory committee, the same folks that make lots of technology planning and budget decisions. This committee is comprised primarily of educators - teachers, media specialists, and administrators - but also includes parents, students, businesspersons, college faculty members, and public librarians. And of course the committee includes our technical staff for their important input on security, compatibility and implementation issues. And we DO listen to everyone. Building technology committees should work in exactly the same way.
This has worked well for us. On the difficult filtering issue, the committee decided that as a result of CIPA, we would install a filter, but it would be set at its least restrictive setting. Any teacher or librarian can have a blocked site be unblocked by simply requesting it – no questions asked. Adults are required to continue to monitor student access to the Internet as if no filter were present. The technicians now know that it is the responsibility of the teaching staff to see that students do not access inappropriate materials, not theirs. This is a good policy decision that could not have been reached without a variety of voices heard during its making.
A big reason, I fear, that IT directors overblock is because they are made to feel like any trouble staff or students get into online could and should have been prevented by technology itself. Oh, were such a solution possible. This is like holding the school's safety director responsible for any playground accidents that might occur.
So, who takes the lead on setting up a mechanism for collaborative decision-making regarding technology policy making? I'd think every tech director to save his or her own skin would be clamoring for such a process. But ultimately, since filtering tends to be done a district, not building level, the initiative needs come from the superintendent.
Scott, your frustration with both educators and IT folks is evident in your 26 points. You wrote that I influenced your thinking on the filtering issues. I hope I continue to do so, if you hear my suggestion of a collaborative work environment that disenfranchises and alienates neither educators or technologists.
Reader Comments (4)
I think the frustration is that in many cases its not filtering, its censoring. When I get emails asking me for the "educational value" of a site that is censoring, not filtering.
Proud to be an Under Blocker!!
Perhaps over-responsibility / perhaps legitimate responsibility. You had mentioned in some previous post, that technology support departments want a consistent and reliable experience for end-users. Sometimes filtering decisions fall into the category of "that which shalt harm your device or create problems for other users". So perhaps a bit of this is mixed into the conversation as well.
Again, I think we both agree that best approach is a holistic one that considers multiple angles. It should be relief for a technology director to own the process and not necessarily 100% of the outcome. When we go-it-alone in our approach, we own 100% of the problem and 100% of the solution (and it is almost guaranteed that nobody is 100% satisfied with the solution - so we get to own the disagreement as well; if we go-it-alone).
Joel
Hi Brent,
Hi Brent,
Yeah, defining censorship in relation to Internet blocking is tricky. I certainly would define any attempt to filter based on political or religious beliefs as censorship (blocking gay rights organizations, Planned Parenthood, Rush Limbaugh, whatever...)
Doug
Hi Kim,
Is there such thing as an "under-blocker"? Might that be analogous to an "under-shoplifter" or "under-speeder"?
Doug
Hi Joel,
Point well-taken about blocking sites that are known to spread malware. That has little to do with intellectual freedom, IMHO, and everything to do with simply network security. I'd want to see validation of network security problem before I blocked though.
And yes, collaborative decisions are a must.
Doug