The e-vils of e-mail

Johnson’s First Sign of Technology Literacy: Knowing when to use technology and when not to use technology. (More rules.)

In the September 2011 Educational Leadership journal, Principal Thomas R. Hoerr lamented that he was "too plugged in" - that e-mail was trapping him at his desk, writing:

I know I'm not alone in spending hours each day initiating and responding to e-mails. Like many of you, I receive nearly 200 e-mails each day. Although some are junk (I can't believe how many lotteries I've won, even when I didn't enter them!), the bulk of them are from staff members, students' parents, or other educators. I feel compelled to respond to them all. Almost every message is a piece of an ongoing dialogue, and if I'm absent, what does that say? So I usually enter the e-fray, sometimes sending lengthy comments and occasionally offering a pithy retort. Consequently, e-mail is with me way too much. I check my e-mail before my first cup of morning coffee and after my evening is over (and sometimes when I wake up in the night).

In yesterday's Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Chris Anderson offers a similar tale of being overwhelmed:

An e-mail inbox has been described as a to-do list that anyone in the world can add to. If you're not careful, it can gobble up most of your week. Then you've become a reactive robot responding to other people's requests, instead of a proactive agent addressing your own priorities.

Anderson then offers The E-mail charter

10 Rules to Reverse the Email Spiral

1. Respect Recipients' Time  This is the fundamental rule. As the message sender, the onus is on YOU to minimize the time your email will take to process. Even if it means taking more time at your end before sending.  2. Short or Slow is not Rude  Let's mutually agree to cut each other some slack. Given the email load we're all facing, it's OK if replies take a while coming and if they don't give detailed responses to all your questions. No one wants to come over as brusque, so please don't take it personally. We just want our lives back!  3. Celebrate Clarity  Start with a subject line that clearly labels the topic, and maybe includes a status category [Info], [Action], [Time Sens] [Low Priority]. Use crisp, muddle-free sentences. If the email has to be longer than five sentences, make sure the first provides the basic reason for writing. Avoid strange fonts and colors.  4. Quash Open-Ended Questions  It is asking a lot to send someone an email with four long paragraphs of turgid text followed by "Thoughts?". Even well-intended-but-open questions like "How can I help?" may not be that helpful. Email generosity requires simplifying, easy-to-answer questions. "Can I help best by a) calling b) visiting or c) staying right out of it?!"  5. Slash Surplus cc's  cc's are like mating bunnies. For every recipient you add, you are dramatically multiplying total response time. Not to be done lightly! When there are multiple recipients, please don't default to 'Reply All'. Maybe you only need to cc a couple of people on the original thread. Or none.

6. Tighten the Thread  Some emails depend for their meaning on context. Which means it's usually right to include the thread being responded to. But it's rare that a thread should extend to more than 3 emails. Before sending, cut what's not relevant. Or consider making a phone call instead.  7. Attack Attachments  Don't use graphics files as logos or signatures that appear as attachments. Time is wasted trying to see if there's something to open. Even worse is sending text as an attachment when it could have been included in the body of the email.  8. Give these Gifts: EOM NNTR  If your email message can be expressed in half a dozen words, just put it in the subject line, followed by EOM (= End of Message). This saves the recipient having to actually open the message. Ending a note with "No need to respond" or NNTR, is a wonderful act of generosity. Many acronyms confuse as much as help, but these two are golden and deserve wide adoption.  9. Cut Contentless Responses  You don't need to reply to every email, especially not those that are themselves clear responses. An email saying "Thanks for your note. I'm in." does not need you to reply "Great." That just cost someone another 30 seconds.  10. Disconnect!  If we all agreed to spend less time doing email, we'd all get less email! Consider calendaring half-days at work where you can't go online. Or a commitment to email-free weekends. Or an 'auto-response' that references this charter. And don't forget to smell the roses.

I can identify with both Hoerr and Anderson. I get dozens and dozens of e-mails each day that beg a response. And I am sure others on staff would accuse me of being far too ready to send out e-mail myself. (I really am going to re-read the Charter now and then.)

But I can also offer a couple other e-mail problems that seems just as pernicious.

The first is blaming a lack of an e-mail response on a lack of progress on a task. When asked why something is not done, nine times out ten the response is: "Well, I sent an e-mail and I haven't heard back."

The second problem is trying to solve problems that carry emotional baggage or are very complex using e-mail alone. When an exchange gets emotional in e-mail, I've never seen it get more empathetic or resolvable - only worse. If you can't solve your problem in a single e-mail exchange, it's time to try another means of communication.

Here's a pretty good solution to both these problems - pick up the damn phone and call. Or even better, if geography is not an issue, go visit the other person. It is cruel to give bad news to another person unless you can look them in the eye. Compliments seem disingenuous when dashed off in a quick e-mail. (And how do you really feel about birthday wishes on Facebook?) And if a person won't make the time to visit with me about a problem, I take it as a sign that the problem just isn't that important.

I love e-mail. In its place. Happy Friday.

Image source

Happy Banned Websites Awareness Day and 7 Myths

Banned Websites Awareness Day (BWAD), sponsored by AASL, will be celebrated on Wed., Sept. 28. Check out the BWAD landing page with resources gathered by the AASL Intellectual Freedom Committee. Read the numerous AASL Blog entries [listed below-Doug] supporting the effort to spotlight how filtering affects teachers’ instruction and students’ learning, and cruise through the many resources found in the BWAD Essential Links.

Helen Adams

AASL Intellectual Freedom Committee chair

Were the profession of school librarianship eliminated, the great tragedy would be that there would be nothing standing between children and censors. While other educators might promote books, help integrate technology skills and assist in information literacy projects, who else in the school fights for student (and teacher) access to uncensored digital information and ideas?

• Block Sites? No Way! | by Lisa Von Drasek
• National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Supports Banned Websites Awareness Day (BWAD) | by Mel Riddle
• Preparation for Living in a Public World | by Stephen Abram
• Banned Websites Awareness Day Resources
• Censorship in Schools: More Than Makes the Headlines | by Deven Black
• AASL Thinks Outside the Ban with Banned Websites Awareness Day | by Lisa Nielsen
• Banned Websites Awareness Day | by Connie Coyle
• AASL celebrates Banned Websites Awareness Day | by Michelle Luhtala

(If I missed any, let me know.)

And my contribution...

Seven Myths about Internet filters

I am very happy AASL isaddressing the issue of filtering and intellectual freedom. It’s been a hot topic for me personally for over 15 years. Given my training as a librarian, I often find myself at philosophical odds with my fellow technology directors and school administrators who come from a more “control-oriented” background of technology management and use.

Here are some common myths created both through ignorance and intent about Internet filters. These mistaken beliefs often result in poor decisions about the use of this software, leading to censorship of online resources . You and your school will be more successful in developing good policies about filtering if you have good information about why and how this software. And it will be up to you, the librarian, to bring intellectual freedom into the conversation.

1. The Childhood Protection Act (CIPA) is specific and  broad in what must be filtered in schools. CIPA reads: “The protection  measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a)  obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors” That’s it.  Karen Cator, Department of Education’s Director of Education Technology, reassures teachers that schools will not risk loosing E-rate funding for  unblocking YouTube or giving teachers broad access to the Internet. <tinyurl.com/filteringfacts> And no, Facebook does not have to be blocked, as a clarification in the FCC Order 11-125 of August 2011 states implicitly <tinyurl.com/fccCIPA>.
2. It’s the filtering company that determines what is blocked. Most filters have a great deal of customizability when it comes to what is filtered. Broad categories of blocked sites can be enabled or disabled. Schools can override filters by adding specific sites to “white lists” of allowed sites or to “black lists” of blocked sites. Filtering can (legally) be turned off in schools on specific computers by user category, by specific IP address of a computer, or by using a filter bypass login.
3. Some sites must be blocked due to bandwidth limitations. A common reason for blocking sites like YouTube or Pandora is that they use too much bandwidth. While it is true that most districts have a limited amount of Internet connectivity, devices called packetshapers can be use to prioritize traffic on a network, eliminating the need for band-width intensive sites to be blocked completely.
4. The processes for re-consideration of print materials don’t apply to online resources. Digital resources are as legitimate as print resources and the same criteria for removing online resources apply to them as apply to library books, textbooks, magazines and videos. Once a district has decided that the Internet is an educational resource, any removal of a specific resource on the Internet must follow board-adopted policies and procedures on the reconsideration of education resources.
5. The technology department must determine what is blocked. The major intellectual freedom issue related to filters is not whether a particular resource is blocked or not blocked, but who makes the blocking decision and how it is made. Determinations about the availability of Internet resources should be made by a formal group of educators, technicians, and community members at two levels. The first level is the broad filter level – selection of the filtering product itself and the categories settings of that filter. The second level is the individual Internet site level (Planned Parenthood, SarahPAC, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) Single individuals should not make blocking decisions.
6. Internet filters are so good that supervision of students while online and instruction in online safety and appropriate use is not necessary. One of the biggest dangers of Internet filters is over-reliance on them. No filter catches 100% of all pornographic sites. Users can use proxies and other work-arounds to bypass the school’s Internet filter. And increasingly, students are using personal devices such as cell phones and tablets that use cellphone carrier data plans for Internet connectivity that are completely unaffected by school filters.
7. Internet filters and intellectual freedom are mutually exclusive. When chosen, configured and monitored carefully a filter can become a selection tool. A limited filtering system that keeps the little ones from accidentally accessing inappropriate or even dangerous websites is ethically responsible. It’s not the technology but its application that can lead to censorship.

Find below a selection of my writings, some serious and some not so serious, on the topic of filters and intelletual freedom. Note that one dates back to 1994. This has been a long battle!

Are You Sure You Want an Internet Filter? Virtual Censorship is Still Censorship
TechTrends, May/June 1998
www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/internet-filtering.html

Blocked Bytes Week
Blue Skunk Blog, September, 2008
doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2008/9/23/blocked-bytes-week.html

Censorship by Omission
Library Media Connection, January/February 2010.
www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/censorship-by-omission.html

The Engagement Filter
Blue Skunk Blog, June 2007
doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2007/6/28/engagement-filter.html

Filtering and Hyper-compliance
Blue Skunk Blog, June 2010
doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2010/6/16/filtering-and-hyper-compliance.html

Filtering Follies
Education World, November, 2007
www.educationworld.com/a_tech/columnists/johnson/johnson022.shtml

Freedom and Filters
The Book Report, 2003
dougjohnson.squarespace.com/dougwri/freedom-and-filters.html

Freedom to Learn
Library Media Connection, Jan/February 2012 (forthcoming)

The Long-term Solution to Internet Blocking Problems
Blue Skunk Blog, April 2006
doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2006/4/20/the-long-term-solution-to-internet-blocking-problems.html

Maintaining Intellectual Freedom in a Filtered World
Leading & Learning, May 2005
www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/maintaining-intellectual-freedom-in-a-filtered-world.html

Why Filters Will Never Be Enough
Blue Skunk Blog, November 2006
doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2006/11/28/why-filters-will-never-be-enough.html

Why Minnesota’s Children Need Access to the Internet
Text of talk at a TIES meeting, 1994
dougjohnson.squarespace.com/dougwri/why-minnesota-students-need-access-to-the-internet.html

Boiling frogs, GoogleApps and school change

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually. Wikipedia

It seems like GoogleApps adds or changes a feature weekly. In the last couple weeks alone Google had introduced a format painting tool to GoogleDocs, added a new category of sharing - Comment only, and now allows users to merge cells in its spreadsheet program. Over the past couple of months, the look of Apps has become very clean and utilitarian. It hardly looks like the program we introduced to our staff less than two years ago.

Microsoft on the other hand tends to make all its upgrades in one fell swoop each time a new version is published. While many of the changes are welcome, they seem to cause a good deal of confusion and re-learning since so many come all at one time. And heaven help us all when we have to introduce a whole new program. A change in student information systems, web hosting sites, or even telephone systems can cause major disruptions in the work of school staff. 

As the tech director, I work with a few folks who would be happy to still be using AppleWorks, Eudora, Netscape, and Windows 1.0. Change is not always, uh, well received. But like the frog in the pan of slowly rising temps, these folks are willing to stay in when the changes are incremental. Thank you, Google.

How far can we carry this rising temp vs. direct to boiling metaphor and school change? More than few tech pundits are ready for School 2.0 right now. While others (like me) are happy when current programs gets small, consistent upgrades each year - evolution rather than revolution.

What's better for kids? for teachers? for society? I struggle with one a lot.

Image source