Librarian Philosopher

The Technology Committee, Sub-Committee on Web Filtering
Recommendation
to the next full Technology Meeting
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM

The Sub-Committee for Web Filtering (consisting of 11 educators) has meet several times and communicated digitally to come up with the following recommendation to the full Technology Committee. Members: Unger, Lisa; Rodgers, Karen; Harrell, Karen; Murphy, Molly (Michelle); Henry, Gary; Guerra, Charlene; Burger, William; Thibaut, Amy; Jennings, Joan, Bishop, Barry; Boan, Kary

The Sub-Committee would like to make 3 recommendations:

1. Criteria for blocking websites
2. Categories to be unblocked by the filtering company
3. Reconsideration Committee to handle blocking and unblocking requests that do not clearly fall under the blocking criteria

Following the recommendations are the background information, the official Board Policies and other governing and guiding documents, and the thinking behind the recommendations.

 RECOMMENDATIONS

Criteria for blocking websites 

1. Pictures defined as harmful to minors (because we educators have a custodial responsibility for our students and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) uses these criteria).
2. Websites that pose a danger to the security of the system (because viruses, spy ware, etc. can destroy a computer or a network).
3. Bandwidth hogs (some websites take up more bandwidth than they are worth relative to all the other digital resources educators need).
4. Websites that may cause significant distraction from educational pursuits (some websites cause more distraction than the hassle they cause in monitoring. This will be a judgment call left to the “Reconsideration Committee [see below]).

Categories to be unblocked by the filtering company 

The Sub-Committee recommends that all categories presently unblocked by the filtering company remain unblocked and that the following categories have their status changed with the filtering company from blocked to unblocked.

 Forums, chat, email

Recreation

These categories contain websites that are most often requested by SBISD educators to be unblocked. For example, a website where students can play chess against a computer will be categorized as a game and be blocked regardless of its obvious educational value.

Reconsideration Committee to handle blocking and unblocking requests that do not clearly fall under the blocking criteria

The Reconsideration Committee will consist of 5 educators:

1 from Library Information Services Department

1 from Educational Technology Department

1 high school teacher

1 middle school teacher

1 elementary school teacher

The teachers representing each grade level will change each year.

One possible way to determine which teacher from each grade level becomes a member of the Reconsideration Committee would be to send a description of the duties to the teachers and have teachers interested in being on the Reconsideration Committee to submit a request (have a short amount of response time) then have a lottery to determine who serves for the coming school year.

Duties of the Reconsideration Committee

Unblocking websites:

1. Educator submits request for a website to be unblocked to the firewall administrator.
2. If the website clearly falls outside the 4 criteria for blocking, then the website is unblocked.
3. If there is any question as to whether the website falls in the 4 criteria for blocking then the website is sent to the Reconsideration Committee.
4. If the website has previously been blocked as a result of a request from an educator, then it goes to the Reconsideration Committee.

Blocking websites:

1. Educator submits request for a website to be blocked to the firewall administrator.
2. If the website clearly falls within the 4 criteria for blocking then the firewall administrator blocks the website.
3. If the website does not clearly fall within the 4 criteria for blocking then the website is sent to the Reconsideration Committee.
4. If the website has previously been unblocked as a result of a request from an educator, then it goes to the Reconsideration Committee.

When a website is sent to the Reconsideration Committee they check the website and make a recommendation to block or unblock according to the request. The recommendation would be sent back to the firewall administrator (either “reply all” or “reply” – members choice). As soon as the firewall administrator has 3 replies in agreement then she acts on the recommendation.

Assumption is that teachers can choose their instructional material. So, the burden of proof lies on the person asking to have a website blocked. They must state why according to the 4 blocking criteria.

BACKGROUND 

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the following documents used to govern and guide Spring Branch:

The School Board Policy EFA (LOCAL) adopted by the Spring Branch Board of Trustees on 7/1/2002 should guide how the Technology Services Division manages the firewall and filtering of digital materials available for students and staff.

Some guiding principals from the policy are:

1. “…trained professional staff are afforded the freedom to select instructional resources for their use in accordance with this policy and the state mandated curriculum…”
2. “In this policy, “instructional resources” refers to textbooks, library acquisitions, supplemental materials for classroom use, and any other materials, including electronic resources, used for formal or informal teaching and learning purposes.”

“The selection of library acquisitions on controversial issues shall endeavor to maintain a balanced collection representing various views. Library materials shall be chosen to clarify historical and contemporary forces by presenting and analyzing intergroup tension and conflict objectively, placing emphasis on recognizing and understanding social and economic problems.”

 From the actual law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.97.IS“…selected a technology for computers with Internet access to filter or block material deemed to be harmful to minors; and” 

“…the determination of what material is to be deemed harmful to minors shall be made by the school, school board, library or other authority responsible for making the required certification.”

From federal interpretation of The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires: (emphasis mine)

 “…offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers.”

“…Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place. An Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that: (a) are obscene, (b) are child pornography, or (c) are harmful to minors, for computers that are accessed by minors.”

“…adopt and implement a policy addressing …the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications”

 “An authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” 

Spring Branch’s “safety policy” includes AUP, Student Code of Conduct (ele.), Student Code of Conduct (sec.), firewall administrator SOP, and more.

Basically from the Student Code of Conduct at either grade level, students suffer Level II consequences if they participate in “Improper use of telecommunication devices, authorized or unauthorized;”[bolding mine].

So, Spring Branch has guidelines that allow teachers the freedom to select instructional materials. We have government regulations that require safety policies and technology to protect students. And we have consequences if students misuse the technology.

And Spring Branch does purchase online subscription databases that are the newspapers, magazines, and reference books that used to come in paper form to support research. Teachers and students should consider using the safe, edited, primary source materials before venturing into the web for information.

Relative to the 4 criteria for blocking websites, the Sub-Committee also make these recommendations:

1. Custodial Responsibility – Teachers incorporate certain strategies when incorporating digital information in assignments. Teachers might consider using the online subscription resources that are quality, edited, and safe information sources for their assignments. Teachers should preview websites (several levels beyond the home page) before leading students to them. Teachers need to teach students how to evaluate the value and quality of a website. Teachers need to teach students the consequences for misusing the technology to go to inappropriate websites that might get through the filter. Teachers need to teach the students how to get out of an inappropriate website reached by accident and how to report it. Teachers need to model good digital information use. And finally teachers need to rigorously monitor students when they have access to digital resources. Librarians are available to collaborate with teachers on all the above.
2. Danger to the security of the system – The Sub-Committee recommends that Technology Services continues to find the best technological means to protect the individual computes from viruses and spyware while allowing access to as many good quality websites as possible.
3. Bandwidth hogs – The Sub-Committee recommends that Technology Services purchase more bandwidth, investigate what is taking up the bandwidth we have, and consider bandwidth management software so that certain types of digital resources have priority and always have a portion of the bandwidth available for use.
4. Significant distraction from educational pursuits – Some websites are harmless in and of themselves, but distract from our primary purpose of educational pursuits. In those cases where websites are deemed to be more of a distraction than they are worth then the Reconsideration Committee can rule whether to block them are not.

The Sub-Committee also recommends that Technology Services increase the priority of enabling the ability to utilize groups and users in Active Directory structure to allow different access for different needs. Vary the degree of restrictiveness of the filter depending on ones login. So, teachers would have unrestricted access to the web, secondary students would have least restrictive access, and elementary students would have most restrictive access.

These seem to be 4 good reasons why not to block websites:

1. Many very good and educationally appropriate websites tend to be categorized as entertainment, games or forums. For example, a website that allows students to play chess against a computer might be categorized as a game and therefore blocked. That is why the Sub-Committee recommends that games and a few other categories be unblocked then if some websites that fall into those categories need to be blocked, they can be determined on an individual basis.
2. Students need to be taught responsibility and how to deal with various types of websites. Not the websites that are harmful to students as defined by CIPA, but there are some controversial websites that need to be open so as to be used in an educational situation telling students how to evaluate and dismiss websites particularly websites that students might encounter outside of school or on their cell phones.
3. If the filtering system is too prominent, then educators may become complacent and abrogate their responsibility to monitor student use.
4. Categories of websites that contain many good educational websites along with websites that are less educational need to be open to prevent the following scenario that has happened all too often recently. A teacher finds a website that fits very well into a lesson. As the teacher evaluates the website while editing the lesson, the use of the website attracts the attention of the filtering company. Unbeknown to SBISD, the filtering company classifies the website into a category that has been determined to be blocked. So, about the time the teacher is ready to present the website contained in the lesson to the students, the website is blocked. This kind of frustration causes teachers to not want to use technology at all. That is not what we want to happen.

 21^st Century Skills: SETDA, ISTE and P21 Urge Broad and Intensive Use of Technology to Improve Education

Nation Cannot Compete If Schools Remain Dead Last in Technology Use

Washington, DC — Nov. 5, 2007 — SETDA, ISTE and P21 today warned that the nation’s schools would not be able to prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century without using technology broadly and intensively—just as competitive U.S. industries have been doing for years. 

Partnership for 21st Century Skills
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/

ISTE NETS (National Educational Technology Standards)http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/
NETS_for_Students_2007.htm

AASL Standards for the 21^st-Century Learner
http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslproftools/learningstandards/standards.cfm

The Sub-Committee is still discussing but will probably end up recommending that educators need to fill out a brief form justifying why they want a site blocked or unblocked.