Cheating the filter
Mr. Dembo over at the techlearning blog posted this past August on a False sense of security from school filters. He was surprised tips were so easily found online for bypassing the filter.
I’ve heard the argument before; it was most blatantly made by Marc Prensky at a conference I attended 2 years ago here in Virginia.
To wit:
The bigger question is, if our expensive filters are insufficient for keeping students off websites we’d like to block, how do we teach our students to navigate these sites in a safe and appropriate way?
Let’s have a reality check here.
- Schools need money, including what (little) the federal government supplies us.
- The filter is a federally-mandated requirement.
- Many educators feel “entertainment” isn’t a part of the school day, at least when they consider why a $1200 computer and a fast Internet connection has been provided.
We sometimes find a student who tries to find racy pictures. Twenty years ago, the kid’s father might have attempted to bring-in a racy magazine. The media has changed, the behavior, not so much.
But by in large, kids aren’t up to all looking for dirty pictures, hateful language, or instructions for making a bomb. They want entertainment. Web-based games, videos, etc.
Yeah, some teachers have the itch, too.
But I don’t like it when folks suggest that maybe we might look the “other way” or that we’re facing an uphill battle. It does ring with some truth, from time to time, but can we change the attention away from the “bad schools” who use filters and instead on the “bad government” that imposes these rules?
I like a filter and I’d vote to have one without a federal mandate. I’d open certain things we have to filter, and perhaps close off other stuff that was more gray.
Despite my distaste for suggesting all the filters are smoke and mirrors, my point is that filtering should be a local issue. Curriculum should be a local issue. And, gosh, we ought to teach students how to deal with the “real” Web. But maybe we ought to also hold them to a higher standard that sets boundaries and limits on what’s permitted. Too often, the consequences are either not understood, or too weak to deter the game.
The real solution here is as complicated as the one for cheating. Would it be easier to educate all the teachers about all the Web so they can educate all the students?–or just block the stuff that gets in the way of learning? We (as schools) more often than not, take the easy route.
No, change they way our students learn. Change the rules. Don’t cut out a website because it’s powerful, cut it out because it’s harmful towards the mission of the school. As I’ve been told by colleagues for many years, the best filter is the one upstairs in your head.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
For the record, I don’t advocate getting rid of filters. Far from it, I support them wholeheartedly. However, if that’s the only step a school takes to protect its students, then it’s doing them a huge disservice. Filters only protect people who aren’t making a deliberate attempt to get at the content being filtered. Anyone trying to get to that content deliberately will still do so, whether they find a way around the filter or they just go to the coffee shop down the street and surf from there. So while they may be necessary, they should just be one part of a larger initiative to teach students about safe and appropriate internet usage.
Love the way you closed the post…
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
I think a big chunk of the problem with filters is that they are so black and white. What we need is a strong filter for elementary and weaker filters for older students and staff. Also, older students and staff should have options when they are blocked from accessing a page: the notification page should have a form they can use to request the page be unblocked (and they should get a reply). Sometimes, the notification page should be a warning that tells why it is blocked, but still give you an “are you sure?” option and let staff proceed with opening the page (perhaps, they can choose to proceed once they’re sure the screen isn’t being shown to the whole class).
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
When you think about what filtering is and does, it’s almost impossible task. “Protect children from the world’s harm” when the content base is constantly changing, morphing, and fluxing.
At many schools, filters are too black and white. I think Dembo’s comment is really true: if that’s the only step a school takes to protect its students, then it’s doing them a huge disservice.
We have a policy of letting teachers override sites that the filter blocks. This lets, for instance, a teacher to project a YouTube video on the screen/wall. Kids can’t get to it, but teachers can.
I am thinking perhaps, based on what I wrote last night, of a different scenario.
Perhaps a “smart filter” scans websites and “blacklists” sites/pages based on an examination of the content (smart meaning, among other things, looking who’s linking, where links go, and skintone in graphics, and language, etc., etc.). But instead of simply blocking the site, it warns you.
“Content at this site has been tagged as possibly inappropriate for school use. Please login to view this content.”
Likewise, if the page is filled with f-bombs, the filter says “Content at this site is inappropriate. You can only override with administrator credentials.”
And…
“The content at this site contains some high-bandwidth content. Your teacher may override, or you can visit again after school hours.”
Maybe it already exists, who knows.