Earlier this week a post appeared here that I have since deleted. It announced the publication of a new “page” on my district’s website about Internet safety and social networks. I sometimes cross-post content from my day job here automatically, but sometimes if it’s specifically for our teachers, I remove it here. The stuff that remains in both locations is fit enough for all audiences.

I received a comment on that post, and I wanted to address the comment on a number of levels. I’d prefer to do so through the commenter’s e-mail. But when someone choses not to post a comment with an authentic e-mail address, I’d prefer not to publish it. If you don’t want me to know who you are, well, I have less interest in what you have to say.

All I do know is that someone affiliated with the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District didn’t like the page I put together. First, the basic complaint was this:

I think most of it shows a good intent, but eventually the new page strays too far into fear-mongering.

I agree that there is a lot of fear mongering going on online today in regards to some organizations and what they’re saying about ‘net safety and kids. Our department of education has their own stance, that I might say is even more severe than the one we’ve taken. They’ve even promoted websites that suggest kids shouldn’t go online at all.

Second, this comment:

I think the best indicator of the direction of the article is that there are no citations.

I agree here, we used no citations and I gather our information (which was originally gathered for a brochure) would only be strengthened by citing authorities on the topics covered.

Our basic tenet is expressed thusly:

We ask for your cooperation in learning more about your student’s involvement with social networking—both off- and on-line.

The commenter however takes me to task. To wit:

This is your chance to influence whether your district’s stance is based on hunches from local experts or actual research into how to keep kids safer.

It seems he or she has concerns with the validity of a single statement such as this one:

First and foremost, students should not be sharing details about themselves—where they live or go to school—with strangers. This means details like birthdays, phone numbers, or even their real names should not be posted in public spaces (including social networks). A few facts derived from various sources online can lead a determined person right to your door.

I beg forgiveness in assuming that folks would simply assume that putting something like a child’s name on a webpage would invite horrors to follow.

If we’re talking about predators, their will is at play, no question. It takes a motivated individual to go online, search out kids, and make an effort into taking advantage of them.

Few would argue the fact that with personal information, one can take advantage of you more easily. I appreciate what the reason of good research might suggest, but I’m also savvy enough as local expert to know that the more you share online, the higher the risk.

Our brochure doesn’t specifically proffer name and birthday as the one magic pill that will keep predators away. In fact, it doesn’t single-out predators at all, it says that keeping personal information private is a good rule to follow.

Can we all agree to that?

Finally, we’re seeing parents routinely in our school offices who are telling us “I never know this profile existed” of their child… they haven’t been on MySpace or Facebook, or wherever else to see what their child has posted. The news is also ripe with a few select articles of teachers who didn’t know better before posting their pictures depicting their own intoxication, only later to find out it’s causing problems with their employment in the education profession.

The commenter cites an article by Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, et al., that focuses on online predators. The commenter suggests that we follow the lead of “real” research like this article in defining our Internet safety program. To wit, from the conclusion of the Wolak, Finkelhor, el al., article:

As access to interactive Internet technologies broadens with the introduction and spread of wireless and handheld technologies, such as cell phones and personal organizers, youth Internet use could become harder to monitor, and accurate descriptions of and education about risks to youth with become even more important.

That is our very intent with this brochure: to raise awareness of what’s happening online and to solicit the cooperation of parents in helping monitor student activity online. The Wolak article, to be fair, does break from some of the Websites we link to by emphasizing the “sexual education” portion of the equation, following their findings.

Focus prevention frankly on concerns relevant to adolescents, including autonomy, romance, and sex.

This focus specifically, they suggest, should be directed at students and not their parents.

These conversations are ones we (as schools) find ourselves in a difficult position to have. So many schools have battled with these discussions, some restricted from official state curricula, about what actually can be said under the umbrella of “sex education.”

Page 123 of the article goes on to identify “risky” online behaviors. To wit, some of their behaviors include:

• posting personal information,
• interacting online with unknown people,
• Using the net to make rude, nasty comments,
• sending personal information to unknown people online

Those specifically are referenced in our more general statements about “sharing carefully.”

To conclude, a few points.

1. Normally I’m not going to address or post comments from anonymous posters.
2. I took issue with this comment because it made some valid points, although its overall tone was too critical.
3. Agree: information or suggestion is more valuable when we cite expert sources of ideas.
4. Disagree: We’re trying to monger fear.
5. The cited research both supports our position but also suggests our effort should be spent more so on working directly with children with regards to Internet safety. To be fair, we comply with the Virginia requirement of each teacher teaching a lesson around Internet safety to students (instituted in 2007). 6: Conclusion: the webpage I referenced earlier, which really was for another audience, offers advice congruent with many sources of expertise and is focused on parent education. Our very own experience dealing with issues at the school level necessarily led to its creation.

You knew it would be cool, but it turns out it is.

Here, I simply typed in three local counties using a pipe symbol. I wanted to compare them. W|A spits out some very nice statistics.

All the math it can do makes me dizzy, but I love their average temperature graphs. Try it out!

For my workshop today, I’ve put together a set of images for use in Photoshop.

I am currently completing the transition to the new site design. The static pages were easy; the Wordpress theme presents more of a challenge… soon enough.

Incidentally, the theme was inspired by a new layout I created for presentation handouts. And that’s a whole other discussion.

The PDFs are designed to be viewed full-screen on an “HD” display, or something at 16:10 ratio. I really don’t want folks to print them (you know, save the trees). But they will print too, on letter-sized paper. This particular presentation is for EdTech 2009 in Ashland, Virginia.

Some time ago, I fancied making really posh PDFs. But then OS X came along, and Preview, and then they didn’t do all those fancy things anymore. But I still think it’s cool that such a small file can produce such a gorgeous looking document (not mine, in particular; no bragging!). While I use Helvetica on the site, I used Formata and Minion Pro for the PDF.

I recently started looking at the website for the so-called smart pen by Livescribe.

It looks pretty interesting. I’ve seen this before when it was an earlier model and called something else (Flippen, perhaps?). What’s interesting is that it isn’t really transcribing what you wrote, but rather keeping an audio sync. What’s more interesting is the capability of drawing controls (or using the pre-printed ones) and doing things like calculations or starting audio playback.

Whether it’s Livescribe with their pen, or Microsoft with their TabletPC, there’s a lot of technology today still banking on writing with pens. I just wonder, though… is this worth the effort?

The videos for Lightscribe suggest you have a PC, but that in class, you’d be taking paper-based notes (on their dotted paper). I’d personally rather have the PC in class, and type notes. I’m far faster at writing with a computer than I’d be with a pen and paper.

The one “gotcha” for keeping the pen is our ability to draw. I like to draw sometimes. Things like diagrams, graphic organizers, charts… aren’t easily rendered a la minute with a mouse and keyboard. Some, maybe. But let’s say I’m using Microsoft’s Word to put in a quick drawing. The tools aren’t very humanistic. Instead, they’ve provided pre-made shapes and straight lines.

With Livescribe, you can draw, and later, digitize your sketch. You can also do this on the tablet PC (the only reason, I might add, for having one). I’m wondering if these two technologies might somehow be superseded by something even more natural.

Only time will tell us about what “wins” with computers: pens or fingers and touch interfaces.