The Mid-Atlantic Regional Technology in Education Consortium (MAR*TEC) is one of ten federally funded regional technology consortiums. We support teachers’, administrators’, and educational communities’ use of technology to create efficient and effective learning environments.
Our
work allows us to observe and describe what students and teachers know and can
do with technology in the classroom. We
have also witnessed the effects of diverse leadership and technology policy
decisions in the classroom. Therefore we submit these comments and suggestions
concerning the effectiveness of legislated Internet protection measures and
safety policies.
CIPA
requires that districts implement both technology and human strategies that
will protect students. Most districts don’t understand the complexity that is
inherent in this legislation. Many educational leaders have developed
Acceptable Use Policies (AUP), installed filters, and considered the job done.
However, they should also consider:
·
establishing
policies that give teachers autonomy for classroom curriculum materials,
·
regulating
overriding policies that allow teachers to make decisions for different ages of
students and different educational settings (classroom use, library use, after
school enrichment, etc.),
·
distribution
patterns for images that are harmful to minors.
Illustrated
below are the issues involved in two of the problems that arise with the CIPA
legislation in local educational agencies.
Typical
problems within school settings include:
·
physical
placement of students workstations,
·
misunderstanding
of teachers monitoring role
·
lack
of teacher knowledge and sophistication about technology,
CIPA
requires that schools and libraries monitor students’ use of the Internet.
Districts and schools may choose to fulfill this requirement with electronic
monitoring, human monitoring or a combination of both. Monitoring students’
Internet behavior is not a new requirement for schools, as teachers are
required to monitor all student behavior. However, this requirement
pre-supposes that classroom and labs are physically set up so that the teachers
and school librarians can see students’ computer workstations. Our experience
suggests that teachers are rarely consulted about physical placement of
computers in classrooms and labs, and that technology labs are usually set up
in rows with limited physical access to the computers located at the end of the
row. In order to see a student’s monitor at the end of the row, teachers must
walk down narrow aisles crowded with chairs, backpacks, and other student
paraphernalia. The physical placement of computers compromises a teacher's
ability to effectively monitor students’ use.
Mobile
laptops do not entirely eliminate the monitoring problem. Although mobile
laptops allow for adequate physical placement of computers within a classroom,
the tilt of the screen (when set for a seated student) prohibits easy viewing
by a teacher who is standing. In order for a teacher to see the screen, she
must bend down and incline the monitor. This precludes easy viewing of many
monitors at once.
But
even if computers are physically placed in a room so that teachers can see the
students’ workstations, teachers and educational leaders are unaware of what
good computer monitoring entails and how strategies change and develop with
students’ grade level maturation. There is also a question of violation of
privacy. Administrators, teachers and students are confused about expectations
of privacy. This confusion provides incentive to “look the other way” when
students use the Internet. Teachers and educational leaders need guidelines
regarding the issues of privacy vs. monitoring.
Furthermore,
most teachers in the mid-Atlantic region have limited technology proficiency
and sophistication and are reluctant to monitor students who are skilled and
sophisticated users of technology. Reluctance also comes from teachers not
wanting to remove the privilege of Internet use, especially when students do
not have access to computers at home. MAR*TEC staff observe that teachers and
administrators believe technology competence advances future employment
opportunities for their students. This belief coupled with the inadequate skill
and sophistication of teachers and leaders results in the idea that students
are building important technology skills regardless of their activity.
Consequently, some students are allowed to do whatever they please on the
computer during non-instructional time. This creates the perception that the
lab is a free “haven” where students find it much more desirable to be than stuck
with a strict study hall monitor.
MAR*TEC believes that effective supervising requires proper
physical placement of computers, flexible district policies, and professional
development and training for teachers:. .
·
Computers should be placed so that teachers and supervisors
can easily view students’ workstations and physically reach students if they
need to discuss computer activity.
·
Flexible policies allow for different levels of supervision
in different ages of students and accommodated different educational settings
(e.g. labs. vs. classrooms, after school programs vs. school time activities).
·
Professional development and training for teachers is key
to successful monitoring practice. Districts need to educate teachers regarding
their responsibility and potential liability and to provide them with effective
monitoring strategies.
MAR*TEC recommends that educational leaders receive
training, help and support in developing and implementing effective monitoring
policies and that district leaders participate in this training. The RTEC
organizations could develop and coordinate effective online training for these
educational administrators.
Problem
#2 Distribution Patterns Of Harmful Images
Point-to-point communications include email, instant messaging,
Internet chat and beaming messages from one portable digital assistant (PDA) to
another. Current filtering and blocking technologies typically used in schools
don’t stop point-to-point transmissions of images harmful to minors. Spam is a
common practice for the market-saturated adult entertainment industry. Jim
Krane, Philadelphia Inquirer, explains: “Spammers’ blanket approach ensures
that more of their messages wind up in the e-mailboxes of schoolchildren than
those of the few people who might want these products.” (8/8/02 The
Philadelphia Inquirer. Spammers Struggling To Annoy You.)
MAR*TEC recognizes that there is currently a dearth of
information on how children use point-to-point transmissions in pursuit of
academic goals. In order to effectively develop national policies that would
block point-to-point transmissions of harmful images, we need the answers to
the following questions:
1.
How many schools provide school based email accounts to
students?
2.
If schools do not provide an email account to students, how
many schools allow students to check their email at school?
3.
Do k-12 students receive and transmit pornographic spam
when they use free email accounts such as hotmail, msn? If yes, what percentage
of their daily email is pornographic spam?
4.
Do k-12 students receive and transmit pornographic spam
when they use a school email account? If yes, what percentage of their daily
email is pornographic spam?
5. How often
do students use email to pursue their academic goals? (This includes emailing
teachers or peers to discuss academic assignments, or emailing mentors with
academic questions)
6.
What other point-to-point transmissions are used by
students at school? (IM, Internet chat, beaming PDA messages, etc.)
7.
Do k-12 students receive and transmit pornographic images
through other point-to-point transmissions?
MAR*TEC recommends that research is commissioned to understand how point-to-point technologies are used in schools. The RTEC organizations could design, coordinate and implement this research.