Before the
Department of
Commerce
National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of )
Request for Comment on the ) Docket No. 020514121-2121-01
Effectiveness of Internet Protection ) RIN 0660-XX14
Measures and Safety Policies )
)
COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
The National Education Association (NEA) hereby submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (the Notice) in the above-captioned proceeding.
NEA is America's oldest and largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education, with 2.6 million members working at every level of education, from pre-school to university graduate programs.
As an organization representing beneficiaries of the E-Rate program and the ESEA education-technology grant programs covered by CIPA, we have been actively engaged in the management of Internet access and in children's online safety since before the term "Internet" entered into common parlance. We applaud the NTIA for creating this opportunity to focus on the impact of CIPA, of blocking and filtering technology, and of acceptable use policies, within educational institutions.
Part 1:
Section 1703(a)(1) of the Act requires NTIA to evaluate whether or not currently available technology protection measures, including commercial Internet blocking and filtering software, adequately address the needs of educational institutions.
First, we continue to maintain that decisions about the acceptable use of the Internet and other technologies by students, including the use of blocking and filtering products, are best made by those at the local level. After all, it was the Supreme Court -- in defining “obscenity” – that acknowledged that a community’s standards or values play an indispensable part of determining whether material is obscene.[1] Second, we have always believed that minors should be able to experience the exciting and vast information highway in a safe way, undisturbed by material that is harmful or obscene, but we also continue to maintain that no technology, by itself, will ever provide a completely safe e-environment. Training of staff and of students is also necessary to make them aware of what acceptable use of the Internet is, what to do when harmful or otherwise prohibited material is not blocked by the filter, what to do if approached online by someone, and how to report any incidents or harmful sites. Third, technological protection measures are not effective at every age or grade level, and indeed may hinder educational opportunities by blocking access to critical information. For these reasons, we believe that unless technological protection measures are accompanied by adequate training, allow for flexible usage, and are governed by local decision-making, they will never fully meet the needs of schools.
I. Local Communities Should Choose
The decision of when it is appropriate to allow unfettered access to information that technology tools block or filter should, in our opinion, remain at the local level. Individual communities are in the best position to comprehend the local resources (financial and human), values, and other community concerns that figure into the calculus of employing blocking or filtering technology.
Our members believe and have experience demonstrating that the transition to any new technology occurs more smoothly and more successfully when comprehensive training is provided, as well as access to technical assistance and support. The requirement that blocking and filtering software or services be used in schools, as mandated by CIPA, is no different. We certainly believe that filtering and blocking technology can be a useful tool for preventing minors from accessing inappropriate Internet content, but it is not a "silver bullet" solution that can replace education, judgment, and the supervision of children by teachers and other school staff. Filtering and blocking technology is most effective when teachers and educational institutions can customize it and use it in concert with their educational philosophies, curriculum, and resources. It is less effective when implemented without giving due consideration to the judgment of classroom teachers, school library media specialists, and school technology coordinators. Consulting with and providing effective training to education professionals are prerequisites to the integration of effective technology protection measures into classrooms and school libraries.
Beyond working with educators and librarians, we believe that it is vital that children also receive guidance on their use of the Internet. There has yet to be a technology devised that can prevent children from engaging in risky behavior or from being exposed to inappropriate material. We believe that programs educating children to think critically and use the Internet safely and responsibly are the most effective measures an educational institution can take to protect children from dangerous situations or inappropriate material on the Internet. As Attorney General Richard Thornburgh noted in the National Research Council's May 2002 report, "Youth, Pornography, and the Internet":
Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All of these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one's children is to teach them to swim.[2]
Technology protection measures should be defined broadly to include educational programs geared towards teaching children how to protect themselves from risky or inappropriate situations involving technology. We support providing children with training on effective Internet search skills, the importance of protecting their personal information online, how to avoid risky situations, and how to determine whether an e-mail message or a web site are likely to be appropriate or inappropriate. We also recommend programs like the Consortium for School Networking's Safeguarding the Wired Schoolhouse, the American Library Association's Families Connect and Kids Connect programs, sites like the Children's Partnership, SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com, and GetNetWise as tremendous resources designed to help young people have safe, educational, fun, and age-appropriate online experiences.
In sum, we do not believe that software-based technology protection measures can now, or will in the future, be able to replace education and judgment. These are the most critical parts of protecting children. As the National Research Council's report forcefully concludes:
In short, a child who responsibly chooses appropriate materials to access and appropriate things to do on the Internet and who knows what to do about inappropriate materials and experiences should he or she come across them is much safer than a child whose parents and school teachers reply primarily on technology and public policy to solve the problem for them.[3]
Even with all the training and education in the world, we believe that there are simply times when the technology fails, either by missing inappropriate sites, or by depriving students and teachers of access to legitimate information. We are particularly concerned about the latter situation. We know that over-blocking of mainstream, helpful educational material does occur with many filtering products in use today. Overblocking errors are particularly troublesome when teachers either lack the training to, or are prohibited by law from disabling the filtering software for minors to engage in research or other educational purposes. Teachers should have the training and flexibility to use common-sense solutions to ensure that the children under their responsibility are able to have the most rich, engaging education available. Therefore, we believe that there are times when it is appropriate for schools to be empowered to disable the filtering or blocking technology.
As noted in our answer to Question 1, we believe that local communities are best able to determine what technology, procedure, or combination will have the most success in their schools. We believe those answers will vary from state to state and school district to school district. And we are uncomfortable dictating a national level recommendation at this point – schools and school districts should be encourage to develop innovative solutions reflecting local values, resources, and priorities.
While some NEA members may have highly nuanced understandings of this technical matter, as an organization, we view the selection of these technologies as a purely local matter. However, we understand that there have been a number of other studies, including reports from the Commission on Children's Online Protection (the "COPA Commission") and the National Research Council, that explain these technologies, and their strengths and weaknesses, in great detail.
We do note that even if a solution to the technology problem is achieved, CIPA contains provisions that constitute another obstacle to students' access to legitimate information. CIPA's E-Rate provisions do not allow teachers to disable filtering software when minors are using the computers, even for research or other bona fide purposes. These provisions pose a serious burden on teachers and diminish the quality of the educational experience for students.
Based on publicly available information, such as testimony before the COPA Commission and on the actions of filtering and blocking companies in the ALA/ACLU challenge to the public library provisions of CIPA, it appears that many companies decline to provide access to the lists of blocked or filtered sites used by their product or products. They view this information as proprietary and express concern that release of such lists would either be abused by their competitors, or would be tantamount to providing the public with a list of pornographic web sites, in direct conflict with their corporate missions.
More companies are willing to provide some description of the criteria used to deny or permit such access. However, those descriptions vary considerably in scope, detail, and helpfulness. Particularly among the smaller service providers, detailed information may be unavailable.
We encourage the NTIA to recommend that technology companies provide greater information to schools and libraries, including lists of blocked or filtered sites, detailed criteria explaining how decisions to block or not block are made, and how to appeal an initial ruling that prevents a web site from being available in a classroom. Such disclosure also helps parents to understand and evaluate the work being done by school personnel to help protect their children. Without such information, parents may wrongly feel that school personnel are not adequate protecting their children. Additionally, if blocking or filtering errors can be corrected by an on-site system administrator, technology companies should work with school district procurement officials to ensure that teachers, school technology coordinators, and other relevant staff are properly trained.
As with Question 3, while some NEA members may have highly nuanced understandings of this technical matter, as an organization, we view the selection of these technologies as a purely local matter. NEA is not able to answer this question further.
We believe that all of the above factors, as well as a number of other factors, are and should be considered, when schools select filtering and blocking technology and other software or services. Many schools or school districts examine the ease of use, the ability to customize, the ability to override and unblock sites the school considers educationally useful, and the preferences of the community in this selection process. Unfortunately, we know that a number of districts must make product cost a primary consideration as our nation's economic slump further reduces funds available for schools. As a result, school districts are choosing cheaper and less-sophisticated products because of economic necessity.
Fostering the Development of Technology Measures
Section 1703(a)(2) directs NTIA to initiate a notice and
comment proceeding to make recommendations on how to foster the development of
technology measures that meet the needs of educational institutions.
Our members are frustrated by the failures of blocking and filtering devices and their inability to temporarily disable them in instances of over-blocking or to allow access to age-appropriate educational material. No technology provides a silver bullet for protecting children or limiting their access to prohibited Internet activity. Most filtering and blocking software effectively blocks access to sexually explicit material. However, both underblocking and overblocking errors take place in all technology. Even where educational institutions have attempted to use filtering and blocking tools that conform narrowly to the requirements of CIPA, the National Research Council study, “Youth, Pornography, and the Internet,” found that “Due to the nature of filtering, these two types of errors are inevitable.”[4]
Another drawback of CIPA is that it includes a "catch-all" category permitting schools to block any material "deemed inappropriate for minors." Many filtering products used in schools are now being configured to block access to free web pages, free e-mail accounts, graphic violence, hate sites, online gambling, sites promoting drug use, and in some cases, dozens of other categories. We were struck by one finding of the National Research Council study – that teachers and school technology coordinators reported that “avoiding controversy and/or liability for exposing children to inappropriate sexually explicit material was the primary reason offered for the installation of filters.”[5] We are dismayed that the laudable aims of CIPA have led to these types of constitutionally and educationally suspect consequences.
We do not believe, as some have suggested, that lack of familiarity or knowledge about the available filtering and blocking tools is a significant reason for their non-adoption. Current public statistics bear that out. Even before CIPA's passage, schools and libraries were aware of blocking and filtering tools, and many had implemented them in various ways. Before CIPA became law, nearly 75% of schools[6] chose to filter Internet access. This number has likely increased since the passage of CIPA. After CIPA was enacted, 12% more libraries decided to filter or block Internet access, totaling 43% overall. The overwhelming majority of libraries filtering Internet access filter children's terminals; only half of those filter terminals used by adults. This represented a significant jump from the year before CIPA passed, in which only 31% used filtering at all.[7]
While there remain a substantial number of educational institutions electing not to filter Internet access there are any number of reasons for such decisions, including: educational philosophy, cost, training time and expense, concern over civil liberties, or the sense that there is not a significant problem with children viewing inappropriate material on the Internet in that community, or for other reasons. Which of these is prevalent is impossible to know.
The number one feature needed by educational institutions is flexibility. Unfortunately, although there are tools with considerable flexibility encoded, use of these features is prohibited by CIPA for schools receiving E-Rate funding for Internet access and internal networking. The section of the statute in question reads:
(D) Disabling during adult use. An administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the certifying authority under subparagraph (A)(i) may disable the technology protection measure concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose. [8] (Emphasis added.)
At a minimum, the NTIA should recommend allowing E-Rate recipients covered by CIPA the same flexibility permitted for schools receiving only CIPA-covered Department of Education funding. Those schools are permitted to disable filtering software for minors as well as adults, a feature of the law which our members find makes more sense in schools. The segment of CIPA which addresses these Department of Education funds reads:
(3) Disabling during certain use. An administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the responsible authority under paragraph 1 may disable the technology protection measure concerned to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.[9] (Emphasis added.)
Our members teaching high school report considerably more difficulties using filtering and blocking software than our members teaching young children, particularly in the area of overblocking. Older students, who are expected to use the Internet to conduct their own research, especially for health and medical-related courses, often run into difficulties with filters blocking explicit biomedical sites, sites related to the use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and sites related to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
As noted above, in many cases, even where the tool could be disabled to accommodate bona fide research or other lawful purposes, our members are often uncertain if they may do so. Since many schools and school districts participate in the E-Rate program, the majority cannot disable the filtering or blocking technology for minors under any circumstances. We understand that there are products on the market that can be disabled for a period of time, using a password. The ability to use such a feature would permit somewhat more flexibility and allow for a greater range of material to be used.
Lastly, we do not believe that even if schools were permitted to dismantle these tools, it would prove easy to do. While several web sites, such as www.peacefire.org, include instructions for bypassing various filtering software packages, these instructions are complex and do not apply to all filtering and blocking tools. Most of the tools available today include hidden files that may require a password to fully "uninstall" or are housed on the Internet server, not the computer in the home. Although many parents feel that their children are "technological geniuses" or understand computers and the Internet better than they do, there is scant evidence that children are actually able to dismantle filtering or blocking technology.
Current Internet Safety Policies
Section 1703(a)(3) requires NTIA to evaluate the
development and effectiveness of local Internet safety policies currently in
operation that were established with community input.
Internet safety and acceptable use policies can be highly effective at ensuring that young people have safe, age-appropriate experiences online if they are accompanied by educational efforts.
Just as we must teach children to look both ways before crossing the street, we must teach children appropriate behavior for using the Internet safely and appropriately. If a school district treats their Internet safety and acceptable use policy as “yet another form” children and parents must sign in the beginning of the school year, not reading, using, or enforcing it, it will not be not an effective safety tool.
However, an Internet safety and acceptable use policy can be an extremely effective if its principles are inculcated in students. For example, the Cleveland Municipal School District requires children to take a “Student Internet Test” before they can use the Internet. Students must score a perfect 100% on the test, which covers both safety and appropriate behavior. Only after a student has passed the test, and both a parent and the student have signed a permission slip acknowledging that they have read and understand the acceptable use policy, does the student receive his or her signed “Internet Driver’s License.”[10] Similar programs have been developed commercially and are being sold to school districts by companies such as Education World.[11]
We believe this is a responsible and more comprehensive way to provide for online safety and hope that NTIA encourages this approach through public recognition of model approaches or in any other way it can.
We recommend that NTIA urge all school districts review Internet safety and acceptable use policies on a regular basis to ensure that they appropriately cover current technology and reflect the values of their communities. This is the best way to ensure that current policies meet the needs of the institution and the community.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, within the Department of Education, in 2000, 91% of schools "used more than one procedure or technology as part of their policy."[12] Specifically 98% of public schools with Internet access had an "Acceptable Use Policy" and of those:
· 94% had teachers or staff monitoring student access to the Internet;
· 74% used blocking and filtering software;
· 64% used an honor code;
· 28% used a school intranet;
Furthermore,
· 91% of the schools used more than one of the aforementioned procedures, and
· 15% used all of them.
Informal conversations with our members suggest that these numbers are an accurate reflection of the use of technology tools and acceptable use policies in schools.
As noted in the answer to Question 1, Part 1, and throughout our answers, our members believe that educational programs are the most effective measure an educational institution can take to protect children from dangerous situations or inappropriate material on the Internet. In fact, we fully agree with the National Research Council's conclusion that education is essential for children's online safety.
Parry Aftab, the Executive Director of CyberAngels put it best when she said:
[T]he best filter, and one that comes at no additional charge, is the one installed between our children's ears as we teach them how to make judgments. It needs constant updating, but if we take the time to help our children develop good judgment, we never have to worry about what happens when they face the real world, online or offline.[13]
Thank you for allowing for a period of public comment about this important topic. One of the principal reasons that our members become educators is a desire to work with young people to help them grow and reach their full potential. We will always be concerned about providing a safe learning environment for our students, as well as ensuring as much access to the marketplace of ideas and information as appropriate in order to provide them with a rich educational experience.
[1] Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
[2] Youth, Pornography, and the Internet, a report of the National Research Council, May 2, 2002, prepublication copy page ES-6, 7.
[3] Youth, Pornography, and the Internet, a report of the National Research Council, May 2, 2002, prepublication copy page 14-7.
[4] Youth, Pornography, and the Internet, a report of the National Research Council, May 2, 2002, prepublication copy page 2-18.
[5] Youth, Pornography, and the Internet, a report of the National Research Council, May 2, 2002, prepublication copy page 12-11.
[6] National Center for Education Statistics, "Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994 – 2000" http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/internetaccess/
[7] Norman Oder, "The New Wariness," The Library Journal, January 15, 2002
[8] 47 U.S.C. 254 (h)(5)(D)
[9] 20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.
[12] National Center for Education Statistics, "Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994 – 2000" http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/internetaccess/
[13] NetFamilyNews, May 21, 1999, http://www.netfamilynews.org/sl990521.html