5 Responses to “Two amazing bits of news”

1. 

   mark said on January 7th, 2007 at 12:04 am

   I'm going to make a stand againt the de-filtering of internet content. I think it's irresponsible and _not_ child focussed.

2. 

   Doug Belshaw said on January 7th, 2007 at 5:50 am

   Mark, just take a step back from what you do for a living and think about how things should be instead of how they actually are. So a couple of kids look at or post something they shouldn't. Should the 2% spoil the real-world learning opportunities for the 98%. Does blocking everything in sight really teach kids how to use the Internet responsibly? 

3. 

   mark said on January 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am

   That's the typical comment I hear too much. No one _is_ blocking everything in sight. The story you linked to said that was the case there – but if true, that's a very rare exception.
   Would you live in a brothel with your children? Just teach them to look the other way or hum so that they couldn't hear what was going on? I think that'd be irresponsible of you.
   The idea of full exposure is good in an adult world where people are free to choose I think. But for children we have a duty to care. That's why I think the argument is not child centered. 
   There's still plenty to be taught about responsible use _with_ the obscene etc content blocked. As sysadmin I have unfiltered access – I don't find I have to use that 99% of the time. Then only to test an external email account or download drivers. The reasoning that 'most content is blocked' is entirely fictitious.

   2% is a convenient figure from that blog post. We find it's about 20% that then disrupts whole classes, and eventually the whole school – so then no one can learn. Said blogger also states the responsibility of staff to monitor what students in classes are doing. That's the other method of controlling it – both are valid – however monitoring puts a lot more of the burden onto the teacher – both legally and in time spent. Students can focus on tasks without the pressure to do wrong.
   How _should_ things be? That's simple: Children should be protected from exposure to anything inappropriate to their age or experience.
   And i'm not speaking from my experience in my profession, but as a person that is always involve with working with children in some way. I consider myself strongly child focused.

4. 

   Doug Belshaw said on January 7th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

   Mark, the very fact that you participate in conversations like this show that you are committed to the wellbeing of children, are reflective, and not simply a 'jobsworth'. Unfortunately, though, many in your position are, and are content to let the LEA/whatever do the filtering for them. This leads to a lot of frustration on the part of teachers and learners alike. 

5. 

   mark said on January 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

   Our LEA manage our filter, so any changes made to the filter apply to all immediately. The odd teacher will still complain, but the fact is rules can be changed within minutes.
   I explain that sites that are open to anonymous posters will, by default, be blocked. Usually with sites we want to use, there is the facility to create your own area and allow access to that.
   As far as I know, and you know I am part of a UK wide school tech forum, all techs think like me.
   We do get the odd embittered tech but those are few and far between, I suppose we all have  to have something to moan about!

Leave a Reply