John Concilus, Coordinator of Educational Technology for the Bearing Strait School District in Unalakleet, Alaska recently submitted a great post about what happens when a district’s technical leadership sides with commercial vendors. Typically, these vendors offer “secured” and potentially limited Web 2.0 management software rather than going with more open-ended, open source/software libre options on which many of us have come to depend. Many of you teach at or are at least aware of schools that have closed off access to YouTube, Wikipedia.org, Blogger.com, and other popular content rich portals, so you you don’t have to stretch too far to see why this might happen. Nevertheless, you should read this article to gain some insight into a real live situation that developed not too long ago in my home state of Florida.
I am fortunate enough to teach in a school that is supported under a district policy that encourages the use of technology in the classroom and is open to new and innovative approaches to collaborative learning. However, we all owe it to ourselves to remain aware of obstacles that may potentially arise as our “Web 2.0 in the classroom” efforts move forward. I’ll start by commenting as follows:
Many school districts, perhaps even my own to some degree, view some of Web 2.0’s collaborative and open source applications as potentially damaging to students from a safety or appropriateness standpoint. Some hold fast to strict whitelists created to prevent internet enabled computers at schools and district offices from gaining access to non-sanctioned or otherwise unapproved content. John’s post references Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who recently introduced Senate Bill S.49 (referred to many as DOPA, Jr.), which has become a real hot button issue of late. The bill would block access to many social networking sites accessed through public computers (i.e., those located in libraries and schools), and there are many educators, including myself, who believe that this bill poses the serious risk of limiting access to Web 2.0 educational content. The bill is presently at the introduction stage, and the actual wording related to “educational use” may provide some leeway. That wording, as presented in the bill’s summary text, is provided as follows:
Amends the Crime Control Act of 1990 to triple the fines on providers of electronic communication services or remote computing services who knowingly and willfully fail to report child pornography. Requires warning labels for websites depicting sexually explicit material. Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007 – Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require schools and libraries that receive universal service support to enforce a policy that: (1) prohibits access to a commercial social networking website or chat room unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision; and (2) protects against access to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors. (Track the progress of this bill by clicking here.)
In John’s article referenced above, he relays some interesting thoughts about the way software vendors may be preying on school/district IT Directors who are fearful of promoting the wide use of Web 2.0 technology in light of what they perceive to be the regulations presented by Senate Bill S.49 as well as CIPA, COPA, and eRate:
“Let me be clear: Despite what you may have heard, nothing in CIPA or eRate funding regulations bans the use of wiki, chat, IM, blog, or social networking sites such as MySpace, Bebo, and so on. If these technologies are blocked in your school, it is your district’s policy that prohibits their use.
Vendors of firewall and filtering and security products use industry “publications” to reprint their press releases that fuel these same misperceptions. Why? Because fear equals market share. It is a brilliant use of disinformation, and I see this happening now with collaborative technologies. These tools are freely available right now to any school district that wants them.
A scared tech director is easy prey for sales calls, folks. Want to guess where most tech directors get their information about CIPA, COPA and eRate? Yep, you’ve got it. District level technology leaders get their info mostly from conferences and vendor press releases disguised as articles. These same school district tech directors either make the decisions about purchases and policies for student or teacher use, or they advise those at the top who do.
That vicious cycle, my virtual friends, is the real reason you don’t see Web 2.0 technologies more widely used in schools.”
It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of what Web 2.0 technology can do for our students, and I encourage you to push forward with as many instances of this technology as you can muster up and use. But do stay mindful of the issues mentioned above as you move ahead, and take time to find out where your district stands regarding this latest legislative effort.
Do you see trouble ahead for Web 2.0? Do you feel that the bill’s language adequately protects against the blockage of Web 2.0 applications we educators find so very useful? What is your take regarding John’s opinion that software companies are spearheading a mass disinformation campaign to boost sales?
As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Technorati Tags: web 2.0, Senate Bill S.49, Ted Stevens
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
No Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
