4 ms·

You're being down voted, but you have a point. Commenters nearby don't get that the school district and its administrators will be liable if kids are using sch

by mturmon 12y ago

You're being down voted, but you have a point. Commenters nearby don't get that the school district and its administrators will be liable if kids are using school resources (bandwidth) to access controversial websites. E.g., there's an audit and someone starts looking into the router logs, and then word leaks to the local newspaper. ("Think of the children!") So the district in effect must put in a filter. Now we're just arguing about the threshold on the filter, and it's not a matter of absolute principle, just the setting of a knob. The same reasoning applies to a school-supplied laptop or iPad. The situation is similar to a job-supplied network and computer. There are limits on what you should be doing on it, because it's not yours. If you want to do whatever you want, you'd better own the resources.

mgkimsal 12y ago
"Commenters nearby don't get that the school district and its administrators will be liable if kids are using school resources (bandwidth) to access controversial websites." Then teachers shouldn't assign homework activities that require use of those same websites (Twitter being one example from the article). "Your homework assignment is to go use Twitter to find 5 spanish language articles and translate them, then tweet in spanish. Oh, and Twitter is deemed 'controversial' enough to not be allowed on school property. And you'll get a 0 on this assignment if you don't complete it". Sweet...
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  That doesn't sound that weird at all? "Your homework assignment is to go [home and] use Twitter to [...]". If they were saying "Your in-class project is to use Twitter to find these articles. Also, Twitter is banned on the school network. And you get a 0 if you don't do it", then yes, I'd be agreeing that it's weird. But homework is, sort of by definition, meant to be done at home. When I was in school, I would certainly take advantage of down time to get homework done early, but (until I started getting free blocks in high school) I never felt like homework was meant to be done during school hours on school grounds. Why are teachers assigning work to be done on websites that the school network blocks? Because at home, it's the parent's job to ensure their child doesn't access material that parents object to; at school, it's the administrator's job to ensure that EVERY child doesn't access material that ANY parent can object to. That's a much more challenging proposition, and (for better or for worse), schools tend to paint with a broad brush when it comes to enforcing limits.
  - mgkimsal 12y ago
    not everyone has internet access at home. Make it a book. The school system has deemed that "Huckleberry Finn" is too controversial to be allowed in our library. Your homework assignment is to do a book report on "Huckleberry Finn".
    - CocaKoala 12y ago
      Public libraries don't block access to Twitter (and also carry copies of Huckleberry Finn).
forrestthewoods 12y ago
Liable for what precisely? What type of controversy? Reading naughty words? Reading opinions that disagree with the status quo? Perhaps reading a pamphlet titled Common Sense? The district could actually not put in a filter. That is a thing they could just do. Then, when the newspapers complain, they can yes that's what they did. I promise you the world won't end. Do you know where underage school children can go to access "controversial websites"? The public library. They can walk right in, sit down at a computer, and view the internet in all it's uncensored glory. For free. In public. As children. Shocking I know. Also they can just use their smart phone because it seems like every kid over the age of 10 has a smart phone with internet. As best I can tell the world has still not ended.
- mturmon 12y ago
  "I promise you the world won't end." For the teacher and the school administrator, it could. We don't live in the world you're writing about. The smart phone comparison is not the same, because the kid's parents control whether there is a phone and its settings. The public library comparison is interesting. Not the same (because their missions are different), but interesting.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    No, their world would not end. Even in the worst case scenario of getting fired their world wouldn't end. There's no need to be melodramatic. Even in the face of public anger the school district could choose not to fire the targets of public ire. That would of course require having a backbone and principles, but it's totally a thing that could happen. Kids look at porn at smart phones. I'm not even sorry if this bothers you. It's a thing. You can't stop it. Stop trying.
    - mturmon 12y ago
      "I'm not even sorry if this bothers you. It's a thing. You can't stop it. Stop trying." I think I see. My aims have been unclear. I'm pointing out a political reality that I feel is controlling outcomes here. I'm not staking out a personal position, because in the context of a school administration embedded in a city government with oversight by the voters, my personal position means little. To be honest, and this is where we diverge, I'm not interested in staking an opinion on this one. The school can do whatever it wants. Let it be open, or restrict it -- whichever works. The library case is different; there are obvious free expression interests at play there -- including patrons who rely on the library for all internet access. (Would it further irritate you to mention I've been an ACLU member since the early 1990s?) As I mentioned, the smart phone comparison is not apropos, because parents would supply the smart phone, and what their kids do on the phone is up to their family to decide.

by mturmon 12y ago

mgkimsal 12y ago

"Commenters nearby don't get that the school district and its administrators will be liable if kids are using school resources (bandwidth) to access controversial websites." Then teachers shouldn't assign homework activities that require use of those same websites (Twitter being one example from the article). "Your homework assignment is to go use Twitter to find 5 spanish language articles and translate them, then tweet in spanish. Oh, and Twitter is deemed 'controversial' enough to not be allowed on school property. And you'll get a 0 on this assignment if you don't complete it". Sweet...

CocaKoala 12y ago
That doesn't sound that weird at all? "Your homework assignment is to go [home and] use Twitter to [...]". If they were saying "Your in-class project is to use Twitter to find these articles. Also, Twitter is banned on the school network. And you get a 0 if you don't do it", then yes, I'd be agreeing that it's weird. But homework is, sort of by definition, meant to be done at home. When I was in school, I would certainly take advantage of down time to get homework done early, but (until I started getting free blocks in high school) I never felt like homework was meant to be done during school hours on school grounds. Why are teachers assigning work to be done on websites that the school network blocks? Because at home, it's the parent's job to ensure their child doesn't access material that parents object to; at school, it's the administrator's job to ensure that EVERY child doesn't access material that ANY parent can object to. That's a much more challenging proposition, and (for better or for worse), schools tend to paint with a broad brush when it comes to enforcing limits.
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  not everyone has internet access at home. Make it a book. The school system has deemed that "Huckleberry Finn" is too controversial to be allowed in our library. Your homework assignment is to do a book report on "Huckleberry Finn".
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    Public libraries don't block access to Twitter (and also carry copies of Huckleberry Finn).

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Liable for what precisely? What type of controversy? Reading naughty words? Reading opinions that disagree with the status quo? Perhaps reading a pamphlet titled Common Sense? The district could actually not put in a filter. That is a thing they could just do. Then, when the newspapers complain, they can yes that's what they did. I promise you the world won't end. Do you know where underage school children can go to access "controversial websites"? The public library. They can walk right in, sit down at a computer, and view the internet in all it's uncensored glory. For free. In public. As children. Shocking I know. Also they can just use their smart phone because it seems like every kid over the age of 10 has a smart phone with internet. As best I can tell the world has still not ended.

mturmon 12y ago
"I promise you the world won't end." For the teacher and the school administrator, it could. We don't live in the world you're writing about. The smart phone comparison is not the same, because the kid's parents control whether there is a phone and its settings. The public library comparison is interesting. Not the same (because their missions are different), but interesting.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  No, their world would not end. Even in the worst case scenario of getting fired their world wouldn't end. There's no need to be melodramatic. Even in the face of public anger the school district could choose not to fire the targets of public ire. That would of course require having a backbone and principles, but it's totally a thing that could happen. Kids look at porn at smart phones. I'm not even sorry if this bothers you. It's a thing. You can't stop it. Stop trying.
  - mturmon 12y ago
    "I'm not even sorry if this bothers you. It's a thing. You can't stop it. Stop trying." I think I see. My aims have been unclear. I'm pointing out a political reality that I feel is controlling outcomes here. I'm not staking out a personal position, because in the context of a school administration embedded in a city government with oversight by the voters, my personal position means little. To be honest, and this is where we diverge, I'm not interested in staking an opinion on this one. The school can do whatever it wants. Let it be open, or restrict it -- whichever works. The library case is different; there are obvious free expression interests at play there -- including patrons who rely on the library for all internet access. (Would it further irritate you to mention I've been an ACLU member since the early 1990s?) As I mentioned, the smart phone comparison is not apropos, because parents would supply the smart phone, and what their kids do on the phone is up to their family to decide.