Censorship+in+Public+Education

=Censorship in Public Education: To Block or Not to Block= =By: Tricia Rodriguez=

As the definitions concerning literacy and critical thinking continue to evolve, the single aspect educators appear to agree upon is that skills revolving around these practices must be included within every school's curriculum. Traditionally, literacy has been considered the ability to understand the written word as well as to recreate those words through writing. Yet, as the internet has taken a strong hold upon our society there becomes a need to revolutionize the concept of literacy to incorporate technological information available through online resources.

Yet, as the internet has made its way into schools and classrooms many teachers have confronted issues in regards to the flow of information into and out of the minds of their impressionable students. As a result of these fears, many sites have been blocked through the use of broad filters. These filters act with the duel purpose of preventing students from gathering information deemed inappropriate as well as restraining students from contributing this "inappropriate" information to the web 2.0 era.

Within this section, we will explore the notion of blocking websites within school buildings as a form of censorship that will prove detrimental to students' ability to fully participate within the completely open stream of the internet.

Literacy Through Critical Thinking and Educational Practices


As educators move from theory to practice, they are required to look to state-approved standards that describe a best practice approach to their field of study. While many sets of standards exist within the United States' educational system, many states are choosing to go with the Common Core Standards. Judy Elliot, the Chief Academic Officer of the Los Angeles School District explains that the Common Core Standards go beyond demanding teachers to teach their students to simply compare and contrast, "While the new standards reduce the number of basic skills that students will have to learn in each grade, they promote more critical thinking skill". This focus on critical thinking skills has proven to be a major selling point for the decision to transition to the Common Core Standards (Llanos, 2010).

As the Common Core standards become a strong hold, the notion of critical thinking as a skill becomes the backbone of how educational practices are being defined. While many educators fear that creating opportunities for critical thinking are only hindered by the presence of a free flowing internet, sans filtering. Educational blogger Shelly Blake-Plock is a vocal opponent to those in favor of, what he refers to as "a ham-fisted approach to digital safety", the notion of blocking a wide number of sites in the name of protection. This idea of cutting down the forest to save the trees is exactly where Blake-Plock views the problem. The true hurtle students run into when attempting to utilize the internet in a fashion that would encourage critical thinking is "marked by the blocking of access to the very heart of what resources are available on the Internet, including YouTube, blogs, new media and anywhere a student might actually read a comment." Within the world beyond the educator's pedagogical walls lies the existence of the interactive internet, deemed Web 2.0. These collaborative websites encourage users to consider the information they are provided and participate within a meaningful discourse regarding issues relevant to the lives of those who view the website, including the user. Plock warns that school districts that continue to ignore the educational relevance of interactive sites will find themselves left behind by those willing to approach Web 2.0 with an open mind.

Blake-Plock warns that students forced to come of age within a school denying them access to social networking sites will miss out on "sharp critical skills, strong connections" (Blake-Plock, 2011). Wait, was that "critical skills"? Sound familiar? As educational leaders continue to move towards utilizing the Common Core Standards, the benefit of abolishing the "ham-fisted approach" of web filtering can no longer be denied. If students are being asked to think critically within the world they will inhabit, the views of social networking sites like YouTube and blogs can no longer be censored. In order to actively view the internet with a critical eye, students must first be asked to view the internet as it is, not as educators would have it be. Through the guidance of the educator, students can be given the skills necessary to be a critical thinker within the twenty-first century, just as the Common Core Standards would encourage.

**__Sources__**:
Blake-Plock, S. (2011, July 12). //In digital age, schools that succeed are schools that connect - baltimore sun." featured articles from the baltimore sun//. Retrieved from @http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-12/news/bs-ed-digital-students-20110712_1_michelle-rhee-digital-harbor-high-school-teachers-i-work

Llanos, C. (2010, August 3). //Common core will require more critical thinking from students common core will require more critical thinking from students - la daily news//. Retrieved from @http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_15663605

**Children's Internet Protection Act: "Don't Censure Me"**
According to the Federal Communication Commission's website, the Children's Internet Protection Act, or CIPA, is a federal law enacted with the intent of addressing "concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers." As of 2001, CIPA has been used as a guideline to "impose certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding for Internet access or internal connections from the E-rate program – a program that makes certain communications technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries."

Those are a lot of words, but what does it mean? In an educational nutshell, any school or library interested in receiving E-Rate funding must adhere to the rules and regulations that CIPA has set in place, namely three, rather large statements:

1. Establishments must block images that could be considered "(a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors" 2. The school or library must create and enforce a policy that monitors the activities of minors

//So far so good right? Issues of artistic liberties aside, most educators can get behind the notion of preventing students from viewing pornographic images as well as adhering to the right to monitor students' use of the internet while in the building- that's classroom management plain and simple.//

**3. //..and here comes the really long one//**: the school or library must implement an internet safety protocol that addresses:
"(a) access by minors to **inappropriate matter on the Internet**; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) measures restricting minors’ access to materials **harmful to them**." [Bolding has been added by this author] (Childrens)

There in lies the rub: as the graphic novel __The Watchmen__ would question, "who watches the watchers?" Within the block quote that embodies CIPA mandate #3, the FCC leaves a great deal of subjective material for administrators to work through. When combing through the internet, finding resources to block from students' eyes, the notion of "harmful" material becomes a rather large sticking point for many users.

In May of 2011 it was proven that "harmful" equated to websites that presented pro-LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisequal, Transgendered) issues. The Rowland Unified School District has been warned by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for blocking websites that promoted LGBT issues. The organization sent letters demanding that the district recalibrate their filtering software to allow these websites to be viewed by their student body. It was found that the M86 Solutions filtering software contained a filter entitled "lifestyle" that blocks websites promoting LGBT issues and do not contain any pornographic or sexually explicit content. According to the ACLU, websites effected by this filter are: "Gay Straight Alliance Network; the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; the National Youth Advocacy Coalition; the Safe Schools Coalition; the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, and other sites that provide resources for students who experience anti-LGBT bullying."

The letter writing campaign initiated by the ACLU within the Rowland Unified School District is merely one component of their nationwide “Don’t Filter Me” campaign. This grassroots initiative is geared towards establishments that utilize their filters to censor pro-LGBT websites. James Gilliam, deputy executive director for the ACLU of Southern California and director of its LGBT Project has become a major advocate for students effected by this "ham-fisted" internet blocking. Gilliam states that many of the schools initiating the LGBT ban are doing so under the false belief that the websites contain sexual content. It would take a finer tuned filter or a more watchful eye to disseminate between websites that are "(a) obscene" and contain "(b) child pornography" and those that do not. In the end, students should receive the same amount of information for both sides of any issue. When it comes down to blocking one side of the issue while allowing the other to remain accessible, it becomes an issue of censorship.

Gilliam goes on to state that the censorship of LGBT educational content is a "violation of the... Equal Access Act, which requires equal access to school resources for all extracurricular clubs" By blocking websites that seek to educate those regarding LGBT issues and aid those who may be a victim of bullying, school affiliated LGBT clubs are not receiving the same access to information as their peers. For, the football club is not denied access to websites educating them regarding football protocol, nor is the chess club denied access to websites affiliated with pro-chess information. Why then should the LGBTA club be denied websites that only seek to educate them regarding the topic they are passionate about (ACLU Calls, 2011).

Here is where we fall into the gray area of "inappropriate" and "harmful" that the CIPA has left us in. Many may consider pro-LGBT issues to fall under both of these categories as they personally do not agree with the content offered by these websites. While the student afraid to come to school due to "gay-bashing" may feel otherwise. The content provided by the censured websites would provide this student with the peace of mind that they are not alone. It may also prevent a devastating end to this already sad story.

Blocking one side of a political issue is censorship, plain and simple.

media type="youtube" key="MHM3AiK2fwA" height="279" width="448" A video created by the ACLU to educate students regarding LGBT Censorship (ACLUvideos, 2011).

Dan Savage's "It Get's Better Project" is aimed towards gay and questioning students undergoing bullying. This inspiring resource is censured by school districts possibly due to its "inappropriate" content but also due to the fact that it is hosted on youtube. As seen in this video, contributors felt encouraged by both viewing and commenting on the video project. Students within a censored building would never have the opportunity to comment on, much less view, a resource as inspiring as this.Following in the ACLU's footsteps, there needs to be a call to arms by educators to free LGBT content as well as any other resource that would educate and possibly liberate our student body (GoogleChrome, 2011). media type="youtube" key="7skPnJOZYdA" height="279" width="448"

TeacherTube has acted as a non-blocked resource for teachers and students to view videos. I would call for a section of this websites to be open to teachers and students to nominate youtube videos they believe should be hosted on Teachertube, thereby "unlocking" the material to students within the school building. Those nominating the site could write a paragraph describing how the content would benefit their classroom, and a panel of educators could view the nominated website prior to hosting it on the Teachertube website. This process may act as a bridge towards unlocking Youtube entirely. School administrators could continue to operate under the assumption that the videos shown provide educational content while students would gain the benefit of viewing and commenting on material they would benefit from.

ACLUVideos.(2011, February 14). "‪Don't Filter Me!‬‏ - YouTube." [video file]. Retrieved from <@http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHM3AiK2fwA>.
 * __Sources__**:

//ACLU Calls On Rowland Unified School District to Stop Censoring LGBT Websites.// (2011, May 31). Retrieved from <@http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/802894>

Children's Internet Protection Act | FCC.gov. //Home | FCC.gov. Federal Communication Commission// Retrieved from <@http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act

GoogleChrome. (2011, May 2) //The Web is What You Make of It//. [video file]. Retrieved from <@http://www.youtube.com/user/googlechrome?v=7skPnJOZYdA>.

**Why “blocking” sites may be good: Censorship For the Greater Good**
While we have discussed the detrimental effects school-wide internet censorship can have on students there are many who promote the systematic approach already in place within school systems. "We believe schools should be a safe haven for children –- a place for children to learn and grow, not cesspools for the destruction of the minds and souls of children," Kristen Schultz, a legal policy analyst with the Family Research Council stated within an interview by //Wired// magazine. This argument goes hand in hand with those outlined within the CIPA. Schools are mandated to act as an incubator for their young. The four walls that create the establishment are meant to block out the negative, "harmful" ideas of the outside world. //I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much like the high school I went to//. Having dealt with bullying myself after publishing a pro-LBGT rights page within my school newspaper, I was not afraid of the resources online, but those that tagged my locker.

Within the same //Wired// interview Mychele Hughes, director of information services for Hook Independent School District in Texas, states "I just don't see what the big deal is," she said. "I don't think you can really be too safe with your children." This better safe than sorry approach tends to be the mantra for many that approve of the " ham-fisted" approach to internet blocking. Hughes questions the negative effects of protecting the student body from many "harmful" sites. If a small number of truly educational sites must be censured so that a large number of "harmful" sites can be blocked from student viewing, it's all for the greater good. Case in point, the blocking of Youtube is in fact blocking a countless number of "pornographic" material. While the above mentioned educational content may also be held from students' eyes, it becomes a victory as the CIPA has been enforced ( Dean, 2001 ).

//For the greater good.//

Ehow correspondent Tamara Runzel outlines four arguments in defense of protecting students by blocking certain websites within the school building:

1. Privacy- By blocking social networking sites, students are prevented from sharing "too much" information about themselves. This information would allow other users to track their movements or otherwise "risk their well being"

2. Inappropriate Content- Students utilizing a search engine may encounter websites that are "inappropriate" for their age. While their intent may be to perform research for a school project, they may leave the experience harmed by the wide range of inappropriate content available on an unfiltered internet.

3. Inappropriate Behavior- "Using filters to block social networking or video sites prevents students from posting messages, pictures or videos that could be detrimental to classmates" In other words, the filters prevent students from cyber-bulling or posting material that they (or their parents) may regret posting later.

4. Inappropriate People- Filters limit the number of "bad people" students will come into contact with while in the school building. Within this point, Runzel cites the Cyberbullying Research Center, "at least 20 percent, but as many as 40 percent, of students say they were cyberbullied at some point in their life" The notion here being that preventing students from interacting with social networking cites at school will prevent cyber-bullying

Encompassing all of these arguments is the notion that the Pavlov Dog Effect will magically take hold of students as they exit the school building. If students are not allowed to engage with certain websites while in the school building they will learn what sites contain inappropriate behavior and stay away from those sites in the future. Yet, the key flaw to this plan is the lack of education. By side-stepping education regarding social networking cites by simply IGNORING these websites educators are essentially giving students keys without first teaching them how to drive. Outside the limits of the school building, social networking cites are alive and thriving. Students will be asked, at some point, to interact with these sites by society. (Runzel, 2011)

//If we do not first teach these students how to approach social networking in a safe and appropriate way...who will?//

__**Sources**__:
Dean, K. (2001, August 30). //Separating Students From Smut.// Retrieved from <@http://www.wired.com/culture/education/news/2001/08/45804>.

Runzel, T (2011, February 24). "Why Should Schools Block Websites? Retrieved from <@http://www.ehow.com/info_7977388_should-schools-block-websites.html>

**A Light at the End of the Censorship Tunnel**: Dispelling Myths Regarding Internet Blocking:
Under the current "for the greater good" mentality, students are not allowed to interact with ideas in a fashion that resembles the world around them. Schools are intended to be a microcosm of society, training students to successfully interact within the “real world” Yet, by not allowing students to interact with the knowledge available on the web during their educational training, they will not understand how to do so as an adult. This type of censorship in regards to both the in and outward flow of information censures the ideas that are allowed to enter and exit the minds of our students.This stopper is, in effect, not teaching students how to fish. Force feeding a filter does not allow students to master the skill of choosing an appropriate source.

Yet there is a light at the end of the tunnel, through an interview with the website //Mindshift//,the Department of Education’s Director of Education Technology, Karen Cator dispelled a number of myths concerning the practice of blocking websites within schools. First, and my personal favorite "Accessing Youtube is not violating CIPA rules" WOOHOO!! Cator goes on to point out that CIPA only requires schools to block websites deemed "inappropriate" while in her opinion many videos hosted on Youtube contain a great deal of educational value.

Another key point outlined by Cator "schools will not loose E-Rate funding by unlocking appropriate sites" Well, the ACLU will be glad to hear this one. While broad filters may initially block sites that educators and student find helpful, administrators can unblock these sites without having to fear CIPA retribution, namely the loss of funding.

In the end, Cator advocates for further education in regards to internet resources, "Kids need to be taught how to be responsible digital citizens." Education is the key. Cator agrees that "brad filters are not helpful." By censuring material that teachers are afraid of, students will lack the education necessary to live within an society imbued with an uncensored internet. (Barseghian, 2011).

__**Source**__:
Barseghian, T. (2011, April 26). //Straight from the DOE: Dispelling Myths About Blocked Sites | MindShift//. Retrieved from <@http://mindshift.kqed.org/2011/04/straight-from-the-doe-facts-about-blocking-sites-in-schools/>.