March 2000 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Curricular Management of the Internet: Beyond the Blocking Solution
Establishing
the safety and welfare of students is a prime responsibility for all
educational leaders. If a building is not secure, if the classrooms are not
free of verbal, physical, or emotional harassment, if fire hazards and safety
code violations exist, then there is a serious problem in a school. Parents
certainly would have difficulties entrusting their children to such an
environment. However, child safety is not the only charge given to educators.
If the only success a principal can point to at the end of his or her tenure is
that the children were protected, would that principal be considered a success?
Safety is a prime concern, but certainly far from the educator’s only concern.
In fact, all of our curricular goals and objectives presuppose the proper
custodial care of children as merely a springboard towards educational
excellence.The same must hold true for the current argument of how to
protect children from the “evils of the Internet.” Great debates have arisen
all over the country, especially in public schools and libraries where tax
dollars are being spent. Any and all attempts to restrict student access to
“inappropriate Internet sites” are frequently met with the cry of censorship.
However, is it possible to consider the question of Internet restriction on
another set of terms rather than those of censorship and student safety?
Perhaps the debate over student access to the Internet should be discussed in
the language and discipline of our trade — as a curricular and instructional
challenge.
The most popular blocking
software titles in use in homes, libraries, and schools do just that — block
sites. Generally a software company generates a master list of subjects, words,
or images that are deemed inappropriate for children. These key words are fed
into a program that d'es not allow children to view Web pages that contain the
stated objectionable material. More sophisticated programs actually let the
proper authority (parent, library director or principal) select the level of
restriction. These programs generally allow the software to be turned off by
the use of a password. Users can then readily add or delete sites from the
master list.
As a first amendment issue, this debate will certainly
continue for years. Yet, beyond the issue of censorship, a nagging question
remains: just because the blocking programs help create a safe environment, do
these programs help us work towards educational excellence or simply towards
our bare responsibility of the proper custodial care of children?
