|
Children always seem anxious for Halloween to arrive, marking
a day of celebration and seemingly endless treats. But this year,
Halloween also could mark a bad "trick" for your schools if you
haven't prepared for changes in federal technology mandates.
 Despite
countless objections to its philosophy and implementation methods,
the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) mandates specific
strategies to prevent adverse computer use by school-age children.
Districts that cannot certify compliance or show ongoing efforts
to be in compliance by October 28 risk losing federal monies
for the E-Rate and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) for the school year. In fact, schools might also be liable
for returning any E-Rate funds received during the period in
which they were not in compliance.
Although
it's only a short time until the CIPA deadline, any school system
can accomplish what is required under the law. Requirements
differ depending on what federal funds your school or district
receives (E-Rate and ESEA). Here, we will address the tasks
involved with the E-Rate, which encompasses all of the ESEA
requirements.
Under
the rules established by Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), schools must certify that they have accomplished
three specific tasks:
-
Created
an Internet safety policy and distributed it to their school
community;
-
Implemented
technology-blocking measures to prevent students from accessing
inappropriate material from all school computers, or certified
that they are undertaking measures to implement such technology;
and
-
Conducted
a public meeting to disseminate and discuss the school's new
or revised Internet safety policy.
Creating
an Internet safety policy
According
to CIPA, schools must "adopt and implement" a policy that addresses
all of the following issues:
- Access
by minors to inappropriate material on the Internet and World
Wide Web;
- Safety
and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms,
and other forms of direct electronic communications (such as
Napster, AOL Instant Messenger, and Web-based e-mail sites);
- Unauthorized
access, including so-called hacking, and other unlawful activities
by minors online;
- Unauthorized
disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding
minors; and
- Measures
designed to restrict access to materials deemed "harmful to
minors."
"Inappropriate
material." "Harmful to minors." What would a federal mandate
be without some ambiguous terminology? CIPA regulations leave
it up to local school boards or educational authorities to determine
what is "inappropriate" or "harmful." To be on the safe side,
involve legal counsel in the review and approval of your new
or revised policy, and make certain the policy sufficiently
addresses what comprises inappropriate material and how it is
determined and that such determinations do not conflict with
First Amendment free-speech rights.
Even
if your district already has an acceptable-use policy (AUP),
it is still important to review the document and ensure it addresses
each of the topics detailed above. Indeed, most AUPs do refer
to some or most of these statements, but it is a good idea to
regularly review and update such policies to reflect ongoing
advances in technology. If you decide to use your existing AUP
for this requirement or adapt it modestly, I recommend renaming
the document "Acceptable Use and Internet Safety Policy."
Another
point of confusion stems from the CIPA requirement that schools
must restrict minors' access to harmful materials. Internet
filtering is most commonly associated with this statement, but
filtering is not the only method of security you can or should
implement. In addition to filtering, schools can adopt guidelines
that prevent students from using computers without a staff member
present. (Other technology solutions that can provide for greater
security and monitoring of student activity will be discussed
later.)
Internet
filtering requirements
At
the core of the CIPA controversy is the requirement that schools
implement technology that blocks or filters access to inappropriate
material online. To receive federal technology funds for 2001-2002,
schools must certify that they have the required technology
in place or that they are taking action to procure and install
it. This has raised objections from educators who question the
philosophy and effectiveness of filtering technology. What's
more, filtering services are not eligible for E-Rate funding,
though some officials have suggested that funds may be used
from Title I or Title III dollars.
Filtering
services and technologies can range in cost from a few hundred
to several thousand dollars annually, so no single solution
can apply to every school system. When you're looking for the
ideal commercial filtering provider for your schools, you'll
need to keep several factors in mind. Important considerations
include filtering categories, selection of filtered content,
technical delivery of filtering (server-based vs. client based),
and customization of filtering for different age levels. Let's
look at each one:
•
Filtering categories. Internet filtering prevents a user from
viewing Web pages listed on a particular database. CIPA only
requires that schools filter "visual depictions of obscenity,
child pornography, and material harmful to minors." Commercial
filtering providers often maintain growing lists of sites, categorized
by content issues (adult, pornography, hate/violence, drugs/alcohol,
gambling, cheat sites). Some providers also restrict access
to sites that offer free e-mail and Web page hosting -- often
a source of malicious conduct without proper tracking abilities.
Others will also allow for the restriction of Web sites such
as chat, auctions, and gaming sites that might distract students
when they should be focusing on academics.
*
Selection of filtered content. You'll want to carefully examine
the method of selection the company uses to filter sites. Basing
filtration solely on automatic keyword searches can easily miss
Web sites in foreign languages or sites that intentionally display
photos and images but no text. Keyword selection can unintentionally
block potentially valuable sites merely because they include
such terms as "breast cancer" or "adult education." Filtering
based on human selection helps block sites that deserve to be
blocked and still makes available sites that are educationally
sound. Ideally, look for a company that updates its filtering
lists daily, rather than monthly.
*
Technical delivery of filtering. The size and scope of your
instructional computer network will determine the feasibility
of implementing a server-based filtering solution versus a client-based
product. Server-based systems maintain filtering lists on a
local or virtually hosted proxy server connected to your school's
computer network. As users go out onto the Web from school computers,
their requests pass through the proxy server, which approves
or rejects the Web address. These solutions require the purchase
or lease of a proxy server, as well as an annual fee to update
and maintain the database of filtered sites.
Less
expensive virtual solutions redirect your connections to a proxy
server hosted at a remote location -- typically at the site
of the filtration company -- where they filter access to hundreds
or thousands of schools simultaneously. Such solutions usually
can be implemented within hours, not weeks, for delivery and
installation of new equipment. Although dedicated filtering
servers are more expensive than add-ons or other virtual solutions,
they offer greater reliability and customization for local school
control.
Client-based
products consist of software installed on individual computers
-- ideal for school systems that use modems to connect single
workstations to the Internet. While far less expensive, this
approach often requires more work hours to install and may require
additional time to update the filtering databases. Many vendors
have advanced the security of their products, but installation
on the local personal computer allows for a greater likelihood
of a student circumventing the filtering.
Although
CIPA does not make schools responsible for filtering Internet
access in the home, schools might want to take this initiative.
Client-based products are ideal for installation on school computers
and laptops that students are permitted to take home.
*
Customization of filtering. Before you choose a product, you'll
want to consider whether you'll have access to filtration control.
CIPA allows adults to disable filtering for bona fide research
and other lawful purposes. In addition, you might want to filter
additional content from younger children above and beyond the
CIPA requirements. And teachers might want the ability to override
blocked sites if they believe the content is educationally valid
for the student. Look for filtering solutions that offer users
different levels of access based on their user name and password.
But
be forewarned: Announcing that you are filtering Internet access
will prompt some students to test the limits of your school's
security. It will become their personal quest to find Web sites
displaying inappropriate material. No filtering solution, whether
it costs $50 or $50,000, can guarantee that children will not
come across inappropriate material online. Certainly accidents
can and will happen, such as when a first-grader wants to visit
the president at whitehouse.com -- a porn site with an intentionally
misleading name. But schools must also be ready for students
who are intent on testing your new filtering solution's reliability
and effectiveness.
More
effective than filtering technology in preventing such problems
are online reporting and monitoring tools. These products maintain
a running log of Internet activity, recording which sites a
particular user has visited. Newer monitoring solutions even
capture screen shots, allowing a teacher or principal to see
exactly what the student was doing on the computer. Students
who are successful in circumventing filtering will still have
to answer to the teacher or principal who shares the log of
questionable Web sites with their parents. Schools seriously
looking to control students' computer activity could greatly
benefit from a monitoring solution.
Hosting
your public meeting
CIPA's
final requirement is to hold at least one public hearing or
meeting to discuss the district's Internet safety policy. Schools
must also provide reasonable public notice of the hearing. The
ruling does not require a separate event for this hearing, so
you can hold a special session as part of an existing school
board meeting to address the policy and seek public input. Use
your school board's existing public notification channels (legal
notices, listings in school newsletters, distribution of announcements)
to provide the required public notice.
Rather
than view this hearing and other new requirements as annoying
mandates, why not seize the opportunity to reinforce the importance
of educational technology in school and at home. As parents
arrive at the Internet safety hearing, welcome them with an
exhibit of unique technology education projects taking place
in your school system. Invite the students to share their knowledge
with adults. Even better: Offer parents who attend the hearing
a certificate for a free computer class taught after school
by the faculty and students.
Despite
advances in technology, personal human interaction remains the
most essential contact for a young learner. Congress might believe
that filtering software will protect students from the Internet's
harms, but only dedicated educators and families can help make
technology safer for our children. Although you're responding
to mandated CIPA regulations, this is also an opportunity to
focus your staff on technology integration -- and to focus the
community at large on the importance of funding new technology
programs.
Look
at it this way: By Halloween, your school system will be fully
CIPA compliant, and your students will be out enjoying Halloween
... unless Congress suddenly decides to mandate trick-or-treat
filtering, too.
Elliott
Levine is
chief communications officer of AbleSoft, a producer of academic
and school management software. The former communications director
with the Lawrence, N.Y., Public Schools, he presents workshops
on electronic school communications and consults with schools
nationwide on their public relations efforts.
Glenn
Russell is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Peninsula
Campus, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
|
