Beatrice is Way Off
By Dean Shareski on Apr 17, 2008 | In Technology, Online Learning | 4 feedbacks »
I just listened to a podcast of an angry parent upset with the Langley School District for not blocking social networking sites.
The mother, Beatrice, is conceded some authority by CBC since she has a computer science background. Unfortunately her knowledge of ports and key logging software is about all she has when it comes to her understanding of social networks. Admittedly her 12 year old daughter had been to some less than educational spaces and likely was pursuing content not fit for a 12 year old or anyone. Her reaction was to block all these sites, ban her daughter from the home computer and demand the school district to install content filtering that would prohibit any access to social networks. Craig Spence, a representative from the school division gives a very intelligent response in this interview to her complaints arguing the importance of teaching students about these spaces and recognizing these spaces will still exist outside the school. This article might indicate the school district is buckling somewhat under pressure.
This parent makes a number of comments that demonstrate a lack of understanding and fuels the fire of hysteria and in my opinion, bad judgment.
She admits that living in a rural area, the internet has become "for a lack of a better term, connection" for her daughter. Lack of a better term? That's exactly what it is...a connection. From her eyes the connection is obviously negative, but that's got nothing to do with the technology. Her daughter's connections will remain questionable even without the technology. Her response is to ban her daughter from using their computer until she says,"it will be safe again." When will that be? When all the nefarious sites have gone away? When her daughter is 18? When she determines that the only value of the internet is looking up stuff?
She worries that a child in grade 3 will be online at school and will accept a date with a stranger thinking it's another child and will be whisked away by a predator. Once again, there is no case of anything remotely like this. While I understand why she might have this fear, the facts just aren't getting through. That's why in part, I don't just ignore stories like this but feel compelled to speak out. Even the reporter lacked the background information to challenge her claim. I've written about this too often to reprise.
She also feels schools should be teaching reading, math, science and computers (how to use a computer) but social networking should be taught in the homes. Think about that statement for a while.
At Prairie South we have opted to pay close attention to social networking and yet blocking is not a great solution. For every site one person deems educational, someone will disagree. For every social network site you block today, three more will arise tomorrow. These are bandaid solutions. Being proactive, supervisory and purposeful are by far the best approaches. We also feel teachers are our best filters at school and parents should be the best at home.
This is why it's so critical that we continue to promote teachers doing this in Kindergarten and Grade one. At some point we won't even call it social networking. We'll just call it learning.
4 comments
Do parents block their children from going outside knowing that there is the possibility that their child could get hit by a car, bit by a stray dog, or meet up with a stranger? No they do not. Parents do believe and understand the importance of teaching their children to look both ways before crossing the street, what to do when they encounter an unfriendly dog and what to do when they meet up with strangers. They understand that it is critical for their children to learn the "do's" and "don't's" of the real world because they are preparing their children to live and work in the real world and technology is a part of the real world and therefore should not be treated differently.
But I agree with Dean - it has more to do with adults (the parent and the reporter both) who fail to understand the technologies available, which then means they don't know how to turn their use into something positive.
It's sad that the social networking industry and its proponents (some of which seem to be astroturfers) are being rebellious about this. Why can't they self-regulate and join parents, telling kids why they SHOULDN'T be on those sites?
Is it really that hard for kids to learn how to socialize offline? If a kid has trouble socializing offline, shouldn't the kid be reformed to be more sociable?
And why should parents NOT have the right to keep their kids off of social networking sites, and explain to them why they shouldn't use them? Don't parents have the right to censor TV shows and games? Don't they have the right to guide their kids in their religious choices? Why shouldn't it be the same with Web sites?
You should read or listen to Danah Boyd who explains quite articulately why kids are involved with social networks. Ironically one of those reasons is that parents have been so concerned with physically safety and monitoring that kids are less able to "hang out" with friends like we once did. There are other reasons as well, based on research and findings but rest assured, it's not going away so we'd better figure out how to handle it.
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment
| « What Education can learn from Las Vegas | Testing Windows Live Writer » |