News and views from the I don't get it
Last Friday I was in the Chicago area to give a talk for the DuPage Library System. As often happens at these events, I find out that things we at Uni High do as a matter of course are on the forbidden list at many, many other schools. For example, it seems that an awful lot of schools do not allow their students to use the web except for school-related work. No open web surfing, no personal information seeking -- even when no else is using school computers for school work. Here's the disconnect. Most school libraries carry magazines like Motor Trend, Sports Illustrated, and Seventeen. Where's the "school-related work" in browsing those? Yet students who read those magazines cannot also browse the ESPN website or the Seventeen website. Virtually all school libraries provide fiction and encourage its circulation. Yet students who are avid readers cannot also browse fan fiction websites at school or check in on a Harry Potter web board.
Can someone explain this to me?
Can someone explain this to me?
posted by franceylibrarian at 5:09 PM
12 Comments:
Such schools do not have librarians who advocate for students. I hope your UNI High students recognize how fortunate they are to have a librarian like you who recognizes that students are people who have information needs.
Doug
Not that we don't carry teen fashion magazines! :P
Yay for anti-censorship librarians!
-Ben H.
It doesn't just require a great librarian, it also requires that the librarian and the technology department share the same vision. I am currently in a district in which the technology department believes that it is our job to teach students how to use technology wisely. If we block the students access to sites, they won't learn anything except how to live in a police state.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
(wanted to edit, and it seems I can only delete, but I haven't been doing this long!)
I suspect the explanation for the policies would be that while non-studying magazines are carried, they still have been selected and approved.
The web being wide open, where students go to is not selected or approved.
(I'm assuming you really do want an explanation, not just support for yourself -- this is not saying I *agree* with it -- but I'm rather surprised you haven't heard that argument)
11:47 AM
Yep, I've heard the argument (though, yes, bring on the support!). I was operating under the assumption that in today's heavily filtered school library environment, those in charge figure that the wide open web is now rendered "safe," even if it includes content that isn't specifically selected and approved. I do believe the prevailing attitude is that computers at school should not be used for recreation. We fear that such use doesn't look good to taxpayers, school boards, and other funding agencies.
Another argument that gets bandied about is the resource issue. If everyone is "playing" on the computers, there won't be enough available for serious school work. At least in our setting, peer pressure rules the day. The minute a class comes in, those who aren't doing curriculum-related work exit swiftly and without complaint.
Filters are *so* easily bypassed.
Students can bring in their own browser programs on their USB ports... they can go online at home and find the latest ways around them. Operating under the assumption that the "filtered" net is "safe" would make a lot of students (and sympathetic adults :-)) happy, though I wouldn't want to be that poor that will be the one to get busted... when everybody else is getting away with the same thing I"m doing.
Absolutely! Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I was trying to imply that Some-of-Those-in-Charge think that they've solved the problem of objectionable material by installing filters. I don't think that's the case, and no teenager I know thinks it is either. But even by "solving" the objectionable material problem, Some-of-Those-In-Charge still prohibit access to the online equivalents of Sports Illustrated and Seventeen, simply because they are online.
It's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there's some bad stuff on the web, if someone "wastes time" surfing the web, if someone uses web tools to do evil, we'd better (not!) throw the whole thing out. As Darla noted earlier, it's our job to teach kids to use the tools wisely. We can't do that if we don't let them use the tools in ways that are meaningful to them as well as to us. All we'll teach them is that we're irrelevant, that they have to figure out how to get around us, and that they'll have to go elsewhere to find the information they really want and need.
I noticed you stopped your subscription to Sports Illustrated. Why?
Not to worry, we haven't cancelled it. We're just having trouble with the subscription service. Unfortunately (or not, depending...), we may have missed this year's swimsuit issue.
That's really funny, Francey. Our subscription to SI was messed up, too, and we missed the swim suit issue which is what really brought it to my attention ;-). My address was changed because of 911 and only SI had not made the change out of all our subscriptions.
My policy and yours are pretty much the same. Students are allowed to search for anything that they would normally research in a library: history, literature, sports scores, snowboarding, prom dresses. If there is a pressing research need, recreational users must yield but we have enough computers that we find that happening about twice a year.
Lots of those policies started when libraries only had a few computers and needed to sort those with "work" from those who "surfed." I get torqued when students change settings by getting around security, but that's no reason to be restrictive needlessly.
I've learned a lot by looking over their shoulders and getting into discussions about topics I'd not be exposed to in the normal course of my day--and even get a chance fairly often to promote search techniques, web evaluation and using databases--walk-around tutoring for students and for me!
Post a Comment
<< Home