As a proficient Internet user I sometimes get stumped when I discover useful tools that are blocked by the network within the School District of Philadelphia. Unfortunately, when trying to find something useful to share with our students, we teachers are often confronted with the large warning sign I'm showing, followed with a brief explanation and a method for requesting a review of the website in question.
This system seems all well and good with the exception of two aspects:
1) In my opinion, there are a few websites that could (and should) be blocked for students but open for staff to use. For example, YouTube. I understand that we do not want our students spending valuable time surfing for silly videos, but YouTube is an amazing resource for teachers. News clips, short episodes, and more (including quadratic formula raps) are available online for free. As a professional, I find this mind-boggling.
2) It takes a long time to get a filtering change request accepted. Three weeks ago I submitted a request to remove the filter on a new Common Core Standards gaming website. This is a great resource to get kids used to using these sites and to practice basic concepts that will show up on standardized assessments (as much as I hate them) and learn new content. The response I received when I asked for follow up was: "The filtering committee has yet to come to a decision on your request. It is unclear how long it will be before a decision is made." This website will take all of five minutes for someone downtown to decide that it is okay; if it doesn't, we need a new filtering committee.
This is another case where teachers' thoughts are not taken into consideration. There are plenty of sites that I would block from students (like Twitter, for example, which is unblocked for some reason). Yet there is a lot of clandestine activity when it comes to the network. We need things to be more open and honest in order to help get the students and teachers the resources they need.
This system seems all well and good with the exception of two aspects:
1) In my opinion, there are a few websites that could (and should) be blocked for students but open for staff to use. For example, YouTube. I understand that we do not want our students spending valuable time surfing for silly videos, but YouTube is an amazing resource for teachers. News clips, short episodes, and more (including quadratic formula raps) are available online for free. As a professional, I find this mind-boggling.
2) It takes a long time to get a filtering change request accepted. Three weeks ago I submitted a request to remove the filter on a new Common Core Standards gaming website. This is a great resource to get kids used to using these sites and to practice basic concepts that will show up on standardized assessments (as much as I hate them) and learn new content. The response I received when I asked for follow up was: "The filtering committee has yet to come to a decision on your request. It is unclear how long it will be before a decision is made." This website will take all of five minutes for someone downtown to decide that it is okay; if it doesn't, we need a new filtering committee.
This is another case where teachers' thoughts are not taken into consideration. There are plenty of sites that I would block from students (like Twitter, for example, which is unblocked for some reason). Yet there is a lot of clandestine activity when it comes to the network. We need things to be more open and honest in order to help get the students and teachers the resources they need.
RSS Feed
