Slashdot Mirror
UK Teachers Say Censor The Internet
Marlow the Irelander writes "The BBC is reporting that in response to a YouTube video of a schoolboy breaking his teacher's window (yes, this is a video), NASUWT, one of the teaching unions in the UK, is calling for legislation to control the internet. Could Britain, rather than the US, be the main front of the battle against censorship in 2007?" From the article:
"Unfortunately, any yob or vandal can now have their 15 minutes of fame, aided and abetted by readily accessible technology and irresponsible internet sites which enable such behaviour to be glorified.
[The general secretary of the union] said the union supported a zero tolerance approach in schools to pupils who used technology to abuse and undermine teachers, and called for more rigorous legislative control of internet sites which gave them license."
Why are the teachers mad about the video? Shouldn't they be more mad about the broken window?
Besides, whoever recorded the incident was clearly a by-stander (the person throwing the rock was in the video). I do not understand why this is bothering the teachers so much.
The BBC is reporting that in response to a YouTube video of a schoolboy breaking his teacher's window (yes, this is a video), NASUWT, one of the teaching unions in the UK, is calling for legislation to control the internet.
Just so we're clear, their logic is that the internet is a catalyst for youth vandalism?
Man, kids these days. When I was their age, we had to vandalize stuff the old fashioned way.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
for giving everyone an equal opportunity to express themselves.
Maybe if teachers were more educators than prison wardens, kids would love them instead of hating them.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Isn't this the country with all the spy cameras all over the place watching people?
Are they complaining because it wasn't an "official" camera that captured the act? I don't get what the Internet has to do with it.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
First of all, the teachers should be thankful that these twits happened to place their video on Youtube. This made their detective work in figuring out who were the perpetrators were much easier, giving them a huge smoking gun. Talk about shooting the messenger, sheesh.
It all comes down to treating young adults as children. Where I live, the last two years of high school are optional. As such, any bad behaviour on behalf of students is met with one response from teachers "You're not required to be here and I'm not required to teach you anymore, so if you wanna act like a jerk, get out." Personally, I don't think it goes far enough. At university, they would be saying "I'm not here to teach you. I'm here to provide the information you need for the exam. If you think you can pass the exam without listening to me, you're welcome to leave." This is exactly how schools should be run. The kids that fail their exams should be required to repeat their classes. If they continue to fail, they should be kicked out. The world will always need ditch diggers.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm a Network Manager at a UK school / college. I guess I'm perfectly placed to speak on these matters, so here we go...
I have a duty of care, in my role, to protect students from certain inappropriate material on the internet. The obvious ones are there; pornography, paedophilia, unmonitored chatrooms, unmonitored messaging sites, etc.
Myspace is blocked, because I can't honestly say that I can be 100% certain that students couldn't use the site and put themselves at risk. Porn websites are blocked, because the students are not 18. All chat programs, such as MSN/AOL/IRC are not installed on student profiles, and students do not have administration rights to install software either. Proxy websites are blocked, so that students can't bypass the restrictions and vew unfiltered content. All fairly common stuff. Ironically, the biggest complaints I get about myspace being blocked are from teachers, but thats another story altogether.
I use active content filtering to block access to inappropriate content on all other websites, such as youtube or google vids, which might contain any of the things I first mentioned.
However, I don't block anything just 'because I'm told to'. A teacher can request that anything in the world gets filtered out, but ultimately the decision lies with me.
If a teacher cannot control his or her students in a classroom, then it is the fault of the teacher, not the students are finding the material. And personally, I think that is the way it should stay. Technology shouldn't be used to simply 'restrict access' to material when that material doesn't fit within the narrow categories I first mentioned. If anything, teachers should be embracing sites such as youtube and google videos because they provide a wealth of material that can be used in the classroom.
Oh no, you can't do that, because then the kids' self-esteem would be hurt. After all, we want our children to be happy, right? Doing such mean-spirited things like holding them accountable and disciplining them would cause such stress to their developing minds.
(Excuse me while I put my bullshit boots on)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Have you seen the climate there is around teaching right now? I just started teaching this year and I had to fight hard for my job. Up here in Saskatchewan there is declining enrollment and that means that there are a ton of teacher that are being cut from the school board budgets. So really as a beginning teacher I could be cut at any moment. Some people do fall into the category of those who can't teach but there is more to it than content. Have you ever tried going infront of a group of kids and tried to get them motivated enough to get them trying to learn. I'm a Math/Physics teacher and all I get is the stereotype that "math and physics suck." I tell ya its bloody hard to get them to do anything. The other thing is that you mention that teachers have no experience in having a "real job." Honestly a "real job" would probly have me working a lot less and living somewhere else. But you do it for the students and try and get people interest in your subject area. Well that and you are actually affecting the future and hopefully helping someone to find themselves and their passions. As for the civil service lifers that happens in about half the teachers you see and I have no time for them as they are rediculous. But there are some good teachers out there and I'm proud to say I'm one of them.
... the powers that be try to blame everyone but the person/people responsible.
Oh no, it's the internet's/violent video games'/movies/ fault that these kids run wild and act like hooligans! It can't possibly be the kids themselves or their parents who deserve any of that blame.
It boggles the mind how a teachers' union could fixate more on the "15 minutes of fame" and less on trying to make parents or the kid accountable (even outside of legal remedies). Instead of whining about how terrible the internet is, they could turn around and warn his new teachers/neighbors in Canada about what he's been up to over there (and point them to the video). Make the parents look bad and make his life miserable wherever he ends up and see if kids don't start to wise up.
I suspect what they're really upset about (and the real point to the zero tolerance policy they mention) are the other cases where teachers have been caught on video doing things they shouldn't do (e.g. screaming at kids). This is just a convenient scapegoat because the kids were clearly the ones doing something wrong so now they blame the internet/cameras/etc...
It's funny how often the people who should worry the least about surveillance (teachers, cops, etc...) are often the ones who least want to be scrutinized by the very things they'd like to use on us.
I'm currently reading the book "Not in front of the children" by Marjorie Heins, a very informative book on the history of censorship and censorship law (mainly in the US, but with UK roots and occasinoal references).
In the US, the Constitution's First Amendment allows for a strong defense to censorship. However, censorship of "obscenity" and/or "indecency" (in their varying and sometmies contradictory definitions) is allowed is a common-law exception to the First Amendment (see First Amendment/Obscenity). The exact nature, power, extent, and constitutionality of the exception tends to be at the centre of any legal/judicial or legislative debate on censorship, and has gone back and forth (as documented in the book).
Britain has no such explicit, written right to free speech as the First Amendment, and thus censorship has a better legal footing (I suspect CCTV is in a similar situation). While censorship in Britain may be more easily applied, the "battle" would be more one-sided than in the US, if censorship (i.e. of obscenity) were to have such a strong following as it has in the US.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!