Chris Betcher is a thoughtful educator and inspirational classroom innovator. Yesterday he asked,

in the schools that do block access to certain sites (and it sounds like it tends to be mainly social media sites), what educational reason is given?

Many articulate, well reasoned responses later, the agreement among Chris’ readers is pretty clear. So, I’d like to volunteer as Devil’s Advocate, not because I disagree, but because the supporters of rigorous filters are ascendant and important, and their stance should be understood.

I think the basic question is a pragmatic one rather than a research question: the justification for blocking is to prevent irreversible harm. We can’t fix a child’s reputation or self-esteem by blocking a website later, once the damage is done.

I think schools cannot discard their filters yet, for four reasons.

1. Further research is needed

Yes, there is an association between of social software use and social/emotional welfare (e.g. Ellison, Steinfield, Lamp 2007) but we haven’t seen empirical studies of how it works, whether the online behaviour is causal or an outcome, nor which specific kids benefit.

2. Theory requires a complex response

Stage theories of cognitive and moral development suggest that kids in middle-school years, and their parents, will have very different capacities to process their experience and exercise judgement. Rules are not enough, but a blunt system of rules is still necessary unless we are going to exclude some students and parents from the school community. (e.g. Kohlberg’s moral stages in news about Facebook.pdf)

3. Business culture is increasingly restrictive

Public companies have increasing obligations to manage all communication that has a potential business impact, even if their employees don’t recognise the intellectual property or reputational value. What lesson about civic rights and duties can students draw from your school rules?

4. It’s easy to blame new technology

Facebook etc. give school administrators an easily named target for reduction of opportunities for cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is more easily managed than the (larger) general picture of all peer bullying. Peer-Bullying is less controversial than the (larger) general picture of coercive/exploitative culture of a school. And School Culture is a more palatable scapegoat for parents than the (often more dangerous) background of intimidation in home life.

It’s pretty hard for a Principal to face down all of these lines of criticism at once.

Still, if we are going to block access to the Net, we should carefully consider the meaning of excluding the school from an important part of a child’s identity-formation and social development. We should be reluctant to do that.