Print

Print


Hello to all.

The reference to direct electronic communications and allusion to
blocking is part of CIPA.  The following is excerpted from the site
http://www.ifea.net/cipa.html.

This refers to a policy, and the policy requires safety and security of
minors.  A board may adopt a policy which requires blocking.  Instant
messaging is subsumed under the category of other forms of direct
electronic communications.

Paul

SEC. 1732. INTERNET SAFETY POLICY REQUIRED.

Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) INTERNET SAFETY POLICY REQUIREMENT FOR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES-
``(1) IN GENERAL.--In carrying out its responsibilities under
subsection (h), each school or library to which subsection (h) applies
shall
``(A) adopt and implement an Internet safety policy that addresses:
``(i) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet and
World Wide Web;
``(ii) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail,
chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications;
``(iii) unauthorized access, including so-called `hacking', and other
unlawful activities by minors online;
``(iv) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal
identification information regarding minors; and
``(v) measures designed to restrict minors' access to materials harmful
to minors; ...







L. Paul Irish
Director of Information Technology
Burlington School District
150 Colchester Ave.
Burlington, VT, 05401
Voice: 802-864-8465
Fax: 802-864-8501
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]

>>> [log in to unmask] 03/06/04 08:36AM >>>
Sorry to not respond earlier - I was at our first rollout meeting for
the
technology GCE's yesterday at White River Junction and did not have
access
to e-mail. BTW - two meetings remain (3/12 - Rutland, 3/26 -
Colchester). Go
to http://www.vermontinstitutes.org/assessment/gce/it.htm for more
info.

I am not aware of any clause or statement in NCLB that addresses
blocking
instant messaging. I'm quite familiair with the section of the law
that
deals with the "Enhancing Education Through Technology" program. This
is the
part of the law that brings the Title IID funds into the state,
describes
the technology planning requirements for locals, and sets the targets
of
student technology literacy by 8th grade and for technology to be
fully
integrated into curriculum by 12/31/06.  Of course this section of the
law
is about 45 pages long and the entire NCLB law is about 1200 pages
long.

In addition, after having seacrched the entire text of the law for the
word
"instant" (it does not occur) and the word "message" (it occurs about
4
times exclusively in a section dealing with safety from drug use
curriculum), I'm pretty convinced the concept that NCLB "requires"
schools
to block instant messaging is someone's interpretation of some section
of
the law or some other misunderstanding.

If anyone has any additional information out there it would be very
helpful
to learn of it.

Thanks -

Bill Romond

Educational Technology Coordinator
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2501
(802) 828-0064 (V)
(802) 828-3140 (F)
http://www.state.vt.us/educ
[log in to unmask]
  -----Original Message-----
  From: School Information Technology Discussion
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve Barner
  Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:11 PM
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Subject: Re: Interesting article


  Chris,

  I hope I do not have bad information here.  This has been the word
that we
have received from our network support people here at South
Burlington.
Perhaps someone can clear up whether or not this is, in fact, a
service
public schools are required to block?

  --Steve


  >>> [log in to unmask] 03/05/04 01:13PM >>>
  School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
  >One disruptive technology in our business is instant messaging.
NCLB has
  >mandated that we block this tool, just when we had started figuring
out
  >ways to allow teachers and students to collaborate with it.  I think
this
  >is a prime example of reacting negatively to disruptive technology
  >instead of finding ways for it to slingshot us forward in new and
  >constructive directions.

  I was not familiar with this particular provision of NCLB.  Could
you
  please shed some more light on why IM is prohibited?

  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Christopher Haessly
  Network Administrator
  Chittenden South Supervisory Union
  [log in to unmask]