First Person

Ask an Expert: Internet safety tips for parents

Q. June is Internet Safety Month. Can you give us some tips to keep our children safe online?

A. In this age of technology, our children truly are the digital natives while many adults, including myself,  are digital immigrants. But as parents and school personnel, we still need to educate ourselves about the benefits and challenges for our kids in a digital world.

The internet’s good side

Yes, the benefits cannot be denied.  Technology helps us and our kids have quick access to the latest information.  A study conducted by the Pew Research Institute published in 2010 found that 62 percent of teens get their news about current events and politics online. Forty-eight percent bought things online with 31 percent getting health, diet or physical fitness information from the internet.  Seventeen percent say they get information on health topics that are hard to discuss from sites online.

But most teens will tell you that the most important function of the internet for them is the ability to stay connected to their world.

boy on laptop computerThe Kaiser Foundation 2010 study Generation M2 , reports that because of the multi-tasking our youth do using more than one form of media at a time, they average a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes worth of media content into the daily 7.5 hours they spend with media.  This puts them in danger from the challenges that media creates, including cyberbullying, sexting and other forms of sexual solicitation, revealing private information to potential predators and exposing computers to viruses and other risks.

A commercial medium

With children as young as 2 ½ being exposed to the internet either directly or by watching parents or older siblings on the computer, we need to remember that the internet is a highly commercialized medium. Even online games for younger children vary widely in the quality, educational value and developmental match with children’s abilities.

The study entitled Like Taking Candy from a Baby: How Young Children Interact with Online Environments by W. Buckleitner in May 2008 found the online games PBS KIDS & Sesame Street had the highest educational value; NOGGIN’s games were some of the best designed; and Club Penguin and Webkinz delivered the best overall experience. Parents need to be watchful as websites frequently tantalize children with enticing options or even threats that their online creations will become inaccessible unless a purchase is made.

Social networking sites such as MySpace, Friendster or Xanga allow children to create their own websites and share their personal information with anyone anywhere.  According to the Kaiser M2 study of 2010, 74 percent of all seventh- to to 12th-graders say they have a profile on a social networking site.

Younger kids getting on Facebook

Note to parents: Facebook’s terms of service require users to be at least 13 years old yet a Consumer Reports’ study released in May 2011 reports 7.5 MILLION Facebook users are under the age of 13.  Some parents have discovered their children have multiple social networking sites – one they show their parents and one or more that they show the rest of the world.

So what is a parent to do?  Basic rules apply to internet safety, too.  First, tell your kids not to talk to strangers, especially about sex. Role play with them what to do if contacted by a stranger especially with inappropriate content. Children fear their parents will limit or deny their computer access if they report these contacts.  Talk to your children about what you will and won’t do when they let you know about this kind of communication.

Second, talk to your children about going into certain virtual neighborhoods – 25 percent of youth had one or more unwanted exposure to sexual pictures while online with 73 percent happening because of their own online surfing, according to a 2006 study on teen internet safety.

More recommendations for parents

  • Education yourself – and this includes letting your child help to educate you.
  • Talk to your children about internet use and, specifically, safety.  These conversations need to be routinely repeated and adapted to the developmental level of your child.
  • Teach your child that once something is uploaded onto the internet it can never be retrieved.
  • Keep an eye on the screen – computers in bedrooms are not recommended.
  • Consider whether or not you want your child’s phone in his or her bedroom after lights out. One study found 24 percent of teen couples were talking every hour between midnight and 5 a.m.
  • Be suspicious of free offers and teach your children to be wary also and remind kids to read before they click.
  • Help kids steer clear of gossiping and bullying and teach them how to handle it if it happens to them or a friend.
  • Set search engine preferences – Google’s default is “moderate.”  To change the setting, go to the “tools” icon (a gear) in the right hand corner of the Google home screen and choose “search settings.”  When the menu opens scroll down to “safe search filtering” and you can reset the preference.
  • Encourage a balance between online and face-to-face time.
  • Consider a contract with your child about phone and computer use.
  • As always, promote self confidence and high self esteem and open lines of communication between you and your children.

Technology is here to stay.  We are the ones that need to continue to educate ourselves and protect our children.  Enjoy the summer and safe surfing!

For more information and safety tips, please visit the Colorado School Safety Resource Center’s website at: http://www.safeschools.state.co.us/psresources.html and scroll down to “Internet Safety.”

First Person

Why the phrase ‘with fidelity’ is an affront to good teaching

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

“With fidelity” are some of the most damaging words in education.

Districts spend a ton of money paying people to pick out massively expensive, packaged curriculums, as if every one of a thousand classrooms needs the exact same things. Then officials say, over and over again, that they must be implemented “with fidelity.” What they mean is that teachers better not do anything that would serve their students’ specific needs.

When that curriculum does nothing to increase student achievement, it is not blamed. The district person who found it and purchased it is never blamed. Nope. They say, “Well, the teachers must not have been implementing it with fidelity.”

It keeps happening because admitting that schools are messy and students are human and teaching is both creative and artistic would also mean you have to trust teachers and let them have some power. Also, there are some really crappy teachers out there, and programs for everyone are often meant to push that worst-case-scenario line a little higher.

And if everyone’s doing just what they’re supposed to, we’ll get such good, clean numbers, and isn’t that worth a few thousand more dollars?

I was talking with a friend recently, a teacher at an urban school on the East Coast. He had been called to task by his principal for splitting his kids into groups to offer differentiated math instruction based on students’ needs. “But,” the principal said, “did the pacing guide say to differentiate? You need to trust the system.”

I understand the desire to find out if a curriculum “works.” But I don’t trust anyone who can say “trust the system” without vomiting. Not when the system is so much worse than anything teachers would put together.

Last year, my old district implemented Reading Plus, an online reading program that forces students to read at a pace determined by their scores. The trainers promised, literally promised us, that there wasn’t a single reading selection anywhere in the program that could be considered offensive to anyone. God knows I never learned anything from a book that made me feel uncomfortable!

Oh, and students were supposed to use this program — forced-paced reading of benign material followed by multiple-choice questions and more forced-pace reading — for 90 minutes a week. We heard a lot about fidelity when the program did almost nothing for students (and, I believe quite strongly, did far worse than encouraging independent reading of high-interest books for 90 minutes a week would have done).

At the end of that year, I was handed copies of next year’s great adventure in fidelity. I’m not in that district any longer, but the whole district was all switching over to SpringBoard, another curriculum, in language arts classes. On came the emails about implementing with fidelity and getting everyone on the same page. We were promised flexibility, you know, so long as we also stuck to the pacing guide of the workbook.

I gave it a look, I did, because only idiots turn down potential tools. But man, it seemed custom-built to keep thinking — especially any creative, critical thought from either students or teachers — to a bare minimum.

I just got an email from two students from last year. They said hi, told me they missed creative writing class, and said they hated SpringBoard, the “evil twin of Reading Plus.”

That district ran out of money and had to cut teachers (including me) at the end of the year. But if they hadn’t, I don’t think I would have lasted long if forced to teach from a pacing guide. I’m a good teacher. Good teachers love to be challenged and supported. They take feedback well, but man do we hate mandates for stuff we know isn’t best for the kids in our room.

Because, from inside a classroom full of dynamic, chaotic brilliance;

from a classroom where that kid just shared that thing that broke all of our hearts;

from a classroom where that other kid figured out that idea they’ve been working on for weeks;

from that classroom where that other kid, who doesn’t know enough of the language, hides how hard he works to keep up and still misses things;

and from that classroom where one kid isn’t sure if they trust you yet, and that other kid trusts you too much, too easily, because their bar had been set too low after years of teachers that didn’t care enough;

from inside that classroom, it’s impossible to trust that anyone else has a better idea than I do about what my students need to do for our next 50 minutes.

Tom Rademacher is a teacher living in Minneapolis who was named Minnesota’s Teacher of the Year in 2014. His book, “It Won’t Be Easy: An Exceedingly Honest (and Slightly Unprofessional) Love Letter to Teaching,” was published in April. He can be found on Twitter @mrtomrad and writes on misterrad.tumblr.com, where this post first appeared.

First Person

What I learned about the limits of school choice in New York City from a mother whose child uses a wheelchair

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

As a researcher interested in the ways online platforms impact learning and educational decision-making, I’ve been trying to understand how New York City parents get the information to make a crucial decision: where to send their children to school.

So for the past six months, I’ve been asking local parents about the data they used to choose among the system’s 1700 or so schools.

I’ve heard all sorts of stories about the factors parents weigh when picking schools. Beyond the usual considerations like test scores and art programs, they also consider the logistics of commuting from the Bronx to the East Village with two children in tow, whether the school can accommodate parents and children who are still learning English, and how much money the parent-teacher association raises to supplement the school’s budget.

But for some families, the choice process begins and ends with the question: Is the building fully accessible?

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires public buildings constructed after 1992 to be fully accessible to people in wheelchairs. However, most New York City public school buildings were constructed prior to that law, and high construction costs have limited the number of new, fully accessible buildings.

As a result, a shocking 83 percent of New York City schools have been found non-compliant with the ADA, according to a two-year federal Department of Justice investigation whose findings the city Department of Education largely disputes. Recently, the city’s Office of Space Management has begun surveying buildings for full accessibility, but more work remains to be done.

One parent’s struggle to find a school suitable for her son, who has a physical disability but no cognitive issues, illustrates what a major role accessibility plays in some families’ decision-making.

Melanie Rivera is the mother of two and a native New Yorker living in Ditmas Park in Brooklyn’s District 22 who shared her story with me — and gave me permission to share it with others. Here is what she told me, in her own words:

My son Gabriel is seven years old. He was born with a condition called arthrogryposis, which affects the development of his joints. His hips, knees, and feet are affected and he has joint contractures, so his legs don’t bend and straighten the way most people’s do. In order to get around, he uses a combination of crutches and a wheelchair.

Before I had my differently-abled son, I was working in a preschool for children with special needs. The kids I worked with had cognitive developmental disabilities.

Despite my professional experience, I was overwhelmed when it was my turn to help my child with different abilities navigate the public school system. I can only imagine the students falling by the wayside because their parents don’t have that background.

When I was completing my son’s kindergarten application, I couldn’t even consider the academics of the school. My main priority was to tour the schools and assess their level of accessibility.

There are only a couple of ADA-accessible schools in my district, and there was no way of indicating on my son’s kindergarten application that he needed one. When we got the admissions results, he was assigned to his zoned school – which is not accessible.

I entered lengthy and extensive mediation to get him into an ADA-accessible school. At that point, I knew I would just have to take what I could get. For families whose children have special needs, “school choice” can ring hollow.

The process of finding any accessible school was a challenge. The DOE website allows families to search for ADA-accessible schools. But the site describes most schools as “partially accessible,” leaving it up to parents to call each school and say, “What do you mean by this?”

When I called the schools and asked, “Are you a barrier-free school?” the staff in the office didn’t know what the term meant. They might reply, “Oh yeah, we have a ramp.” I’d have to press further: “But can you get to the office? Can you get to every floor in the building?” The response was often, “Oh, I don’t know.”

Even the office staff didn’t know. But for my son’s sake, I needed to know.

Gabriel deserves the full range of academic and social experiences. So every day I make sure he’s learning in the least-restrictive environment — from the classroom, to phys ed, to field trips.

I believe the Department of Education also wants to make schools accessible and to place students with different abilities in settings where they’ll flourish, but the current system is not equipped to follow through on those good intentions. While I see gradual changes, I still know that if I don’t find the best placement for my son the system definitely won’t.

At the school level, administrators should know the details of their own school’s accessibility. Teachers should learn to include children with different abilities in their classrooms. Such a commitment means recognizing the value of inclusivity — not viewing accessibility as something ADA says you must do.

Before I had Gabriel, I never thought about accessibility. I never looked at street cutouts or thought about how to enter a store with steps. We’re probably all guilty of perpetuating exclusion at one point or another.

Recognizing that will allow us to change the status quo. It will allow every individual with a physical disability to fully participate in the public school system.

Claire Fontaine is a researcher at Data & Society, a research institute in New York City focused on social, cultural, and ethical issues arising from technological development. Kinjal Dave is a research assistant at Data & Society. You can read more about their project, which seeks to better understand the ways in which diverse New York City parents draw on school performance data, online dashboards, and school review websites when researching schools for their children.