I agree that in order to enable kids to use safe behaviours they have to be exposed to certain risks but in a monitored and safe environment. Surely playgrounds would never have become so safe (and possibly boring ) if children had been banned from using them because they were at risk of injury. Let’s hope that the current situation leads to sensible guidelines that allow innovative educators to do what they do best – motivate and engage students in authentic learning.

what I’m arguing is that there is a strong social & cultural push in the direction of safety first – there are different ways to combat that

one is to lampoon it – eg. the TED video that wara points to is called “5 dangerous things you should let your kids do” – the title is provocative although the talk itself is serious and well argued

another way is to reframe the whole discussion –> I’m thinking that might be more productive, eg. in response to the paraphrased comment: ‘If something bad can happen to even one child it shouldn’t be done’

I think a good response would be – “what is your philosophy of learning?” That is a reframe from “safety as centre” to “learning as centre”. I’m saying this because I have seen good ideas voted down at staff meetings after the occupational health and safety report documented the risks.

Garth Boomer once described his learning principles as “design and struggle”. The issue here is struggle, that learning requires struggle and all struggle involves some risk. I’ve seen kids in tears after losing a chess game. If we don’t encourage struggle in learning then we will forever remain at the rote and reception stage – contrast this to meaningful and discovery

I’m not sure but possibly talk about fear of the unknown as the wrong approach – for some who oppose kids access to the internet it is fear of the known although that is combined with self protection (do what it takes to prevent a parent suing my school) rather than a longer term view of protection of children – since kids will create myspace accounts in their own time anyhow

In a court of law ‘duty of care’ might trump anything to do with learning outcomes. However, duty of care should be applied to actual risk not perceived risk. That would most likely put the real deaths and harm to kids via (cyber) bullying ahead of the impact of sexual predators. Anyone got real research figures on that?

Fang

I think that the conversation that decision makers need to consider is that by making our classrooms “internet safe” from outside contact, does that really assist our students in the rest of their real life? I suppose much of school is a simulation and that banning/blocking of anything with potential risk is right in line with the philosophy of school as it is currently constructed. It is just frustrating to think that teaching the concepts of web safety, ethics and responsibility will have to be abstract – an indoor wading pool instead of a surf life saving training session down by the actual ocean – if I indulge in one more metaphor.

I’ll have to read some Furedi as you suggest tonight.

better to express this as opposition to the strong version of the precautionary principle – possibly no one actually argues for a risk free society, the real problem is the precautionary principle

see The Paralyzing Principle

also it’s not clear how much weight should be given to a paraphrased response by one person – although such remarks are bad for the spirit they don’t necessarily represent the department consensus or the final policy decision (although they might, nothing would surprise me)

the fear / ignorance analysis can be challenged too (needs more discussion) -> it is far easier to access p*rn through the internet than in earlier media, in fact, it sometimes happens accidentally (search for fox and find foxy lady)

it’s natural for people to want to move from a higher risk state to a lower risk state – and so that appeal will normally have majority support from parents – it’s hard to fight against it, it does represent a real trend in society

I think what needs to be done is to distinguish b/w a pragmatic approach to risk (good idea, wear seat belts) and an ideological approach to risk – the idealistic goal of a risk free society. The risk free society just does not stand up at all. How did we even get to a place where people even contemplate that safety considerations trump everything else? Some authors have addressed this larger question directly, eg. search for Furedi + fear for some good articles.

irony – my post was rejected because it contained the p*rn word LOL

I like to equate the fear of outside influences on blogging to that off receiving advertisements through the fax machine. If you don’t like it throw it out. If you don’t like a comment then delete it or send all comments to moderation first.

It’s sad, but I don’t expect a a lot more from people who are administrators, not educational leaders.