National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Surveys

Educators must be aware of the dark side of the Internet and take steps to protect students. Legislation has made this responsibility clear. The Children’s Internet and Protection Act (CIPA) enacted in 2000 requires schools to filter incoming content to block inappropriate material and to monitor the activities of minors to prevent potentially harmful or dangerous behavior. CIPA guidelines must be met for schools to qualify for e-rate funding.

As this content was being written, legislators were considering the “Deleting Online Predators Act” or DOPA (legislation had been passed by the House). DOPA is focused on:

 commercial social networking website or chat room through which minors—

‘‘(aa) may easily access or be presented with obscene or indecent material;

 ‘‘(bb) may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or

 ‘‘(cc) may easily access other material that is harmful to minors; and’’.

An expectation of DOPA would be that educational institutions block (filter) access to such sites.

A data resource that has influenced legislative action and informed the thinking of educators has resulted from surveys conducted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The findings of the 2005 survey (Ybarra. Mitchell, Findkelhor, & Wolak, 2007) contrasted with the 2000 survey are briefly summarized below. Findings from these surveys describing the experiences of young people on the Internet frequently are used to raise awareness and argue for various educational or protective measures.

A personal observation - the researchers providing the analyses of the survey data, considering topics for future research, and commenting on implications of the data have very little to say about schools or school-related policy. The data establish the reality of the threat to young people, but could also be said to a) demonstrate the limitations of filtering and b) establish access from home and the homes of friends as access points of greatest concern. Schools clearly have an important role to play in preparing students and their parents to deal with the reality of Internet dangers. What is more difficult to establish is whether politically mandated filtering and other restrictions provide a meaningful increase in protection and what are the corresponding detriments to educational practice created by such restrictions.

Some findings contrasting the results of 2000 and 2005:

1) A smaller proportion of young people were the targets of unwanted sexual solicitations.

19% to 13% (2000-2005)

The authors speculate that this reduction may have been caused by a:  

a) decline in the willingness to communicate with people you do not know - 40 - 34%

b) lower participation in chat rooms - 56% - 30%

More specific "aggressive" sexual solicitations did not decline (3% - 4%) - defined as some attempt at other than online contact (requested FTF meeting, called on phone, sent mail, money or gifts)

2) Increase in unwanted exposure to explicit sexual material

25% (2000) - 34% (2005)

The authors speculate this increase may be due to:

a) more use of the web

b) high speed access allowing images and video to be more available

c) aggressive marketing of sexual materials

3) Increase in online harrassment

         6% (2000) - 9% (2005)

Given recent political consideration of this topic focused on school and library access (DOPA), I read the report looking for some specific things. While any danger directed at our sons and daughters should concern us (I encourage you to take the time to read the report rather than rely completely on summaries such as this), each of us must also acknowledge that as adults responsible for children (as educators or parents) we constantly make decisions that expose our children to some element of risk. How do the risks match up with the educational potential of applications that may involve a certain element of danger?

A couple of data points from this study:

• Four percent of those surveyed indicated experiencing an “aggressive sexual solicitation” (perpetrator made an effort to take the “experience” offline through phone contact, mail, or face to face meeting).
• Location of computer when experiencing an agressive sexual solicitation - 79% home, 12% friend home, 9% school, library, or other.
• Age of solicitor associated with “aggressive solicitation - 44% <18, 34% 18-25, 15% >25, 7% - no clue
• Means of access - chat 32%, IM 54%, other 13%
• Reaction - 44% removed self from situation, 23% warned solictor, 7% changed online name, 15% ignored, 2% reported to parent or authorities, 7% met person

It is the combination of these percentages we have to process. Is there a risk to adolescents? Obviously! Are school uses of communication technology involved? Rarely! Do adolescents act responsibly? Mostly!

While harsh, we have to make decisions about how a technology with a less than perfect record, but benefits to our children is to be implementented.

Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Wolak J (2007). Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later, Journal of Adolescent Health,40: 116-126. (Version of this study can be viewed online).

Return to Chapter 10