Question 1
Schools have increasingly provided learners with internet access to expand their knowledge. Currently, it is mandatory for learning institutions to offer internet access for necessary online activities, including use in libraries and computer laboratories. However, there are high chances of students to abuse or misuse the available internet. Consequently, the US government came up with CIPA. CIPA was signed into law in December 2000 by President Clinton with the primary aim of protecting children from harmful materials that are contained on the internet such as pornography. The act requires any school or public library that benefits from federal support to adopt and execute technology protection techniques on all internet access computers as a condition of getting government funding. Even though the CIPA is a noble law, its implementations affect learning in schools (Batch, 2014).
Schools that strictly adhere to CIPA and over-filter internet content limits the digital literacy of children, which is the ability to utilize and ICT to find, understand, analyze, develop, and convey digital information. By blocking some internet sites, CIPA gives teachers an instructional exemption from developing learners to use the internet for educational pursuit (Batch, 2014). For instance, blocking interactive websites such as social media not only affect what teachers can teach but also the way they teach, CIPA bars the interactive process of social learning. Consequently, students are not able to develop effective social networking skills.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In order to ensure that the implementation of CIPA does not lead to unfair consequences, teachers, librarians, and administrators should not over-filter internet contents. In order to enhance networking skills of students, they should not block social media sites. In addition, they should educate students on responsible use the internet and emphasize on its professional development on safe and effective us (Batch, 2014).
Question 2
According to recent studies, the quality of child’s teacher has a significant impact on the child’s academic performance and achievements. Consequently, the concepts of instructional negligence and educational malpractice have emerged. Instructional negligence refers to the practices of teachers or instructors that may lead to academic failure of learners. Educational malpractice, on the other hand, goes beyond teachers and it includes educational institutions (Hutt & Tang, 2013). Educational malpractice, therefore, occurs when learning institutions and their employees breach their role of educating learners adequately. It involves professional negligence and failure to offer services that can enhance the performance of learners.
There is a controversial debate on who should be held responsible in student’s learning process. Four main stakeholders are associated with the student’s learning progress and they include students, teachers, parents, and administrators. However, in many cases, many people believe that teachers should bear the responsibility for the academic achievement of learners (Hutt & Tang, 2013). This argument is partly true, but students’ achievements are influenced by a number of factors from outside the normal reaching process. Therefore, all the stakeholders bear responsibility for the students’ learning process. Even though teachers have the main responsibility for ensuring the academic success of students, factors such as education policies, social issues, and family issues affect the learning process in schools. At the same time, a teacher may effectively play his or her part, but students fail to follow instructions.
For instance, a case involving Peter W. and San Francisco U.S.D where Peter, a high school graduate, sued a high school for inadequate instruction and negligent teaching proves that the success of students is based on collaboration among education stakeholders (Vacca, 2003). Peter claimed that he could not read and write due to the educational negligence of the school and teachers. Interestingly, his colleagues whom he was with in the same class were able to read and write. The case proves that there were other factors other than teaching that was affecting Peter’s academic performance.
References
Batch, K. R. (2014). Fencing out knowledge: Impacts of the Children's Internet Protection Act 10 years later . Office for Information Technology Policy, American Library Association, 1-36.
Hutt, E., & Tang, A. (2013). The new education malpractice litigation. Virginia Law Review , 3(2), 419-492.
Vacca, R. S. (2003). Educational Malpractice and Academic Damages. CEPI Education Law Newsletter, 3(2), 1-4.
