I was opposed to Internet filtering.

I thought that it was important to teach students to self-regulate. They should have the agency to decide what kinds of information they’re going to consume online. We shouldn’t rely on someone else to always tell us when online material is appropriate or ethical or harmful. I also didn’t like the idea of censorship, and I felt that institutions and lawmakers shouldn’t be the ones deciding what people can see. I’m totally fine with a person choosing to not read a book, or to not watch a video, or to not visit some website. I’m even in favor of parents making those decisions for their children. But I’m not a fan of someone telling me, or telling my children that we can’t access something because they disagree with it.

I lost the battle early. The Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2001 essentially required schools to protect students against material that is obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors. That’s really oddly specific language if you think about it. Don’t spend too much time thinking about it.

Sure. We can all agree that some content online is not for children. They shouldn’t be accessing pornography or hate speech or excessive violence or Kid Rock videos. But once that ball gets rolling, it’s hard to stop it. Accessing information about religious ideology could lead to difficult quesitions at home that parents would rather not answer. Learning about different cultures can lead to questions about colonialism and imperialism that become uncomfortable. If they’re using school technology and accessing information that has a political bias, we could be accused of using public funds to promote partisan politics. And when students interact with strangers online, we have no control over what’s going to be said or shared. It’s probably best to keep that from happening.

Soon, we’re blocking things that are distractions rather than harmful. We need to block games and social media and streaming, because the Internet is WAY more entertaining and engaging than school is. We need to block search engines that might turn up links to inappropriate material, even if students can’t get to those links. We need to block shopping, and sites that help students cheat on their homework, and tools that help them bypass the filtering. And now, it’s no longer about protecting students as much as it is about controlling them. Some schools have actually flipped this model. Instead of blocking categories of content that are inappropriate, they’re maintaining a much shorter list of resources students CAN access. Essentially, everything is blocked unless a teacher has asked for it to be available.

I’ve often observed that schools are playing the role of totalitarian regimes. We’re using the same technologies to restrict access to online resources that China and North Korea use to control the material their citizens can access. And our students are using the same resources to bypass those technologies that our government has traditionally provided to residents of those oppressed countries. We’ve been in an arms race with our own government for a couple decades now. I’ve also not worried about it too much. Filtering is like trying to catch water with a net. We can keep using finer and finer mesh, but it’s ultimately a futile effort. I’ve always said that students who can’t get around their school Internet filters just lack creativity and determination. So we do what we can to prevent accidental exposure to inappropriate content, and we call it a day.

But in the age of algorithms, I’m not sure that’s still the best approach. Online tools are built for engagement. They’re designed to keep people on them. Keep playing the game. Keep scrolling the page that never ends. Click on this link. Click on this better link. If you liked that video, you’re going to LOVE this one! Look around a restaurant and note how many adults are glued to their phones. Take a look around the theater when the lights come up at intermission. ALL of the phones come out immediately. We’re addicted to our technology.

So when we hand an iPad to a ten-year-old, and tell them to only use it for schoolwork? Yeah, that’s not going to work. “Make sure you turn it off after 8 pm so you get a good night’s sleep.” Sure thing. No problem. “Take this home for the summer so you can practice your math and spelling skills.” I’ll get right on that as soon as I finish watching this video. We might think we’re throwing the kid into the deep end to teach them to swim, but we’re actually throwing them into Niagra Falls.

I spent the first 29 years of my career trying to make technology ubiquitous. I wanted it to be available for every learner, all the time. I wanted it to work flawlessly when they needed it, and to get out of the way when they didn’t need it, so we could focus on more important things. And we did it. That’s the amazing part. This thing that was so unreachable — every kid has access to unfathomable technology and information all the time — is common now. It’s part of the expectations for going to school. Of course every kid has a device. That’s how school works now.

But for the last few years, we’ve started moving away from that, and for good reason. We can’t self-regulate our own online activity, and we can’t expect our students to magically be able to do it either. We need better tools. We need actual limits. The technology doesn’t get out of the way when we don’t need it, and that has become a growing problem.

A few years ago, we stopped using technology entirely in Kindergarten. We switched from a take-home technology model in grades 1-4 to one in which the devices stay in the classroom. We encouraged teachers to embrace technology in ways that enhance student learning in tangible ways by improving student engagement, personalizing learning experiences, and helping students collaborate and communicate in ways that are impractical without it. We gave parents better tools to monitor and restrict student use of devices outside of school. We banned student cell phone use in school. And we’ve tightened the process for adopting new apps for students to use. These measures have been successful, but maybe they haven’t been enough.

Maybe we need screen time guidelines for students that are similar to our homework guidelines. Maybe we need to keep middle school devices at school too, so students aren’t constantly using them. Maybe we should stop giving devices to all students, and just issue them for specific classes or projects when needed. Maybe we should add even more filters to block sites that promote compulsive online behavior. Maybe we should have technology-free days when we don’t use tech at all in school.

I don’t like any of those ideas. They all increase friction. They all make it harder to do useful things with technology. They all focus too much attention on the tools and not enough on what we’re doing with them. But the status quo is no longer sustainable. We can’t expect kids to self-regulate against an industry spending billions to keep them addicted. Until we can actually teach kids to swim in these rapids, we have to give them some life jackets.