There is an evaluation of I-Safe here. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213715.pdf.

Note the summary indicates that ISafe was effective in transmitting knowledge, but not changing behavior. Hmm. Look further, especially at the actual questions asked. Increase in knowledge was assessed in part by using questions like:

How much do you know about Internet predators? Nothing at all, Some, A Little, Alot. Hmm. So if before a lesson a child reports "nothing" and after, a child reports "alot" the lesson has obviously been effective, right? ?????

Actually the lessons on sexual predators at the middle school level do not even use the word "sex." Nope, no discussions about their sexual intentions, why this is dangerous, why posting cute "sexy" images online might not be a good idea. The question I ask is: "If we are unwilling to discuss the intentions of online sexual predators with youth, how the heck to we expect that young people will feel comfortable coming to us if someone is hitting on them?

Lessons for younger students are even more interesting. ISafe tries to teach 1st graders about computer viruses and that they should not do things online to make their computer sick. I can imagine how this information is grasped by the "still believe in fairy tale" set.

Look on page 48 (or 64 of the pdf) of the evaluation on the issue of Managing Risk. It says. "Students attitudes about the risk of interacting with others online were measured using a scale ranging from 1 to 4 (1=not at all likely, 2=a little likely, 3=somewhat likely, and 4=very likely. A higher score, *which is desirable*, is associated with a higher perceived risk." (So, obviously the goal of the lessons was to increased the perceived risk.)

You have to go to Appendix 7 for the specific items which is on A7-2 (or 150) of the pdf. The questions were:

* How likely is it that someone you meet online would pretend to be someone they are not?

* How likely is it that someone you meet online would try to hurt or scare
you?

* If you reveal your personal information to someone you only met online, how likely is it that person will try to contact you?

* If you agree to have a face-to-face meeting with someone you only talk to online, how likely is it that the person will try to harm you?

Is the answer "very likely" desirable? Is this answer even accurate? Is there data to support these desirable answers? Have "stranger danger messages" been found to be effective? The answers to all of these questions is "no."

In my opinion, the evaluation found that I-Safe is effective in transmitting
unreasonable, untrue, fear-based information to young people.

I-Safe is a well-funded example of Web 1.0 Internet safety education: Simplistic rules, fear-based, unrealistic guidance that does not provide young people with the knowledge and skills they need to make good choices online.

Nancy

Nancy Willard, author of Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly

Anne, I think what you say is spot-on, except for one over-arching issue: Perhaps we can use the internet umbrella to teach some of these very issues you address (ethics, bullying, media literacy, etc.). You state that teaching online safety is not enough and I completely agree. However, instead of pointing out that the lessons that should be applied to the cyberworld be addressed in other places, maybe it's possible to start with proper internet use and use that as a jumping place to address the larger concepts of being a good and responsible person.

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you said in your post, but I think your observation of the over-simplification is perfect, but the solution may be the reverse of what you seem to be suggesting.

What does anyone know about I-Safe? http://www.isafe.org/ I have just signed up as an educator to work my way through their program. Any reviews out on this?