Web cookies (also called HTTP cookies, browser cookies, or simply cookies) are small pieces of data that websites store on your device (computer, phone, etc.) through your web browser. They are used to remember information about you and your interactions with the site.
Purpose of Cookies:
Session Management:
Keeping you logged in
Remembering items in a shopping cart
Saving language or theme preferences
Personalization:
Tailoring content or ads based on your previous activity
Tracking & Analytics:
Monitoring browsing behavior for analytics or marketing purposes
Types of Cookies:
Session Cookies:
Temporary; deleted when you close your browser
Used for things like keeping you logged in during a single session
Persistent Cookies:
Stored on your device until they expire or are manually deleted
Used for remembering login credentials, settings, etc.
First-Party Cookies:
Set by the website you're visiting directly
Third-Party Cookies:
Set by other domains (usually advertisers) embedded in the website
Commonly used for tracking across multiple sites
Authentication cookies are a special type of web cookie used to identify and verify a user after they log in to a website or web application.
What They Do:
Once you log in to a site, the server creates an authentication cookie and sends it to your browser. This cookie:
Proves to the website that you're logged in
Prevents you from having to log in again on every page you visit
Can persist across sessions if you select "Remember me"
What's Inside an Authentication Cookie?
Typically, it contains:
A unique session ID (not your actual password)
Optional metadata (e.g., expiration time, security flags)
Analytics cookies are cookies used to collect data about how visitors interact with a website. Their primary purpose is to help website owners understand and improve user experience by analyzing things like:
How users navigate the site
Which pages are most/least visited
How long users stay on each page
What device, browser, or location the user is from
What They Track:
Some examples of data analytics cookies may collect:
Page views and time spent on pages
Click paths (how users move from page to page)
Bounce rate (users who leave without interacting)
User demographics (location, language, device)
Referring websites (how users arrived at the site)
Here’s how you can disable cookies in common browsers:
1. Google Chrome
Open Chrome and click the three vertical dots in the top-right corner.
Go to Settings > Privacy and security > Cookies and other site data.
Choose your preferred option:
Block all cookies (not recommended, can break most websites).
Block third-party cookies (can block ads and tracking cookies).
2. Mozilla Firefox
Open Firefox and click the three horizontal lines in the top-right corner.
Go to Settings > Privacy & Security.
Under the Enhanced Tracking Protection section, choose Strict to block most cookies or Custom to manually choose which cookies to block.
3. Safari
Open Safari and click Safari in the top-left corner of the screen.
Go to Preferences > Privacy.
Check Block all cookies to stop all cookies, or select options to block third-party cookies.
4. Microsoft Edge
Open Edge and click the three horizontal dots in the top-right corner.
Go to Settings > Privacy, search, and services > Cookies and site permissions.
Select your cookie settings from there, including blocking all cookies or blocking third-party cookies.
5. On Mobile (iOS/Android)
For Safari on iOS: Go to Settings > Safari > Privacy & Security > Block All Cookies.
For Chrome on Android: Open the app, tap the three dots, go to Settings > Privacy and security > Cookies.
Be Aware:
Disabling cookies can make your online experience more difficult. Some websites may not load properly, or you may be logged out frequently. Also, certain features may not work as expected.
From left, Victoria M. Schilling, Deidra Fogerty, Rachel McAnellen, Maureen Ruby, Dean Gladis Kersaint, Craig Cooke, Carla S. Klein, and D. Betsy McCoach at the 2019 Neag School Alumni Awards Celebration in Storrs in March. (Roger Castonguay/Neag School)
Today through Thursday, Oct. 31, 2019, the Neag School of Education is accepting nominations for the 2020 Neag School Annual Alumni Awards. Go online today to nominate deserving Neag School alumni in the following six categories:
Outstanding Higher Education Professional – A faculty member or administrator at a college or university
Outstanding School Superintendent –A leader of a public or private school system
Outstanding School Administrator – A principal, assistant principal, central office administrator or director
Outstanding School Educator – Pre-K through 12th grade educators, including classroom, reading, technology, ELL, school counselors, and school psychologists
Outstanding Professional – A professional working within the public or private sector/
Outstanding Early Career Professional – A promising young professional in the first five years of his/her career in education
Award recipients will be formally recognized in March 2020 at the Neag School’s 22nd Annual Alumni Awards Celebration.
Victoria Schilling ’16 (ED), ’17 MA, a science teacher in Ellington, Conn., receives a proclamation from Gov. Ned Lamont at the 2019 Neag School Alumni Awards Celebration.
Alumna Carla Klein ’72 (ED) accepts the Neag School’s Distinguished Alumni Award for 2019.
Engraved glass awards for each 2019 Neag School Alumni Award recipient grace a table at the event.
Dwight Sharpe works with middle school students as part of the new science and technology project he initiated at Woodrow Wilson Middle School in Middletown, Conn. (Caitlin Trinh/Neag School)
“Being able to play with things and understand how things work,” Sharpe says, is what engaged him as a child; remote-controlled cars were among his favorite toys. “That’s the tie between mathematics and technology: recognizing there is so much math that goes into creating these electronic-type devices.”
At Woodrow Wilson Middle School in Middletown, Conn., where he was teaching math in 2017, Sharpe had come across some robots stored in the school’s technology office, which sparked an idea: using robots in the classroom.
With this in mind, he applied for the 2018 Rogers Educational Innovation Fund, a $5,000 award designated by Neag School Professor Emeritus Vincent Rogers and his late wife, Chris, in support of innovative projects carried out by Connecticut teachers at the elementary or middle-school level.
Sharpe’s project, entitled “Accessing and Engaging in Mathematics Through Robotics and Computer Programming,” seeks “to explore and determine how robotics and computer programming can be embedded into middle school instruction to improve student engagement and achievement.” It was selected from among more than 40 submissions.
“At the end of the day, the new project was about engagement. It was about integrating something into the classroom that hasn’t been there.”
— Dwight Sharpe, 2018 Rogers Award Recipient
New Technology Leads to New Approach “As an eighth-grade mathematics teacher at Woodrow Wilson Middle School, I often find it difficult to actively engage my struggling learners so that they are able to master mathematical concepts,” Sharpe had explained in his original project proposal.
This year, in an effort to improve mathematics performance for all students, Sharpe has been collaborating with his grade-level colleagues and curriculum supervisor to provide more personalized instruction to students. In Middletown, elementary schools are in their fourth year of implementing Guided Math implementation, an approach that allows small groups of students situated around the classroom to work together on specific curriculum standards. The schools have seen a positive impact on student mastery and performance measures as a result of this approach to math instruction; Woodrow Wilson Middle hopes to replicate this success with their own implementation of Guided Math.
“Because many students have not had significant success in mathematics classes and assessments, they have developed a fixed mindset in which they believe they cannot independently solve mathematical problems without the scaffolding and support from me,” Sharpe says. “Many students are disengaged, frustrated, and unwilling to take risks in the classroom that allow for learning and success.”
While the classroom model at the school had long centered on students sitting at their desks while teachers lectured, Sharpe saw an opportunity to transform that with his robotics and computer programming project.
“At the end of the day, the new project was about engagement,” he says. “It was about integrating something into the classroom that hasn’t been there.”
Instead of the teacher speaking in front of the classroom, there are now stations throughout the classroom where students can teach themselves or learn and discover on their own. By integrating robotics and computer programming into math instruction through Guided Math groups, Sharpe seeks to motivate students to apply mathematical concepts.
“My intention was to find out if there was something we could bring into the classroom that’s going to get the kids engaged, that’s going to be more on the level of what they want to learn,” Sharpe says.
A student at Woodrow Wilson works with a laptop as part of the new technology project. (Caitlin Trinh/Neag School)
Robots and Probots and Ozobots – Oh My In each unit of study, Sharpe has created a variety of hands-on lessons and activities integrating specific types of small robots or robotic platforms — among them Ozobots, Probots, Spheros, and Bloxels — that allow students to apply mathematical concepts they have studied.
“I will ask students to collaborate to solve problems, articulate their solutions, and demonstrate their understanding,” Sharpe says.
For example, students can use Ozobots to demonstrate the relationships expressed by the Pythagorean Theorem; engage with ProBots to plot the answers to basic equations of lines and planes; or develop video games based on specific mathematical skills using a platform called Bloxels — all of which Sharpe says can help make math lessons “a lot more appealing to kids.”
“Success in these activities will also help students to develop a mathematical mindset in which they believe they are capable of mastering math concepts through collaboration, questioning, and problem solving,” he says. “Because the need and ability of my students vary significantly in the classroom, I have deliberately identified four robotic devices that will allow me to differentiate activities so that I can meet students where they are and allow for growth.”
Ultimately, Sharpe says he hopes “students will not only come to class excited to participate in mathematics, [but also] believe that they can succeed.”
Middle school students work with coding materials and robots to help them learn how to program computers. (Caitlin Trinh/Neag School)
Opening Doors Once the new equipment was brought into classrooms, many students were eager to play and experiment with it. “It was really awesome to have various stations with all the computers going, and the kids bumping into each other,” says Sharpe.
Yet some students – and even some teachers – were anxious about the new tools.
“For something new to come in, especially for a lot of kids, change isn’t always easy,” admits Sharpe, who says he had to think through the new curriculum to figure out a more interdisciplinary approach to math instruction.
Soon enough, math seemed to become more accessible among the different students in the classroom, especially female students. Sharpe recalls one such student in eighth grade who was struggling with learning coding. Sharpe spent time with her, helping her to understand the concepts. “I was coaxing her through, saying … ‘I think you are downplaying your ability and doing something that someone told you you cannot do’,” he says.
A few weeks later, he reconnected with the student, whose attitude had completely changed. “‘This coding stuff is awesome’,” Sharpe recalls her saying. “‘You were right. I was thinking that I couldn’t do it, when actuality I really could.’”
The hands-on-experience and exposure to the various types of robots, Sharpe says, are “opening doors” for many different students.
What’s Next Over the next year, the school will look to incorporate the robots very intentionally into the project-based learning, and to identify the data and see how the project has helped improve student learning and performance in various tests.
Sharpe says he thinks the students are “having an understanding of the application of math and knowing that if ‘I input something that I then get a result back’; I think that conceptual understanding of mathematics is huge.”
Though he has begun serving in a new role, as the district equity, restorative practices, and social-emotional learning facilitator for Middletown (Conn.) Public Schools, Sharpe will continue to champion the project.
“There are so many things changing in the math department, I feel like I’m missing so much,” he says. “I try to sneak into math classes as much as possible.”
Thanks to the generosity of Vincent and Chris Rogers, the project has the funding needed to pave a new way of thinking, Sharpe says, allowing students to “think beyond just the normal,” to think creatively, and to look at things differently.
It “really gives the kids the insight to what is possible, even if you can’t see it in front of you,” he says.
The bands, which were also worn by Tinker’s 15-year-old brother John and other local students, were a silent protest against the Vietnam war, an effort to mourn those who had been killed in combat and to call for a Christmas truce.
One of the student protestors, Christopher Eckhardt, was threatened by members of his high school football team. But Mary Beth’s day passed largely without incident until she showed up in her afternoon math class. Her teacher, Richard Moberly, had warned the students not to wear the bands in class. He promptly sent her to the school office, where she was so intimidated that she removed the band. She was suspended anyway.
It was a moment destined to make history.
When the school board affirmed the band ban, the Tinker and Eckhardt families filed a law-suit that was eventually considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the Q&A below, National Education Policy Center Fellow and University of Connecticut professor Preston Green III explains the significance of the case, tracing its implications to modern-day student speech issues (like those related to social media) that the 1965 Court could not have foreseen.
Green is the John and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. He is also a professor of educational leadership and law at the University of Connecticut. With a J.D. from Columbia University School of Law and an Ed.D. from Teacher’s College, Columbia University, Green is an expert in the legal and policy implications of educational access and school choice. Along with Joseph O. Oluwole, Green is the author of a 2015 law review article exploring students’ first amendment rights in the digital age: “Virtual Schools, Student Rights, and the First Amendment: Adjusting the Schoolhouse Gate to the 21st Century” appeared in the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology.
Q: At the time, what was the significance of the Tinker case?
A: The Tinker case marked the first time that the Supreme Court addressed whether the First Amendment applied to speech by students within public schools. The Court ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment by suspending students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In reaching this decision, the Court ruled that public schools could not censor student speech unless it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasions of the rights of others.”
“The Tinker case marked the first time that the Supreme Court addressed whether the First Amendment applied to speech by students within public schools. The Court ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment by suspending students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.”
A: Although the Tinker case proclaimed that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” the Court cautioned that this right must be balanced against the legitimate interests of school officials in the safe and orderly conduct of schools. In subsequent student free speech cases, the Supreme Court has applied this balancing test to limit the free speech rights of students.
For example, in Bethel, the Court ruled that schools could discipline students for lewd and indecent speech because of their responsibility to teach students how to behave in a civil manner. In Hazelwood, the Court ruled that schools could restrict school-sponsored speech because of their legitimate interest in controlling the curriculum. Finally, in the Morse case, the Court upheld the suspension of a student for displaying a banner supporting drug use.
Q: How are student speech issues now different from the immediate post-Tinker years, and how have courts addressed cases involving students’ speech on social media or other online platforms?
In the absence of Supreme Court guidance, federal appellate courts have developed an array of tests to analyze off-campus regulations of student speech. A recent law review article summarizes the various approaches in the following manner:
The Second, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits apply the foreseeability threshold [the ability to reasonably anticipate the possible results of an action] to the Tinker test [which balances student free speech rights with the legitimate interests of school officials in the safe and orderly conduct of schools.] The Third Circuit also applies the foreseeability threshold to Tinker, but tweaks its test to focus on the student’s intent. The Fourth Circuit applies a “sufficient nexus” threshold [i.e., an examination of the nexus between the speech and the school] to Tinker, while the Eleventh Circuit applies a “true threat” test [which aims to determine whether there is serious intent to do harm], in addition to a traditional Tinker analysis. The Ninth Circuit declines to apply any of these approaches and extends Tinker only when faced with an identifiable threat of school violence, while the Fifth Circuit’s approach is flexible to accommodate the specific facts before it.
Until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the application of the First Amendment to off-campus speech, this hodgepodge of approaches will continue.
Q: How do you think Tinker might be decided today if reconsidered by the current Supreme Court?
A: I suspect that the Roberts Court would have ruled in the same manner had it decided Tinker today. In a 5-4 decision, I could see Chief Justice Roberts siding with the liberal wing of the Court, but being very careful to note that the students’ rights had to be balanced against the concerns of school districts.
Q: Fifty years from now, what do you think student free speech rights might look like?
A: I suspect that the Supreme Court will have developed a standard to address the application of the First Amendment to online speech. I also think that the judiciary will continue to struggle to keep up with advances in technology.
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions.