Website filters used on school

computers are too restrictive.

Most schools have moved to 1:1 technology, and this is not without its benefits. Students can
search a broad variety of topics online and do research on many different subjects without
having to dig through dusty archives. However, school policies impede students’ ability to
benefit from these technologies. At many schools, including our own, administrators have
partnered with companies such as Securly, Mosyle, and Cisco to restrict these devices and
invade students’ privacy. Many of these programs enable the monitoring of search history and
then use this information to block websites deemed “harmful”, “game-related”, “inappropriate”,
or “sexual”. However, in many cases, these restrictions not only keep students from viewing
truly damaging content; they also interfere with online learning.

One of the main problems with these filters are their side effects. For instance, the “sexual” filter
can block sites such Planned Parenthood and MOCSA (Metropolitan Organization to Counter
Sexual Assault)--organizations that can provide valuable health-related information to students.
The “game-related” filter blocks wikis, developer websites and game creation software that
students may need for creative production. Many support groups for LGBT youth are blocked;
these restrictions can hurt these youth at this questioning time (Anderson, 2016). While some
students have access to online information at home, the whole point of 1:1 technology in
schools is to help close the digital divide. With these filters in place, economically disadvantaged
groups have no way to access sites about these topics (NCAC anti-censorship database).
These filters can be thought of as trawling nets; they catch what administrators want to catch
but also block many necessary sites.

Internet access is not the only casualty of these filters. Additionally, many students are unable to
launch softwares such as Game Crafter, Game Maker Studio and Unity. These programs are
game-design engines that help students learn programming. These restrictions make it nearly
impossible to do creative projects that would allow students to deviate from the standard book
reports and speeches that most classes require. Without these engines, many budding
programmers have no chance of doing these projects at school because of these oppressive
filters.

Some say that the removal of these filters will enable students to watch poronography or play
violent video games on their computers, but this is not the case. The average middle schooler
has enough self-control to not do things that would definitely get them in trouble. Teachers and
administrators should be monitoring student computer use at school closely enough to detect
 these serious violations. Those who do not have this self-control can still be punished swiftly
and severely. At our school, playing a violent video game or viewing explicit content would likely
result in a detention or office referral, which would deter other students from this conduct at
school.

In conclusion, these filters hurt more than they help. They are harmful to the learning
environment, even though the purpose of academic technology is to enhance learning. Without
these filters, many budding programmers and student researchers would be able to learn and
discover more than the contents of the small, locked down webspace to which they have
access.

Bibliography

NACA (national coalition against censorship) https://ncac.org/resource/internet-filters-2

Anderson 2016 “Internet filtering is problematic” The Alantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/internet-filtering-hurts-kids/479907/