Internet Filtering in Schools

1. Internet Filtering in Schools Benefits:

2. Benefits of Internet filtering in schools: It’s the law. • Federal Children’s Internet Protection Act states that requires establishments, including schools and public libraries, that receive federal funding to “certify that they are using computer filtering software to prevent the on-screen depiction of obscenity, child pornography or other material harmful to minors” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2012). • Georgia has laws which, “requires public schools and public libraries to adopt and enforce reasonable policies of Internet safety that will protect children from access to harmful material. …Prohibits a public school or library from receiving state funds unless it implements and enforces the acceptable-use policy”. (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2012).

3. Benefits of Internet filtering in schools: Funding • “The federal E-rate program provides discounted communication technologies to eligible schools and libraries.” • As a result of CIPA legislation, schools can lose their E-rate funding if they are not demonstrating at least a minimum level of compliance with CIPA.

4. Benefits of Internet filtering: It protects the teacher. • As a teacher, media specialist, or school administrator, you are responsible for the welfare of students while they are at school. If you fail to protect them from something that is harmful and avoidable, you are at risk for being found liable by the court. The Catoosa County Schools Handbook states that “It shall be the responsibility of all members of the Catoosa County schools staff to supervise and monitor usage of the online computer network and access to the Internet…”(Catoosa County Schools Handbook, 20120). Teachers are expected to monitor and attempt to ensure some type of safety for students when using the internet. The filters assist them in protecting the students. Without the filters, they would have to monitor all by themselves and it would be much more difficult to ensure proper usage. • Possible harmful materials or occurrences: cyber-bulling, suicide information, planning violent acts, exposure to predators, pornography • .

5. Benefits of Internet filtering: Parents’ rights. • Internet filtering protects the parent’s rights to limit the exposure of their children. Parents vary in their willingness to let their children be exposed to different media. Filtering the internet makes sure that the interests of the more restrictive parents are upheld. • Children under 18 are not allowed to go to a Rated R movie, so why would we let them have full access to whatever they choose online?

6. Benefits of Internet filtering: Avoiding misuse of instructional time. • As public school educators, our goal is to teach a prescribe state determined curriculum. If we allow students to surf the internet unrestricted, we cannot ensure they sites they use are in alignment with curricular goals and therefore cannot avoid the misuse of the state/county property and the misuse of instructional time. Catoosa County Schools lists in their Handbook that “the use of the network must be consistent with the educational objectives of the Catoosa County School District” (Catoosa County Schools Handbook, 2012). • It’s really not the school’s choice to make. Since the school is a government organization, they should not be allowed to expose a child to media which may result in their harm or which may result in something illegal, such as exposing minors to pornography.

7. Benefits of Internet filtering: Avoiding corruption of the network. • Uncontrolled, ill-informed use of the internet could infect your network with all types of malware, spyware, and virus. • Such infection would slow internet access for all users. (Rumble)

8. Internet Filtering:Some possible compromises • Set the parameters of the filtering fairly loosely. • Allow an administrative override for educators, such that if a student asks, and the educator deems the site is inappropriately blocked, he/she can allow access and continue to monitor on a case by case basis. • This would impede somewhat on privacy, but would allow students to access controversial topics and other erroreously blocked material, so long as they are not “destruction how-to’s”, pornography, or the like. • Chief William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court, in the court’s 2003 decision, acknowledged that filtering programs may erroneously block access to Web pages that are "completely innocuous," but he believed their use is acceptable so long as library patrons can rectify such problems easily(EFF, 2003). "When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter," he wrote.

9. References: • Catoosa County Schools Handbook 2012-2013. Retrieved from www.catoosa.k12.ga.us on October 3, 2012. • Electronic Frontier Foundation. Supreme court supports library internet blocking law. 30 June 2003. Retrieved 30 September 2012 from http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/20030623_eff_cipapr.php. • Glasner, J. Filter bashing alive and well. 24 June 2003. Retrieved 30 September 2012 from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/06/59367. • National Conference of State Legislatures. Children and the Internet: Laws Relating to Filtering, Blocking and Usage Policies in Schools and Libraries. Feb 13, 2012. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org on October 2, 2012. • Rumble, A. Pros of internet filtering. Retrieved 30 September 2012 from http://www.ehow.com/info_8150482_pros-internet-filtering.html. • Signal, M. Pros and cons of internet filtering in schools. Retrieved 30 September 2021 from http://www.ehow.com/list_6916764_pros-cons-internet-filtering-schools.html. • Starr, L. (2003, January 15). Filtering software: The educators speak out. Retrieved 30 September 2012 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech155.shtml