# data[].attributes.headline
Do School Internet Filters Impede Students' Ability to Become Knowledgeable Digital Consumers?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do School Internet Filters Impede Students' Ability to Become Knowledgeable Digital Consumers?

# data[].attributes.body
According to the Atlantic, "At the core of the ongoing debate is a law passed by Congress in 2000 that mandates all public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet access install blocking software. The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) specifically requires schools and libraries to block or filter Internet access to pictures and material that are “obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors” on computers that are used by students under 17 years of age. The fundamental question has been how schools are interpreting the law—and whether districts are acting in the best interests of children or simply functioning as online overlords." (Melinda D. Anderson)

# data[].attributes.headline
How Does Filtering Negatively Affect Staff?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Does Filtering Negatively Affect Staff?

# data[].attributes.body
Because definitions of 'appropriate' internet access are locally derived, teachers, counselors, and administrators have run into issues with making internet filters CIPA-compliant. Districts fearful of losing their compliance status have adopted overly conservative policies that block access to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, video services like YouTube, or even interfere with general student research online.

In other schools, counselors have difficulty accessing materials on suicide or other emotional and mental health topics because of search filters. While districts often have internet filtering monitored by their IT department, many of these employees are not educators and thus could be unfamiliar with the research requirements that might require filter overrides. (1)

# data[].attributes.body
While students have a right to be protected from harmful content, administrators and teachers must weigh student protections from subjectively defined “harmful material” against a student’s right to learn and research freely. The National Committee for Teachers of English’s position statement advises districts to side with access over limitations, arguing that media literacy and case-by-case judgment should be prioritized over direct or indirect censorship of online materials. (2)

# data[].attributes.body
Administrators and teachers should engage in ongoing evaluations of appropriateness that default to individual discretion when possible. If educators arm their students with internet and media literacy, they equip them to use online research in safe ways both in the classroom at at home. (3)

In theory, case-by-case systems would seem to be more effective (i.e. a 3-strike system where students who's search terms can trigger a 'red flag', alerting IT/the student's teacher and allowing them to review the case more closely) rather than wholly restricting access to content. In my personal experience working as a tutor within a filtered school district, I have found myself having to use my phone to access some content related to history that mistakenly gets flagged by school filters due to the graphic nature of some of that historical content.