# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internet Filtering Pros and Cons

Not all aspects of our jobs as educators are fun and glamorous, and one of the less glamorous parts of the job is setting boundaries and restrictions for what students can/can't do in class. No one wants to be the "bad guy," but establishing and enforcing these restrictions is an important part of ensuring our students' safety and success in our classrooms. Their online experiences are an extension of those classrooms.

The most common method of restricting student access to potentially unsafe and distracting/disruptive content online is web filtering, however, the use and effectiveness of web-filtering has become a widely debated topic among educators. In trying to understand if the process does more harm than good, many are asking, "Are the web filters at school too restrictive?" Some feel that the filters deprive students of autonomy and the chance to learn to make their own choices, as well as cut off access to useful educational resources, while others contend that the pros of web filtering far exceed and outweigh any potential cons.

Pros of Web Filtering

There are many incentives for teachers and administrators to use web filters in their schools, from the moral to the financial. Web filters help keep students on task and focused as learners, as well as keeping them safe.

Pros of internet censorship include:

Blocking student access to graphic content, including pornography and violent images

Keeping students from being distracted by entertainment and gaming sites

Cyberbullying prevention

Protecting students from predatory strangers online including scammers, hackers, and people who would mine personal information

Under the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), schools that agree to filter content under CIPA guidelines qualify for a discount on broadband internet, saving money that can be put to use for other school needs and creating an added financial benefit for schools.

Cons of Web Filtering

As with any skill, digital literacy takes practice to become adept in, and web filtering potentially deprives students of this practice. How would any of us ever have learned to ride a bike if our instructors never took the training wheels off? Additionally, if school web filters are too restrictive, they can interfere with learning by creating too many restrictions to content that bars even educational content and necessary search results to complete student research.

Some of the cons of internet censorship include:

Discouraging student autonomy and decision-making

Preventing students from learning to use the internet efficiently and responsibly

Limited access to useful educational sites

Overly restrictive filters that can impede student learning

Although we would all consider the safety and productivity of our students to take first priority, it is necessary to acknowledge these concerns about web filters as a means of achieving those goals.

Why Schools Should Block Websites

Teachers and administrators have not only a moral obligation to ensure the safety of each student in every school, but a legal one as well. Despite the negatives, web filters have been among the most effective means of doing so. Many of the concerns about the cons of web filters can be addressed by using a program like GoGuardian's ™ to create a more intuitive web-filtering and content-monitoring experience.

When schools use Admin™, students are empowered with more online freedom while teachers operate as guides. Administrators can set schoolwide policies banning keywords instead of URLs or disabling specific functions of websites. For instance, you can disable the comment section on YouTube and block all but approved channels rather than banning access to YouTube altogether. Or you can use Admin's "Smart Alerts" so teachers can see what types of restricted sites and content students are attempting to access. Teachers can then talk with students about why this content is restricted and, depending on the website, suggest approved alternatives. Though there may always be some negative effects to using web filters, the benefits have been demonstrated to absolutely outweigh the cons.

Read more about the To Block or Not to Block school internet filter debate, or learn more about GoGuardian's innovative content monitoring tools .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Implementing School Web Filtering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not all aspects of our jobs as educators are fun and glamorous, and one of the less glamorous parts of the job is setting boundaries and restrictions for what students can/can't do in class.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internet filters are software that prevents users of a computer from accessing certain websites. They are predominantly used to block content considered inappropriate for specific users. Filters are widely used on public library and school computers. The problem with filters is that many block access to content of legitimate interest to users, but which touches upon disfavored or controversial viewpoints on issues ranging from sexuality to marijuana to paganism. This means that users are often only able to access one side of important policy and ethical debates.

Internet filters can be installed by anyone who maintains a wireless network. Parents can use them to restrict their children's internet access, and businesses can use them to prevent their employees from being distracted at work. NCAC is most concerned with internet filters in public libraries and schools.

Filters in Public Libraries

The 2001 Child Internet Protection Act requires all public libraries that receive federal funding to install filters that block "sexually explicit" content. The American Library Association strongly opposes the Act, as does NCAC, and provides advice for libraries and their users on how to maximize internet freedom. It is important to note that adults have a legal right to ask a librarian to have the filters removed without providing a reason. Minors can request removal of the filters as well.

Filters in Public Schools

In schools, besides blocking search engine results, filters can be used to block access to social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Although these filters are implemented in order to prevent students from goofing off, they prevent students from accessing important resources such as newsworthy Facebook posts and tweets, educational videos,

Adults have a legal right to ask a librarian to have the filters removed without providing a reason.

information about alternative sexuality, and (in the case of students researching social media itself) sociological information.

- Technological shortcomings:

Underblocks-The primary target of internet filters is pornography. However, filters often do not prevent users from accessing sexually explicit content. In one particularly infamous incident, a filtering service failed to block access to Pornhub. Filters frequently do not block sexually explicit thumbnails that can be expanded to full size; users can bypass a filter and access pornography by expanding thumbnails in Google searches.

Overblocks-Of far greater concern is filters' tendency to block perfectly innocuous and valuable educational material. Because filters rely on keywords to block inappropriate material, any websites that contain those words might be blocked. Filters designed to target the word "breast" have blocked access to information about breast cancer and chicken breasts, and those that target "dick" have blocked access to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's website. Keyword filtering also frequently prevents users from accessing scientific information, news articles, and museum websites.

Proponents of filters want to prevent children from exposure to "explicit" materials on the internet. While this may be a worthy goal-a middle schooler watching porn in the school library may cause significant educational disruptions-filters simply do not work as intended. Because of overblocks, filters accidentally prevent students and library visitors from learning about important issues from non-explicit websites. Underblocks mean that web users can still frequently access "inappropriate" material.

- Censorship: schools blocking sites that are of educational value

In addition to the inadvertent overblocks that occur as a result of keyword filtering, filters can be used to intentionally limit students' access materials of educational value because the viewpoint expressed is disagreeable to school officials. For instance, school districts in Tennessee were the subject of a 2009 lawsuit by the ACLU because they blocked pro-LGBT sites while allowing access to gay conversion therapy. The schools censored one side of an important moral and policy debate, preventing students from learning about important social issues. It is not unreasonable to presume that schools would use similar tactics to block student access to other disfavored viewpoints such as climate change denial and information about Islam.

- Disproportionate effect on LGBT teens and economically disadvantaged groups

Filters affect anyone whom they prevent from freely browsing the internet. However, filters pose particular

Filters pose particular problems for LGBT teenagers

problems for LGBT teenagers who are struggling with issues of sexuality, mental health, and personal identity. Library and school administrators who believe discussions of LGBT issues are "sexually explicit" employ filters that prevent teenagers from accessing important resources and imply that their sexual identities are subject to condemnation and suppression. The ACLU maintains a collection of reports on this issue.

Filters also discriminate against the poor. Many households rely on school-loaned as their sole source of internet acces s. Therefore the censoring effect of school and library filters is amplified. Furthermore, many adults who do not own a computer use public library computers for important tasks like applying for jobs and seeking medical advice. Filters can prevent them from successfully completing these tasks.

What to do if your school is filtering the internet

Internet filters prevent students from freely browsing the internet. As explained on our issue page (insert link), filters frequently rely on keywords to block inappropriate material. Unfortunately, this enables overblocks- the inadvertent censoring of innocuous educational material. For instance, if a filter designed to target the word "breast" blocks access to a website on breast cancer, it is overblocking. Similarly, a filter that is blocking access to a museum website or news outlet is probably also overblocking due to the presence of a targeted keyword in an article on the page.

Some school administrators also use filters to censor disfavored viewpoints such as websites that help LGBT teens with issues of sexuality.

If your school has internet filters that are preventing you from accessing educationally valuable materials, here is what you can do:

Identify the problem. Are you the victim of an overblock or the censorship of disfavored viewpoints?

- If you are trying to access materials on non-controversial subjects (e.g. breast cancer) access educationally valuable material (e.g. an art museum's image files, reports of the war in Syria), your filter is probably overblocking.

-If you are trying to access materials on controversial issues like sexuality or marijuana policy your filter might be censoring a disfavored viewpoint.

Try accessing similar websites. If possible, try to locate the same information elsewhere. Internet filters are far from perfect. Sometimes they will block one website about marijuana policy but let you on a very similar site. If this is the case, the filter is likely overblocking. But if the filter is blocking most or all websites on marijuana policy, there may be censorship.

Talk to your teacher or librarian. Do you still need or want to access a blocked website? Sometimes, teachers or librarians can bypass the filters for you or temporarily turn them off. Politely ask for access to the blocked website. When you do so, be sure to explain the following:

-Why you need to access the page. Is it for a homework assignment or paper? Do you simply want to learn about something you think is interesting? If you need medical or psychological advice from a blocked page, you should consider talking to a school nurse or counselor instead.

-Why you think the page is educationally valuable. If the page is obviously educational in nature (e.g. a museum, a scientific website, anything in the .edu domain), point this out. If not, explain to the teacher or librarian how you think the information on the page will help you do your homework or learn more about your interests.

-What you think is the problem with the filter. Teachers and librarians are usually very reasonable people who love to help students learn. If you tell them that you think the filter is overblocking, they will realize there is a technological mistake and will probably try to help you.

Still no luck? Get outside help. If the filter is censoring disfavored views, teachers and librarians might be unwilling or unable to bypass the filter for you. Try contacting your local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. It can determine whether you have any legal recourse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation also has expertise in this area. You should also contact us. While we cannot offer you formal legal advice, we can help you understand your rights under the law. We also frequently write to school officials and use policy recommendations and public opinion to help them adopt anti-censorship policies.

Read NCAC's previous (outdated) Internet Filters resource from 2001

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Internet filters are software that prevents users of a computer from accessing certain websites. They are predominantly used to block content considered inappropriate for specific users. Filters are widely used on public library and school computers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Technology is being used in schools to enhance the academic experience, with a wealth of research resources offered in "real time." However, access to the Internet also comes with its own myriad of concerns, particularly when it is children in control of the navigation process. One recent incident - where a girl was dating online while at school - exemplifies the need for discussion and action when it comes to keeping children safe on the Internet while they are in school.

This video provides a general overview of Acceptable Use guidelines.

Girl Finds Online Dating on School Computer

A 17-year-old girl in the Rochester Public School District got more than she bargained for when she went on her school computers recently. The John Marshall student found the online dating website Meetme.com during class time. According to a report at My FOX 47, the young woman made contact with a number of men from the website, many of whom wanted to have sex with her.

The student's father said that because his daughter has special needs, as well as the mental functioning of an 11-year old, the girl's Internet time is closely monitored at home. However, no one appeared to notice that this student had accessed the online dating site, or that she was sharing personal information like her cell phone number with others visiting the network.

Her father told the news station that he realized what had happened when he noticed his daughter had suspicious activity on her cell phone.

"She had pornographic pictures on there and she had befriended 175 people over the age of 20," the girl's father said. "Scary. And the only way she did it was at school."

The superintendent of Rochester Schools, Michael Munoz, told FOX 47 that while the district uses a filter to block inappropriate sites from students, Meetme.com was not a website they were familiar with or one that was blocked. Munoz said the site is now blocked from students at the school, and this particular student will be monitored at all times in the future.

"This is one we weren't familiar with," Munoz explained. "This is something we realize we're going to have to probably get online ourselves and do a little search and see what pops up. If there is something that's inappropriate for our students, we'll have to block that."

However, the explanation did little to ease the worries of this particular parent, who told FOX 47, "To be able to access something at school that basically gives access to predators, pedophiles...to my daughter - shame on Rochester."

This video outlines the New Providence School District's Acceptable Use Policy for students.

Pros and Cons of Internet Use

WebMD reported a number of years ago that Internet access can both help children and become a danger to them. The website cited a number of potential risks children may encounter during their online exploration, including:

Access to self-harm (cutting) websites

Foul language in chat rooms

Information about sex

While some of these websites could prove useful to students, offering information and support, they can also expose students to concepts and ideas they are not mature enough to handle.

Despite the risks associated with Internet use, research also shows the benefits of Internet access for students. According to a study at Michigan State University, students who had Internet access at home had higher reading test scores and grade point averages than those who did not have the same access. Math scores were the same for both sets of students. Those who used the Internet the most did not necessarily have higher grades and scores than those who spent less time online, indicating that more is not necessarily better when it comes to the Internet.

How Much Monitoring is Necessary?

The website for the National Conference of State Legislatures lists the laws regarding Internet use by minors in public venues like schools and libraries. The Federal Children's Internet Protection Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2002, requires public libraries that receive federal funding through special grants to certify that they have filters in place for Internet use by minors. The filters should eliminate access to "obscenity, child pornography and other material harmful to minors." In addition, 25 states have filtering laws, requiring publically funded schools or libraries to have filters in place.

Despite the laws governing Internet use by children, some argue that current restrictions are not enough, while others say censorship of Internet use is a dangerous element in a free country. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is especially concerned about the censorship of LGBT websites that can help students find resources and support for their sexual identity. The website for the organization encourages students to contact their attorneys if they find their schools blocking websites involving scholarships or clubs for LGBT students. The ACLU has also won suits for students in this area, forcing school districts to allow access to such sites.

This video offers tips for the safe use of the Internet.

However, access to information about scholarships for a particular demographic of students is a far cry from a student who is able to meet adult men online right in her classroom. While the system will not be perfect, there does need to be a happy medium between giving students access to websites that could be helpful and preventing access to potentially harmful situations. With the Internet constantly in a state of evolution, it is easy to see how difficult it is for schools to keep up with a changing online climate. But keep up they must, if they are going to offer students the best possible academic resources available and keep them safe at the same time.

Questions? Contact us on Facebook. @publicschoolreview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internet Access at School: What is Appropriate? | PublicSchoolReview.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technology is being used in schools to enhance the academic experience, with a wealth of research resources offered in "real time." However, access to the Internet also comes with its own myriad of concerns, particularly when it is children in control of the navigation process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zealously blocking their access to certain websites can end up undermining learning.

Giving all children access to the Internet and computing became a rallying cry for educators and elected leaders in the 1990s. In March 1996, President Clinton and Vice President Gore led 20,000 volunteers in a one-day effort to connect thousands of California public schools to the " brave new world of mouse clicking and web surfing." Yet that brave new world remains unconquered for many students and schools, especially in rural and high-poverty communities. Some have coined the term " digital redlining " to describe how advanced technology has been deliberately denied from certain areas based on geography as well as the race, ethnicity, and income of residents.

In the intervening years, the spotlight has pivoted to the so-called " connectivity gap"-which hurts schools without high-speed Internet connections-and the homework gap-which hurts students unable to access wireless and broadband connections from home. And like his predecessor, the president is using his bully pulpit to push for change. In 2013, the Obama administration launched the ConnectED initiative with the goal to connect 99 percent of schools to broadband Internet in five years; it also unveiled ConnectHome last year as a pilot project to bring high-speed broadband to over 275,000 low-income households in 27 communities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Oklahoma's Choctaw Tribal Nation.

Still, even as supporters work to promote equitable access through connectivity, deep-rooted disparities linger. And a more nuanced digital divide seems to have surfaced, thanks to the pernicious practice by school districts of overzealous Internet censorship on in-school computer networks and on school-issued laptops and tablets that are carried home with students. In turn, educators, academics, and advocacy groups have renewed calls to revisit school Internet policies, which, despite some progress, continue to deprive children from becoming knowledgeable digital consumers-with the hardest hit apparently being the most disadvantaged students.
"Ultimately they live in an unfiltered world."
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.

"If you were to take one word that has driven the use of technology in education over the last two decades, [it's] safety," said Keith Krueger, the CEO of the Consortium for School Networking, a professional group for school-district technology directors. According to Krueger, safety is typically policymakers' and administrators' primary concern when it comes to technology in education.

The ACLU elevated another concern in 2011 when the national organization and its regional chapters in several states issued letters demanding public high schools remove web-filtering software that blocked items related to LGBT issues and support groups for LGBT youth. The ACLU discovered from students that web filters were routinely blocking access to groups such as GLSEN and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, along with LGBT anti-bullying resources like It Gets Better and the National Day of Silence. Joshua Block, the senior staff attorney for ACLU's LGBT Project, credits the organization's campaign, " Don't Filter Me," with changing minds and policies.

A separate LGBT category was eliminated in the filtering software that major companies sell to schools, Block said, and websites with resources for LGBT people are no longer sorted out. He notes that some problems with censorship persist, but not to the same degree. Krueger, representing school technology officers, said the key is balancing safety and access. "Without question, students need to become digitally literate (having the knowledge and ability to use information and technology for varied purposes) because ultimately they live in an unfiltered world. School systems need to ensure that we create a safe environment [but] if we believe any technical solution like filtering will keep us totally safe, that is misplaced."

This common-sense viewpoint, however, has yet to trickle down to many schools, where over-filtering-filtering beyond the requirements of CIPA-is common. One of the most ardent and active opponents of over-filtering to date has been the American Library Association, which for many years has championed the need to protect students' access to "legal, constitutionally protected information that is necessary for their school studies [and] personal well-being," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the deputy director for ALA's office for intellectual freedom. Stone said in some cases, the problem is as simple as school staff failing to adjust the pre-set maximum settings on filtering software, though much of the difficulty resides with school personnel who misunderstand the federal law and the requirements necessary to be in compliance. As an example, she said both the Federal Communications Commission and representatives from the Department of Education have issued guidance stating that Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms do not need to be filtered, but school districts often block these websites "on the grounds that students might access content barred by CIPA."

Maria Salmeron, a junior at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School just outside Washington, D.C., uses Facebook in student organizing as a leader in the Minority Scholars Program, a youth-led group working to increase the academic success of students of color in Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools. Up until this school year, the district blocked Facebook, effectively cutting Salmeron off from a critical mobilization tool. "Facebook is one of the sites that connects you with everyone the most ... it's kept me in contact with people and groups from all over the world," she said.

Likewise, Caldwell-Stone points to contradictions: students in AP biology classes blocked from accessing information needed to prepare for the AP exam; debate-team members unable to research controversial topics on school computers; and filters that routinely block websites for the National Organization for Women, the Quakers, and other "perfectly innocuous, legal, and informative content." The ALA report " Fencing Out Knowledge"-an analysis of CIPA 10 years after its enactment-found that schools' overreach with filtering software was putting children's education at risk, particularly children in poverty who depend on school-provided Internet access the most. "Other children are likely to have unfiltered internet access at home or through their own mobile devices," ALA wrote.

This finding is confirmed by anecdotal and empirical evidence. In Maine, Portland Public Schools in April 2012 installed filters on high-school students' school-issued laptops that banned access to social networks, games, and video-streaming sites. At the time, Portland was among the first districts in the state to authorize such stringent filtering on take-home school devices. As the Press Herald reported, Portland High School students had very different responses to the new policy, based on their access to another computer at home: "...those from middle-class families expressed various degrees of annoyance when told of the new filtering measures. A group of immigrant students reacted with anger."

New research released this past February echoes these students' sentiments. A team from Sesame Workshop's Joan Ganz Cooney Center, a nonprofit research lab, and Rutgers University conducted interviews on digital equity with 170 Mexican-heritage parents and children in three states-California, Colorado, and Arizona. All of the youngsters were enrolled in high-poverty school districts. Vikki Katz, an associate professor of communication at Rutgers and the study's co-author, said school-supplied laptops were usually not the only digital device in these families' homes, but emphasized that "the poorest families are least likely to have other devices. Districts filtering content means that those children and families don't get the same Internet as their more privileged counterparts."
"We sometimes think too much about the content that we block, and we ... limit their opportunities to succeed, explore their passions, and discover their strengths and talents."
What's more, in-depth conversations with the families revealed that districts blocked YouTube at school, as well as on school-supplied devices, because some content was deemed inappropriate. And the consequences were steep. "Parents and children depended on YouTube to support homework time, including tutorials to solve math problems and to learn more about historical characters. The problem is that these platforms are multi-use, and those uses change too quickly for district [filtering] policies to easily keep up."

This opinion is shared by Mary Beth Hertz, the art/tech teacher and technology coordinator at Science Leadership Academy at Beeber, a public high school in West Philadelphia. In her role as a technology teacher leader, Hertz has watched the district's filtering process evolve since 2006, with teachers now able to request that sites be unblocked and requests "reviewed by actual human beings instead of an algorithm." Hertz said what many districts get wrong is listening too closely to lawyers. CIPA leaves a lot of room for interpretation, she said, and some districts opt to choose a strict interpretation to protect themselves rather than engage families, parents, teachers, and students in these digital-access decisions. "We should be blocking what the law requires, but unfortunately the phrase 'harmful to minors' to some districts means everything and anything that could offend or embarrass kids and their families," Hertz said, adding that blocking content doesn't teach kids how to "effectively, respectfully, and responsibly use the Internet."

At the start of each school year Hertz asks her freshmen "Is the Internet a basic right?"-eliciting responses from a dismissive "no" to an enthusiastic "yes" and prompting comparisons to China, where access to the Internet is restricted. A room of 14-year-olds is able to grasp what some school leaders seem to overlook.

"They understand that this connection is not a life-or-death situation, but that it affords opportunity. They also have a basic understanding of oppression and the idea that limiting access to the Internet limits people from opportunity," said Hertz. "We sometimes think too much about the content that we block, and we forget [that] when we cut kids off [from social media] we limit their opportunities to succeed, explore their passions, and discover their strengths and talents."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Problem With Filtering Kids' Internet Access at School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zealously blocking their access to certain websites can end up undermining learning.