School web filters should be taken down a notch.

Right, I'm arguing that school web filters should be removed thus negating the need to have web filters "taken down a notch;" if there should be no filter at all, then there should be no "taking it down a notch." This is why I reject the resolution and argue for the removal of school web filters. Pro points out: "the web filters are way out of line, blocking things that could be beneficial to the students." My response: Yeah, I know. I usually don't like arguing from experience, but I must point out that this resolution directly associates me, because I am a public high school teacher in Maryland, USA. I have had at least 50 sites blocked that I tried to incorporate into lessons that were completely legitimate, but the filter detected them as inappropriate. We can appeal the blocked site to the district's webmaster, but by the time the site has been allowed, if it ever is, we've moved on in the curriculum. I agree with you Pro. Beneficial sites shouldn't be blocked, and they wouldn't if there were no blockers; it's a good reason to remove them. Pro continues: "Students need to have the ability to analyze information from at least all educational sites. The excess blocking stresses students out even more." My response: It stresses teachers too. There's nothing more frustrating then trying to execute a lesson that completely functioned at home on your laptop, but fails to work for your students trying to access it on their laptops with the school web filter; all because the filter detected some word it didn't like. Without these filters, none of these detriments to education could happen, and we wouldn't need to "take them down a notch" if we got rid of them. Pro quotes the FCC claiming that to remove filters would be to violate law, specifically the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Well according to the FCC: "Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-rate program unless...they have an Internet safety policy that...blocks or filters obscene content." https://www.fcc.gov... So, there's no law being violated, rather a discount MAY not be received by the school. Also, if an authorized administrator were monitoring--not filtering--and correcting student internet behavior, we could be satisfying the requirement for "an internet safety policy" and need no web filters. The FCC also says: "An authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during use." https://www.fcc.gov... This doesn't sound like a violation of the law to me; if an authorized person can disable the filter under the law, then an authorized school administrator can disable filters for the school under the law; school web filters should be removed, not "taken down a notch." I reject the resolution, because: 1. School web filters should be removed not decreased. 2. Beneficial sites are being blocked frequently at the expense of student retention, and simply reducing web filtering will not address the unnecessary blocking; as long as there's blocking, there's potential for unnecessary blocking. 3. Schools can maintain an internet safety protocol without web filters by an authorized person monitoring and correcting internet activity. 4. Removing web filters is not against the law, it just possibly leaves the school without a discount on the E-Rate program (cheaper internet access for schools), and, on FCC's site, the FCC mentions that an authorized person can disable the filters. On to Pro.