Filtering Content in School...Good? Bad? Both? Or Some Where in the Middle?

I had to really think about this discussion before coming to an answer to this question. I believe that filtering what websites the students look at while in school is a great idea. After reading this blog posting http://www.classroom20.com/forum/topics/649749:Topic:140090#_blank, I am positive that filtering is the best way to ensure a better learning environment in the classroom. Not only to keep children out of facebook, myspace, and downloading music but to prevent them from cheating off each other. Someone else in the above blog posted that when students went on these sites while at school it would slow their bandwidth down causing problems with the schools server. I feel that eliminating these sites is a great idea while in the classroom. It’s hard enough to capture the student’s attention with out competing with them chatting away though facebook chat.

 I don’t however approve of sites that could prove to be useful to the students. But what exactly would someone deem a good website for the students to see? Well I would have to say any that are government run, by a university, virtual libraries, sites that are well accredited and can site their sources. These would be allowed in the classroom, as far as banning YouTube I could see why some schools would. I have had to visit YouTube for class but it was to watch famous speeches, and events in the past that were captured on film. Read this article, http://www.eclassroomnews.com/2011/02/07/how-to-use-youtube-at-school-safely/. I feel that putting a filter on lap tops and computers isn’t as bad as people are making it out to be. It is the job of the schools, students, teachers, and parents to be responsible and monitor what if any threat may occur in school. Providing a safe learning environment has always been a goal of any school, so why would banning certain sites be any different?

Darleen