Time and time again I've made complaints and others have made complaints over the accessibility of images or sources of information. Simple Google searches become a scavenger hunt where you have to piece together information from multiple websites or rely on encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. When research essays show up for English class Wikipedia suddenly becomes a very unreliable source forcing you to use databases or your personal device to find reliable information. This puts education and students' grades at risk as they'll be unable to find concrete information or images to use in their projects. If the district takes action on phones, finding information will be relegated to homework where content can be found freely.

Providing some change occurs, whether minimal or not, students will have greater access to repositories of information improving the overall efficiency of assignments and preventing excess homework. A secondary effect of this change would be fewer attempts at breaking through the security measures of a Macbook. As history has shown, the more restrictions placed on people, the more likely they are to resist. If nothing occurred to change this problem it is unlikely something would ever occur until it got way worse than it is now. At the current moment content restrictions toe the line between inconvenient and unreasonable. However, they get worse by the year and I see more websites being blocked for no apparent reason besides the generic response given by the forbidden red line. Another thing that can be done is for teachers to be given wider control over the blocks that are placed on websites. During a class period, students can view websites approved by the teacher.

Looking at the current degradation of the amount of information available to students, if action isn't taken soon it will become so much worse leaving us with a shell of the internet. If immediate action is taken, students will most likely be much more efficient with work and might indirectly increase grades because of the added efficiency.

Regarding counter-claims to my argument, being that there are alternatives and that the restrictions are designed to protect kids from the internet, these work as arguments but lack a strong basis against mine. I know there are alternatives, and there will always be alternatives regarding resources, however, these alternatives such as the library databases and alternative websites aren't efficient for students to utilize. The library database requires specific search terms, is seldom taught, and tends to give out-of-date info. Other websites, especially for images exist on Google, but aren't guaranteed to stay unblocked as there is doubt on whether the district supports them. 

Protecting students from the internet while maintaining a stable educational environment is a stronger argument, however, it's missing the line between what's protecting and what's controlling. High schoolers grew up with the better part of the internet in regards to efficiency and content. Knowledge in this case would be less dangerous than active influences such as social media and other less pleasant content. Since this is a school setting obviously things that actively deter attention from work would be bad but that and other awful websites that provide nothing should be the things to fulfill the criteria of protection and education. 

Another argument in support of this petition is high school is designed to in some way prepare you for college. College doesn't have these types of restrictions and something big in college is being able to gather information from all sources whether a library repository or not. "Googling" is the most common way to acquire information bringing in billions of searches a day across the world. You take away significant access to students on their ability to "Google" and you suddenly have lost a significant part of tech literacy. Information isn't always in the form of facts, opinions have a place in this world too.

There are several statements that directly contradict the policies enforced. A quote from the about me section of the superintendent says, "we will continue to create an environment where every student feels valued, empowered and inspired to reach their full potential." Students feel none of this when their full potential is being actively suppressed by content filtering designed to "protect district values." Freedom of movement is an essential part of ensuring students or just people in general have the necessary information to formulate their own thoughts to reach "their full potential."

Their strategic plan also has points that should be in favor of change. Plan 4.1.4 states "Adopt and implement an evidence-based framework for instructional technology that supports the differentiated needs of all students." There are two points here. "Evidence-based framework" gives the impression that it will be based on effectiveness of the policies on students. There at no point was a survey for students asking how they felt and live evidence from the people who use devices under your policy is the most important if student opinions are held with such high regard. Another point is the "differentiated needs of all students." This puts the impression that students devices can be tailored to allow and disallow different things. High schoolers are under a group of devices so assuming that the statement they made can individualize like that, they should be able to apply necessary but lesser restrictions to high schoolers.