Should schools monitor students' online activities
With the spread of the internet, the number of students facing undesirable issues online, including cyberbullying, is increasing. In this regard, some people say that schools have to monitor their students' online activities to control their inappropriate internet use. However, I do believe that monitoring them cannot be a great option for the following reasons.
Firstly, schools cannot secure a solid basis for their actions. Monitoring the activities of students is obvious violation of their right to privacy. Thus, to do so, the actions will need to be justified by commonly admitted reasons, such as laws. However, most laws and regulations that currently exist to regulate students' online activities are vague. For example, there is an Illinois Act to prevent cyberbullying and harmful posting. It mentions that schools can take actions to regulate their students when it is reasonable, instead of clearly defining certain situations. If there is no obvious standard to judge the fairness of actions, it will be inevitable to face argues of whether the action was proper. This may even result in a disadvantageous situation to schools, such as happened in Minnesota. Thus, I insist that monitoring students are not a good idea as there are no laws and regulations that will clearly justify schools' actions to monitor students' internet use.
Secondly, investing money to educating students is worthier than monitoring them. The purpose of educating students is to prevent students from misbehaving by letting them know what to do and what not to do. On the other hand, monitoring is more likely to find the users with misbehaviors and punish them. Some young students misbehave just for fun not recognizing how undesirable their actions were. For them, education is the most necessary thing than punishment. On top of that, the cost for educating is more affordable, compared to monitoring many students. Schools are run with confined money, and wise determination of where to spend their money for their students are one of the primary questions. For this reason, I would like to say that schools need to find another way to reduce their students’ online misbehaviors, rather than monitoring them.
Thirdly, schools will not be able to successfully monitor the students’ online activities. The idea of monitoring assume that they will be able to access to all of possible students’ online activities. However, it is impossible. To be specific, many people may have experienced during their childhood that when teachers or parents are trying to prevent them from what they want to do, they would do it secretly rather than not doing it. Similarly, when schools try to regulate students with their internet use, they will find the ways to be out of schools’ supervision by creating secret accounts or buying secret second-handed phones. If then, the schools’ monitoring actions can be useless and just waste of their time and money. Thus, I disagree with the idea of monitoring students to regulate their online activities.
I agree that there will be advantages of monitoring students’ online behaviors to reduce related issues. However, considering its fairness, cost, and expected effect, I believe it would be better to find another way such as educating students about the desirable attitudes to use the internet.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for example, such as, on the other hand, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 28.8173652695 180% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2806.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 535.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24485981308 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87649887635 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456074766355 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 862.2 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.886665084 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7586206897 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4482758621 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1724137931 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375227281034 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123358612902 0.0743258471296 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107867159976 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.246420266932 0.128457276422 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468013953076 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.