According to my opponent, her argument states that social media usage in schools would

benefit students in a number of ways. First, lets take a look at the harms she points out. My peer
claims that social media usage would benefit schools and students as well, yet she notes her first
harm as social media would cause additional distraction to students in the classroom. Yes, I do
agree to this. I dont believe that my peer has understood what the current harms are to: not using
social media sites, as is under current educational policy in schools. She also quotes an NBC
news report that further supports the opposing argument she is trying to make, that students
scored an additional 20 percent lower on tests, while distracted by social media sites. Not very
effective argument. Her second harm listed also states how social media usage lowers face to
face communication and interactions between students. Again, this is not a point she should be
noting as a harm to the claim she is trying to make; rather she should be arguing against this and
for the benefit of social media usage. Under the inherency category, my peer argues that the
cause of her harms is due to existential inherency, that there is currently no policy that allows
schools to use social media as a communication tool, and that the current school codes made
prevents sites from being used. I believe that her harms and inherency section is very weak.
There is no argument for me to refute here because she already has stated how the use of social
media in schools would not benefit students and that the reason students cant use social media in
schools is because there is a policy that prevents. So in essence is this a problem and a cause to
the problem? Yes; however, she fails to argue how the lack of use to social media in schools is
causing a communication problem between students and schools, which I believe is what she is
arguing for in her original claim. She brings up a plan for action in which the board of
education will hold a meeting of pros and cons of allowing social media sites to be used by
student, and the board will decide this policy to be passed. I find this plan of action very
ineffective under the circumstance that my peer has yet to prove why this new policy would
benefit the students and the schools. She continues to state how this policy would benefit
students, but has no solid evidence or facts that support that argument. The funding and staffing
area is very unreliable. As history has proven, schools are already on a tight budget and people
are outraged every time something is cut from the educational system, due to lack of resources.
According to a scholarly paper on Calcollaborative.org, titled The Importance of Systems
Alignment: Developing a Coherent Approach to Educational Governance and Finance Reform in
California, researched by Jennifer ODay from the American Institutes for Research, states how
restrictions on the purchase and use of instructional materials that limit instructional options can
get in the way of producing high outcomes for all students. The current adoption cycle is costly,
while districts lack flexibility in selecting materials that they believe (based on evidence) will be
most effective for their students. Schools already have a hard time coming to agreement on
what is considered necessary and beneficial to students learning outcomes, and have a much
harder time trying to budget necessary implements. My peer argues that availability decreases
desire to use (social media) in the classroom, and actually increases attention levels. On the one
hand, I can see how this would be a valid point of view, however it is simply that: a point of
view. The source she has as support states that social media allows students to express
themselves better, yet I question in what context this quote came from. While it is true that
social media lets students express themselves better, I dont see how this can be beneficial to
their education. She also argues that social media usage would increase interactions in school. I
believe my peer needs to explain herself further because that solvency is very vague. Perhaps in
a higher education setting, I believe that the use of social media would be of benefit much more
than in the education system she is trying to argue for. According to a paper by Rachel Reuben
on Fullerton.edu webpage, titled The Use of Social Media in Higher Education for Marketing
and Communications: A Guide for Professionals in Higher Education, she states how, the most
popular use of blogs for marketing in higher education is having currently enrolled students blog
about their lives on campus, as a recruiting initiative in conjunction with admissions. One-
quarter of all college admissions offices use blogs by students or campus personnel. In a college
or university setting, I can see how the use of social media or e portfolios, such as the ones used
in this course, would be much more beneficial than in a elementary, or high school setting where
social media sites are used for more of a personal use. My peer has a quote from Social
Networking.org in support of her solvency that states how 59% of students use social media
sites to discuss schoolwork, while 50% of students discuss school assignments online. Id also
have to question the validity of this statistic, because in the first place, the statistic does not say
out of how many students they are taking that number from, or the age group of the students
examined, or the demographic of the statistic. For the advantages, my peer discusses how one of
the benefits of this new policy would be a decline in anti-social kids and introverts. However, I
must note that with less face to face interactions, we are setting up children for a future of public
awkwardness or discomfort. Companies hiring prospective employees still value a great deal of
public confidence, ability to work well with others, and the use of public speaking. All qualities
that are difficult to develop if children are not practicing and are instead tied up in front of a
mobile device. She also argues that fewer students would be breaking school rules if schools
allowed social media in classrooms. This is simply an invalid argument. So is that to say that if
schools also came up with a policy that made the use of marijuana legal in school settings
because the recreational use of marijuana makes students more relaxed for exams, then we could
go ahead and legalize it in a school setting, because one of the biggest benefits to this new policy
would be that less students are breaking rules. It simply makes no sense. I also see some further
disadvantages to the plan: 1. Id like to point out that the use of social media as a communication
tool in schools would have a more negative effect than be a benefit to students. The use of social
media would cause further distractions in school settings, especially when it comes to younger
classroom settings. 2. It also alarms me that lower income children would suffer from the lack of
ability to use electronic devices in the classroom and further, at home. So if assignments were
given online and not every child is able to have access to a computer at home, these students
grades would then suffer. 3. And lastly, I am also unsure as to what else would need to be cut
from an already tight school budget in order to hire professionals to create these social media
sites, and the technical time needed in order to assure that the sites are up and running properly
and to regulations. Also if the use of social media sites were to be used in a classroom setting,
then who would be providing the mobile devices or computers necessary for the interactions?
I understand that this generation of millennials are more in touch with the internet than
ever before, but I just dont see how the use of social media sites would benefit students learning.
I do however, believe that students in college and university settings would benefit from the use
of social media to display their schoolwork or more easily communicate with peers, but on their
own time and not in the classroom.