to think my DD should not have to sign an agreement promising not to criticise the school on social media?

[cinnamontoast]

The Home-School agreement now includes a clause saying they should 'not make negative comments about the school or individuals' on social media. My feeling is that this a) infringes their freedom of speech, b) demonstrates a draconian attitude and an astonishing lack of confidence on the part of the school, and c) makes them more, rather than less, likely to go on Facebook and slag off the school.
But perhaps I'm overreacting? Thoughts, please!

Egosumquisum

"You aren't suggesting that people should be banned from saying those things?"

I am more than happy for people to make complete arseholes of themselves, However they shouldn't be allowed to make other peoples lives hell by doing so.

So if a parent says something about the school on the internet, it's ok to ban the kid from a school trip

It also includes pupils in quoted the statement
But

Why should any teacher put themselves in a position where they know that they will suffer insults and ridicule?

The government had to make 'educational visits' a heavily recommended part of the curriculum because parents would get pissy about the trip, or because children that had form for acting up were not allowed to go.

Rate my teacher? Ugh.

Ego, if you mean Arrse then I don't take any notice of it, there are more non-military on there than anything else! It didn't used to be like that (I knew one of the guys that was a part of the initial start up), but it lost its way pretty quickly. It was useful once, but not for at least 10 years now. The Commanders didn't like it from the start though and serving soldiers used to be warned off it.

There is a website run by the MOD where you can 'get yourself heard' by the CGS, but as you have to sign on using your Regimental number I wouldn't trust them not to use it against you.

The better sites are smaller and more personal - but also not open to the public.

So if a parent does something, it's ok to take it out on the child?

Yes, I think so, in certain circumstances. However it should be reframed from 'taking it out on the child' to 'protecting the teacher'.

Yes, but in that situation, the head has a duty of care to his staff.

If the parents are behaving abominably, then teachers have to protect themselves. If that results in a child not being allowed on a trip, then that is unfortunate for the child, but the teachers should be allowed to put themselves first. We should not be expected to potentially sacrifice our own personal and professional wellbeing for the sake of the children.

Egosumquisum

"There is a big difference. I don't think you can see that."

Your examples of what it is ok to post are framed as opinions

"I don't think our school should be used to hold a political rally."

"I don't think Mr A should be allowed to talk about his views on women here."

"It's fine for people to say they think teachers work 9 to 3."

What you have posted as not ok to say are posted as facts and objectification of a person.

"Mrs X has fantastic boobs and I saw her cuddling Mr Y in the cupboard."

If its an opinion and framed in that way (hopefully with context) then fine.

But posting
"The school is crap"
is a big difference from
"I don't think that the school fully supported my DC"

Can you see that?

"Does someone saying teachers work 9 - 3 make your life hell?"

In the same way that it makes part timers feel undervalued and put upon when people don't respect them.

That doesn't make sense to me noble if the teacher needs protection from the child then the child should be suspended. If the parent is the problem then the parents need to be prosecuted, if the school cannot handle the situation they should be looking at the discipline within the school. There is clearly more to the situation in this school in Yorkshire but it all looks very badly handled by the head teacher from the glimpse we are getting, in my opinion, others are available.

But bigmouth, that is assuming that a) the parents can be prosecuted, b) the school wants to prosecute the parents, c) the prosecution will happen instantly.

If a parent has form for bitching about teachers on the internet, then as a teacher I would be very wary about how I dealt with that child, and I would make sure my back was covered at every turn. I would not want to work on my own with that child nor would I want to put myself in a vulnerable position by taking that child outside of school premises. I would expect my head to be supportive of that position.

I cannot see any circumstances where a child should suffer because of what his parents do, and framing it in terms of the protecting the teacher doesn't make it any better. Stopping a child from going on a school trip because of something his parents had done would in any event be unlawful - the trip is presumably meant to be educational, and excluding a child from something that is part of his education is a big no-no. Plus, of course, singling out the objectionable parent's child in that way is probably the best way you could possibly find of escalating the parent's behaviour.

Schools have other, more effective weapons, to use against parents from hell. They can ban them from the premises, and in the final analysis they can take out injunction proceedings against them.

bigmouthstrikesagain

Where do the teachers go that have had personal comments put on rate my teacher?

Its a non UK site and is anonymous.

I have worked in the public sector. I was professionally trained to a post graduate level. I was providing a service. But because I worked in the parking then planning departments of local government, I frequently got insulted and shouted at by irate service users. I was quoted and misquoted by complaining local residents when my need to do my job got in their way. I had to accept that as part of the pit falls of working for the local authority.

People are going to be disrespectful, angry and unreasonable sometimes. Unfortunately we have had years of the government undermining and devaluing the public sector. People believe lazy stereotypes and draw unfair conclusions, believe their little Johnny over the word of a teacher with 30 years experience. This is all shittty, but putting up barriers and trying to hold up tides is pointless. Good support within the school so the staff feel they can safely off load in the staffroom, good management and proper pastoral care is essential.

How would banning a parent from the premises stop them from bitching about teachers on social media?

Iniminable, teachers are just doing a job. They have every right to expect protection from abuse. If you expect the teacher to take the child on the trip, then expect the trip not to run at all. Teachers do not have to run trips.

Those reports on Sir John Townley are fascinating. In his school, even a model pupil would be banned from school trips if the parent posted on Facebook the fact that Townley had written a spiteful reference for a teacher. Yet it would be a purely factual posting. Now there's a school which would struggle to teach pupils the meaning and value of free speech.

Totally agree with the School, so yes, YABU!!

But, noble, how does banning the pupil from school trips for what his parents are doing in any way protect teachers from abuse? If anything, it's more likely to attract further abuse.

And if the threat of banning from the premises fails to prevent abuse, then you need to go down the legal route. Punishing the child will achieve absolutely nothing.

I had to accept that as part of the pit falls of working for the local authority.

How many times do we hear that that is not an excuse for other people's bad behaviour?

People are going to be disrespectful, angry and unreasonable sometimes

This is true, but just because I am in the public sector or -insert any other group in here- doesn't mean that I have to put up with other people's shit.

Frankly anyone that has such low self worth that they believe that its just part of the job/life has my sympathy.

InimitableJeeves

Where are the parents getting the information from that they are posting on-line?

If the post originator is not identifiable there is no easy answer boney. Being realistic here. I think that if we accept that regardless of the schools policy anonymous malicious posts on social media are unavoidable. If we accept that, then all any institution can do is ensure its own communication channels are excellent, that they are open and responsive.

If as a teacher, you are properly supported by your management and there is trust and openness there as well then problems can at least be dealt with if not always satisfactorily resolved.

Hypothetical situation. Re. cyber bullying....if a child at the school was being bullied and the school try to victim blame and/or cover it up and the situation drags on i can see this "policy" being used to punish the victim if they speak out on social media as a last resort.

Schools seem to be more worried about their image and are getting their priorities wrong.

Initimable

If a parent had form for bitching about teachers on the internet, then the only interactions I would want with their child would be in the classroom, with 29 other kids. I wouldn't particularly want to teach them either, but that is my job. Anything outside the routines and procedures of school? No. Anything that relies on teacher goodwill? No. Anything that places me in a vulnerable position with that child? No.

That should be obvious.

Not an excuse a reality. I was supported by my management and colleagues, we dissected the insane complaints and put them in context. I admit to sometimes laying awake at night stressing about the positioning of the bus stop near Mr X house. But unless I was actually harassed or personally insulted, which sometimes meant action would be taken in my defence by management, the undercurrent of anger and rudeness from the public had to be accepted or we would have spent our days refusing to deal with people and nothing would get done! Believe me. Low self worth? Sorry that makes me laugh a healthy ego is important in public sector front line or we would not be able to contextualize all the petty nimbyism and see it for what it really was. Railing against "the man" at its most meaningless. People with fragile egos or an inability to separate themselves from their job would not be able to do it. I am quite good at polite distance in the face of vein popping venting, drives them mad.