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!

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

It depends what the information is, doesn't it? If, for instance, they posted the fact that Sir John Townley is spiteful towards teachers, they would be getting it from the local press. If they posted that a teacher can't spell, they're getting it from the teacher's marking and work sheets. In many cases, the real parents from hell are making what they post up all by themselves.

You/she don't have to sign it. Alternatively score out the bit you don't like and sign the rest

It isn't a lawful contract anyway according to the government.

noble, if the school regularly takes pupils on educational school trips, they cannot claim that school trips are outside the normal routine. As soon as a school starts to exclude a child based purely on something their parent has done, they will be breaking the law.

The very fact that what Morley has done is in the news shows that that is not the normal way schools deal with this problem. You have to ask yourself why other schools can manage it without punishing the pupils, but Morley can't.

InimitableJeeves

You missed from the children themselves.

I have been in several schools where, you are in no circumstances to be in an area with child X alone due to them having form for making things up.

Inimitable I'm not talking about Morely in particular, just that I can understand a school taking the stance that a child who has parents who are creating problems for the school/teachers may be excluded from certain activities put on by that school, and that I think that is reasonable even though it could be painted as punishing the child for the actions of the parents.

Educational school trips are outside a normal school routine, teachers don't have to run them. If a teacher refused to take a child on a trip and the parent kicked off, then the response would not have to be that the child was allowed on the trip. The response could be that the trip would not run at all.

Morely seems like a bit of a mess, and the head is not covering himself in glory.

I bet there are parents out there delighted by the austere exclusion room.

You missed from the children themselves.

But in that situation you will be punishing the child for what the child has done, which is fine. But that's not what Morley is saying, is it?

If it's anything like isolation at my school, teachers can't put kids in it themselves, it's a response to more serious incidents, or problems across the board. Places are limited so you can't just sling kids there when they piss you off.

noble, it's not a question of "could be painted as punishing the child for the actions of the parents", it is punishing the child for those actions unless the child was also complicit.

Schools, like everyone else, are under a duty not to discriminate. If a child is excluded from a school trip, that child is being singled out; she is missing out on something that the children probably enjoy; and, most importantly, she will usually be missing out on something that directly relates to the curriculum and the way it is taught. Doing that to punish the parent cannot ever be justifiable.

Inimitable so your preference is that the trip not run at all?

I think most secondary schools have something in the nature of an internal exclusion room. What would bother me about what Townley says is the blanket nature of the punishment, i.e. that it is automatically two days for the first offence regardless of what it is. I would have thought it would be much more effective if there was discretion about how long the internal exclusion is, and if they started out with something like one hour exclusions.

The other difficulty from a legal point of view is that by law children are entitled to full time education. Putting them into a room for several days at a time doing set work supervised by a TA is not education. As for only allowing them two toilet visits a day - I wonder how that works with a child with IBS or a girl getting a period?

Is this Morley academy. On their website it says 'At Key Stage 3, if a student reaches Isolation largely as a result of misdemeanours connected with homework and equipment, they will serve a one day period of Isolation. For Key Stage 4 students and students in Lower School whose misdemeanours are largely behavioural, the first period will be for two days. Students who continue to under-perform will work through two further periods of three to four days.'
Which seems fairly standard. Not letting kids into lessons until wearing correct uniform (by getting parents to bring in appropriate shoes or sending the kid home to change) is also not unusual.

It means that when someone says something awful about your child on facebook, both parents and pupil will be held accountable according to the agreement they signed. This is a good thing.

" As for only allowing them two toilet visits a day - I wonder how that works with a child with IBS or a girl getting a period"

What an absolutely disgusting way to treat people.

How can I minor be asked to sign anything and for it to be binding?

InimitableJeeves

"But in that situation you will be punishing the child for what the child has done, which is fine. But that's not what Morley is saying, is it?"

Morley seems to be saying that pupils and parents will be held responsible for their actions.

How it is written does leave room for different interpretations.