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!

Ego
"But see - we can discuss this on social media."

Yes, we are discussing this on a form of social media. but the school is unable to take part, and if the school where here it wouldn't be able to take part in anything but the most general terms and wouldn't be able to comment on individual cases.

Ego

Why should the debate have to happen on social media?

I'm afraid I don't understand the arguments about not letting children take school trips if their parents are complaining about the school on social media as an issue of teacher protection. I assume that unhappy parents are allowed to complain face-to-face and with letters and emails to the school and the teachers. How are the teacher protection issues different in that case?

If the rules are clear and the consequences clearly communicated, then why would isolating a first time offender until appropriately attired not be appropriate? What would their defence of deliberately breaking the school rules be?

(I'm assuming that a child with a note from a parent explaining broken/wet shoes would be allowed for a couple of days here).

Because, Seneca, one is private, appropriate and gives schools/teachers the right to reply.

The other is not.

I have certainly seen threads on here deleted where parents have slated named schools.

If the school/teacher is being slated then yes they should be and often are deleted.

Is linking to another thread not frowned upon as bad form as the OP from that thread cannot comment on the new one?

Would pointing out that the OP clearly dislikes the teacher be bad form or opening up a legitimate discussion?

"I believe it is fair to require of one's Facebook friends, when they espouse views with which you disagree, that they permit, even encourage, your rejoinder. Having used the medium of Facebook to promote your views, you ought not attempt to stifle a friend's efforts to do the same. Discussion and even debate are what makes this a "social" media. If one uses Facebook to promote one's views but is not prepared to engage another in a rational relevant dialogue, then I don't see the point in maintaining the status of "friends"."
This is what a friend of a friend, who is a Lawyer in the U.S. had to say about the use of social media and I rather like it. There is of course of difference between differing views, negative opinions and abusive language.

Haven't RTFT completely but I have to disagree OP. Criticism is only valid if the one doing the criticising follows it through with legitimate actions.

Does your DC's school have School Council? It is a perfect forum for pupils to air grievances and suggest new ideas/ventures to improve school life.

I run my School Council and our pupils have addressed some pretty serious issues and have brought some fantastic ideas to the SLT.

Airing grievances on social media IMO is tasteless and inflammatory and will quite right bite you on the arse by future employers.

Ego

How do you know that the concerns are legitimate? This would seem to be a major part of the issue.

How do you know that little X was excluded for wearing the wrong shoes and not because little X has been through the sanctions policies of the school so many times its all that is left?

How do you know that little Y was the aggrieved party and only hit the other child once?

Is it because you know all the facts or because someone has posted their half of the story on facebook, MN, twitter or gone to the papers.

There are parents with legitimate concerns, but there are channels to go through, once they are exhausted then go to the press, publish the full paper trail that has been created and do it properly.

If it is general then I wouldn't have a problem.

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'

Again, that would worry me. Sure, children need to learn to organise themselves. But, for example, children with dyslexia will inevitably have difficulties with organisation. Should children at the junior end of the school be isolated and left without teaching for a whole day because they've left some piece of equipment behind?

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.

Why is it a good thing if the pupil had nothing to do with it?

OFGS why would you assume that a school is routinely punishing dyslexic children for their SEN?

Trust me, there are plenty of kids at KS3 who turn up without their homework and a pen because they can't be arsed. These students waste countless hours of teaching time and consequences for this should be welcomed.

It won't be written in stone. It's obviously to stop kids asking to go to the loo every 5 mins. Those with ibs or menstruating would surely be allowed to go more often

But how does that work? Is a girl going to have to tell the teacher in front of any other children in isolation that she has, or thinks she has, her period? And is she going to have to prove it in case she's making it up? Is a child suddenly struck with a stomach bug going to have to crap himself before he's allowed to go?