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!

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.

What prevents it taking part? And we aren't discussing individual cases.

Inimitable, teachers daily have to decide whether to let a child go to the toilet or not. It's not rocket science.

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?

It may not be deliberate. As current newspaper reports demonstrate, some schools move the goalposts on uniform suddenly leaving parents in the situation where they have bought, say, shoes that don't comply with the head's latest idea and unable to afford to buy new ones.

Guidance on exclusions says it is incorrect to exclude a child for wearing the wrong uniform. The school can send them home to change IF it is safe to do so, but that is all. And if there's nothing for them to change into, clearly that isn't the answer. The same would apply to long internal exclusions.

Even if it is a deliberate uniform infraction, putting a child in isolation for a full day is way over the top. It would be much more effective to do something like making them clear up litter.

Schools obsess too bloody much about trivia like uniform, but that's a whole different debate.

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

On the other hand, if the school is already in the news then threads tend to be left up, even if the fully identified school is being very heavily criticised. Just imagine a case where a school was in the news because of its poor safety standards leading to a child being seriously injured: suppose the parent of another child in that school took part in that discussion, would it be appropriate for her child to be banned from school trips?

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

I didn't assume it. Nevertheless, if the rule is that pupils go into isolation for a full day because they don't have the right equipment at the right time, then children with SN can be and will be punished more often than others. And I really can't see the point in forcing a child, with or without SN, to miss education for a full day for something as relatively trivial as that.

And before anyone points out that the child is left with work to do when in isolation, that is not education. If it was, we could do without teachers altogether.

Inimitable, teachers daily have to decide whether to let a child go to the toilet or not. It's not rocket science.

But the point is this is in an environment where a part of the punishment is that the children are only allowed to go to the toilet once in the morning and once in the afternoon at most. The starting point is that that's the maximum and the teacher is not normally going to allow any other visits. It's going to make asking to go over and above that routine a big issue, and it's a whole different ball game from the normal give and take of the classroom.

Nevertheless, if the rule is that pupils go into isolation for a full day because they don't have the right equipment at the right time, then children with SN can be and will be punished more often than others.

Only if you think that teachers are idiots who blindly apply rules without any knowledge of the actual children involved.

In my classroom if you don't do your homework you get a detention. That's the rule. And yet I have managed to not give detentions to kids who have been sick/attending a funeral/suffering family issues/whatever because despite the rule I'm human being who can actually use my professional judgement to bend the rules if necessary.

Noble, I would love to think that all teachers are paragons who can instantly recognise SN and know each and every one of their pupils inside out. Sadly, the evidence is that that is not the case. Just look at the number of parents who end up having to make their own application for an EHC Plan and proving their case in tribunal because schools refuse to accept that it's necessary.

There are some crap teachers out there, but it pisses me off no end when the assumption is that all teachers are crap, and that no one working in school has any common sense so things like isolation rooms, consequences for lack of equipment etc are just because teachers want to have a go at poor kids or kids with SEN.

General discussion of school policies online is fine, because loads of schools have the same policies and talking about isolation rooms or uniform policies isn't identifying or shaming anyone.

Rate my Pupil

Oh my Lordy - where would we start?!?

No-one is assuming that all teachers are crap. The fact remains that having draconian policies that do not make allowances for exceptions will end up unfairly penalising children who cannot keep to the rules because they have SN, not least because even the most wonderful teacher is fallible.

Noble, do you really think it is appropriate that the normal punishment for turning up in class with the wrong equipment is a day in very strict isolation rather than anything less? If so, why?

The fact remains that having draconian policies that do not make allowances for exceptions

That's your assumption. You are assuming that the kid with SEN will be slammed into isolation for forgetting his pen, that the kid with the tummy bug will be forced to shit themselves and so on.

Why are you making those assumptions unless you are automatically thinking the worst of teachers?

turning up in class with the wrong equipment is a day in very strict isolation rather than anything less? If so, why?

I don't think it's even the normal punishment in the school in question.

There is a lot of pointless talk about what constitutes valid criticism here. Schools have to face reality - the validity of a point of view can be debated forever if we so choose, whether or not the law permits it to be posted online without legal recourse is more succinctly decided.

Dealing with criticism posted online, if it is not libellous, by excluding the children of the people posting the comments - is excessive and probably counter productive. I know there are twats with children - and it is infuriating that twats with children have such a huge arena to foist their ill supported opinions on the world. But that doesn't mean I am comfortable with draconian measures to control them. The right for a school to reply online is easy enough - schools have Twitter feeds they can acknowledge a criticism and ask very reasonably to have it brought to their attention, in school. They do not have to get specific. They can have a social media presence and use it effectively, my local schools do.

noble, I'm not thinking the worst of teachers. I am however distinctly unimpressed with a school which makes a big deal of its discipline policy when it involves putting children into isolation for a day for forgetting equipment; and I am pointing out that that will impact unfairly on children with SN, because you cannot assume that all teachers are living saints who (a) realise they have SN, (b) recognise that their SN may impact them in this way, and (c) realise that punishing them in that manner won't teach them organisation.

And you seem to be making very large assumptions for this school. Why do you assume that its principal is lying? He seems to publicise the school's strict discipline to a very unusual extent.

InimitableJeeves
"What prevents it taking part? And we aren't discussing individual cases."

Sometimes we are talking about individual cases, and schools are unable to take part for the reasons posted up thread.

If the school is already in the news and posters start to speculate then the mods on here step in with a handy "ahem" to remind us that speculating on a court case in wrong.

but again the teachers and school are unable to reply for the reasons up thread.

Sign the agreement. If the school does something of substance you strongly disagree with then feel free to blaze away on social media and if they try to discipline the child then go to war with the school over it.

There is no such thing as free speech only free thought. There are all sorts of restrictions on what we can say moral, social and legal. The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Your right to free speech does not and should not allow you to do that You can choose to do it but you can expect to face charges over your actions. Sometimes, something that you think may cause offence but you have to say it anyway, at this point, as long as you accept the consequences, the concept of free speech kicks in. If you can't accept the consequences, keep your mouth shut.

My advice. Use this document as a life lesson. Point the clause out to your DC and tell them that sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rules. Tell them that if they feel strongly enough about something then they should come and discuss it with you so you can make a judgement together. If it's a matter of substance and you both feel it's warranted, exercise your right to free speech and let the head know that's exactly what you're doing.

I get signing for naming and bullying individuals which is never right. What I don't get is not being able to moan about systems and general crapness . If parents have gone down all the normal routes and got nowhere surely complaining amongst each other is free speech. Or do we just sweep crapness under the carpet?

Wondering if it will go the same way with restaurants and hotels next. Can't see the difference.

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

YABU as proved by all the argumentative, self-righteous, self-important parents such as those posting on here who refuse to see the bigger picture as it might infringe on their perfect child's right to publicly make trouble, bully or otherwise revenge some supposed flaw of their school.