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!

If your child doesn't already understand how damaging it can be to write certain things online, then they are not ready for social media anyway.

If you had ever dealt with the fallout from what can happen with social media, then you wouldn't even be questioning this.

Thank you Egosum, I think you've put your finger on what concerns me. If a child has justifiable concerns, they shouldn't feel they can't speak out. Social media might not seem like the appropriate place to do that - but for them, it might feel like the only option.
Can I chuck in another one here? One of DD's teachers gave the children a test then made them sit in the class in order of how well they did in the test. He also marked out their places with colours - red being for the ones who did least well. I was pretty shocked by this too. Surely it's inappropriate?

It's a sensible policy. In my experience sadly the majority of young people don't realise the impact and realities of social media or the longer term consequences. Facebook or Twitter is not the appropriate channel to raise an issue about the school so should be discouraged.

I agree with the school too, sounds like it is a move to protect their staff and pupils from bullying, which runs rampant on social media. Your child may be sensible enough to use it responsibly, but not every child will. YABU.

Yadbu, other points aside. Would you really want your children to post whatever they like before they have a brain to mouth filter? Realises some people never get one

As far as your previous post is concerned Yabu, if it was an employer you would be disciplined and told to remove. There is correct procedure for grievance and twitter/Facebook are not part of it.

I don't want my DD to be treated as if she is an employee. A school is a community. That means everyone must treat each other with respect, certainly, but it doesn't mean they should be banned from speaking out if they feel something is wrong.

Cinnamon - that is incredibly inappropriate and I would be speaking to the Head about that.

Isn't there a distinction they could draw between abusing teachers personally and legitimate opinions about the school, which could be negative or positive? There are plenty of threads on MN (the local boards in particular) where people discuss what schools are like. And no reason why kids shouldn't be allowed to do similarly. That's very different personal abuse of a specific teacher.

Crossposts, Egosum! Thanks. You've really helped me clarify this - as has the criticism too.

It's interesting one - I was going to start by saying the school was being perfectly reasonable but having read your subsequent post about Cameron, then I've changed my mind. Fine to say that you can't insult teachers on social media (there's a libel risk apart from anything else), not fine to say you can't criticise school policy to invite political leaders.

Yellowpansies, you are right. The agreement says 'negative comments'. It would be better if it said 'personal abuse'.

In English law, minors (under 18) don't have the requisite capacity to enter into binding contracts anyway (with very few exceptions - employment, "necessities"). So it seems that either the school wanted to drive home their point by using a "contract", or they didn't quite think this through.

Surely better to just explain to students why slagging the school of on FB isn't the best idea?

Absolutely agree that no institution should censor, but I think they're just trying to put in a blanket ban. By banning criticism of the school altogether they are also banning students from posting things such as "Mrs S is such a bitch, did you see what she was wearing today?" Which are things I saw on social media as I was growing up. Ambiguity leaves too many loopholes, that's what they are trying to do.
Tbh, I'd rather a blanket ban on speaking out if it meant someone bullying my dd on social media got a harsher punishment because it broke school rules. (Instead of "it happened outside of school hours, not our concern" which is what I was told when I reported someone threatening to kill me)

I'm not sure home school agreements actually carry much weight though. If you refuse (or just "forget" ) to sign, they can't chuck your DD out can they? And if they wanted to expel a pupil for breaching one I think they'd still have to show that their actions were reasonable (I'm presuming it's a state school here - private schools can do as they like)

Though to be safe, i'd teach your DD that if she wants to slag the school off online she should use an anonymous forum like MN

But what is personal abuse? It is too ambiguous.

YABU! Like the others have said. At our school parents have got in trouble with the school for posting negative stuff about the school and specific teachers on Facebook - imagine how the teacher feels! It's unprofessional and nasty to post negative thing like that on social media -any problems should be discussed directly with the school. It's a good lesson for your dd to learn for later life too.

It's disingenuous to say what's the difference between bitching on social media and talking to your next door neighbour - reach. That's what. One complaint on Facebook could potentially reach hundreds or thousands of people. Chatting to your neighbour won't have the same effect.

Children do not have the maturity to handle problems on social media -that's why things can quickly get out of hand.

Yes, Yellowpansies, it's a state school. Tbh, by cracking down so hard they are just teaching my DD - and her friends, it seems - to be subversive.