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!

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. But they must choose an appropriate way to speak out and not publicly slate school, teachers and other pupils.

It's an obvious tentative to tackle Bullying and teach pupils the fact that whatever they say on social media has consequence.
Middle and high schoolers are most of the time lovable wankers, which mean that they may not be mean-spirited but have bigger mouths than brains, and social media hyper exaggerate this trait. Once on the Internet always on the Internet.
If you and your DD cannot understand that this is a safeguarding measure rather than a gag-order, and think that the only reaction is subversion, maybe this should tell you more about your maturity than the school's approach to education and discipline.

Still don't agree. I dislike david Cameron. I also don't like Ed milliband. Ed visitors our school. If I devidednit felt biased I would have approached the school and the Tories (and other parties) and asked why they didn't want to visit.

If I felt none of them should be visiting I would speak to the school about it and escalate it. I would not like dd moaning on social media. About it.

There alway political visits in schools. The fact that you don't like DC doesn't add anything to the argument.

I have a middle and a high schooler, and they are both perfectly capable of distinguishing between a personal attack on a fellow student or teacher (not acceptable under any circumstances), and a negative remark about an institution (reasonable under some circumstances).

Egosumquisum I do think there is a difference between 'powerful' and 'appropriate'. Social media is incredibly powerful and a post can move quickly from fb to the front pages but that is part of the problem.

For example, there was the breastfeeding lady who lied about a Primark security guard taking her baby. Social media meant that story exploded with no fact checking. It was incredibly unfair on Primark, and has ultimately led to the lady involved appearing in court.

So, yes, social media can be a powerful force for good but it can also be incredibly damaging, even to those who think they know what they are doing. It can be a place where opinion becomes reported as fact; a place where gossip becomes front-page news.

As I said in my earlier post, I think the school's clause is nonsense and unenforceable but I wouldn't be jumping from that conclusion to one where I encouraged my DCs to see social media as the first port of call for critical discourse. It leaves them vulnerable.

Spartans, I didn't say I don't like Cameron (although I don't). The point about the rally is that it is inappropriate to use a school for a political rally three days before an election - which party is involved is irrelevant. It was done by stealth - hence the outrage on social media, which is where everyone learned it was happening. The school then tried to suppress the criticism on social media. It wasn't only the pupils they told to take down their remarks; they also, unbelievably, told other local political parties to delete their Tweets about the incident.

They weren't suspended; I'm not sure if any punishment was given other than a dressing down and being told to remove the tweets (my DD is several years younger than the sixth form, so wasn't involved).

Publicly slate the school - raise concerns publicly about the actions of the school. There's a difference. Yes there is, but other ways of raising concerns should be taken first. If someone has a grievance with anyone, be it school, employee, a business, a shop etc, the correct way is to raise it with the them first.
Imagine if a hairdresser made a mistake with say a hair colour and it was all plastered over the social network before they knew about it - how devastating.

I'm going against the majority here but I'm with the OP. I agree wholeheartedly that children should be encouraged to use social media appropriately. That said there is a world of difference between encouragement and obligation.

It smacks of an attempt to shut down public criticism and the school does not have that right. Actually, nobody should have that right. Much as I agree that most criticisms would be inane teen twaddle and not at all constructive these pupils still have a right to free speech.

I wouldn't have signed it either.

I have never signed the home school agreements, and to my knowledge, neither have the DC. Nothing has ever been said. I read it every year and when the teachers start actually doing what they have agreed to do I might consider it.

Saying that I wouldn't be happy with the DC criticising the school, or individual teachers,on social media either, it's not the place to do it, and it's not good practice for the workplace.

YANBU - trying to suggest that kids shouldn't be able to criticise the school is insane! Obviously there should be a cyber-bullying policy in place but criticism of institutions does not come under this. It's terrible that a school, which should be upholding freedom of speech, should do this. Obviously it's unenforceable, but personally I'd still complain.

I have to agree with the school - social media is very different. I think lots of people still don't understand the long term implications. Especially young people...
Whatever is written on things like facebook will exist for life -
they can't delete it, they can't change it but their attitudes and opinions will change and they are very young to have set opinions...
Eg. Very minor but I know when I was at school I was on the pupil forum/council - I petitioned against school uniform, especially I thought girls should be allowed to wear trousers (and I still do and see that most schools now agree ) but also that we shouldn't have to wear school uniform at all. I felt very strongly about it - I maybe now could/would have started a facebook/twitter campaign...
Over the last 35 years my opinion has changed - I can see benefits of uniform for various reasons and I think (as long as it isn't too restrictive) it is a good idea...
Say I was now a HT and was trying to enforce uniform in my school ... and that campaign came to light...it would be incredibly undermining. I could argue my case why my opinion had changed ...but...
The tory rally ...say one of the sixth formers on twitter goes on to change their views (a lot of people do - a lot of people that age have views that either agree with their parents ...or are the polar opposite) ...decides to go into politics, becomes a tory MP, party leader...campaigning to become Prime Minister - and that comes out ...won't lose the election but could be damaging (In a bacon sandwich type of way)
Encouraging them not to be really outspoken on social media - especially in their own name - from the ages 11- 18 I don't think is a bad thing...

There are two academies near my sister's where the academy-chain imposed head has sparked such discontent among teachers that the Facebook pages are full of complaints by both parents and students. I had a little lurk on there the other day and it would be hilarious if it weren't for the young people whose futures are being destroyed by the school losing staff.

Liquoricetwirl Social media is not the place to slate share opinions that may be viewed negatively

What about health and safety concerns that aren't being properly addressed?

Airing them means that liability cannot be avoided on the ground of lack of reasonable foreseeability, and that airing of concerns is easily proven, and therefore actionable. Which means that if a pupil for instance, suffered an injury due to badly maintained school equipment, after complaining internally and being ignored, they would have little difficulty in sueing for costs which might be necessary to cope with life-changing injuries in the future.

ego but it would be harder to argue - lots of the arguments I had still hold true - but I now think others are stronger and more important. And you would be judged ...and most 16yos won't understand that opinions change in the way you do when you are older - I wouldn't have at that age.
If William Hague had gone on to be a Labour candidate he would have been torn to pieces in the media ... that conference speech was different though, high profile. Things most 16 yos say at school etc depends on people's memories - written in social media and it is hard evidence that is searchable and findable by anyone - especially if they want to damage you...

Ego thanks for sharing the McArthur High link - the posts made me laugh.