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!

But Unlucky you are curtailing the right of an individual to free speech on the basis that they need to be protected from themselves. I think that, as a precedent. Is quite dodgy. Very dodgy actually.

I completely agree that social media is not the correct channel to air grievances and that there may well be regrets later but that doesn't change the fundamental right to ftee speech.

The thing is, the school can't hide its head in the sand and hope that social media will go away. It needs to engage with it and teach its pupils how to use it responsibly - imposing a blanket ban on 'negative' comments doesn't achieve that. Social media can be a force for good - as Mumsnet itself has demonstrated time and time again - and it can also be utterly destructive. The pupils are far more sophisticated in their understanding of this, I suspect, than the school is. Perhaps they should be teaching the school about it rather than the other way round.

What a sensible policy.

Yes Cinnamon - education and debate is the best approach, not a head in sand policy of just trying to ban any negative comment. Also agree the kids probably have a far better understanding of the issues than their teachers give them credit for.

Liquoricetwirl Any health and safety concerns should be aired surely with the school, governors and lea. Not twitter

Why? Where is this rule to be found? What if they don't take action but simply stick their heads in the sand?

Home school agreements are totally unenforceable as a matter of law. However, presumably if they didn't have this in the agreement they would put it into the school rules, and indeed they may have already.

I agree with those who say the school is going too far. Certainly ban the kids from personal abuse on social media, but stating that no negative comment can ever be made is a bridge too far and does have free speech implications. Yes, raise concerns with the school and the governors - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also be able to take it further, particularly if the school and governors aren't responding appropriately.

Last year, there were proposals for an excellent school in Lewisham to become an academy, heavily promoted by the governors. Most of the parents and pupils were against it, and ran a very effective campaign including on social media, and ultimately the proposal was shelved. If that school had had this type of agreement in place, and if it were enforceable, they would have been able to stifle most of that campaign and might well have forced through a deeply unpopular and potentially harmful proposal.

Do all the people who support this type of provision think that would have been a good outcome?

I think it's unreasonable tbh and infringes on freedom of speech.
The posters who believe it prepares for work are really only talking about a small percentage of jobs tbh.
Anyway, her dd may become self employed/ own business owner and be able to say what she wants.
I agree with you OP, it's barmy.
There's no difference telling your friends your opinion face to face than online, only maybe a wider audience online.

OP I think YABU.

When I was a child "social media" in its current form didn't exist. The equivalent of putting something on Facebook or twitter would be sticking posters up on buildings, handing out flyers in town, having signs on buses etc. Do you think it would be acceptable for kids to hand out flyers in town saying "Mrs X Teacher is a moody fat bitch"? Because that's the kind of thing they might say on twitter or Facebook. I think if you look at it in those terms then it seems totally reasonable for the school to insist this doesn't happen.

As for David Cameron - I hate him and that would have really annoyed me, but I would have addressed my complaint to the head and the governors, and possible the LEA -not a load of random people on twitter.

I'm in two minds.

I think it's very important that they understand the power of social media, that what they say on here is forever, potentially, and that cruelty and bullying is amplified by online discourse. I also think that they may need to consider the potential life implications of things they say, if they are shared outside a locked entry later, or used against them. Basically, never to say something they wouldn't like their mother, their future mother-in-law, and future employer to read. It isn't like the spoken word. In addition, kids can bully adults. Teachers are human beings, and it's grossly unacceptable for them to be subjected to malice and taunts, just as it is other kids.

Having said that, I have had personal experience of a head who has tried to prevent any criticism of herself and her school, both via official channels (she refuses to engage at all - literally) and online. She does so even when the criticisms are both extremely serious and entirely, and provably, factual. She doesn't do so for any moral, noble or decent reason, but from pure self-interest. And that is where the freedom of speech aspect comes into play, IMO. In effect, she's trying to block whistleblowing. If something is bad, and important, and true, people should be able to voice it.

My child attended a school (Outstanding, laughably) which reported the parents of a little girl with high functioning autism to social services for Munchausens by Proxy without ever troubling to contact the diagnosing paediatricians - she has PDA, which is classically masked in school with the tension released at home. The history is horrifying - the lack of honesty, confidentiality and simple integrity displayed towards the family almost defies belief. In the same year, the school gave my (autistic, and bullied, both of which they denied when I tried to talk to them about my concerns) son 3s - exceeds expected levels - for his EYFS on self-awareness, and forming relationships. When my son left (because we found another local school where the class teacher drew us aside and asked if we'd ever heard of Aspergers within 15 minutes of meeting him, and suggested adjustments we could make) we emailed the head, asking for a meeting, and setting out our very grave concerns pertaining to the school's ability to identify and support children on the high functioning end of the spectrum. I was met with a staggeringly rude one paragraph reply which categorically refused to meet with us to discuss what had gone wrong, in order to help other children avoid a similar plight, and primarily expressed indignation that we hadn't left him there longer. I had explained in the letter that he was talking about taking his own life, at the time. Presumably the head wanted us to wait until he actually tried?

I approached the head of special needs for the county, who was very supportive indeed, and then the local MP, which was a possible route suggested by the SEN head. The MP's senior caseworker described the head as "defensive and very angry" when she called me. Apparently their failing some of the most vulnerable children in their care was perfectly reasonable, and parents wanting them to approach the National Autistic Society for better training was grossly unreasonable and insulting.

A few months later, a letter was posted on the school's new website in the test area for the new webmistress. This letter was a confidential one the school had sent the paediatrician for the little girl I mentioned above, discussing their relationship with the parents. It had been up long enough that those parents had to contact not just the school governors to get it taken down, but Google to get it removed from the cache. Apparently, a letter that confidential had been left to float around the school system for over a year after the child had been removed, freely accessible to any staff member interested in reading it, and the training on confidentiality had been so abysmal that a staff member thought it a suitable sort of document to upload when testing hyperlink coding.

A parent on my Facebook posted a few months after that, because her daughter (aged five) had had her yoghurt explode over her packed lunch on a whole-day school trip, and the class teacher had told her that the ruined food wasn't her problem. She had been given nothing to eat all day. When the mum went in and asked to speak to the head, the head sent a message that she was too busy and it should be taken up with the class teacher.

I posted setting out my reasons for thinking the school an abysmal one, as above. I said I would not send any child of mine there, and I suggested she consider moving hers somewhere saner. I also suggested that she ask around, as there are other parents with horror stories which I couldn't personally relate, as I couldn't speak from personal knowledge.

This parent was called in the next school day to see the head, who was brandishing printouts, and told that she had to remove her post, that I had a personal vendetta against the school (apparently, going through the appropriate formal channels when the school failed my child so signally constitutes such in this woman's universe) and that I would be hearing from them. Three months later, and I am still waiting - perhaps she sought legal advice, and they informed her that truth is an absolute defence to libel, and furthermore it is arguably slander to tell people that someone with a legitimate and valid reason to complain about your conduct is instead activated by malice and pursuing a vendetta. Who knows.

Social media comments are, unsurprisingly, apparently on her radar. I have been told that the home/school agreement now seeks to control parental comments, firmly insisting that they follow the appropriate channels. But they block those channels, and then resent the people using them. I will say what I please about the place. Which isn't something I do often, having a life, but when my opinion is sought... I supply it. And it appals me that a parent with perfectly reasonable and justified annoyance should only have attracted the interest of this head when her own ego and reputation was suddenly involved.

This school, incidentally, is highly likely to get another Outstanding, given the head's expertise at staging, and employment of consultants to oversee her OFSTED-compatible leadership and management. You can't complain to OFSTED about a school your child no longer attends, and OFSTED don't deal with complaints about SEN provision at all. So OFSTED, as far as I am aware, don't know any of this has happened.

There has been a post on this board this week about a school that I can identify due to the issue being covered in the local newspaper. The issue appeared in both on the same day, with the same details.

When the local paper is involved in publicising the issue, the school is able to comment about their side of it, and there is editorial control to keep comments legal rather than libelous.

Personal Facebook rantings do not give the opportunity for a balanced response. The rant may omit important facts.

I feel fortunate that I learned not to hit send in anger before social media took on its current form. It's a level of critical thinking that young people may not be ready for at the stage when they want to vent off about a perceived injustice. They may not be aware of the consequences of libelous comments.

Having a policy that deters negative commenting about the school and its people seems sensible to me, and reinforces other policies such as anti-bullying.

Jollyphonics, I do take your point about the correct place to address complaints and there were many addressed to the governors about the political rally. The comments on Twitter were largely because that is where the students found out about it - they were responding to the news (the rally was in both local and national news). It would have been wrong to prevent them engaging. Their comments were very responsible - basically saying they were appalled to see their school being used in such a way. There was no name calling or slagging off teachers. I do think that's the nub of it here: of course you shouldn't criticise individuals publicly but an institution is different. There's a power imbalance and sometimes social media is the best way of making an impact. If the school understood it themselves, they could be debating it with the pupils rather than trying to impose a total ban.

wasa I would agree with you - except we are talking about children - 11 yos ...
IMO they do need protecting from themselves ...you wouldn't argue they don't need protecting from drink, drugs or grooming or ...a whole world of things. I would include potentially making a fool of yourself on social media is one of those things...

Bloody hell, sleeponeday, that is a staggeringly awful tale. Trying to block whistleblowing is completely unacceptable, as is the school's failure to meet the children's needs.
It is incredibly difficult for parents who come up against their child's school in this way, especially now that you cannot appeal to the LEA where academies are concerned. I have been left to feel very helpless and frustrated in face of the school's unhelpful attitude at times - but nothing like on the scale you describe.

unlucky83, you don't protect teenagers from drink and drugs by shutting down debate with a blanket ban; instead you educate them about the issues.

I think this is probably going to be standard practice for most schools and colleges going forward, and I personally think its a good idea.

It teaches children and young people to use social media responsibly, and to conduct themselves with discretion and sense. When they start work, if they slag off their boss or organisation on Twitter, rather than addressing any issues with them, its not going to bode well.

Whistleblowing is a separate issue. But even so, it should be done through the proper channels, not via social media.

Cinnamon - you don't give them a bottle vodka, 20 fags and some coke in an orgy before you have educated them....you do the education hopefully before they have easy access to these things.
Social media they have the access before the education... before they are fully aware of the issues.

YABU.

Standard professional practice. Good to start learning that once it's out there it can be used by anyone, it's not owned by the person that says it.

The thing is Cinnamon, I can totally understand pupils and parents wanting to complain about the Tory rally - that seems well out of order and whereas in the old days we would write to the paper, now it's done through Twitter - this is just how things work.

However I know there is a fb page at our school for y7/8s - it started off as sharing tips and info (I don't know why they needed this tbh ) and ended up with a lot of criticizing of staff - which is the wrong place to deal with problems of that nature.

Areil, we went through the proper channels. Academy schools aren't controlled by LEAs and OFSTED don't look at SEN failings. The school refused to engage. They also refused to engage with the newspapers, which the other parents tried (I am not willing to, due to DS having a googlable involvement when he grows up - though that was a route suggested to me by another teacher. We have media contacts, too).

What is left? Why should I not state my views, openly and honestly? The head is keen to threaten litigation, ordinarily. The fact she has not ever done so to me or the other parents is lack of any leg on which to stand. I'd really enjoy her trying to litigate, actually. The thought of her having to answer our questions fully, honestly and under oath appeals very much.

I will say what I please. It's all perfectly truthful.

Schools are absolutely right to try to stamp out bullying, harassment and defamation online. I would actually say it is part of their duty of care. I was happy to sign my current school's Home/School agreement along those lines - but they never threaten, always try to support (mixed success, inevitably, but the trying is not in question) and have an open door policy. I trust them with this policy, because the interests of the children are their priority. That simply is not the case, in my rather painfully well-informed opinion, at the other. And the head seeking to stamp out criticism there is no different to her attempts to stifle it in every other fora.