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!

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.

Yes. This.

Publicly funded institutions should never be immune from honest and fair comment. The law protects against defamation, and rightly so, but not debate.

Personal attacks are very different, obviously.

ArialBold 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.

It does nothing of the sort. Teaching about social media responsible use involves lessons, and examples of good practice, not a blanket ban. The wording of the agreement itself doesn't even make sense, because it makes it unenforceable in law - "negative" is far too wide a description, is undefined and is therefore meaningless because it is subjective and would vary in individual cases.

What would make sense is a written policy advocating responsible social media use and a description of unadvised use, such as making personal comments about named individuals or targeting specific individuals.

I really feel that such draconian attempts to shut down free speech should be the preserve of national legislation, in the interests of national security only.

Yes: it's got nothing to do with teaching the kids (which it should be doing anyway). It's a gagging clause.

I'd be highly tempted to tweet the fact of signing it. Possibly with the hashtag #whatagoodidea.

If it is part of a trend, it's actually quite a good basis of a story........

YANBU.

Absolutely agree that this sort of 'contract' should be part of a wider policy. Does the school have one? If not, then that changes things, I agree. Most schools will have several policies, though - Acceptable Use, Social Media etc.

Also agree that E-safety, social media etc should be part of the curriculum.

I missed the exact wording of the school's contract, sorry (only skim-read).

I still don't see what is unusual or unjust about schools asking learners to agree not to discuss the school negatively online, though. It seems completely reasonable.

Re: the whistleblowing upthread - obviously, if someone feels that no proper channel has been effective in whistleblowing, people have to make their own judgements about whether to use social media...

So hypothetical question for those that think these sorts of clauses are sensible.

Suppose the OP's DD builds a small model clock, and proud of it, takes it into school, where an idiot English teacher living down to the stereotypes about arts graduates and technology confuses it with a bomb, calls the police, has the OP's DD arrested, handcuffed, questioned without adult help and then suspended for three days (and doesn't get her clock back, either).

Should the OP's DD, were that to happen, be expected to keep quiet about it, because to talk about it would reflect negatively on the school? It has reflected negatively on the school in this case, hasn't it?

The idiotic thing is, Bolograph, she'd only have to keep quiet about it on social media. Nothing would stop her picking up the phone, or actually even just emailing a newsdesk. Lots of newsdesks. Telling someone else who tweeted it.

Just off the top of my English-graduate head....

She could send an impassioned email to a friend. Hell, she could do an interview with a small local TV station which then went viral on YouTube.

Also, if it is 'the school or individuals' what does this very loose term 'individuals' mean? Fellow-students? School employees? Former pupils and/or employees? Parents?

Exactly. As is the response 'no, I can't say anything further because I signed a clause that I wouldn't say anything that reflected poorly on the school'.

Oh, I think referring to the clause is more effective...

Definitely tweet signing it, though. With a pic.

Sadly, teenagers seem to think they are teflon coated and can get away with anything. Most schools I know do a huge amount of education on the use of social media, but for some the lesson never filters through

A school is an institution but as with all institutions has every right to protect its public image.

In 6 years of teaching I have had two incidents of pupils using social media to make unfair, unfounded and frankly disgusting comments about me. One on twitter, one on facebook. In both cases others pupils alerted me to the fact and the students did receive appropriate punishments. The fact others pupils told me is a strong indication they were out of order as on the whole pupils have a very good sense of what is right or wrong, and knew by telling me what the outcome would be - it wasn't a case of pupils not liking each other and doing it to get others into trouble.

Guess we should just let pupils/parents say what they like regardless of the damage it may cause as schools and teachers are nice easy targets.

There are two things there, though. There's a basis for forbidding online criticism of individual pupils and teachers (though there's a need to define this too).

Re the protection of a public image: I don't think any institution has the right to instigate a gagging clause (with the exception of confidential personal details etc). Public images are not enhanced by such things, either.

As the parent of a child who was severely cyber bullied, I'm with the school on this.

Dd's school claimed they couldn't help us because it was happening online and not in school had something like this been in place it could have helped us massively in dealing with the bullies.

How would it work though if your DD made negative comments in a letter to the press, which someone else then put on social media? I can't see how tweeting a letter that's already been published could breach school rules - the person tweeting it might even be defending the school. As a policy it's far too broad and full of holes legally. It would be so much better to address the issues in discussion at school, rather than issuing dictatorial "agreements"

A school in Xx has been requesting its pupils sign a 'confidentiality agreement' which forbids them to make negative criticisms of the institution. The head, speaking to XXX Journal, says 'XXXX'...

Result: PR own goal, I rather think. Public image distinctly dented.

Every institution has a right to protect its image - hence people saying writing to the press would (hopefully) give both sides an opportunity to comment.

Most criticism and questioning of decision on social media is reactionary and doesn't give both sides fair opportunity.

To be honest I don't agree with the way in which people resort to Twitter/Facebook publicly to complain about issues with companies straight off. I still think its polite to deal with issues in a private way initially before launching a public campaign.

It's the ban on criticism of the institution to which we object.

But, Frequency, this clause would have done precisely nothing to help your child, because it is all about protecting the school, not its pupils. Your child's bullies could have carried right on and they would not have been in contravention of the home school contract.

Yes there is difference, but doing something to address cyber bullying is better than doing nothing, even if that something is not fully thought out.

I realise that the school in question have reasons other than cyber bullying, however a contract like this will help with online bullying.