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!

• or at least not in contravention of this clause in the home school contract.

But turn it around, Frequency - what if it was the bullied, and not the bullies, who posted something 'negative' online about what they were going through. If other avenues have failed, they have a right to do that.

Again, there's the difference between bullying individuals and raising concerns about the school.

I agree with this. In the US, we do have "freedom of speech" and any limitation the state makes (and that includes state schools) undergoes a high level of legal scrutiny. Commenting on a political rally at the school would be considered "political speech" in the US and thus merit a high level of protection. I certainly don't think a student anywhere should have to sign an agreement limiting this kind of speech.

The school not only tried to limit the students' right to comment on the rally, Seneca, but the right of other political parties!

I'm not sure I'd refer to any of the pupils in my DD's school as 'thicker people', Liquoricetwirl. And I'm sure they are all quite capable of distinguishing between cyber bullying and criticising the school (which should be tough enough to take it).

I certainly would not have signed an agreement of this nature or allowed my sons to do so. Although my sons went to a very highly rated grammar school there was some politically biased bullying and hounding of the original head, who was an exceptional teacher. Parents and pupils were able to clearly express their views on this matter in the absence of such an agreement and have them expressed in the local press. Censorship is never a good thing.

I'm not sure how you think schools are expected to 'protect' their children and workforce from some of the hate filled bile and bullying that can be found on social media without such agreements? I respectfully suggest that you spend some time talking to parents of children bullied via social media and staff who have had their reputations trashed before dismissing this. It's not easy trying to put the emotionally wrecked child back together who has been the subject of a negative campaign via social media.
It's sad that we need such agreements but it lays out for children (and their parents) what the expectations are. Hopefully good supportive parents will 'mediate this' with their children and explain that it's a sad but necessary strategy. I'm a bit surprised at how many adults seem to go straight into antagonistic attacks against schools - no wonder so many children feel that it's OK to dismiss or challenge school rules when their parents feel unable to support the school.Parents and schools need to work together.
Sorry to sound so critical but I think you may be failing to see the bigger picture.

I'm not sure how you think schools are expected to 'protect' their children and workforce from some of the hate filled bile and bullying that can be found on social media without such agreements?

So you're keen to be in a position that if your child is bullied on site, you're not allowed to talk about it to others? How is that protecting your child?

If your child is being bullied then you must take it up straight away with the school and make sure the bullying is stopped and our child gets the right support. Talking about it on social media won't do that

I wouldn't sign it if I was your DD, I would just put a line through the words 'school or'. Who the fuck do schools think they are that as a publicly funded service, they are above criticism???
One of the mums at out school was 'written to' about criticising the school on facebook.

If I were to criticise my employer online I could lose my job and would definitely face a disciplinary. It's teaching that social media needs to be used responsibly. Great lesson to learn early rather than the hard way!

Very happy for DD to learn that social media needs to be used responsibly, m0therofdragons. Not happy for her right to use it responsibly to be curtailed by the school.

I understand where they are coming from but the whole idea of an agreement where you sign away you're right to criticize them on social media is a bit wrong. It's not legally enforceable but that's beside the point. I'd refuse on principle tbh.

motherofdragons But this is essentially the state saying you cannot criticize the state. What about the situation the OP described about the Tory rally? Should students who objected to that or who supported other parties be silenced? How can that be defended in a democratic society?

I also agree with the school on the whole.

Of course they should be discouraging pupils from making negative comments about other people on social media. As others have said, bullying on social media is very common - and against teachers as much as other pupils.

Making comments about the school is a more murky issue. I'm sure you can see why they wouldn't want anything negative about them on social media. By banning all "negative comment" they are making a clear policy. Once you start saying "you can't say this, but you can say that" and "you can't say that in that context but you can if it's in another context" it all gets very muddled and confusing.

The equivalent for my age group would probably have been standing outside the school with a large banner saying "this school has a political bias". Would I have been hauled in front of the head had I done that? Yes, you bet I would.

I don't think what students can and can't say without repercussions has changed over the years, more the platforms things can be said on.

I wouldn't say the GP/patient relationship is the same as the school/pupil relationship to be honest.

Rules are a big part of school life. I would also say the being a pupil in a school is much more like being an employee of a firm, in terms of expected levels of behaviour and performance etc., than it is like being the client of anyone.

When it comes to taking pupils' concerns seriously, some schools only pay lip service. For example, my DD's school appointed a panel of pupils when it chose a new head. The pupils were allowed to interview the shortlisted candidates and to express a preference afterwards. Guess which candidate got the job? The one that none of them liked. I'm not saying that pupils should be able to choose the new head but the school shouldn't ask for views if it's going to ignore them. It's hardly surprising if they turn to social media.

it should not be beyond the wit of a governing body to draw up a social media policy that addresses bullying but allows legitimate discussion of the school. I don't think the analogy of employees/employer is relevant- students are more like consumers/service users than employees- a school that attempts to stifle any criticism looks rather insecure, I think.