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'm with you OP.

What are they classing as a negative comment anyway? Would my son saying that he had a boring day at school and hates PE be classed as a negative comment? What about if he moaned that he had too much homework or finds the current history topic dull?

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

No it doesn't ! Everybody can tell the difference between a person and a school!!

I'm definitely with you op. The school is completely over-reacting and making an ass of itself.

I regard stuff on fb as pretty irrelevant. Students have always hated teachers. Nothing wrong with blowing off a bit of steam, or having a chat about issues, or organising a protest.

When parents are able to prevent on-line bullying, harassment and Libellous use of social media then schools wouldn't have to resort to such measures.

YABU. As parents, we have to sign an agreement with the school which covers social media - I have signed to agree only to put photos of my own children on FB when I take photos of events at school. As it happens I don't do that either but I was happy to sign to protect looked after children who shouldn't be in photos on social media.

It might be an idea to ask to see their anti bullying policy OP Because with this blanket ban and the Tory rally id be wondering what else the school have planned.

If a child is being bullied and the situation isnt rectified in the usual way or the school victim blames or tries to ignore the situation ,,,,,,THAT is what this ban is about i suspect.

Some of the things parents post about schools on FB are unbelievable. We live in a small community and even if people aren't named, everyone knows who they are talking about.

But getting the pupils to sign an agreement is a strong-arm tactic that's bound to misfire.

If that's "strong-arm" I dread to think what weak-arm would be... All our school rules were in writing, including all the usual stuff about being kind to one another and not talking when the teacher is talking... Since when have kids ever obeyed written rules anyway?

No Brioche that wasn't my point at all.

My point was in response to the comment that pupils should be able to voice their opinion. The line between what constitutes voicing an opinion about the school and what is slagging off the school is what can get very muddled and confused.

I'm of the opinion that what my children do at home is my business and I will decide what they are allowed to say on social media. Reasonable to not allow personal abuse (and we do all know what constitutes this) but not reasonable to say you cannot make any public criticism of the school!

Thanks, HelenaDove, I've just looked at the anti-bullying policy and it's clear that the clause in the Home–School agreement is quite separate. The policy contains a detailed explanation of cyber-bullying which is focused on abusive messages, humiliation and harassment. 'Negative comments about the school' is not in the same category at all, so it does imply that this is an attempt to shut down public criticism of the school.

I would say, those parents who are up in arms about this are probably the same parents who deliberately flout the school uniform rules, send their kids in with stupid haircuts and then go to the papers to complain about how stupid it all is.

Yes, pupils have always 'slagged off 'teachers. But bad mouthing a teacher to a load of your mates is one thing. Writing nasty, abusive lies on the world wide web for everyone to see for all eternity...a whole other level.

You can guarantee the same parents would be up in arms if their darling child was being bullied on social media and be straight into school on the bounce. sigh

Just my opinion though, of course

I'm with OP, and against this clause, actually, partly because it's unenforceable (unless I missed OP giving more specifics). It would be so easy to say a mildly negative thing without even realising it.

I'd rather a clause about not making false statements, or a pledge to try to sort out problems first by talking with the school rather than posting on social media. But blanket ban on 'negative' comments is a terrible idea and won't work, anyway.

It's a good thing. It prepares them for employment and aims to protect students from things like cyber bullying.

A cyber bullying prevention policy is essential in a modern school - and it should protect not just students from one another, but teachers from students and their parents (and vice versa, of course, though almost all teachers will have the professional nous not to engage in anything anyway). It protects people from horrible bullying, and actually it protects young people and children from living with their own horrible choices as teenagers when in their twenties and thirties, too - the internet is not always as transient as kids seem to believe. At that age, they think they are, as another commenter said, Teflon-coated. They should be protected from themselves, as well as one another.

That is very different to a policy aimed at preventing legitimate scrutiny and shutting down any form of potentially valid complaint. The latter is draconian, an abuse of position, and actually not in the public interest.

Those arguing that you can't have the former without the latter seem a tad confused - how do they imagine the rest of society navigates this dilemma? You can't use social media to harass, distress or annoy. You can't make defamatory claims. You can make fair comment, you can offer valid factual evidence, and you can question, challenge, and disagree.

A blanket policy that is framed as though created to protect pupils, but actually used to stifle perfectly reasonable debate and criticism, is an abuse of power.

I'd rather a clause about not making false statements, or a pledge to try to sort out problems first by talking with the school rather than posting on social media.

That's actually a genius idea. Because it provides a helpful incentive for the school to engage with critics, as well as the critics to engage with the school, if there are problems.

sleeponeday

"That's actually a genius idea. Because it provides a helpful incentive for the school to engage with critics, as well as the critics to engage with the school, if there are problems."

It won't stop some people posting unsubstantiated rubbish on-line or stop them from doing "sad face" pictures in the papers.

If people post unsubstantiated rubbish online, and it's untrue and cruel, then they are breaking the law, and (as I said) that would be against any reasonable social media policy, anyway.

As for sad-face media stories - a lot of the time, the people looking ridiculous in them are the sad-facers themselves, as the comments attest. If you are irate because your child wants to ignore a reasonable uniform policy, reasonably implemented; or because you are actually expected to get them out of bed on a regular basis; or not go on cheap holidays in term time when warned against it - then the sympathy from those reading the story is, understandably, generally rather limited. When the school really does look bad and for very valid reasons, why on earth would you want to prevent the story getting out? Why should the school be protected against people knowing what kind of establishment it is, and making their minds up? A good school wouldn't be in that position to begin with. Witness what happened recently in the States, where an autistic child was left locked on a school bus all day and died of heatstroke, and another child was accused of terrorism because he was racially profiled and nobody troubled to check that his clock was in fact part of an excellent engineering assignment - are you of the view that no parent or child should be allowed to express an opinion on the matter in any public way?

sleeponeday

I am happy for people (parent or child) to post an opinion based in fact.

But your "excellent engineering assignment" was (as far I can can track down) nothing of the sort. It was a home made clock that he took in to show the engineering teacher, who said not to show it to other teachers.

To be able to go on-line and post something that will damage a person's (or school's) reputation with no substantiation is (as you post) against the law, but once its out there it is out there forever.

On here we see far to many times, The school has done X, this teacher has done Y. Yet when they talk to the teacher (or school) it is nothing of the sort.

Whether people accept it or not, some people need to be made to think before they post potentially damaging posts on to a world wide medium.

It was a home made clock that he took in to show the engineering teacher, who said not to show it to other teachers.

And the school called the police and he was hauled away in handcuffs. How is this reasonable? And should not students and parents in that school have a right to comment on this incident, along with the rest of the world?

And the school then sent a letter out citing their expectations from and commitment to the students, and not in any way admitting fuckup.

Sorry, Boney, but if you genuinely and sincerely think the school are in the right on this one, then there is no point my engaging with you further.

Yabu

sleeponeday the people who disagree with you include some big names, such as President Obama, who has invited Ahmed to the White House (is it possible you don't already know this?).