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!

not make negative comments about the school or individuals

Translation - don't bring the school in to disrepute and more importantly DO NOT CYBER BULLY OTHERS.

Fantastic lause - they might be saving lives

sleeponeday

I didn't say that the school was right, I said that it wasn't an "engineering assignment", but then you have proved that things get twisted and misunderstood on social media and people then refuse to engage with others.

Imagine that you are the school with no right to reply because they can't talk about individual pupils and the data protection act.

Or that you are the teacher that is being accused of something and can't say anything in your defence because they can't talk about individual pupils or the data protection act.

Or that you are the pupil that has been ostracised and is to scared to get help.

Its all linked.

And legitimate discussion rarely takes place over social media in these situations.

For those that believe that posting on social media opens up discussion how odes this statement tie in to your argument?

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.

Both sides have to be willing to discuss the issue.

Egosumquisum

"Suitable for the military. Not for schools and its pupils."

Yet, they are the reasons that schools are not allowed to defend themselves in the public domain.

Epso There is nothing that a parent has to sign saying they will not discuss the school on social media. If there is a genuine grievance or discussion, then those who are supposedly mature enough to enjoy a balanced discussion can discuss anything they want. I think the clause is totally sensible. Generally 13-16 year olds are not mature enough to know what they are doing when they start to discuss school or individual teachers on social media.

Egosumquisum

You go up the chain of complaint/grevance

It wouldn't occur to a lot of teenagers that slagging off their school and teachers on social media is unacceptable.
There is likely to be far more 'Mrs X is a shit teacher, can't control her class and we all know she only got the job because she is shagging the head' on social media than 'X school is holding a political rally and I respectfully suggest that this is unacceptable use of a school building'. I rather suspect that most schools have the former in mind rather than the latter when they include policies like this in their home-school agreement.

Incidentally, the example given upthread where a class were ranked and sat according to their results, this is something that a certain former Secretary of State for Education endorsed, and that I believe at least one academy chain is doing as a matter of course. Going on social media and saying 'I can't believe Mr X has done this, what a monster' and whipping up a storm would be unfair to Mr X and missing the bigger picture. Going through the proper channels may provide more information.

It's fine to talk about 'legitimate discussion' if it's possible to have a legitimate discussion. But,as Boney points out, it's frequently impossible for the school to defend themselves.

A while ago, a parent at the school I work at posted a complaint against the school on the local FB group (which has 11,000 members, so a pretty wide local audience.) From the 'facts' posted it sounded like a legitimate complaint, but there was another side to the story which would have proved the complaint unfounded - but nobody from the school could post it because it involved confidential information.

A PP poster commented about what was said on facebook about a school...
Slightly different to the OP situation - because it is a closed facebook group -invitation only so not viewable by everyone....but still.

It is a group for one class of a primary school - more or less all the parents were invited to join (by word of mouth) by a couple of parents, school is not involved and it was originally set up to share things like if homework was set, when it was due etc.
A friend has a child in that class and so is a member and is horrified by what is said on there.
Quite a bit of competitive parenting - oh fred only got counting to 100? my DC must be in a higher group as they got counting to 1000 - lets try and work how many levels there are and which group the DCs are in so we know to share the right homework etc.
It has become dominated by one group.
One year they didn't rate the teacher. It turned into a massive bitch - like school gate nastiness but apparently amplified. When the teacher went on long term sick said they hoped they didn't come back ...they liked the replacement. When they were coming back lots of sad faces - at the end of year how they could engineer it not to have that teacher the next year and which other teacher they would like etc etc.
My friend said that people who have challenged them on fb and RL have been ganged up on - someone did leave the group in disgust - they were bitched about on the fb group and snubbed in RL/playdates refused etc. And they make the odd bitchy comment about them on the page now. My friend tries to avoid reading it any more but won't actively leave - because of repercussions.
Yes this stuff does get said at the school gate but you could avoid/change the subject/remember an important appointment etc...

I got a good old slagging on social media after a parent took the word of her 6 year old as gospel and broadcast a completely inaccurate and damaging diatribe against me, the boys teacher and the school on her FB.

I got to see it through the 'friend of a friend' thing (and the fact that her FB is totally open).

As part of my contract I am not allowed to engage with parents on FB (even though I am a parent as well as staff) and had to rely on other friends to redress the complete and utter bollocks the parent came out with. The teacher didn't have that ability, neither did the HT.

Thankfully in this case the parent was made to look like an utter fuckwit, as were the other parents that had jumped on the bandwagon, by a simple posting of what actually happened by another adult that was there. But if I hadn't been a parent prior to becoming staff neither me nor the teacher slagged off would have known anything about it - and the things being said could have been extremely damaging.

I can't blame a school for not wanting crap like that to happen, so I can understand why the SLT might think this was a good idea.

Indeed Ego, but if it's said at the school gate it doesn't last long. Put it on the Internet (with the subjects real name) and that shit lasts forever.

But the clause is more than that. It aims to suppress legitimate discussion about the institution that may be viewed negatively.

I'm sorry but what 'legitimate discussion' can an 11 year old have on social media?

Some of the complaints students have are ridiculous, I have been criticised for, "trying to get us to do your job" - that would be asking what students already knew at the start of the term.

A student took her work to a deputy head because I refused to mark it, I had however photocopied and stapled to it the page of the book she had copied word for word.

The head backed me up, it was all copied and no I don't have to mark it as it wasn't the students.

Can you imagine if these had been posted of facebook? "Ms X doesn't do her job or mark any work"

Our school prevents parents from discussing the school on social media, and social media includes MN. Countless threads about it on here have been deleted, and there have been plenty as it has been deep in controversy recently. Parents wanting to discuss its new initiative, something else that is worrying them, have had to talk about it on local forums in code. A parents' 'information' evening saw the lead staff member attempt not to take questions.

Another school our child attended contacted us asking me to remove a post I had made about the school, which was a perfectly normal balanced one, after a prospective parent mentioned a concern I'd raised at an open evening. The teacher involved (not someone I'd named - no one was named) had gone through my other posts on here to work out who I was. I ignored him but hated the fact that he'd seen my posts (obviously I'd made them public so more fool me).

But please think about where you're happy to draw a line. Couldn't this agreement specify personal comments about staff and pupils for example? At what point does it become stifling of opinion?

We are moving shortly and I am happy to say we're pleased to be leaving this school behind because several aspects of it have failed our child. Yet it is a hugely over-subscribed Ofsted Outstanding School.

I think the op op is nbu to question the authority of a school to expecting their pupils to sign away rights to free speech. It is requiring no negative comments about the "school" an institution not individuals already protected in as much as anyone is by the libel laws etc. In this country.

As a school governor in a Primary I have had to argue against an authoritarian impulse from the governing body to issue an internet usage policy to the parents, telling them not to criticise the school on social media. Each time, always following an unreasonable rant against the school on FB from an unhappy parent; I successfully argued that regardless of the understandable desire of the SLT to defend the school and staff, they cannot tell people what they can do on the internet. It is not the place of the school or the state. It would be nice if everyone was reasonable and behaved properly but they don't and the teachers like all employees have to sign a contract of employment including a clause disallowing criticising online their place of employment. But a teacher can complain about shitty service at McDonald's or in their local hospital.

Parents and children are the school "service users" and they are entitled to share opinions about their experiences, of course they should use the proper channels of the school to complain, but the school should concentrate on ensuring good relationships and communication. Not censorship.

If schools spent more time talking to parents and pupils and less time trying to prevent public criticism ...

Well indeed, bigmouth. If the teacher who spent time trawling MN, reading about my postnatal lady bits had spent that time arranging the assessments he didn't sure out for my child, how happy we would both have been.