Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

School Internet/email use agreement

143 replies

GiraffesEatStingingNettles · 23/01/2017 20:54

My children's school have sent home letters with agreements for both children and their parents to sign. In principal, I am very supportive of their aims, but one clause in the adult agreement does not sit well with me.

'I will support the school's approach to e-Safety and will not upload or add any pictures, video or text that could upset, offend or threaten the safety of any member of the school community'

They are talking about social media and general internet use, not just the school website and internal systems.

Obviously I am not planning a hate-campaign against any of their members of staff Grin - but the way I read that phrase I am basically agreeing never to post anything online, ever. I have no way of second guessing what might offend (reasonably or unreasonably)1000+ people, many of the total strangers to me. I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, but feel that actually, within reason I am entitled to express my own views online.

Quite how they intend to police this policy I don't know. Pupils they have more control over, but I am curious what sanctions they propose for adults who sign the agreement and fall foul of the rules??!!

DH thinks I am being silly and should just sign it and send it in. I am sorely tempted to cross through/reword that section before I do.

Am I being precious, and would you all just sign it without batting an eyelid?

OP posts:
Cherrysoup · 23/01/2017 21:55

Yabu.

We've had some astonishing things posted by parents on social media, like the mum whose daughter 'lost' her phone on a theatre trip, named the school and the theatre, telling anyone who would listen that it was the theatre staff who had stolen the phone. Next day, theatre manager phones the school to ask if the iPhone left on the side of the sink belonged to one of our lot. Mum was obliged to back down at 100mph.

Gooseygoosey12345 · 23/01/2017 22:00

Are you sure that's what they mean? I had this letter and it meant the DC had to agree not to do this and that parents would support it. I can't see why they'd ask you not to post certain things on social media unless it was pics of protected kids

pieceofpurplesky · 23/01/2017 22:01

So OP you happily post a photo of you DC and a friend in school uniform and post it on social media. Not a big problem. Only said child is under protection and a friend of a friend of yours knows the parent. Uniform is recognised and school is approached. Police are involved. School are legally covered because you signed something to say you would not post anything.
Extreme yes. Rare? Not as rare as you think. There are at least two kids per year in my very average school that are not allowed their images anywhere ...

wasonthelist · 23/01/2017 22:05

They are being unreasonable expecting you to sign that - but I would probably sign it on the basis that it'll never happen anyway.

I am glad to see some people making a proper stand though - it is utter twaddle.

wasonthelist · 23/01/2017 22:07

We've had some astonishing things posted by parents on social media, like the mum..

So getting her to sign an agreement to say she would post bollock-faced crap about school was an utter utter waste of time, then?

wasonthelist · 23/01/2017 22:08

School are legally covered

Legally covered? For/against what exactly?

pieceofpurplesky · 23/01/2017 22:12

School can say that they have a contract with the parent and basically are absolved of blame

GoodyGoodyGumdrops · 23/01/2017 22:18

IMO I am entrusting the school with the care of my child, and it is therefore their job to commit to keeping my child safe. They need to sign a contract - not me. I do not sign Home-School Agreements.

elodie2000 · 23/01/2017 22:24

They are asking you not to post stuff of a political, sexual or personal nature. Obviously.
I really don't see the problem!!

elodie2000 · 23/01/2017 22:31

Political : Stuff about the way the Schøol is run/organised etc. or actual political views.
Sexual : This one is self explanatory.
Personal: Photos of your DC or other DC without consent (schools need photographic permissions to protect children in care for example). Personal complaints or criticisms of the sxhool/ teachers etc.

Basically, keep correspondence neutral.

CancellyMcChequeface · 23/01/2017 22:34

I wouldn't sign that. I'd ignore it. Whatever your political and religious views are, they might potentially 'upset or offend' someone opposed to them - so you can never post anything remotely controversial online ever again? It's very silly wording and far too broad.

To avoid conflict with the school I'd just ignore it rather than reword it or complain, though. Sending it out is probably a box-ticking exercise of some sort anyway.

BoomBoomsCousin · 23/01/2017 23:15

I don't post any pictures of kids from the school on social media without their parents consent because I don't know if they're at risk. But I don't support the idea that offence must be avoided at all costs. Deliberately offending for the sake of it is awful, but sometimes people are just offended that you want to do something differently or you don't agree with someone else, or the like. I don't think that is something you should avoid. It also sounds like a way to shut down criticism of the school - how can you post an honest, critical comment to the ofstead website at review time if you aren't allowed to post any text that could upset someone?

I just ignore the home school agreement and similar things. They strike me as the opposite of partnership building. But if you sign it and send it in, honestly, it means absolutely nothing really does it?

DiggoryDiggoryDelvet · 23/01/2017 23:59

Obviously parents shouldn't be posting anything offensive or revealing about the school or teachers or other pupils, but it sounds like it's a blanket, nothing that could offend anyone, even if it's something unrelated to the school.

I'm a professional writer. I write a lot about sex and hardcore feminist issues, and I know my writing offends a lot of people (the Daily Mail hate me). I literally could not do my job and abide by such a broad rule.

It's not realistic (and quite shocking censorship) to ban people from ever discussing politics or religion online because they happen to be parents - what if they also happen to actually be politicians, clergy, newspaper reporters, political correspondents, etc.? The school needs to confirm exactly what it means (since I doubt they intended it to mean "don't ever discuss politics or religion") because the wording is so broad it's open to a fairly wide interpretation.

MrsTerryPratchett · 24/01/2017 00:16

I regularly cross stuff out on these ridiculous missives.

So far this year I've crossed out nonsense about 'appropriate clothing' because I decide, not the school and they have a habit of using these rules to enforce sexism. And, some bullshittery about children needing to be polite and 'make eye contact' even though a lot of children have issues with this. And I live in a country where the indigenous population use NOT making eye contact as a form of respect.

I have no issue being 'that' parent though.

user1484317265 · 24/01/2017 00:28

Completely agree with you OP, and can only assume many other posters are being wilfully obtuse!
Of course you can't promise to never offend anyone online, ever. People get offended by the weirdest things, and its not your responsiblilty to self censor to keep the entire world from being offended.
An equally good reason not to sign it is because its completely unworkable. How can they know what you are posting? Even if they do and someone finds it offensive, what do they propose to do about it?

This kind of shite isn't just harmless busywork...policies and procedures that make people erroneously think they have some kind of protection or coverage that they can't possibly have are actually harmful. The box is ticked even though you haven't achieved anything, but you stop looking for any actual way to do something sensible.

Tartyflette · 24/01/2017 00:34

While I would certainly not put any photos of children other than my own online, I would not sign that blanket agreement. I post on political and feminist issues too and who knows what some people may take offence at , now or in the future.t
OP, I think your own amendment sounded good, inserting the words 'knowingly' and 'reasonably'.

SuburbanRhonda · 24/01/2017 00:36

someone else who takes a stand on this sort of thing

Can't believe anyone would use the phrase "this sort of thing" seriously! Sounds so Monty Pythonesque.

user1484317265 · 24/01/2017 00:37

this sort of thing" seriously! Sounds so Monty Pythonesque

It's a perfectly normal phrase Hmm

BillSykesDog · 24/01/2017 00:43

I think you're being a bit literal. I doubt they'd be bothered if you posted 'Jeremy Corbyn is a Commie cunt' on your private FB page I doubt they'd be bothered even though that would offend some people.

If you put up a public post which said 'There's no such thing as ASD just naughty children' and tagged a lot of other mothers so people you weren't friends with saw it too they'd quite rightly haul your ass over the coals. But how do you differentiate between the myriad different kind of posts like that and cover everything in a brief form?

The way they've done it leaves it up to their own discretion. And given how overworked they are they're not going to be policing parents personal FB pages for Viz jokes and Britain First 'Share this if you think the Queen's head should be on our bank notes' shite. They're only really going to use it for thinks which directly attack other parents or children or the school itself, or possibly serious things like threats or advocating violence.

AmeliaJack · 24/01/2017 00:49

Upset is a pretty broad term. It's reasonably easy to upset some delicate flower with views (either directly expressed, by liking something or responding to something someone else posts) with on politics, religion or even parenting.

I upset an entire family recently by calling out one member for racism. I'm pretty comfortable with both my position and their upset.

I upset someone else last year by disagreeing with a twee poem about how life was better for women in the 1950s.

user1484317265 · 24/01/2017 00:49

You should be literal when you are being asked to sign such things. you don't agree to stuff and then hope they'll have a bit of sense when applying it, you just don't agree in the first place.

DiggoryDiggoryDelvet · 24/01/2017 00:57

All it takes is one parent with a grudge or an agenda to exploit a policy like this. The school probably wouldn't care if you posted Corbyn is a cunt, no, but what one parent did and decided to make it their hill to die on? Anything you sign needs to be detailed to avoid any possibility of that.

lalalalyra · 24/01/2017 01:10

One school locally to us takes this verrrry literally. It's causing all sorts of problems. They think their 'agreement' means that parents can never discuss issues about/with the school even on closed groups.

The HT actually issued a letter

lalalalyra · 24/01/2017 01:12

Too soon sorry!

The HT actually issued a letter banning parents from having "negatively focussed chat groups" (i.e. Whatsapp) rather than focussing on the fact the patents are discussing the major bullying problem the school currently has.

Some, thankfully few, schools seem to think they are in charge of parents as well as kids.

DisneyMillie · 24/01/2017 01:14

I refused to let my daughter sign a similar thing as it said she'd agree to possible exclusion if she broke any of the school computing rules - she was 6 - she shouldn't (imo) be left alone with a computer to enable her to break the rules. (Not that she would but I didn't like the idea of a 6 year old signing anything anyway)

Swipe left for the next trending thread