School Internet/email use agreement

[GiraffesEatStingingNettles]

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 - 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?

Sorry it was a fb group for parents of the school

Would you be happy with people calling you rude names in a fb group for the parents of your child’s school though user148?

Appropriate according to who? The school?

Yes. In my opinion, and through extension with my being the headmistress, some parents need to be reminded of what is appropriate.

I don't care what the school thinks is appropriate, my standards are my own.

Good for you although they may or may not be appropriate in my opinion or according to our guidelines. The level of inappropriateness would have an effect on how I dealt with it.

It's stupid wording but it basically means:

If you have issues with the school bring them
Into school and tell us rather than plastering them on the net.

Don't post photos of other people's kids online as it could compromise their safety.

It also covers the first rule of Wheaton, Don't be a dick.

I never sign these patronising agreements , and tell my kid not to either.

Why would you teach your child not to follow school rules or have I misunderstood? You said you tell your kids not to sign them and I was wondering why that is.

I may not agree with all school or work policies but they are in place for a reason and as a responsible parent it is my role to ensure that my children adhere to school policy.

I also fully understand why the school have asked for parental agreement regarding behaviour on a school FB page as I've witnessed how easily a misinterpreted sentence has escalated into WW3 on a school FB page.

I'm not willing to make a promise that I have no intention of keeping, and I'm also very unwilling to encourage my children to sign agreements which they can't/won't stick to.

So I would either not return the agreement, or cross out the relevant section. I want to be able to go on Mumsnet and ask for your best recipes for meatballs, or post about grief, or ask for relationship help, or talk about pitied or religion, or ask for sponsorship for a charity which in some way addresses a distressing issue.

Mum I think it's because teaching blind obedience is an appalling way to bring up children, and quite irresponsible.

Blind obedience and irresponsible......so if little Johnny round the corner puts a pic up on FB that upsets little Frankie that's ok is it...it's teaching them values and educating children on what's acceptable and what isn't in our 21st century social media overload era....I think agreeing to respect the feelings of others on social media is neither appalling nor irresponsible but will respect your right to your opinion however youve also come across as very judgemental because people do things differently to how you would

Signing a document they almost certainly don't understand and can't actually stick to isn't the same as teaching them to be decent human beings. Though I'd note the agreement the OP is talking about is not intended for children so we seem to be conflating things a bit here which may make things confusing.

Read all the thread waiting to make a comment which hasn't come up, and just as I get to the last post, Mumof51971 almost says it....

Although I do think this is about parents not slagging off the school, or "naming and shaming" or "calling it out" or "stating it as it is" without being in full possession of the facts (something that NEVER seems to be a barrier on any playground) on the online world; and although I agree with the person on about page 2 who said this is about protecting vulnerable children (i.e. if you put up a picture on social media of your child + others then one of those very well could be a child who's fled DV and who could be tracked down by abusive ex if the picture is seen); what I actually think this is about is children.

Loads and loads and loads of children have a presence on social media, with the knowledge and consent of their parents. Even though there are minimum age limits on those sites/apps - FB, What's app, Instagram, etc. Parents know the child is supposed to be 14, 16, etc, but they don't care and allow their kids to sign up anyway (FWIW, I have been one of those parents, it's just my DD is older now, so in most cases she is now old enough). Most parents don't then monitor very closely their child's on line presence.
Children often have a loose idea of boundaries, and attach different meanings to language. They'd have no issues with saying things like "I hate you... I wish you were dead" or "I'm going to get a knife and chop you up into a million little tiny pieces" or "I love you, and I'm going to marry you".

Those statements on line could get those children into very serious trouble.

Asking you to sign those home school agreements does partly absolve the school, and puts the onus back on parents. But it also means that if your child does something inappropriate on line (or, a million times worse, has something inappropriate happen to them - grooming anyone?) then the school has - at least - taken steps to stop this happening in the first place.

The agreement the OP is questioning is nothing to do with what children post though IMiss.

I don't see how asking people to sign up to a set of rules presented as a fait accompli, which are virtually unworkable as written and which are unenforceable is effective at anything other than box ticking and resource wasting.

so if little Johnny round the corner puts a pic up on FB that upsets little Frankie that's ok is it

Yes, obviously it's fine - unless it's sexually explicit, portrays criminal activity or is libellous, all of which are well-covered by existing laws. Unless the photo is of or directly about Frankie I don't see how it's remotely any of her business what Johnny puts on his own FB. Frankie's parents need to step up their parenting.

People get offended by other people's opinions constantly. I have friends who are vegan, who are diehard anti-Trump, who are LGBT. All of these have the capacity to upset people like Frankie. It's monstrous to suggest that level of censorship.

There is a world of difference between "don't say anything about the school and anyone there that might offend someone" and "don't say anything about any subject that might offend someone."

School tried doing this when I was a kid. They regretted the move as all the kids deliberately took the piss! Setting the internet home screen to inappropriate websites, badboysinleather.com was a favorite

I'm not willing to make a promise that I have no intention of keeping

It's a shame that you intend "upload or add any pictures, video or text that could upset, offend or threaten the safety of any member of the school community"

@BoomBoomsCousin - it isn't about enforcing anything, it's a reminder. The resources are minimal and I'd argue that if it avoids one argument / waste of teachers' or managements' time then it's resources well used.

There may well be an aspect of box ticking. It isn't the school who create the boxes though. They come from up above and it's one of the reasons I elft the state sector.

@EagleIsland - things have moved on. We would now know exactly who did this either through log-ins or CCTV and you would be feeling a lot less clever when explaining why this was appropriate to a teacher in front of your parents. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Don't set rules as children rebel and act like immature arses?

@DiggoryDiggoryDelvet - did you actually suggest that this letter is "monstrous"? What adjectives do you have left for when something actually bad happens?

In response to a PP, our sister school has backed- up a teacher regarding libellous claims against the individual made on social media as well as slander. They won in court, including costs.

As has been suggested, this could or should have used "with the intention of..." instead. At the same time, it makes no difference as anything illegal would be a police matter, most other things the school are powerless to actually enforce. "offence" covers a range of things so the school's discretion would be used when responding with everything from ignoring it to a formal minuted meeting to discuss it.

I agree that the wording is very bad and so vague that it is meaningless.

"Don't post anything that might upset anyone" isn't a reasonable request, so is likely to be ignored - and if you can ignore one part of the policy, why bother with the rest?

It would be better if it were more specific.

I doubt that it would offer any protection to any of the parties beyond existing laws, but it would be interesting to know how much legal force these agreements have.

I don't have a problem with internet policies, but schools should be an example of good practice, not pointless paperwork.

it would be interesting to know how much legal force these agreements have

Zero at a state school. Quite a bit at a fee paying school but they are worded much more carefully (at considerable cost by qualified professionals) and signed and witnessed by consenting adults with a financial obligation to the school.

I don't have a problem with internet policies, but schools should be an example of good practice

Yep. I'll tell the teachers tomorrow to include it next week. "See this photo from Britain First with the slogan 'fuck off immigrants', is this appropriate? How about 'Freddie is a bumder' or 'Simon is a bus wanker'? or 'Miss Wettunwindee forged her qualifications'?"

Should schools really need to call parents in and show examples of good practice to the parents? They do already with regard to the children.

Should schools really need to call parents in and show examples of good practice to the parents? They do already with regard to the children.

You have misunderstood.

The policy itself should be an example of good practice. It should be effective and well written. Most intelligent teenagers could point out the holes in this policy.

In my experience fee paying schools are quite capable of producing policies that are pointless waffle, however if they want a child to leave they just ask them to leave and they go.

Those of you saying "I'll post what I like, it's not the school's business"- have you ever had to spend hours (hell, days, sometimes!) unpicking the fallout from social media issues coming into school? It's not fun and it takes times and resources away from learning, which is what school should be about.

The most difficult ones are the ones where parents have piled in. That puts children in a difficult position - my school are saying one thing, but mum/dad got stuck in on fb last night.

Seriously, this stuff eats up SO MUCH TIME. Schools are just trying to limit this, as well as keeping vulnerable children safe online.

I'm sure if you draft a letter that will support the school better in doing this they'll be only too happy to consider it.

however if they want a child to leave they just ask them to leave and they go

Sadly not. We spend a surprising amount on legal fees. Nothing worse than expelling a lawyer's child!

The policy itself should be an example of good practice. It should be effective and well written.

From the limited information we have, it is. This is a guideline (are you listening at the back?) and not by any means, a legally binding document. As guidelines, they can be a little vague and open to interpretation. They could easily be written by the IT Head of Faculty without expertise in contract law. A well balanced use of resources.

Are oyu suggesting that this should be a watertight contract costing thousands of pounds - assuming that this is even possible, which it isn't. Sadly, schools are basically powerless to over-rule parents with the exception of the most extreme and/or illegal cases.

This isn't the point being debated here.

Sadly not. We spend a surprising amount on legal fees. Nothing worse than expelling a lawyer's child!

I know nothing about the ins and outs of your school or the families of your pupils, but usually parents are intelligent enough to realise that it's a bit stupid to pay money to send your children to a school that doesn't want them. It is of course possible to agree that the school isn't suitable and also sue them for breach of contract or incompetence. Private schools vary greatly.

This is a guideline (are you listening at the back?) and not by any means, a legally binding document.

Yes, we all understand that. However there is no point in writing a guideline if it so vague that it is meaningless. This document might as well just say "Be nice".

Are oyu suggesting that this should be a watertight contract costing thousands of pounds - assuming that this is even possible, which it isn't.

No, I am saying that policies and guidelines should be well written and effective, otherwise you might as well ask people to sign bits of paper covered in random words.

Asking parents not to post anything on-line that might upset anyone isn't possible and undermines the rest of the policy.

wetundwindee

It's a shame that you intend "upload or add any pictures, video or text that could upset, offend or threaten the safety of any member of the school community

Is it? I know that one of the parents at school is a really hard-core vegan, who finds all references to meat both offensive and upsetting. Last month I shared a meat-based recipe on Facebook. Had I done so after signing the agreement, I would be in breach of the agreement.

A friend has a baby with a heart condition. Sometime her baby looks a bit blue in family photos. Some people find that upsetting. Had she signed the agreement, she would have been unable to share pictures of her baby on social media.

Several of my friends have lost their parents recently, and have talked frankly about their grief. I am upset that they are suffering. According to the agreement, they wouldn't even be able to post about their grief on grief-specific social media.

I will be doing a charity fundraising event later this year, and will be sharing a video from the charity. The video is upsetting, in that it refers to people suffering horrible experiences in difficult situations. Some things (war, torture, disease, natural disasters etc) are inherently upsetting. I don't want to have to unfollow Oxfam, Save the Children and MSF on my Facebook feed in case I am tempted to share one of their posts.

Is it really a shame that I intend to raise money for charity, share a recipe, comment on a friend's baby picture, help a friend who is going through a difficult time? I might also want to post in AIBU at some point, which is clearly against the rules. I certainly couldn't swear on MN.

I think that it's wrong to encourage my children to enter into agreements lightly. Like several other posters, I trained as a lawyer, which probably makes me less willing than most to sign documents carelessly, but I don't want to show my kids that it's ok to sign an agreement that it's going to be unrealistic to keep because they intend to agree to something else.

did you actually suggest that this letter is "monstrous"? What adjectives do you have left for when something actually bad happens?

I think you need some lessons in reading comprehension.

I described total censorship (e.g. a blanket ban on discussing politics) as "monstrous" and I think, given what Trump has done over the last two days (Badlands, scientists, torture, etc) and the response from Anne Frank House, this is accurate.

Those of you saying "I'll post what I like, it's not the school's business"- have you ever had to spend hours (hell, days, sometimes!) unpicking the fallout from social media issues coming into school? It's not fun and it takes times and resources away from learning, which is what school should be about.

I don't think you've understood the problem here at all. The school can have an opinion on the children who go there, their social media use, and the fallout thereof. They can attempt to legislate for that.
They can also have an opinion on MY posting about the school, its staff and pupils and any problems.

What they do not get an opinion on, or any control over, is MY online behavior outside of anything directly related to the school, Attempting to tell me what I can do in general is offensive and patronising. It's also pointless and idiotic.

Why would you teach your child not to follow school rules or have I misunderstood? You said you tell your kids not to sign them and I was wondering why that is

Why would you teach your kid to follow all rules blindly, no matter how stupid and wrong?