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?

@DiggoryDiggoryDelvet - from a school's internet policy to Anne Frank, Trump and 'monstrous'. Genuinely, breathtakingly, amazing.

@merrymouse

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

You'd've thought. I guess it depends upon the school.

This document might as well just say "Be nice".

Wheaton's Law? I fucking wish!

In general, that's what this document is saying.

@DiggoryDiggoryDelvet - from a school's internet policy to Anne Frank, Trump and 'monstrous'. Genuinely, breathtakingly, amazing.

@merrymouse

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

You'd've thought. I guess it depends upon the school.

This document might as well just say "Be nice".

Wheaton's Law? I fucking wish!

In general, that's what this document is saying.

@DiggoryDiggoryDelvet - from a school's internet policy to Anne Frank, Trump and 'monstrous'. Genuinely, breathtakingly, amazing.

@merrymouse

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

You'd've thought. I guess it depends upon the school.

This document might as well just say "Be nice".

Wheaton's Law? I fucking wish!

In general, that's what this document is saying.

I reported my above post because it quoted the deleted post, so I'll repeat the second part.

wettunwindee you just used the word 'fucking' on social media, which is generally considered offensive, so you, too, would have broken the agreement.

Do you see why I am unwilling to agree to it?

@broomstickoflove

As I mentioned, this is one of the few areas I'm qualified to answer as opposed to to being opinionated but unqualified!

You wouldn't be agreeing to anything. At the state school (mentioned in the OP), it would mean nothing. Another member of the community coming into school and complaining that "broomstick said 'fucking glad it's a Friday'" wouldn't be taken seriously.

This agreement is nothing more than unenforceable guidelines.

The fact @thenotsoquiet had their post deleted suggests it was unacceptable to someone. Not illegal. Their child wasn't denied an education. There were no real repercussions, but someone who had it within their power deleted it.

I'm not sure why you would be unwilling to agree to it. I frequently do CBA (either mental or on paper). In this case it's fairly easy. The cost of agreeing is absolutely zero besides the ink it takes to sign. The cost of not agreeing is being thought of as a contrary arsehole, a troublemaker, having staff chase you (unlikely), being one of 'those parents', not understanding the meaninglessness of these guidelines...

I don;t for a second see why you're unwilling. Now that you understand it has no legal (or otherwise) bearing on anything, what possible reason do you have for not agreeing?

Would you have agreed if it said something like "with intent to cause...."? It would have been equally meaningless but would apparently have pacified a few posters here.

wettunwindee

I was never a fan of blind obedience. I am somewhat libertarian in my views

I find with my Autistic son and his associates that the more challenging their behaviour the greater the consistency and routine is needed to adjust that behaviour. I have to up my game, be absolutely straight and keep the guidelines simple. That way there is a clear point of reference to come back to at times we need to adjust behaviour.

If a school has a cohort of parents who don't like to follow rules, who need reminding then surely any guidelines/ advisory notes/ agreements need to in the same way be consistent and simple to follow?

People who have a bit of an anti school complex, I know a few mainly through their own poor school expereinces, need to be gently guided and not controlled or dictated too.

The agreements/ guidelines are a point of reference, not a legal document. They're something that a teacher should be able to refer to at the start of a school play to say please have consideration when you take photos and post comments.

Asking the school to proof read these things and think about the wording so that they are effective really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Obviously parents should not be posting a hate campaign against a teacher. But offensive could mean anything. It could mean that you say on social media that anyone who voted for Brexit was naive.

I agree that it's so vague as to be unenforceable. That means that it is useless in preventing actual harm.

I try to teach my children not to enter into agreements which they have no intention of keeping, even if breaking the agreement will have no negative consequences for them.

I also teach them to read and understand documents before signing them.

So I would either not return the agreement, or not agree to that specific bit. It's not going to hurt the school if I fail to sign an unenforceable agreement, I don't teach my kids to break promises for the sake of convenience and teach them to read the small print. So for me, the cost of signing outweighs the benefits.

If a school has a cohort of parents who don't like to follow rules, who need reminding then surely any guidelines/ advisory notes/ agreements need to in the same way be consistent and simple to follow?

No. You are mistaking "people who don't like rules/think they are rebels" with "people who follow sensible rules, generally support the school, are good parents who have the wit to not follow/sign A PARTICULAR badly written piece of nonsense"

You see the problem you have?

You wouldn't be agreeing to anything. At the state school (mentioned in the OP), it would mean nothing.....This agreement is nothing more than unenforceable guidelines

True. Silly, badly written unenforceable guidelines.

I'm not sure why you would be unwilling to agree to it

Really? Are you in the habit of signing things saying you promise to do something you have no intention of doing? Are you in the habit of encouraging the school to think they have fixed a problem when they have achieved less than nothing?
I'm not, and I'm not teaching my children to do so either.

user1484317265

No. You are mistaking "people who don't like rules/think they are rebels" with "people who follow sensible rules, generally support the school, are good parents who have the wit to not follow/sign A PARTICULAR badly written piece of nonsense"

I wouldn't sign something that was nonsense, I would and have drawn a line through things or slightly amended wording to something that makes sense.

I feel wettunwindee is implying we should all just sign. Which I can't see offers any advantages and actually another nonsense dictate could further sour relations with parents - including those who the original guideline message maybe needs to be conveyed to.

My post was deleted because I used the word "idiot" FYI.

@FlouncingInAWinterWonderland

Asking the school to proof read these things and think about the wording so that they are effective really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Effective at what? They could never have any standing besides what's already illegal.

I'm sure teachers would happily explain to your son in a way that's more effective for him. Parents, on the other hand, are expected to get a grip. Even wankers those with an anti-school complex.

How would you like it to be written?

@BroomstickOfLove - making it less vague would have no effect on its enforcability unless they simply quote laws and acts.

@FlouncingInAWinterWonderland

Asking the school to proof read these things and think about the wording so that they are effective really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Effective at what? They could never have any standing besides what's already illegal.

I'm sure teachers would happily explain to your son in a way that's more effective for him. Parents, on the other hand, are expected to get a grip. Even wankers those with an anti-school complex.

How would you like it to be written?

@BroomstickOfLove - making it less vague would have no effect on its enforcability unless they simply quote laws and acts.

My deleted post (minus the oh-so-offensive "I" word):

"The comparisons to Trump aren't about the school letter, but the posts talking about not banning discussion of anything political, and about instilling blind obedience to authority in your children."

How would you like it to be written?

I'd like it to be written in a way that makes sense and only covering things they have a legitimate interest in, for a start. Bizarre that you don't want the same.

It's not anti-school, its anti illogical rubbish. The school should be supporting parents in the same goal!

Really? Are you in the habit of signing things saying you promise to do something you have no intention of doing?

I went to Go Ape a few months ago. A Tree Top adventure. I signed their disclaimer without glancing at it knowing that it made zero difference to their responsibilities and my rights.

More fool you then.

And actually it does.

@user1484317265

I've no doubt you'll explain why any second now...

I'd like it to be written in a way that makes sense and only covering things they have a legitimate interest in

Even at a school where parents are wealthy (suggesting good jobs) and can afford school fees (suggesting good education) some parents need reminding.

We have a legitimate interest be it legally defending staff or avoiding ill-feeling in the playground. It is for this we feel we have a legitimate interest.

I feel it makes sense. I feel that schools have a legitimate interest in anything that can be connected with the school.

If it had said "with the intent to offend" than anyone with issues seeing shades of gray (your son?) would have had problems there.

I feel it makes sense. I feel that schools have a legitimate interest in anything that can be connected with the school

You've missed the fundamental point here. The example in the OP is that they are interested in things that are NOT connected with the school.
You really should check you've grasped the point of the thread before you argue with such gusto.