Slashdot Mirror
Missouri Hedges On 'Teachers Can't Friend Students' Law
bs0d3 writes with an excerpt from an AP story, as carried by NECN.com: "Missouri senators took a step Wednesday toward repealing a contentious new law limiting online conversations between teachers and students, but stirred opposition from the governor by still attempting to mandate that schools adopt their own policies about online chats and text messages. The action by the Senate Education Committee comes a couple of weeks after a Missouri judge blocked the new law on teacher-Internet communications from taking effect because of concerns it infringes on free-speech rights."
That's not the point, the point "why does the child need to fucking be legally banned from friending a teacher on FB or vice versa?"
It's a good thing if teachers have a Facebook account that deals with class related issues, allows students to communicate about homework, ask questions, expand the subject, etc.
It's a bad thing if teachers have a Facebook account they use to buddy with their students simply to share pictures, schmooze, gossip and otherwise engage in behavior that is unbecoming a teacher.
The law is entirely unnecessary as this is a matter of professional conduct to be handled on the teacher level and administration level, not a state government level. Banning Facebook in this manner is like banning teachers from using email, telephones, Skype or any other technology to communicate appropriately with students. So you want teachers to remain teaching with nothing but in person voice, chalk and blackboard for the next 300 years?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
This law was much more far reaching than just Facebook; it effectively prohibited ALL online communication between students and teachers. My mom is a high school teacher, and after the law was passed, they were prohibited from using their school provided email accounts to communicate to students via their school provided email accounts.
--- I'm just rambling...
I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad thing for a teacher to friend a student as a "buddy". It is possible to have a student/teacher friendship and keep things professional. I did it when I was in school. I texted with one teacher that I had but I don't see it as unprofessional or unbecoming a teacher. She was like a mentor to me and she feels that I helped her become the great teacher that she is today and now we are good friends. In fact, if we weren't "friends" then I probably wouldn't be where I am today because that "friend" encouraged me to better myself.
As a (former) teacher living in Missouri, this law is horrible. It comes from school administrators around the state going out of their way to not do their jobs. This law came about because of a fear of a teacher going from district to district who molests children, and uses electronic media as one of his tools. If there is a teacher who gets asked to find a job somewhere else because it is suspected that they have molested a student, it is the job of every school district employee to report this person. This reporting is legally mandated, and anyone found having knowledge of molestation who holds a job as a mandatory reporter can and should be held liable. I once worked in a district where the band teacher was suddenly arrested for having sex with students. I was livid. If he had been in the building when I found out, I would have kicked his ass into his office and kept him there till the police came. Any district that doesn't investigate such things should be held liable, and any administrator who suggests a teacher find another district in which to molest students should lose their job and license as well. I say regressive because most students are well ahead of the school districts in terms of making regular use of technology. This just discourages teachers from using technology further. I can't tell you how many times we've been able to plan accordingly because my kids were able to text their coach or teacher about an upcoming event to make sure we weren't late, or planned to be out of town.
in the US at least if you tell your lawyer that you are guilty of a crime he is required by law to tell the authorities or he could face disbarment or even worse
You're horribly misinformed. AFAIK, the attorney-client privilege does not apply, based on content of communications, when you discuss taxes, how to commit a crime, how to avoid being caught, how to defraud another person. Otherwise, the content cannot be the reason to exclude the communications from the privilege, but there may be other valid reasons for exclusion of course -- reasons not based on content.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I agree. I'd think that a teacher should have a separate facebook account for use when communicating with students. There's really no reason for students to get insights into your personal life, or to see your family pics.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Are you oblivious? People should have a choice when they are giving up their privacy.
Facebook may be horrible as shit, but the unintended consequences of "protect the children" are massive.
The schools are running scared. School IT admin seems to lag everywhere by a generation or two or three. We're going through the latest round of IT snafus in our school system as the year begins, and it's really quite sad.
I think the blanket "protective" rules are aimed at setting up bright lines that any idiot can administer without really dealing with the human beings involved or reflecting on how porous technology makes communication to anyone determined. Seduction (in either direction) is a *social* problem not tech, and sure wasn't invented recently. These rules won't stop the problem, they're just a way of the schools burying their heads in the sand instead of dealing with the content of the problem. It's like relying on curfew to stop teenage pregnancy. Preventing abusive relationships is an education topic, not appropriate for some idiotic 50's notion that the key is to prevent the communication of "bad ideas" -- or than the medium generates the ideas!
I enemy this.
The real issue is that the law does/did nothing to protect students from predatory teachers. Missouri also has a law that if a sign is posted banning hand guns in a facility, then you can't bring them in. Like the facebook law, this law also does nothing to protect people from somebody intent on doing harm (maybe the signs are made out of kevlar).
The real problem with these types of laws are that they are emotional based to give the appearance that something is being done, when in reality, they provide little if any protections to the people they purport to protect. With regards to the facebook law, now only did it not add any real protection, but it was a poorly crafted/worded law and banned all kinds of electronic communications between teachers and students, far more than friending somebody on FB.
Ironically, under the law as it stood, it was a criminal offense to email a student or former student but not send them an actual letter. Interestingly, since the law applied to all school personnel, not just teachers, it also meant that guidance counselors, nurses, etc., could not communicate with the students electronically. Makes it kind of hard to send out information regarding scholarships, too.
The law could have avoided all of this by only restricting communications that would not be outside of the realm of what constitutes normal communications between a school employee and a student. That way, a counselor creating a FB page regarding scholarships information or when recruiters will be at the high school would not be illegal.
In effect, that is what the legislative committee is recommending -- that these types of decisions (ie acceptable use of electronic communications) be set on the local level by local authorities.
It may take a village to raise a child, but it doesn't require the government to do so.
Hey, and you could call those levels something like "circles" or "groups" to help you organize them. I bet someone looking to build a competitor to FaceBook would be interested in the idea.
On a serious note, stuff like this is largely why LinkedIn exists, and there's no reason you couldn't use LinkedIn for academic relationships. Of course, this would mean recognizing that LinkedIn isn't cool, but we all knew that already.
--srj/mmv
Calvin & Hobbes: http://madshakespeare.com/2010/08/sunday-funnies-verbing-weirds-language/
Following on from your first point, a police officer is absolutely allowed to say "I'm not a cop" to get you to admit to a crime. He can also say things like "between you and me" or "off the record" and it means just slightly more than nothing, in that it means they think you're dumb enough to fall for it. A couple of things they can't do is entice you to commit a crime (entrapment) or break the law to obtain evidence (although a member of the public can). Nothing is off the record. Everything they say is to trip you up. In the US, do not ever talk to the police.
In the UK it's different. "Anything you say can be used as evidence" is different to "Anything you say can be used against you" and there is a special stipulation for not revealing information under questioning which you rely on in court. Over here, I'd say be polite and helpful, but lie through your teeth if you have to until you're cautioned or under arrest, in which case get a lawyer before you say anything else.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
You think that if the government decides you don't need something its ok to make it illegal. You Nanny State Government knows whats best for us Liberals make me ill. Why do you hate freedom so much. You would have been a good communist. "Nyet, nyet, we don't need our guns, you can take them, Comrade Stalin will protect us."
Woosh!
Liberals - Want to limit your rights to: speech that might offend someone, take risks for yourself, own things that look dangerous (firearms), do anything that might go against "its for the children"
Conservatives - Want to limit your rights to: speech that might offend someone, have sexual liasons with the same gender, own things that look dangerous (technology) do anything that might go against "its for the children"
Its not about left/right liberal/conservative or whatever the banned thing is, its all about control.
It is the point. Why? There is no need. Dindn't need that shit growing up, don't need it now. I mean, really? they don't see them enough in school all day? The teacher is not supposed to be the kids "friend", they are supposed to be teaching kids, period.
Oh. I get it. YOU don't see a need so it should be illegal? The world doesn't revolve around you. And really? "You didn't have it when you were growing up" is an argument? Holy shit. Let me enlighten your mind. Kids use facebook as a primary means of communication. "Friending" on facebook doesn't mean you're actually friends you fucking moron. It just means you can now communicate with each other. And since kids use FB so often, its one of the most efficient ways to communicate with the students and get instant responses.