Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Lets Teachers, Students Be Facebook Friends

Posted by timothy on from the so-very-kind-of-the-senate dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) has managed to secure another win in its battle against a new law regarding social networking with students. A repeal of the recently passed law has unanimously passed the Missouri state Senate."

10 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always wanted to be more than Facebook friend with my female school teachers.

  2. Wait, what? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Slyfox696 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

      This was actually just a clause in a much larger piece of legislation that got passed, much of which was good legislation to help protect children. It was just this specific clause that got repealed.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it's better than clinging in to it and pretend it's good to save face, no?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Food for thought by mariox19 · · Score: 2

    I recall hearing this, once upon a time: "Why would anyone want to be friends with a teenager? They don't know very much, and their taste in music stinks."

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Food for thought by kenh · · Score: 2

      This law blocked, as I understood it, any form of social media communication between teachers and their minor-age students at their schools that could not be monitored by the parents and administrators.

      School-run social media sites which DO allow for parental and school administrator oversight WERE allowed.

      School-hosted email accounts which DO allow for parental and school administrator oversight WERE allowed.

      Teachers can still talk with students after class, in the hallways, in the cafeteria, on the playground, etc. To suggest that teachers need PRIVATEcommunication with students that neither their parents nor employers can know what is said between them is simply insanity.

      Imagine you are a parent of an attractive 14 year-old girl, and you go to school to pick up your daughter and you find her in a teacher's office, with the door closed, and you are prevented from entering the room until they are done speaking... I bet you'd wonder what they were talking about - imagine the teacher saying "It's none of your business." That is effectively what the teachers argued for in this case.

      Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?

      I think these teachers place more importance on being "special friends" with their students, not teaching them - I can think of no other reason why teachers need "private" communication with their students...

      --
      Ken
    2. Re:Food for thought by Jiro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The law says that teachers cannot "have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student." Aside from the bad wording (which leads to questions about whether "Facebook" is considered a website or whether each Facebook page is considered a separate website), this law doesn't just say the teachers can't talk secretly. It says that the teachers can't use a site that *allows* secret talk. Just the fact that methods of private communication exist on the website makes use of the website illegal, regardless of whether the teachers use them.

      It also prohibits teachers who are parents from communicating with their children over Facebook, since parents' communication with their children is not normally visible to school administrators.

    3. Re:Food for thought by Terrasque · · Score: 2

      Devil's Advocate mode initiated

      Imagine you are a parent of an attractive 14 year-old girl, and you

      .. whore her out every weekend. Or you frequently beat/abuse her. She wants to talk with someone she knows well and trust about it, and the teacher is the one person she both knows, and trust to handle it discreetly.
      But, she is not allowed to talk to any teacher privately, and she can't make herself talk about it to some complete stranger either.

      What then?

      From wikipedia:

      Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, mothers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbours; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.

      And, from this page (general abuse, not sexual abuse specific):

      In 2007, more than one-half (57 percent) of all child abuse cases and reports made to CPS agencies came from professionals who came in contact with the child, including teachers, lawyers, police officers, and social workers.

      From your post:

      To suggest that teachers need PRIVATEcommunication with students that neither their parents nor employers can know what is said between them is simply insanity.

      I would say it would be simply obvious, not insanity. To follow your logic all the way through, no one should have any private communication to any person below 18 years of age.

      End question : Are you still so certain that no teacher should ever have private communications with a student?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  4. Punching bags are people too by pefisher · · Score: 2

    This law went far beyond Facebook; (Zdnet said) it limited any internet communication that wasn't visible to both the school district and parents. It's nice that a judge indicated he was going to find it unconstitutional. That happens so seldom in this day and age.

  5. Children need right of choice by MrNthDegree · · Score: 2

    Parents (If one can even use the plural in most cases) should have no right to dominate childrens' lives any more than the school system does or big media do. Child protection laws are all a sad joke which make bad assumptions about the intelligence of young people who happen to be below the age of 18. Due to child protection laws, a lot of young and talented people cannot find their place in the world until they are much older, this is wrong.

    Parents very often do not recognise true potential in their kids and it should be up to the child as to who he/she communicates with in private. Teachers spend longer with classes of children at key times in any one given child's life than the parents do in many cases and teachers of specialist subjects are the best at identifying aptitude for a given subject. Students with an aptitude for a subject should get special attention to help them reach their true potential.

    In addition, social networking is no more risky than keeping a student for face-to-face chat at the end of a class, when will people realise this?