Social Networking and Educators: New Law Creates Controversy
August 8, 2011 by admin
Filed under Lingerie Events
Earlier in July, the Missouri State legislature passed a bill aimed at protecting students against inappropriate relationships with teachers.
“Every teacher organization in the state of Missouri supported this bill in session. So did every educational organization like school boards, superintendents, etc. It passed unanimously in the House and the Senate,” explains State Senator Jane Cunningham, who sponsored what is now called the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act.
But one section of Senate Bill 54, near the bottom of the bill, is gaining controversy nationwide.
Section 162.069 states:
“Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child’s legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a non work-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.”
This section has many critics.
“We think the bill is not only overstepping; it’s also unneeded. This one section is very vague and most schools already have a social media policy in place,” says Cameron Carlson, the leader of the rapidly-growing Facebook group Students, Parents, and Teachers Against MO Senate Bill #54, Sec. 162.069 http://www.facebook.com/groups/repealmobill54/.
The group is vehemently against these few sentences in the bill, which they say are vague and make unfair assumptions about educators.
“The bill also assumes that teachers don’t have the right judgment when acting online. Any employer should just assume that its employees act with the right ethical and moral decisions in any instance. This shows the lack of faith we have in our educators. The passage is worded in such a way that disallows them from even using the website,” Carlson said.
But Senator Cunningham says that’s not at all the case.
She says even when the new law takes effect, it would not even prohibit teachers from being friends with students on a site like Facebook.
“The only thing that we stop is any hidden, exclusive access and communication between an educator and a student-as long as there are third parties like parents or school personnel who have access to that communication, you are fine,” Cunningham explains.
Cunningham says Facebook groups, Twitter updates, and all the main avenues for communication are okay, as long as they’re used properly.
“Some of the social media, if used improperly, not only facilitates an inappropriate relationship, it is also a pathway to an inappropriate relationship,” Cunningham said.
But those against section 162.069 still say they support the rest of the bill and only wish the few sentences they find vague and overreaching to eventually be repealed.
The group’s online petition only has a few hundred electronic signatures; but that’s after only a few days of existence.
Carlson says the group has received massive feedback since its inception.
Cunningham says she’s received calls from reporters nationwide and from overseas to explain the details of the Student Protection Act.
The new legislation will take effect on August 28.
School districts statewide are required to have a new policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications by January 1, 2012.
