Missouri Law To Prohibit Teachers And Students Communicating Via Social Networking

[Zarkizon]

There is a Bill which may go into effect [SB 54] in Missouri, USA which will prohibit teachers from communicating with their students via social networking websites like Facebook or Twitter. This Law will initiate the creation of the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children. Supposedly this law will help protect students from teachers who may commit acts of sexual misconduct.

I am a Missouri resident myself, however I am exempt since I am nineteen-years-old and not in public school. I do, however, have a younger brother and sister who have both friended some of their teachers on Facebook and they have not had any problems with them. In fact, their teachers even assist them with their homework through the popular social networking sites.

Will this law really help prevent sexual misconduct to minors?

Is this law unconstitutional? Isn't this breaking the 1st Amendment?

The Bill SB 54, in full detail, is available at: senate.mo.gov

[fuelair]

Many places are doing that through local schoolboards. My belief is that it is silly in it's assumptions but it makes them look like they are doing something!

[Travis]

This is really sad. The actual number of teachers that would ever do anything inappropriate are miniscule. What kind of complete moron would even think that this is something that needs action?

[Roboramma]

I have to agree with Travis. Social Networking websites simply add another tool to educators. I can't see any good coming from taking that tool away from them.

Of course, I may be wrong: perhaps the prevalence of teachers using facebook to start sexual relationships with their students is much higher than I think. But I not only doubt that, I don't see the difference between a teacher doing that and any other adult doing that: why target teachers, who have a legitimate reason to be interacting with their students?

[stilicho]

I have to agree with Travis. Social Networking websites simply add another tool to educators. I can't see any good coming from taking that tool away from them.

Of course, I may be wrong: perhaps the prevalence of teachers using facebook to start sexual relationships with their students is much higher than I think. But I not only doubt that, I don't see the difference between a teacher doing that and any other adult doing that: why target teachers, who have a legitimate reason to be interacting with their students?

If you consider it the same as a workplace that prohibits employees engaging on those sites at all then it makes some kind of sense. It's plausible that this is simply due diligence to protect the school board from potential legal action.

Common sense ought to tell any educator by now that the last thing you want to do, as an individual and a professional, is to be discovered "friended" by someone who winds up using it against you.

To show how woefully ignorant I am, isn't Facebook itself supposed to have some kind of age restriction on its membership?

[Travis]

If you consider it the same as a workplace that prohibits employees engaging on those sites at all then it makes some kind of sense. It's plausible that this is simply due diligence to protect the school board from potential legal action.

Common sense ought to tell any educator by now that the last thing you want to do, as an individual and a professional, is to be discovered "friended" by someone who winds up using it against you.

To show how woefully ignorant I am, isn't Facebook itself supposed to have some kind of age restriction on its membership?

Of course a workplace prohibits you from using social networking or instant messengers on the job! I don't know of any that prohibit you from using them from your own home after work.

When I was in school if you had a very pressing question about something it required you to call a teacher on a telephone. Social networking makes such things a lot easier in many ways.

Or are they also going to make it illegal for a teacher to talk to students over a phone?

[elbe]

I'd imagine a teacher and student communicating inappropriately wouldn't do it on the their facebook walls.

[KingMerv00]

Is this law unconstitutional? Isn't this breaking the 1st Amendment?

If your summary is correct, I am 99% certain the law is unconstitutional. My 1% doubt only stems from the fact I may have missed a relevant case that overruled Reno v. ACLU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union) and thereby states the internet is treated differently than more conventional media. If it went to the SCOTUS today, I'd predict an 8-1 ruling. Clarence Thomas seems to believe in a absolute right of the government to restrict speech to minors. Sadly, that is not an exaggeration. Read the Brown dissent below for proof.

My certainty is based on Erzonik v. Jacksonville (http://supreme.justia.com/us/422/205/case.html) and last month's Brown v. EMA (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf). Both held that restrictions on speech to minors must be very narrowly tailored and meet the deadly strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) test. As a result, this law should be and probably will be struck down for being overly broad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth_doctrine).

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am but a humble law school grad and have no access to a fancy-schmancy legal search engine. If a real lawyer comes in here and contradicts me, they are almost certainly correct.

[KingMerv00]

If you consider it the same as a workplace that prohibits employees engaging on those sites at all then it makes some kind of sense. It's plausible that this is simply due diligence to protect the school board from potential legal action.

Due diligence can never violate the Constitution.

If a teacher abused a student, the school would almost certainly not be liable unless they failed to miss obvious signs or negligently hired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_hiring#Negligent_hiring_preventive_measu res) a sex offender.

[SkepticalDrew]

To show how woefully ignorant I am, isn't Facebook itself supposed to have some kind of age restriction on its membership?

Not really an age restriction. From Facebook's website:

Do you offer any special privacy safeguards for people under 18?
Yes. The Facebook privacy settings work a little differently for young people. Like adults, people under 18 can appear in search results on Facebook. Also, applications that they and their friends use and people who navigate to their profile will see their basic information (name, profile picture, gender and networks).

But a public search listing will not be created for them, and even if they select the Everyone setting, photos and status updates can actually be seen only by their friends, friends of friends, and people in a verified school or work network they have joined.

edit: I think it's silly to prevent students and teachers from using an easy medium to communicate with each other.

[fuelair]

I'd imagine a teacher and student communicating inappropriately wouldn't do it on the their facebook walls.IIRC, I'm pretty sure that was involved in at least one case in the last two years. Unfortunately I am not interested enough to hunt it up. And it has no bearing on my point, so......:)

[fuelair]

Oh, heck, I'll post just one for yez: http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1152090411/Abington-teacher-fired-over-Facebook-to-face-charge

[Alan]

There is a related news item! A teacher who has a website about racism on facebook had his personal information posted on a white supremacist website and then somebody created a facebook profile of him portraying him as a paedophile.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/evil-fiction-teacher-a-target-of-fake-facebook-profile-20110805-1iefm.html

[MattusMaximus]

I'd imagine a teacher and student communicating inappropriately wouldn't do it on the their facebook walls.

You'd be surprised at the stupid things some people do online, even teachers.

As a teacher myself, my $0.02 worth on this is simple: do not "friend" your students online, period. This is especially true if your students already have tools necessary to interact with the teacher online, such as email (and who doesn't have that?)

I interact with my students via email, a school sanctioned website via Edline, and in my classroom. That should be enough - Facebook is for my personal use. And students are not a part of that equation.

That said, I have many former students who have since graduated and are now adults (over 18 years old) who are my FB friends. I see no problem with that.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That said, I have many former students who have since graduated and are now adults (over 18 years old) who are my FB friends. I see no problem with that.

Because now they're legal! If you know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge.

[Mark R]

You'd be surprised at the stupid things some people do online, even teachers.


I can second that. Some incredibly stupid things.

As a teacher myself, my $0.02 worth on this is simple: do not "friend" your students online, period. This is especially true if your students already have tools necessary to interact with the teacher online, such as email (and who doesn't have that?)

I interact with my students via email, a school sanctioned website via Edline, and in my classroom. That should be enough - Facebook is for my personal use. And students are not a part of that equation.



Besides communication in the classroom I use email, my schools grading program which allows for some limited communication and my own website (which I would not need if my school had kept Edline). I keep no personal information on my website -- strictly school related. I have not come across any problems in communication that FB would solve.

What I find odd is I get countless emails from companies offering lectures and seminars on how to use social media like FB. I do not get it. It seems like more trouble than it is worth.

[stilicho]

Of course a workplace prohibits you from using social networking or instant messengers on the job! I don't know of any that prohibit you from using them from your own home after work.

When I was in school if you had a very pressing question about something it required you to call a teacher on a telephone. Social networking makes such things a lot easier in many ways.

Or are they also going to make it illegal for a teacher to talk to students over a phone?

I can't recall ever having a problem with school work that required phoning a teacher outside of school. I'd be wary, if I were on a school board, of teachers who typically offered unsupervised extra-curricular services.

Anyone have a copy of a teacher's contract? Do they contain guidelines for this kind of thing?

@KingMerv00: I know little about this constitution of which you speak but it's said that it doesn't cover shouting "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse and probably doesn't cover public employees seeking friendship from young boys and girls. I trust that contract law sometimes implicitly skirts or even flouts unlimited free speech by regulating what you can say, how, where and when you can say it, and who you can say it to.

[Travis]

But has there ever been a law that has prohibited an entire profession from using some sort of communications medium? If we can ban teachers from using Facebook then what prevents them from barring teachers from using telephones?

[Roboramma]

I trust that contract law sometimes implicitly skirts or even flouts unlimited free speech by regulating what you can say, how, where and when you can say it, and who you can say it to.

There is a difference between what two parties can legitimately contractually agree to and what legislature can regulate. I can sign away "free speech" rights with a privacy clause, for instance, but the government can't make talking about your employer illegal.

[jayh]

You'd be surprised at the stupid things some people do online, even teachers.

As a teacher myself, my $0.02 worth on this is simple: do not "friend" your students online, period. This is especially true if your students already have tools necessary to interact with the teacher online, such as email (and who doesn't have that?)
....

My reaction is that this is a good thing* (though I think the sexual worries are over the top). Teachers should not be actively socializing with their students outside the school setting, hanging out with them, being their buddies. School is a very specific social structure and it should be kept separate from both the student's and the teacher's private lives.

*I think it's a good policy, not a good law. The law does not belong here.

[C_Felix]

I used to be a teacher, but, I had a facebook when I was a teacher.

What I did:

I have one facebook for me, that I have my friends, family and what not on. I have this on private and under a knickname, so if you were to punch in my name on Facebook, you wouldn't find me. So, even if a student were to find me, since it is on private, they aren't gonna "get in". I only accept invites from people I know.

I have one for the teacher me. This is under my real name, but with -teacher at the end. ex: George Harrison-teacher. If you punch in my name, you have a chance of finding this one. It is nice to keep in touch with your students.

The two do not mix, nor do should they. I'm not gonna post my trolling political comments on my teacher one, for example.

I might post, "Hey keep in mind! There's a lunar eclipse tonight at 10:15" on both of them....but....I feel I've done due diligence.

Also, I've been invited to wedding and what-not via my facebook!
"Oh! Mr. R! I've been trying to get in touch with you! I'd love it if you can make to my wedding..." has happened a few times.

[Uncle Otto]

If your summary is correct, I am 99% certain the law is unconstitutional.

And therein lies one of the most glaring faults of our system of government. State legislatures in particular are famous for passing idiotic, flawed or just plain illegal legislation. So it goes into effect if signed by a governor, and then anyone who's rights are violated by it then have to spend time and money getting it sorted out in the court system.

Nothing could possibly be more backwards and counter productive. In some Parliamentary systems, pending legislation has to be vetted by the courts BEFORE it can be signed into law. Canada I think does this.

[stilicho]

There is a difference between what two parties can legitimately contractually agree to and what legislature can regulate. I can sign away "free speech" rights with a privacy clause, for instance, but the government can't make talking about your employer illegal.

I can understand the subtle distinctions there. It could be that the legislators are anticipating school boards appealing to them for assistance in enforcing their claims in negotiations with the teachers' unions. Maybe they've already heard from them. Without the complete story it's a little tough to put it into context.

[stilicho]

And therein lies one of the most glaring faults of our system of government. State legislatures in particular are famous for passing idiotic, flawed or just plain illegal legislation. So it goes into effect if signed by a governor, and then anyone who's rights are violated by it then have to spend time and money getting it sorted out in the court system.

Nothing could possibly be more backwards and counter productive. In some Parliamentary systems, pending legislation has to be vetted by the courts BEFORE it can be signed into law. Canada I think does this.

(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/11/teachers-facebook-students358.html )

Here the provinces hold sway and not the federal government. At least in Ontario, the teachers' regulatory body says you can't friend students on Facebook or follow them on Twitter.

Salvatori said the college is advising teachers to instead use official school board Facebook pages to interact with students as opposed to personal pages. He also suggests teachers use their board emails to correspond with students, and to inform parents if they plan on using social media to connect with students.

Advising teachers to avoid unsupervised extra-curricular contact with students is obviously different than legislating against it but the legislation is really pointless anyhow. If you are caught flaunting the recommendations of the certifying body then you're not going to have a leg to stand on when little Larry alleges you did something naughty and shows up in the courtroom with a screenshot of his Facebook friendship with you.

[stilicho]

But has there ever been a law that has prohibited an entire profession from using some sort of communications medium? If we can ban teachers from using Facebook then what prevents them from barring teachers from using telephones?

Teachers have no business talking to their students by telephone outside the school setting. I don't know what your specific circumstances were that required you to keep in contact with your teachers outside school. Can you elaborate?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If I was a betting man, I'd lay my money on this getting tossed on constitutional grounds.

Why do we even need this law? This should be a school/district policy, not a state law.

[stilicho]

If I was a betting man, I'd lay my money on this getting tossed on constitutional grounds.

Why do we even need this law? This should be a school/district policy, not a state law.

Why is it unconstitutional? Is it simply because of precedent? Does the US constitution anticipate a slippery slope? Or is it that laws are frequently ruled unconstitutional when they're trivial?

[Uncle Otto]

If I was a betting man, I'd lay my money on this getting tossed on constitutional grounds.

Why do we even need this law? This should be a school/district policy, not a state law.


^^^^^^^This!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why is it unconstitutional? Is it simply because of precedent? Does the US constitution anticipate a slippery slope? Or is it that laws are frequently ruled unconstitutional when they're trivial?

Because it prohibits speech between two people.

[Hastur]

Why is it unconstitutional? Is it simply because of precedent? Does the US constitution anticipate a slippery slope? Or is it that laws are frequently ruled unconstitutional when they're trivial?
Stilicho, I don't know if you're trying to funny, but it isn't working.
To echo what KingMerv said earlier, this is probably not going to survive scrutiny. There are far less burdensome methods that can be implemented than barring Facebook contact. I'd have to look at the text of the proposed statute, but what does it say about friending former students who become adults?

[Travis]

Teachers have no business talking to their students by telephone outside the school setting. I don't know what your specific circumstances were that required you to keep in contact with your teachers outside school. Can you elaborate?

There are numerous activities that require coordination through telephones. For example the academic decathlon team studies and prepares at the sponsor teacher's home (with pizza provided by that teacher) and sometimes those study times are moved abruptly. As a graphics editor for the yearbook there were also times I personally had to talk to that teacher after school hours.

Frankly I'd like to know how they would justify this ban but not a ban on e-mail exchanges?

[MattusMaximus]

*I think it's a good policy, not a good law. The law does not belong here.

This ^

[Uncle Otto]

Frankly I'd like to know how they would justify this ban but not a ban on e-mail exchanges?

Indeed---you are correct----maybe they will next try to prevent the U.S. Post Office from delivering a letter from a student to a teacher? A slip of paper with a note on it in the school mail system?

The whole thing is absurd. They want to prevent a teacher having inappropriate communications with someone? I mean come on-----this "law" would be so easy to get around it's not even worth laughing at. It's just more localized political grandstanding.

We need to stop and think about this------should a teacher then not be allowed to interact with their students at anytime when "off-duty"? Kripes----there goes French Club, the Yearbook team, and the float committee for the homecoming parade. I mean after all---the teachers aren't on the clock for any of that, are they then? At least they weren't when I was in school.

My whole point being-----what difference does it make what form the communication takes? It's censorship at it's worst.

[MatildaGage]

Is there something inherent about social media communication methods that cause pedophilia, as compared with other methods of communications?

(rhetorical question)

[stilicho]

Because it prohibits speech between two people.

But the school board or the teachers' regulatory body can just go ahead and write it as a condition of employment regardless? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[stilicho]

There are numerous activities that require coordination through telephones. For example the academic decathlon team studies and prepares at the sponsor teacher's home (with pizza provided by that teacher) and sometimes those study times are moved abruptly. As a graphics editor for the yearbook there were also times I personally had to talk to that teacher after school hours.

Your parents signed release forms for those extra-curricular activities.

[stilicho]

There is a Bill which may go into effect [SB 54] in Missouri, USA which will prohibit teachers from communicating with their students via social networking websites like Facebook or Twitter. This Law will initiate the creation of the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children. Supposedly this law will help protect students from teachers who may commit acts of sexual misconduct.

I am a Missouri resident myself, however I am exempt since I am nineteen-years-old and not in public school. I do, however, have a younger brother and sister who have both friended some of their teachers on Facebook and they have not had any problems with them. In fact, their teachers even assist them with their homework through the popular social networking sites.

Will this law really help prevent sexual misconduct to minors?

Is this law unconstitutional? Isn't this breaking the 1st Amendment?

The Bill SB 54, in full detail, is available at: senate.mo.gov

Hold the phone! I just read the actual law and it isn't exactly what the OP said it was:

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?BillID=4066479&SessionType=R

The part about the Facebook friending is here:

SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. 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 nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

There's more to it, of course, but I guess we all overreacted because we didn't have enough information.

You're all welcome!

[KingMerv00]

@KingMerv00: I know little about this constitution of which you speak but it's said that it doesn't cover shouting "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse and probably doesn't cover public employees seeking friendship from young boys and girls. I trust that contract law sometimes implicitly skirts or even flouts unlimited free speech by regulating what you can say, how, where and when you can say it, and who you can say it to.

I tried to explain the constitutional issues as best I could. Please read the cases I cited and apply the proper legal test as best you can. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

There is a HUGE difference between a knowing and consensual waiver for compensation and a statute. A violation of school policy will only get you suspended or fired while a violation of a law will get you fired, fined, forced into an expensive trial and perhaps get you thrown into prison with psychos. You should also note that there really isn't any clear case law on how much an employer can control a worker's speech when they are not on the clock. There was a somewhat relevant case in the works but it settled out of court (http://privacyblog.littler.com/uploads/file/NLRB%20press%20release%20re%20AMR%20settlement.pdf ) about 6 months ago. Your point is moot anyway since we are talking about a state statute, not a contract.

By the way, the "fire in a crowded theater" comment is from Schenck v. US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States). In that case, the defendant was jailed for merely distributing leaflets that encouraged people to fight the WWI draft through non-violent political action. He lost and spent 6 months in prison. Fortunately, Schenck was overruled in later cases and America's first amendment rights were greatly expanded. The "crowded theater" quote has its charm and a hint of truth but it was never a legal standand and is a reminder of a shameful time. It is a mistake to use that quote in a serious legal discussion.

Teachers have no business talking to their students by telephone outside the school setting. I don't know what your specific circumstances were that required you to keep in contact with your teachers outside school.

You have no business telling them what their business is. Free speech is far more important than overblown fears.

Why is it unconstitutional? Is it simply because of precedent? Does the US constitution anticipate a slippery slope? Or is it that laws are frequently ruled unconstitutional when they're trivial?

"Simply because of precedent"? Precedent is the backbone of the court system. Precedent CAN be overruled but doing so should always be as a last resort in an attempt to promote fairness and freedom. You are very misinformed about the American judicial system.

But the school board or the teachers' regulatory body can just go ahead and write it as a condition of employment regardless? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

I've already explained that a consensual waiver as part of a paying contract is very different from a statute so I won't repeat myself here. I will say that if you are a big fan of freedom of contract, you should oppose the law. It forces every teacher and school to restrict free speech even if neither party is interested.

Hold the phone! I just read the actual law and it isn't exactly what the OP said it was:

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?BillID=4066479&SessionType=R


The law is confusingly worded:

By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites.

No problem here. Training teachers on the definition of sexual harassment in school and out is a fine idea.

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.

Also fine. Websites that involve work are certainly a school concern and subject to some control. I'm slightly concerned a school might try to squelch union speech protected by the NLRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act) but that's another discussion entirely.

Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

This is where I get confused. What is "exclusive access"? Does that mean private messages? Emails on Facebook? A website that only a student and teacher can access?

[Mark6]

This is really sad. The actual number of teachers that would ever do anything inappropriate are miniscule. What kind of complete moron would even think that this is something that needs action?
1. A moron who knows nothing about social networks.

2. A pandering politician who knows this will accomplish nothing, but makes him look as if he is "doing something".

[Travis]

Your parents signed release forms for those extra-curricular activities.

What if the teacher is a relative? My mom was a teacher and my dad a school employee. Do you think they should be barred from "friending" their own child?

And I find the actual wording of the law to be pretty incomprehensible. It sounds like it could bar all communication that isn't open to inspection.




And I should probably point out what really bothers me about this: it singles out one profession. Unless they have empirical evidence that there is a greater concentration of sexual predators in the profession of teaching they have no right to single them out for this law.

[Mark6]

And I should probably point out what really bothers me about this: it singles out one profession. Unless they have empirical evidence that there is a greater concentration of sexual predators in the profession of teaching they have no right to single them out for this law.
Shh! Don't give them any ideas!

Logical response to your complaint (for certain definitions of "logical") is to ban all online communication between adults and minors.

[pgwenthold]

For the course I teach, the TA set up a course Facebook page where students in the class could interact with him separate from his personal page. That would always be my recommended approach.

[KingMerv00]

What if the teacher is a relative? My mom was a teacher and my dad a school employee. Do you think they should be barred from "friending" their own child?


Good point. Yet another reason to think the law is overly broad.

[MoeFaux]

From my point of view, this seems to be something that is under the guise of protecting the student, but is actually about protecting the teacher. And that seems fine.

For all the young folks who are on Facebook and "friending" everyone they know and meet, it doesn't seem at all out of reach that they would want to "friend" their teacher. And this law says, "un-uh, that's not okay."

But, of course, I hate social networking. I hate the thought of people "friending" me and losing my privacy. Because I'm unable to prevent that through current social networks (still am waiting to try G+), I avoid the endeavour entirely.

[KingMerv00]

For all the young folks who are on Facebook and "friending" everyone they know and meet, it doesn't seem at all out of reach that they would want to "friend" their teacher. And this law says, "un-uh, that's not okay."

To wit the Constitution responds, "un-uh, that law is not OK". :D

[Dr. Keith]

From my point of view, this seems to be something that is under the guise of protecting the student, but is actually about protecting the teacher. And that seems fine.

As others have pointed out it is very stupid for a teacher to friend a student with the same account they use socially. I can't imagine any teacher would seriously think this is a good idea.

The teacher in my family doesn't have a facebook account and has actually asked that her last name not be used on picture captions online. Her district admin is populated by very conservative religious people and the last thing she needs her boss to find online is a picture of her looking drunk with a glass of wine in one hand and a novelty penis shaped candle in the other. Yep, that picture exists, and if you were there it makes sense, but out of context it really undermines her professional persona.

The thought of actually using social media with her students online would likely give her hives.

[BenBurch]

But has there ever been a law that has prohibited an entire profession from using some sort of communications medium? If we can ban teachers from using Facebook then what prevents them from barring teachers from using telephones?

You can use it, you just can't use it with students.

[KingMerv00]

You can use it, you just can't use it with students.

I hate to keep bringing up the law but that doesn't matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association).

[psionl0]

Teachers who befriend students via social networking sites do not do so for educational reasons.

I have always let my students know my phone number and email address with the offer that they could contact me any time day or night for assistance with a school problem.

In 17 years, not one of the students ever took me up on that offer.

[Checkmite]

Teachers Facebooking kids is creepy. Just so we're clear on that. I see no single compelling reason why such extracirricular communication is necessary for a class that children attend every day. At the very least, it is unprofessional. I'm fine with children being able to email their teachers to ask questions; but sharing photo albums, likes, and so forth seems excessive and an invitation for abuse.

[Alan]

[...]
But, of course, I hate social networking. I hate the thought of people "friending" me and losing my privacy. Because I'm unable to prevent that through current social networks (still am waiting to try G+), I avoid the endeavour entirely.
You can decline friend requests, and you decide what information people can see.

[Astrodude]

Why don't they just make it school policy to forbid teachers from communicating via social networking with students? There are already expected standards of professionalism in place and part of that means teachers must not behave like the student in some cases.

The law violates free speech and freedom of association. It doesn't mean you can't write a new contract that says teachers can be fired for socializing with current students at that level.

[stilicho]

....

This is where I get confused. What is "exclusive access"? Does that mean private messages? Emails on Facebook? A website that only a student and teacher can access?

That's why I read the whole thing and posted that portion. It really doesn't state explicitly you can't accept Twitter followers or Facebook friends. It's weaselly and one could easily argue intentionally so. It sounds more like a restriction against installing a private phone line from your house to your student's home. I don't think anyone could ever argue that Facebook friending equals "exclusive access".

[KingMerv00]

That's why I read the whole thing and posted that portion. It really doesn't state explicitly you can't accept Twitter followers or Facebook friends. It's weaselly and one could easily argue intentionally so. It sounds more like a restriction against installing a private phone line from your house to your student's home. I don't think anyone could ever argue that Facebook friending equals "exclusive access".

The statute talks about websites and then exclusive access. I'm pretty sure they ain't talking about phone lines. Regardless of the intended meaning, it is poorly written.

[Belz...]

There is a Bill which may go into effect [SB 54] in Missouri, USA which will prohibit teachers from communicating with their students via social networking websites like Facebook or Twitter. This Law will initiate the creation of the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children. Supposedly this law will help protect students from teachers who may commit acts of sexual misconduct.

I am a Missouri resident myself, however I am exempt since I am nineteen-years-old and not in public school. I do, however, have a younger brother and sister who have both friended some of their teachers on Facebook and they have not had any problems with them. In fact, their teachers even assist them with their homework through the popular social networking sites.

Will this law really help prevent sexual misconduct to minors?

Is this law unconstitutional? Isn't this breaking the 1st Amendment?

The Bill SB 54, in full detail, is available at: senate.mo.gov

Another sad example of trying to solve a perceived problem* by punishing the innocent.

*I say perceived not because abuse is not a problem but because it's become a witch hunt, these days.

[Belz...]

Common sense ought to tell any educator by now that the last thing you want to do, as an individual and a professional, is to be discovered "friended" by someone who winds up using it against you.

Granted, but this has to do in part with the fact that the word "friend" has now been hijacked by the internet.

[Belz...]

My reaction is that this is a good thing* (though I think the sexual worries are over the top). Teachers should not be actively socializing with their students outside the school setting, hanging out with them, being their buddies. School is a very specific social structure and it should be kept separate from both the student's and the teacher's private lives.

*I think it's a good policy, not a good law. The law does not belong here.

Ah, there. More succintly put than my own nonsense post.

[Belz...]

Teachers Facebooking kids is creepy. Just so we're clear on that. I see no single compelling reason why such extracirricular communication is necessary for a class that children attend every day. At the very least, it is unprofessional. I'm fine with children being able to email their teachers to ask questions; but sharing photo albums, likes, and so forth seems excessive and an invitation for abuse.

Since when do we pass laws to ban things we think are unnecesary ?

[KingMerv00]

It doesn't mean you can't write a new contract that says teachers can be fired for socializing with current students at that level.

To do that, you have to get it past teacher's unions. Good luck with that.

[LostAngeles]

You'd be surprised at the stupid things some people do online, even teachers.

As a teacher myself, my $0.02 worth on this is simple: do not "friend" your students online, period. This is especially true if your students already have tools necessary to interact with the teacher online, such as email (and who doesn't have that?)

I interact with my students via email, a school sanctioned website via Edline, and in my classroom. That should be enough - Facebook is for my personal use. And students are not a part of that equation.

That said, I have many former students who have since graduated and are now adults (over 18 years old) who are my FB friends. I see no problem with that.

This.

I know at least one of my students looked me up on Facebook. He told me and added, "but I didn't find you." Which is odd, because my name is virtually unique.

LA: I have set so I can't be found.
Student: Why would you do that?
LA: ...
Student: OH. Yeah. I gotcha.
Other Student: Wait, why would you?
Student : *facepalm*

[ibbicay]

For the folks advocating (or maintaining) multiple Facebook accounts:

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

"4. Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
...
2. You will not create more than one personal profile."

Just FYI :rolleyes:

Alternatively, it's possible to change privacy settings on individual messages and photos, but of course it's easy to make mistakes doing that.

[Manopolus]

I have 2 former teachers as Facebook friends... one of which I drank beer with at our graduation party (age 17 at the time), and the other is now the school principal (come to think of it, the one I drank beer with is now a principal at a different school). Things are different out here in the middle of nowhere. Teachers aren't expected to pretend that they're better than everyone else, for one. As far as I've noticed, teachers having sex with students is no more common here than anywhere else. I do know of one case where a teacher married a former student, but considering the former student was over 30 at the time, it's safe to assume that the romantic parts of the relationship did not start in high school.

[Jetfire]

For the folks advocating (or maintaining) multiple Facebook accounts:

"4. Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
...
2. You will not create more than one personal profile."

Just FYI :rolleyes:

Alternatively, it's possible to change privacy settings on individual messages and photos, but of course it's easy to make mistakes doing that.

And that, IMO, is the root cause of the problem and the biggest problem with "Social Networking" sites. It assumes that Everyone a person knows and is friends with should be friends with eachother.

The reality is, people have different groups of friends, and they don't share all things equally with all groups. Especially with the Internet, but even before that, a person may not even be known by their Government name by some of their friends, but instead they're known by a nickname.

If Facebook (or G+ or whatever other Social Networks out there exist) had a way to better group your contacts together, and to have different profiles based on those groups, it would be a LOT more useful, and would help mitigate some of the issues out there like what this thread is talking about.

[Kaylee]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Teachers who befriend students via social networking sites do not do so for educational reasons.

I have always let my students know my phone number and email address with the offer that they could contact me any time day or night for assistance with a school problem.

In 17 years, not one of the students ever took me up on that offer.

OK, that was your experience, but that doesn't mean that is going to be everyone's experience. I'm not a parent, but it's my understanding that some school districts have set up web sites to help make communication between teachers, students and parents easier.

But probably not every school district has the funds to have that kind of web site and not all teachers are going to have the skills to create their own in those circumstances.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it often creates such a great level playing field. Not born in the "right circles", don't have access to the better schools, etc.? Well, the internet makes it a lot easier for someone like that to get past those disadvantages.

It's possible for students going to schools with poor funding to still have the same type of access to educational and communication tools that students going to schools with much better funding have.

Because Facebook, etc is essentially letting the public have access to all these powerful tools for free. Tools that otherwise individuals would have to raise funds, hire experts and set up on their own. I think the folks in MO who are behind this bill just proved how unbelievably stupid they are.


Teachers Facebooking kids is creepy. Just so we're clear on that. I see no single compelling reason why such extracirricular communication is necessary for a class that children attend every day. At the very least, it is unprofessional. I'm fine with children being able to email their teachers to ask questions; but sharing photo albums, likes, and so forth seems excessive and an invitation for abuse.

There's no reason why a FB account couldn't be set up in a professional way and used in the same manner that the better funded schools use their own web sites.

I used to be a teacher, but, I had a facebook when I was a teacher.

What I did:

I have one facebook for me, that I have my friends, family and what not on. I have this on private and under a knickname, so if you were to punch in my name on Facebook, you wouldn't find me. So, even if a student were to find me, since it is on private, they aren't gonna "get in". I only accept invites from people I know.

I have one for the teacher me. This is under my real name, but with -teacher at the end. ex: George Harrison-teacher. If you punch in my name, you have a chance of finding this one. It is nice to keep in touch with your students.

The two do not mix, nor do should they. I'm not gonna post my trolling political comments on my teacher one, for example.

I might post, "Hey keep in mind! There's a lunar eclipse tonight at 10:15" on both of them....but....I feel I've done due diligence.

Also, I've been invited to wedding and what-not via my facebook!
"Oh! Mr. R! I've been trying to get in touch with you! I'd love it if you can make to my wedding..." has happened a few times.


Not that I want to start a fight :p, but I think C_Felix provided a great example of how to do that.

[Kaylee]

For the folks advocating (or maintaining) multiple Facebook accounts:

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

"4. Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
...
2. You will not create more than one personal profile."

Just FYI :rolleyes:

Interesting. I didn't realize that. I wonder if Goggle+ has the same restrictions?

Alternatively, it's possible to change privacy settings on individual messages and photos, but of course it's easy to make mistakes doing that.

Or for the company managing the social networking site to make a mistake, or have a programming glitch. It may be unlikely to happen or happen more than infrequently, but why run the risk that the "circle" settings for the people your networked with could get reset? Or that the privacy parameters for each circle could get reset or temporarily stop working the way it was intended to?

So I can see why people would want to have more than 1 account even though the social networking sites are set up with "circles" and privacy parameters.

And that, IMO, is the root cause of the problem and the biggest problem with "Social Networking" sites. It assumes that Everyone a person knows and is friends with should be friends with eachother.

The reality is, people have different groups of friends, and they don't share all things equally with all groups. Especially with the Internet, but even before that, a person may not even be known by their Government name by some of their friends, but instead they're known by a nickname.

If Facebook (or G+ or whatever other Social Networks out there exist) had a way to better group your contacts together, and to have different profiles based on those groups, it would be a LOT more useful, and would help mitigate some of the issues out there like what this thread is talking about.

But one would still be dependent upon relying on other people instead of yourself to protect your privacy.

I'm really fascinated by how some businesses have made it fashionable for people to give up their privacy to the degree that they never would have agreed to say 30 years ago.

It must be a marketeer's wet dream, even now, years after social networks have been in place.

[KDLarsen]

The business school I took a few courses at over the winter had a fairly simple policy, where teachers were not allowed to be friends with students on any of the social network sites. However, classes were free to set up a Facebook Page, which the teacher could then "Like" and use to communicate with the class.

I found it reasonable, that they'd want to have a very clear separation of the teachers' personal and professional life.

[Kaylee]

The business school I took a few courses at over the winter had a fairly simple policy, where teachers were not allowed to be friends with students on any of the social network sites. However, classes were free to set up a Facebook Page, which the teacher could then "Like" and use to communicate with the class.

I found it reasonable, that they'd want to have a very clear separation of the teachers' personal and professional life.

That seems like a good solution.

[I Ratant]

This is really sad. The actual number of teachers that would ever do anything inappropriate are miniscule. What kind of complete moron would even think that this is something that needs action?
.
Leaving a paper trail for molestation.
People already get caught doing that.

[Minoosh]

In 17 years, not one of the students ever took me up on that offer.

It's almost reassuring, how consistently irrelevant teachers are to their students.

I worked for a district that didn't have a policy, but a spontaneous conversation between me, a 14-year-old and an assistant principal provides a bit more logic for limiting social network communications:

Teachers in my state are mandatory reporters. If students were encouraged to think of me as their "friend" and I found out one had an 18-year-old boyfriend, I would then be in a position of having information that a child was being sexually exploited. Then I would have to report it to police. Certainly school administrators didn't want it to be their problem.

This doesn't relate to the content of what's posted on Facebook, more to the general issue of "boundaries" around social media.

[3point14]

That's why I read the whole thing and posted that portion. It really doesn't state explicitly you can't accept Twitter followers or Facebook friends. It's weaselly and one could easily argue intentionally so. It sounds more like a restriction against installing a private phone line from your house to your student's home. I don't think anyone could ever argue that Facebook friending equals "exclusive access".

I think it means that it comes into effect when the student has 'exclusive access to the site'

A facebook account is exclusive to the user (student). They have a password, an expectation of privacy, and mum and dad can't hop on to check that nothing untoward is going on.

It doesn't seem to forbid communication that would be open to the parent's view at the student's end, but would appear to forbid communication that could be kept hidden between student and teacher.

I think I've phrased that very badly. :(

[Checkmite]

There's no reason why a FB account couldn't be set up in a professional way and used in the same manner that the better funded schools use their own web sites.

Even the better-funded schools only publish teachers' email addresses at most. There's nothing academically useful about being able to "friend" students, see when they're online, who they're also "friends" with, and other personal data. If teachers want students to be able to reach them, an email address will suffice for every possible circumstance.

[KingMerv00]

I started a spin off thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=217683).

[jj]

Even the better-funded schools only publish teachers' email addresses at most. There's nothing academically useful about being able to "friend" students, see when they're online, who they're also "friends" with, and other personal data. If teachers want students to be able to reach them, an email address will suffice for every possible circumstance.

Wow! Are you serious?

Being able to answer questions in real time is invaluable when you're teaching a group.

Kids or not.

If there was a regulation regarding facebook, I think it should be that each teacher should create a facebook group for all of his or her classes, and allow students to join it, rather than ban them from using it. Geeze.....

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Judge issues a preliminary smackdown: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_8bf3e65c-cffe-11e0-83db-001a4bcf6878.html

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem issued a preliminary injunction against the law Friday, calling it a staggering prohibition of free speech rights.

[Checkmite]

Wow! Are you serious?

Being able to answer questions in real time is invaluable when you're teaching a group.

Kids or not.

These are schoolchildren. They're in-class every single day for an hour and a half of real time and face-to-face interaction.

[jj]

These are schoolchildren. They're in-class every single day for an hour and a half of real time and face-to-face interaction.

During which one to one interaction is mostly impossible.

[Ron_Tomkins]

There is a Bill which may go into effect [SB 54] in Missouri, USA which will prohibit teachers from communicating with their students via social networking websites like Facebook or Twitter. This Law will initiate the creation of the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children. Supposedly this law will help protect students from teachers who may commit acts of sexual misconduct.

I am a Missouri resident myself, however I am exempt since I am nineteen-years-old and not in public school. I do, however, have a younger brother and sister who have both friended some of their teachers on Facebook and they have not had any problems with them. In fact, their teachers even assist them with their homework through the popular social networking sites.

Will this law really help prevent sexual misconduct to minors?

Is this law unconstitutional? Isn't this breaking the 1st Amendment?

The Bill SB 54, in full detail, is available at: senate.mo.gov

And will this law also prohibit such teachers from communicating with them via e-mail?

What about having their cell phone numbers?

What about chatting with them anywhere outside the school area?



No to all?

Then it is a completely random and stupid law (Not that I want all those other things to be enforced, but that inconsistency is proof of stupidity)

[Checkmite]

During which one to one interaction is mostly impossible.

I suspect it's been a long time since you've been in school. Because it manages to happen.

[KingMerv00]

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem issued a preliminary injunction against the law Friday, calling it a staggering prohibition of free speech rights.

Wow. That's pretty harsh words for a preliminary injunction. There hasn't even been a trial yet and the judge has already decided how he'd rule.

[Roboramma]

I suspect it's been a long time since you've been in school. Because it manages to happen.

Which is why he said "mostly".

But anyway, the point was that simply that the kids can legitimately find use in have more one-on-one contact with their teachers outside of the classroom. Considering all the talk about the usefulness of low student to teacher ratios, it seems that anything that allows a teacher more teaching interaction with students is good.

[Checkmite]

It sounds more like a rationalization to me. A "solution" whose problem doesn't actually exist. Even in the age of the internet, school students have been doing fine without friending their teachers on Facebook. Versus privacy concerns, I really don't think the need is great enough.

[KingMerv00]

It sounds more like a rationalization to me. A "solution" whose problem doesn't actually exist.

The problem was that no one was "THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!". Problem solved.

[Roboramma]

It sounds more like a rationalization to me. A "solution" whose problem doesn't actually exist. Even in the age of the internet, school students have been doing fine without friending their teachers on Facebook. Versus privacy concerns, I really don't think the need is great enough.

Whose privacy concerns? And what need? The question is, should government prohibit teachers friending students or students friending teachers on facebook? Given that there is a legitimate reason for students and teachers to interact on facebook (education), and no compelling reason to prohibit that interaction, I can't see it.

As to "students have been doing fine without..." that's a meaningless statement. We should take every opportunity to improve education that's presented, and if new technology makes improvement possible, that's for the good. That things were good enough before doesn't suggest that they can't get better.

[Checkmite]

Whose privacy concerns? And what need?

The students' privacy concerns (as relates to all of the information they make available about themselves to "Friends" on Facebook), versus the "need" to be able to communicate with teachers for whatever reason.

The way Facebook works is, you have an option to make various personal information on the site visible to the entire public - not recommended - or only your Friends - which is the best security option. "Friending" a teacher gives them access to this personal information for no justifiable reason. Such information could be used unfairly or inappropriately.

The fact of the matter is, email solves the communication "need" (if there ever was one), whilst not exposing the students' personal information to the view of teachers and staff at the school who don't need to know it. It's as simple as that.

[Roboramma]

The students' privacy concerns (as relates to all of the information they make available about themselves to "Friends" on Facebook), versus the "need" to be able to communicate with teachers for whatever reason.

I'm not particularly concerned about student's privacy when they are specifically choosing not to keep those things private. If they put information up on a site, knowing exactly who has access to that information, then they clearly don't want to keep those things private from those individuals. I don't see the problem. Unless you're suggesting that students shouldn't be responsible for their own "privacy concerns", in which case the problem isn't friending teachers, but using sites like facebook at all.