Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, just can't understand why anyone is interested in her little old Facebook bill. In an article from Reuters, Mrs. Cunningham points out that the state teacher organizations failed to voice any objections to the bill until after it had been signed by the governor.
Cunningham said teacher organizations supported the broader bill when it passed and did not raise concerns about the teacher-student Internet contact provision until recently.
Teacher organizations may have supported the bill but the provision concerning social networking, which apparently also includes everything from e-mail to texting, was never presented to rank and file te teachers.
As I have pointed out before, the Facebook provision was never covered in the media as far as I have been able to determine, except for a report done by Gretchen Bolander of KODE in Joplin. It was never mentioned in MSTA or MNEA legislative reports.
In the Reuters article, Mrs. Cunningham says the problem is with misinformation that has been provided about her bill, but her answers to media questions indicate that either the misinformation is coming from her or that she has no understanding whatsoever of social networking:
"I've been working on this bill or four years, and all of a sudden the whole world is interested in it," said Cunningham, a St. Louis Republican.
"It's gotten a lot of attention because of misinformation," she added.
Teachers can still befriend students on Facebook or be in other Internet contact as long as the sites are open to administrators, parents or others, she said.
Allowing strictly private contact between teachers and students has proven to lead to some secret, improper relationships, she said.
The new law restricts texting, e-mails and website contacts.
18 comments:
I don't teach in Missouri, but I wonder if the law is going to create any trouble for post-secondary instructors (community college, university) at state-funded institutions who have the occasional under-18 student who might well still be covered by the law.
I've had students as young as 15 (as near as I can tell; I don't usually ask) in classes, and a lot of schools (esp. community colleges) are developing HS/CC hybrid classes to allow students to get a jump on college credits.
Well, this woman sure the heat. She's created a huge burden on students, teachers, and administrators in Missouri. I have teachers and coaches who are too afraid to email or be emailed by students because of this law. It's ridiculous. Why make taboo out of something that is the exact opposite? Yes, it can be abused but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be punished for it, especially when the entire district is using it in a positive way.
*sure deserves
It's her mouth. She needs to shut up and iron her husband's shirts.
@LaelaZ,
Does this law make appropriate email communications illegal?
Are you saying teachers and coaches cannot email instructions, assignments or answer appropriate questions from students about appropriate school activities ans studies?
Your comments makes it sound like you are surrounded by teachers and coaches who are idiots and that you are their administrator. How sad.
If I were on a school board with someone with your obvious, judgement problems, we'd have to have a talk about your future, and it would not be very sunny. Do you know what I mean?
Actually, that is exactly what the law is saying and if you want to bully teenagers, please stay off this blog. I do not want or need readers like you.
This law passed overwhelmingly because there is ABSOLUTELY NO VALID REASON WHATSOEVER for a public school teacher to have and maintain private unsupervised contact after school hours with underage school children without the consent of their parents or the supervision of school administration. NONE!!!
Even Turner, with his vast array of experience in claiming that everyone else is a potential criminal and that Turner and other liberals always mean well which is supposed to cover how 'liberal' policies always fail but we are supposed to keep them in power because they claim that they mean well, why even Turner couldn't come up with a hypothetical reason why he should be allowed to have private, unsupervised contact after school hours without the permission of his supervisors or the children's parents and guardians. After a long career of whining about "How there ought to be a law . . . . Turner decided that there really oughtn't to be a law against Turner . . . or Turner getting to do whatever Turner wants to do, whenever Turner wants to do it, without the consent or permission of others who are responsible or have to pay the price for whatever Turner wants to do but now can't because there is now a law against it.
The law passed because no teacher wanted to be known as a potential pervert against a law aimed at pervert public school teachers. The teacher's unions didn't want to be seen as opposing a law and then having one of their teachers molest some students and get away with it because this law wasn't passed. And so the teachers and their union were silent as the governor signed it because he didn't want to be seen as soft on pervert teachers.
And so the law has passed and only Randy Turner does dare whine aloud and often against this law which passed against such as himself. All of Turner's enemies, who suffered from Turner's hypocrisies over the years are seeking to write something in Turner's blog which will tweak Turner to the max without being censored by Turner.
Frankly, I don't see why Jane Cunningham is apologetic for getting her law passed after years of effort in doing so. Jane kept plugging away and when she became powerful enough as did the conservative Republicans, then this law went through like a hot knife through butter and nobody still can be seen as being against this wise and just law without looking like a pervert of some kind, or a pervert enabler.
So Turner, far from your commentators being the bully, rather it is that you are the bully, threatening to censor anyone who isn't supporting that which even you cannot actually support: you and any other public school teacher having private, unsupervised contact after school hours with children without the express permission of their parents or local school authorities responsible legally or morally because of their office/position, elected or appointed.
Of course this is your blog and you can be as big of a bully on your property as you please, and censor anyone you please on it. It is because most of you public school teachers and public employees have in fact a voracious visceral contempt for private property that this law putting a limit on your behavior with other people's minor children, who were as a matter of fact not born and bred to provide you with a government job, was deemed to be absolutely necessary.
So now that the law has passed, if you don't think you can obey it, you should submit your resignation to the Joplin school board as opposed to whining about how it is so very unfair and unnecessary and leaving the parents in the district worried that you might think that obeying it is optional. In fact, perhaps since you seem to have such a problem with this law, perhaps you should be made to swear a 'loyalty oath' that you will fully obey and comply with it or face termination forthwith. After all, public employment is NOT a private property right.
Insofar as you censoring comments which are well reasoned albeit critical, I think you have forfeited all moral pretensions to be taken seriously in any regard. You are simply a sort of criminal with a sense of entitlement 'thinkng' that everyone else must obey the rules after agitation for slavery for others, but that you are above all rules placed to limit your behavior. You are thus not any aristocrat, not even a rotten one, but rather a 'kakistocrat.'
Hey how about these venemous comments by anonymous folk (Turner the Kakistocrat...."???).
Digital media is how people communicate now, especially young people. It would be useful if someone, anyone, could point to an incident in which a student was abused by a teacher via email or Facebook. Scientific method anyone? Evidence? Suggestions?
Kids still get abused at Catholic Churches, Boy Scout Camps and in the locker room. Are there any geniuses suggesting that parents and administrators and the state of Missouri should be present at all of these gathering spots too? No, there are not. Why not? It makes the same amount of sense as forbidding electronic communication. I was molested on a bike ride. Shall we outlaw bike riding without a chaperone too?
Fear and ignorance of technology and a continuing war on teachers (and students) is what this is about. Nothing was ever solved, ever, by shutting down communication. Indeed, it is shut down communication that allows real molestation (which, btw, happens in the meat world not online) to happen and remain unpunished.
ABSOLUTELY NO VALID REASON WHATSOEVER for a public school teacher to have and maintain private unsupervised contact after school hours with underage school children without the consent of their parents or the supervision of school administration. NONE!!!
I'm not a public school teacher, but I can think of a bunch off the top of my head, ranging from family abuse to homework help. Responsible, accessible adults are a valuable resource for children, who are often pretty good judges of which adults are worth the trouble.
As Mr. Turner has pointed out, abusers are going to violate the law anyway; this law just takes responsible, useful adults away from children.
@Randy-4:21,
So, you are prohibited from using the school computer to communicate with students, let's say with the approval of your principal?
Dear "Turner the Kakistocrat...pt1 said..."
Easy on all that truth there! You will get Turner down with all those facts.
Everyone else: READ the law, not the musings of Turner about the law...
Go Eagles!
@EagleGoer-1:43,
"Everyone else: READ the law, not the musings of Turner about the law..."
Amen and Amen.
Go Gorillas
I've read the law, and news reports of school districts dealing with the law, and Randy Turner's description of it is, indeed, accurate.
Next point?
This law does not ban email, texting,etc. It bans exclusive (private) communication. Teacher needs to email a student; cc the principal and/or his parents. Same w/ texting. Its not the message that's bad, its the private nature of the conduct. Teachers can and will adapt. In spite of Randy's dire warnings, good teachers will still get the job done for our kids.
For thoee who are newer readers of The Turner Report, a large number of the anonymous negative comments which always seem completely out of proportion to the issue come from a relatively few people who have had some of their pet projects or politicians criticized on this blog. I have no problem with those of you who disagree with what I write and state your reasons for doing so. Sadly, these few people delight in veering off the subject to launch petty personal attacks on me, and even worse, on anyone who happens to agree with me. The test scores were already addressed on another post, but apparently if I don't say exactly what you want me to say, you intend to keep on taking cheap shots. I would guess most readers would say that having test scores up across the board would be a reason for rejoicing. Having 97 percent of students either average or above average sounds like a major success story to me. Compared to other Missori school systems our size and with our poverty level, we not only are keeping pace, but we are ahead of the game. I am sorry you feel you have to throw dirt at the Joplin Schools just because you don't like me. The fact is, I write a blog that has some influence because I have worked hard on it, on my own time. I would hope that if this handful of cheap shot artists think they can do better, that they have the guts to publish their own blogs, preferably under their own names, and see if there is a market for verbal bullying and unrelenting venom.
The TV News said the law prevents teachers and students from having private communication.
No problem with that here.
You can still communicate on an open board with anyone.
I guess I don't see the problem. It is protection FOR the TEACHER to post on an open board and not have private communication with students. So what? That way everything said is out in the open.
If a student needs counseling, there are facilities for that at school. What did we do before FACEBOOK and other social sites?
This doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.
Randy Turner was the 'Quean of the Cheap Shot' back in the day Turner was a presstitute at the Carthage lie-paper. Like all critters dependent upon maintaining some sort of credibility, when the weight of Turner's lies reached the breaking point Turner was booted out of the disreputable profession and there was much rejoicing. So many people simply had to tough it out when Turner hurt them and their reputations, without any recourse but hoping that another bigger, if not more vicious, predator would take Turner out. Sure enough, such happened, and Turner was driven out, with much lamentations although none introspection. Regrettably Turner was allowed to alight where the audience is naive, inexperienced, and worst of all, captive. Having Randy Turner as a teacher is a good reason for home schooling.
Now when Turner was all huffy and threatened to censor Anonymous 4:16 pm and mentioned 'school board' I admit that I got annoyed at Turner's bullying and created a post which went over the 5,000 character limit. So I split it into two parts and named it accordingly. I saved both posts just as I always do when dealing with a cowardly bully and liar like Turner. I then seen the second post disappear but the first, which was relatively mild still stay up. You see, like most cowards and liars and bullies who cannot stand self-scrutiny, Turner compromised.
Of course what Jonathan Swift called "flappers" and I call "hyenas" were yelping in chorus for their kind. Urban Refugee, which I wish would be coonfined with its mess and that which it pretends to love and actually fears, was telling a tale of how it would have succumbed to sodomy regardless of what the law says. Society must of course ban bicycles because that is where it got its first plausible excuse to explain what it became. What next, banning the sun from rising in the east because it got consensually molested during the day or banning the sun from setting in the west because it got to put out in the night??? ANYTHING but a popular law disallowing pedophile public school teachers from privately contacting their victims using the Internet. Can't have that!!!
As far as the witless 'history teacher' Jonathan Dresner is concerned, I'm sure that as an excuse Dresner could pretend to all manner of reasons why public school teachers should have unmonitored private Internet communications with the young chickens. I looked at Dresner's blogs and must say that Dresner doesn't seem to be much in the way of being competent as a history teacher, even though the point of history is to lie about the past just like the point of journalists like Turner is to lie about the present and the point of all economists is to lie about the future.
Nope, Dresner's calling should be to become an attorney, then Dresner could lie all the time about everything. I see a future in which Dresner becomes the Lead Counsel for the Mo-Kan North American Man-Boy Love ASSociation -- with Turner as his best client.
Now for all the lies by Turner, Dresner and 'Urban Refugee' from others of its own kind and their stupidity, the law is simple: No private unsupervised Internet contact between a public school teacher and their underage students. Period.
The law passed because none dared to oppose this law because it is a good and just law that sets up boundaries in which no honest ethical teacher dare cross. Period.
Anyone violating that law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So as it be written, so let it be done.
Post a Comment