A prime example of that is the so-called Amy Hestir Student Protection Act, which includes a prohibition against teachers and students being "friends" through Facebook or other social networking sites.
The blog includes the following passage:
It is only a small section of the bill, buried neatly toward the end, but in the spirit of protecting children from those evil classroom teachers, Mrs. Cunningham, the same legislator who showed her compassion for children this session by sponsoring a bill that would repeal child labor laws, fosters the notion that the only way a teacher can be a "friend" to a student is through some sort of sick sexual social-network stalking.
It also continued the now honored process among legislators of labeling teachers as perverts whose sole purpose in earning teaching degrees was to gain an invitation to a place where children are assembled.
And now the same political party, which each year gives lip service to keeping big government out of our lives, has an open door to continue the assault on teachers' reputations.
15 comments:
I don't think drunk drivers should be in that bunch,they just make a dumb mistake a few times,not a life style.
Randy,it's kind of creepy that you defend the right to make contact with under age children in what ever form,I don't want you or any male or female adult making contact with my grandson.
And I think it's kind of creepy when the only thing that comes to your mind is sex. Hundreds and probably thousands of teachers in Missouri have used social networking sites effectively. The primary reason is for the student to be able to get in touch with the taacher if he or she needs help. "Friend' is a term used by Facebook. I do not consider myself to be pals with the students who are my Facebook friends, but if the description of being a friend is helping the students when they need it and offering an example of the responsible use of social networking, then I am definitely a friend.
Your the one who brought up sex,now thats creepy
I am not intending to question your intelligence, but since that is the whole purpose behind the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act, it was actually Jane Cunningham who brought up the subject.
I am finding some of my amonymous commenters lean heavily toward the creepy side.
It's sad that either you didn't read the bill or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. The bill does not mention Facebook or prohibit students and teachers being "friends" on social network sites. It simply requires districts to develop formal policies on the interaction between students and district employees. Your original post also states that it doesn't address phone or text contact and it does. Read the bill, it is years of work and compromise to reach legislation that even the NEA supported.
Read the bill again. It says that the policy must include a prohibition against anything that allows "exclusive contact" between the teacher and student. That would definitely cover being a Facebook friend, which would allow that type of private messaging and chat capabilities. As for the NEA, the compromises that NEA and MSTA worked on had to do with due process for teachers accused of wrongdoing. What I call the Facebook portion of the bill has remained unchanged for the past several times Mrs. Cunningham has sponsored this bill.
You know if we use the same thinking these anonymous posters have about teachers then they also have to quit going to church because of the number of ministers and priest that are taking advantage of children.
You are the one who sounds creepy, Turner, whining about how you don't have to follow a law which has been duly passed and signed into law.
So you whining about this law which pretty much everyone supported, including the NEA, means that if or when you get caught breaking it that it will go hard with you -- as it should. You are simply, like most liberals, whining that the law doesn't apply to you because you have 'good intentions.'
You don't like the law? Then give up 'teaching' and troll away on the Internut and someday we might see you stammering to that doofus on MSNBC's "To Catch A Predator" about how it isn't like it seems to be.
It is teachers like Randy who have caused this law to be passed. Not because they are creepy or perverts, but because they have insisted it was their "right" to contact children privately without their parent's knowledge. If he - and other's would have agreed to transparency in their communication, then this law would have been unnecessary.
In the first place, I have never said it was my right to contact students without their parents' permission. And where did this outcry for this law come from. Certainly, not the media. If anyone really considered it to be that important, it would have been mentioned long before it first came to light, which was after the Joplin tornado. I do not make a habit of contacting my students. It has almost exclusively been an avenue for them to contact me and it has been used in a totally professional manner. If you have been paying attention, which does not appear to be the case, most parents are siding with the teachers on this one. And I might add that I have many parents as friends and I encourage them to keep a watchful eye over their children's use of social media. To say that I or any other teacher has brought this bill on by insisting that I have special rights is a misstatement at the best and a lie at worst. The social networking portion of this law will not prevent one child from being violated, but it has an extremely negative effect by leaving the impression that teachers are not to be trusted (Is there a similar law against any other adult being a Facebook friend? No, it is only teachers who cannot be trusted.) We are being labeled as criminals with not a shred of evidence to support it.
Turner is facing the fact that after a long time of labeling/libeling others as potential perverts and child molesters that the worm has now turned and that teachers like Turner now have a 'special rule' that applies to them and them only.
I like this new law just fine and if Turner thinks after a long life of whining for more laws taking freedoms away from the rest of us that now its arrived only towards Turner, then listening to Turner's whines about the loss of freedom to do what -- contact children after business hours without parent's knowledge of permission -- is one of the few golden moments of my golden years.
What goes around comes around and now its come around to Turner.
I sure hope that violation of this law is a felony. Then Turner can ascertain for hisself the coontent of the character of all them negro criminals in a prison shower. Sort of end the beauty of snivel rights for Turner, actually getting to live with them wonderful people of color that Turner professes to love so awfully much.
So if you don't intend to violate this useful and good law then what are you whining about? None of us made this law although if some of us would have thought of it we might have.
Somebody thought this law was a good idea and everyone else agreed, so stop whining and obey it. There are a lot of us out here who could do your job better and not be whining about how we couldn't molest the kiddies after school hours.
Randy,
Your still awfully vague about why you need PRIVATE communication with these students through Facebook. If it's something that can't be said in public, just don't use Facebook. Talk to them at school, refer them to a school counselor or the principal.
These are "digital" natives you're talking about....they have very little expectation of privacy. If they won't say it on a Facebook Fan page, they shouldn't be saying it to you privately.
I thought about posting on this one......but it is painfully obvious that Turner is way in over his head here and is losing this battle.....LOL
Post a Comment