MOTION #89: THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN
TEACHERS FROM INTERACTING WITH STUDENTS VIA SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES
Social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are breaking down
barriers between teachers and students, redefining the way they communicate and
interact with each other. Both current and former students ‘friend’ their
teachers on such websites, which often contain a lot of information on the
private lives of both parties. Some educators have found such sites to be an
excellent tool to reach out to students who might otherwise have difficulty
speaking out in class or asking for help. However, parent groups, school
administrators, and legislators have become concerned that unsupervised online
contacts might lead to inappropriate relationships between students and their
teachers, and even sexual abuse. A slew of sexual relationships between
students and teachers led the state of Missouri to pass a so-called ‘facebook
law’ against student-teacher interactions through social media and text
messaging. Citing free speech, the law was successfully challenged by teachers
unions as unconstitutional.
Pros
|
Cons
|
A teacher-student relationship is not one between
friends or equals. According to Carol
Shakeshaft an expert in sexual misconduct by teachers: “[e]ducators who use
social media for personal and intimate conversations and contact are not much
different from those who spend their time hanging out with students at the
beach. You have to ask why a teacher would do this. The honest answer is that
it rarely has anything to do with student learning.” Interacting with one’s
teachers the same way as with one’s friends, sharing personal information,
can only erode the respect and distance that a teacher needs in order to be
an authority figure and a mentor for her young charges. Even if such
‘friendships’ were entirely innocent, they would still cast enough suspicion
on the teacher-student relationship to put considerable strain on the
teacher’s role as educator and their ability to do the job.
|
This law assumes the worst of teachers and frames all
teacher-student interaction in a negative way. Yet so many educators have
found contact through social media to be a powerful tool in facilitating
learning and expanding knowledge. It may be more appropriate to establish
some guidelines for how to use such media safely and professionally, rather
than banning their use altogether.
|
Electronic communication facilitates sexual misconduct. Social networking websites have proven to be
particularly effective for child grooming by pedophiles. Teachers are already
in a position of power and trust in the relationship with their students.
Being allowed to communicate with students via facebook would greatly
facilitate misconduct by a teacher who wants to start an inappropriate
relationship with a student, by giving him virtually unlimited access to the
students after school. In fact, many such relationships do involve some form
of electronic contact. By banning this form of communication, the law would
make it harder for teachers with bad intentions to carry them through.
|
Child grooming, and having a sexual relationship with a
minor are already criminal offences. If that doesn’t stop a potential
predator, breaking the ‘facebook law’ in the process is unlikely to. A
teacher who intends to abuse a child will still find ample opportunity to do
so. This law takes a powerful educational tool from the hands of good
teachers while doing very little to stop bad ones from acting inappropriately.
|
Acting as a warning signal for children at risk. It is very difficult for a child to realize that he is
being groomed; they are unlikely to know the risk1. After all, a teacher is
regarded as a trusted adult. But, if the child is aware that private
electronic contact between teachers and students is prohibited by law, the
child will immediately know the teacher is doing something he is not supposed
to if he initiates private electronic contact. This will therefore act as an
effective warning sign to the child and might prompt the child to tell a
parent or another adult about what is going on.
|
Even assuming the child already knows about the law and
therefore that online contact with their teachers is not allowed, which will
often not be the case, a child will trust the authority figure closest to
him. The teacher can easily convince the child that the rule is not that
important or that their relationship is an exception.
|
Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational
message. Access to a teacher’s private
information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How
can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if
students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking
or smoking? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to
impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her
students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page. And even
if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her
page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A
strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such
incidents from happening.
|
Teachers should always be careful about what they post
and how they portray themselves on the internet, whether they are friends
with their students or not. Such pictures might surface even if students
don’t have direct access to them. An educator should lead by example and
someone who is of dubious moral character may not be the best-suited person
to teach at a school in the first place.
|
Even if this were a great educational tool, some kids
may not have access to it. Poverty or a parent’s life style choice might
leave kids without access to a computer or the internet, preventing them from
joining into such online discussions. This might make them feel more isolated
from their peers and leave them behind in their work. The classroom is a
space where everyone can be equal and have equal access to learning. The internet
may not provide equal access and may hinder some students as a result. The
use of such resources may also be to the detriment of other more traditional
methods. For example the teacher may feel there is less need to explain
homework if anyone who has difficulties while doing the homework can simply
ask over the internet.
|
Social media can be
powerful educational resources. Many
teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some
of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them
about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it
allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This
keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they
are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’,
which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that. It
also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask
for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage
of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom
discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have
access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers
have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss
their use and their value.
|
Speech can be restricted in order to protect the
vulnerable groups, like children, from harm. Such a law does not attempt to
keep educators from communicating or associating with their students. It
merely insures such interactions happen in an appropriate manner and forum.
|
The law would
violate freedom of speech and association. Under this law a random person who the student has never met, even a
potential predator, would be allowed to send a message via facebook or
twitter. And yet a teacher doing the same thing, regardless of the content of
that message, would be instantly committing an offence. Every person is
allowed to speak to and associate with whomever they choose. That is a
fundamental right that the government is not allowed to take away. A person’s
status as a teacher should not be an excuse to violate their rights.
|
This shift in the role of the teacher from educator to
supervisor may actually negatively affect teachers. What if a teacher sees
her students post pictures of themselves in inappropriate circumstances,
drinking or smoking or scantily clad? What if she discovers cyber bullying?
Does she have an obligation to intervene or contact the parents of the
children involved? Might that do more harm than good? What if the teacher fails
to act and a child gets hurt? Should the teacher be held professionally or
legally responsible for that failure? Until clear guidelines are established
on what exactly the responsibility of teachers would be in such a situation,
the supervision of social media use by children should probably be left to
parents rather than educators.
|
Teachers can be
essential in supervising cyberspace. Social media has
become the primary way in which children interact with their peers. These interactions are largely unsupervised
by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of
the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage
peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity
formation. With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and
postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a
student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be
useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm
comes to the children involved.
|
The state wouldn’t need blanket access to teachers’
personal accounts. If suspicions arose that a teacher were breaking the law,
as with all cyber-laws, the state could subpoena the information needed as
proof. This law would work mainly as a deterrent for teachers to contact
their students via social media. Knowing that they’d be committing an offence
that could result in sanctions or losing their job, would be a strong
disincentive against it.
|
The law would be
hard to enforce. It would be
difficult to find out whether a student and teacher have had contact over the
internet. If a teacher were having a relationship with a student, and this
law was in effect, both parties would try to conceal it from others and from
the authorities. There is then a question about how the state would find out
about such behaviour. Would the state be allowed to access private facebook
accounts, personal computers, or internet service provider records to make
sure teachers and students are not communicating with each other? That would
constitute a serious intrusion and privacy violation.
|
0 Comments