Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
694 posts, read 1,357,540 times
Reputation: 947

Advertisements

Personally I think the reporter that first wrote this story may have taken some liberties and the other newswires just copied that report (happens all the time). Here is the section of SB54 that is being referred too. You decide what it really says.

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.

SB54 - Creates the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act and establishes the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2011, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 31,635,965 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW Missouri Dave View Post
Personally I think the reporter that first wrote this story may have taken some liberties and the other newswires just copied that report (happens all the time). Here is the section of SB54 that is being referred too. You decide what it really says.

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.

SB54 - Creates the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act and establishes the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children
I guess the line I bolded is the most important, but I'm no lawyer: What does "exclusive access" mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,391,094 times
Reputation: 73937
That's too bad.

My friend is a teacher here and she communicates reminders for assignments, updates for tutoring schedules, etc, to her students through facebook.

They all seem to get along.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 12:42 PM
 
200 posts, read 447,901 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
I guess the line I bolded is the most important, but I'm no lawyer: What does "exclusive access" mean?
In this context it means that the teacher can't have any type of communication with a student that "excludes" other students, parents and colleagues so they can't see what is being said. Example: A secret email account between one student and the teacher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 31,635,965 times
Reputation: 3799
^That's essentially how I read it. In which case it seems like facebook (because it has private messaging capabilities) would be included, yes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
5,888 posts, read 13,013,955 times
Reputation: 3974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
Any "law" that's unenforcable and/or provides for no consequences is a waste of paper and ink and the peoples' money spent enacting it. This is akin to Californication!
You have a majority republican senate and house in Missouri. the Californication comment is a bit ironic, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,706,964 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
MISSOURI FACEBOOK LAW: New Missouri Law to Forbid Facebook Friending Among Teachers, Students - WDAF (http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-missouri-facebook-law-20110801,0,2853685.story - broken link)

A new law, expected to take effect on August 28, will prohibit teachers and students from friending each other on Facebook. But that's not all. The new law wants to nix all private electronic communication between Missouri teachers and students.
Facebook police??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 01:49 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,492,286 times
Reputation: 29337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna View Post
You have a majority republican senate and house in Missouri. the Californication comment is a bit ironic, isn't it?
We also have a Dem governor and a Dem Senator so the disease is spreading. No irony there. Just fact. Thankfully, I'll have assumed room temperature before it becomes as ridiculous here as it is on the left coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 31,635,965 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
We also have a Dem governor and a Dem Senator so the disease is spreading. No irony there. Just fact. Thankfully, I'll have assumed room temperature before it becomes as ridiculous here as it is on the left coast.
And they didn't pass the law.

I am so sick of neo cons and social conservatives trying to pretend they're believers in small government. Seen some pretty damn big expansions of MO state gov't in the last year or so ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2011, 02:15 PM
 
171 posts, read 445,474 times
Reputation: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
This seems like a bizarre over-stepping of government to me. I mean you can make groups -- coworkers, family, friends etc. and I think it could be a good way to keep up with students.

I also don't get this line: "With online communication being the norm these days, and with younger and younger teachers being hired, Missouri lawmakers want to prevent inappropriate relationships from developing online."

Teachers out there: Is this true? Seems like recent post-college grads have been teaching for years.

And is there evidence to suggest that online relationships become inappropriate more readily than in-person relationships? Seems to me, if a teacher is a sick, sick sicko who wants to get intimate with a student, it's just as easy to do that now as it was 10 years ago pre-Facebook.

Ah, I saw this on Facebook last night and was rather amused.

Why in the eff would you trust your kid to be babysat by a man/woman 8 hours a day when you won't so much as trust them to communicate with your kid online?

Furthermore, a creeper teacher doing something in person is a "he said she said" matter. Online communication? That leaves EVIDENCE. This almost sounds like a bill that was designed to protect teachers, not students.

But in the end, shouldn't we be more concerned with making sure these creeper teachers are never hired in the first place, or can be fired just as readily as any other employee when misconduct occurs?


**edit: reading the post at the top of this page, it says, "Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. " <<isn't that saying that teachers cannot have (basically) a Facebook whatsoever, since it allows exclusive access with current/former students (regardless of whether or not such messaging/friend requesting/etc actually occurs)? Thoughts?

Last edited by Dr_Pepper; 08-03-2011 at 02:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top