Maybe I shouldn’t have started listening to St. Louis Public Radio again on my drive home from work. I keep discovering too many things to blog about. Thursday it was an NPR interview that made dangerous implications about productivity and joblessness. Yesterday it was local news that the Missouri State Teachers Association is filing suit to block a new law that prohibits teachers and students from being Facebook friends.
Say what?? Hold up just a minute, there, lady announcer, I seem to be a little behind on my local news…
So Missouri governor Jay Nixon signed Senate Bill 54 into law on July 14. (Full text of the bill – official site wasn’t loading for me today but here is the google cache.) It does things to “protect children from sexual misconduct by teachers” like preventing sex offenders from serving on school boards and stuff like that. It’s called the “Amy Hestir Student Protection Act,” which I’m guessing means something horrible probably happened to someone named Amy Hestir and which ultimately resulted in this law being passed.
But one provision of the legislation [SECTION 162.069] bans teachers from having a nonwork-related website — like Facebook and other social networking services — that allows “exclusive access” to current or former students [while they are still minors].
Now, look, I’m all about protecting kids and that kind of stuff, but it seems pretty ridiculous to me to go this far with it. The teachers who are suing are concerned that the “vague and overbroad” provision might even prohibit online tools like Blackboard that have been specifically designed for managing assignments between teachers and students. But there are several reasons I don’t like this provision even if they clear that up.
Social networking is used for positive communication between teachers and students. I know this because I’ve experienced it personally. I had a college professor encourage messages on Facebook if we had a timely question about an assignment. I have friends who have become teachers and like to use social networking to communicate to their students. My friend admits social networking becomes a little awkward when he finds himself teaching the little brothers of his friends – but it should be up to the individual or the school to decide how to handle that. The technology is simply changing too fast for the government to keep up.
I say this because apparently there is an exception to the rule: “Teachers are allowed to establish and maintain online community pages on Facebook.” Ah, so now we have a codified law about the difference between Facebook personal pages and Facebook fan pages? What if the entire structure of Facebook pages is different 12 months from now? To be fair, Facebook is not even specifically mentioned in the bill; that exception must be an interpretation of the wording in the provision. But I still think schools and individuals are much more qualified to maintain updated policies about how to handle teacher-student communication. And to be fair again, the provision mainly does require school districts to set their own policies. But there is still the blanket restriction: “Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.”
Besides, what if your teacher happens to be your mother or another relative? (This is more likely to happen in smaller, more rural districts.) Do you have to unfriend each other or not communicate online until the kid turns 18?
To prevent this entire form of communication because some people use it inappropriately reminds me of Eric from Classical Values posting about people blaming social media for recent riots and flash mobs: “Why is the focus on the method of communication instead of the crime?” Sexual misconduct is already a crime. Why should we criminalize activities that may or may not, and usually do not, lead to it? If a teacher mailed a disturbing letter to a parent would we ban teachers from sending letters to students? Or what about electronic mail? Is there really a fundamental difference between email and Facebook messages? Or are we just arbitrarily defining “website that allows exclusive access”?
Perhaps most disappointing about this law for me is that it comes from my own state’s legislature less than a year after Republicans effectively swept the 2010 elections. The governor is a Democrat, but the congressional chambers are either veto-proof or three votes shy (not that it mattered since Nixon signed this one anyway – who wants to be against protecting children?) The bill’s sponsor, Jane Cunningham, is a Republican, and while I haven’t looked up the roll call most of the Republicans had to support it. So much for small government; this is raw prohibition of free speech.
But it’s going to the courts. I certainly don’t know how to expect it to fare – I barely know enough about this law to know that I’m quite opposed to it (and if I have some incorrect facts or am missing something that might drastically alter my opinion, please let me know). Maybe I can get in touch with one of the Volokh law crew and see what they think. For now, it’s time to contact my Congressman…
Thanks for the link. The idea of preempting crime by creating new crimes is beyond insane, but it allows politicians to say they’re doing something.What they are doing is making nearly everything a crime.
As someone who was recently hired by a local school district and who just got a ton of training on “proper” usage of computers/social networking in the workplace and the Amy Hestir law, I feel the need to clarify this law just a bit:
When the law mentions a prohibition of teachers having a website with “exclusive access” with a current or former student, it is referring to the fact that a teacher cannot communicate on a website with a current or former student on a site that BLOCKS access to parents and administrators, thus making that site “exclusive” between the student and the teacher. Therefore – from my understanding of what the law and the superintendent of my district said – a teacher MAY create a fan page that students can join and participate in because that site is open to everyone; members and non-members of facebook, parents, administrators, etc., while a private personal page, Facebook chat, etc. are blocked because they cannot be viewed by parents or administrators. The key to this law is that the communication between the student and teacher must be out in the open for all to see. If anyone can access that communication, it’s fine.
Also, the term “former student” may not be what most people think; it means a student that has NOT graduated from a specific school district, but has not finished high school, i.e. a student who went to Fort Zumwalt West High but is now attending Francis Howell High school. That is what the law considers a “former student”. As soon as that student graduates from high school they are no longer a “former student”, they are a graduate, and thus the teacher can engage in regular contact with that person. Weird, I know, but that’s what the law is saying.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s silly for teachers (k-12) to be engaging with students on Facebook in the first place; in the district I work at each teacher has their own public webpage through the district that they can design in any fashion they want to, including creating blogs and forum discussion posts that other students and staff can comment on. Since I’m considered a Paraprofessional I don’t have my own page, but if I get a regular teaching job someday I will use this format as my primary communication with students for my sake, the students’ sake, and the school’s sake.
I will also add that all of us teachers and faculty in the school district realize that the law is going to be challenged and that we’re going to have to be careful in following this law and any subsequent changes that could take place with it.
Nick, thanks for clarifying.. it’s nice to have friends in the education business! I did mention above that some are interpreting this as Fan pages being OK but not exclusive friend relationships (but what are they gonna do if the lines blur in the future? Google+ and its Circles comes to mind). I also think it’s generally silly for teacher-student grade-school communication, but I still think there’s no need to be criminalizing such activity.
I also want to ask you if you are aware of any exceptions for teachers who happen to be related to students. I seriously doubt a teacher whose son or daughter happens to be in the same school district would be prosecuted for sending personal online messages, but from a reading of the law that seems to be criminalized activity. What about an aunt or cousin or friend at church? Who is deciding on these things?
It’s easy for me to rail about this as an intruding government regulation and an opposition to free speech because I don’t have a dog in this fight right now, but I also don’t want to be a crazy libertarian chasing unimportant rabbit trails. If the law is properly clarified and understood, do you think it’s a worthwhile step to protecting society’s investment in children, or an unnecessary addition to the list of illegal activities? I’m trying to be objective but I still see it as very much the latter.
In regards the lines being blurred when it comes to proper communication between students and teachers via social networking, you are correct in that there is quite a lot of ambiguity in the wording of the law, along with your fears of the Govt. struggling to keep up with the rapid changes that take place in the world of social networking. What’s popular amongst the public – whether it be MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, or soon Google+ – is always changing, and that’s why the best the Govt. could do for clarifying what’s good and what’s bad was to state that the site couldn’t be “exclusive” in the sense that it can’t block access to parents and administration. I assume that this would also apply to any other social networking site.
As far as I’m aware there are no exceptions for teachers who are related to students, or any other exceptions for that matter, which is why all of us have been expecting challenges to this law along with subsequent changes. I personally think it’s silly to block that sort of communication between teachers and relatives, and that’s really where the crux of this issue lies right now. I think that should change, but the way law reads right now, if you open it up to allow “friends at church” or something like that then the law opens up a whole new area of loopholes, which in the end could effectively crush the law.
There are really two issues at play here that really dominate the discussion with this law, in my opinion. The first issue is that of liability. With the current financial state of most public districts – for instance, my district (Orchard Farm) is operating under its first deficit in the history of the district this year – many are taking extra precautions to protect themselves from any liability in a case like this. They are already paying tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, to cover insurance/legal costs to protect the school from any sort of lawsuit, which could cost an infinite amount of money. Add to the fact that regardless of whether that case is won or lost by the school district in question, the ones footing the bill to pay these legal costs will be the taxpayers. Having this law in place allows for the school districts to control the usage of computers of all staff and students; if they communicate in an open space that all can see, the school/parents can then monitor the interaction going on and then ostensibly deal with it effectively, in addition to having leverage to protect their own interests if the conversations take place in a private setting, in which the teacher can be removed from his/her position. Thus, the district absolves itself of the problem while teachers and students are protected, and ostensibly the taxpayers save themselves some money.
However, this leads to the second issue, and that is what the government is obligated to do to protect the taxpayers’ children that are under its care while in school, what exactly that entails, and in this instance whether it’s ever necessary to perhaps blur the line on what is Constitutionally correct in order to protect the children from perhaps a serious incident.
On the one hand this reminds me of the instance a few years ago, amidst the recession that was just hitting the country, in which more and more people started stealing gas when filling up their cars; people would hit the “pay inside” button at the pump and then simply leave without paying. Some gas stations got wise and forced their customers to either pay with a card at the pump or go inside and pay with case; however, either the city of O’Fallon or the state (I’m pretty sure it was the state) passed a law that forced ALL gas stations to use this method to cut down on stealing, which in reality was a complete waste of the Govt.’s time and the taxpayers money. If a gas station wants to run their business in a way that allows for its patrons to steal, let them be! It’s a private business, and usually they’ll figure out there’s a problem when their pocketbooks starting getting lighter. Ostensibly this issue should be the same; the school districts should put their own policies in place to monitor the behavior of students and teachers (which Orchard Farm does, btw) without having the govt. putting a blanket restriction on all schools.
However, on the other hand this gets a bit more complicated to me because the schools in question are a part of the govt.; if an incident happens that gets a lot of press, the govt. is accused of not looking out for their students. If a law like this is passed, the govt. is accused of violating 1st amendment rights. So it all comes down to what the govt. must do to protect the children under its care and what that entails, how much it will cost, what the govt. can do to control an institution that it runs, and how best to appease students, teachers, taxpayers, and parents.
I like the intention of the law and believe that students and teachers should refrain from engaging in “private” conversations on the internet (just imagine what this would have been like in the 1960s or 1970s; a student and a teacher passing private notes to each other or something like that?!), but this law clearly poses its own issues that have yet to be solved and that have adversely affected a teacher’s ability to communicate with a student in at least one case. Constitutionally speaking, it probably does not meet legal requirements and should be greatly modified or removed.
Wow, Nick, thanks for taking the time for such a brilliant comment. You force me to admit that this is more complicated than I realized with the notion of liability… Public school districts are part of the jurisdiction for local government and they have a responsibility to minimize the potential costs of liability to taxpayers (suddenly you’ve turned this into a conservative argument! Although I wonder what else could be justified by that argument…) It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and while I still think parts of the law definitely go too far, I’m going to have to think some more about the overall concept… I still don’t like it in principle but I now understand better the reasoning behind it. Thanks again.
Thanks Josh. It will be interesting to see what happens with the law going forward, and it looks like the Teachers’ Union is going to talk to Cunningham about the bill, although this article does nothing to outline what exactly either side means when they say they are going to “clean up” the bill.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_65c7500b-2a1f-5905-8134-e74c613ebffa.html
Thanks for the link. The idea of preempting crime by creating new crimes is beyond insane, but it allows politicians to say they’re doing something.What they are doing is making nearly everything a crime.
Thanks Josh. It will be interesting to see what happens with the law going forward, and it looks like the Teachers’ Union is going to talk to Cunningham about the bill, although this article does nothing to outline what exactly either side means when they say they are going to “clean up” the bill.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_65c7500b-2a1f-5905-8134-e74c613ebffa.html
Wow, Nick, thanks for taking the time for such a brilliant comment. You force me to admit that this is more complicated than I realized with the notion of liability… Public school districts are part of the jurisdiction for local government and they have a responsibility to minimize the potential costs of liability to taxpayers (suddenly you’ve turned this into a conservative argument! Although I wonder what else could be justified by that argument…) It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and while I still think parts of the law definitely go too far, I’m going to have to think some more about the overall concept… I still don’t like it in principle but I now understand better the reasoning behind it. Thanks again.
As someone who was recently hired by a local school district and who just got a ton of training on “proper” usage of computers/social networking in the workplace and the Amy Hestir law, I feel the need to clarify this law just a bit:
When the law mentions a prohibition of teachers having a website with “exclusive access” with a current or former student, it is referring to the fact that a teacher cannot communicate on a website with a current or former student on a site that BLOCKS access to parents and administrators, thus making that site “exclusive” between the student and the teacher. Therefore – from my understanding of what the law and the superintendent of my district said – a teacher MAY create a fan page that students can join and participate in because that site is open to everyone; members and non-members of facebook, parents, administrators, etc., while a private personal page, Facebook chat, etc. are blocked because they cannot be viewed by parents or administrators. The key to this law is that the communication between the student and teacher must be out in the open for all to see. If anyone can access that communication, it’s fine.
Also, the term “former student” may not be what most people think; it means a student that has NOT graduated from a specific school district, but has not finished high school, i.e. a student who went to Fort Zumwalt West High but is now attending Francis Howell High school. That is what the law considers a “former student”. As soon as that student graduates from high school they are no longer a “former student”, they are a graduate, and thus the teacher can engage in regular contact with that person. Weird, I know, but that’s what the law is saying.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s silly for teachers (k-12) to be engaging with students on Facebook in the first place; in the district I work at each teacher has their own public webpage through the district that they can design in any fashion they want to, including creating blogs and forum discussion posts that other students and staff can comment on. Since I’m considered a Paraprofessional I don’t have my own page, but if I get a regular teaching job someday I will use this format as my primary communication with students for my sake, the students’ sake, and the school’s sake.
I will also add that all of us teachers and faculty in the school district realize that the law is going to be challenged and that we’re going to have to be careful in following this law and any subsequent changes that could take place with it.
Nick, thanks for clarifying.. it’s nice to have friends in the education business! I did mention above that some are interpreting this as Fan pages being OK but not exclusive friend relationships (but what are they gonna do if the lines blur in the future? Google+ and its Circles comes to mind). I also think it’s generally silly for teacher-student grade-school communication, but I still think there’s no need to be criminalizing such activity.
I also want to ask you if you are aware of any exceptions for teachers who happen to be related to students. I seriously doubt a teacher whose son or daughter happens to be in the same school district would be prosecuted for sending personal online messages, but from a reading of the law that seems to be criminalized activity. What about an aunt or cousin or friend at church? Who is deciding on these things?
It’s easy for me to rail about this as an intruding government regulation and an opposition to free speech because I don’t have a dog in this fight right now, but I also don’t want to be a crazy libertarian chasing unimportant rabbit trails. If the law is properly clarified and understood, do you think it’s a worthwhile step to protecting society’s investment in children, or an unnecessary addition to the list of illegal activities? I’m trying to be objective but I still see it as very much the latter.
In regards the lines being blurred when it comes to proper communication between students and teachers via social networking, you are correct in that there is quite a lot of ambiguity in the wording of the law, along with your fears of the Govt. struggling to keep up with the rapid changes that take place in the world of social networking. What’s popular amongst the public – whether it be MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, or soon Google+ – is always changing, and that’s why the best the Govt. could do for clarifying what’s good and what’s bad was to state that the site couldn’t be “exclusive” in the sense that it can’t block access to parents and administration. I assume that this would also apply to any other social networking site.
As far as I’m aware there are no exceptions for teachers who are related to students, or any other exceptions for that matter, which is why all of us have been expecting challenges to this law along with subsequent changes. I personally think it’s silly to block that sort of communication between teachers and relatives, and that’s really where the crux of this issue lies right now. I think that should change, but the way law reads right now, if you open it up to allow “friends at church” or something like that then the law opens up a whole new area of loopholes, which in the end could effectively crush the law.
There are really two issues at play here that really dominate the discussion with this law, in my opinion. The first issue is that of liability. With the current financial state of most public districts – for instance, my district (Orchard Farm) is operating under its first deficit in the history of the district this year – many are taking extra precautions to protect themselves from any liability in a case like this. They are already paying tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, to cover insurance/legal costs to protect the school from any sort of lawsuit, which could cost an infinite amount of money. Add to the fact that regardless of whether that case is won or lost by the school district in question, the ones footing the bill to pay these legal costs will be the taxpayers. Having this law in place allows for the school districts to control the usage of computers of all staff and students; if they communicate in an open space that all can see, the school/parents can then monitor the interaction going on and then ostensibly deal with it effectively, in addition to having leverage to protect their own interests if the conversations take place in a private setting, in which the teacher can be removed from his/her position. Thus, the district absolves itself of the problem while teachers and students are protected, and ostensibly the taxpayers save themselves some money.
However, this leads to the second issue, and that is what the government is obligated to do to protect the taxpayers’ children that are under its care while in school, what exactly that entails, and in this instance whether it’s ever necessary to perhaps blur the line on what is Constitutionally correct in order to protect the children from perhaps a serious incident.
On the one hand this reminds me of the instance a few years ago, amidst the recession that was just hitting the country, in which more and more people started stealing gas when filling up their cars; people would hit the “pay inside” button at the pump and then simply leave without paying. Some gas stations got wise and forced their customers to either pay with a card at the pump or go inside and pay with case; however, either the city of O’Fallon or the state (I’m pretty sure it was the state) passed a law that forced ALL gas stations to use this method to cut down on stealing, which in reality was a complete waste of the Govt.’s time and the taxpayers money. If a gas station wants to run their business in a way that allows for its patrons to steal, let them be! It’s a private business, and usually they’ll figure out there’s a problem when their pocketbooks starting getting lighter. Ostensibly this issue should be the same; the school districts should put their own policies in place to monitor the behavior of students and teachers (which Orchard Farm does, btw) without having the govt. putting a blanket restriction on all schools.
However, on the other hand this gets a bit more complicated to me because the schools in question are a part of the govt.; if an incident happens that gets a lot of press, the govt. is accused of not looking out for their students. If a law like this is passed, the govt. is accused of violating 1st amendment rights. So it all comes down to what the govt. must do to protect the children under its care and what that entails, how much it will cost, what the govt. can do to control an institution that it runs, and how best to appease students, teachers, taxpayers, and parents.
I like the intention of the law and believe that students and teachers should refrain from engaging in “private” conversations on the internet (just imagine what this would have been like in the 1960s or 1970s; a student and a teacher passing private notes to each other or something like that?!), but this law clearly poses its own issues that have yet to be solved and that have adversely affected a teacher’s ability to communicate with a student in at least one case. Constitutionally speaking, it probably does not meet legal requirements and should be greatly modified or removed.