iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Missouri Repeals Law Restricting Teacher-Student Internet And Facebook Interaction

Facebook Law

DAVID A. LIEB   10/21/11 06:06 PM ET   AP

JEFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed legislation Friday repealing a contentious law that had limited online chats between teachers and students and caused a judge to warn that it infringed on free-speech rights.

Nixon's action eliminates a law enacted earlier this year that barred teachers from using websites that allow "exclusive access" with students or former pupils age 18 or younger. The law generated an unexpected backlash, with teachers raising concerns they would be barred from using popular social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter that allow private messages.

A judge temporarily blocked the law shortly before it was to take effect in August, declaring that it "would have a chilling effect" on free-speech rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Nixon then added the law's repeal to the agenda for the special session that began in September.

Legislators, who had voted overwhelmingly for the law this spring as part of a broader crackdown on teacher abuse of students, voted overwhelmingly this fall to repeal the restrictions. But the most recent bill they sent to the governor also requires school districts to develop their own policies by March 1 on the use of electronic media between employees and students in order to prevent improper communications.

Nixon said he signed the legislation with some hesitancy. The governor said school districts may find it challenging to develop policies that prevent improper communications without also preventing appropriation online conversations.

"This bill is not as good as it should be, but to veto it would return us to a bill that would be far worse," Nixon said in a written statement announcing his decision.

The Missouri State Teachers Association, which filed suit against the original law, said Friday that it would decide within the coming weeks whether to drop the case. The judge's preliminary injunction against the original law was to remain in effect until Feb. 20 so that a hearing could be held on a permanent injunction.

Missouri's main teacher and administrator groups supported the repeal. But the American Civil Liberties Union had encouraged Nixon to veto the new bill, because of its directive for local schools to develop their own policies.

"We think the current legislation just passes the buck to the various school boards and doesn't really solve the problem," said John Chasnoff, program director for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri

The legislation passed during the special session was necessary to repeal "a law that was overreaching," said Todd Fuller, a spokesman for the Missouri State Teachers Association. But the group now plans to monitor the policies enacted by Missouri's 523 public school districts.

The concern is "there will still be districts out there that say you can't use Facebook no matter what, or you can't use this type of social media regardless of whether you're using it in the classroom or outside the classroom," Fuller said.

Although the potential effect on Facebook users garnered the headlines, some teachers said Missouri's original law also could have had other unintended consequences. For example, one teacher feared the law could have prevented her class from communicating with students in Australia through a closed website. Others raised concerns about the law's effect on editing software for school yearbooks or on virtual classrooms, in which students communicate with direct messages

The original limits on Internet communications spurred virtually no discussion at the Capitol when they were included in a broader education bill passed earlier this year. One of main provisions of that bill requires schools to share information with other districts about teachers who have sexually abused students and allows lawsuits in cases where districts fail to disclose such information and teachers later abuse someone else. That portion of the law was not challenged in court and was not repealed.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST EDUCATION

JEFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed legislation Friday repealing a contentious law that had limited online chats between teachers and students and caused a judge to warn that it ...
JEFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed legislation Friday repealing a contentious law that had limited online chats between teachers and students and caused a judge to warn that it ...
Filed by Emmeline Zhao  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 116
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:59 AM on 10/24/2011
So there is a limit to America's invasion of privacy. I thought our human rights would be trampled on indefinitely. I'm not sure we've seen the end of legislation like this, though. Americans are just too arrogant to let it go.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:31 PM on 10/23/2011
I wonder if Missouri is pushing for online education like some other states have. Any online course requires chats with the teacher and fellow students. Why hasn't online education come under the same fire?
foresure
Brash and Harsh
01:51 PM on 10/23/2011
SupportPublicEd

Answer to your question: Because online learning does, and the chats inspired by them, do not have the intimacy of a "friending" on Facebook.

The videos, photographs and blogs viewed on those sites are related to school and course materia.

Question Answered.

Many of them can be monitored by Admnistrators and parents.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:40 PM on 10/23/2011
parents can't monitor facebook? why on earth would anyone allow their children access to a portal to the world at large to which they themselves do not have access( not to mention, parents probably pay the bill which supplies internet service ergo which allows access to things like facebook )? How dumb can people be?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:02 PM on 10/24/2011
Like anything, it is about appropriate use. It is better to teach what is appropriate and safe than to try and restrict. What about Google Groups or Google Circles? Where do you draw the line? Digressions and violations can happen anywhere - so it is best to teach what is appropriate. Personally, I do not like Facebook as a social medium, but if students email me with questions, why not provide a site (like Google Groups) where questions can be posted for the benefit of all students.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NerdyStudent
Sorry, your micro-bio doesn't meet our standards
01:30 PM on 10/23/2011
One of the few things the special session actually DID accomplish I guess....too bad the Senate couldn't pass the Aerotropolis package, apparently egos in the senate are bigger than regional prosperity.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
06:53 PM on 10/22/2011
Actually the last one was Part IV Sorry.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
06:51 PM on 10/22/2011
Part V

If a student is having "difficulties with their sexuality", "being abused", "being bullied", "can't control his/her bullying". is "self abusive", "depressed", "having boyfriend or girlfriend trouble", "considering entering a cloistered monestary" are there no free, professional staffed easily available site for them to seek help. Have they no peers, friends or parents?

Who trained the teachers to do anything other than convey knowledge and learning to their student?

Note: By using Google you can find a huge number of teacher/student programs that are available off the shelf, and no or low price. You can choose the controls you want. You can also have them so the Administrors or parents can listen in.

Why not, aren't," Parents Are Always Welcome At Our School?
foresure
Brash and Harsh
06:50 PM on 10/22/2011
Part III Continued from below:

The Judge decision is pure harmful nonsense to anyone familiar with public and I imagine public charter high schools.

Argement by way of questions:

1. Did the Judge forget, or in her/his wisdom choosenot to remember what interested him/her during the adolescent years?

2. Did s/he not consider, when healty 18 year olds and health 22 year olds of different genders chat, the conversation inevitable gets "off the subject". That is especially true if they know each other, and both are naturally attractive to, and attracted to the other gender?

While the student and the teacher are intent on discussing whether or not either the assisnation of Lincoln or 9/11 could have been prevented, do they sometimes change subjects? Especially if they are only three or four years apart in age?

To What?

To the importance of acquiring a foreign language for their future?

Only one correct answer.

The same question goes to two people, of the near age, in the same status and appearance of the same gender who are attracted by members of their own gender.

Same question on this couple

If you cannot correctly this question, its the same one for both couples, "get thee to a high school". [Paraphrashing Shakespeare]

Structure is necessary to and for learning. It begins with the nursing mother, and goes on right through the Chief Surgeon/Resident Surgeon level.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
06:23 PM on 10/22/2011
Part II Continued from Below:

Case:

1. Following a Missouri law that authorized restrictions on student/teacher texting the School Board of Missouri passed a rule that prohibited teachers from "friending" their students on Facebook, or accepting a friend request.

2. Almost immediately the Teachers, using either individual contriutions, or Union funds hired an attorney to sue in Federal Court in St. Louis to hald (injoin) enforcement of the law. Not an inexpensive undertaking.

3. The Judge, quickly granted the injunction, s/he wanted to hear the whole case and review the whole law before allowing to let it go into effect.

4. The School Board quickly caved, and withdrew the suit. A complete victory for the Teachers. I suspect, but do not know, that the School Board had to pay the Teachers for the costs and fees associated with the case.

NOTE:

Before filing suit the Teachers or their Union never requested, on First Amendment grounds, at they have the right to say anything to any student, at anytime while in school.

They simply went to Federal Court, to gain that right regarding public/private internet communication with their students.

They have yet, to my knowledge requested the right to have unrestricted social contact with their students, on the grounds of the right to free assembly, also granted in the First Amendment.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
05:56 PM on 10/22/2011
I am a big Hawk on free speech. I support the ruling that allows those religous nuts to try to desecrate military funerals of those killed in combat. They are dispicable human beings.

It disgusts me to see one of the protestors at Occupy Wall Street deficate on the American flag, I believe it his right. The doer disgusts me.

I don't know obscentity from pornography "when I see it", therefore I believe it should all be allowed, but controlled as to time, place, and user.

[I am playing off a famous, infleticious statement of Justice John Paul Stevens, of the United States Supreme Court] who maintained he could tell the difference between the two.

I could never watch torture videoes, or watch dog fighting or other animal torture.

Basic Argument:

Humans need a of structure . Structure includes keeping a boundary, however, defined, between those who are in charge (starting with the nursing mother), and the Chief Surgeon in an open heart operation.

No Society, none whatsoever has ever existed that did not structure.

I have blogged on the education sites when this issue was being considered.

Part I Continued Above
firstamendment3
It's all so ironic.
05:24 PM on 10/22/2011
Finally Missouri did something right but only to take it back
i the ys
eternity takes no time at all
06:06 PM on 10/22/2011
What? Do you understand that the law which would have restricted "free speech" has been overturned and you think that's bad? You definitely are republican with that sort of backward thought process.

The republicans are against all of our rights but what are they FOR?
foresure
Brash and Harsh
01:56 PM on 10/23/2011
i the ys:

Glad you got a LOL badge.
Do you really believe that the First Amendment provides for absolutely no restrictions on speech. No time, place, and context restrictions?

If so, you're grade for Constitutional Interpretation is F.

Do you really think that employers are not allowed to set the parameters of behavior for their employees, as a term and condition of employment?

If so your understanding of Labor Law gets an F.
photo
Ignoratio Elenchi
I don't want to live on this planet any more
04:54 PM on 10/22/2011
How about a law protecting teachers from cyber-stalking by students? There were never any teachers charged with misconduct towards a student when I was in school, but there were certainly some sociopaths among the student body who made it their goal to destroy teachers...
foresure
Brash and Harsh
02:00 PM on 10/23/2011
Ignoratio:

You are quite right.

It is because we have torn down the boundaries between teachers and students.

When I was a student, teachers there was nasty gossip about teachers, even destructive language, but the idea of doing anything directly harmful to them never occured to anyone.

They existed in a protected realm.
04:50 PM on 10/22/2011
what's to stop them talking dirty in the classroom? I want government agents assigned to each teacher to monitor all exchanges particularly any that involve science and human sexuality.
As a christian and a republican I demand Government regulations and controls on everything educational. science related, and anything involving children.
Let freedom ring. vote republican.
photo
Hoonieman
Enjoy yourself; it's later than you think ..
05:13 PM on 10/22/2011
Yes, vote yourself into serfdom and the dark ages ..
i the ys
eternity takes no time at all
06:10 PM on 10/22/2011
What you republicans want with your 'small government' is a moniter for every person but you do not want to pay for their services. Wait, am I slow or what? I missed your use of sarcasm. What, you were being sincere? My bad.
04:39 PM on 10/22/2011
More small government on the part of the GOP- creating problems where there are none to begin with seems to be their specialty. This reminds me of the push by the Republican party for new laws that require voter ID, despite voter fraud being way LESS than 0.001% across the USA.

There's fraud all right, but it's got nothing to do with the voters!
i the ys
eternity takes no time at all
06:14 PM on 10/22/2011
There is a difference between voter fraud which is essentially non-existant and election fraud which the republicans practice and support thru changing the rules in mid game. We must have paper ballots so there is a concrete basis for a recount and not be beholding to Deibold cheaters.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
02:07 PM on 10/23/2011
cheeriogirl:

There is a difference between voter suppression and the destruction of the school system.

Removing the boundaries between teachers and students is not an idea better than removing the boudnary between children and parents.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:03 PM on 10/22/2011
More Republican " small government " ?

DeMint wants to ban teleconferences with women and their Doctors if the subject is a_bortion.

More "small government" ?
i the ys
eternity takes no time at all
06:16 PM on 10/22/2011
When a Republican politician speaks be certain that s/he means the exact opposite of his/her words. No problem. To the republicans UP is the direction away from the sky. Easy to understand.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
02:10 PM on 10/23/2011
ljc:

DeMint, when he was first running for the Senate, states that he thought the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for a doctor who did abortions.

I think you are not making the mistake, as Herbert Cain keeps saying of "mixing apples with oranges", but of mixing "granite slabs with appropriate thought".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cstandri
03:49 PM on 10/22/2011
None of these articles ever mentions what happened to make legislators pass this bill in the first place. Was there a rash of teachers bullying students online or something? Are Missouri Teachers just perverts? Or was it just one or two cases (out of thousands of teachers) that were sensationalized?

I have a Facebook account set up that is just for my teacher persona. I do not friend students on my personal account. Through my teacher account, I have learned so much about my students and what goes on in my classroom when I don't catch everything, as well as what's going on in their personal lives.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
rturner229
04:36 PM on 10/22/2011
ON my blog, I have written about this law and the senator who sponsored it, Jane Cunningham, many times. The law was named after a woman who was abused as a 14-year-old by a teacher. The woman is now 40 so this happened long before the advent of social networking. Sen. Cunningham was a former public school board member, who was defeated for re-election because of her attempts to push a religious program on students. Because her fellow board members and teachers were against her, she has conducted a campaign against public schools ever since she was first elected to the state legislature in 2000. She has sponsored many anti-teacher bills including a bill in this past session which would eliminate tenure and replace it with a four-tiered pay plan based on standardized test scores. She was named chairman of the House Education Committee a few years ago after sending a letter to the House Speaker noting how many contributions she had brought to Republican House members from the pro-voucher group All Children Matter. Though she says she has the children's best interests at heart with this legislation, Sen. Cunningham offered another bill this year which would have repealed child labor laws.
i the ys
eternity takes no time at all
06:20 PM on 10/22/2011
It would appear that Senator Cunningham has misspelled her name as there should not be double "N's", where there should be one N followed by a T.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NerdyStudent
Sorry, your micro-bio doesn't meet our standards
01:31 PM on 10/23/2011
Jane is one of the lunatics driving our state to ruin...House speaker Tilly among them.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
02:17 PM on 10/23/2011
cstandri:

You are of course using good sense. Faved. You understand your role as an educator, and, as the military would say, "hold rank".

What may have provoked this legislators was the incident in Florida (where I live) where a teachers was "busted" for having sex with her teenaged student. He proved his case when he successful described her unique pattern of shaving.

Her defense attorney argued, successfully, that she "was too beautiful to go to jail". He just recently was discharged from her probation, and raising twins from her new husband.

This was not only case in Florida. I remember also reading about a case, not sure it was from Florida of the "female gym teacher" and her female student.

Your question answered.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rolor
'round and 'round we go
03:39 PM on 10/22/2011
Since online communications serve as a record to either indict or exonerate student-teacher interaction; there is no rationale in creating a law to prohibit this practice. Its introduction is merely an over-reaction by misguided souls who rationalize government overreach as an appropriate and effective means of protecting children while achieving a result in opposition to their goal.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
02:18 PM on 10/23/2011
rolor:

Google: "Classroom software teacher student". That will take care of the Facebook problem.