Social Media Exchanges and Teacher/Student Boundaries

Sorry but I would think most parents would be far far far more concern over their child getting advice from strangers about such matters as making out with a boyfriend behind their back then their child emailing or whatever a private questions to their teachers about grading for example.

This system have a private message function also and somehow I would bet our graciegirl is using it.

Pick on a 13 year old? Use her name?

Jeez....

How low do you get?

Then they should discuss these matters with the teacher in school, during the school day.

You're talking about letting adolescents have access to the internet in general, but that's not the topic we are discussing. We're not talking about the dangers of letting your child get advice from strangers on the internet.

There is a big difference when the private communications are with an adult in that child's real world. The relationship might slide into something else. Girls and boys can get crushes on teachers, not all teachers might have good judgment,etc. which is why this has become an issue for the schools to deal with--there have been problems and inappropriate relationships which apparently were facilitated by the use of electronic communications.

I can't think of any necessary reason for private communications outside of school between teachers and students. Public electronic communications, on Twitter or Facebook might be all right, as long as it's public.

If a child needs to have a private conversation with the teacher it should take place in the school.

A lot that it is outrages that people are interacting in the manner they are with someone who is claiming to be a 13 years old girl and her threads are on the subject of dating and boyfriends and making out.

Now warning her is not going to stop someone who had build trust with her from sending her a private message or for that matter she sending such a message.

I had her on ignore and her threads voted down but I had gone to those threads from time to time and seen some of the comments and advice given to her that would outrage any parents in my opinion.

I had also posted my opinion that interacting with her is wrong on those threads.

It not the place of strangers on a website and this is a website to give advice of any personal nature to a 13 years old behind her parent back.

Then turn around and support the idea that we can no trust teachers to have any private communication with their students!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean in a room alone with a teacher and that is safer for a child then an email? Private communications are private communications either in the classroom or by email in any case.



What ever you are talking about I am bringing up the outrage of talking to a child about sexual matters behind a parent back and then trying to sell the idea that children would not be safer if they can not talk to their teachers by private means about school work.

Who are you kidding? You interacted with Gracie at great length in a thread, in a way that was questionable. You obsessively badgered her about the possibility of her becoming an unwed mother some day--you brought up sex in a discussion with a 13 year old, in a thread that had nothing to do with that issue. All because she said she didn't think she wanted to get married some day, and she wasn't sure she wanted children.
You carried on about the unwed mother business in a way that was just plain crazy, and you were derailing the thread to do that. It was your issue and not Gracie's--she had yet to go out on the first date in her life with anyone, and you were obsessed with your unwed mother issue--about her having sex out of wedlock and getting pregnant. And that was quite some time before the thread about her having a boyfriend.

And, after your comments to her in other threads, she finally told you off and put you on ignore. She may be 13, but she seems to have a lot more sense than you do.

So, don't give us your phony BS that you think interacting with Gracie on these threads is wrong. It's people like you who shouldn't interact with her, judging by the manner in which you do it.

And, right now, you don't seem to understand the topic of this thread, or the issues the teachers and school boards are trying to deal with. They are trying to address, and deal with, and prevent, inappropriate relationships of a type that have already occured, and many of those began through the use of electronic communications.

Teachers can have private meetings with students in school. They are on public property, in a place appropriate for such a meeting.

Whether right or wrong, sometimes a "child" has no one to talk to at home, feels that way in any event, and searches for an answer from 'Adults'. One would hope that those 'Adults' aren't creeps and will guide her, care about her well being, seems that's the case here...on this Forum.

Warning her not to talk to certain people via PM's that are discussing child porn? You bet ya.. Are you suggesting you have attempted to build a trust with her and so she won't listen as she is 13? Then you are admitting that a 13 year old is vulnerable, a child, case (3) rest my case.

You had a 13 year old on ignore? Good temptation is getting at you huh...But, then temptation made you start to read her threads, case (4) closed... Tempation will get you, even if origionally it's fantasy.

See?

I repeat, 1) People have definately guided her to speak to her Father, people have definately not defended her thoughts to which she has got up-set asking "are you not my friend" , naive... but wrong, we understand boundies and the correct thing to do.

I think she is smart to a large degree but still naive as she should be and to be careful of men writing on threads about Child Pornography that is what her Father is going to freak out over when he finds out she posts on here, not the replies from "Adults"...here, members of quality.

And again, you bring up her name, start something about her, so that, her name is again continually mentioned in self gain of you wanting to be right.

If I was Firefly? In this instance, Firefly I'd squash any mention of her name, that's un-fair for a 13 year old to read about some guy posting on child porn, mentioning her name, to read....

Yes you are right I was shocked that a 13 years old was announcing to the world that she wish to had children out of wedlock and even more shock when adults on this website gave her support to that idea.

My reaction was similar to seeing a child about to be hit by a car so I did pointed out strongly to her that would not be a good idea at all as I was picturing a young child having a child and causing harm that would last for a few generations.

I still wished that there would be someway to let her father know what is happening to this young lady on this website but there is not.

I stop interacting with her and posted that in my opinion adults should not be dealing with her behind her parent back.

Of course people like you could care less about the welfare of a child and are keeping it up.

Shame on you assholes..................

Let see I had her on ignore because I can not bear to watch the harming of a child by you sick jokers and no matter what I would write to her it would be meaningless to her.

Oh I might be wrong but I do not think that any parent would be happy about the idea of his 13 years old daughter talking about having a baby out of wedlock or strange adults supporting that choice.

Then these strangers going on talking about sexual activity with his daughter.

Wish her damn father would waked up and look at the computer logs and this site and anywhere else she is going to and pull the damn plug on her internet access.

Love you hypocrites on the one hand saying it is not safe for a child to talk to her teachers even about her school work in private and at the same time harming a child by pack action yourself behind a sleeping father back.

Firefly, I been hoping of late that graciegirl is in fact a bored housewife working with peej and trolling for perverts willing to talk to a 13 years old girls concerning sex.

That way no real child in being harm and it would be amusing to read how you or one of your supporters had been arrested for setting up a meeting with her.

After all it is always the ones who point the fingers the most at other people that turn out to be the true perverts in the end.

That go even more so for someone that not only the queen of fingers pointing but does not exposed anything about herself or perhaps himself.

I must say:
when I was a student,
if I had ever met one of my teachers beyond school, by chance,
I 'd have considered him to be the same as anyone else, tho he is my employee,
a provider of information, the same as encountering the mailman.
So what???

I 'd not have considered it to be a big deal, unless desired to become
involved in any activity with him or her (e.g., electioneering).
That applies to the principal as well.

As an ex-student, I reject the concept of exalting teachers above the student body.
Thay r ordinary people; nothing special.


Long live freedom of speech.

Concerning a male student (said to have been 14) having sex with
a female teacher, I wish that I had been so lucky
(tho, at 14, I was obsessed with a girl in my class, so she 'd have been a distraction).

Assuming that a female teacher is in a state of good health,
there is nothing harmful in her becoming sexually involved with 14 year old students.

( Of course, that does not apply to MALE teachers.)

This is supposed to be AMERICA, where personal freedom prevails.





David

Censorship is fundamentally repugnant to Americanism.





David

It is my impression that enforcement woud be against the teachers only,
since the schools have no authority over the students. Thay can 't fire the Students (nor dock their pay!).

The Students ARE the public itself, the owners of the school.



David

Is there a law against conversation??

What is "peej"??


I 'm under the impression that those arrests have only been in cases
wherein the prisoner had explicitly planned illegal sex with them.





David

No such conversation took place on these boards.

Your recollection is so distorted it borders on the bizarre.

The 13 year old never announced she wanted to have children out of wedlock. She said nothing about wanting to have children. All she said was that she didn't think she wanted to get married some day because she saw too many marriages not working out. And that comment set you off, you completely misinterpreted what she was talking about, and you began ranting about her becoming an unwed mother, and you badgered her, in post after post, derailing the discussion with your own issues, just as you are doing in this thread right now.

The topic of this thread is unrelated to the issue you are talking about, just as the topic of that other thread was unrelated to the issue you suddenly raised with the 13 year old. I think the problem is that you enter into thread discussions with some unrelated topic on your mind which you then pursue obsessively in post after post just as you are doing now. You derail threads quite often by repeating this obsessive pattern of behavior.

Whether parents should monitor their child's internet access, and the types of stranger contacts the child might make on the internet, is not the topic of this thread. That's an entirely different subject. If you are interested in that subject, go start your own thread on that issue.

This site allows 13 year olds to post here. Whether you approve of that or not is not the subject of this thread. If you feel strongly about pursuing that issue, go start your own thread to discuss it.

I am not going to continue to discuss the issue of our 13 year old A2K member with you. It is not relevant to the topic of this thread, and your harping about it here is just as inappropriate as your harping about unwed motherhood was in that other thread with the 13 year old. These obsessive rants of yours reflect your own emotional issues, and when they continually derail topic discussions, as they do, you seem unable to exercise appropriate self control. Continuing to respond to you on this issue would only encourage you to continue in this vein.

Let me try to refocus this thread on the topic as presented in this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/media/rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html?hpw

The topic is clearly about the boundaries which must be maintained in a teacher/student relationship, and how these boundaries can best be maintained when teachers and students can interact using electronic communications and social networking sites, and whether restrictions should be placed on teachers use of these methods of communication partly as a way of preventing the possible development of inappropriate relationships with the student. And this issue has merited concern because such inappropriate teacher/student relationships have developed all over the country quite recently with these forms of communication as the starting point.

No one is at all suggesting that most teachers are seeking to form inappropriate relationships with children, but the use of social media communications may facilitate a relationship that first becomes more social in nature and then might get out of control and develop into something that is inappropriate.

And the issue is not whether students need to have "rapid communication" with teachers, as you previously suggested. The issue is not whether students need these social media contacts with teachers at all, but rather whether the teachers need them, as a way of communicating generally with their students, and how they might use these social media contacts without risking the unwanted development of a more intimate and inappropriate relationship.

One possible solution would be to ban all electronic and social media contacts between teachers and students. Another might be to restrict them to school run networks or to communications on only publicly accessible sites and public Facebook pages. Another might be to restrict them in other ways. Judging from the article I posted, most teachers seem to want some definite rules and restrictions in place, just as there are already some rules in place regarding fraternizing with students both inside and outside of school. The question seems to be how much restriction is needed on these newer forms of electronic communication, and whether teachers should also be restricted in how much personal info they reveal about themselves through the social media.

I wonder how many teachers even want to use, or currently use, such forms of communication with their students. Is it a majority or a minority?

The one teacher we have heard from here, aidan, clearly does not favor such communications, either from her perspective as a teacher or as a parent, and I tend to agree with her thinking as she has presented it.

But, there is also the aspect that electronic communications and social media play a big part in the social interactions and lives of many high school students these days, and teachers might be able to model appropriate ways of navigating this territory, as well as utilizing these communications to further the educational process without forming compromising social bonds with students.

Clearly, there are some potential dangers when you move teacher/student relationships out of the classroom and allow continued contact via electronic means and on social networking sites. The teachers would be moving onto what might be a slippery slope in terms of professional boundaries. They might need some degree of regulation, in the form of school policies pertaining to this issue, so there is some uniformity of agreement within the school district on what the boundaries should be.

I'd like to know what others think about this issue. If that is not the issue you want to focus on, I'd wonder why you are bothering to post in this thread at all.

Look at some of the legal cases where students had been punished by the schools for actions taken off school ground and on non school times including for materials placed on the internet from home computers.

There can be when you are dealing with a minor and promoting bad behaviors out of him or her. There is a legal name but I am not coming up with it now.

And setting up meetings and going to meetings with a minor or an assume minor is illegal see the TV shoe to catch a predator.

peej stand for an outfit who troll the internet looking for men or women who will approach them as assume minor and try to grown them for sex.

bullshit

Just this once, I heartily agree with you, David. It's why I asked that question which, had it been uttered viva voce would have been delivered in a tone of incredulity.

I assume people have also talked with our poster by pms about bringing her father in on all this. I did early, but I can see the whys of not.

Anyway, yelling about thirteen is a red herring as that is some kind of internet cutoff.

I think there is a disjuncture between what we allow and what we disallow, that may make sense, but that we haven't articulated well.