Since social networking came on the scene in 2003, many have questioned whether online communication outside of school between students and teachers is appropriate. On July 14, Governor Jay Nixon signed Senate Bill 54 into law, giving an official answer to that question.
The majority of the bill focuses on sexual harassment of a student by a teacher or staff member. Only one of 16 sections of the bill, section 162.069, has been called into question.
This section established that “teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.” Included in this section was sanctioning for each individual school district to establish its own policy on student/teacher communication.
Now, after complaints that the bill was unclearly worded, the bill has been revised and went back on the Senate floor as Senate Bill 1 on Monday, Sep. 12. The Senate ultimately voted in favor of the revised bill.
“We passed clarification language in Senate committee with no opposition,” Senator Jane Cunningham, creator of the bill, said.
The new bill has been broadened to include all employees of MO school districts, and also requires that each district implement its own policy on student/teacher communications by March 1, 2012.
Cunningham said she agrees that the bill had clarity issues, but stands behind its overall meaning, and the clarified version of the bill.
“It started in 2007,” Cunningham said. “The issue [of sexual harassment by teachers] was extremely prevalent. There had been 87 teachers in MO whose licenses were revoked.”
The creation of the bill was motivated by an Associated Press national investigation on sexual abuse of students, titled “Lingering Shame.”
Cunningham said the bill does not prevent students and teachers from being friends on Facebook or communicating outside of school. It only prevents them from exchanging hidden messages.
“I’ve gotten calls and interviews from all over the country about this bill,” Cunningham said. “Most of the attention is from misinformation, and people not actually reading the bill.”
Cunningham was even on CNN to talk about the issue, but quickly corrected the reporter who introduced her as “the senator trying to prevent students and teachers from being friends on Face book,” Cunningham said.
Cunningham said she agrees with widespread accusations that the bill was too loosely worded.
“I agree with them,” Cunningham said.
Dennis Kane, Broadcasting teacher and MHS Debate coach, was asked by Katie Reboulet, with Human Resources at the district level, to serve on Rockwood’s committee to determine district policy, as required by the revised version of the bill. Kane said he also believes the wording of the bill was too vague.
“I felt like it was painting with a very broad brush,” Kane said. “What [Cunningham] intended was not what ended up in the law.”
Overall, Kane even questioned the necessity of a law on the issue in the first place, citing the importance of social networking in society.
“The social media part of the internet is hugely important to our society,” Kane said. “If you look at Egypt and Libya, all these things are happening with social media. It’s reactionary to try to just cut that off.”
Cameron Carlson, 2011 alum, heard about the bill from Kane and decided to start a Facebook group in response. Carlson said he has three main goals for the Facebook group: raise awareness of section 16.069, create a central rallying point for organized opposition, and ultimately remove that part of the bill.
“This law makes the blatant assumption that if not all, most teachers have ulterior motives,” Carlson said. “It also makes the assumption that the influence of teachers is not a positive one on the lives of children.”
Carlson’s group, titled “Students, Parents, and Teachers Against MO Senate Bill #54, Sec. 162.069,” has built a membership of 962 people. Carlson said he also questions the necessity of the bill.
“The vast majority of American schoolchildren are able to complete their educations without any exposure to inappropriate teachers,” Carlson said. “It is beyond a shame that the smallest minority of misdirected, misguided educators are now reason enough for our legislators to deem this bill a passable idea.”
Carlson agreed with Kane on the lack of clarity in section 162.069.
“Typically we have high quality legislation, written with the highest detail, but this section is so vague, it doesn’t follow those standards,” Carlson said. “As citizens of Missouri we need to hold our legislators to the highest standards when governing our state.”
Carlson’s Facebook group has indeed been very active in rallying action on the apparent issues with Senate Bill 54. The group organized a letter-writing campaign, demanding answers from the legislators who passed the bill. The group also set up an online petition to show there is support for the cause.
Carlson said the group also had a hand in the injunction of the bill, which effectively put the bill on hold until February 2012. The original bill was supposed to be in full effect by January.
“Tony Rothert from the ACLU contacted me and said he found out about the bill because of our group and that he was going to be taking on the case,” Carlson said.
After learning that he had the American Civil Liberties Union on board, Carlson contacted the Missouri National Education Association and the Missouri State Teacher’s Association. Both groups, according to
Cunningham, had fully supported Senate Bill 54.
“Cunningham was right, they both did support the bill,” Carlson said. “However they supported the initial draft of the bill, which was in 2005. When I contacted both of the groups, they quickly recanted and wanted to support our cause.”
The support of these two groups, Carlson said, is what led to the official injunction on Friday, Aug. 26.
Despite its complexity, at the end of the day, Carlson said he does have an appreciation for the controversy the bill has created.
“The more people who get involved in our government the better,” Carlson said. “We need to hold the people in office to a higher standard.”