This seems to be a questionable legislative move in Oklahoma by Representatives Danny Sterling and Richard Lowe, both former educators, to modify laws concerning digital communication between school staff and students, potentially undoing protections against sexual predators in schools.
House Bill 3958 was introduced and passed, prohibiting one-on-one digital communication between school staff and students without parental involvement, except in emergencies or for academic purposes using group platforms. This was seen as a protective measure against predators. A new bill (HB 1937) introduced by Sterling and Lowe propose an opt-out provision for this law, allowing parents to permit private communication between coaches/teachers and students. This is framed as a solution to "unintended consequences" like logistical issues in sports and agricultural education. Critics argue that this opt-out could open doors for predators.
The article suggests that the opt-out might pressure parents into allowing private communication, potentially endangering children by removing oversight. Both representatives are part of education oversight committees, suggesting influence over education policy. The article implies a conflict of interest, given their past roles in education. The article also mentions another bill (HB 1276) to ban cell phones in schools, highlighting a contradiction in policy where student communication is restricted in while in school but potentially less monitored after leaving school.
There's also a mention of past interventions by these legislators and others in the Oklahoma State Board of Education's handling of teacher misconduct cases, suggesting a pattern of protecting or at least not fully addressing the issue of predatory behavior among educators. An example is provided of a coach hired by Sterling who later faced legal issues for inappropriate communication with a student, questioning Sterling's oversight or policy decisions during his tenure as a principal.
These proposed changes could significantly alter the safety measures put in place to protect students from potential abuse, under the guise of administrative convenience. The narrative raises questions about the ethics of allowing such opt-outs, especially when considering the power dynamics and potential for grooming in educational settings.
Sterling and Lowe's actions are presented as potentially protective of the educational establishment rather than the students, which could impact public trust in educational governance. And, rightfully so, this article implicitly calls for a reevaluation of who should be making these educational policy decisions, suggesting that former educators with possibly conflicted interests might not be ideal for such roles.
This seems to be a questionable legislative move in Oklahoma by Representatives Danny Sterling and Richard Lowe, both former educators, to modify laws concerning digital communication between school staff and students, potentially undoing protections against sexual predators in schools.
House Bill 3958 was introduced and passed, prohibiting one-on-one digital communication between school staff and students without parental involvement, except in emergencies or for academic purposes using group platforms. This was seen as a protective measure against predators. A new bill (HB 1937) introduced by Sterling and Lowe propose an opt-out provision for this law, allowing parents to permit private communication between coaches/teachers and students. This is framed as a solution to "unintended consequences" like logistical issues in sports and agricultural education. Critics argue that this opt-out could open doors for predators.
The article suggests that the opt-out might pressure parents into allowing private communication, potentially endangering children by removing oversight. Both representatives are part of education oversight committees, suggesting influence over education policy. The article implies a conflict of interest, given their past roles in education. The article also mentions another bill (HB 1276) to ban cell phones in schools, highlighting a contradiction in policy where student communication is restricted in while in school but potentially less monitored after leaving school.
There's also a mention of past interventions by these legislators and others in the Oklahoma State Board of Education's handling of teacher misconduct cases, suggesting a pattern of protecting or at least not fully addressing the issue of predatory behavior among educators. An example is provided of a coach hired by Sterling who later faced legal issues for inappropriate communication with a student, questioning Sterling's oversight or policy decisions during his tenure as a principal.
These proposed changes could significantly alter the safety measures put in place to protect students from potential abuse, under the guise of administrative convenience. The narrative raises questions about the ethics of allowing such opt-outs, especially when considering the power dynamics and potential for grooming in educational settings.
Sterling and Lowe's actions are presented as potentially protective of the educational establishment rather than the students, which could impact public trust in educational governance. And, rightfully so, this article implicitly calls for a reevaluation of who should be making these educational policy decisions, suggesting that former educators with possibly conflicted interests might not be ideal for such roles.