Smiles all round: Cann Hall Primary deciced to cover pupils' faces online with 'smileys'
Posted on 03/05/2008 12:22:53 PM PST by Stoat
Furious parents today attacked a "politically correct" primary school for covering pupils' faces on their website with "cartoon smileys" - to protect their identities.
Teachers took the bizarre decision after deciding mothers and fathers would not want their children being recognised on the internet.
But parents described the decision as "PC gone mad" and demanded the "raver-style" faces be removed.
Scroll down for more...
Smiles all round: Cann Hall Primary deciced to cover pupils' faces online with 'smileys'
However, the headteacher of Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex, defended her decision.
Clare Reece said: "The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about.
"Not all parents want their children's picture on there.
"You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures." Scroll down for more...
Not so proud: The football team have their faces covered to stop people recognising them
The images - which included a line-up of special award winners - were originally uncensored when published in the 420-pupil school's newsletter.
But when uploaded to the school's website, the names and achievements remained - but their faces had been covered up with the garish smileys.
Censored pictures even included action shots of the athletics tournament and a rugby team line-up.
Scroll down for more...
Sports day: Originally these pictures were published uncensored in a paper newsletter
On the front page of the website, the school says they guarantee the content of the site is "child friendly".
It added: "In order to protect our children, we have made the decision not to include any photos of our pupils on this website."
But the decision is out of step with other local schools who all appear to put images of their pupils unaltered on their websites.
Scroll down for more...
Outrage: Parents have described the bizarre decision as 'political correctness gone mad'
The unusual act has split locals, with some claiming the decision was political correctness at its worst.
One said: "PC gone mad yet again or the school is afraid of being sued by parents with too much time on their hands."
But others supported the idea, with one mum-of-one from Colchester saying: "I wouldn't want my child's face on a disgusting site."
Mrs Reece added: "We have no problem with the pictures going out in the newsletter or in the local paper as long as parents have given permission but the internet is much wider."
A spokesman for Essex County Council said: "The council advises schools of the national guidelines relating to photographs of students. However, individual schools are free to adopt their own policies on the issue."
Department for Children Schools and Families guidelines say schools must get permission to publish photographs of pupils on websites or prospectuses.
One would have thought that such a radical decision using such garish imagery might have been subjected to two minutes' discussion and consideration by the faculty.....but apparently not. Or, perhaps it was thoroughly discussed and vetted, and this was honestly the absolute best decision that the staff could come up with.
lol!!
haaaaaaaaaaa
According to the quotes in the article, this was done in absolute stern seriousness and it is being defended as being the very best solution that they could have possibly come up with.
Apparently, leaving out photos featuring children was either not considered or they honestly didn't see anything wrong with covering up the students' faces in such a garish manner that has served to put this school on the international map for all the wrong reasons.
As well as adding hideous, prison-quality tattoos to all areas of exposed skin.....
I think that they should assume that anyone wearing a huge cloth bag over themselves would probably 'not' be smiling.....and most pics of muzzies typically feature angry, unsmiling faces anyway (I suppose it's tough to smile when you're shouting "death to America!")
Although such a decision would likely have been enthusiastically embraced by the vast majority of the faculty at the school, the (hopefully) sane and rational parents would (hopefully) have rioted in the streets, burning the Headmistress in effigy.
I don’t see why anyone would be outraged by this. It may be a little bit silly but they are doing it to protect the kids from online predators which are a real threat and this approach doesn’t really harm anyone. I am sure that if a parent really wanted to be able to see the pictures of an event they could probably request one so why would any parent be upset about this?
It's probably because this particular approach serves mainly to highlight the school's policy as well as the rampant scourge of pedophilia, and in so doing detracts from the students' achievements which the pictures 'should' have been there to promote and celebrate. Instead of being able to proudly point to the newsletter and their achievements, the students' garishly-altered photos are instead mainly a reminder that they are under scrutiny by sick perverts and are led by a faculty that is apparently unable to come up with a more dignified and thoughtful solution, such as adding password protection to the site (as suggested by dead in post #14) or simply not including any photos at all featuring children.
Did they really believe parents wanted to view those pictures in that state? Besides, online weirdos can still check out all those exposed kid-knees for their jollies.
And what are we going to do about kids who traipse around town without their smiley masks on, in full view of a whole world of predators?
Hiding the faces of innocent children because of the threat of molestors is akin to the burkha solution to lust for women. It's a bit overkill, to say the least.
Guardians of child A can’t see government published photos of non-relative child B in the state of NJ unless the Guardians of child B sign a privacy waiver.
I’m in complete agreement with you about it better to not post any photos under this policy for the reasons you stated, I was otherwise just relating it to my schooling experiences here in NJ last decade.
There is a reason that schools do not sell yearbooks to the general public, as well a a reason that schools don’t allow yearbooks to be checked out of public libraries.
Predators depend on social engineering to gain false sense of trust, a name matched to a face, and background info on a child’s schooling experiences is something that should be protected.
Regards,
p.s. Do you have new satire writing projects in the works?
At a place where I once worked, an issue of the company’s employee newsletter featured pictures of employees involved in our training programs. This issue was pinned to the employee bulletin board in the lunchroom. One day, I noticed that none of the people in the pictures worked there anymore, nor had they for some time. As a gag, I placed tiny pieces of black tape over their eyes. I realized the company was in trouble when I saw our Senior VP’s reaction to my alteration. He began to remove one of the pieces of tape and then said “Oh well, what the heck...” and put the tape back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
