It is the school's job to teach not to get involved in kid's social lives.
I'm torn on this one. I see the benefit in being to monitor what kids are doing online, watching for bullying & suicide risks & truancy, but that should be the parent's job, not the school district's. But again, this is all on public media, and I have to say that if someone clues me in to the fact that my child is being bullied or thinking about suicide, then I don't really care if it's their teacher or a friend or a contract worker in India. In the grand scheme of things $40,000 for monitoring an entire district's high schoolers is peanuts. That's not even HALF a teacher especially with benefits, and the potential benefits of saving lives & mental health, and also taxpayer money if it can cut down on truancy, I think greatly outweigh the cost. That said, I'm still going to teach my kids to keep their social media as private as possible.
I didn't say intervention wasn't a good thing. I said spending $40,000 to monitor kid's Facebook pages is not money well spent IMO. Maybe they should hire another counselor at the school with that money to actually talk to the kids instead of just spying on them.Quote:
To do the work, Frydrych employs no more than 10 full-time staffers -- as well as "a larger portion" of contract workers across the globe who labor a maximum of four hours a day because "the content they read is so dark and heavy," Frydrych said.