I agree. It is a teacher's job to ensure that their students are literate and in the modern world this includes critical use of communication technologies such as the internet. Instead of shielding students from sites that can be easily misused why not use them as a teaching tool?

Why not teach students how silly some websites are? I just checked out my old school on that website and found that someone (not me) has entered the current Federal Cabinet as being the names of the school teachers there!

http://au.ratemyteachers.com/schools/new_south_wales/sydney/the_king%2527s_school

I wouldn't worry too much about ratemyteachers.com...

The need for feedback seems self-evident and although this doesn't mean that it should be used for directly assessing staff.

What seems to have occurred is that educational institutions have failed to take the initiative - so they are being bypassed.

The sad thing is that external sites will tend to collect the more extreme views. A better solution would be for a survey to be handed out after the final exam or lecture in each course, with the results being collected by independant bodies (eg a student union). Respondents could elect to be anonymous, or not. Results should be published externally, of course.

The knee jerk reaction of principals and teachers groups to the ratemyteachers.com internet site was obviously based, not on an objective analysis of the site, but on confabulations concocted after never having seen the site. For a start only one school is mentioned from SA and that is a private college, and there only a handful in Australia, 95% of which are private colleges.

To suggest that it is libelous and dangerous and warrants legal action by teachers against students is nonsense, although ironically, it could pave the way for students to sue teachers for libelous comments made in class or in the so called ‘narrative’ reports which are yet to be replaced by objective measures of achievement.

The accusation of potential ‘cyber bullying’ is an example of an over-the-top response, given that most of the comments overseas about teachers are positive, and given the protocols of the web site, are mostly honest.

Originally the annual report framework for schools in SA allowed for satisfaction ratings by students, parents and teachers of aspects of teaching and learning in schools. Only the parent satisfaction rating survived, this being from the group most distant from what happens everyday in our schools!

An English teacher at Amsterdam High School, New York believes ratemyteachers.com "enfranchises our kids, gives voice to their long-stifled expressions in a subject area in which they have loads of experience and are eminently qualified to speak. These statistics are timely, relevant and 99% honest.’

Students' interest in rating their teachers’ performance in the classroom is a testament to students’ desires to take an active role in improving the quality of their education. We encourage students to really own their education and to demand the best of themselves and their educators. Is this not an expression of that aspiration?

Making an issue of this is the surest way to get students to flock to that website! Had it been left well enough alone, the site and any comments about it been ignored, it couldn't possibly have become a problem. But draw attention to it and, well, you draw attention to it!

The problem with not rating teachers anonymously is that if you put your name to it you risk being victimised and your marks can start going down the tubes and you can be left out of all sorts of things and miss out on all sorts of opportunities.

My family know this for a fact because we complained about the actions of a teacher back in the Year 2000 and about the neglect of the education of our children and our children have been paying the price since. 6 years of hell that everybody ignores.

I think it is important that children should be able to speak out and present their views about the performance and actions of their teachers and how they are being treated. There are no avenues to be heard and if a parent complains they are just branded pushy.

I understand why posting would need to be anonymously at this point as people are scared stiff to speak out, but I think that when people get more comfortable speaking out, if you are going to say something about another person that could impact of their reputation and life I believe that you should be required to put your name to it.

Sites such as this are becoming a feature of the Internet in its "Web 2.0" incarnation. They will have a brief burst of fame, before slowly withering and dying out, but obviously this will not be soon enough for those whose lives and/or careers are ruined in the meantime.

What can possibly be the justification for these sites? Who in their right mind would take even the slightest notice of their content?

For a start, those posting have absolutely no requirement, possibly even inclination, to tell the truth. No-one is looking over their shoulder, no-one is checking the accuracy or fairness of their comments, no-one is able to prevent them from using multiple personalities to further their particular agenda.

When I looked at Ratemyteachers earlier today the latest registration was for "bigblakniggaz". One can only speculate on the rationality of someone choosing that for a nym, and the potential their contribution might have for damage.

The problem is not that the site exists, but that it is populated by a self-selected group of people with some form of axe to grind (and an urge to be published, even anonymously), and read by an equally self-selected group, searching for support for their own axe-grinding activities.

Similar sites exist in countries better served by broadband technology than ours, but we will eventually experience them in their full glory. One of my favourites is the "product comparison blogs", where contributors are invited to comment on the quality and value of commodity products. They soon become a blatant mix of contributions from boosters and detractors, but what quickly becomes apparent is that the "pro" comments are actually paid for by the supplier, and the "antis" by their competitor.

To make it more interesting, the role of the consumer in both instances is often outsourced to India, where serried ranks of "the customer" pound out their opinion in return for dollars.

My son once gave me some sage advice: never believe anything you read on the Internet.

Ratemyteachers is living justification of his wisdom.