Teachers are threatening to sue websites that allow pupils to post abuse and humiliating videoclips and photographs taken on mobile phones on the internet.

One of the worst cases involved a woman teacher who discovered that a photograph of her face had been superimposed on a naked body and circulated. Another teacher learnt that a female pupil had posted lies about her sex life on the internet. Other teachers have had cleavages or underwear photographed while they were bending over.

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) annual conference in Bournemouth heard that websites such as RateMyTeachers, a US-based site that encourages pupils to post comments about teachers and school online, and the file-sharing site YouTube, were making teachers’ lives a misery.

Lesley Ward, who teaches at Intake Primary School in Don-caster, South Yorkshire, described RateMyTeachers as the “evil twin” of Friends Reunited, saying that it allowed pupils to perpetrate a “spiteful and vindictive” form of assault.

Alan Bellchambers, who teaches at a primary school in Thurrock, Essex, said sites like RateMyTeachers were obscene. “We should demand that it be banned and be made illegal by any legislation possible,” he said.

Andy Brown, a drama teacher from Northern Ireland, cautioned that some teachers might even be losing out on jobs because employers were using such websites to help to select candidates.

Mr Brown, who claims to have been the target of website abuse by a pupil, said that the internet gave malicious children a far wider audience for their pranks and vitriol than any medium in the past. “Could you imagine the outcry if we started a website that allowed teachers to say whatever they wanted about pupils? ‘Jim is a useless lump, who couldn’t succeed in this subject even if I did the exam for him’; ‘Sally will do her best work on her back’; ‘Tony needs to eat a few less pies’ . . .” he said.

His conference motion — calling on Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, to take “all reasonable steps” to protect the integrity of teachers and demanding that websites be “more vigilant when monitoring the appropriateness of student comments and videoclips” — was passed unanimously.

Both RateMyTeachers and YouTube have clear guidelines for users. RateMyTeachers bans “vulgar or profane” words and anything of a sexual nature. It says that pupils should not comment on a teacher’s appearance, their private lives or call them names such as “jerk” or “creep”. “Our goal is to make this website a valuable resource for both students and parents,” it adds. It also offers teachers a right of reply.

YouTube’s rules state that the site has “zero tolerance” for harassment and adds: “We don’t permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes.”

But Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the ATL, questioned the efficiency with which both operators policed their sites and accused them of undermining the authority and reputations of teachers.

She added that the union would be prepared to sue the publishers of such sites if necessary. “We have to find the right case,” she said. Pupils posting comments or pictures would not be sued, she added, although they should be disciplined by their schools.

Dr Bousted is now meeting mobile phone providers to see what action they might take to stop mobile phones being used to film and take photographs illegally in schools. A government working party which includes mobile phone operators and networking site providers is also looking at the issue.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said that powers that came into effect this week had given teachers the authority to confiscate mobile phones. But Dr Bousted said that mobiles had become high-status designer accessories and children often refused to hand them over.

679,233
number of ratings posted on www.ratemyteachers.co.uk

Source: RateMyTeachers website

Times Recommends

• Swine flu vaccine for all as drug rushed through
• Artificial sperm and the race to build a baby
• BBC jets out stars to tout for prizes