Are you kidding me? Am I to understand that student viewing of teacher-presented “webcasts” in Federal Way schools require no parental permission?

Now school policy is decided by the literal meaning of words or lack of words in the audio-visual Materials policy? Is there any policy intent? Notice also that the school district gives no definition of “webcast;” that’s convenient.

In my opinion, this district analysis to allow the president’s “webcast” in class without parental permission should worry parents because unchallenged political philosophies can be impressed upon the minds of our politically uneducated children without parental knowledge.

If a conservative teacher presents a counterpoint to the president’s “webcast” by a conservative talk show host broadcasted by “webcast,” then is that conservative talk show broadcast permissible and authorized by the school district and requires no parental permission? What about radio and podcast transmissions — they’re not stated in the policy either. Oddly, I didn’t see anywhere in the policy that watching “television” in class requires parental permission, yet the Sept. 5 article in The Mirror states that parental permission is required? Logical?

I understand “webcast” as nothing more than the transmission of data across the Internet in a form that people can watch and sometimes hear. If tv/film/video is transmitted via a “webcast,” does that transmission require parental permission?

Per my understanding, if the transmission is a “webcast,” then no principle nor district approval is required. Note further that principles/teachers are not required to notify parents to show a “webcast.” Principals/teachers are just merely being asked to notify parents.

When the district decided for parents that “webcasts” do not need parental permission, did the deciders even stop to think of why the film/video policy was created in the first place?

Obvious to me is that the reason for the film/video policy is not to regulate the medium through which the communication is transmitted, but rather to ensure that parents may opt out of any film/video communication that those parents may consider objectionable, and to ensure that those communications are approved by the school board and school district.

I hope that the school board and the superintendent resolve this issue permanently, keeping in mind the intent of the film/video policy.

Frank Comito, Federal Way