Team Social Media Accounts: A Governance Blind Spot

Team social media accounts are now a standard part of school athletics and activities. They are used to share schedules, celebrate student achievements, communicate with families, and promote school programs. In many cases, these accounts are explicitly sanctioned by schools, even if day-to-day control is delegated to coaches or volunteers.

Under Ed Code § 32100 as amended by SB 848, any digital tool used in athletics and activities functions as a nonclassroom environment, and schools are expected to ensure that environment is easily supervised. Team social media accounts fall squarely within that expectation, even though they operate very differently from purpose-built school communication systems.

What is less commonly acknowledged is that nearly all major social platforms—Instagram, Facebook, X, and others—include built-in direct messaging that schools cannot meaningfully disable, audit, or centrally govern. This is not a failure of school policy or staff intent. It is a structural limitation of platforms designed for individual use, not institutional oversight.

As a result, schools often find themselves in an uncomfortable middle ground: team accounts are officially recognized, widely used, and sometimes encouraged, yet the most sensitive communication channel attached to those accounts operates outside institutional control. Policies may prohibit staff–student direct messaging via social media, but enforcement typically relies on individual compliance rather than technical control or institutional visibility.

This article does not argue that schools must eliminate social media use, nor does it assume that perfect control is possible. Instead, it examines the limited, imperfect options schools actually have—and the trade-offs involved—when attempting to govern team social media accounts in a way that aligns with modern expectations around staff–student communication.

The Practical Options Schools Actually Have

When schools take staff–student communication governance seriously, there are only a few realistic ways to approach team social media accounts:

• Do not sanction team social media accounts at all
• Prohibit staff from operating team accounts
• Place team accounts under parent or booster control
• Retain school ownership of accounts while limiting staff access to posting only

Each option carries trade-offs. None eliminates risk, and none can make social media direct messages a staff–student channel that is easily supervised, as required by SB 848. The real distinction is how much of the environment the institution can govern—and where it draws the line by moving staff–student communication into systems designed for supervision.

Option 1: Do Not Sanction Team Social Media Accounts

Under this approach, schools decline to officially recognize or endorse team social media accounts. Accounts may exist, but they are not considered part of the school’s communication infrastructure.

This option is structurally clean. By avoiding formal sanctioning, the school avoids institutional responsibility for how the accounts are used.

In practice, however, teams often maintain accounts informally. Coaches, parents, or students create and operate them without visibility or oversight. Communication still occurs, including direct messaging, but outside any defined governance framework. When issues arise, schools may have limited ability to access records, enforce standards, or demonstrate reasonable controls.

This approach reduces formal responsibility but often increases practical opacity.

Option 2: Prohibit Staff from Operating Team Accounts

This approach allows team accounts to exist while prohibiting staff from creating, managing, or posting to them. The intent is to prevent staff–student interaction via social media while preserving a team’s public presence.

This approach draws a clear behavioral boundary for staff and aligns well with policy language. It can reduce the likelihood of direct staff–student messaging when followed consistently.

Its effectiveness depends heavily on compliance. Enforcement is difficult to verify, and accounts may still be operated informally with staff involvement. Additionally, schools may struggle to maintain consistent messaging, continuity, and accountability when staff are excluded from platforms that are central to community engagement.

Option 3: Place Team Accounts Under Parent or Booster Control

In this model, team social media accounts are managed by parents, booster clubs, or other non-staff volunteers. Schools may acknowledge the accounts but treat them as externally operated.

This approach shifts operational control away from staff and reduces direct staff–student communication through social media. It is commonly used where booster organizations are active and well-organized.

However, governance remains limited. Direct messaging features still exist, content standards vary, and schools may have little recourse if issues arise. Account ownership, continuity, and accountability can also become complicated as volunteers change over time.

Responsibility may be diffused, but institutional oversight remains minimal.

Option 4: Retain School Ownership with Posting-Only Access

Under this approach, the school retains ownership and administrative control of team social media accounts. Staff and volunteers are granted limited access to publish content but are not permitted to engage in direct messaging.

This model prioritizes institutional ownership, access control, and continuity. It allows schools to define who can post, revoke access when roles change, and reduce exposure from unmanaged direct messages.

The trade-offs are operational. Setup can be time consuming and complex, platform capabilities vary, and posting workflows may be less flexible than native social media use. While this approach does not eliminate all risk—platform limitations still apply—it keeps the most sensitive communication channel outside individual control.

This option emphasizes governance over convenience.

Implementing a School-Owned Model in Practice

In practice, retaining institutional control over team social media accounts requires centralized publishing rather than direct use of native social media apps. There is no reliable way to preserve school ownership, manage access over time, and prevent off-platform messaging while still allowing individual staff to log directly into platform accounts.

Centralized publishing tools separate content creation from account control. They draw a clear boundary between public‑facing posts and any one‑to‑one staff–student communication—which should occur in systems the district can actually supervise. The institution owns the accounts, manages access centrally, and grants coaches or volunteers permission to submit or publish posts without exposing them to platform-level direct messaging, follower interactions, or account credentials. When roles change, access can be revoked without transferring logins or rebuilding accounts.

FanAngel was designed around this model. It allows schools to connect official team social media accounts, assign and revoke posting permissions, and publish content while keeping account ownership and control with the institution—not the individual staff member using it. Team social accounts function as outward‑facing, school‑owned channels, while staff–student one‑to‑one communication takes place inside FanAngel’s supervised environment rather than through social media DMs.

This model is not frictionless. Social media APIs are inconsistent, posting workflows are less flexible than native apps, and setup requires deliberate coordination. That complexity is unavoidable. It is the cost of treating team social media as an institutional communication channel rather than a personal convenience. For schools that prioritize governance, continuity, and enforceable oversight, centralized publishing is not the easiest option—but it is the only one that scales responsibly.

Drawing the Boundary

Social media platforms were not designed for institutional oversight, but schools are still responsible for deciding how staff–student communication is governed. Under SB 848, that responsibility includes being explicit about which digital environments can be made easily supervised—and which cannot.

Team social media accounts will never provide the level of supervision SB 848 expects for staff–student one-to-one communication. The governance decision, therefore, is where to draw the boundary: use social media for outward-facing, school-owned messaging, and keep staff–student interaction inside systems the institution can actually supervise.

This is rarely a day-one change. But avoiding the decision altogether leaves schools relying on policy and individual intent to compensate for environments that were never designed to be governed.