Social Networking Policy Holds School District Staff to 'Higher Standard'
New policy advises employees that information 'deemed inappropriate' could be cause for firing non-tenured staff or certifying tenure charges
School district staff members will have to be more mindful of what they post on Facebook after the Board of Education approved the first reading of a social networking policy.
The policy, which was introduced at Tuesday’s school board meeting, advises employees that communications, publications, photographs or other information that is “deemed inappropriate” by the board could be cause for firing non-tenured staff or certifying tenure charges.
“While the board respects the right of staff members to use social networking sites, staff members should recognize they are held to a higher standard than the general public with regard to standards of conduct and ethics,” the policy states.
The policy was not the result of an existing problem in the school district but simply a matter of staying current, board President Eric Schubiger said. It is meant to be a guiding "framework" for the district.
“Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s an issue in our district,” he said. “It’s 2013, and social media is just part of our society. We’re always updating policies to be in place so we know how to deal with it if it should become an issue at some point.”
Having a policy in place will protect the district as well as the employees, he said.
“Our policy is not intended to control in any way any of our employees lives or get involved with their personal affairs,” he said. “The intention of the policy is to provide a framework and to illustrate that we view our public employees as extremely important and need to be held to a higher standard than most.”
'Higher Standard'
That “higher standard” is key to the policy.
“It’s in our system. They’re employees and they have to comply with standards of appropriate employee behavior,” school board attorney Arthur Stein said.
Numerous decisions have been made upholding that school district staff is held to a higher standard as “role models,” he said.
The policy disallows employees from using social media during working hours but they are also held to that “higher standard” when they leave school for the day, he said.
“You still can’t do anything that’s going to have a negative impact on their role model requirement,” Stein said.
A recent New York Times article noted multiple cases within the private sector in which the decision to terminate an employee over a post on a social networking platform was overruled.
According to the article, labor regulators have declared some restrictions illegal, stating that workers have the right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution whether at the office or on Facebook.
Private sector employees are not necessarily held to that same “higher standard,” Stein said.
Several years ago, there was a case in which a teacher emailed negative comments about a student with racial overtones, Stein said. The tenured teacher was dismissed because she violated the responsibility of a “role model performance,” he said.
Public vs. Private
When asked if a photograph posted on Facebook displaying a teacher in a bar setting might be cause for dismissal, Stein did not specifically say.
“Conduct outside that would be inconsistent with the responsibility to serve as a role model leaves a staff member exposed to discipline because they’re violating a standard,” he said.
“If a teacher wants to go into a bar and do whatever’s done at a bar, that’s one thing but when you allow yourself to be on the Internet which is now going to be accessed by students, other staff and members of the community in general, that’s an entirely different situation,” he said.
Public platforms versus private play a role, he said. Even though an incident may have happened in private, if it’s broadcasted on the web, it’s now public.
A Facebook page that is made private could be a “mitigating consideration,” he said.
“If it’s private, then only people who are your friends can gain access,” he said.
But even if the page is set to private, making racist comments or threatening to violently overthrow the government could be cause for discipline, he said.
“Even though it’s done in the so-called private, well, it’s not really private because it’s being broadcasted to other people,” he said. “It’s still a public communication.”
Recently, the Union Township school board filed tenure charges based on the “unbecoming conduct” of a teacher who made anti-gay comments on Facebook, according to a Star-Ledger story. The longtime teacher was critical of a Union High School display marking Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History month.
“You’re entitled to your private opinions, if they’re private. As soon as they go public and it has a negative impact on the students you're serving as a role model, then that’s subject to criticism and discipline,” Stein said.
On a webpage outlining “Social Networking Nightmares, ” the National Education Association (NEA) explains that teacher free speech rights are “fairly limited,” only permitting speaking out if it’s on a matter of public concern and does not disrupt the school.
According to the NEA, the rule of thumb is if a teacher was to show their Facebook page to their mother, who in turn had concerns or problems, then that teacher does as well.
Code of Conduct
School district employees should "exercise care and good judgement" by adhering to the following guidelines in the policy. School staff members:
- Should not make statements that would violate any of the district's policies, including its policies concerning discrimination or harassment;
- Must uphold the district's value of respect for the individual and avoid making defamatory statements about the school district, employees, pupils, or their families;
- May not disclose any confidential information about the school district or confidential information obtained during the course of his/her employment, about any individual(s) or organization, including pupils and/or the families;
- Shall not use social networking sites to post any materials of a sexually graphic nature;
- Shall not use social networking sites to post any materials which promote violence;
- Shall not use social networking sites which would be detrimental to the mission and function of the district;
- Are prohibited from using their school district title as well as adding references to the district in any correspondence including, but not limited to, emails, postings, blogs, and social networking sites unless the communication is of an official nature and is serving the mission of the district. This prohibition also includes signature lines and personal email accounts;
- Shall not post updates to their status on any social networking sites during normal working hours including posting of statements or comments on the social networking sites of others during school time unless it involves a school project. Employees must seek approval from the Superintendent of Schools for such use; and
- Shall not post or publish any information the Commissioner of Education would deem to be inappropriate conduct by a school staff member.
Lacey’s policy also pertains to email, text messaging and other methods of communication for public display or publication.
Although the policy does not specifically mention that “friending” a student could be considered inappropriate conduct, it could be, Schubiger said.
“I think the language in there is general enough that we cover specific things that might not be mentioned. A good policy is more of a framework than line by line, item by item,” he said.
“I have confidence in our staff,” he continued. “I think, at this point in time, most people realize what’s appropriate and what’s inappropriate. They should know.”
The district will not be closely monitoring employees use of social media with the intention of enforcement and punitive action, Schubiger said.
“We’re not in any way pretending to be the social media police,” he said. “By no means are we going to be out there looking for infractions of policy.”
In a Lacey Patch Facebook discussion, readers both supported and opposed the policy.
“Teachers are people, entitled to their own freedom of expression,” Greg Janes said.
“Other companies check people’s social networks before hiring and if kids in school aren’t allowed to say certain things without consequences, why should the teachers be allowed,” Stephanie Rose said.
What do you think? Cast your vote in our poll and share your thoughts in the comments section.
For a copy of the policy, see the attached PDF. A second reading will be done at the next school board meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 19 at 7:30 p.m.
proud
10:10 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
If a teacher were sitting in a bar, and a student walked in with their family to have dinner in the same establishment and saw that teacher sitting there, the social impact could be devastating. Especially, if that student whipped out their cell phone and snapped a pic and subsequently broadcast it. It's a mother's worst nightmare.
VoiceofReason
3:13 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
What?!
proud
7:26 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
@VoiceofReason, apparently you didn't realize that I was being facetious. My point was that if a teacher were sitting in a bar doing "whatever is done in a bar", there is not neccesarily anything inappropriate occuring nor would it neccesarily have a negative impact on a student that may encounter them in a bar that may very well be part of a public eatery often frequented by the student body and their families. The analogy that Mr. Stein used is ridiculous and by no standard should be considered inappropriate, albeit public. I have long felt that Mr. Stein should act more like legal counsel and less like a board member. As for the NEA rule of thumb that an employees mother be some sort of moral barometer, I again must assert that the suggestion is ridiculous. What if the mother of the teacher in questio were Joan Crawford? The district, the attorney and the union is way off base on this one.
Michael P Goldenberg
6:03 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Exactly. This is such nonsense. It's back to the days before unions when school districts would only hire single women who were paid a pittance, couldn't get married (fear of pregnancy leave), etc. I personally think this steps WAY over the rights of teachers, but in the current atmosphere (and Supreme Court), am not surprised that someone is trying to pull this off. That it's NJ, where I was raised (or should I say, "lowered") is not really much of a surprise given the governor and head of education for the state.
Needed to Say It
10:10 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Are you people kidding me? For god sakes!!!
VoiceofReason
10:10 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
“If a teacher wants to go into a bar and do whatever’s done at a bar, that’s one thing but when you allow yourself to be on the Internet which is now going to be accessed by students, other staff and members of the community in general, that’s an entirely different situation,” he said.
WOW - If I worked there, I'd find another job! God forbid you, as an ADULT, go to a BAR!! Oh my god! Don't let anyone know you're enjoying a beer with your college buddies! You might get fired! What a bunch of crap.
I'm glad efforts are being focused on THIS instead of teaching the youth of Lacey Township.
GB Shore
10:10 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Does this state that this is for non tenured teachers only? It is not clear to me if tenured teachers are included in this. They SHOULD be....but I am sure the NJEA would sickenly disagree.....
proud
12:35 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
No@GB Shore, it may apply to tenured teachers, but is a much more lengthily and expensive process to term a tenured individual , as the NJEA is inclined to protect even the most raucous behavior of its membership.
Abby Normal
10:10 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Free Speech alive and well in Lacey. *cough* Where are our constitutionalists?
GB Shore
11:11 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Pretty clear people do not get what this is about and making up RIDICULOUS scenarios....maybe "you people" should take an interest to see the crap that goes on...has your head been in the sand?????
proud
12:49 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
@GB Shore, if you are referring the bar scenario outlined by Mr Stein, I agree that it is ridiculous. Then again, I think the policy is ridiculous and may very well not be constitutional. I think the board would serve the community much better by focusing on how to control the ever increasing budget, but then there wouldn't be anything in that for them.
GB Shore
6:14 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
@Proud....now THAT is a whole other story...finances??? They are all in it together....we could start anothr whole conversation around that crap....bottom line, we have social, educational and economic issues that are of a nature that quite frankly, is new to a lot of folks. I'd like to see a younger Board up there who understands kids today and who are better equipped to find innovative ways to cut spending while improving efficiency and education....these folks have been on the Board for so long, you can't help but to get in a comfy zone.....
Captain Ed
12:35 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
No. If its bad enough they will fire them anyway. Just makes it too easy to target people or abuse it. Always happens. Im all for keeping teachers professional. But at the same time Im all for giving our government (local and non ) LESS power. NOT more power.
And if were going to do this we need to be fair. Tenured teachers are off limits? Why?
Elaine Piniat
12:53 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Captain Ed, tenured teachers are not off limits. If the board found them at fault, they would have to file tenure charges. It's just a different process.
Robert Yates
12:35 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I can not believe Attorney Stein is saying what he is saying. The 1st Amendment applies to the public sector, not the private. It is a restriction on congress and other public entities (including public schools) This means that a private business is free to fire an employee for any reason it wants, including a situation in which the employee says something the employer does not like. A public entity on the other hand does not have this luxury because of the 1st Amendment. This means that strictly speaking, the first amendment should prohibit the kinds of policies set forth above. This is all academic though. Public entities have been ignoring the clear language of the constitution for a long time now and courts have been carving out so many caveats that there really is nothing left to the document. This policy is a waste of time and money and is unconstitutional, just like the random drug testing scheme.
proud
1:29 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
You just about hit the nail on the head with this one @Robert Yates.
GB Shore
3:49 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
legal mumbo jumbo....you are missing the point that is right there in front of you. start thinking with more common sense and less about what loopholes are available....equal protection this and that. Bottom line.....no reason for students and coached and teachers to be friends on Facebook period...
Robert Yates
6:14 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Yeah; perhaps that is my problem. I do not consider the constitution a loop hole nor legal mumbo jumbo. It is the basic legal structure upon which all other laws must conform. And you are incorrect; there is nothing inherently wrong with a teacher being friends with their students. Could it lead down the wrong road? Sure, but it could just as easily provide a student with a life long benefit.
MyOhMy
12:35 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
so.......if you are tennured you can do whatever you like.......as always......unreal.
Elaine Piniat
12:55 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The policy also pertains to tenured teachers. If the board deems social networking behavior inappropriate, they would file tenure charges against that teacher.
Robert Yates
1:29 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
While it is true that the policy applies to tenured teachers as well, the process is a huge headache, costs a ton of money on both sides and probably rarely results in a teacher's dismissal, so we most likely also have equal protection issues here.
Abby Normal
9:20 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
By the way Robert, as for tenure charges and the new law:
Q: Who will pay for the cost of implementing this legislation?
A: The Department of Education is required to provide funds to implement the act. The cost of arbitrators will be borne by the state.
-therefore the district will not incur any fees.
Q: How will dismissal cases be heard?
A: Tenure hearings for public school employees will go before an arbitrator, with the costs of arbitration borne by the State of New Jersey. The original Senate bill kept cases in the courts, where cases frequently took too long and cost too much. NJEA proposed taking the courts out of the mix and putting cases before an arbitrator. The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding, subject to judicial review
-therefore cases are determined now within 90 days, not years.
If there are teachers who are flagrantly violating student rights, not doing their job, or in any other way behaving in a nonprofessional manner, why aren't parents going to the superintendent and the board of ed to complain and get said teacher removed? On the other hand, if that teacher is a product of nepotism or cronyism, they will probably never be removed. However that's not here nor there, this conversation is about personal freedom of speech. Why this always has to sink to "I don't have a union cookie so you should not have one either," is beyond me. Go get certified and teach with us.
Robert Yates
2:05 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Gee Wiz Abby. I've been defending your 1st Amendment rights and you trash me because I am using the same constitution to defend nontenured teachers???
To your first point: last time I checked, we all pay state taxes as well as local taxes so it'll whack our pocket books one way or the other. To your second point: reread the last sentence in your answer. "subject to judicial review" How long does an appeal under judicial review take? To your third point, union privileges are part of the proposal and therefore part of the discussion. Why would I join a profession that forces me to subsequently join a labor union. Should it be an option to join? Perhaps, but forced membership is unequivocally contrary to basic principles of free association and therefore forced unionization violates the 1st Amendment. Man: those amendment sure are pesky protector of freedom aren't they.
MyOhMy
10:11 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
thank you Elaine!!
Fish
1:29 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I new a girl who got fired by one of the schools in toms river because in one of her pictures she was drinking a glass of wine. She was on her honeymoon for goodness sake. If lacey township schools are give the right to fire teachers according to what they post on social networking sites they will have the power to do what they want. Plus it will give the idea to other staff to go to administration to fire someone because they don't like that person all they'll have to do is tell them to look at their Facebook. It is unreal that people are getting criticized for going into a bar and having a drink ^^. I do not know one teacher who is not over the legal age for drinking. Let people have there personal lives. Oh an I can guarantee that most parents have a glass of wine in front of there children; and if you don't think that drinking in public should be aloud for teachers then your high.
JD
2:23 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I highly doubt that was the reason for getting rid of her before tenure.
Maybe that is what she told everyone.
JD
2:23 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I don't think the policy goes far enough.
1. It doesn't cover "friending". Aside from family members which may be going to the school district, why is a teacher "friending" students in his/her class.
2. It doesn't cover all communications whether texting, email, twitter. Currently, teachers/coaches will text blast the team. Albeit innocuous, why do they have a students cell and/or email to begin with!!! That is where it all starts. They can text blast the parents who can forward to their kid.
VoiceofReason
3:13 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Couldn't agree more. There is no need for parents/students to be friends with their teacher on facebook, and if they are then the teacher takes that risk because it's inappropriate to begin with. Where is the line drawn?
If the teacher DOES NOT have any students, or parents on their Facebook page, and keeps it private, and shares their pictures soley with their OWN friends and family, they surely should NOT be scrutanized over what they do. Whether it be having a glass of wine, bottle of beer, a photo of them on the beach in a bathing suit etc. - this world is so unreal anymore. Whats next?
proud
7:26 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
@JD, the policy most certainly pertains to emails, texting and social networking exclusive of Facebook. Did you read the entire article?
JD
11:32 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
proud,
I read the policy. It does not pertain to text, email, etc....
I'm talking about a group text of "Practice is cancelled". That is considered "ok".
The policy is regards to texting a photo of say a naked person.
proud
2:05 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@JD, are we reading the same article? This is what it states:
"Lacey’s policy also pertains to email, text messaging and other methods of communication for public display or publication.
Although the policy does not specifically mention that “friending” a student could be considered inappropriate conduct, it could be, Schubiger said."
While it does not specifically mention naked people, certainly that could be considered inappropriate. Especially, if going to a bar or a mother's disapproval of something is considered so.
JD
6:05 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Proud,
Read the policy... if a coach texts.. "No practice today".
Is it a violation..
NO...
If he sends a naked picture of himself, then yes it is a violation.
Read the policy...
proud
8:01 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@ JD, i think you are missing the finer points of the policy, if there are such things.
moonbeam
9:00 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Back in the day, when everyone had a land line, teachers could not make inappropriate phone calls or have inappropriate contact...so what has changed? Parents had more control over what their children did...parents did not blame teachers for their lack of control. Parents should be involved in all communications that their children use and if someone is being inappropriate...sound the alarm...challenge the source. Emails, text messages, FB---all can be monitored by an involved parent...but then again it takes time to be involved.
givemeabreak
6:14 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The scary thing about this policy is where do you draw the line? Yes, teachers should be role models, but they are human beings for heaven's sake and are entitled to a private life. I don't know any teachers who are not over 21, and a picture of them with a glass of wine or a beer in their hand should be none of the BOE's concern. If their drinking affects their job performance, then it becomes the BOE's problem to deal with, not before. One of the things that the BOE attorney says is if teachers post pictures of themselves in a bar on FB then it becomes public. What if the picture is posted by someone else and the teacher is tagged in the photo, what then? Are we suggesting that teachers cannot have a drink in public because they wouldn't be adhering to the "higher standard"? Does the same policy apply to BOE members? Probably not.
Abby Normal
7:26 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
As a public school teacher, not in Lacey, I find this an archaic throwback to the rules about teacher non-school activity? http://www.nhhistory.org/edu/support/nhgrowingup/teacherrules.pdf This is why unions were needed, this is why what this board supports is so wrong. I'm embarrassed at their brash disregard for private and personal time and space and I would fight this to the supreme court. Get out of the woods, pineys, the world has modernized and it's time you got with it!
GB Shore
9:05 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
union union unions......you misds the point...glad you don't teach here...your ignorance and name calling speaks real well wherever you are from. you TOTALLY miss the point...so you thjink it is a good idea to have teachers communicating on facebook etc? There are plenty of places and venues. Unfortunately, our society has become WAY too liberal and litigious....THAT is why things like this are needed. But small minded and closed minded people like you just don't get it...Supreme Court? You wouldn't make out of Municipal Court...an embarrassment you are...
proud
9:05 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"Pineys"(sp.)? You know you could get termed for such social degradation if your found out NJEA member.
Abby Normal
10:04 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I grew up here, GB, fly your piney flag proudly! Teachers should absolutely use FB and other social medial and *gasp* some actually use it to teach with! Friending students is never a good idea until they graduate, but using these online applications is the right of all people, teacher or not. Some use FB to keep in touch with family across the miles, share happy times, news, and keeps communication open with those who cannot get out. Why not teachers? Is it not the teacher's domain to help and be a part of the larger world? It is not the teacher's domain to KNOW about these things so they can teach right from wrong? Our children are there NOW and putting our collective heads in the sand won't teach them anything. However using this media and teaching them about their reputations, repercussions, and responsibilities is very much our domain. Parents are not doing it. An antiquated world view won't help our students either.
GB Shore
9:20 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@Abby Normal....so you are calling yourself a piney? Would have been netter if you made that fact known that you also include yourself in the character assassination. I'm not from Lacey originally, as MOST of the residents here are not, but found your character assassination offensive nonetheless. The point I am making is not whether or not teachers should use or be able to use Facebook, but HOW they use it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to interactions with students. There should NOT be a difference betweenpublic vs. private sector in terms of code of conduct etc. This division and different set of rules is wrong IMHO. there are standards and codes of conduct that are fair and can be set that are fair to everyone but the unions will fight tooth and nail just for the sake of fighting without understanding or acknowledging or accepting that there ARE and should be reasonable standards of conduct that an employee should adhere to.
Robert Yates
9:57 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
"There should NOT be a difference betweenpublic vs. private sector in terms of code of conduct etc."
Perhaps this is true, but when people decided to get government into the business of education, it became a public endeavor and hence subject the the restrictions in the constitution. If you do not like this, send your kid to private school or lobby congress to change the constitution. Or just lobby the BOE, who I am sure will implement this useless and unconstitutional regulation based on Attorney Stein's recommendation anyway; the constitution be damned.
Mimi Neuhaus
9:05 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Way to go Abby Normal. The social media police in Lacey are acting like the Big Brothers of Russia. Get on with the budget. Too boring?
tr
9:05 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Good teachers teach higher standards than what everyday society demonstrates. Good teachers not only talk the talk, they walk the walk by example. Union or non-union, every employee has the right to contest unjustifiable discharge. Whether by arbitrator assigned and agreed to per Union contract or by jury trial in front of a judge. Why are these teachers sooooo afraid? Is it that they know that they can't walk the walk? A truck driver is union and held to drug and alcohol scruntiny and they drive trucks. An Operating Engineer is union and held to drug and alcohol scrutiny and they drive bulldozers. A teacher drives and motivates the minds of our children. Why shouldn't they be held to the same scrunity or MORE???
GB Shore
9:20 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@tr....you will never get these union protagonists to see or more importantly acknowledge the validity of your view of the situation...just like the folks in Washington, there is no one who will sit down and accept anyone else's point of view and they use fear and sensationalism as their tactic...typical union strategy. Instead of acknowledgigng that there is validity on both sides, they refuse to "sit at the table" and talk about what makes sense and does not. It is their way or the highway. Save your breath....but this is scary that there are a LOT of people like this who teach our children...people with no tolerance for any else's view...scary....I'm glad my wife and I have been involved with our children's education. They had some great teachers here in Lacey when they were in school, but dealing with the bad apples was extremely difficult...I'm sure the next comment in response to this will be some kind of attack on me and them denying that there are sub standard teachers....
Robert Yates
9:57 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
You are ignoring the legal distinction between public and private entities. Whether you like it or not, it exists and for good reason. The government does not have the authority to tell a private entity how to conduct its business because the founders determined that their job was to protect liberty, not to centrally plan the administration of businesses. Obviously this has been violated in many different ways over the years but this was the original idea. When the government is the one conducting the business, the 1st Amendment applies plainly and simply. Perhaps this is why the founders did not provide for public education in the constitution - because it is none of the governments business how individuals or or groups of people choose to educate their children. It is always a slippery and dangerous slope when people forfeit freedom and make the government their bed partners!
GB Shore
2:05 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
News to me that the government does not have the authority to tell a private entity how to conduct it's business. there are ALL KINDS of rules and regulation imposed upon businesses...why do you think they are leaving and setting up shop elsewhere in droves. The net, however you want to position it, is that government DOES impose upon entities, public and private, as well as individuals...that is why things are a mess because we have such a spaghetti pot of loopholes, exceptions etc it is sickening....also, if it not the government's place to be involved or tell us to educate our children, why do they continue to do so????
Abby Normal
10:04 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Good teachers should not be held to a punitive standard should they want to post wedding photos or ANY photo of ANY celebration, yet petty and vindictive administrators will use that opportunity to get rid of staff. A fear mongering culture has gripped Lacey & the Board now seeks to do the job of parents who do not supervise their children, and again teachers are made scapegoats. Nothing to be proud of here. I would love to hear from more constitutionalists on this. Bueller?
Oh and there are no teachers who are afraid, we hold up to scrutiny, but it's those pesky details in how this will be used by administrators. What about nurses? What about any other profession? Aren't we ALL responsible for what children are exposed to, especially parents?
proud
9:20 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Yes, @Abby Normal, we are all responsible for what children are exposed to. Parents, teachers, and citizens alike. But, when a child is publicly subjected to atrocious behavior by a public servant that is being paid heartily while unions spend fruitless years in a court like setting for their own proffer, then the innocent have been short changed
GB Shore
9:20 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@Abby Normal....fear mongering? It is you anf others who assume that it is administrators and the Board who are "out to get" teachers....this is the mantra of yourself apparently, but reflects the NJEA's messaging. You can't be serious with that argument when your argument itself is fear mongering to the core....why is it o.k. for you and your ilk to claim otherwise? Your statement is fear mongering itself.....I hope you don't teach logic to your students....
Abby Normal
2:05 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
So tell me again, @proud, who is getting subjected to atrocious behavior? Walk a mile in a teacher's shoes, then explain. Oh that's right, people don't choose to teach because they can't handle children and the pay is too low. It's weird, but I don't see any innocents being short changed in this thread or topic, so what are you talking about? Sounds like union envy. No one is stopping everyone else from forming a union to protect their interests.
Note: tenure charges now take 90 days to resolve, your argument is invalid.
proud
4:54 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@Abby Normal, the number of instances where the NJEA as well as other public sector unions defend horrific actions by their members is too great to. Outline in this particular forum. However, since you are obviously Internet savvy ( and that we ate talking about teachers), check out this web page for numerous occurrences where society has suffered at the hands of BAD teachers:
[Teachers Union Exposedwww.protectingbadteachers.com/Tenured teacher's punishment for sexually harassing girls? Four months' severance pay ... Public Employee Contract in New Jersey” as one of the benefits of membership. But the union ...]
While I applaud the long overdue tenure reform, if you were to ask me if I believe that said reform is enough, the answer would be "NO". As to your suggestion that I am envious of you or anyone else for belonging to a union, you are quite mistaken. I hope I have answered your questions. Now, I have some questions for you. If your staus as a protected union is so great, why are you then complaining about low pay? And, do you teach days or nights?
Note: That's what I'm talking about.
proud
5:17 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
I just saw this story covered on Channel 12 news (ch.62 on Comcast) . FYI, they are conducting their own poll.
moonbeam
9:00 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Last time I checked, it was legal to have a drink...why is this even being discussed? Why shouldn't teachers be able to participate on social media? Why aren't parents policing what their kids are doing on the internet...oh, I forgot...it MUST be the teacher's fault! Why is it assumed that "friending" a student is inappropriate? How dare the Lacey BOE tell teachers what they can legally do on their own time...the key word is LEGALLY...if they are not breaking any laws (which all other citizens must adhere to) then why would the BOE be involved? The school system is a public employer and is not a private entity. Hello...LTEA where are you??!! Why aren't you screaming about this??!! Lacey residents--you do realize when this gets challenged by the ACLU, you will have to foot the bill for the system's defense. Does the person or persons giving the BOE advice have another agenda (more billable hours)?
moonbeam
9:00 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
My sincere concern is how broad an application of the word "inappropriate" can be applied in both a constructive and/or abusive manner by the BOE. While most reasonable people have noble intentions, with respect to applying this standard "in the best interest of" students, this broad term "inappropriate" also empowers any BOE to arbitrarily set standards that fail to provide employees with a succinct set of rules of behavior. Because this proposed policy allows the BOE to decide what is inappropriate after the fact, it fails to meet the necessary requirement of a guideline for behavior to a higher standard. It provides the BOE with the opportunity to abuse its power and impose its will with impunity.
TheGreatHoax
9:00 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Coming full circle. Now that the government run schools barely touch on the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. students graduate with hardly a clue about their rights. It's coming back to bite the "educators". Now government at all levels is chipping away at their rights and shredding our constitution. How else can you explain electing the "shredder in chief" TWICE. The young numb nuts have no idea their rock star is preparing a bleak dependent future for them. He's "cool" though, so it's all good.
Uncle Moe
6:03 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
This policy is ridiculous! Teachers should be free to do as they please on social media- it should be their own decision to manage themselves, not a top down command from the board.
tr
2:38 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
You are right "Uncle Moe", they should be "FREE" and able to do everything a Union Teamster or a Union Operating Engineer does. They should be treated the same as bulldozer and truck drivers. If they get caught doing something they should not be doing, then go to arbitration and contest the disciplinary procedure brought against them. If they are unhappy with the outcome, then they can go to the courts to seek relief. I agree, it is their decision to manage themslves!!!!! Remember they WANT UNION PROTECTION.
Laura Higley
10:11 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
An adult may legally consume alcohol in public. To be photographed in public doing something that is sanctioned by law should not result in loss of employment. Adults are permitted, by law, to do things that children are not permitted to do. Is a teacher to lose his job for publicly displaying a photograph taken as he enters a voting booth? How about getting married?
BeckiV
8:45 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
What happens if the teacher, being a role model of tolerance and anti-bullying, has a FB post supporting marriage equality and other gay rights? For some with strong religious beliefs, any public support of gay rights would be considered a violation of the policy. I live in a school district in Ohio that wants to prohibit an employee from making any statements, at school or off school grounds, about "controversial topics" which include gay rights, politics, global warming, and green technology. All of this is the slippery slope of one group imposing their religious and moral beliefs onto others.
Frank Latella
8:45 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Hey, Board of Education members; Does that "Higher Standard" you want to hold teachers too come with a "Higher Standard" of Salary, Benefits, and Professional Respect ?
tr
11:55 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Who are you folks trying to CON sympathy from now? As I said before UNION PROTECTION ,ARBITRATION, UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCHARGE, COURTS OF APPEAL. Who are you kidding? Not me. The same as turck drivers and bulldozer operators, no better, no worse.
Abby Normal
10:54 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Hey, why those professions, why not politicians, executives, and Wall Street bankers? Oh wait a minute...
tr
12:34 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Dear "Abby" they are not UNION employees like NJEA whiners, sorry, I mean members are. International Brotherhood of Teamsters(truck drivers) and Operating Engineers(bulldozer drivers) are Union employees and they are very proud of their proffessions. I hope you are now EDUCATED by this non-NJEA teacher who likes to bring REALITY to those living in a world of media propaganda.
JOHNNY Done it
9:35 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
THey need to totally need to get rid of tenure...A union shop has a grievance procedure Not you cant touch my procedure because you worked here for 3 or so years.. They need to get up to the times..