Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I kind of see this, but it seems like a Constitutional infringement to me. What if a teacher goes out and gets hammered at some restaurant and one of the students is there? Is that potentially grounds for dismissal? I'm nearly certain this one will end up in court if they pursue it.


http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article ... 004/NEWS01

The Greenville County school board decided to hold off approving a policy that would call for disciplining teachers and other district employees over “unprofessional conduct” in what they post on social networking sites, after board members raised ethical, legal and technical questions.

The proposed revision to the district policy was to add wording that all district employees “should recognize that they are being continuously observed by students, other employees, parents, and community members, and that their actions and demeanor may impair their effectiveness as an employee.”

It continues, “The personal life of an employee including the employee's personal use of non-district issued electronic equipment outside of working hours (such as through social networking sites and personal portrayal on the Internet), will be the concern of and warrant the attention of the board if it impairs the employee's ability to be an effective teacher, effectively perform his/her job responsibilities, or if it violates local, state, or federal law or contractual agreements.”

Moravec questioned how administrators would determine whether something posted on Facebook, for example, was inappropriate, saying some people consider dancing a sin and would disapprove of teachers in online videos dancing.

ASUG8 wrote: Moravec questioned how administrators would determine whether something posted on Facebook, for example, was inappropriate, saying some people consider dancing a sin and would disapprove of teachers in online videos dancing.

I don't really see a Constitutional issue here.

If a teach does something of moral question other than online now they would be subject to punishment. It all comes down to whether their actions arise to the level of the teacher not being fit to be in a position of authority or with children.

Whether its done online or in the real world makes no difference.

danefan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: Moravec questioned how administrators would determine whether something posted on Facebook, for example, was inappropriate, saying some people consider dancing a sin and would disapprove of teachers in online videos dancing.

Yeah, that part got me too - proof that I'm sitting right in the buckle of the Bible belt. That's why I like being Presbyterian over Baptist - at least a Presbyterian will speak to you in the liquour store.

danefan wrote:I don't really see a Constitutional issue here.

If a teach does something of moral question other than online now they would be subject to punishment. It all comes down to whether their actions arise to the level of the teacher not being fit to be in a position of authority or with children.

Whether its done online or in the real world makes no difference.

And it's a wonder why we have a problem recruiting teachers these days. Couple low pay with the prospect of losing your job over HAVING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF FREAKIN" WORK sounds like a deal too good to pass up....

In general, I have no problem with this. Back into the 1800s, teachers have been held to a higher standard.

However, it does beg the question of enforcement. Who is going to enforce this? Are districts going to have to fund an "Internet Czar," whose time is spent surfing teachers/administrators Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn/Xanga/etc. pages? Where is that funding going to come from? Or is this enforceable only in cases of a media circus, i.e. reaction vice proaction?

So, OK in theory, but not really doable in practice, particularly in this economy. Districts are not going to spend money on this when they can't even put basics like paper and pencils in the bloody classroom.

ASUG8 wrote:

danefan wrote:I don't really see a Constitutional issue here.

If a teach does something of moral question other than online now they would be subject to punishment. It all comes down to whether their actions arise to the level of the teacher not being fit to be in a position of authority or with children.

Whether its done online or in the real world makes no difference.

And it's a wonder why we have a problem recruiting teachers these days. Couple low pay with the prospect of losing your job over HAVING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF FREAKIN" WORK sounds like a deal too good to pass up....

Teachers accept that burden when the choose to become a professional role model.

SuperHornet wrote:In general, I have no problem with this. Back into the 1800s, teachers have been held to a higher standard.

However, it does beg the question of enforcement. Who is going to enforce this? Are districts going to have to fund an "Internet Czar," whose time is spent surfing teachers/administrators Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn/Xanga/etc. pages? Where is that funding going to come from? Or is this enforceable only in cases of a media circus, i.e. reaction vice proaction?

So, OK in theory, but not really doable in practice, particularly in this economy. Districts are not going to spend money on this when they can't even put basics like paper and pencils in the bloody classroom.

I agree, and that's why I kind of understand it. But schools are cutting back like crazy, class sizes are getting larger and tougher to manage, and the teachers themselves are having to come out of pocket to put up bulletin boards, etc. in the classroom. I mean, if you are looking for disincentives for freshmen to choose education as a profession, continue taking away personal freedoms on top of all this.

It will be enforced only by parents. It won't cost the schools a dime except to investigate allegations, which they have to do now anyway.

real simple, require them to keep their page/profile private.

Teacher in the HS my GF teaches at recently took some heat for her facebook page, had a picture of herself in a low cut v-neck sweater that showed a little cleavage. The HS boys found it and started circulating the pic and talking about it. Administration said it was distracting to the learning environment. Can't remember if she was fired for it, or just didn't have her contract re-newed.

ASUG8 wrote:

danefan wrote:I don't really see a Constitutional issue here.

If a teach does something of moral question other than online now they would be subject to punishment. It all comes down to whether their actions arise to the level of the teacher not being fit to be in a position of authority or with children.

Whether its done online or in the real world makes no difference.

And it's a wonder why we have a problem recruiting teachers these days. Couple low pay with the prospect of losing your job over HAVING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF FREAKIN" WORK sounds like a deal too good to pass up....

or....or...or.....it might be the fact that there are thousands and thousands of unemployed teachers across America?

Nah....that can't be it.

I went to the Arizona State University graduation ceremony in May, and out of about 15,000 graduates, when King Obama asked how many were education majors, a good 8,000 raised their hands and cheered.

Fuckin' dumbasses.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
And it's a wonder why we have a problem recruiting teachers these days. Couple low pay with the prospect of losing your job over HAVING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF FREAKIN" WORK sounds like a deal too good to pass up....

or....or...or.....it might be the fact that there are thousands and thousands of unemployed teachers across America?

Nah....that can't be it.

I went to the Arizona State University graduation ceremony in May, and out of about 15,000 graduates, when King Obma asked how many were education members, a good 8,000 raised their hands and cheered.

Fuckin' dumbasses.

I don't know why I'm laughing at this... I know people who got education degrees and are currently waiting tables... some who went and got their masters too.

Quite possibly because teaching is the best job possible?

My brother-in-law makes 6 figures teaching elementary school gym for 8.5 months a year.

Greatest job in the world my friends.

danefan wrote:Quite possibly because teaching is the best job possible?

My brother-in-law makes 6 figures teaching elementary school gym for 8.5 months a year.

Greatest job in the world my friends.

That only happens when you've been teaching for thirty freaking years.

danefan wrote:Quite possibly because teaching is the best job possible?

My brother-in-law makes 6 figures teaching elementary school gym for 8.5 months a year.

Greatest job in the world my friends.

I don't know where your BIL teaches but in the state of Georgia the maximum salary for a teacher is $72,530, and that is if you have a PhD and more than 20 years experience.

Wouldn't want the thread to get de-railed, but as long as we are discussing this I will bring it up again. This is the fundamental problem with America's public education:

1. Those that can teach, do.

2. Those that can't teach get masters degrees and EDDs. These degrees are a joke regardless of whether you attend Harvard or regional no-SAT-required-for-admission Cash Cow U. These people go on to become school principals, teachers union leaders, and educators of educators.

Education isn't a meritocracy. It's run by folks that have among the lowest GRE scores of all people who attend postgraduate school and who have little if any classroom experience.

SuperHornet wrote:

danefan wrote:Quite possibly because teaching is the best job possible?

My brother-in-law makes 6 figures teaching elementary school gym for 8.5 months a year.

Greatest job in the world my friends.

That only happens when you've been teaching for thirty freaking years.

Not true at all in NY, but it may be in other places.

Pwns wrote:

danefan wrote:Quite possibly because teaching is the best job possible?

My brother-in-law makes 6 figures teaching elementary school gym for 8.5 months a year.

Greatest job in the world my friends.

I don't know where your BIL teaches but in the state of Georgia the maximum salary for a teacher is $72,530, and that is if you have a PhD and more than 20 years experience.

Wouldn't want the thread to get de-railed, but as long as we are discussing this I will bring it up again. This is the fundamental problem with America's public education:

1. Those that can teach, do.

2. Those that can't teach get masters degrees and EDDs. These degrees are a joke regardless of whether you attend Harvard or regional no-SAT-required-for-admission Cash Cow U. These people go on to become school principals, teachers union leaders, and educators of educators.

Education isn't a meritocracy. It's run by folks that have among the lowest GRE scores of all people who attend postgraduate school and who have little if any classroom experience.

My BIL teaches in Suburban NYC and has been there for 6 years. Has a Masters Degree. Most teachers in NY are unionized. Very good salary and benefits.

In NY you can no longer teach without a Master's degree. I agree that some of the master's degrees are a joke. I come from a family of teachers, including some that have a Masters in Education Technology (e.g. powerpoint). A joke.

That doesn't necessarily make them poor teachers. It just means they knew how to play the system to an extent.

Some teachers and admins are just bad at their jobs. No doubt about though.

I do agree that a lot of Admins are no longer from the teaching ranks. School districts are run more and more like businesses. Its a necessity when you are scrounging for tax dollars and need to stretch every last cent.

A slippery slope to be sure...

A similar situation came up with a homebuilder whose management I knew quite well. One of their top new home sales personnel was a gay male. He was a great guy (I had dealings with him), looked good, presented himself well, was a great representative of the company, had been with the company over 5 years, was a top producer. Professionally and personally there was nothing not to like about him.

However, he had a "myspace" page that sported photos and messages that were completely inappropriate and in some cases offensive from a sexual nature. Combine the inappropriateness (even if the messages had been hetero they were out of bounds) with the "stigma" of being gay and management was faced with quite a quandry since the area he worked in was rural Lake County, FL.

I don't know exactly how the HR folks at the builder handled it but the "myspace" page got "cleaned up" and there was no legal fallout to my knowledge.

IMO when one is in public he is- whether he likes it or not- a representative of his employer and should be careful to consider that everything he does is fodder for the internet and should conduct himself accordingly... social media certainly falls under that heading. Common sense should always rule.

The city of Bozeman, MT was trying to force city employees to give them their passwords to facebook, twitter, myspace, ect for things like this. Needless to the say the city administrator no longer has a job.

We do have a right to privacy in our state constitution.

BTW, no drug tests in the work place in MT.

Somewhat OT, but my buddy had to give his passwords up for Facebook/Myspace during his attempt to get full custody of his son.

He was happy to do it, and it worked in his favor as most his posts were in reference to trying to get his kid back and how worried he was. Not to mention the dumb bitch baby mama wrote some not-so-nice messages to him which he conventiently saved (at his best friend the lawyers advice ).

Needless to say - full custody.

danefan wrote:Somewhat OT, but my buddy had to give his passwords up for Facebook/Myspace during his attempt to get full custody of his son.

He was happy to do it, and it worked in his favor as most his posts were in reference to trying to get his kid back and how worried he was. Not to mention the dumb bitch baby mama wrote some not-so-nice messages to him which he conventiently saved (at his best friend the lawyers advice ).

Needless to say - full custody.

Talk about backfiring.

ASUG8 wrote:

danefan wrote:I don't really see a Constitutional issue here.

If a teach does something of moral question other than online now they would be subject to punishment. It all comes down to whether their actions arise to the level of the teacher not being fit to be in a position of authority or with children.

Whether its done online or in the real world makes no difference.

And it's a wonder why we have a problem recruiting teachers these days. Couple low pay with the prospect of losing your job over HAVING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF FREAKIN" WORK sounds like a deal too good to pass up....

Low pay my ass. They get almost 4 months off a year.

blueballs wrote:A slippery slope to be sure...

A similar situation came up with a homebuilder whose management I knew quite well. One of their top new home sales personnel was a gay male. He was a great guy (I had dealings with him), looked good, presented himself well, was a great representative of the company, had been with the company over 5 years, was a top producer. Professionally and personally there was nothing not to like about him.

However, he had a "myspace" page that sported photos and messages that were completely inappropriate and in some cases offensive from a sexual nature. Combine the inappropriateness (even if the messages had been hetero they were out of bounds) with the "stigma" of being gay and management was faced with quite a quandry since the area he worked in was rural Lake County, FL.

I don't know exactly how the HR folks at the builder handled it but the "myspace" page got "cleaned up" and there was no legal fallout to my knowledge.

IMO when one is in public he is- whether he likes it or not- a representative of his employer and should be careful to consider that everything he does is fodder for the internet and should conduct himself accordingly... social media certainly falls under that heading. Common sense should always rule.

Yep

D1B wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
And it's a wonder why we have a problem recruiting teachers these days. Couple low pay with the prospect of losing your job over HAVING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF FREAKIN" WORK sounds like a deal too good to pass up....

Low pay my ass. They get almost 4 months off a year.

During which they don't get paid unless they opt for some sort of deferral plan.

SuperHornet wrote:

D1B wrote:

Low pay my ass. They get almost 4 months off a year.

During which they don't get paid unless they opt for some sort of deferral plan.

No shit. They're still getting paid enough. JFC.

One of the gym teachers at my high school, very likable and a good guy, was drinkin' at a bar during the summer and some of the kids got in (IDK how) and took pictures with him while he was completely hammered and posted them on facebook. Administration got hold of it and he got fired. Their reason (from what I heard) was that he did nothing to prevent the underage drinking going on, but it's not like he was in the right state of mind and might've not even recognized them. The dumbasses who posted the pictures got themselves in trouble though, along with the bar I believe.

A lot of people were upset about it b/c he never even had control of the camera or the images of himself, and it's his personal choice if wants to get wasted at a bar (in the summer nontheless). That's the problem with social sites...you don't have control of your life...it's a blurry line between personal and public. On that note, here's a funny example of this: