Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Mike Mulgrew: Come Clean With the Allegations of Tampering With An Investigation, Or Resign

I made this story happen by giving reporters the information that I had because I dont believe in deceit. As you will see in the article posted on my website early this morning, I was given the information about the coverup in March 2010 from Brooklyn rubber roomer John Haggerty. He told me to look into it. When a friend asked Norm Scott about it a couple of months ago, Norm said he knew nothing about it. Why he would not post it before now, if indeed he had the information, I dont know. But what I do know is, in 2005 the Principal of William Grady HS sued Mike Mulgrew, Ellie Engler and Newsday, and the case was settled. People I spoke to about this over the past year have told me that there was never any investigation of the allegations involving Mulgrew and Camacho-Mendez, but there were other violations of rules and law with the students that were also not investigated. This needs to happen.

When Randi Weingarten moved Mike and Emma to the UFT, what did she know, and how was she involved in keeping an investigation from happening? It seems to me that more and more teachers charged with 3020-a are getting a specification with words to the effect of "tampering with an investigation", thus we need to know if this applies to Mike Mulgrew, Emelina Camacho-Mendez, Randi Weingarten and the UFT/Unity Caucus. We dont need to know that Ms. Camacho-Mendez is now divorced/separated from her husband and Mike is living with another woman, but still carrying on with Camacho-Mendez, no one should care about this. What we should care about are secret deals and disparate treatment, politicians giving Mike Mulgrew rights that UFT members are denied and then terminated for relying on.
Emelina Comacho-Mendez

Last week a new entry on the UFT website intrigued me, the Parent Fact Sheet on Special Education Reform. Evidently if a parent has a complaint about their child(ren)'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), they should call the UFT Special Education liaison, and these people with fix the problem. I called the number listed on the webpage, and got, of all people, Betsy, who sits at my old desk on the 16th floor. We spoke for a while, and when I asked how the UFT can fix a problem in a child's IEP without the parent going to an impartial Hearing, Betsy told me that she would ask someone to call me back. That someone was Emelina Camacho-Mendez, who did not answer my questions. She told me that she was the liaison to the Department for all special needs children and their parents. Huh? The United Federation of Teachers and Parents? Leonie Haimson and Mona Davids channel Unity - what do you know about this?


UFT members realize now, I think, that there is something very wrong in New York City with UFT leaders as far as supporting and complying with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and other contractual rules. The grievance procedure stinks, and all that is left is payment of money to the people who prosecute the claims and who claim to represent members. Its a business. So is the 3020-a arbitration.

 My point is this: I do not care who Mike Mulgrew has sex with, but if he covered up this, and other stuff while at Grady High School, he needs to be held accountable to all the UFT members who have seen their lives destroyed because of false claims against them and/or "tampering with an investigation".

If Mike Mulgrew made a secret deal to get away with whatever he did while at Grady in order to be President of the UFT, he needs to resign. Pronto. Workplace rights are not bargaining chips or for sale.

UFT Sex Scandal Rocks New York City by Betsy Combier 
Parentadvocates.org
LINK

Michael Mulgrew, President of the United Federation of Teachers, and currently being attacked by UFT members fed up with his "do nothing" approach to the rubber rooms continuing and the denial of rights at grievance hearings, etc., are now confronted with the cover up of Mike's alleged affair with a married teacher from his old school, William Grady HS, Emelina Camacho-Mendez. Some say there is more, including special education fraud at the school while Mulgrew was there. Both Mulgrew and his girlfriend moved suddenly to the UFT and now hold positions of power there, he as President and she, as the liaison to the Department of Education for special education. I have their personnel files.


Michael Mulgrew

Two years ago John Haggerty, a teacher who was removed from his job at a Brooklyn public school and forced to sit at the worst of 8 rubber rooms (Park Place, Brooklyn), told me that I should look into when and why Mike Mulgrew was removed from his position at William Grady High School in Brooklyn in 2004 or 2005.

When I asked John about this he told me that Mike Mulgrew was found by staff, he believed it to be Donald Herb, the Custodian, having sexual relations with a teacher who is married to someone else. Her name is Emelina Camacho-Mendez. He told me that I could speak with a few people, and he gave me some names. He was outraged that Mike could "get away with this" without any investigation. This was, he said, a "UFT Cover-up" of the highest order.

One of the people he told me to speak with was "Debbie", at the other Brooklyn rubber room, 25 Chapel Street, who was a teacher at Grady. I did not remember meeting Debbie on my weekly visit to Chapel Street, because she was there only for a few weeks, not months or years, as everyone else (read the story about Steve Ostrin, accused of sexual harassment, there was no investigation, but he sat in the rubber room for almost 7 years, then was given a 6-month suspension without any evidence, and no help from the UFT). 

At my next visit I found Debbie, and sat with her a while. She kept saying over and over again that she had Mike Mulgrew on "speed dial" and she was not going to be sitting in the rubber room very long, because Mike knew that she "had stuff" on him, and he would either get her put back in her job or some other position soon, or she would tell his story to anyone and everyone. A few days later she was magically back in her teaching position.

Then I found out from John that he had leukemia. As he was getting more and more ill, I spent time with him at his house near to Brooklyn College. The last time I saw him, he told me again that he wanted me to look into the Mike Mulgrew affair because this was not fair to all the UFT members who relied on him for their jobs, and he was doing nothing to help anyone while he, Mulgrew, got away scot free.

After John died, the rubber rooms were "closed" (the April 15, 2010 agreement only scattered the imprisoned members), and the UFT - Mike Mulgrew, Ellie Engler, Leroy Barr - decided to get rid of me. So, on July 7, 2010, I was called by Angela Berry, the UFT staff Directors' secretary, to Ellie Engler's office. Engler and David Hickey were sitting there. I wondered if she was going to ask me if I wanted a drink from her liquor drawer in her desk. She didnt, this time (I dont drink the hard stuff, anyway, altho' I dont turn down a glass of wine). She told me that I had done a great job for all members, and the UFT was very grateful for my wonderful advocacy, but as there were no more rubber rooms, they did not need me anymore. There were no members who needed help.

I said, ok, I guess you will give me two weeks? She said yes. 

I loved my job as a staff representative at the UFT, partially because I could see the pained faces of Leroy Barr, John Settle, and many others when I asked them - no, begged them - to pick up the telephone once in a while so that a member could be helped. All my efforts to get anyone at 52 Broadway to assist a member fell on deaf ears, so this was a problem. Another problem was that I was able to see actions and read emails that showed disdain for the very members that the UFT was supposed to support, like those who were parked in the "Rubber Rooms", and people I was hired to help. 

Anyway, about two years ago I mentioned to a reporter of a major newspaper that I had heard this stuff cited above, about Mike Mulgrew, and we got the personnel files of both Mike and Emelina, asking for the information separately. The reporter got the information within a week or two, and I was refused for more than a year. Joe Baranello doesn't seem to believe that this kind of disparate treatment is wrong, so I will be addressing this soon.

Here is the information I received from the DOE after I filed Freedom of Information (FOIL) requests (broken down into sections because my scanner would not scan in all pages at once):
Michael Mulgrew
Personnel file1
Personnel file2
Personnel file3
Personnel file4
Personnel file5

Emelina Comacho-Mendez
FOIL papers1
FOIL papers2
FOIL papers3
FOIL papers4

About a month ago I saw Joy Hochstadt at 51 Chambers Street, serving Theresa Europe some legal documents. I asked her whether she knew anything about the Mulgrew/Mendez affair. ThenAttorney Joy Hochstadt filed her federal lawsuit in the Eastern District, and now the allegations are public property. I believe that as the UFT keeps paying people for political reasons, like David Hickey, Burton Sacks and Ron Isaac, members should know what is going on with their UFT dues. I will gladly tell all that I know, including the channeling of political support and money to parent activists such as Leonie Haimson and Mona Davids. 

So, what's the truth, Mike? Why did the Principal of Grady sue you and Ellie Engler in 2005? What was the settlement? The public does need to know.

And why are you on the payroll of the DOE through 2010?

Did you hide your affair and other actions at William Grady, then decide you would not help members put into the same situation? If so, perhaps you should resign.

UFT ‘sex coverup’
Union chief caught in act at school: lawsuit

By SUSAN EDELMAN, NY POST, Last Updated: 12:19 AM, May 20, 2012
LINK

EXCLUSIVE

UFT President Mike Mulgrew was caught “in flagrante delicto” with a guidance counselor at William Grady HS, where he taught before becoming the union’s boss, a bombshell lawsuit charges.

The accusation that Mulgrew was seen having sex with a co-worker in a woodshop at the vocational school, and that it was hushed up, comes in a rambling 73-page suit filed in Brooklyn federal court last week by Andrew Ostrowsky, a math teacher at Frank Sinatra HS of the Arts in Manhattan.

Ostrowsky, 35, names Mayor Bloomberg, Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott, Mulgrew and the UFT, claiming the teachers union conspired with school officials to quash the scandal. It accuses the city of using the favor to “extort” labor concessions.

The suit claims that a custodian found Mulgrew and Emma Camacho-Mendez together at the Brooklyn school, and that the custodian and principal were “sworn to secrecy and denial.”

It charges the pair were shielded by then-UFT President Randi Weingarten to avoid embarrassment to the union leadership.

“Mulgrew was embroiled in a meretricious scandal for which anyone else would have been fired, ending his career as an educator,” the suit claims.

Mulgrew’s spokesman, Dick Riley, gave a curt response: “This lawsuit is a catalog of absurd, false charges which we expect the court to dismiss.”

Camacho-Mendez, now a UFT official, said, “I have no comment on that. It’s the first I’ve heard of such an allegation. I have nothing to say to you.”

The lawyer who filed the suit, Joy Hochstadt, told The Post she is seeking evidence of the alleged tryst.

“Everyone has only hearsay knowledge, but almost everyone in the school talked about it,” the suit says.

Several former staffers at Grady HS have told The Post they believed Mulgrew and Camacho-Mendez, who is married, were romantically involved, and there were rumors of an encounter on a drafting table at the time.

“The sex thing, it’s between them and nobody’s business,” one said. “The thing that upset me is the patronage job to Mendez — rewarding her with a high-paying job with my union dues.”

In 2005, soon after the alleged incident, Mulgrew became UFT vice president for career and technical high schools. Around the same time, Camacho-Mendez transferred to the HS of Telecommunication Arts and Technology in Brooklyn, but got a part-time job in Mulgrew’s union office.

She was later given the full-time position of UFT liaison for special education. She gets two paychecks — $22,000 in UFT compensation on top of her $85,000 city salary, although she’s no longer a guidance counselor. In 2010, Mulgrew presented Camacho-Mendez with a UFT award.

“No one ever heard of this woman until Mulgrew brought her on board,” said a longtime UFT rep. “She had no union credentials.”

Mulgrew was tapped to finish Weingarten’s term in 2009, when she left to head the American Federation of Teachers. In April 2010, he was elected to a three-year term to succeed her.

One of the most powerful labor leaders in the country, the fiery Mulgrew has fought Mayor Bloomberg and the Department of Education on such issues as reversing the last-in, first-out policy in laying off teachers; plans to close struggling schools; and the public release of teacher ratings.

The UFT pays Mulgrew $250,400 a year, plus benefits.

Ostrowsky, a 10-year veteran, claims in the suit he’s being “targeted” for termination because an assistant principal gave him his first “unsatisfactory” rating last December. Supervisors also ordered him to undergo a DOE medical/psychological exam, but he wasn’t found to be unfit.

Hochstadt, who has sued the DOE over its notorious “rubber rooms” for teachers accused of misconduct, filed a similar suit for Ostrowsky last month in Manhattan Supreme Court.

She added the alleged sex scandal and coverup to the federal case, which complains the UFT has betrayed members by caving in to the DOE on several issues. Under one agreement, teachers “excessed” from closing schools, no matter their seniority, must work as substitutes until another school hires them. Walcott last week proposed buyouts for most of 831 educators in the Absent Teacher Reserve.

Ostrowsky seeks a purging of any negative documents in his file, and more than $600,000 in damages, including payment for “defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

susan.edelman@nypost.com

Secret Emails From The DOE To Partners In Crime, Finally Revealed

The UFT FOILed emails between DOE and the charter lobbyists and got a large bunch of messages after long delay and obstructionism from DOE.  Apparently more emails are coming. 

Reporters received pages of these emails as well as the UFT, and some wrote stories; Diane Ravitch blogged about them.   
But until today, no one had posted them all online. 
 
The ones I’ve seen make it appear that Klein, and others at Tweed, including the DOE lobbyist, Micah Lasher, were working for the privateers and the hedge-funders more than they were working for our  kids.
 
Here are all the emails released so far (in PDF form).  Please take a look, and leave any observations and/or especially revealing exchanges in the comments section.  The most interesting finds I will add to the blog post itself. The emails are in eleven parts:
Part 9. Part 10. Part 11.

Here's a fun email from Bradley Tusk, the political consultant who worked with Lasher to raise the cap, to Maura Keaney of DOE, which was included in Part 10:

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Election of 18-Year old To Syosset School Board: Exposure of District Retaliation Worked

The cases of Francesco Portelos and Christine Rubino show that the public do not like retaliation and harassment by public officials. I post here the landslide election of Josh Lafazan as another example of this.

Congratulations, Josh!!

 Residents Irate After Syosset CSD Uses School Emergency Information Network In Alleged Smear Campaign

Newcomers DiFilippo, Lafazan elected to the school board in the wake of robocalling scandal

After an eventful and often contentious spring campaign, newcomers Chris DiFilippo and 18-year-old SHS senior class president Josh Lafazan were elected to the Syosset School Board, while incumbent Alan Resnick was re-elected. The arrival of some new faces on the board is newsworthy here, especially since both of the newly-elected trustees have been critical of many district policies. However, a bizarre event the day before the May 15 election threatened to overshadow the results: an accusation of theft levied by the district at Lafazan’s father, Jeffrey Lafazan, the use of the school’s emergency information network to broadcast that accusation, and the counter-accusation by the Lafazan family that the entire thing was a fabricated crime designed in an attempt to discredit Lafazan’s candidacy with a last-minute smear campaign.
After Lafazan’s landslide victory on Tuesday, May 15, residents are left with an interesting question: Did Lafazan capture so many more votes than his fellow candidates despite the fact that the district allegedly tried to connect him with a crime, or perhaps because of it? For many residents who may have been ambivalent about the district, the use of the school’s emergency network in this manner appeared to push them past their breaking point, so much so that they took their revenge on the status quo at the polls on Tuesday.

The Situation: We Are Not Making This Up
Syosset School District posted a notice on its website on Monday, May 14, that Jeffrey Lafazan removed district election original records (names and addresses of those who applied for absentee ballots). According to the notice, Lafazan removed the records without permission and ran away, and a chase with security ensued. However, according to Lafazan, he was manipulated to take the records out of the building, with no knowledge that they were the originals, so that the district could allege that he knowingly stole them.
Lafazan told Anton Newspapers Monday evening, May 14, that he was initially refused access to the records in the morning, then the school district called him on his cell phone with the news that he would be allowed to see the records after he complained to the New York State Board of Elections. Returning to the school midday, he said he was given the absentee ballot records by a clerk, Christine Costa, who then walked out of the room, at which point he walked to his car; he went on to say that security footage, if available, will confirm that no chase took place. When Lafazan became aware that the district had accused him online of stealing the records, and in automated calls to residents, his wife tried to return said records, only to find the school on lockdown due to a bomb threat, Lafazan said.
A representative from the district’s public relations firm, Zimmerman-Edelson said that there was no bomb threat in the district that day, only in neighboring district Jericho. The representative did not offer an explanation for why Mrs. Lafazan was not allowed into the school to return the records if there was no bomb threat. Beyond that communication, the district refused to talk to the Syosset-Jericho Tribune about this event.
Lafazan believes that this alleged theft, which led to robocalls throughout the district to inform residents that Lafazan had “stolen” the papers, was a last-ditch attempt by a desperate administration to smear Lafazan’s son’s name in the community on the eve of the election.
After the incident had received a fair amount of media coverage, with most outlets seemingly favoring Lafazan’s side of the story, the school district released the following statement in defense of its actions on Tuesday, May 15:
“Syosset Central School District sent an autodial message to the community in an effort to recover stolen district records which included confidential information and names and addresses of residents who had submitted applications for absentee ballots. The autodial message asked the Syosset community for help in recovering the missing absentee ballot documents and specifically asked for anyone with information regarding the theft and any individuals involved in the theft to aid the district’s search by contacting the Nassau County Police Department.”
However, was the information that Jeffrey Lafazan requested really confidential? And if so, whose fault was it that he walked out with it?
FOILed Again: District Caught In A Lie
It turns out that the answer is a little complicated, but not impossible to ascertain. According to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), documents from an agency may be withheld when disclosure would result in “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (FOIL Section 87, 2-b.) One situation considered an invasion of privacy is if the “sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for solicitation or fund-raising purposes” (FOIL Section 89, 2b iii).
It seems unlikely that a list of absentee voters names and addresses would be used in this manner the day before an election, but the section of FOIL that deals with invasions of privacy is somewhat nebulous: some would consider the fact that addresses appear on the document at all as reason enough to withhold it under the privacy exception.
However, it was not up to Lafazan to determine whether or not it was appropriate for him to ask for the documents; FOIL encourages citizens to ask for documents from governing bodies. It was up to the district to determine whether or not they considered the request a potential invasion of privacy, and to act accordingly.
If the district believed that giving out the names and addresses of absentee ballot voters constituted an invasion of privacy, they could have told Lafazan that they were denying him access under the relevant FOIL clause (which he could have then challenged, but that’s another story). Neither Lafazan nor the district claim that FOIL was cited as the reason why the district initially refused to let him see the document, meaning the district either didn’t know about the privacy clause, or didn’t think it would hold up as a valid reason to withhold the document under legal scrutiny.
They also had yet another option—FOIL allows agencies to give out censored versions of documents in cases where invasion of privacy is a concern: “The committee on open government may promulgate guidelines regarding deletion of identifying details or withholding of records otherwise available under this article to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. In the absence of such guidelines, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes records available,” (FOIL Section 89 2A).
So if the district was concerned about voter privacy, they legally had the option to give Lafazan a version of the document with some of the information blacked out; they choose not to do so.
While FOIL is complex, after taking all of the above clauses into account it appears that the statement the district issued on May 15 cannot be strictly true. If the district considered the information “confidential,” they had the choice to either refuse its release, or censor it accordingly. Instead, they showed the document in question to Lafazan (meaning they did not consider the information contained therein an invasion of privacy), then claimed that the information constituted an invasion of privacy after they had already given it to him. There is nothing in the law that says this determination can be made retroactively.
Even if the district’s allegation that Lafazan took the document and ran is true, which Lafazan characterizes as “ridiculous,” the district would still be responsible for showing Lafazan information that they had deemed an exception to FOIL due to privacy concerns.
There is also the issue of whether or not the documents Lafazan was given were the originals; Typically, documents requested under FOIL are photocopied, with the individual who makes the request paying for the cost of the copy. If the district chose to give him the only copy of the absentee voters’ information, even temporarily, it is neither clear why they would do so, nor why they would assume Lafazan knew he had the original document.
Of course, one could just ignore the finer points of open government laws and just go with Jeffrey Lafazan’s reason why the district’s official statement doesn’t hold water: “If they wanted the documents back, why didn’t they just call me on my cell phone? Like they had a half an hour before?”
Residents Sound Off On ‘Syossetgate’
Many residents were confused and worried when they received calls from the district in the middle of the day.
“At 2:30 p.m., while my child was in school, I saw that the incoming call was coming from the school and my stomach lurched. Was she sick? Hurt? Was it the principal? Teacher?” recounted Frances Ajamian Ktenas, whose daughter attends Berry Hill Elementary School.
“This was an egregious misuse of the emergency call system. As I understand it the system is supposed to be used for early dismissals, snow days, and other school/student related emergencies,” said Ktenas, going on to say that she and many of her fellow parents were outraged by this choice on the part of the district. Ktenas told the Syosset-Jericho Tribune that she tried to find out from the superintendent’s office who had authorized the robocall, but received no answer even after getting through to a district employee. The Syosset-Jericho Tribune is continuing to investigate who authorized the robocall.
Fellow resident Charles Nicholas, an attorney, had a similar experience. “When I got the call, the first thing I thought was that it was an emergency…then when you hear that message, what goes through your mind is ‘what possessed someone to authorize using this system for this, which is used for the children’s safety?” posed Nicholas.
“Then I thought, this is very sad. These are educators who we look toward to safeguard our children,” said Nicholas, going on to say that the use of the emergency system for political gain was unfair and a flagrant abuse of power. Nicholas also noted that the abuse of power reminded him of Watergate, leading him to dub the pre-election scandal “Syossetgate.”
Other residents were disappointed in how the district had conducted itself over the past few months in general, before Syossetgate.
“Our purpose as parents is to teach our children the importance of participating in the governing establishment, whether local, state, or national. To stand up and challenge the status quo when they see fit. The mudslinging that went on was unacceptable. I received a few “confidential” emails asking me to vote for candidates and the tactics used to gain my vote completely turned me off to those candidates,” said Amy Ciotta, financial analyst. “On another note, the grave misuse of the school emergency information network needs to be investigated.”
Whether or not Syosset’s use of its automatic calling system comes under even more scrutiny, one thing is for sure: if this entire situation was an attempt at a smear campaign against Lafazan on the part of the district, as he and his supporters believe, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. While many parents contacted the Syosset-Jericho Tribune after Monday’s robocalls (not all of whom wished to be quoted), not a single one said they believed that the district’s accusation of theft was legitimate.
“Why would you smear this kid? Why would you do this to his career? All for what—because he participated in the democratic process?” asked Nicholas, rhetorically. Why, indeed.

Syosset Votes 18-Year-Old to School Board

School budget passes; Joshua Lafazan elected to school board with 82 percent of vote Tuesday.
LONG ISLAND, NY -- In a dramatic and historic statement by voters, an 18-year-old high school senior was elected to the Syosset School District's Board of Education Tuesday night.
Calling himself "A fresh voice for the 21st century," teenager Joshua Lafazan earned a seat on the board, joining Christopher DiFilippo and Alan Resnick. Lafazan won with a remarkable tally of 4,739 ballots or 82 percent of the vote. DiFilippo garnered the second-most votes with 2,531, followed by Resnick (2,474).
Syosset school officials also announced that the $198 million 2012-13 budget passed by 61 percent, 3,530-2,271.
Voters also reelected Robert Glick to the Syosset Public Library board.
News crews joined hundreds of Syosset residents, many of them students, in the South Woods Middle School cafeteria to hear the live results of this dramatic election that has recently garnered attention across the region.
"This is not just a victory for Josh Lafazan," Lafazan said. "This is a victory for all the citizens of Syosset who have shown that in this world -- with dedication, organization and enthusiasm -- anything is possible."

Receive updates to this story and other breaking news in your inbox or on your smartphone by signing up for our newsletter here.

Lafazan is widely believed to be the youngest school board member in the state.
Lafazan plans to attend Nassau Community College in the fall and is the founder of SafeRideSyosset.org. His father created a stir on the eve of the election when the district claimed he left the district office with absentee voter data without authorization. The Lafazans said the documents have since been turned in to the Nassau County Police's Second Precinct.
The district issued an alert on its website Monday and robo-called residents with the news, a tactic the Lafazans dismissed as a "smear" campaign by the administration.
Apparently, voters agreed.
"It feels great, it really does," Lafazan said. "I'm in a debt of gratitude forever to the voters of Syosset."
Jason Molinet contributed to this report.

Dangerously Irrelevant On Social Media Issues

My thoughts on a proposed social media policy for school employees (Part 2)

LINK 

Dangerously Irrelevant

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to this blog via e-mail or my RSS feed. I also am on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
freedomisfragile
[In Part 1 of this conversation, I asked for others' input and received numerous online comments plus some additional emails. In this post I offer my own thoughts. Warning: Long post ahead.]
Dear Iowa superintendent and school board members,
As founding director of the nation’s only university center focused on P-12 technology leadership issues, I am writing to offer my admittedly-unsolicited thoughts regarding your recently-proposed social media policy for employees. I have had the opportunity to work with educators in your system on multiple occasions. I once spoke to the board about student laptop programs. You have a long history of excellence and are a much-admired district by others in the state. You are known for being pedagogically progressive and, when you rescinded your cell phone ban for students, we held you up as a model for other districts in our statewide technology leadership training sessions for Iowa principals and superintendents. You’re a fantastic school system and we all respect you greatly.
I state this context up front to explain why many of us were so disappointed to see your proposed employee social media policy. I put this policy before my 28,000+ educational technology-savvy readers to solicit their reactions. While some of them thought parts of the policy were okay, many concerns were expressed as well. My overarching issues are listed immediately below. My point-by-point concerns and those of my readers are listed at the end of this message.
  • The policy reads as if you don’t trust your educators. Instead of it feeling proactive, progressive, affirming, and empowering (as we expected), it feels reactive, regressive, and disabling. As it currently reads, this policy feels very distrusting and – sometimes – demeaning instead of resting on a foundation of trust and recognition that nearly all of your educators will use social media tools appropriately. If you trust your educators every day to act as professionals with your community’s children within school, you should trust them to act as professionals outside of school as well.
  • For those occasional instances of inappropriate use, I don’t believe that you need a separate ‘social media policy.’ You already (should) have policies regarding inappropriate teacher communication and behavior with both students and other staff, plus there are state laws that reinforce and extend these expectations. All you have to do as a district – like for student cheating, bullying, and sexual harassment – is enforce your current policies instead of creating tool-specific policies. Your policies should target underlying substantive behaviors, not the mediums in which those behaviors occur.
  • You’re alienating your most technology-savvy educators. I already have heard from multiple technology-fluent educators, both in and out of your district, that they do not want to work in a school system that has a restrictive policy such as this one. Given the confining and directive language in the policy, it is understandable why they feel that way. Most school districts suffer from shortages of technology-knowledgeable faculty. I am guessing that you can’t afford to disenfranchise the ones that you have. There’s a big difference between a highly-constraining policy such as this one and policies that gently remind staff (Example 1; Example 2; Example 3) that social media are powerful communication tools that also should be used appropriately just like telephones, email, text messages, and handwritten forms of communication. The current policy basically says no, no, no (and get permission) instead of yes, yes, yes (and be smart and careful).
  • The policy is unwieldy and partially illegal. If you enact this policy as currently written, I believe that you will find parts of it to be unwieldy and unenforceable – and thus unworkable over time. As a school law instructor, I’m pretty certain that parts of it are illegal as well. Policy that is unenforceable is not good policy.
Please take the comments here and below in the spirit in which they’re given. Neither I nor the various commentators believe that you are intentionally trying to handcuff your educators’ ability to communicate and connect with students and families. As individuals and institutions, we are ALL learners in these new, complex information spaces. We are ALL struggling with how best to formulate rules, policies, and laws that best accommodate both our new affordances and our new responsibilities. As we work together to try to figure out this new, often challenging, information space, the dialogue is usually what’s most important.
I hope that my and others’ comments and annotations are useful to your thinking about this proposed policy. I would be happy to speak with you in person about this if so desired.
With good will and support,
Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Educational Leadership
Founding Director, CASTLE
University of Kentucky
—–
Distrust
[My comments are in red; others' comments are in blue.]
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
How can we teach children about what is the proper and appropriate use of technology in the 21st century if we are totally cut off from interacting with and modeling that behavior for our students?
I hate this policy, and I could never work at a school that thinks this way about managing its teachers. I can’t budge on this. My teaching flows through my ability to connect with students around content. This is the wrong way to handle it. . . . I find it sickening. I find it damaging to the teacher-student relationship. And I find the dichotomy it presents to a teacher’s life false, and inauthentic. . . . These policies aim directly at preventing a teacher from unifying their classroom persona with their everyday soul. The boundaries are to be clear, and never the twain shall meet, unless through the director of communication. (what could be more inauthentic?)
I want my students to know me, and I want to know them, because our work is not simply the transmission of knowledge and technique; It’s their development – it’s their education, as a crucial component of their one life. I aim to know that life and partner in building it. Should I not want this? Is this bad teaching somehow?
What is their objective? Keeping kids safe and info about them private? Keeping district “safe” from lawsuits? Hard to find that in here. They should start from their objectives. And start over.
I think the policy sees social media as something to be avoided rather than just another tool that can be used for either good or bad.
This would concern me if I was a staff member. One of the reasons listed for this policy is “A lot of the policy is drafted to protect our staff.” I am not sure that is a good reason for the policy. I will not proclaim to understand the dynamics of the [district] when I compare it to my district. Our systematic approach to a more open non-restrictive environment is that we would expect appropriate modeling and proper use of social media. Things will go wrong, but keeping those issues as “teachable moments” and not immediately going to the discipline / consequence model. Times are changing, are we hoping we can regulate social media through policy? I am not sure that is possible. I also think it would be fair to understand the rationale of the policy before passing judgment. The [school district] does a lot of great things, and perhaps in a district of this size, it is the only way to begin to wrap their arms around it. Unfortunately, I believe that it may stifle both teachers and students.
Being strict with technology policies makes it harder and scarier for teachers to use technology in *good* ways.
I would love for this to be a best practices guide. Unfortunately, it is a policy proposal.
Schools simply want to avoid liability and it’s easier to switch off social media than deal with it. When dealing with large districts, it’s easier because every topic that comes is potentially a polarizing one. . . . Furthermore, while a teachers’ perspective of social media may involve a reciprocal dialogue, or conversation that leads to learning, . . . . poor choices by [some] educators and students incline district administrators in a different direction – towards top-down control, closed systems, and eliminating risk that is rampant in social encounters.
Will this need to be edited in the near future to cover the next “tech tool” in schools? Is this student-focused? Teacher-focused? Leader-focused?
What do these policies mean also for teachers who live where they teach and have school age children? The last of mine graduated last year, but if I’m reading this correctly, I could not be FB friends with my own child? In my house, that was a pre-requisite for getting a FB account.
What I think is really missing is any encouragement of community-building in social media. I don’t know if that type of thing would go elsewhere, but it’s pretty much entirely restrictive (you can’t do this or that) rather than co-creative.
This proposed “policy” is awful. I could not work in this type of environment.
This is a classic flaw. Trying to create an exhaustive list of the the things you should or should not do is doomed to failure, because you can never account for all the contingencies. Much better to instead have a set of general principals to guide people in decision making and then trust that professionals will do the best they can. If you can’t trust the people working for you to do that, then why are they working with you? They are trusted enough to work with kids but not to make decisions about social media? Doesn’t make sense.
Do they have an e-mail policy or a phone policy? Is there a policy forbidding you to share or say certain things when you are texting someone?
“Let’s get rid of the distractions, leave “social” at home.” . . . This is foolish. There is no leaving social. It pervades the human consciousness. Denying that is asking your students to leave their selves at the door. I find THAT more unacceptable than anything in this policy.
We are told to always provide rules and guidelines to students framed in a positive manner. For example: Instead of “Don’t run!”, post “Please walk.” I saw none of this style of respectful tone in this draft.
1. Expectations for the use of personal social media
District staff should:
  1. Refrain from accepting current school district students as “friends” on personal social networking sites.

    Do you also have policies prohibiting employees from being “friends” with current students in other realms such as neighborhoods, church, scout groups, volunteer organizations, and the like? Do you also have policies prohibiting employees from using telephones, text messages, email, instant messaging, handwritten notes, and other communication mechanisms to be friendly with students? Is it your expectation that – just as you appear to expect for online interactions – that employees should refrain from formally and/or informally interacting with students offline? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other ways to communicate)?

    This would be similar to requiring teachers and staff to never greet any student while out in the community
  2. Refrain from providing personal contact information to students.

    Is it your expectation that employees only will use district-provided communication channels to interact with students? Do you also have policies prohibiting employees from ever giving to students their phone number, home address, and the like? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other ways to communicate and/or make contact)?

  3. Be aware that people classified as “friends” have the ability to download and share your information with others.

    This is confusing because the first two items read like directives (i.e., it sounds like you will penalize those educators who do those things). This third item reads more like a reminder. Is it your intention to penalize educators whose ‘friends’ download and/or share their information with others? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators to have their information downloaded and/or shared with others (i.e., that’s why it’s called “social” media)?

    These don’t sound like policy points at all.
  4. Remember that once something is posted to a social networking site, it may remain available online even if you think it is removed, and it may be far-reaching.

    This also reads more like a reminder than a directive. Is it your intention to penalize educators who don’t remember this? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators to have information remain available online and be far-reaching?

    These don’t sound like policy points at all.
  5. Set and maintain social networking privacy settings at the most restrictive level.

    You can penalize employees for inappropriate off-campus speech or conduct that impairs their ability to be effective educators at school but you don’t have the legal right to dictate what privacy settings your employees utilize in their off-campus speech (whether that speech be traditional or electronic). Educators have certain public and private speech rights that must be legally respected. You’re setting yourselves up for a charge of overreaching.

    The most restrictive level on Facebook is “only me,” so that would prevent any use of Facebook.

    Just plain vague. Does it imply I can never post anything publicly? Can I post a missing cat poster with my name and phone number on it? On a street light post? On a public website? On my neighborhood blog?
  6. Not use a social networking site to discuss students or employees.

    This is so very broad. If a teacher says on Twitter “I had a disagreement with a colleague today” or says on Facebook “My students were particularly tough today,” is that teacher in danger of being disciplined? Are you applying similar restrictions for non-electronic speech, including, for example, live conversations over the back fence or at the grocery store or on the sideline of the soccer field? Is it your expectation that educators be silent about their work lives outside of school? Educators have certain public and private speech rights that must be legally respected. I believe you’re setting yourselves up for a charge of overreaching. What if the teacher is saying positive things about other students or employees? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators to discuss students or employees online?

    Here is a classic case of trying to rein in free speech
  7. Not post images that include students.

    Under any and all circumstances? Are there any exceptions to this? If so, what are they? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators to post images that include students?
2. Expectations for the use of educational networking sites
District staff must:
  1. Notify your supervisor about the use of any educational network and discuss with your supervisor the need for notification to parents and other staff.

    This sends messages of distrust to employees and will be perceived by some as demeaning. Is it your expectation that educators also notify supervisors about the use of non-electronic learning tools and communication channels and discuss with supervisors the need to use them? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other learning tools and/or ways to communicate)?

  2. Use district-supported networking tools when available.

    How proactive will the district be in terms of providing social networking tools? I am skeptical that the district will somehow – unlike every other organization – be able to provide the breadth, depth, and robustness of social networking tools that exists out ‘in the wild.’

  3. Be aware that all online communications are stores and can be monitored.

    Again, is this a reminder or a directive? Since you say employees must be aware, will there be penalties for those who are not?

  4. Have a clear statement of purpose and outcomes for the use of the networking tool.

    Is this saying that an educator who wishes to use social networking tools must have an explicit statement of purpose and outcomes that must then be given to someone as justification? Does the district have similar expectations for all other educators’ choices regarding instructional materials and/or communication mediums? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other learning tools and/or ways to communicate)?
    I have desired outcomes, of course, but they are quite vague and allow for student growth in unexpected areas. I can never predict where the course of a conversation will take us (unless I stop potentially-fruitful tangents) and, likewise, I can never predict what fruitful discussion I will have on Facebook with my students! My objectives are broad and honorable. I need a policy that allows for that.
    We need to have a clear sense of purpose about what we’re doing with social media (free and open as that purpose may be) but that doesn’t imply we need to be restrictive. . . . Some people also teach very badly. That doesn’t mean we should hand everyone a script, or take the chalk out of the classrooms. . . . These guidelines aren’t “clearly defined expectations.” They’re a set of handcuffs.
  5. Establish a code of conduct for all network participants.

    Is it your expectation that your educators only will use ‘walled garden’ social networking tools that disallow participation by outside individuals and/or organizations? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators and students to interact with outside individuals and/or organizations? Will the district be providing substantive and procedural assistance regarding these ‘codes of conduct?’ How should educators require participating outsiders to abide by these required ‘codes of conduct?’

  6. Not post images that include a student who does not have permission from a parent to have his/her image displayed.

    Under any and all circumstances? Are there any exceptions to this? If so, what are they? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators to post images that include students? Do you have similar expectations for traditional media (e.g., newspapers, television)?

  7. Pay close attention to the site’s security settings and allow only approved participants access to the site.

    Is it your expectation that your educators only will use ‘walled garden’ social networking tools that disallow participation by outside individuals and/or organizations? Does the policy recognize that often it is advantageous for educators and students to interact with outside individuals and/or organizations, including those that are not pre-approved?
3. Expectations for all networking sites
Much of section 3 is about security risks on personal devices – no one’s business but mine.
I find the entire third section a bit problematic, as some of the language blurs the boundary between personal social media use and district social media use. Is it the intent of the policy to regulate personal social media use? I think that can be kind of a slippery slope
District employees should:
  1. Not submit or post confidential or protected information about the district, its students, alumni or employees. You should assume that most information about a student is protected from disclosure by both federal law (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) and state law (Iowa Code Section 22.7(1)). Disclosures of confidential or protected information may result in liability for invasion of privacy or defamation.

    This sounds okay to me, although I’m guessing it’s redundant given other extant laws and policies.

  2. Report, as required by law, any information found on a social networking site that falls under the mandatory reporting guidelines.

    This sounds okay to me, although I’m guessing it’s redundant given other extant laws and policies.

  3. Not use commentary or post pictures or video deemed to be defamatory, obscene, profane, or which promotes, fosters or perpetuates illegal discrimination of any kind. Exercise caution with regards to exaggeration, colorful language, guesswork, copyrighted materials, legal conclusions and derogatory remarks or characterizations.

    Do you also have similar policies for employees when they use telephones, text messages, email, instant messaging, handwritten notes, and other communication mechanisms? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other ways to communicate)? If educators use profanity or exaggerate or engage in guesswork or technically violate what often is draconian copyright law, are they in danger of being penalized? Educators have certain public and private speech rights that must be legally respected. I believe you’re setting yourselves up for a charge of overreaching.

  4. Not identify yourself as a representative of or spokesperson for the district, unless you have been approved to do so by the superintendent or the communications coordinator. This includes using school logos, mascots, photographs or other such graphic representations or images associated with the district.

    Do you also have similar policies for employees when they use telephones, text messages, email, instant messaging, handwritten notes, and other communication mechanisms? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other ways to communicate)? Is it your expectation that educators be silent about their work lives outside of school?

  5. Not create an alias, false or anonymous identity on any social media.

    You can penalize employees for inappropriate off-campus speech or conduct that impairs their ability to be effective educators at school but you don’t have the legal right to dictate whether or not your employees utilize aliases in their off-campus speech (whether that speech be traditional or electronic). This is particularly true since you also expect educators to not identify themselves publicly (it appears as if they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t). Educators have certain public and private speech rights that must be legally respected. You’re setting yourselves up for a charge of overreaching.

  6. Consider whether a particular posting puts your professional reputation and effectiveness as a district employee at risk.

    Do you also have similar policies for employees when they use telephones, text messages, email, instant messaging, handwritten notes, and other communication mechanisms? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other ways to communicate)?

  7. Be cautious of security risks when using applications that work with the social networking site. (Examples of these sites are calendar programs and games).

    Again, is this a reminder or a directive? Since you say employees must be cautious, will there be penalties for those who are not?

  8. Run updated malware protection to avoid infections of spyware and adware that social networking sites might place on your personal devices (a computer or other device not issued by the school district).

    You can penalize employees for inappropriate off-campus speech or conduct that impairs their ability to be effective educators at school but you don’t have the legal right to dictate whether or not your employees protect themselves against malware on their personal computing devices. Educators have certain public and private behavior rights that must be legally respected. You’re setting yourselves up for a charge of overreaching.

  9. Be alert to the possibility of phishing scams that arrive by email or on your social networking site.

    Again, is this a reminder or a directive? Since you say employees must be alert to the possibility of phishing, will there be penalties for those who are not?

  10. Anyone who wishes to establish a social media account for specific school district offices, initiatives, schools or programs must first contact the communications coordinator. Social media may be used for school-related purposes only with the approval of the communications coordinator. If you have questions, would like to start a social media initiative on behalf of a district entity, or have content you would like posted to the district’s Facebook page, please contact the district communications coordinator.

    Is it your expectation that employees only will use district-provided communication channels to interact with students? This sends messages of distrust to employees and will be perceived by some as demeaning. Do you also have similar policies for employees when they use telephones, text messages, email, instant messaging, handwritten notes, and other communication mechanisms? Is it your expectation that employees only will use district-provided communication channels to interact with others? Must all educator communication – traditional or electronic – be filtered through the communications coordinator? If not, why single out social media (which, after all, are just other ways to communicate)? How proactive will the district be in terms of providing social media tools? I am skeptical that the district will somehow – unlike every other organization – be able to provide the breadth, depth, and robustness of social media tools that exists out ‘in the wild.’ As social media usage by your educators proliferates (despite this policy), the communications coordinator is going to be an awfully busy gatekeeper.