By Rachel Waymack
A text comes in from a teacher to a student reminding them of a meeting after school, under new proposed guidelines, the teacher could get in big trouble for this. The Proposed Guidelines for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct & Abuse in Virginia Public Schools were proposed in the Virginia’s Board of Education’s meeting November 18, 2010.
The proposed guidelines were to be voted on January 13, 2011, but final voting has been postponed until February 12, 2011 due to the holidays causing a lack of wide spread public knowledge of the proposed guidelines. The proposed guidelines hope to address problems of sexual inappropriateness between school
employees and students.
The proposed guidelines’ section of purpose and philosophy states that it hopes that by following the guidelines’ policies “Teachers, principals, and other educators and employees [will] provide a safe and healthy environment for teaching and learning.”
Despite the guidelines’ stated purpose, the proposed guidelines have caused much controversy over its section on electronic communication between teachers and students.
The guidelines state that electronic communication by teachers with students should be “transparent, accessible to supervisors, and professional in content and tone.”
Under the guidelines, which would have to be approved by the Virginia Board of Education and then adopted by the individual school districts, teachers could, under most circumstances, email students only using school district provided email. United States History teacher Cynthia Hasley sees the restriction on emailing students as an unnecessary inconvenience.
“My problem is that my school e-mail is hard to access from home,” Hasley said, “it is easier for students to get in touch with me at my home e-mail address.”
Students who often e-mail their teachers also see possible problems with the proposed guidelines’ policy on teachers e-mailing students.
“I email teachers because it helps clear up homework assignments and things I am confused about,” junior Elizabeth Ogunbunmi said, “If I could not I probably would be doing assignments wrong or not get them in ontime.”
Problems other than convenience have been brought up against the guidelines’ section on communication through e-mail. Frank LoMonte, the execute director of the Student Press Law Center, sites another concern regarding the proposed guidelines’ condition that communication must be transparent and known by the prinicple or school board.
“Because teachers themselves cannot publicly complain about conditions at the school without putting their jobs a risk, they sometimes necessarily must blow the whistle to student media,” LoMonte said. “Employees need to be able to have those communications without fear of being tracked.”
Another stipulation in the proposed guidelines’ section on electronic communication is that teachers could not text students, except in an emergency situations. This would come as a blow to teachers, such as chemistry teacher and chemistry club sponsor Dr. Kevin Moore, who currently uses texting to communicate with students about upcoming assignments and meetings.
“Texting is a common method of communication for students these days and it is perfectly reasonable for teachers to give and receive texts from students,” Moore said. “It is a very easy method of communication.”
The section of the proposed guidelines that prohibits one-on-one interaction between students and teachers on personal social networking sites has also caused debate. Kelly Furnas, director of the Journalism Education Association (JEA), not only sees the value of communication using these sites but also fears adverse effects if these communications were to be banned.
Creating a model policy that would forbid teachers from viewing or commenting on student work is not only creating a poor learning environment for students, but also potentially making your teachers out-of-date as educators,” Furnas said in a letter to the Virginia Department of Education.
Despite the views of those like Kelly, who see parts of the proposed guidelines as a hazard for teachers and students, others believe that there is a real need for the proposed guidelines.
“There is a need for the guidelines because of] the three areas which the proposed guidelines offer additional insight [into],” Superintendent Dr. Bobby Browder said. “Communication between students and employees… physical contact…permissible and unacceptable social interactions and relationships between students and employees.”
Since Prince George County Public Schools is a member of the Virginia School Boards Association (VSBA) it would receive guidance from this body about the adoption of these proposed guidelines.
“Prince George County School Board would review the proposed policy by VSBA on [the proposed guidelines] for one month suggesting any change to the written policy before consideration for adoption,” Browder said.
While the opponents of the guidelines’ section on electronic communication recognize the need for the students’ protection, they argue that it is overreaching.
“I admire the efforts to keep students safe,” Furnas said in a letter to the Department of Education. “However, I think for students/teachers as a whole, and scholastic journalism in particular, elements of this policy are a classic example of overreaction and misplaced blame.”
Postponement was done in order to allow the public more time to comment on the proposed guidelines, including the much-debated section on technological communication. LoMonte and the Student Press Law Center was among those groups asking for this delay of the decision.
“The comment period fell during the holidays and during the final exam period, and it was very difficult for the public to become informed about the significance of what the Board was considering,” LoMonte said.“We hoped the Board would agree to an extension to let the public be heard.”