At Washington Gifted School’s Fine Arts Night on Thursday, Principal Joan Wojcikewych told the audience what she’s planning to do after she retires at the end of this year: run for the District 150 school board. Wojcikewych lives in the second voting district within District 150. The terms of current second district board members Linda Butler and Lynn Costic (who is filling Rachael Parker’s term since Parker was elected to the Peoria County Board) expire in 2012. Икони
2 cents, I think I have a fairly good idea of what’s there, but the fact still remains that District 150 does not have any rules that pertain to conduct outside of the classroom–the warning even admits that. I am not on any bandwagon advocating or condemning any kind of Facebook content–this situation has nothing whatsoever to do with opinion or personal taste or morality. District 150 has just encroached on an area that, as yet, has not “had its day in court.” It is very much about 1st Amendment rights–those rights can affect the kind of content featured on this Facebook page or it can affect statements of religious or political opinions, as well. In fact, it can cover opinions expressed on blogs–and teachers’ comments on blogs, could be fodder for District 150 reprimands and threats, also. I have found that protecting the rights of others is, also, a way of protecting my own rights–even if we do or do not agree with a person’s choice as to how to practice those rights.
Is there a list from last night of where some of the administrators are being transferred?
Yes, The Whittier principal, Andrews, is being placed at Trewyn as principal, and Taunya Jenkins was named as the turn around officer at Manual (whatever than means). There are, also, names of several assistants, etc.–either on the HR report from this week or from the last board meeting.
Take a deep breath and re-read through the posts before you call people out.
2 Cents, reading the posts or yours or anyone else’s has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. If I read the posts, I might disapprove of the content, but what does that have to do with anything. First of all, this situation assumes that one’s words should be treated as actions. A Facebook page can consist of hyperbole, even fictitious material about one’s self. If District 150 wants to accuse a teacher of bad behavior, don’t they have to witness the behavior, not just read something on a Facebook page?
2 Cents, whom did I call out and whose post do I need to reread? I did question how Emerge arrived at the conclusion that the teacher was disgruntled. I still want to know how she arrived at that conclusion.
I did err in one of my comments. This one: “but the fact still remains that District 150 does not have any rules that pertain to conduct outside of the classroom–the warning even admits that.” The warning admits that District 150 has no regulations about social media.” I am not even sure if policies have anything to say about “legal” behaviors outside the classroom that might be considered questionable by some. But writing on Facebook is the only action in question–so it’s all about 1st Amendment rights.
Thanks, Sharon. Hopefully they got rid of the two women academy leaders at MHS and kept the man. These two women are totally worthless as academy leaders. Ask any student or teacher. Both groups constantly complain about these two women as leaders. I thought they had named another turn around officer at the last meeting. Who are the new principals at Valeska and Whittier?
was to state that Mrs. andrews was “placed” @ Trewyn. She asked for the opportunity. Also – incessant FOIA’ing at District expense is a form of taxpayer bullying. You must be proud to be teaching by that example.
They asked her to stop what she was doing, she was/is dissatisfied with her employer, she got an attorney, she is disgruntled.
Emerge, I don’t understand why you don’t understand that the teacher was reprimanded for something over which District 150 has no jurisdiction. Emerge, you are a blogger who makes your share of controversial comments. What if your employer threatened your job for what you say on your blog? Would you feel that your rights were being violated? She got an attorney to help her write the grievance–a job which the union should have done. She pays dues to the union and has a right to the grievance procedure.
Another error–it is quite possible that Mrs. Andrews asked for this opportunity, but she was still placed in the position. There is nothing negative about stating that someone was “placed” in a position. As for the taxpayer bullying, that’s funny.
From the D150 Board of Ed policy manual:
“All District employees are expected to maintain high standards in their school relationships, to demonstrate integrity and honesty, to be considerate and cooperative, and to maintain professional relationships with students, parents, staff members, and others.”
Whether an employee’s actions meet that standard is subject to interpretation. We don’t know exactly what the person in question said, or whether or not the policy applies to employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement, for that matter.
Agreed, Jon, but the Facebook issue is not clear cut. Cases like this one will be happening all over the country. The courts will decide the extent to which 1st Amendment rights are involved and are being violated. I just don’t understand District 150’s willingness to be one of the first to tread on such shaky ground. Frankly, if this situation was relevant to just one person, the interest in it probably wouldn’t be as strong. However, this is a much bigger issue and has the potential of affecting many people here and throughout the country.
Even more interesting is the fact that the personnel director, in writing the warning, admitted that the district has no social media policy–therefore, admitting the shaky ground on which 150 is willing to tread. If they had some more concrete complaint, they surely should have gone for it first–hard to do when the teacher’s formal evaluation didn’t reflect on any negatives.
what did this teacher post?
District 150 is hardly one of the first to be treading on “shaky ground”. Here’s an article from three years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042702213.html
that stated “In states including Florida, Colorado, Tennessee and Massachusetts, teachers have been removed or suspended for MySpace postings, and some teachers unions have begun warning members about racy personal Web sites.”
It’s impossible to have a policy that explicitly covers every possibility, and many policies have a necessary element of subjectivity. The aforementioned policy on “high standards” et al makes no distinction between social media or general conversation, for that matter. The lack of a specific policy on social media hardly indicates the district is on “shaky ground”. Does the District have a specific policy on the use of profanity by employees, for example? Or isn’t that covered by the previously stated “high standards” policy?
Most employers public and private have policies that loosely cover conduct when off the clock. The basic philosophy is that as en employee you are a public face of the employer, you represent them 24/7. Some folks don’t get this. Don’t understand it. Disagree with it. They need to find another line of work.
That said, details matter, discrimination has to be avoided, yada yada yada.
I would want to see the postings before passing judgement but as an at will state, employers can set the bar where they want and no it does not and cannot be explicitly defined.
Employers are increasingly following, tracking, searching for, and monitoring online content of prospective and current employees. Welcome to the future. It is not going away. Employers have compelling reasons for doing so.
The rule to live by, don’t post anything you would be embarrassed or ashamed of, or possibly fired for. Think before you post. The Internet is NOT private. Facebook is hardly private. The more ‘friends’ you have the less private it gets.
Yes, I do have more difficulty with all of this than my comments indicate. I am looking at it from a legal point of view, and singling one teacher out doesn’t seem like a good odea. Also, posting on Facebook is a “behavior” but not quite the same as observable conduct. Jon, if the district has a policy on profanity, then I don’t know about it and certainly believe many people would be in trouble if that were the case. Jon, even though there are undoubtedly other instances of schools reprimanding or even firing teachers for postings on social websites, there have not yet been any legal precedents set–and, as I said before, this is lucrative ground for lawyers and I don’t know why District 150 would want to be testing ground. Personally, of course, I would never have written on blogs about District 150 when I was a teacher. However, this teacher didn’t write about her employer, just personal stuff (some very tongue-in-cheek).
The district could have sent a message by verbally warning her that they were not comfortable with the posting(s). Could have suggested that it may be in the best interests of all parties to stop making thses posts. Where they may have crossed the line is with the written communication. Not a lawyer, just my thoughts.
Thanks Jon. This issue isn’t new and districts have been dealing with it for years. It is a shame some teachers can’t display professionalism on and off the job.
District 150 Observor, I don’t disagree, but opinions don’t count when legality is involved. Also, Facebook is a new phenomenon that hasn’t been dealt with yet. I am fairly sure that private schools such as Peoria Christian have some very specific rules of conduct expected of teachers on and off the job. I would guess that District 150 (any public school) would have a hard time closing the barn door at this point. Besides, everyone has a different idea as to what is or is not acceptable behavior; therefore, (just as with students) the rules have to be spelled out–the expected code of conduct has to be very specific. For instance, the policy against misuse of school computers while at school is spelled out, and the teacher in question did not violate that code.
In this particular situation, I wonder if the board was notified that such a warning (about Facebook) was being issued. Board members are responsible for the legal and financial side of things. Would they purposely sanction an action that could obviously lead to legal action–and bleeding more red ink in an already financially strapped district. Yes, you can blame employees for seeking legal redress, but doesn’t the board and administration have the responsibility to be sure they are on firm ground before they take actions?
Mahkno–that is certainly a code I would live by. I am of a generation that doesn’t understand posting personal stuff on the internet but District 150 is dealing with a younger generation that doesn’t know anything about the rules that many of us accepted when we were hired and the district hasn’t dealt with the change yet–and it needs to do so before personnel in authority begin to indiscriminately target teachers.
I think it is dangerous to make a judgement either way as to the legality of the action by District 150 against the employee. We don’t know the facts. We also don’t know that “personnel in authority {are} indiscriminately targeting teachers”
District 150 Observor–the truth is that neither of us has to know whether or not anyone was or is targeted indiscriminately–the ball is now rolling so to speak and the powers that be can sort all that out. I just believe that it is a good thing that the teacher felt comfortable telling others about the problem instead of letting it get swept under the rug. If the district has policies about what an employee can post on social networks, it is high time they let employees know before and instead of after they err. The warning clearly states that the district has no social media policy–that alone raises questions about the district’s actions in this situation. I see no danger whatsoever in going public with these matters–it keeps the district honest or, at least, suggests they should move in that direction. That’s what blogs do all the time–no exception here.
Sharon, I was with you until you said “I see no danger whatsoever in going public with these matters”. I couldn’t disagree more.
We shall just have to agree to disagree about that.
Ok, 150 Observor–but what is the danger in letting District 150 know that this isn’t a secret–so they can defend themselves if they see fit? Maybe I’m overlooking a danger. I see the danger in what I think District 150 did to the employee–but there is always a chance that I’m missing something, so now 150 has the chance to let us know.
What did 150 “do” to the employee?
District 150 Observor, District 150 wrote a harassing letter to the employee about the content of her Facebook page–that is an action. I trust you understand that I am not defending the content or even the employee. I am just not at all certain that employers have a right to monitor the content of their employees’ social network sites. What if an employee expresses political or religious views about which his/her employer takes offense? Can the employee be reprimanded or even fired? Social networks are a new phenomenon (as our blogs). In this case, if District 150 doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, then it need not be harassing (bullying) employees. Also, if District 150 has the legal right to control an employee’s content, then the district better make a point of telling all employees that their social sites will be monitored. In this case, I believe an anonymous complaint was sent to the district. Is District 150 going to follow up on anonymous tips one by one? How many witch hunts is the district willing to conduct? And ultimately, who gets to decide what is appropriate and what is inapproriate content? That’s what lawyers are for–and how they make the big bucks (even District 150’s lawyers). Remember every time a lawsuit is filed against the district, the lawyers make money.
Sharon – You hit the nail on the head! Theoretically an employer could find offense if an employee expresses ANY political or religious regardless of whether the employer finds it offensive. We all know those are taboo subjects to discuss at work/business functions but surely have the right to express your views on your social network page and/or blogs. I think it’s a very slippery slope when our employer has the right to decide what we can or cannot express on our time. Can I get a 1st Amendment Amen?
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
excuse me here as I haven’t followed all of this thread, but I do recall that D150 lost a suit costing YOU the taxpayer over one million dollars to Terry Knapp years ago over a similar right of free speech. Before someone tries to correct me that they think “some insurance company” paid up then you don’t have a clue how premiums are established.
Sharon, how do you know it was “harassing”?
So the entire punishment was a letter? That is terrible, I wonder how the teacher will survive?
District 150 Observer: Our opinions don’t matter. Consider this: If a letter is just words and of no consequence, then a Facebook page is, also, just words and of no consequence. And our opinions are, also, just words. Enough already; we have exhausted the topic. The issue will move on without us.
Let’s face it, if they had merely spoken to the teacher and asked her “pretty please with sugar on top,” Sharon would have found fault with that, too. If Sharon is my boss, and on my Facebook page I say that Sharon is a lousy boss, and a “friend” of mine tells Sharon I said this, I would expect a tap on the shoulder. I have no idea what this lady said and I don’t really care. But I find it ironic that Sharon, of all people, decries the “witchhunt.”
Guiseppe, I do want to make it clear that if the teacher had written (and I don’t believe she did) anything about students or if students are invited to her site–I would believe that those posts could be considered detrimental to her teaching, etc. I would even say that writing personal opinions–critical, etc., of any district employees would be worthy of a reprimand. In fact, it is not the content that I am defending or approving–it is all about 1st Amendment rights, period. If you do not believe in 1st Amendment rights, then you shouldn’t be writing on blogs and expressing opinions about people. As for the insinuation that I approve of witchhunts, I may be critical of district 150 policies and actions of people who make decisions affecting students and teachers, etc. However, if you ever find that I am attacking the character or personal lives of anyone, please call it to my attention because that is never my intent.
suggesting to teachers they shouldn’t use the services of a board member and attempt to bring financial harm to their family because they don’t agree with your tired militant union rhetoric? Is that the kind of example you would want?
Like–yes, I do acknowledge that one.
District Watch will meet at Monical’s at Knoxville and Lake at 6 p.m. Sunday, May 22–everyone interested in all things District 150 is invited.
What’s on the Agenda, Sharon?
Emerge. I assume you mean for District Watch–we really don’t have an agenda. Anyone who comes usually has some District 150 issue to discuss. I will definitely bring up this info I received from a FOIA–the letter to Lincoln parents about the opportunity for students to skip 8th grade and go to high school:
Dear Parents/Guardian,
On March 15, 2011 Lincoln Middle School will offer an extended day program for a select group of students who have failed one or more grades. This program will provide them with social studies instruction so that they may have an opportunity to pass the three required social studies tests that all eighth graders have to pass before promotion to the ninth grade. In addition to the social studies, the students will also receive some reading and possibly math instruction with certified teachers. The program will be offered on Tuesday’s and Thursday’s after school from 2:15-4:15each week. Transportation is provided for students if they sign up for the program. Students will be required to attend a minimum of 14 sessions. After successful completion of the program, passing grades on the five social studies tests, growth on the ISAT and NWEA, and passing grades in the core subjects, your child may have the opportunity to move to the ninth grade for the 2011-2012. Students are expected to be on their best behavior and any non compliance or disrespect issues will cause your child to be dismissed from the program.
Please sign the attached form and return to Lincoln Middle School by March 31. If you have any questions, please call me at 672-6542.
Sincerely, Ursula V. Brown Dates of the program: April 12, 14, 19, 26, 28, May 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24, 26, 31, June 2 Time 2:15-4:15
You are certainly welcome to join us.
For more District Watch topics: Please read Elaine Hopkins’ two stories on http://peoriastory.typepad.com/ One is the result of her FOIA about District 150 travel by administrators and another is a summary (and audio) of Dr. Lathan’s speech to the League of Women’s Voters.
Sharon, I echo your recommendation to read Elaine’s discovery. It’s pretty telling of the play book toward the path that G Lathan is leading D150 and Peoria down – and it’s not a pretty one!
Instead of spending board meeting time discussing important issues and giving taxpayers details about how money is spent, the District 150 board meeting time is taken up by such “feel good” stuff as the following on the agenda for Monday night:
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION –
Spotlight on Kellar – Student Presentation
Spotlight on Washington – Student Presentation
Spotlight on Manual – Student Presentation
Peoria READS Poetry/Rap Contest – Myers
Scholars Cup Recognition – Hampton
Lana Myers/Recognition of Peoria’s Finest Teacher – Andrea Ernest, Peoria High School Art Teacher
I can’t help but smile reading Sharon’s comments and Elaine’s blog posts. It’s like grasping at straws…
student achievement is now wrong? Takes a back seat to activists whims? Activists must be a new-age synonym for self-important dementia sufferers. The act has grown tired and the public wants things more reflective of our students efforts and achievements – not public comments dominated by worn-out union mouthpieces and liberal journalist has-beens. In their own sense of self importance, no wonder they never seek to work through PTA’s, civic groups, etc. Unfortunate that they do reflect on the entire community. PATHETIC that they don’t see the destruction they cause.
without malice is a Royster supporter…..probably was even on her gravy train. Dr. Lathan doesn’t seem to be similar, even tho some try to tarnish all that has been done in a year. Yeah, some are unhappy and many are being challenged.
As a parent and taxpayer in Dist. 150, I am pleased with what I am seeing.
Spotlighting, the whole point is that showcasing student achievement is not the purpose of school board meetings. I’m guessing that the same person who came up with the “fighting aging and irrelevancy” comment is the same person who now refers to dementia sufferers. I don’t think two people could be that original. Also, if the public appreciated this time of spotlighting student achievement, maybe that would bring them out to board meetings–the only adults who come are the parents of the children being spotlighted. Don’t get me wrong; I often do enjoy seeing the children win awards, etc.–but that should not be the highlight of the meeting. Public commenters should not be the highlight either. Board members should reveal who they are and what they stand for–but most say very little at meetings–we should know why they make the decisions that they make.
Jon, grasping for something is certainly better than burying one’s head in the sand.
Spotlighting-I guess people should follow your positive lead?
Sharon- Jon will never be happy. It’s a lost cause. Maybe his new name on the blog could be malcontent.
I just heard rumors of one possible District 150 decision that does make me happy. Can anyone tell me if it’s true? I heard that Manual will no longer be on a block schedule. I assume that has to mean that courses will return to year courses instead of the futile attempt to cram one year of material into a semester course. That is one of the issues about which I have harped continually–I would be very happy to learn that this rumor is true.
There, however, is a “however” in my praise. I have recently heard of decisions that I thought should be board decisions–but I have never heard a public board vote. If a board member “happens” to be listening, could you please enlighten me. Has the board voted on any of the following:
The elimination of Manual’s block schedule, the return of a 7-hour day to the high schools, the program (mentioned in my post above) allowing 7th (maybe 6th graders) at Lincoln to skip 8th grade and move to high school.
Also, can you tell me why there was no vote on suspensions at the last two board meeting? There certainly have been suspensions over a four-week time period. Also, at the last two meetings, why has Dr. Lathan stated that there were no pending FOIA requests when that definitely is not true?
What is the procedure for speaking at board meetings? Just show up and sign up on a first come, first serve basis? Also, the Discipline Meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. Is that an open meeting or does the open meeting begin at 6:30 p.m.? Thanks.
The meeting begins at 6:30–the other one is executive session, not open to the public. Those who wish to speak fill out cards and then Wolfmeyer decides in what order the speakers will speak. At the last meeting, Mr. Sierra engaged in an argument over the matter of how the order of speakers is decided. Sammy was called first and he complained. Wolfmeyer stated that she simply called people in the order in which the cards were turned in. That, of course, was not true because Sammy purposely waited until Terry and I and others had turned their cards in. Before this new regime took over, speakers didn’t have to sign cards and could simply go to the podium when they wanted to speak (gave their names and addresses). However, this board wants total control–even to the extent of choosing the order of the speakers. Also, if anyone comes in late–after all the “feel good” presentations, he/she can’t speak because cards for speakers are quickly withdrawn promptly at 6:30. One night someone who wanted to speak stayed outside (because there were no seats) until all the visitors for the “feel good” events had left–she was too late to sign up.