Court Ruling on Student Teacher's MySpace Photo: Justified or Unjustified?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Be Careful Student Teachers!

Rather outlandish court decision...

Court Rules Against Teacher in MySpace 'Drunken Pirate' Case

A student teacher who was denied a teaching degree just days before graduating has lost a court battle against her would-be alma mater. One of the contributing reasons for her dismissal was because of a photo she posted onto MySpace.com

Just days before her graduation in May 2006, Millersville University in Pennsylvania, accused student Stacy Snyder of promoting underage drinking, after they discovered a photo on her MySpace page titled "Drunken Pirate," in which Snyder can be seen wearing a pirate hat and drinking from a plastic cup. (A photo can be seen on The Smoking Gun.)

At the time, Snyder was 25 and working as a student-teacher at Conestoga Valley High School. Snyder maintained that the photo was taken at a costume party off campus and after school hours. But when the university refused to issue her a teaching degree, Snyder sued siting violation of her First Amendment rights.

Today, a circuit court judge who heard the case decided in favor of the school.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/se...rt_rules_against_teacher_in.html?nav=rss_blog

 

[Cyrus]

Supreme court baby.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Wow. Yeah, that's pretty outlandish. So they believe that due to the description "Drunken Pirate" she was really drunk; do they also believe that she was really a pirate at the point that photo was taken? Sheesh. If she was promoting underage piracy that's a much more serious thing than promoting underage drunkenness. Perhaps she is the cause of all this stuff that has happened in Somalia recently.

(Though, the one way I could see it is if what she's claiming is "Yes, I was definitely promoting underage drinking, but it's my First-Amendment right to." That would be dumb on her part and I could actually see that as justification for denying the teaching degree. They ought to be offering her a path to some other degree, though, one that doesn't involve them certifying her fitness to teach underage people.)

⚛​

 

[franznietzsche]

How the hell could they possibly decide in favor of the school on this one? How is a picture of her drinking at a costume party, presumably entirely with people of legal age promoting underage drinking?

 

[Cyrus]

LOL

I guess none of you bother to read the link posted where the judge clearly stated she failed to perform her tasks necessary to be awarded a teaching degree.

This was not about First Amendment rights, it was about performance, and she clearly did not do what was necessary in order to earn a degree in education," McNairy said.

According to the court's decision the school cited examples of her poor competency in its refusal to graduate Snyder.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, now looking at the original article and the judge's decision, it looks like the photo didn't really have all that much to do with it, failing to get her degree had more to do with her performance in the program.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

if

1. Read post
2. Read Link

then

Post response AFTER 1 & 2.

else

take foot out of mouth

end

sprinf('hello world')

 

[franznietzsche]

if

1. Read post
2. Read Link

then

Post response AFTER 1 & 2.

else

take foot out of mouth

end

sprinf('hello world')

I'm too much in the slashdot paradigm of news stories. I'm slowly transitioning to the new slashdor paradigm which is skip the article, skip the summary, start with the first comment.

Ok, so now I read it and I've reached the conclusion that the reporter is a hack who should be shot. The article can be read either way. Aside from the oblique reference to 'poor competency' it doesn't mention anything aside the photo.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm too much in the slashdot paradigm of news stories. I'm slowly transitioning to the new slashdor paradigm which is skip the article, skip the summary, start with the first comment.

Ok, so now I read it and I've reached the conclusion that the reporter is a hack who should be shot. The article can be read either way. Aside from the oblique reference to 'poor competency' it doesn't mention anything aside the photo.

i=1;

for 1:2

while i>0

i=i+1;

end

end


I'm sorry. I can't read your post as my computer just locked up trying to count to infinity, twice.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The news story as I heard it originally was a bit different.
I am reading the actualy court decision now and it seems that the primary issue arose some personal conflict with the teachers/staff/admin at the school where she was student teaching. She seemed to gain a reputation as being "unprofessional" in her relationships to persons at the school and was unable to shake that reputation off although her evaluations tended to point to her general improvement in these areas even getting marks such as "competent" and "superior".
It was when a teacher found her myspace page and it's content that she was suspended from her student teacher position. This is shortly before she was to exit the program and her score for professionalism suddenly dropped to "unsatisfactory" in her final evaluation.
The staff and admin at the school she was teaching at were not the ones who would have decided whether she graduated or not but those at her university. University requires that she complete the program and she was determined not to have graduated based on her failure to complete the program because she was suspended from her position. She was suspended from her position as a direct reaction to her myspace page's content.

So yes while there were other factors involved the ultimate and deciding factor was her being dropped from her student teacher program which was precipitate from the discovery of the content of her myspace page.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

if

1. Read post
2. Read Link

then

Post response AFTER 1 & 2.

else

take foot out of mouth

end

sprinf('hello world')

Awww, you only need to do that sort of thing if you're afraid of being wrong. Being the super-manly, fearless and testosterone-sweating yet sensitive man that I am, I have no such fear.

⚛​

 

[Proton Soup]

The staff and admin at the school she was teaching at were not the ones who would have decided whether she graduated or not but those at her university. University requires that she complete the program and she was determined not to have graduated based on her failure to complete the program because she was suspended from her position. She was suspended from her position as a direct reaction to her myspace page's content.

seems to be a bit of circular reasoning.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think he just said the following, but backwards:

Myspace Drunken Piracy discovered
∴ no more position at the school
No more position at the school
∴ could not complete university program.
Did not complete university program
∴ did not receive degree.​

No doubling back, so no circular reasoning I can see.

⚛​

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

seems to be a bit of circular reasoning.

In the court decision it repeatedly points to issues of competency in order to form a basis for decision. The problem (in my eyes) is that they never dismissed her for these competency issues. They obvioulsy dismissed her based on the discovery of her myspace page which is plainly stated in the court decision. A teacher found the page, reported it to a superior, and she was immediately removed from the program. This discovery also appears to have had an impact on her final evaluation scores.

Essentially we have no idea whether or not she could have graduated had she not been dropped from the program and had her scores not been influenced by the discovery of her myspace page. The myspace page, in my opinion, is at the crux of the issue and the judge seems to make it out as being peripheral.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think he just said the following, but backwards:

Myspace Drunken Piracy discovered
∴ no more position at the school
No more position at the school
∴ could not complete university program.
Did not complete university program
∴ did not receive degree.​

No doubling back, so no circular reasoning I can see.

⚛​

Much more simple. Thank you. :-)

 

[Proton Soup]

I think he just said the following, but backwards:

Myspace Drunken Piracy discovered
∴ no more position at the school
No more position at the school
∴ could not complete university program.
Did not complete university program
∴ did not receive degree.​

No doubling back, so no circular reasoning I can see.

⚛​

no, the circularity (maybe I'm not using the term correctly) comes from the assertion that the university staff make the decision on her completion, but then putting a decision that affects her completion in the hands of someone else. they're saying it's our decision, yet we have no control over it. it's as if they're trying to have it both ways and take no responsibility for it. they should say she's either competent, or not, and not let what may mostly be a personal dislike by some outside persons affect the outcome.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh, I see what you're saying Proton. Yes, if the university staff were to defer to the outcome of her position at the school, whereas her supervisors at the school were deferring to the university staff's decision, that would be circular reasoning.

⚛​

 

[Proton Soup]

Oh, I see what you're saying Proton. Yes, if the university staff were to defer to the outcome of her position at the school, whereas her supervisors at the school were deferring to the university staff's decision, that would be circular reasoning.

⚛​

let's just call it "trying to have it both ways", then. or lying.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

no, the circularity (maybe I'm not using the term correctly) comes from the assertion that the university staff make the decision on her completion, but then putting a decision that affects her completion in the hands of someone else. they're saying it's our decision, yet we have no control over it. it's as if they're trying to have it both ways and take no responsibility for it. they should say she's either competent, or not, and not let what may mostly be a personal dislike by some outside persons affect the outcome.

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant my reasoning was circular.

Ideally they send students to a school whose judgement they value and trust.
To the university's credit they did shuffle around her credits and allow her a degree in english instead of education. Which is funny considering that one of the issues mentioned numerous times in the courts decision was her lack of proper spelling and grammar in the class room.

I just went back and read more. It appears that the fatal flaw in her lawsuit strategy was that she sued the wrong people. By law she must complete the student teaching program and receive credit for completion from the school where she participated in the program. By law the University has no authority to grant those credits. Her lawsuit is against the University requesting that they grant her the credits. Why I had to read through twenty pages to find that bit I do not know. :-/

 

[Proton Soup]

I just went back and read more. It appears that the fatal flaw in her lawsuit strategy was that she sued the wrong people. By law she must complete the student teaching program and receive credit for completion from the school where she participated in the program. By law the University has no authority to grant those credits. Her lawsuit is against the University requesting that they grant her the credits. Why I had to read through twenty pages to find that bit I do not know. :-/

oh, i see. that takes it out of the university's hands. maybe she can go back at some later date and get her state certification.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

oh, i see. that takes it out of the university's hands. maybe she can go back at some later date and get her state certification.

Maybe at another Uni. If this one has a relationship specifically to that high school I doubt she will be allowed back for a retry.

 

[Proton Soup]

yeah, of course. maybe even in another state.

 

[BobG]

I just went back and read more. It appears that the fatal flaw in her lawsuit strategy was that she sued the wrong people. By law she must complete the student teaching program and receive credit for completion from the school where she participated in the program. By law the University has no authority to grant those credits. Her lawsuit is against the University requesting that they grant her the credits. Why I had to read through twenty pages to find that bit I do not know. :-/

Sued the wrong people? Depends on what you mean.

She doesn't have the same First Amendment rights as an employee that she does as a student. She wasn't a student at the high school - she was a student at the university. Her best bet winning her case using First Amendment rights was as a student. She conciously declined to include the high school in the lawsuit since she would have less of a chance of winning her case using First Amendment rights as an employee of the high school.

All in all, her only real hope lay in the university settling out of court in order to avoid the embarrassment of having one of their graduate's letters become public:

I am the only person to blame. I have to take full responsibility for my actions and live with the consequences determined by the administrative staff in Conestoga Valley High School and Millersville University.”

Secondly, It is necessary that I present not only an apology to those involved, but
also all present the positive experiences . . . I have excelled in my own personal
life by interacting with the community, especially with elementary-aged functions
. . . All of these experiences . . . show essential qualities of a teacher: professional
interaction with staff and students inside and outside the school duration . . . I
look forward to seeing each and everyone of you to discuss and elevate this issue.

Would it be safe to say that, during her short tenure at Conestoga Valley High School, her performance progressed excrementally? (And that she'd thank you for saying so?)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sued the wrong people? Depends on what you mean.

She doesn't have the same First Amendment rights as an employee that she does as a student. She wasn't a student at the high school - she was a student at the university. Her best bet winning her case using First Amendment rights was as a student. She conciously declined to include the high school in the lawsuit since she would have less of a chance of winning her case using First Amendment rights as an employee of the high school.

I'm sure this is the case. The problem remains that by law the University hadn't the authority to comply with the Injunction for Relief she requested whether she won or not. I don't even understand why it went to court or why the judge spent twenty pages outling a futile case before explaining that it was futile.

 

[LowlyPion]

The whole thing is unfortunate.

It was poor judgment putting her picture up publicly on her own page. And in this sense perhaps she should be denied the opportunity to teach others.

On the other hand, she might well have a wrongful termination suit against the high school she worked at, with special circumstances that has resulted in her losing not only the sunk costs of her education, but the future value of her gainful employment as a teacher over the course of her possibly 40 year career. She might be able to pull a sympathetic jury.

But for sure it is a cautionary tale for any that might in school think that partying hardy is a peer group ok thing to be portraying on myspace, and they may want to rethink their public pages when considering employment where a potential employer might decide to look at their page.

It's not exactly invasion of privacy, if the owner voluntarily puts such images up themselves.

Another hiccup along technology's highway as society tries to catch up.

If there is a villain here I think it is the snitching teacher that reported her, who should have in the first instance warned her about the kind of trouble she might be making for herself. What kind of teacher is that that doesn't want to help someone improve themselves? And too the high school should have handled it better, rather than taking such a cold hearted approach to dismiss and ruin her life without resourse? What sense of satisfaction did they get?

 

[DaveC426913]

It was poor judgment putting her picture up publicly on her own page.

How was it poor judgement? She was 25 and it was off school hours.

(And don't say "it was poor judgment because it got her canned" - that's circular reasoning. )

 

[LowlyPion]

How was it poor judgement? She was 25 and it was off school hours.

(And don't say "it was poor judgment because it got her canned" - that's circular reasoning. )

It's poor judgment regardless. Context is everything. And failing to anticipate the context within which it might be seen was poor judgment.

Voluntarily putting up pictures of yourself in a party situation, isn't exactly projecting a professional public image. It is pretty much impossible to anticipate how others might view your portraying yourself as a good-time party person.

If your audience is your friends that you would show pictures around among yourselves behaving silly in a controlled situation, that's one thing. But posting more generally to the internet where an audience that might view them more judgmentally, might draw a different view of you than you may want drawn. That's poor judgment.

For instance, you would want pictures of yourself at a party in college sent home to your parents? To a girl friend that thought she was the only one? That is exactly the kind of thing that a general indiscriminate posting will create. Hence it is not exactly a good idea to put up such pictures on your own page, almost inviting such criticism or judgment. And if you are considering employment and looking for a job, then cleaning up your web page looks like pretty sound advice.

Either that or make your pages private, that only friends may view. With restricted viewing rights, then you are more soundly into invasion of privacy territory, because such restriction already exhibits your desire to not make such pictures or content public.

 

[BobG]

If there is a villain here I think it is the snitching teacher that reported her, who should have in the first instance warned her about the kind of trouble she might be making for herself. What kind of teacher is that that doesn't want to help someone improve themselves? And too the high school should have handled it better, rather than taking such a cold hearted approach to dismiss and ruin her life without resourse? What sense of satisfaction did they get?

The villain is the snitching boss?

Keep in mind, the student teacher was teaching under the supervision of the teacher that reported her even if the senior teacher wasn't technically the student teacher's boss. (It's a fuzzy relationship, hence the idea that the student teacher might be treated as a university student rather than an employee of the school.)

Technically, the high school didn't do any more to ruin her life than any employer does by firing an employee. The university didn't do any more to ruin her life than any university that fails a student in a course. Obviously, there's no way for the student teacher to recover the wasted time and there's probably very limited student teaching assignments available, but she could conceivably complete her student teaching assignment at another school.

It was kind of cold to do this so close to the end of her student teaching assignment.

I think the student teacher's criticism of the teacher/supervisor on the web page figured into this in more ways than one. The teacher/supervisor's feedback to the student teacher raised enough resentment in the student teacher that she felt the need to comment about her on the web page (it was no secret that the teacher/supervisor didn't consider the student teacher a stellar teacher). The comments raised enough resentment in the teacher/supervisor to tilt her decision to "terminate" instead of "barely slide by".

Personally, I think the world is a better place without her as a teacher. We just might be spared a CNN special titled, "Why Johhny's teacher can't spell" (or use periods)

 

[DaveC426913]

It's poor judgment regardless. Context is everything. And failing to anticipate the context within which it might be seen was poor judgment.

Voluntarily putting up pictures of yourself in a party situation, isn't exactly projecting a professional public image. It is pretty much impossible to anticipate how others might view your portraying yourself as a good-time party person.

If your audience is your friends that you would show pictures around among yourselves behaving silly in a controlled situation, that's one thing. But posting more generally to the internet where an audience that might view them more judgmentally, might draw a different view of you than you may want drawn. That's poor judgment.

Sure, if the pictures were compromising in some fashion. If she were on the bathroom floor maybe...

But a normal person. Wearing a hat. With a drink (Not even an alcoholic drink). You can't get much more innocent than that.

What's outrageous is that someone thought that this was somehow unacceptable behaviour, even for a teacher.

No reasonably sane person could. And that's what the court should have concluded too.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think whether or not it should be considered inappropriate depends on whether or not she was giving this out to students as contact information. If she told the class "Add me on facebook, and if you need help, feel free to leave me a message, since I check it more often than my email." or something like that, then I can see how having pictures of her partying would be inappropriate.

Edit: Should be myspace, not facebook.

 

[Proton Soup]

all school teachers should be bitter old spinsters. if there's any drinking to be done, it should be during class with a bit of spirits discretely added to ones coffee.

 

[NeoDevin]

all school teachers should be bitter old spinsters. if there's any drinking to be done, it should be during class with a bit of spirits discretely added to ones coffee.

Or straight vodka in a water bottle?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think whether or not it should be considered inappropriate depends on whether or not she was giving this out to students as contact information. If she told the class "Add me on facebook, and if you need help, feel free to leave me a message, since I check it more often than my email." or something like that, then I can see how having pictures of her partying would be inappropriate.

It's a bit tangled in that regard. She apparently told (or mentioned to) her students that she was on myspace early on which garnered her demarits for lack of professionalism. She was warned then of the issue of discussing her work on her myspace page, that it is against policy. At some point a student who had found the student teacher's page had recognized a friend of the teacher while out in public and approached that friend to talk to her. When the student teacher found out she spoke with the student and let her know it was not appropriate for the student to involve herself in her personal life. She later made a post on her page...

First, Bree said that one of my students was on here looking at my page, which is
fine. I have nothing to hide. I am over 21, and I don't say anything that will hurt
me (in the long run). Plus, I don't think that they would stoop that low as to mess
with my future. So, bring on the love! I figure a couple of students will actually
send me a message when I am no longer their official teacher. They keep asking
me why I won’t apply there. Do you think it would hurt me to tell them the real
reason (or who the problem was)?

The discovery of this post was what resulted in her being dropped. The faculty and admin decided that it was a rather blatant reference to her "cooperative teacher", the one who was observing and evaluating her. So...

-Mentioned being on myspace to students.
-Said students looking at her page is "..fine. I have nothing to hide."
-And "So, bring on the love!"

At the same time she..
-Warned a student for involving herself in her personal life.
-And said she would like contact with the students through myspace "..when I am no longer their official teacher."

It's not exactly a clear stance but I think the consideration for professionalism was shown.
As for the comment supposedly about the other teacher I do not think it was necessarily evident whom she was referring to. It's possible that she may not even be referring to a person at the school. Maybe she has a boyfriend or lover someplace and feels it might be unprofessional to discuss such personal parts of her life in class.

As for whether or nto it was proper for her to discuss any of this on her page... that's a problem. Anyone can look at it and it can easily effect her professional life even if it is not pointed out by her superiors as the reason. It was made the reason though and personally I don't find it very appropriate of the school to have done so. Was it very professional of her colleague to be looking at her myspace page? And is having a conversation on myspace all that different from having a conversation in a public place? If she went out to a pizza joint with friends, had some beers, discussed with a friend issues that she was having at her job, maybe cussed a bit, flirted a bit, and a student happened to be there that she didn't notice should she be fired for that?

 

[Moonbear]

If she went out to a pizza joint with friends, had some beers, discussed with a friend issues that she was having at her job, maybe cussed a bit, flirted a bit, and a student happened to be there that she didn't notice should she be fired for that?

My understanding from talking to people who are/were teachers is that, yes, they could be fired if something like that happens...or at least have some form of disciplinary action taken. When teachers want to get together and socialize, especially to drink, they usually go to a bar in another town, or places that don't allow minors, so they will not run into problems of students seeing them drinking. Whether it is right or not, the expectations of professionalism extend beyond the school walls and to all aspects of their public lives.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a bit tangled in that regard. She apparently told (or mentioned to) her students that she was on myspace early on which garnered her demarits for lack of professionalism. She was warned then of the issue of discussing her work on her myspace page, that it is against policy. At some point a student who had found the student teacher's page had recognized a friend of the teacher while out in public and approached that friend to talk to her. When the student teacher found out she spoke with the student and let her know it was not appropriate for the student to involve herself in her personal life. She later made a post on her page...

First, Bree said that one of my students was on here looking at my page, which is
fine. I have nothing to hide. I am over 21, and I don't say anything that will hurt
me (in the long run). Plus, I don't think that they would stoop that low as to mess
with my future. So, bring on the love! I figure a couple of students will actually
send me a message when I am no longer their official teacher. They keep asking
me why I won’t apply there. Do you think it would hurt me to tell them the real
reason (or who the problem was)?

The discovery of this post was what resulted in her being dropped. The faculty and admin decided that it was a rather blatant reference to her "cooperative teacher", the one who was observing and evaluating her. So...

Ah. A very different story emerges. There's more to this MySpace persona than just the picture. It involves editorializing about her position at the school. And that's unprofessional, and grounds for action by the school.

As always, especially on the intertubes, the more you read up on it, the less preposterous a claim turns out to be.