Weathersfield School Board struggles to create new social media policy

By JEFF EPSTEIN
[email protected]
WEATHERSFIELD, Vt. — At a time when the discussions of technology in school often focus on hardware and software costs, the school board here is looking at social media, and how far the district should go in regulating how students communicate through it and how the staff communicates with students on it. Some districts in the country have tried social media policies, but as far as anyone knows no other district in Vermont has one. At their Monday evening meeting, the Weatherfield School Board dove into the issue again.

For more than a year, the district has tried to put together a policy that address parental concerns, while respecting the professional and personal rights of teachers to communicate with their students. The first policy drawn up was quickly pulled back early in 2018 when the board read about two cases in the country that raised liability concerns. Since then, a new draft policy has been carefully circulated to faculty for comment, with two public readings so far.

The draft policy’s stated goal is to “ensure that all stakeholders who utilize social media technology for professional purposes … including staff and students, do so in a safe and responsible manner.” Members of the board discussed it at its meeting Monday night, but because they did not have a quorum, no action was taken.

Although the draft broadly defines social media as “any form of online or electronic publication or presence that allows interactive communication,” what the discussion is really about is Facebook —  the ubiquitous platform used for both business and personal communication. With its multiple uses and multiple audiences, and concerns over hacking and inappropriate uses, Facebook has become a lightning rod for controversy. The local discussion in this district is a microcosm of that controversy.

According to Weathersfield Elementary School principal Jeanmarie Oakman, a parent came forward about a year ago expressing concerns that were purportedly about a school staffer’s Facebook page. Oakman did not disclose specifics of the complaint, saying no action was taken, but explained that the point is that the page was actually owned by a school volunteer, and whether volunteer or staff member, the school had no policy in place for dealing with the complaint.

That led to the development of a policy that sought to address responsibility for a person’s social media use. However, she said, the board quickly developed liability concerns after reading about two cases of such policies, one in the New York City school system, the other at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, Utah. Sometime in January, according to Oakman, Weathersfield rescinded the new policy.

“Really thoughtful comments [were] made by teachers” who have read the new draft, said board member Heidi Remick. She said that while the board’s intention may be to protect the staff, teachers are concerned about their freedom of speech. They want to know specifics of how, when, and where their Facebook communications may be monitored. Oakman, for her part, flatly rejected the idea that it would be her. “I don’t have time,” she said.

One issue is that teachers and other staff have a “mandatory reporting” duty that requires them to report to the state any suspicions of child abuse. That could include their roles as teachers, coaches, or other official positions. But many persons have a single, public Facebook page for all the positions ― parent, family, church, friend — in their lives. If they do not have separate public pages for each of the hats they wear, cautioned Larry Dougher, the Windsor Southeast Supervisory Union’s chief information officer, might they be subject to an investigation in which their single page somehow gets them into legal jeopardy?

Email, some teachers apparently fear, might also be a target, although Remick said it was “not the board’s intent” to include email as part of the definition.

For now, the only decision the board has made is to go slowly. The language will continue to be discussed and tweaked, and the policy will be given a third reading, perhaps more if necessary. While the board may be nervous about doing something innovative, it also clearly feels it is a topic worth tackling. “The board has been very conscientious in developing this policy,” Oakman said. “This is groundbreaking.