Mean-Spirited Blogging
Holy shit. Kate is actually stupid enough to publish complaints parents email her in her roll as a school teacher on Sticks of Fire and her personal blog. The woman has no respect for teacher/parent confidentiality. Calling the parent Mrs. Moonhead on her blog is not the sign of a person who takes her position seriously.
I'm sure her employers probably don't want her publicly mocking parents on the internet. The complaints Kate receives may or may not be serious. This isn't the appropriate way to deal with them.
The students Kate teaches aren't the only ones in need of adult supervision. This is blogging used for pure vindictiveness.
Labels: blogging, sticks of fire
posted by Michael Hussey @ 8:22 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
It's not the first time she has done this. The first time was a phone call (from a parent -- think she called them an ass and other things --) ... I was not thrilled. I remembered the times I had made phone calls and imagined being fodder for teachers' lounge confabs. Or SOME teachers.
Any time a parent makes contact should be a boon for a teacher. It's a chance to effect a life. Sometimes more than one life. It will be interesting when said parent finds the blog one day ....
Whereas this post has awesome intentions designed to make everyone feel good
That is the best you can do to defend your fellow Stickhead. You would be screaming off the top of your head if one of your Stetson professors posted your emails to them on a personal blog.
Kate broke the parent/teacher confidentality trust. She is entrusted by the taxpayers to help students and parents. Not post their personal information online. Releasing the student's medical learning disability maybe illegal.
You make the worst points ever. Are you trying to taunt me or something? Like kate's my friend and you really hurt my feelings? Like I EVER cared about Stetson?
Speak to what I said, stop trying to get personal.
I didn't like the tone in Kate's letter, either, and I told her so on her site, but that doesn't mean I like mudslinging, legless vitriol or weak attempts at local relevance.
Or bullshit about parent-teacher confidentiality and unlawful identification and medical disclosure.
You sound ignorant as hell - you clearly have NO idea how rights like that would stem from one another in the specific, how original premise has to be grounded or, even, ahem, how Kate has actually identified this student to us, anyway.
Does a large proportion of the audience now know who he is?
You're just making shit up. Everybody's a doctor, right? You're the one who's mean-spirited - at least be up front about it.
You don't like her post. You don't like her personality. You don't like her writing. Whatever it is - so what? I don't like your glass house.
I didn't like the letter, either, but I didn't invent fake specalized knowledge after the fact or build some shaky asshole soap box to say it.
Whereas this post has awesome intentions designed to make everyone feel good
Rachel = Complete Moron.
Taz, check out this masterpiece Rachel wrote.
I don't write this blog for the Stickheads. It doesn't bother me if they don't read it.
Rachel says: Or bullshit about parent-teacher confidentiality and unlawful identification and medical disclosure.
Actually, it is unlawful to publish such personal communications from a parent, particularly with regard to information pertaining to disability or medical history. The Family Education Rights And Privacy Act (FERPA) lays out what must be kept private, including:
grades
anecdotal notes
test scores
IEPs
medical records, and other information
Ms. Robinson's tidy CYA move--changing the student's name--would probably disqualify charges that she violated FERPA, though it could conceivably be argued that to a number of people more closely tied to the school in question, the child's identity was obvious anyway, and therefore confidentiality under FERPA was compromised nonetheless.
Legality aside, there is no arguing that the post was exceedingly mean-spirited.
You sound ignorant as hell - you clearly have NO idea how rights like that would stem from one another in the specific, how original premise has to be grounded or, even, ahem, how Kate has actually identified this student to us, anyway.
First-year law school lingo with no direct bearing on this situation.
Does a large proportion of the audience now know who he is?
(I believe the commenter meant portion, or perhaps percentage.) In a breach of confidentiality complaint, were there to be one, it would not matter if the defendant told one or one thousand people. If something is legally required to remain confidential--as outlined in FERMA--it must remain so, between the parties specified. It may not be disseminated to a single entity beyond said parties without express permission and agreement of all concerned.
You're just making shit up. Everybody's a doctor, right? You're the one who's mean-spirited - at least be up front about it.
Calling someone to the mat for her questionable behavior--especially when said someone is a public servant--is not mean-spirited. Rather, it's what journalists, and now, bloggers, are supposed to be doing.
The mother's second letter indicates that there was an IEP meeting last year, and that she has heard nothing from the teacher since. The teacher sends another reply, this time going beyond mockery and launching into a condescending moral lesson about actions and consequences. No real mention of the child's needs, only reprobation of the mother. I have three sons with learning disabilities, and their teachers and I are in constant contact so we can address any issues before they become full-blown bad grades. It's an intensive process, but we're blessed with loving and dedicated teachers who can see--and who are excited by--their intellect and tremendous potential.
Writing a snide, sarcastic letter to a parent of such a child--and posting a name-redacted version of it on the bloody Internet, for heaven's sake!--is most definitely mean-spirited. Furthermore, the post in question treads on ethically muddy, if not utterly and completely illegal, ground.
Rachel's comments says much about the Sticks of Fire crew that her and Kate are part of. They are mean-spirited and circle the wagons when there is trouble.
Or bullshit about parent-teacher confidentiality and unlawful identification and medical disclosure.
How exactly is this bullshit? If you are going to make that statement the least you can do is back it up.
These are serious issues. Kate certainly abused her position as a teacher. If I was a parent I would fear any contact I would have with her will end up on the internet.
The mother's second letter indicates that there was an IEP meeting last year, and that she has heard nothing from the teacher since. The teacher sends another reply, this time going beyond mockery and launching into a condescending moral lesson about actions and consequences. No real mention of the child's needs, only reprobation of the mother.
Litbrit, this seems that Kate only cares about what she wants. The needs of the child don't even enter her mind.
I didn't know about the The Family Education Rights And Privacy Act. Thanks for pointing that out.
Wow, I had no idea any of this was here when Rachel dropped by my blog last night.
I pointed out FERPA to her (and then enjoyed this rebuttal, lb) ... and I guess maybe Kate read here as she has done some definite backpedaling.
If I ever received a letter like that from a teacher I would have been tempted to take it directly to an attorney.
There is civil action besides the rest.
But, Kate should know that.
It would be different if she weren't a teacher, entrusted with OUR children .... their MINDS.
But, she is a teacher
... a court case involving the rights of children to privacy would be a healthy reminder.
Rachel told me that I was fucking with kate's job.
I had a hard time putting that together, too.
But, I am now happy that stetson and rachel parted ways or maybe she would be swiping peoples' dogs from them and refusing to return them and do the right thing like our own state attorney, pam bondi. Or, maybe running for city council. whoo hooooo.
Let's see Kate blaming ME for losing her job because of Kate's Blog and Rachel taking it into court. Wow. Now, that would draw some bloggers. Or media. LOL.
Excellente' post, LB.
Going after Kate's job would be mean. Litbrit and I are not after scalps. We just like Kate to stop publishing parent emails. Ultimately, that is her decision and responsibility.
Yeah, that's what I didn't get. Rachel* posted this over at my blog. "Don't fuck with people's jobs, crazy."
HUH????
I could care less what kate yaks about but think it would be prudent not to mention KIND if she would leave peoples' private lives thus.
As far as messing with her job .... does anything I've ever said even look like that? Nope.
Kate is the one who endangers her position by breaking confidentiality and RACHEL* is the only one who ever brought that up.
So, it's good that they are friends. Somewhere between them they can solve that ..
No one ever mentioned Kate's job until Rachel* brought it up.
I think that one's on Rachel.*
I didn't see her putting anything like that over here.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home