Principal Losos, a.k.a Suzy Harriston. Don’t ever call her “Sooz”.
In Clayton, Missouri, the high school principal has resigned after being outed as a fake student on Facebook. Posing as Clayton High student Suzy Harriston, Principal Louise Losos amassed over 300 student friends from her school, until a former student pierced her false identity and urged everyone to de-friend it. Poor, fictional Suzy vanished, and shortly afterward so did Louise, who was placed on a leave of absence. Now she has resigned.
Can anyone think of a good reason why Losos should not have lost her job? In addition to being creepy, her posing as a student was a lie, and hardly proper conduct for the head of a school, a role model, and an ethical exemplar. If she were investigating a murder, or a series of unexplained thefts, or a suspected Al Qaeda cell working out of the Science Club, she might have some ammunition on her side, but the only use she seems to have put Suzy to was building student support for a friend of hers, a physical education teacher, whose job was in jeopardy.
There was one note in the Yahoo! report that complicates the analysis:
“The Clayton School Board requires staff to maintain “professional boundaries” when communicating electronically with students. Staff can be terminated for violating the policy. Teachers are encouraged to monitor students’ online activity for ‘appropriate behavior.'”
Sure enough, the staff compliance handbook says:
“It is all staff members’ responsibility to educate students about appropriate online behavior, including interactions with other individuals on social networking sites/chat rooms, and cyber bulling awareness and response. It is also the responsibility of all staff members to monitor students’ online activity for appropriate behavior.”
How, exactly, are teachers and staff supposed to “monitor students’ online activity” and still conform to the school’s ethical requirements for staff, which provides the following directives?
Emphasis mine:
“The School District of Clayton could not achieve its goal of excellence in education and service without the committed efforts of its employees, who are called upon to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with Clayton’s mission and values. We respect the dignity of individual students, faculty, staff and visitors. The District expects all employees to show the same respect and concern for others so that all community members can achieve their full potential. In performing their duties, all employees are expected to be honest, efficient, economical, safe, and courteous.
Things to think about:
- Ethically and legally always ask yourself: “What would a reasonable person do?”
- Always engage in conduct at work that does not interfere with learning and teaching.
- Always engage in behavior at school and outside of school that would never subject you, your building administrator, the Board of Education, and the School District of Clayton to legal liability.
- Always engage in behaviors that will not be damaging to students and others.
Examples of Questionable Behaviors:…
- Electronic communications with students that do not have a legitimate school purpose
Use good judgment with…
- Facebook and/or other social media sites…especially when it involves students, district patrons, or fellow staff.
I’ll answer my own question: teachers and staff can’t monitor students’ online activity and comply with those ethical standards; it can’t be done. Staff cannot monitor students’ online activity and still behave honestly, ethically, and reasonably while respecting the students’ dignity and not misusing social media, because student online activity and personal communications is none of the school’s business or the business of any staff member.
There is no question that Losos’s conduct was wrong, and that she should not be Principal. But the School Board had no right to fire her. Its contradictory edicts were themselves unethical, because they simultaneously encouraged spying on students and prohibited violating the very values that breaching a students’ privacy and personal liberty offend.
_______________________________________________________
Pointer: Fark
Facts: St. Louis Today
Source: Yahoo!
Graphic: St. Louis Today
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Says much about the institution itself. I can’t help but feel if the culture valued education more, we’d see less of this. Why? Because real education would be the target for all involved. But it’s not. Priorities involve having a baby sitting service, GPA, self-esteem, escaping disciplinary consequences for poor behavior, extra-curricular activities, and socializing. The school, students and parents are increasingly NOT on the same page and are vying for control.
It (the institution) has lost its way and now things are ultimately settled by whomever yells loudest, longest (and the lawyers). That principals behavior is extreme, but to me, it underscores the power given to children to influence what happens within a school. I’m not saying they should have no say, but I do see the attitude that the adults know best has been eroded.
I discovered your blog and it surprises me with rich content you write. The issues you raised are not only relevant in USA but India too where I live. Here the teachers would be defended for the same act. Infact the principal would be rewarded for doing it. I would say the Principal crossed the boundary.
My guess is that the teachers are supposed to monitor the students’ computer use DURING SCHOOL. They probably meant having the monitors placed so you can see if Johnny is surfing porn during class. The use of technology and online behavior has changed drastically in the last 10 years, however. By not writing the policy carefully, it makes it look like the teachers should be checking what the students are doing at home on their Facebook page, but I doubt that was the original intent of the policy.
Boy, I don’t know, given the number of cases where school’s have punished students for their use of social media off campus. If that’s what happened, it’s an unbelievably poor drafting job. Of COURSE the teachers are supposed to monitor what the students do during school hours—why even write that down?
I can understand it if someone chooses not to reveal their identity online. It’s their privilege and it may well be for a good, legitimate reason. What I can’t stand is when someone assumes false credentials; either lying about their status or effecting that of someone else, such as a celebrity. And when they do it with children, the LEAST that can be said is that they’re setting a bad example for those children to follow. The worst, of course, is those who use such tactics for predatory means. Whenever you encounter this, you dare not assume less for the children’s sake.
This woman may not have had this in mind, but her means- for any purpose- were both unethical and unprofessional. If she wanted to communicate with her students online, she should have done so openly and under her own name. The internet, as I’ve often said, is a great leveler. It’s also a great opportunity for a moral, dedicated adult to offer advice to troubled children and help protect them against those predators who prowl cyberspace. I know. I’ve done this myself. This woman, with her training, experience and title, could have done this job well… had she been the dedicated and CARING professional one should have expected. Instead, she became part of the problem.