‘No Fraternization’ Policy Adopted At Carmel Schools

By Holly Crocco

After months of drafting and debating, the Carmel School Board on March 10 adopted a policy that prohibits fraternization between school employees and students.

Policy 2968 reads, in summary, that the relationship between district staff and students needs to be professional, ethical, free of bias, conductive to learning, have appropriate boundaries, and be free of any behavior that could lead to the appearance of impropriety.

Inappropriate grooming or dating, flirting, inappropriate gifting, and frequent personal communication with students via phone or text, email, or paper that are unrelated to coursework or official school matters would be in violation of the policy. As would isolating students for inappropriate or unprofessional matters; providing or partaking in alcohol, drugs or tobacco use with students; socializing with students excessively, to the point that such conduct creates the impression that there is favoritism; and behaving in a pattern that suggests an inappropriate adult-student relationship.

“I think it’s a very good policy. I stand behind it,” said Board President Melissa Orser.

For months, the board has debated what language should be included, excluded, and otherwise modified to best protect students and staff.

Trustee Jordi Douglas took issue with the portion of the policy that concerns communication with students.

The policy states, in summary, that whenever possible, communication with students should take place through district-administered and approved communications systems, such as the district email system, and that no staff member should contact a student between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

“If I were employed by this district, I would be in violation every two weeks,” said Douglas, noting that, as an educator, he often replies to emails after 10 p.m. He used the very evening of the school board meeting as an example – which can go well past 10 p.m.

“I’m going to get home tonight and look at emails,” he said. “They deserve to receive a reply when possible.”

Teachers also had concerns about the timeframe, writing to the board to state that educators wake up early and respond to emails, or reply late at night – especially if there is a morning exam

Trustee James Wise noted that the hours were added by the policy committee.

“There’s clearly a purpose for this,” he said. “The vast majority of our teachers would never be texting a student at 2 in the morning, but for a person who may not have a proper understanding of the boundaries … we do need to protect them.”

Likewise, the policy also protects teachers by defining clear and acceptable behavior, said Wise.

Trustee Michael Torpey agreed with Douglas that the timeframe may not work as intended.

“I could see many situations were a dedicated teacher would be answering emails – if a project is due, for instance, or if there is a big test – after 10 p.m.,” he said. “If I were a student struggling on a project and shot an email out a 10:15 p.m., I’d be extremely grateful for my teacher to respond.”

Orser suggested modifying the times to prohibit communication between midnight and 5 a.m. “There really is no reason for a teacher or anybody else to be talking to anybody, any student, between midnight and 5 a.m.,” she said.

Douglas still did not support the hours.

“I get up at 4 in the morning to go to the gym,” he noted. “Everyone’s intentions are pure… What will happen with this is teachers will say, ‘Kids, normally I’d answer in the morning. I can’t because it’s policy now.’”

He said the result will have teachers decreasing positive, instructive, and informative communication with students.

The board also stuck the words “for district purposes” from the part of the policy that concerns communication between students and staff, so it reads: “No staff member should contact a student for district purposed by any means other than district administered systems.”

In proposing the change, Wise noted, “The entire purpose of this policy is to protect students from non-district purposes.”

Trustee Frank Grasso said the change strengthens the policy to emphasis that it’s there to protect the students. “What we really want to block is when a person contacts the child for heinous purposes,” he said.

Orser agreed. “Even if it’s district purposes, it’s still a boundary problem,” she said.

The policy was approved, with Douglas as the lone “no” vote, stating that, while well-intentioned, as written, it hamstrings educators.

The policy is available to read on BoardDocs, as part of the March 10 agenda documents.