A 23-year-old high-school teacher in Aurora, Colo., is on administrative leave pending an investigation after a local news station exposed half-naked pics and pot-smoking boasts posted from her Twitter account.
“Watching a drug bust go down in the parking lot. It’s funny cuz I have weed in my car in the staff parking lot,” read one tweet from the account @crunk_bear, which Denver’s 9NEWS connected to Carly McKinney, a first-year 10th-grade math teacher at Overland Park High School after the station received a tip from a viewer.
“Just got called Ms. McCutie. Points for being clever, however you are still jailbait,” read another of the teacher’s tweets.
It’s one thing for old stupid college tweets or posts to pop up once someone is in their career. It’s quite another for them to be actively doing it.
Administrative leave? (with pay?)
In the real world this should be an instant termination.
This is some of problem with public schools, inabilty to fire teachers, quickly, in instances like this.
This kind of “investigation process” can easily cost $50,000. Hundreds of thousands if its challenged. It’s a process that protects bad teachers.
Usually calling for immediate hiring on such things is an overreaction. But in this case, I think it’s warranted. While not on par with abuse or that sort of thing, in this case, it’s just such an incredible display of stupidity that she should be done.
to fire someone for saying something stupid is tough. I get where you are coming from, but the reality is that firing someone is not as easy as Kevin is making it out to be. In a professional setting that is. If you are hiring part time high school age students it is that easy.
I ( gulp) agree with Owen and Locke . Yikes!
Great “naked” headstands though.
Kris - I’m not sure where you get that Kevin makes it sound easy to fire someone…I think it was exactly the opposite, that he’s complaining about how difficult it is (and shouldn’t be.)
Obviously it varies tremendously from one state to the next, but my understanding is that it wouldn’t be too difficult at all to not re-hire her in Wisconsin since it was her first year. Now if she were further along, it would be a very different story.
As to your “in a professional setting” - that complaint is the ultimate in wanting to have it both ways. Many teachers certainly behave as professionals - treat education as a craft and they’re continually trying to sharpen their skills. But there are also many who treat it as if they’re punching in a clock - and at 3:17, they’re out the door regardless of what they’re doing. Professional people don’t have tenure (real or de facto). It’s the protection of the worst that most prevents the rest from gaining the respect they deserve as professionals.
My complaint is: this teacher should be fired.
The reality is: this teacher will probably hide behind union protections, and if school board has backbone to fire her, it will probably cost many hundred of thousands of dollars to defend or uphold the termination.
That is a broken system.
In the real world this should be an instant termination.
This is what Kevin said.
I said in that in a professional setting it is not that easy. I spent 17 years in private business and it was never that easy. He was appalled that the teacher was given paid leave while the investigation went on. I was involved in that type of investigation in private business multiple times. These were non union settings. We paid people while the investigations were being done.
As far as the whole idea that it will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this happen is just stupid. When I was on the board in WB we fired at least one teacher or administrator every year. Some years it was mulitple people. It never came close to costing thousands of dollars let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was prior to Act 10.
The fact here is that she was stupid and said some things that reflect badly on her and her employer. Do they have proof that the drug comments were truthful or was she just talking big? I don’t do twitter so I can’t go looking for her on twitter. If she actually is found in possesion of drugs no union will protect her from prosecution.
If a teacher challenges the termination with binding arbitration, that can cost $50,000 alone to government in legal fees (and that is being conservative), to say nothing of the follow up circuit court confirmation, and appeals.
You cite cases where employee did not fight. That is more the exception than the rule.
Employee has little to lose fighting, union has their paid lawyers lined up to defned employee no matter how ridiculous.
Many times the government unit has to buy the employee out as a cheaper option than spending all the legal capital.
Act 10 changed all of that. The process is not nearly what it was and yes we did have people fight it. The key here is that we had all of our ducks in a row and all of the investigation done before we moved to dismiss.
Your examples are outdated and done by people that clearly did not do due diligence.
Act 10 changed all of that.
Not quite. Act 10 does not apply to all. Some units of government still have to deal with these “outdated” scenarios.
Also, this story is from Colorado, so it is likely the “outdated” scenario still applies in CO.
I don’t think Colorado is as reform minded as Wisconsin.
See you don’t really know what the law is in colorado. so allof your claims are guesses.
Assuming Colorado teacher unions are the state of post Act 10 WI is a stretch.
The classic on union-contract teacher protections is surely “The Rubber Room” by Steven Brill- all the more surprising in that it was published in the usually-reliably-Liberal New Yorker Magazine.
It’s from 2009, so it’s getting a bit stale; as far as I know, even NYC public schools have (somewhat) reformed their teacher termination procedures.
I think it’s a stretch to say anyone has reformed as much as Wisconsin.
And WI, honestly, did not reform all that much. 12% minimum employee paid requirement for health ins…that is not even close to market standard.