the sydney mcgee case
it’s been here before, and i guess it’ll keep happening, so i’ll keep pointing….
a teacher has been suspended because some of her students were “exposed” to nudity in art.
Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing [ny times, 2006.09.30, registration required]“Keep the ‘Art’ in ‘Smart’ and ‘Heart,’ ” Sydney McGee had posted on her Web site at Wilma Fisher Elementary School in this moneyed boomtown that is gobbling up the farm fields north of Dallas.
But Ms. McGee, 51, a popular art teacher with 28 years in the classroom, is out of a job after leading her fifth-grade classes last April through the Dallas Museum of Art. One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and after the child’s parent complained, the teacher was suspended.
Although the tour had been approved by the principal, and the 89 students were accompanied by 4 other teachers, at least 12 parents and a museum docent, Ms. McGee said, she was called to the principal the next day and “bashed.”
sooner or later, this society will have to come to grips (literally, perhaps) with the concept that while violence is optional in the span of a human life; nudity (and sex) is not. we’ll have to deal with the fact that when we’re young, we use naked breasts for food, and when we’re old, we’ll probably have people wiping our naked asses - that sometimes nudity isn’t about sex.
and we’ll have to deal with the fact that our parents all got naked and had sweaty, passionate sex. we’ll have to deal with the fact that we get aroused and most of us do something about it. and hopefully, we’ll embrace the idea that knowledge is empowering and it’s impossible to shelter everyone from the world, so we might as well know something about it.
A school district is at an extreme disadvantage in the area of personnel matters due to issues of employee privacy and ethical considerations.
However, since an employee of the district has chosen to express her concerns publicly in a hearing and in the media since that time, it seems fair that a school district can at least point to facts that were stated in that public hearing. Much has been misrepresented.
This is not about a field trip to an art museum. The timing of circumstances has allowed the teacher to wave that banner and it has played well in the media. FISD is a strong supporter of the arts and the Dallas Museum of Arts – our art program is rich and award-winning.
At issue here are performance concerns and the ability of a supervisor to address these concerns. As early as May 2005 the principal verbally brought to the attention of the teacher that there were some areas for improvement. She suggested at that time that a field trip experience might be a way to strengthen the art program and the Dallas Museum of Art was discussed as a viable option – it was not mandated as has been reported.
During the spring of the next school year, 2005-2006, when the teacher began planning the field trip, the principal suggested that the field trip be delayed until the next school year because she was concerned that the planning process was not sufficient.
When the teacher received her evaluation conference, which was in mid May and after the field trip, some issues of concern, unrelated to the field trip, were discussed and the teacher stated that she didn’t think it was fair to evaluate her on expectations that had not been clearly communicated to her in writing. The principal did then document the performance areas that needed to be addressed – at the teacher’s request – but the documentation was not brought on by the field trip; the field trip was not a catalyst for anything or the final straw to get her in “hot water.” She was never told there would not be a next year for her or that she was not “Frisco material” as has been reported. No teachers’ job status would be jeopardized based on students’ incidental viewing of nude art.
After the memo was provided as requested, the teacher did file a grievance and also asked to be transferred if there was an opening in the district. The transfer was denied because the central administration felt that if you allow a teacher to transfer after a supervisor has given them guidelines for improvement then you have weakened a supervisor’s ability to address performance issues by essentially giving the teacher an “escape hatch” to avoid meeting the expectations of the supervisor.
What is getting lost here is that this is not about a field trip, censorship, or a parent complaint. It is not about age, tenure or salary level as has also been suggested in the media. This is about a school administrator working to help an employee improve her job performance and to improve the educational experience of students. Even someone who has taught for a long time can still have opportunity for professional development. Teachers were never directed to “ostracize” her as has been reported and she was never directed to not discuss her “plight.”
As an aside, the Star Award that is being mentioned in the context of the teacher being an award-winning teacher or Star Award Teacher of the Year 2004 is a recognition that took place periodically in the local paper because a local business wanted to sponsor the monthly ad to show support for teachers in the community – someone from each campus was usually represented. There was no set way employees were chosen at each campus for this ad. Some campuses went by tenure for inclusion, others selected based on something that had occurred that month. Teachers were recognized, as were volunteers, custodians, receptionists, others. FISD does not conduct the Teacher of the Year program.
At this time, the teacher has been placed on administrative leave with pay. The Administration and the Board felt that this was the best action for all concerned. A recommendation for the non-renewal of her contract will be forthcoming from the superintendent.
[note: the above text was pasted to this site in less than one minute, through an IP address in Indiana. when i find out the extent of this spam-like behavior, it may or may not remain on this site.]
Comment by Ken — October 13, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
SHE WAS MORE THAN THE PRINCIPAL COULD HANDLE, AS SHE WAS WITH ME.
Comment by MIKE MCGEE — October 27, 2006 @ 11:43 pm