Bullying and ‘buts’

By Winged Rodent

A tutor once told me “everything before the word ‘but’ is a lie.”

For example:
I’d love be at the meeting, but…
It’s an interesting essay, but…
I wish I could go to your bagpipe recital, but…

And the list goes on and on.
I believed that for a while and then learned the hard way, sometimes what is said beforehand is not a lie, and sometimes that “but” is incredibly justified.

The PPTA is an organisation that has been known for taking this approach. The notorious “PPTA But”.
The PPTA But was a real learning curve for me because I discovered a world where, sadly, the ‘but’ is often necessary. Teachers often find themselves in a position where they are presented with well-intentioned initiatives BUT they need the time, support and resources to help carry them out. This is not damning with faint praise, often (though not always) these initiatives have schools’ best interests at heart- they just need to be seen through a more practical lens to be of any use to teachers.

This is how I see the Government’s latest anti-bullying initiative. It’s a great idea ‘but’ teachers will need more resources and support for it to actually work.

And the words before the ‘but’ are definitely not a lie. I really do think it’s a great idea.
The sad fact of the matter is that bullying is a serious problem in New Zealand schools. It’s an insidious thing, we live in a culture where, in some circles, persecuting someone because of their race, sexuality, weight, height, social status, whatever… is an accepted norm, and it’s great to see something being done to negate that. Focusing on de-normalising these behaviours is a great thing, but it’s a responsibility that needs to be shared, and supported.

Back in 2000 a government staffing review group found that students needed greater levels of care and guidance and recommended extra staffing hours and teacher support be provided to help achieve this. This hasn’t happened.

So while resources to combat bullying are great, resourcing is also needed to help teachers work with them.
 This is where the ‘but’ comes in. Something needs to change, but if we really want to change it, we can’t do things by halves.

Bullying is nothing new. As long as there have been schools there have been bullies, what has changed now is that it’s more pervasive. What started as scraps in the playground, notes passed in class and hurtful messages on toilet walls, has moved outside of the school. Text messaging means abusive messages can reach kids wherever they are at any time. Even in the middle of the night, on the celphone they keep under their pillow. Chatrooms and instant messaging mean instead of being ignored in the lunchroom or mocked in front of classmates, young people can be ostracised on a larger and more permanent scale. The World Wide Web means if it’s on the internet it’s there for the world to see.

How can teachers be expected to combat this? It is happening outside of school but its effects are felt as soon as those young people enter the school walls. It’s hard enough dealing with the problems that arise in school hours. Teachers can’t be police, parents and counsellors – at least not without a lot more support and resources.

This is something that needs to be done through teamwork. Families need to play a part, and teachers need more support to be able to play theirs.
It’s not a lie, this is a great idea – ‘but’ we still have a way to go yet.

Time for answers National!

By Hawke-eye

Gordon Campbell’s “What a National Government may entail” (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00323.htm , http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00356.htm) is right on the button! Where are the answers to so many questions? I look especially at policy promises around secondary education because that is what I know. I see he asks ” What is the Nats policy on Ops funding?” “Will National allow the private sector to mange and operate NZ state schools?” ” National already supports vouchers for 16 and 17 year olds seeking trades training – will they introduce vounchers beyond that?” “Will the Nats allow school boards a role in setting teachers salaries” All vital questions, given National’s past policies.

Another question needs to be asked of all parties: What additional staffing will their be for secondary schools to enable smaller class sizes and more personlaised learning in programmes for teenage students as they make key choices which will largely determine their success at the next stage of either tertiary learning or work?

I also see over one in five secondary schools has a vacancy they cannot fill – not surprising is it? Rhetoric, repetition of Labour’s Education spending – latest being a “whopping $5 billion since 1999″ obviously hasn’t worked for the secondary sector. Well it wouldn’t would it unless there is major specific targeting of the needs of secondary schools – secondary teachers salaries and staffing! The battles of horrendous paperwork and large classes don’t make for a very satisfying career – I tell you! 2/3rd of Carter’s much touted $1.8 mill spending on teachers salaries in the last year went into the primary sector – and DID NOT NEED TO. Does one in five of the primary schools have vacancy they cannot fill? I don’t think so!

Mileage allowance rates

I can see, with the current high petrol costs, that interest in the mileage allowance rate in the CAs has been rekindled.
 
So first, a brief history of the origins of the current rate:

It was imported into the Award from the Green Manuals in 1987 and modified at various stages which can be tracked by looking at the Awards, Contracts and  Agreements between 1987 and the current time.  The table format with kilometers run and engine size for cars existed from 1987 to 1993 when it was replaced by a simple two tier rate of 65 cents and 46 cents per kilometre, depending upon whether the kilometers run on official business were less than 1600 kms or more than 1600 kms.  In 1995 when there was a change to rates by 2%, these rates became 66cents and 47 cents.  The 1996 contract saw these reduce to 62 cents and 47 cents and the reduction of the top rate had nothing to do with a fall in the price of petrol but was related to the fact that the 66 cent rate breached the IRD reimbursement guideline.  Those rates have remained static ever since because there have been no changes to the IRD restrictions on the rate of reimbursement.

62c/km is still the rate published by the IRD that is tax exempt for the first 3000km in any year, dropping to 19c/km for every km over 3000kms.  The IRD will also allow employers to use running cost rates published by a reputable authority (such as the AA) as the flash point for deciding the level to which the first 3000km may be paid without PAYE deduction. Thereafter, the 19c/km kicks in meaning every cent reimbursed above that is to be treated as income in the hands of the worker and taxed accordingly. Thus teachers, who may be getting the 47c/km rate per the STCA because their annual mileage exceeds 1600km, are liable to be taxed on every cent above 19 they get once they exceed about 5000km.
 
Confused, then wait, there’s more.  The STCA and the IRD rates apply irrespective of engine size or whether the vehicle is petrol, diesel or battery powered. The AA publishes rates for different engine size bands, with different rates for petrol and diesel driven vehicles.  And, the IRD doesn’t really care what the actual running or fuel costs are.  All it cares about is the point at which every cent you get becomes taxable! It’s ‘concession’ regarding fuel prices is to allow employers to adopt the AA rates to be used to decide the level of reimbursement that is tax free for that first 3000kms; thereafter, the 19c/km rate  kicks in for tax free purposes. If all that is too complicated for hapless employers and workers, the IRD has a flat rate that can be used for any distance of 28c or will even allow individualised flat rates to be worked out; complicated exercises in themselves.
 
So, the current formula in the CA has a convenience about it as it largely avoids the tax issues. The employer is supposed to know when to start deducting and remitting the tax but if there is failure, the employee becomes liable including possible penalties.
 
Is this capable of being sorted? Probably not.  Business NZ had a go and that led to the concession about freedom to use the AA rates.  The PSA has had a go to be told the same.
 
Is the 62c/km a fair rate?  Who knows. It might be a fair average all purpose rate when all the complications and the latest AA rates are taken into account.  The 62c/km is a theoretical reimbursement of total vehicle running costs based on a bit of science.  Fuel costs were (and may still be) a smallish component of those total costs.  For example, say one moved to actual fuel costs for the distance travelled.  There would be variation because of different vehicle economy/driving conditions.  But let’s say consumption worked out at 8 litres/per 100km for the trip.  At $2.009/litre one could claim 16.07/km for that journey.  If the journey was more arduous and consumption was 10 l/100km, the claim would become 20.09/km.  Therefore, one would have to travel around 10,000 kms before reaching the tax free reimbursement of $1860 (0.62 x 3000). The current 62c/km rate was calculated at a time when fuel relative to other running costs was the highest it had been in 2 decades. They slumped soon afterward and have soared back to those relative heights in the last 6 – 8 months.

Response to: The NZ Teachers Council – by the teachers for the teachers?

Response to: The NZ Teachers Council – by the teachers for the teachers?

There are a number of facts in Max Christopherson’s blog that are clearly incorrect.
It is important to correct them.

Getting the Facts Straight!

1 The Council has 11 members of which 4 are Ministerial appointments.

2. There are 4 elected members:
• a secondary school teacher representative voted for by secondary school teachers
• a primary school teacher representative voted for by primary school teachers
• an early childhood teacher representative voted for by early childhood teachers
• a principal representative voted for by principals
Noting that there are over 89,000 registered teachers with practising certificates, ensuring that all are able to exercise their voting rights will not be cheap!

3. There are 3 representatives nominated respectively by:
• PPTA
• NZEI
• STA

4. Eight of the current Council members are qualified teachers.

5. Each Council member receives exactly the same remuneration and meeting expenses regardless of whether he or she is a Ministerial appointment, a nominated member or an elected member.

6. The employers of those Council members who are in full-time salaried positions are reimbursed to allow these members to be released on Council business.

7. Each Council member, including a teacher, is personally paid a preparation fee for each meeting he or she attends.

8. Council members provide an invaluable service to the profession and work hard and conscientiously to promote teachers and maintain high standards for the profession.  Clearly they do this work out of a professional commitment to the teaching profession and not for any personal monetary gain.

Professional Status

9. In the 1990s, compulsory registration was dropped.  Both teacher unions – NZEI and PPTA – lobbied strongly for its reinstatement as a protection for the professional status of teachers.  Of all the professions, teaching is one of the most vulnerable to exploitation.  There are numerous international examples of governments seeking to employ untrained and inappropriately qualified individuals to meet teaching shortages, simply look at examples from the United States.

10. For a brief period, there was an attempt to establish a voluntary professional body for teachers by teachers themselves known as the Teachers’ Council of Aotearoa.  Without a statutory framework, this attempt could not be sustained and the organisation collapsed within 3 years.

11. Teachers, the unions and other educators supported the re-establishment of a professional body.

12. The Council represents over 89,000 teachers.  It is clearly the largest profession in the country.

13. Teachers pay a $40 per year registration fee.  This is the lowest registration fee for any professional body in the country (eg nurses pay $60 per annum).  It is also significantly lower than any Australian state, British Columbia, Ontario, England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland to name a few.

Professional Leadership

14. Within 5 years, the Council has completed major pieces of work including:
• establishing a robust registration system
• developing a fair, transparent process for dealing with complaints about teachers’ conduct and competency
• writing standards for graduating teachers in consultation with teachers, unions, employers and teacher educators
• launching a review of the Satisfactory Teacher Dimensions
• completing a series of research projects including a major review of the induction of beginning teachers
• preparing to launch a series of pilots to ensure the highest quality possible for the induction and mentoring of newly qualified teachers

15. For all of this work, the Council has needed to establish a sound infrastructure and effective governance.

For those who would argue that teachers do not need the Council, talk to those who tried to establish the Teachers’ Council of Aotearoa without the support of a statutory framework.

Teaching is an honourable profession that provides a significant public service and most teachers strive to maintain the highest standards possible to promote the learning and welfare of children and young people. Most teachers want to ensure that those who fail to uphold the status of the profession are not permitted to continue to diminish the work of their colleagues.  And, on the other hand, teachers need to be protected from unfair allegations by a robust, transparent and fair process to deal with complaints. 

Peter Lind
Director of NZTC

A majority vote – not a conspiracy

By Robin Duff

The blog from Charles has a familiar ring, it was the sort of comment that was repeated in most paid meetings by some members. Despite the fact that the thoughts were aired, members voted by 4 to 1 to accept the settlement on offer.

In the same proportions they had voted to accept the original claim (developed under the Ministerial Taskforce pathway), which they had also endorsed.

Some members never did like the alternative approach to negotiations, they didn’t like the original claim and they didn’t like the settlement. That is fair enough, it is a legitimate opinion to hold. But it is silly to start attributing an outcome which such a large majority of people voted for to some sort of conspiracy and it is sad to see that the facts of what happened take second place to individual revisionism.

Plan A and Plan B were prepared months before the claim was lodged and the negotiations began. Members took part in designing claim A and claim B. The plan for progressing them was put to members in the first PUM and accepted. There was no rush and the Executive anticipated the possibility that the government would fail to meet its commitment to the Ministerial taskforce processes. We were prepared.

What did happen in this round of course was that the government reneged on the industrial arrangements which the Ministerial Taskforce in 2003 established. They did so because the costs of the objective salary mechanism and conditions improvements were higher than they were prepared to continue with. We explained to members at the second PUM that we would table claim B and that one likely outcome of this was that it might push the government into meeting claim A. That’s what happened.

At the next PUM we put the new offer to members. There was a plan B sitting there as well – it was for members to reject the offer on the table and go back to the claim for a one year settlement at 7.5%. Most members voted against this. They voted against it even after hearing arguments like those raised by Charles from the floor of the meeting. They will have done so for reasons which were valid to them and we have to respect the will and the reasons of the 80% of the members who did so.

It is not a real position to adopt to suggest that anything less than significant industrial action would have raised the offer. Whatever government is in power the Association uses its connections, its contacts with the minsters, its discussions with officials, a range of information sources and its knowledge of the government’s position and people in power to determine whether negotiations have reached the point where new money will require more pressure or actual industrial action.

The government just didn’t want to pay more than 3, 3, 3. After months of negotiation the threat of extended industrial action, not just a one-day strike, raised offer eventually to 12.5% over three years, plus significant improvements to a range of conditions. After that, and to win improvements in staffing, we were looking at serious industrial pressure.

Maybe more money would have been generated by just one day. The evidence we had at hand was that it would need more than that and we had to advise the members that that was our honest assessment of the situation. Members could have chosen to take that pathway – but in the large majority they didn’t. They had the right to make that decision, even if it was a frustration to those who would have liked to test the government out. (Note though that they’ve shown no willingness to give junior doctors more money even after 3 days of very public strikes).

There is still a lot of resentment in the government that it was pushed into the settlement that was reached. It cites the 1.4 billion dollars it cost (remember that the flow-on to primary of our settlements is automatic because of the agreement between NZEI and government that they get the same pay rates we do). There is no sense in Wellington that the Government got off lightly. That may be a perception from people who think that because the settlement wasn’t to their liking it must have been to the liking of the government. The reality is much less simplistic than that.

So, in the next round (in 18 months time we start consultation again with members over the new claim) there is no objective mechanism to work with. Members will establish the level of the salary claim as they did prior to 2003 and we’ll go out and fight for it. I look forward to hearing the debate about what rates are going to be appropriate, what we need to adequately reward teachers and meet our recruitment and retention goals. I also want to hear the debate about what action we are prepared to take to achieve them – because the reality is that whatever government is in power they aren’t going to want to pay it and they will have to be made to put in a lot more money than they will want to even come close.

I am wild with delight at the thought that some of those who gave fiery speeches at PUMs and elsewhere then or since will stand for positions on the national executive so that they can be part of the process of developing membership consensus around the next claim and be part of the central decision making processes in that round and see for themselves how it really works, rather than bask in the comfort of their own ill-informed delusions.

And I am sure that whatever we settle at then will still be criticised by some of those who vote against what the majority accept then too. I just hope it is fair criticism.

Time for a re-think?

By Charles  

How did they do it to us? Were they smarter? More devious? Game-playing geniuses? Or were we, as a union, too weak, too embedded in this government, to see the wood for the trees?

We accepted a pay offer that looked bad at the time. That looked, with inflation hovering about 3.5%, as if it would just keep our heads above water. Now, we just look stupid- inflation is predicted to reach 4.4% in the September quarter and re-fixing our home loans at a higher interest rate is starting to bite. But never mind; as a collective we decided, overwhelmingly (apparently), to accept last years’ 4% 4% 4% pay offer from the government. So, once again, an effective pay cut for our nation’s teachers.

Why did we accept this offer? My recollection of the pre-offer meetings where we outlined our demands was that the 4% a year of option A was only to be accepted if a raft of other improvements to conditions were accepted. And what do we get? “Endeavouring to reduce class sizes”. We are told it has legal ramifications, but with no more staffing going with it, how can we expect our schools to do anything about it? The timetable meetings have not produced any secrets (of course not- anyone with any experience of timetabling knows how tight things already are- they only way to free up time in most schools is to cut classes, which cuts options for our kids)

When we went to our PUMs to vote, there was no plan B, there was no thought that we could ask for more. This was it, a fait accompli, take it or leave it. Oh, and if we leave it, a week-long strike would be needed to move things along again. Really? Who decided that? We had only threatened a one-day strike earlier and an extra $50million appeared as if from nowhere.

In no way will our 3 year pay-cut make more experienced teachers want to stay teaching longer, in no way will our 3 year pay cut make our young teachers stay in the country and in no way will our 3 year pay-cut make more quality people want to become teachers.

The answer- a complete rethink of what we want from our union. We fought hard for better conditions through 2001-2007, we got non-contact time, but is anyone working less hard? Of course not- teaching always expands to fill the time available for it. So it is pay we need to tackle- and we need to start thinking about how to do it now and put an effective plan in place. Should we try for a big blanket increase? What about performance related pay? Is it the MUs we need to drastically increase?

What we don’t need is the same again next time; a rushed, badly executed limp from one badly though out claim to another. We were outplayed and outthought by the MoE- they must have been ecstatic at getting away so lightly. Let’s not let them off so easily again.

The day the music died

By Winged Rodent

Beethoven, Pavarotti, David Bowie – where would they have been without music lessons? The thought of the great composer as a chimney sweep, or Ziggy Stardust pumping gas is positively criminal. Yet in New Zealand today potential virtuosos and rock legends are being denied access to the career kick start many young musicians received at school.

The Itinerant Teacher of Music (ITM) scheme has been helping out young Kiwi musicians for more than 50 years. Set up in 1945 it was billed as part of the vision of a “generous and well-balanced education”, and it has been giving opportunities to those who otherwise might not have access to musical tuition since. Unfortunately our government, which claims to be a supporter of the arts, is now doing its best to make life difficult for musicians.

The ITM scheme involves music teachers traveling to secondary schools around the country to provide instrumental tuition. It has been vital for students who wish to pursue a musical career but whose parents do not have the money for private tuition, and invaluable to schools that do not have the resources to give specialist instrumental training themselves.

Things went off-key in 2006 however when the Ministry withdrew funding for travel between schools. The ITMs are attached to a number of host schools, which have been receiving funding for the past 10 years. Now schools receiving tuition through the scheme are being asked to provide extra staffing money to make up for the shortfall and there are fears that schools will withdraw from the programme because of the added costs.

The Government then struck another bum note with ITMs by diverting $600,000 from their programme and using it to set up the artist-in-residence scheme it launched last week .The Government trumpets this new proposal without acknowledging that it’s come at the cost of music provision in secondary schools.

Education Minister Chris Carter is fiddling while Rome burns.

But the music teachers are not going to take this quietly. Fifty ITM representatives will be meeting in Wellington on Friday to discuss the future of the scheme and ways of preventing its collapse. The aim of the meeting will be to try to find out why the Ministry has decided it’s no longer interested in supporting school music, and what consultation it has undertaken with the public on the decision. The ITMs hope it will be a way of making public the Ministry’s strategic strangulation of a scheme that has provided support to schools and students for more than half a century.

We would love to hear your thoughts on the future of the ITM scheme and the impact it has had on your schools and we hope you will join us in our push for it to continue.

Weekend posts

Apologies to anybody who posted over the weekend and did not see their comments appear until this morning. While we are committed to getting your opinion across, our moderating pigeons do sometimes take the weekend off. Please keep on posting though, your feedback is really appreciated and we will endeavour to have as quick a turnover as possible.

Regards,

Winged Rodent

New Zealand Teachers’ Council – by the teachers for the teachers?

By Max Christophersen

Introduction
The current governance structure of the New Zealand Teachers’ Council does not enable the teaching profession of New Zealand to become a true self governing profession. The only way forward is the removal of the crown owned entity status to that of a body corporate.

A reduction in the number of ministerial appointees on the council and the inclusion of a teacher training representative and Maori immersion representative is argued for. 

The body corporate would allow true elective representation; reduce compliance costs and remove the explicit threat of adverse ministerial intervention of future governments. 

Current Governance Structure
The NZTC is a crown owned entity that is wholly paid for by the 80,000 teachers of this country and as a crown owned entity can be directed by the Minister of Education to do anything he/she wants. 

Ministerial appointments, including the chair, make up five of the 11 member council with one each from the NZEI and PPTA respectively, and four “elected” members from each of four sectors principals, secondary, primary and early childhood. Ministerial appointees would have a permanent voting majority if the two teacher union representatives’ were not present.  

The “elected” teacher representatives on NZTC are in fact appointed by the Minister to the teachers’ council, a crown owned entity, after an election held by the NZEI, PPTA, early childhood and principals association to select the nominee. These “appointees” to crown owned entity, The Teacher’s Council, are prevented by law from speaking out publicly should they disagree with the Teacher’s Council policy or decisions.

Outrageous as it is that the elections for these four representatives are held, costing in excess of $250,000, and yet a Minister is able to ignore the result and simply appoint anyone whom he/she feels would do.  Waste of money aside unless all teacher representatives can be truly elected like those in a body corporate and have the ability to act as true representatives, teachers are exposed to future dangerous manipulation at a whim.

The crown owned entity status of the Teachers Council also means practicing teachers who serve on the NZTC cannot received any financial benefit for their long hours of work on our behalf. State employees working in a crown entity cannot receive payments, as the other Teacher Council representatives do, because that would mean they are “double dipping”. This does not apply to the five ministerial appointments.  Hardly a level playing field when a teacher must do their professional best by setting lessons and get paid nothing for long hours of reading of Teachers’ Council documents and spending days in meetings in Wellington and be paid nothing extra. 

In addition, to stand for election a teachers’ representative has to go cap in hand for their BOT’s permission.

Benefits of payment to Teacher’s Council representatives in the last quarterly report showed all the ministerial appointees generally earned greater sums than teachers. It is easier for non-teachers to get to council meetings and they are able to keep the money paid to them as well as other remuneration because they are not double dipping as government employees. 
Who Benefits from the Crown Owned entity Status of Teachers Council?
For any government the NZTC represents a cheap alternative to state intervention for policing teachers and controlling both their individual quality and their professional behaviour – policing is self funding through teacher registration fees.  Employees police themselves for free.  Page six of the NZTC Annual report makes it clear who the Teachers council works for as a crown owned entity when it states:

 “The Government’s overarching educational goals are…
Given the importance of the early childhood and schooling sectors to the theme of Families – young and old, the council has paid particular attention to this theme.”

Teachers’ registration fees can be used to fund educational research in the name of “professional leadership” which the Government does not have to pay for.  According to the NZTC annual report to June 2007, 7.5 million dollars of teachers’ funds have been placed on term deposit.  It would be interesting to know how many millions have been allocated by the council for “professional leadership projects”.   Again quoting the 2007 annual report of the Teachers Council page four:

“The Council has embarked on a number of projects aimed to promote and strengthen the profession.  These projects contribute significantly to the Government’s priorities of providing effective teaching for all learners and developing quality providers.”

The employer gets the employee to work out how they can be more productive for free – a neat trick which also provides work for ivory tower educationalists to implement their latest brainwaves at the expense of teachers’ personal wellbeing. 

Money is also spent by the New Zealand Teachers Council in ensuring that the Colleges of Education and other providers are vetted as in an ERO like process.

 Why on earth is teachers’ money being utilised in such a way surely this is a government responsibility?

Why not scrap the New Zealand Teachers Council?
The direct benefits accrued by holding teacher registration over and above the fact that you need a current registration to legally teach are:

• Teachers who are not of good character and fit to teach can be permanently removed from the system never to sully the reputation or cause more trouble for their colleagues again.
• The Complaints Assessment Committees of the NZTC is a cheaper alternative than court action for teachers in trouble.
• Your actions may be vindicated by people who are members of your profession and who understand the circumstances that brought you to them.
• As a registered teacher you get a dollar off books bought through Whitcoulls (a benefit not widely advertised).

However, given the tiny percentages of teachers who do engage in criminal and dubious behaviours and/or get into trouble with their communities, the direct benefits to teachers are vastly outweighed by those that fall to the employer – the Government.

Conclusion
In essence the issue with New Zealand TC in its current form boils down to the issue of no taxation without representation.  Professionalism means having unfettered charge of the affairs of one’s profession and teachers being acknowledged as being the fit and proper persons to regulate their own.  This is not currently the case. 

While it is true that the Government is a major stakeholder in education and should have a say it should not by means of a crown owned entity structure have almost total control over something it does not pay for.

Secondary Teachers as a whole must push through PPTA for change as soon as possible because given the rate of spending it will not be very long before registration fees will rise dramatically.

Social networking sites – communication tool or trouble?

By Winged Rodent 

Bebo, MySpace, Facebook – like it or not, social networking sites have their digital claws all over our lives.
People use them to keep in touch with friends and family overseas, teenagers use them to manage their social lives, employers use them to snoop on potential staff and the odds are you use one yourself. They are having a growing impact on our personal and professional lives and are now throwing up all sorts of questions about student/teacher relationships.
In case you have been living under a cyber-rock for the past few years we will provide you with a Pigeonhole definition of what a social networking site actually is:
A social networking site is a web-based service that allows people to set up public or semi-public profiles sharing interests, photographs and generally letting people know what they are up to. These profiles are connected to profiles of other users and you can interact between them.
Common breeds:
Bebo: A social networking site generally aimed at tweens and teens – This one was a regular fixture in the news last year after allegations of cyber-bullying among school children.
Facebook: Similar to Bebo but more popular with adults. As well as sharing information and photographs, there are an endless number of applications you can add to your page allowing you to take quizzes, ‘buy’ drinks and chew on people with your pet Zombie.
MySpace – Where it all began. These sites started popping up in the early noughties and were very popular among musicians, artists and activists as a way to promote themselves – not quite as trendy as the above two now, but still going strong
OldFriends – A networking site designed help people contact people from old schools, workplaces and other groups that they may have fallen out of touch with.
There are also a number of dating sites, but we’ll put those aside in the meantime…

A full list of social networking sites can be found on wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites

So much has been said about the pros and cons of these sites – particularly in terms of student/teacher relationships. Some schools use them as communication tools between students and student groups, while others are warning teachers to stay as far away from them as possible.
Social networking sites provide opportunities for teachers to link online with like-minded people sharing ideas and information, as well as providing another forum for communication with students.
Overseas a number of schools are embracing social networking technology as a way of communicating with students and adapting to the technology they are using. Some teachers have found that students who tend to zone out during morning announcements are more likely to pay attention to them if they appear on their Facebook page. It has also been used as a way of networking with school clubs, student councils, sports groups and organising fundraising initiatives.
There are however a number of risks involved. There can appear to be a loss of professionalism and appropriate teacher/student boundaries if teachers don’t differentiate the way they use social networking sites with their students from the way they do with their friends. Communication online is often informal and lacks the non-verbal cues of face-to-face conversations. It is easy to respond and publish before the time has been taken to consider whether a quick-fire response is appropriate. Students may have access to personal information and off-the-cuff comments made by teachers that they perhaps should not be seeing. There is also the chance that they may get access to photographs or personal information that could be used against teachers. Conversely teachers may find themselves having access to personal information about students that they are not equipped to deal with.
There are valid reasons behind each stance, but both need to be looked at in detail before making any decisions. The Pigeonhole IT experts realise that social networking sites are not going to go anywhere any time soon and feel the best way of dealing with them in through a series of practical guidelines.
Teachers should be aware that the publication of private and personal information in any online forum cannot be controlled, nor the use of that information monitored. Information you have published may be copied, altered and republished on another website or in another format.
You should remember your online activities can affect your offline life. You should be clear of your school policy and make sure to maintain appropriate student/teacher boundaries.
You should not post any information you would not feel comfortable sharing with a stranger (ie address, phone number, photographs or party invitations) and be aware and make use of the privacy options on the site you use.
The PPTA is putting together a series of guidelines to help deal with social networking sites, which will be available in the next few weeks. The Pigeonhole will keep you updated on their progress.
Being the nosy beggars we are, we would love to hear your thoughts on these networks, how you and your school deal with them, and any tips you have for people involved in these groups.