14 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Here's an unexpected development...

I am not sure which school district he is in, but most have taken the new law to only apply to students in the employees' school districts.  Albeit, the law isn't very clear on that interpretation either.  But most (and I assumed all) districts have only applied the law to a teacher and a student in the same district.  Now, if it did apply to all K-12 students/teachers in all districts, that would be a logistical nightmare. 

32 minutes ago, No Hiding Here....BC 21 said:

IE, Who is or isn't considered a family member?

From the law:

(a) "Family member" means a parent, brother, sister, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, or grandparent;
(b) "Parent" means a parent, legal guardian, or other person or agency responsible for a student;

28 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Here's an unexpected development...

I get it, I guess, but WOW.

35 minutes ago, brooksville said:

I am not sure which school district he is in, but most have taken the new law to only apply to students in the employees' school districts.  Albeit, the law isn't very clear on that interpretation either.  But most (and I assumed all) districts have only applied the law to a teacher and a student in the same district.  Now, if it did apply to all K-12 students/teachers in all districts, that would be a logistical nightmare. 

I do agree the law doesn't clearly define students/teachers from other school districts but remember the last line of guidance the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) disseminated: 

What about instances where the unauthorized communications were accidental or otherwise innocuous?

There is no exception for accidental or innocuous communication. From the [Redacted]: “Unauthorized electronic communication . . . means an electronic communication with a student by a school district employee or volunteer who is not the student’s family member that occurs outside of a designated traceable communication system and without prior written parental consent.” This encompasses all communication between any student and any employee or volunteer in any setting under all circumstances for any reason.

===============

With that last line of guidance in mind I agree with Coach Haynes of UPIKE that he (any teacher/employee) can't contact any students (your district or not) outside of a designated traceable communication system and/or without prior written parental consent.  At a minimum, this needs to be everyone's default position until further guidance is released.

1 hour ago, theguru said:

I do agree the law doesn't clearly define students/teachers from other school districts but remember the last line of guidance the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) disseminated: 

What about instances where the unauthorized communications were accidental or otherwise innocuous?

There is no exception for accidental or innocuous communication. From the [Redacted]: “Unauthorized electronic communication . . . means an electronic communication with a student by a school district employee or volunteer who is not the student’s family member that occurs outside of a designated traceable communication system and without prior written parental consent.” This encompasses all communication between any student and any employee or volunteer in any setting under all circumstances for any reason.

===============

With that last line of guidance in mind I agree with Coach Haynes of UPIKE that he (any teacher/employee) can't contact any students (your district or not) outside of a designated traceable communication system and/or without prior written parental consent.  At a minimum, this needs to be everyone's default position until further guidance is released.

The exception for accidental communication is beyond extreme.  A close friend of mine teaches in NKY, but also does Uber/Uber eats and door dash.  

He's now worried he's gonna get a message for food delivery with special instructions about "leave food by side door."  And unbeknownst to him, it's a student.  We'll, that's accidental communication and the way I'm reading this, definitely a violation.   

Or maybe he picks up and Uber from Florence going to the Reds game or wherever, and goes to pickup, and boom students.  Again, accidental, not harmful in any way. 

There's countless scenarios where this law doesn't make any sense.

16 minutes ago, New Colonel said:

The exception for accidental communication is beyond extreme.  A close friend of mine teaches in NKY, but also does Uber/Uber eats and door dash.  

He's now worried he's gonna get a message for food delivery with special instructions about "leave food by side door."  And unbeknownst to him, it's a student.  We'll, that's accidental communication and the way I'm reading this, definitely a violation.   

Or maybe he picks up and Uber from Florence going to the Reds game or wherever, and goes to pickup, and boom students.  Again, accidental, not harmful in any way. 

There's countless scenarios where this law doesn't make any sense.

Right.  If you are a teacher (school worker) you have to be a hermit outside of school and hope the laws of probability don't catch up with you, because for most it will. 

Don't even think of going grocery shopping or to a pool in the summer, both of those are asking for trouble. 

Here is a perfect example of where the issue lies outside of school. I know a teacher friend who manages a concession stand that is employed students from multiple high schools. When the weather is bad, the manager is unable to contact the students through a required chat that has the managing supervisor from the employer.  Everyone sees it. Because the students are students in a Kentucky School district.   when it is storming and you have to make a change The manager is having a contact the parents for a JOB.  They get upset about it as they are trying to teach responsibility but in this case don't have a choice.     In the last second, the manager has to find alternative ways to try and get in touch.    Traceable communication is only for the school platform in and it varies.  If there was a universal one would be okay, but in this case outside interference at jobs where you work in and employs, all teenagers needs to be adjusted. I agree with all the texting issues. No problem.  But in a case where you are hired as a teacher and students are from all kinds of districts, there's no other way to contact them. It's storming, you need to change shifts with somebody else, or you need people to come in because it's super busy. That's the adjustment that needs to be made, especially if there's a supervisor of the employer within the group and it is required to use.   Wind workers are running late as one the other day was in a car accident. Couldn't contact management and let them know. There are multiple teachers on the staff and the worker was written up but in reality should have been excused and will have to be fixed because of the car accident. Nobody could find out.

6 hours ago, New Colonel said:

Private school teacher friends have said it does not apply to them.  Which makes zero sense to me.

This makes sense if you consider that some people just want to make life as difficult on public schools and public school teachers as possible, especially since 2020.  And I'll leave it at that.

44 minutes ago, DanvilleFan said:

This makes sense if you consider that some people just want to make life as difficult on public schools and public school teachers as possible, especially since 2020.  And I'll leave it at that.

How so?

The world changed then and not for the better.

Also this DOES apply to Private School teachers/administrators/coaches.

 

17 minutes ago, Falcon Pride said:

Also this DOES apply to Private School teachers/administrators/coaches.

Would you please show us that in the law and/or give us the legal basis for your statement?

13 hours ago, theguru said:

From the law:

(a) "Family member" means a parent, brother, sister, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, or grandparent;
(b) "Parent" means a parent, legal guardian, or other person or agency responsible for a student;

What about “in-laws”?

I don’t remember where I saw or heard the example, but daughter is a cheerleader & daughter-in-law is cheerleading coach. 

8 hours ago, Falcon Pride said:

How so?

The world changed then and not for the better.

Also this DOES apply to Private School teachers/administrators/coaches.

 

2 family friends teach private schools and have told us it does not apply to them.  

 

7 hours ago, theguru said:

Would you please show us that in the law and/or give us the legal basis for your statement?

Yes!

If something is LAW, it’s for everyone correct? 

I am close with administrators and teachers at multiple Private Schools. They will be following this Law. They are already working on the wording of waivers they want signed for students/parents.

Also, the lawyer in the family thinks this will be in the Courts in no time.

14 minutes ago, Falcon Pride said:

If something is LAW, it’s for everyone correct? 

I am close with administrators and teachers at multiple Private Schools. They will be following this Law. They are already working on the wording of waivers they want signed for students/parents.

Also, the lawyer in the family thinks this will be in the Courts in no time.

Glad to hear the private schools you mention will be following this.     

 

I agree on the courts since the KY Bill of Rights has multiple mentions of free speech.

43 minutes ago, Falcon Pride said:

If something is LAW, it’s for everyone correct? 

Not necessarily.