Teacher suspended - who IBU?

[Wondermoomin]

Female teacher is suspended for an "inappropriate" selfie. I'm of the opinion that whilst it might be unprofessional, it's not a disciplinary offence. I can't help but think she's facing such harsh treatment because she's a woman. Would a male teacher bearing the same amount of skin (essentially just arms and legs) have been told they looked "sultry" and "provocative" and suspended? I don't think so

What do you think? Is the school being unreasonable?

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/pupils-defend-milton-keynes-teacher-suspended-over-inappropriate-selfie-shot-1-7890876

She's been suspended, presumably by a woman because she is pretty. This is not a provocative or overly sexualised image, just a picture of a very beautiful woman.

You may choose to defend her. That's up to you. I merely stated my opinion that it was unsuitable and a matter for further action. And the school seems to agree.

Nippy that is such a demeaning thing to say about both the women at once!!

Ah so it was a woman... thought so.

I think it's very apparent that we don't have the full story, Viviennemary.

I'm not 'defending' the choice of profile picture & have made it absolutely clear that as a teacher of KS3-5 students I would not, personally, want the ribbing they'd give me if they stumbled across a similar picture of me. So I make sure they don't.

I'm saying that she isn't doing anything illegal or improper in this photograph, so disciplinary action based on this alone would be wholly inappropriate.

I already said it was quite some time ago and all the articles say so The successful school ahs been led by a female headteacher for many years. She presumably knows employment law. And may be too busy running a school to resort to petty jealousy.

So, she's sitting down, looking at a phone, has a top on covering her to the thighs. I reckon it's the shoes. NOT that I have a problem. So if she was on a sunbed, in a sort of t shirt dress with flip flops, nobody would say a word.
God, I continually feel sorry for teachers these days. Poor lass.

My understanding is that schools always suspend to investigate to protect children rather than as a disciplinary action. Is that's what happened here, I wonder?

Well, it is a provocative image displayed on the internet for anyone to see, and as a pp said her encouraging of comments after the suspension makes it pretty clear that she likes the attention. We know that people sexualise images of women through the male gaze, most images of women through history were painted by men or the photos taken by men to appeal to men. Women have internalised this way of looking at themselves and other women and I find it quite sad that now that women have agency over their own image that they still chose to pander to male ideals of female attractiveness by creating these images of themselves which encourages sexism imo as men see that women view themselves this way too and seek approval through it. When I was a teenager my male peers Loved it when girls posted these sorts of pictures and would save them to their phones for 'the wank bank', the suggestion of sex is often more appealing than full frontal vagina you get in online porn. More women than men engage in this selfie culture, but men don't have the same level of importance placed on their physical attractiveness and so don't seek approval by posting endless vain selfies to the same extent, some do but they don't have the same set of social expectations regarding what is considered sexual. I don't know any women who would find a skimpily dressed man more attractive than if he was in say a suit, but men do respond to women with more skin on show, clothing that clings to the body to emphasise curves etc. The legs open on the bed pose with pout and bed hair is appealing to male desires, it's meant to provoke lust. Perhaps not worthy of a suspension but certainly not a good role model as she is clearly quite insecure (or vain) despite being reasonably attractive.

Selfies of any kind are not particularly good role model behaviour especially not vaguely sexy ones. This is definitely sexual. I hate the obsession with selfies let alone ones that say look how sexy I am.

If she's part of the pastoral care team she's not a teacher. Which sounds like splitting hairs but they are very different roles. The line pastoral care staff tread with children, particularly teens, is a tricky one and wrongly handled can lead to over familiarity. It's even harder to maintain the 'I'm your mate'/professional balance with teens when social media is involved too-every staff member where I teach gets fully locked down on privacy. (Specialist unit though).

This photo in and of itself is nothing imho. I think there's probably more to it than that though.

There may well be more to it than this photo - but the headteacher dealing with her in a place and at a volume that could allow the conversation to be recorded by pupils is seriously unprofessional.

To be honest if I looked like her I think I'd jack in work and spend most of the day taking photos of myself in the mirror!

But would there be the same "outrage" at a bloke say sitting on a sun bed, in a vest (covering his briefs), looking at his phone.

But would there be the same "outrage" at a bloke say sitting on a sun bed, in a vest (covering his briefs), looking at his phone.

What about the high heels?

I know it sounds old fashioned but I don't want to live in Selfieland. I hate this self obsessed, narcissistic direction, trend or whatever you call it.

@Trifle

Some of the best teachers I know have visible tattoos. The kids don't care. Why do you?

Life is much more complicated than you're pretending it is. I make instant judgements about every single person I meet. We all do. It's human. As my school is independent, I need to make parents want to send their children to my school. Politics is a little different. We have a waiting list but at the same time, to keep the waiting list, parents have to want to send this children here. That is broken down into 4 basic categories:

• results (grades, alumni at Ivy League or Oxbridge / RG Uni)

• performing arts. People expect a hell of a musical or theatrical production and feel this justifies the fees

• pricing (very complex: maybe veblen good, maybe giving the impression a high cost means it's a high quality product, maybe as a filtering mechanism - expensive means only 'certain people' attend meaning doors can be opened through attendance)

• value of name of school

• perception

It's that final one which includes things like beautiful grounds, stocked library, 3D printers, banks of Macs in the IT suites, freshly painted classrooms, non-tattooed teachers etc which is very important in maintaining a school's standing.

A teacher may be incredible but I would struggle to justify (to myself) employing them if they do not fit the image of the school that I want to portray. There's a balance. Not only that, I had 74 applicants for head of KS1 last year. I can be picky.

would there be the same "outrage" at a bloke say sitting on a sun bed, in a vest (covering his briefs), looking at his phone.

I think so.

CheWasABitOfAHomophobe:

I believe you that you make judgements about everyone you meet

I tend to reserve judgement (as far as I can) until I see how someone carries themselves. Tattoos are no barrier to earning my respect.

If you are daft enough to refuse to send your child somewhere because of - gasp - tattooed teachers, I would suspect a genetic stupidity link and would be spurious about taking your child anyway.

Cautious may be a better word.

Interesting to read that you say respect is earnt ie. over a period of time.

You also say "as far as I can" meaning that a part of you does judge. It's what people do and you can't change human nature.

If you are daft enough to refuse to send your child somewhere because of - gasp - tattooed teachers

It's a vast array of things which give a perception of a school and yes, one of those is the way staff (and students) look.

I don't think people should be judged purely on appearances or first impressions but as you alluded to ("as far as I can"), people do..

"I would suspect a genetic stupidity link and would be spurious about taking your child anyway."

I assume that this is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but we don't judge children on their parents!

There's a teacher in my town posts far worse than that and swears a lot. Its all public too. If she taught my kids I would have complained.

CheWasABitOfAHomophobe:

It was ever so slightly tongue in cheek. Intelligence is at least partly genetic.

I think it is a very basic part of being an adult to be capable to separating my initial judgements (which I know are likely to be influenced by my prejudices and experiences) from my rational judgements about people. A tattoo is a very superficial thing on which to base a judgement. I don't think it is reasonable to refuse to hire someone, regardless of their qualifications, work history, demeanour and other attributes, because of my own prejudices (should they extend to tattoos - they don't). And yes, I appreciate that on a private school you have to make this a commercial decision. That's a shame for your students as they could be missing out on excellent teaching. I would never work in a private school so I don't have to worry about that and can hire people based on how good they are.

*of

I think the pose on the bed is whorish, frankly. She is not an appropriate role model for young people; in fact, she probably makes them cringe.

Oh so she is NOT a real teacher? Thank heavens for small mercies.