In November, the State Board of Education (SBOE) endorsed changes to the Educators’ Code of Ethics designed to eliminate inappropriate communication between teachers and students using social media. The State Board for Educator Certification had earlier approved the rule changes. They were initially requested by Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff members who receive disciplinary case referrals about excessive teacher communication with students.
Excessive in this case means a teacher sending thousands of messages to a student, something TEA staff has seen with some frequency. The content might not be inappropriate, but the volume of communication and time of day that messages are sent indicate that an educator is “grooming” a student for a future sexual relationship.
The new code calls on educators to refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor using a cell phone, via text message, or through email, instant messaging, or blogging, or other forms of social networking. Factors that will be used to determine whether teacher-student communication is inappropriate are the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of communication; the subject matter; whether the educator tried to conceal the communication; whether the communication could be interpreted as an educator seeking a romantic or sexual relationship; and more 
.
Teacher organizations unanimously opposed the changes, arguing that they are ambiguous and unnecessary since SBEC already has the power to sanction educators for inappropriate conduct. Of particular concern was amorphous language requiring educators to “exemplify…good moral character.” Texas AFT noted that such language was stripped from earlier code updates because it fails to give educators fair notice of the standards they must follow and leaves too much discretion to administrators who will interpret the rule.
The Association of Texas Professional Educators noted that its primary concern was that TEA did not conduct a referendum to allow educators the chance to approve the new rules, a step taken in the past with major code revisions.
Members of the SBOE agreed that there were problems with the updated code but stopped short of rejecting the rule (the SBOE does not have the power to amend SBEC rules but can reject rules with the support of two-thirds of the board). Instead, SBOE members determined it was too late in the process to intervene.
