From the inception of OPC in 1997, Members have frequently sought assistance with the management of parental relationships. Over time, the parameters for appropriate and healthy relationships that benefit student success have come to be defined by legislation, regulation, board policies and procedures including section 301 of the Education Act, Board and school Codes of Conduct, Regulation 612 (School Councils and Parent Engagement Committees) and supported actively through the Parent Engagement Office of the Ministry of Education.
Principals have many resources (e.g.,www.peopleforeducation.ca) to assist them in developing robust and productive relationships with individual parents as well as with parent organizations in order to create a vibrant and successful school. From time to time, however, individuals or groups of parents can engage in problematic behaviours that challenge the boundaries of appropriate input and dissent. Indeed, an analysis of the types and numbers of calls to the OPC Protective Services Team (PST) reveals that Boards generally are able to support administrators in these circumstances, but from time to time, administrators require a more significant level of support and intervention often provided through the joint efforts of Boards and the PST.
As author, Todd Whitaker asserts in his many publications, school leaders can expect to deal with difficult parents as well as parents in difficult situations. We understand that issues dealing with one’s children are wrapped up in the protective instinct of the parent and will be impacted by the parent’s own experiences with school and school administrators. As a result, when addressing issues such as learning challenges, progressive discipline, and bullying, a wise administrator will anticipate that emotions may run high and be prepared to diffuse and manage the flow of anger and disappointment. Principals, however, rightly ask: “how much am I expected to take?”
In 1999, OPC published its first article on this topic, stating: “occasionally, parents become confrontational and hostile when they believe that the school system is not dealing appropriately with their issue, complaint or child.”The tactics employed sometimes involve “an attempt to discredit the administrator in the eyes of the superintendent and the Board, or other parents within the community. In such cases, it is typical for the parent to...write letters to the editor of the local paper, launch telephone campaigns and circulate petitions.”Since that time, social media seems to have become an additional and more frequent avenue for expressing dissatisfaction.
“The result is a hostile, confrontational atmosphere that is harmful to the school environment and often to the administrator’s professional and personal life.” It is this latter observation that presents for all of us a great concern. In another PST article, entitled Managing Parental Harassment: Tips for School Leaders, we said,“the implications of on-going parental harassment can be costly and should not be underestimated. Medical leaves of absence related to the stress caused by parental harassment...can impact a school board’s bottom line and more importantly, the quality of education available to students.” In addition, the harassment-related stress can cause a school administrator to resign or retire earlier than otherwise intended, having considerable personal financial implications as well as the aforementioned health concerns.
The good news is that matters rarely reach the point as described above: however, in the throes of managing a particularly difficult parent, that same question arises: how much is a school leader expected to take? What is the threshold for “unreasonable”?
The first stage, as previously mentioned, is to anticipate when parental contact has the potential to go sideways. Part of the important preparation is to undertake professional learning in dealing with difficult people and to access one’s network of Board supports (mentors, supervisory officers) in managing such situations. With the support of one’s board, a principal can rely on board policies and procedures (access to premises, code of behaviour, respectful workplace) to define and demand acceptable behaviour. Before exhausting one’s entire repertoire of skills and abilities, when negotiation and mediation fail, or in those rare but real situations where a parent may elect an outrageous alternative, it is helpful to know when a legal response may be appropriate. When does bad behaviour become harassment? When do written or verbal comments become libel or slander?
If in the course of dealing with a difficult parent you reach a point where you feel your safety and/or the safety of those around you is at risk because of a parent’s threats or behaviour you must take immediate action. If the threat/behaviour is imminent the police should be called. If the behaviour has been escalating and is reaching a dangerous point, your supervisory officer needs to be advised and then a joint decision made regarding police involvement. This is also the point at which a safety plan for you may need to be developed and implemented. The significant changes made to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which took effect in June 2010 concerning workplace violence and harassment, are applicable to these situations. Principals and vice-principals are “workers” under the Act and entitled to the protections set out in Part III.0.1 of the Act dealing with “Violence and Harassment”. (While on its face, OHSA would appear not to apply to teachers, including administrators, in fact R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 857 makes it clear the Act does apply to teachers and administrators subject to the proviso that they cannot refuse or stop work where the life, health or safety of a pupil is in imminent jeopardy).
When the outrageous behaviour is not physical or physically threating but involves the written or spoken word it can be just as upsetting. Administrators, as “captains of the ship”, are often the subject of comments, opinions and criticisms by parents. Notwithstanding the accuracy of these statements, the fact is almost all of them need to be ignored. To do otherwise often exacerbates the problem, elevating comments or conversation to a more public venue or larger audience than the inaccuracies or speaker/author deserve. If the individual persists, a ‘cease and desist’ letter from the Board might work. Only in the most extreme of cases should consideration be given to undertaking a defamation suit because such legal actions are difficult to win, time-consuming to pursue and provide the parent with another stage on which to perform, sharing the derogatory comments. What must be understood is that our right as Canadians to freedom of expression is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, courts are very reluctant to limit parents’ (or anyone’s) ability to express themselves except in the most serious of situations. For this reason, a legal analysis of the commentary needs to be made – ideally by Board counsel – as to whether or not the matter meets the test.
In order for a defamation action to succeed, the applicant must prove that the parent made a statement to a third party about the administrator that would cause a reasonable person to lower his or her estimation of the principal. There are, however, some defences available to the parent that could nullify the characterization of defamation.
1.Truth – if the statement is true, however distasteful or embarrassing, the communication is not defamatory.
2. Fair comment – if the parent expressed a plausible opinion based on known and provable facts and communicated this opinion as a matter of public interest (what is happening in school would be of public interest), and provided the parent is not motivated by malice, then the communication, while defamatory is not actionable. R. Brown the author of The Law of Defamation in Canada explains what constitutes malice and how its presence might negate the defence of fair comment as follows “The protection may be lost if it is shown that the comment was made maliciously, in the sense that it originated from some improper or indirect motive, or if there was no reasonable relationship between the comment that was made and the public interest that it was designed to serve."
3. Qualified Privilege – if the parent (feeling he has a duty or interest) complains to the supervisor officer, the director, the trustee or the Ministry of Education, then he or she has accessed those individuals who are properly available to receive the communication, thus protecting the parent from a legal action provided the statements were not made with malice.
While the thought of launching a defamation lawsuit may feel satisfying and attractive, the reality can be quite disappointing. First of all, such an action will likely take many months, if not years and so barring an interim injunction, not only will the defamatory statements continue to be in the public domain but the process of the litigation will likely attract further attention. Second, if the litigation proceeds to trial, the parent will be given another platform upon which to make the disparaging and defamatory statements. Third, while the primary motive for such litigation may be to force the parent to stop making the defamatory statements and/or to remove them from a website for example, in many respects the harm to reputation has already occurred and monetary damages if awarded will not undo that damage. Moreover, the defendant-parents are frequently judgement-proof, that is, they do not have the means to pay the damages assessed against them in any event. Nevertheless, when an assessment has been made that such an action is likely to be successful and provided the administrator is willing to engage in the litigation process, such an action does demonstrate the Board’s willingness to defend its school leaders and can act as a deterrent to other parents.
CYBERBULLYING OF PRINCIPALS: WHAT TO DO WHEN IT’S YOU
The OPC has assisted principals in the investigation of cyberbullying that has involved student-to-student, student-to-staff, staff-to-staff and parent-to-staff cases. Increasingly, however, the target of the cyberbully is the principal or vice-principal. Cyberbullies are often either endeavouring to force the principal to change a decision or to punish the principal for the disputed outcome by causing “fear, distress, or harm” (PPM 144).
There are several challenges facing the principal in the investigation of cyberbullying. The first task is finding and preserving the evidence. Through a search engine, such as Google, it is critical to identify all of the sites used to communicate the bullying and to preserve the evidence through screen captures. Determining the author(s) can be a particularly difficult task. Unless the bully self-identifies or an informer provides a name or list of names, the principal is faced with the fact that one can remain anonymous on the Internet. The bully can create a pseudonym, pretend to be someone else or merely remain nameless. Without specific identifying characteristics or an ability to trace the source device, it may be impossible to stop and/or punish the defamer. Searching for the identity can be very time-consuming. While it can be effective if done systematically, one must be prepared for the long haul.
When ascertaining the impact on school climate, the principal must assess the scope of the commentary. For example, counting the number of hits on a particular site or measuring pick-up in the school or the larger community can present more than technological challenges. The investigation must be conducted in such a way as to minimize the potential for further dissemination of the information in question. Another gauge of the impact on school climate is the amount of time the principal is occupied with this investigation and dealing with the ramifications across the school community (e.g., student, staff, parent contacts). In other words, is the event dominating to the point of interfering with school operations?
The task of eliminating the offending material, e.g., website, blog, or other forums, can be frustrating for many reasons. It requires a great deal of time, detail and attention. First, it is necessary to check all search engines with the principal’s name and derivatives. The recommended steps are:
- Determine and record the domain host, search engine, author and administrator.
- Access and record all external websites.
- Cut and paste all hits into a list.
- Identify the target audience.
- Assess traction and/or pick up in the school or larger community.
- Gauge impact on Board.
The goal of the investigation is to identify places where the negative commentary is being published. Efforts must be made to compel the website host to remove the information and cached copies. Such demands are best produced when distributed on district school board letterhead, preferably signed by Board counsel, but at minimum signed by a Board official. If the host agrees to remove the derogatory content after a reasonable request, a resort to legal action may not be necessary.
When assisting Members who believe they have been targets of cyberbullying, the OPC advice centres on the potential damage to reputation. More than hurt feelings, the (false) commentary could cause grave harm to one’s professional reputation and potentially trigger an investigation by police (criminal behaviour); by the employer (just cause); by the Ontario College of Teachers (misconduct); or by a child protection agency (allegations of abuse). References include relevant statutes, regulations, or board policies that speak to, among others, freedom of expression, defamation, safety and confidentiality, harassment (workplace, human rights), pornography, acceptable use of technology, freedom of information, protection of privacy (identity theft) and public vs. private discourse.
The principal who is the target of cyberbullying by student, staff, parent or anonymous source should be able to rely on the employer-board for vigorous and overt support. This support could range from the collection of evidence to the vigorous defense and even possible prosecution of the perpetrator. The Protective Services Team is available to assist administrators in these situations.
A principal who is the subject of cyberbullying has a public stature that may require a careful communication plan in response to the extent to which the comments have been read by students, staff, parents and community members. The nature and scope of a communication plan is specific to the case and should not further exacerbate the defamation.
There are pros and cons to all plans. One must balance a candid and open response with the potential of spreading the defamation into new territory. A statement such as: “The [name] district school board has investigated and found allegations to be untrue” could go a long way to express the support of the employer in a determined venue or venues (staff, students, school council and wider community). Any official statement should be the consistent message delivered in all venues, either by the principal or by a Board’s official spokesperson.
The experiences of OPC Members who have been the target of cyberbullying have underlined the importance of having emotional supports in place during the investigation phase. For example, it may be necessary to respond to postings on new websites as they appear, and there is the risk of allowing the endeavour to take over one’s life, job and sleep.
When an OPC Member who believes that s/he has been a target of cyberbullying calls for assistance, the immediate directions are to contact the supervisory officer, assist in the investigation, manage the message and call in one’s personal support network. The Member is often disappointed that legal action is not immediately launched. It is difficult to accept that the decision of whether or not to commence legal action is very complicated and nuanced. Even if the decision is made to proceed legally, the nature of the response will require careful planning and may require even more time. There is rarely a quick fix
An OPC Member, a principal-target of cyberbullying, advised: “It will take longer than you hope to get it off the Internet ... Sort of like a home renovation project – it always takes more time and money than you planned!” One reason for the apparent delay in response from a host could be the sheer volume of information: Google, for example, deals in billions of hits per year.
The OPC is responding to the challenges of the cyberbullying of its Members through professional development, training and advocacy in the following areas:
Training - It is imperative that the adults in schools be as adept and familiar with information technology as the students. This expertise exists among district school board personnel and should be shared with principals. There is also a serious knowledge gap in certain parent populations; it would be a responsible community service to provide training for parents in the supervision and safety of their children on the Internet.
Responsible & Acceptable Use Policies and Education - The responsible use of electronic communication devices must be seamlessly woven into education programs. “Acceptable Use” policies need to be responsive to changing capacities and innovations, and consequences for violations of the policies must be both enforced and enforceable.
Reputation, public profile - There is a growing recognition that a changing demographic is challenging traditional notions of professional behaviour. Society has held teachers and principals to a higher standard of behaviour as evidenced in legislation and under such regimes as the Ontario College of Teachers. Defamation of a principal’s reputation, therefore, should concern the employer and prompt the Board to undertake an active and consistent response. At the same time, educators are accountable for their reputation and public profile, which must not be undermined by their own actions, such as inadvisably candid remarks, photos and discourse on social network sites.
Negligence Lawsuits
Another course of action a disgruntled parent may take is to threaten a lawsuit for what is alleged to be negligent behaviour on the part of the administrator. The PST regularly receives calls from Members who have either been threatened with or have received notice of an impending lawsuit. Needless to say, this can also be a daunting experience and one that can leave school administrators feeling vulnerable. It is helpful to note that very few of these matters end up going to court. The plaintiff, while disgruntled, is generally successful only in those cases where the matter has real merit: that is, where there was serious injury or loss of life and evidence of negligence on the part of the board and/or its employees. Even in these cases, the lawyers for both sides tend to settle out of court. Unless the principal or vice-principal did something deliberately reckless or criminal, s/he can expect to be defended and indemnified by the Board. The entitlement to this support is expressed in the indemnification language in the respective District School Board’s Terms & Conditions for school administrators. Here is an example of such language:
The Board agrees to indemnify the Principal/Vice-Principal against all costs, charges and expenses, including legal fees and disbursements, actually and reasonably incurred by him/her in connection with the investigation, prosecution and resolution of any charge, claim, complaint, action or other legal proceeding ("the Proceeding") to which the Principal/Vice-Principal is or may be a party by reason of being a Principal and/or Vice-Principal, provided that the Principal/Vice-Principal was acting within the scope and course of his/her employment during those events causing the Proceedings and further provided that in the case of a criminal Proceeding, the Principal/Vice-Principal has reasonable grounds for believing that his/her conduct giving rise to the criminal Proceeding was lawful.
The Board’s insurer, usually the Ontario School Boards’ Insurance Exchange – OSBIE, who employs lawyers and claims adjustors, is most often tasked with carriage of the defence of the Board and its employees. The principal’s role is to support the Board’s defence by providing information including relevant documents.
In summary, OPC Members can take comfort from the fact that they are better trained in managing parental relations (or have access to such training and resources), that the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are more clearly defined, and that they have greater resources at their disposal to create and maintain positive relations. In addition, Boards are doing a better job of managing parents who choose inappropriate ways of expressing their displeasure. The PST is available to Members to assist whenever these behaviours cross the line.