The matter of the King's High School teacher and a sexual relationship with a pupil is a clear-cut case of boundaries being blatantly crossed.
The teacher was suspended and has resigned.
Also disclosed, via social media images, was a sexual relationship with a former pupil.
The teacher's behaviour was unethical, as well as being foolish.
This is not an isolated incident.
The Teachers' Council Disciplinary Council site lists decisions last year on sexual touching of a 19-year-old exchange student, inappropriate sexual banter with pupils and three of inappropriate relationships.
In 2014 the principal of Rotorua's John Paul College, Patrick Walsh, said there were too many cases where teachers crossed professional boundaries.
Mr Walsh, also a member of the council's disciplinary tribunal, urged the Government to make appropriate relationships with pupils a compulsory part of teacher training.
Clearly, though, some training and guidance does take place.
When a first-year Morrinsville teacher last year came before the tribunal after a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old pupil, she claimed she had ‘‘received very little training regarding boundary issues'' at both university and teachers college.
The Morrinsville College principal disputed lack of support, and the tribunal agreed, saying the school had provided the young teacher with an appropriate level of mentoring and guidance.
And this week a University of Otago College of Education associate dean, Alex Gunn, said student teachers were introduced in a professional practice paper to the ‘‘perils and advantages'' of social media.
Schools have policies as does the Post Primary Teachers' Association.
As well, media articles about inappropriate behaviour should act as a warning.
No doubt, inappropriate relationships have always happened.
What has changed is the advent of social media and mobile phones and the style of teaching.
The scene has altered beyond recognition compared to earlier generations.
Once teachers - apart perhaps from sport, drama or camps - would have little contact with pupils outside the school gates.
Roles were better defined and expectations different.
Now, as Dr Gunn said, the term ‘‘outside school hours'' was archaic in modern education because teachers accessed work at all hours, as did their pupils.
Depending on the school, contact outside the classroom is not only easier but encouraged.
Schools have their various Facebook pages, marking might be online and texts about various logistical matters could well be convenient and suitable.
The relationship between teachers and pupils is an important part of learning and support.
A modern teacher need not be a distant authoritarian figure.
Nevertheless, while teachers can be friendly, that does not mean they are a pupil's friend, and certainly not a Facebook ‘‘friend''.
Their place is to be effective and not court popularity or become too familiar.
As Mr Walsh said, it is not appropriate to text pupils late at night, to accept gifts or attend senior pupils' birthday parties.
The King's teacher, according to one pupil, was comfortable around pupils ‘‘like putting her feet up on the students''.
Such familiarity should be a warning sign.
Teachers need to maintain a professional distance even as they use messaging, emails or texts.
They need to be aware at how easily they can be compromised and avoid spending any time privately with individual pupils.
Theirs is by definition a power relationship - even though pupils can bully teachers.
It is teachers and the school system ultimately in charge and deciding on marks, sports team participation, scholarships and the like.
That puts the onus on those with the power and the knowledge, the teachers, to enforce the boundaries.
The digital world has brought with it much that is positive for education.
At the same time, teachers need to be alert to the extra dangers the closer contact brings.
