This authority makes clear that ensuring proper student discipline and obtaining the resources and support necessary to fulfill plaintiffs duties are “indispensable prerequisite[s] to effective teaching and classroom learning.” Weintraub, 593 F.3d at 203. Moreover, because plaintiff alleged in her e-mails that the District had violated applicable law, she acted as a public employee who “air[ed] a complaint or grievance, or expresse[d] concern about misconduct .... ” Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y., 489 F.Supp.2d 209, 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd 593 F.3d at 196. In addition, the fact that plaintiff sent her e-mails to other District employees as internal correspondence and did not publicize her concerns weighs in defendants’ favor. See, e.g., Massaro, 481 Fed.Appx. at 655-56 (<HOLDING>); McGuire v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-814 (NGG)
holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant holding that bond and miller did not apply because the plaintiff was appointed to the city council by the mayor rather than elected by the public holding that the district courts conclusion that the plaintiff spoke as an employee rather than a private citizen is supported by the facts that she aired her complaints only to several school administrators rather than to the public  holding that one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and therefore several conspiracies because the agreement envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one holding that congress intended for complaints under the pslra to stand or fall based on the actual knowledge of the plaintiffs rather than information produced by the defendants after the action has been filed