Blog

I have been chatting with my colleague Nancy Willard of the Center for Responsible Internet Use about Facebook in schools, and how they should and should not be used by educators. These are her recent thoughts with some of my input added…just to get some more discussion going on this issue. We both think that schools MUST shift to the use of interactive technology environments to effectively prepare students for success in their future. There are incredibly effective tools to do this, like EPals and EdModo. However, Facebook in its current instantiation may not be perfectly suited for certain uses by educators. For example, the use of Facebook for community outreach – by schools or extracurricular organizations – is perfectly appropriate. In addition, there may be times that it would be helpful and appropriate for students to access material on Facebook for instructional purposes. However, I would hesitate to recommend that Facebook be used as a platform for instructional activities based on its current limited feature set for schools and educators. The potential problems – including potential liability for schools – are significant.

These include:

- The privacy of student work products must be protected under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Having students publicly post their work on Facebook could very well violate this federal statute. (Justin and I recommend that schools and teachers set up Facebook Fan Pages which ensures that communications between the adults and students are public…but Facebook is testing the capability for Fans (students, in this case) to send private messages to the owner (adult educator, in this case) of the Fan page. See here for more information.)

- Schools would have to ensure that every adult has effectively set up the appropriate group protections to avoid the potential of liability.

- If a teacher has access to student Facebook profiles, these profiles could reveal evidence of abuse. If a teacher fails to detect and report such abuse, the teacher might be in violation of state mandatory reporting laws.

- Facebook requires individuals to be at least 13 years of age to sign up. Schools must adopt interactive platforms that can be used throughout their K-12 system.

- Students deserve privacy in their personal and social communications. Being required to use Facebook for their instructional activities disrespects this privacy for some. Also, some students and their parents might prefer not to have an account on Facebook.

- Facebook’s business model is focused on market profiling and advertising. Whether instructional environments should be engaged in these activities is definitely a controversial issue.

- Teachers and other school staff who want to friend students on Facebook are possibly setting themselves up for difficulties. School staff should certainly maintain friendly and supportive relationships with students. But do we want to *formally* encourage teachers to become students’ “friends?” Should they also go and hang out at the mall and go to movies with students? Or should they maintain a distinction in the status of their relationship? This, of course, is a polarizing debate with many strong opinions on one side or the other.

To summarize, these are some of the difficulties associated with teacher friending of students:

- The aforementioned mandatory reporting requirement

- Activities in an environment that is fundamentally built for sharing personal information, thoughts, experiences, photos, and videos (as compared to other social networking platforms like LinkedIn)

- Perceived pressure on students to allow teachers to have (at least some) access to their personal social environment, which may violate their privacy

- Perceived grading bias if some students establish deeper or stronger “connections” or friendships than others

- Possible expectation that busy teachers take on some of the responsibility of monitoring and intervening in student-student personal relationships when they are out of school

I really want to hear your thoughts on this…again, keeping in mind the caveats I have stated. I am not suggesting we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Facebook is great and has numerous benefits and incredible potential. I just don’t think it is where it needs to be yet in terms of providing what schools and educators need to deliver education and provide connections in a perfectly appropriate way.

Here are some sample policies that may help you within your school or district as you seek to establish or revise your current formal rules.

Facebook has also contracted with a third-party to create a Guide for Educators, and it is available here.

Chime in and let’s talk this out!

We have just updated one of our most popular resources. You can find our latest bullying law fact sheet here. As you can see, all but 2 states now have bullying laws in place or scheduled to take effect in 2012. Most of these (35) include language about electronic forms of bullying while still relatively few (10) use the term “cyberbullying.” Several states have proposals being discussed for new or updated laws.

Regular readers of this blog know that I am skeptical about the ability of new laws to (by themselves) change behavior. I was talking with a friend last week about cyberbullying and he thought that the solution to the problem was simply to pass strict laws that punish those who bully others. When confronted with an opportunity to bully, the logic goes, a youth will think twice because they will not want to be arrested and punished (fined or even incarcerated). This is a reasonable idea in theory, but the fact is that teens are unlikely to be deterred by the threat of formal punishment. Spend some time reading the deterrence research literature and you will see that formal deterrence just isn’t effective, especially for adolescents. Informal deterrence, however, has shown to be useful. That is, youth are reluctant to get involved in behavior that they feel their parents or good friends would disapprove of. They don’t want to be “punished” by those they care about. Plus, it is a lot more likely that friends or family members will find out about their inappropriate behaviors than the formal justice system. So the bottom line is that educators, parents, and others who work with teens need to consistently condemn all forms of harassment so that youth will pick up the message that bullying is just plain wrong.

All of this is not to say that I do not see value in bullying laws, assuming they are reasonable and implementable. As I have discussed often on this blog, laws should be prescriptive by telling school officials and others (parents, law enforcement, etc.) what they can and should be doing to prevent and respond to bullying. But they should also provide resources so that these mandates can be carried out effectively. (see my analysis of New Jersey’s recently-enacted law for more discussion of this). Passing a law that merely prohibits bullying, or that requires schools to have a policy prohibiting bullying, does little to stop the behaviors if resources (money, professional development, and technical assistance) are not also made available. This is especially true for school officials who are genuinely interested in curtailing the harassment that is impacting their students and school.

Back to the new fact sheet. We also added an additional column to our summary table on the first page which specifies whether the state statutes explicitly allow for the discipline of students for their bullying behaviors that occur off of school property or outside of a school sponsored event. We know that most cyberbullying does occur away from school, and as a result some educators have been reluctant to get involved. A few states have included language in their new statutes which clarifies the school’s responsibility and role when it comes to off-campus incidents (see especially, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey for good examples).

It needs to be pointed out, however, that even without this language in the new laws, current case law certainly does allow schools to reasonably and appropriately discipline students for their off-campus behaviors (such as cyberbullying), if the behaviors result or have a likelihood of resulting in a substantial disruption of the learning environment at school. This is the exact language used in many of the new laws because this is the standard that was established in the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines back in 1969. Subsequent Supreme Court and other federal court decisions have applied this standard to a variety of situations, including the online behaviors of students. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently reviewed two cases where students used web sites to denigrate their principals. Even though the court ultimately sided with the students in both cases—saying that their respective schools went too far in disciplining them—the opinion clearly defended the substantial disruption standard that has long governed the actions of educators when confronting problematic student behavior that occurs away from school. Judge Jordon noted in a concurring opinion that: “The issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker, can be applicable to off-campus speech. I believe it can, and no ruling coming out today is to the contrary.” You can read my full analysis of this decision here.

In summary, take the time to review your state’s bullying law and make sure it is useful to you whether you are an educator, parent, or other concerned citizen. Don’t wait until something bad happens to get educated. Upon reviewing your state’s law you may find that it is insufficient or unclear and now is the time to lobby (and educate) your elected officials. Also take the time to review your school policy concerning bullying and harassment. Is it consistent with the law and does it provide you with the tools you need to effectively prevent and respond to bullying? Does it explicitly cover cyberbullying or other forms of bullying that occur away from school? What does it say about those behaviors that occur away from school?

We will continue to update this fact sheet regularly as new laws are proposed and passed so feel free to bookmark the link (http://www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws.pdf) so that you always have the most recent version. And if you are aware of any new proposals or laws in your state that are not included in our fact sheet, please let us know.

One of the first things we learned in our earliest cyberbullying studies was that targets were not telling adults about their experiences. Even today, very few students who are cyberbullied talk with adults about what is going on. The concern we have heard from adolescents time and time again is that they are afraid to tell adults because they think they will be blamed or their cell phones or computers will be taken away. They are embarrassed or scared and overall they just think things will get worse for them if they tell an adult. Well, whose fault is it that teens don’t feel comfortable talking to us about their experiences? One clue: it’s not *their* fault. We as adults need to take the initiative to learn more about what teens are doing online (the good and the bad) and equip ourselves with knowledge and tools to prevent and successfully respond to cyberbullying when it happens.

Today starts a four day online discussion of Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard on the Education Week Teacher Web site.  If you have read our book, please join in the conversation!  There are a lot of great strategies out there and a discussion involving our book can help stimulate other innovative ideas. Only when we come together to effectively respond to cyberbullying will targets open up and share their experiences with us.  We look forward to reading your insights on the Education Week Teacher Discussion Forum.

Technology is great and we know from our research that the vast majority of teens are using it safely and responsibly. But a few are creating problems for themselves or others by what they post online. That’s why we’ve partnered with Jostens to produce a number of useful resources for you to educate yourself or the teens in your life about the pitfalls associated with unwise postings. “Pause Before You Post” is a movement to remind students to carefully consider the consequences of posting something online. Whether they are posting something private about themselves or something hurtful about someone else, the costs can be steep. Here is a short video that introduces the campaign. You can also find a number of other short videos that feature Sameer and I talking about various issues related to teen technology use here.

One of the most popular documents we wrote for this program was “A Student’s Guide to Personal Publishing” which is available here. Jostens has put together a Pause Before You Post Kit that includes posters, pins, flyers, a DVD and CD with videos and curriculum based on our research. For more information about the kit, talk to your local Jostens representative or visit the Jostens web site. Since October is bullying awareness month, it is a good time to remind students to pause before they post!

New Jersey’s updated bullying law took effect today amid controversy and confusion.  The New York Times recently reported on the law and I have received numerous calls from folks interested in my take on certain provisions.  Bullying and cyberbullying legislation has been the topic of much discussion on this blog, and regular readers know that we see a place for evidence-based, fiscally supported state legislation that helps clarify school responsibilities and provides them with the tools to better manage bullying and cyberbullying incidents.  We haven’t seen the perfect law yet, and New Jersey’s iteration is not it either.

New Jersey’s law seems to focus much attention on accountability – not on holding the bully accountable, but making sure school officials take certain actions expeditiously.  There are a series of requirements in the law that designate a very tight timeline for school actions:

• Principal must investigate incidents within one school day of witnessing or receiving a report of bullying
• Investigation must be completed within ten school days
• Results of the investigation must be sent to superintendent within two school days of completion
• Results must be reported to the board of education at the next scheduled meeting
• Parents need to be informed of investigation within five school days of board notification
• Parents may request a hearing of the board, which must be held within 10 days

The impetus for providing a detailed paper-trail and strict timeline for dealing with each incident likely comes from parents or student targets who feel as though their reports of harassment have been ignored, but holding schools to such a firm schedule will prove challenging.  And depending on how each school interprets the definition of “bullying,” staff could quickly become mired in a bureaucracy and be forced to spend more time on paperwork than actually problem solving.

In fact, an interesting aspect of the language in this law is that it explicitly includes single incidents which traditionally would not have been considered bullying:  “‘Harassment, intimidation or bullying’ means any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a series of incidents…”  Clearly it is important to address all forms of harassment, even one-time incidents, no matter how minor, but to require schools to formally document every single case could easily overwhelm them with paperwork.

The law follows the pattern of other recent state legislation (see our analysis of New Hampshire’s law) in adding language that incorporates off-campus behaviors that substantially disrupt the learning environment at school.  This seems to be one of the most controversial aspects of the law even though nothing has really changed with this.  For decades the standard has been that any behavior, whether on campus or off, that substantially or materially disrupts the learning environment at school is subject to the school’s authority.  This was originally articulated in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969 and several subsequent Supreme Court cases have applied this precedent to numerous incidents where schools disciplined students for off-campus speech or behavior.  States have simply tried to codify this so that the standard is more widely understood.  This law does not require teachers to police the Internet, but it does insist that they respond when reports of cyberbullying that are disruptive to students at school are made.  Since most schools are already doing that, the only significant change is the amount of documentation that is required within a very short period of time.

In general, much of the provisions in the law are actually positive, and again most schools are already doing many of the elements included.  The major problem is that no money has been allocated to pull any of this together.  For example, each school needs to designate an “anti-bullying specialist” and each district needs to name a “bullying coordinator” (contact information for these folks must be listed on the school’s web page).  Since no resources have been provided to schools to hire actual specialists, these duties will no doubt fall on staff who may or may not have expertise in bullying prevention and response.  Moreover, schools are now required to provide training to staff and volunteers, but information is lacking regarding evidence-based training programs or curricular enhancements.  Therefore, many schools will be forced to create an ad-hoc program or pay for someone to provide programming that might not be effective or informed by research. These mandates are coming at time when schools in New Jersey and across the United States are laying off teachers and essential support staff left and right.  If New Jersey and other states really wanted to send a strong message that bullying prevention and response is a priority, then they would provide resources for schools to implement these policies and practices effectively.   Until then, the new law is only a bunch of words on paper.  Complete details of the law are available here.