Blog

Blue Mountain School District v. J.S. and Layshock v. Hermitage School District. These are two cases that we have discussed quite frequently on this blog.  We have been waiting a long time to receive clarification from a high court regarding the circumstances under which schools can discipline students for their off-campus online speech and we thought these two cases would provide that guidance.  As we’ve noted before, the default standard has generally been that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus behavior if it can be demonstrated that such behavior resulted in a “substantial and material disruption” of the school environment (Tinker vs. Des Moines, 1969).  One problem is this issue has never really been addressed in the digital age.  Another problem is, what constitutes a disruption of a ’substantial’ caliber is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

Take the example of Justin Layshock, the 17-year-old Hickory High School senior who in 2005 created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal” from his grandmother’s home using her computer.  The school suspended Layshock for 10 days, which was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, but later overturned by the judge in the case, saying the school went too far.  Last February, a panel of judges from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed.  In this specific case it appeared the school failed to effectively argue that Layshock’s actions caused a substantial disruption at school.

In the related case, a 14-year-old eighth-grade student from Blue Mountain Middle School also created a MySpace profile of the principal which included, among other things, an accusation that he was a “sex-obsessed pedophile.”  This student was also suspended for 10 days for violating the school’s discipline code and for using the schools copyrighted material (the principal’s picture from the school’s web site) without permission. The lower court refused to grant the student a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ruling that schools can in fact discipline students for lewd off-campus behavior, even if such behavior doesn’t cause a substantial disruption.  Another, separate panel from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in an opinion that seemed inconsistent with the Layshock ruling.

In an effort to resolve these two conflicting perspectives, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now revisiting both cases, by employing a 15-judge panel instead of the original separate smaller panels.  Oral arguments started today and we’ll be sure to update this post when a decision is reached.  What do you think the judges will decide?  At what point can schools take action?  At what point must they take action?

Our colleague Anne Collier from NetFamilyNews made us aware of an email that Anthony Orsini, a middle school principal from New Jersey, sent to parents a couple of weeks ago imploring them to prohibit their children from participating in social networking sites. As reported on CBS and elsewhere, the letter Orsini sent to parents included the following text:

“Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today! … There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! Let me repeat that – there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None.”

Sameer and I have been exploring adolescent social networking for almost 5 years and even though we see the worst of the worst in terms of behaviors, we also agree that such examples represent the exception, not the rule.   In general, we believe the benefits of social networking outweigh the negatives and potential risks, if youth learn to use the sites responsibly. It is certainly a very good idea for parents to talk to their kids about what they are doing online, though simply banning access to technology, without just cause, is a big mistake. For one thing, it is literally impossible for parents to completely prevent their children from participating in social networking. If they really want to be on social networking sites, they will find a way to get on: they will go to a friend’s house or log on at the library or pursue underground social networking sites that are less well known or regulated.

It is a much better strategy for parents to carefully express their concerns about these environments and teach youth how to be responsible online. Tell them that it isn’t a good idea to accept as friends those who they do not know and trust in real life. Demonstrate the dangers of posting too much personal information online. Show them how to use the privacy settings. Provide them with examples from the media where teens have gotten into trouble for misusing social networks. Our research suggests that teens are listening and improving social networking practices! Print this out and give it to them. Odds are they will be just fine if they abide by these commonsense guidelines.

Then, have your kids help you set up a Facebook page and tell them that they need to be your friend. That way you can see everything they are doing on the site and you can remind them about what you talked about if they slip up. And you can send them gifts on Farmville.

It is very important that parents and others work to instill responsible practices in youth at a relatively early age – when they will still listen. Banning access is a short-term solution that will likely create additional problems in the future when teens eventually do go online and don’t have the skills necessary to responsibly navigate the World Wide Web.

By the way, as Anne points out on her blog, the same week that the New Jersey principal distributed the email encouraging parents to ban participation in Facebook, the Boston Globe reported that Obama’s pick for Teacher of the Year regularly uses Facebook in her classes. As you know, we have discussed the issue of teachers interacting with teens online in multiple posts on this blog. While I am not sure that we have come to any definitive conclusion, it is interesting to see examples from both sides of the issue come up in the news recently. What do you think: prohibit or promote the use of online social networking?

Let’s return to our multi-post (here, here, and here) discussion of student and teacher interaction on social networking sites or in other online venues. Social networks such as Facebook and MySpace are primarily for socializing. “Socializing” involves interacting for social purposes, and “social purposes” are those marked by friendly companionship with others. It seems, therefore, that school staff should avoid socializing with students in these environments, because educators and students arguably should not be engaged in friendly companionship.

There are some significant concerns with the possibility of students and teachers having this kind of interaction, including the issue that students flirt. If a student were to send a flirtatious message to a staff member, that staff member may be in serious trouble. If the teacher responds to the message warmly, he or she faces the accusation of sexual solicitation. If the teacher turns the student down, he or she faces the possibility of revenge.

Another concern is that the staff member participating on a social networking site will become a “guarantor” of all friends, meaning that if a teacher “friends” some students but not others, it could create a perception that those specific students are favored and may receive preferential treatment (such as a better grade than the others). Relatedly, anything performed online by a public school employee – including information and images posted on social networking sites – will be used to judge the character of that individual. There is also the concern that the friends of the staff member may post unflattering information or tag inappropriate images of them which will quickly be used to prompt one major question: “Is this the kind of person we trust to be responsible for our children?”

Ian Defeo, a substitute teacher in Cape May, New Jersey was judged by online content after giving one of his students a sticker with his band’s logo which also had the address to his MySpace page. The student then visited the teacher’s MySpace page which contained his band’s music videos containing explicit lyrics and one video that contained a brief moment where a woman was exposing herself. The school deemed this content inappropriate and therefore fired him, confirming that school employees can be disciplined for off-duty conduct if the school district can show that the conduct may have had an adverse impact on the school. Non-tenured teachers, like Ian, have even fewer protections.

All of this said, I believe school staff should be able to communicate with students regarding class work and school activities through a school-based Web 2.0 environment and district email system (sometimes also termed a “walled garden” approach). These are school-related communications in which distinctions of status are professional maintained and not socially blurred or distorted. Most communication through school-based means are monitored (for example, all communications are CC’d to an administrator or stored in an accessible database for review and archival) and provide a safer means of interaction between teachers and students. My hope is that more and more of these approaches will be implemented and, more importantly, gain visibility, traction, and usage among teachers and youth.

Referring back to the article in Education Week that I wrote about in my earlier post, Terri Miller, the president of the group Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct, and Exploitation, says “policy makers should not enact reactionary legislation regarding contact between teachers and students. What they really need to focus on is training in proper boundaries.” Overall, the message to school staff members should be: Think before you act/post. Never send or post, or allow others to send or post any material online that will raise questions about your character or values. Another wise practice that seems critical to implement is to always communicate with students in a professional manner, even if you are using privacy protection features on social networking sites (as privacy protections will not necessarily prevent disclosure of the existence and content of these interactions).

Always exercise extreme care when communicating online with students and if at all possible, avoid socializing. These measures, along with district policy that preempts the possibility of inappropriate relationships developing online between staff and students, seems the best way to go.

Sameer and I have talked a lot about this issue in recent months, and while we both basically agree that teacher-student interactions online are risky business, we struggle with how to best approach the issue.  Earlier today he posted his thoughts on the issue.  I would like to take this opportunity to re-articulate mine to continue the dialog.

As I have argued here before, most will agree that a lot of value could come from teachers interacting online in a professional/educational manner with their students.  Again, assuming teachers and students both establish and maintain appropriate boundaries, these interactions could be very positive.  The most serious risk would be if teachers failed to preserve proper limits or if students misperceived the online attention as something more than educational.  In his earlier post, Sameer points out several terrible examples of these – though we all agree these are extremely rare.  Of course these potential concerns are also present in off-line communications between teachers and students that occur as well (both in school and outside of it).

To be sure, teachers should refrain from friending students on social networking profiles they use for personal purposes.  Clearly separating their work and personal lives is important.  Moreover, teachers have an obligation to intervene if they see inappropriate content or evidence of a violation of school policy (or the law) on a student’s profile.  That is a cost of engaging in online communications.

Instead of prohibiting good teachers from utilizing all available tools to educate their students and promote their healthy development, focus should be placed on informing both students and staff about these concerns and fire or discipline teachers who engage in inappropriate behaviors, no matter where the occur.  Sameer theorizes that online interactions make it easier for inappropriate relationships to develop between students and staff.  That may be true, but we shouldn’t hold that against the vast majority of great teachers who will do the right thing.

Schools probably should have a clear policy that establishes the professional standard in online student-teacher interactions.  But they shouldn’t outright prohibit it.  That said, many teachers may feel, for whatever reason, that interacting with students online just isn’t for them.  Either way, it should be their choice.  But they need to be made aware of the issues so that they can make an informed decision.

Sameer and I agree that this issue is complicated and demanding of public discourse.  You have our thoughts, what do you think? Here’s another poll!

As we have previously discussed, a recent article published in Education Week entitled Policies Target Teacher-Student Cyber Talk suggests that some educators and pupils are informally connecting and chatting online with increasing frequency, where relatively innocent interactions may have the potential to escalate into inappropriate relationships. While such cases seem to occur rarely, a few recent ones are worthy of mention.

For example, Gianfranco Maucione, a former high school math teacher and soccer coach in New Jersey, was arrested and charged with criminal sexual contact, child endangerment and official misconduct after exchanging sexually-explicit pictures and text messages with a 16 year-old student and instructing her to touch herself in a sexual manner. In another incident, Christy Lynn Martin, a former middle school teacher, was sentenced to five years’ probation for sending pornographic images to one of her eighth-grade students, whom she called “her husband.” In another instance, a former teacher was arrested for exchanging hundreds of graphic texts and emails with a student. In an even more surprising case, a former teacher was arrested after exchanging over 400 sexually explicit texts and having hour-long phone sex calls with a student.

These cases should open the eyes of school staff members to the risks and consequences that interaction with students via nonschool-based electronic mediums may possibly bring. Apart from the devastating consequences on the reputation of a school district, as well as civil liability, educators who abuse these technologies may lose their job and/or license, and be subject to criminal prosecution and even life as a registered sex offender.

Louisiana has enacted a new state law requiring all school districts to formulate and implement policies which require documentation of every electronic communication between teachers and students made through a nonschool-issued device, such as a personal e-mail account or a cell phone. This documentation process consists of filling out an electronic form within 24 hours of the interaction, which will be sent to the school administration explaining the reason for the contact. Under the new law, parents also have the option of prohibiting any communication between teachers and their child by means of personal electronic devices.

Personally, I think this law is not a great idea. It will have a trivial deterrent effect, and will be unenforceable in many cases. Electronic communications between teachers and students will largely occur on personal accounts and personal Internet connections and cannot be proactively policed or monitored. The documentation process may help provide a paper trail, but I feel that administrators will get bogged down attempting to review these communications a timely manner to prevent the development of improper interactions.

Finally, just because parents have the option to “prohibit” communication between teachers and students, doesn’t mean they will, or that it will do any good. Parents might be hesitant to do so with the concern that their student would miss out on learning and educational opportunities that peers are receiving. Even if they do, it seems a very nominal measure with little, if any, teeth. I will continue my thoughts on this issue in a future blog post.