As I mentioned in my cyberbullying and sexting comments at the National Crime Prevention Council Circle of Respect event two weeks ago, “social norming” continues to bear relevance for dealing with cyberbullying at schools, and I’d like to flesh it out some more since I am a big fan of the concept.  Basically, youth tend to do what others are doing - largely in order to fit in, as they try to figure out who they are and what they stand for.  As they survey the landscape of trends in behaviors and attitudes, they pick up on what is seemingly accepted, endorsed, and done among their peer group.  This influences them consciously or subconsciously, and they then naturally tend to jump “on board” and act similarly in thought, speech, or action.  For example, if an adolescent high school freshmen is told he can’t hang out with friends after Friday night football games because that’s when “everyone” parties and gets drunk, he might begin to view that behavior as commonplace and therefore acceptable.  He may therefore be more inclined to do the same, since it seems “normal” and “known” behavior.

How does this related to reducing online harassment among elementary, middle, and high school students?  Social norming has to do with modifying the environment, or culture within a school, so that appropriate behaviors are not only encouraged, but perceived widely to be the norm.  That is, schools must work to create a climate in which responsible use of Facebook and instant messaging programs (for example), is “what we do around here” and “just how it is at our school and among our students.”  This can occur by focusing attention on the majority of youth who do utilize computers and cell phones in acceptable ways.  If I told you that one in five teenagers are cyberbullied, you wouldn’t focus on spreading that fact around your student body.  Rather, you would reframe and reconceptualize that research finding, and then create cool and relevant messaging strategies emphasizing that the vast majority of your students are using Internet technologies with integrity, discretion, and wisdom, which would hopefully motivate or induce the remainder to get “on board.”  Ideally, the remainder would desire to fit in, would desire to be like everyone else, and would feel an informal compulsion to stop cyberbullying others and start doing the right thing.  Based on this, you can also see how social norming can be used to address sexting.  You can also see how the shaping of social norms is directly related to modifying the overall school climate or culture.

Spending too much time painting cyberbullying in alarmist colors may encourage more youth to act in similar ways, since those youth will perceive the act as “normal” and that “everyone is doing it.”  Are you doing social norming at your school?  In what ways has it worked?  In what ways has it not been as successful as you would have liked? The Cyberbullying Research Center is actively studying its utility, and will keep you updated on what we find.

Evidently, the waters of cyberbullying case law are still murky.  Due to variability in opinions and perspectives across jurisdictions and adjudicators, clear precedent is still sometimes elusive.  Consider the following case from late 2009 from a California District Court (08-cv-03824, J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District), in which an eighth-grader was cyberbullied through the posting of a YouTube video created by peers denigrating her as “spoiled,” “a brat,” and a “slut.”  The target tearfully reported this to her counselor, and indicated strongly that she was upset, humiliated, and did not feel able to go to class and focus on school.  The counselor discussed the matter with administration as well as with school district attorneys, classified the behavior as “cyberbullying,” and the offending girl who posted the video online was suspended for two days.  Her family decided to sue, and took the case to federal court on the grounds that her First Amendment right to free speech had been violated.

Even though extant case law seems to support corrective action if a target is unable to feel safe and supported to learn without distractions of harassment within a school environment, the federal judge in this case ruled that school authorities overstepped their bounds.  This decision was based on the fact that the school could not prove that the offending speech and actions caused a “substantial disruption” of school activities or goals.  Moreover, the ruling judge stated that “the court cannot uphold school discipline of student speech simply because young persons are unpredictable or immature, or because, in general, teenagers are emotionally fragile and may often fight over hurtful comments.”

This is particularly disconcerting to me.  The judge completely disregarded the emotional and psychological well-being of the target in this case, even though any adult who serves youth or works for the best interests of youth is taught that they must not view the internalization of harm in a critical manner, but must empathize with it.  That is, adults must not discount the reality of pain experienced by adolescents through their experiences with bullying or cyberbullying, because this casts blame on the victims themselves.  This small-minded mentality is, in part, why we have teenagers who kill themselves - because they feel that their viewpoint is not appreciated but rather trivialized and discarded.

Demonstration of “substantial [schoolwide] disruption” is a sufficient clause to uphold school discipline of cyberbullying behaviors that are initiated off campus.  However, it is not a necessary clause because there are other aggravating factors that impel student disciplinary sanction by schools.  One primary factor is the harm personally and subjectively experienced by victimized youth.  Without question, the ability of the victim in this case to learn in a safe and secure environment at school was substantially disrupted.  But apparently that wasn’t enough.

In essence, the judge asserts that the adolescent victim in this case - and others like her - should have tougher skin, and should not allow hurtful comments to bother her so much.  He summarily dismisses the gravity of her pain in one fell swoop, and bases his decision on an impersonal aspect of the case, rather than the very real, very visceral effect that cyberbullying had on a young girl.

Finally, the victim in this case is being denied the benefits of, and is subjected to discrimination under, a federally-funded educational program (the public school), which undermines her civil rights.  As such, I would not at all be surprised  if this case goes to the appellate level and is overturned.  In fact, I am hopeful that it will be.

An interesting controversy has emerged in the last couple of weeks over the word “meep.”  What does meep even mean?  Frankly, it doesn’t really matter.  In fact there are numerous and varied definitions of, and uses for, the word meep.  The most frequent use among adolescents, it seems, is to replace an inappropriate word with meep, as in “What the meep!?!”

So the recent controversy emerged when students at Danvers High School in Massachusetts threatened to disrupt the school environment by muttering, yelling, and collectively spewing the word meep during class time.  Danvers Principal Thomas Murray was tipped off about the planned disruption and preemptively threatened to suspend students who spoke the word or showed up to school with the word printed on clothing.  This, of course, incited folks from around the country to contact Mr. Murray to express their dissatisfaction with this seemingly ludicrous policy.  To be sure, the courts have ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”  That said, school officials do have the right to restrict speech and/or discipline students for speech or behavior that results in (or has a high likelihood of resulting in) a substantial and material disruption of the learning environment.  In this case, I think it is clear that the students involved were in fact planning a substantial disruption.  So, it doesn’t matter that the speech involved wasn’t really even a real word.

When I was in middle school, my classmates and I started humming in English class.  The teacher was getting pretty upset by this and was walking around the classroom trying to identify the offending party.  When he went to one side of the classroom, students in the other side would start humming.  When he moved to the other side, the other students stepped up and continued the humming.  Clearly, the act of humming is not obscene or otherwise generally subject to discipline in any environment outside of the school.  But at school, if it causes or threatens to cause a substantial disruption, it can (and should be) stopped.  In our case, the teacher refused to administer our planned quiz until the humming stopped.  It didn’t, so we all failed the quiz.  To this day I have a hard time identifying prepositions!

This is an important case because as much as I agree with everyone that restricting the use of a nonsensical word is in itself nonsensical, it is necessary that school administrators have the ability to maintain an appropriate, civil, and safe learning environment at school.  Educators need the support of parents and other community members when they take actions to ensure an appropriate school climate.  This is especially true since many forms of relational aggression, including cyberbullying, are often more subtle and therefore may not be automatically identifiable as something warranting intervention.   At the same time, they also need to be held accountable when their policies or practices cross the line of being overly restrictive.  In the case of meep, from what I have seen, I think they were being reasonable in their efforts to prevent a disruption from occurring.  What do you think?  Is Principal Murray going too far with this?

Just wanted to point out this new article sharing the story of a high-schooler who responded to a friend’s status update on Facebook, and consequently received a ridiculous sanction from his school for it.  He basically stated “you’re not going to bust a grape” - indicating to his friend (who posted about fighting another girl at school) that it was just a joke, and that she wasn’t actually going to *do* anything despite her threatening words.  The student - who is in Honors classes and who participated in a summer internship at USC this year - was then suspended for the rest of the school year, thereby jeopardizing his graduation date and future scholastic ambitions.

I believe that the school will likely be civilly sued by the family of the boy for overstepping their disciplinary bounds.  I believe they should have taken the time to calmly ascertain what was meant by the statement made on Facebook, and attempted to address it informally rather than through suspension.  This may be a case of administrators hoping to send a powerful message to the rest of the student body, but grossly overreacting and doling out a punishment incommensurate with the nature and context of the offense.

My colleagues and I have been discussing the phenomenon of sexting in great detail recently, in light of the actions of two Texas school districts.  Before the beginning of this new school year, the Houston Independent school district (one of the largest in the nation) and the Dallas-Fort Worth school district banned sending sexually-explicit photos or messages over cell phones.  Some argue that this action is paternalistic, outdated, tyrannical, and even possibly unconstitutional.  Others applaud the decision, which reflects that administrators are finally treating this matter seriously.

Personally, I’m glad that the district is focusing in on the problem, but I’m not sure if this policy will actually be useful as students tend not to be deterred by heavy-handed rule-making.  I also don’t want its presence to take the place of purposed educational efforts to teach students about the responsible use of technology.  This sometimes happens when laws or policies are implemented as a way of quickly “dealing” with an issue without understanding its fundamental causes.

When giving presentations, I talk a lot about the need to change prevailing social norms regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable in the minds of youth.  I feel that our prevention and response efforts are going to be less than ideal and fruitful if we cannot effectively counter what society and the media are hammering into the minds of adolescents.  If the dominant message our kids are hearing is that sex and sexuality lead to popularity and celebrity status with very little (if any) public or personal fallout, youth will continue to push the proverbial envelope and the line between right and wrong in this area will be increasingly obscured.  Maybe that’s fine - maybe that’s part of our inevitable march forward into modernity.  But maybe it portends more problems than we’re going to be able to handle.

I’ve recently discussed the susceptibility of youth with Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) to be cyberbullied, outlining a number of reasons that contribute to such victimization.  When it comes to suggestions as to how we can help these kids, a few things stand out in my mind.

First, it is really important to try to understand exactly what is wrong - why the Aspie is being bullied, and how it makes him or her feel.  We also need to realize that what may seem normal to us - in terms of social interaction - is not normal to AS kids.  We have to venture into their definition of “normalcy” to fully empathize with how they are struggling.  The traditional ways that we help non-AS youth may not bear much fruit when working with AS youth, just like it is useless to implement multicolored lights on an instrument panel when the operator is color-blind.  Aspies receive social signals but cannot decode their meaning with any beneficial level of reliability.  They have what could be considered subjective blindness, and it is not a fault of theirs - it is simply how they are.

Personally speaking, I have found that Aspies tend not to ask for help, not because they prefer isolation or independence, but because it does not naturally occur to them that another person will have a different perspective, different experience/knowledge, and thus might find a different or better solution.  Encourage them to tell you how they are feeling, even though they may not respond.  If they can’t answer directly, perhaps they will share their thoughts on how the same instance of cyberbullying might make another person feel.  That might clue you in to the emotions they are wrestling with.

When you are trying to share advice or suggestions of prevention and response, repeat your message often for reinforcement and heavily use logical explanations.  It may be wise to create and use simple flowcharts to depict human behavior.  These can show actions, the way in which the actions affect others, and the way in which others’ responses then affect the subject, to aid their decision-making processes.  For example, “if I do X, it will cause effect Y on other people, which will cause them to respond to me with Z”.

Finally, when working with Aspie cyberbullying victims, it may be useful to jointly analyze stories, characters, plots and motivation in fiction, to point out tropes and story cues, and to figure out why characters act as they do.  Also, try using comic books or comic strips - which often convey some of the story through characters’ emotion-laden expressions, but in simplified “cartooned” art that is easier to comprehend.  Comic strips with humor that relate to real life situations are especially good; they teach typical motivations, reading faces, understanding humor, decision-making, and coping/response mechanisms all at once.

Let us know of your successes and failures.  We are especially interested in this population of vulnerable youth, and want to all we can to help.

I wanted to take a moment to clarify my position on the recent discussion regarding the need for a federal cyberbullying law.  I think my perspective has been misinterpreted in the media and by many who see me as opposed to any cyberbullying legislation.  I am not opposed to cyberbullying legislation.  I am simply concerned about the current language of the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.”  First, it is never good practice to create policy based on isolated incidents.  While I certainly can sympathize with Tina Meier and her family, I don’t think her daughter’s tragic example should be used as a framework for determining law.  Any law should be informed by research and therefore seek to prevent and provide guidance for responding to those behaviors which are most likely to result in substantial harm to victims.

As many have pointed out, much of the language in the current proposal is ambiguous and as a result the bill could be misapplied.  I am worried that if the bill fails or is once again allowed to expire before formal consideration, that it sends the message that cyberbullying isn’t a serious problem.  Similarly, if the bill passes and then is subsequently overturned by the courts, it sends the same message.  So it is not “a law” that concerns me as much as the current proposal.

Some have suggested that a federal law would deter people from engaging in cyberbullying.  It is unlikely that any law would act as a deterrent—especially for adolescents.  Volumes of research find little support for the deterrence doctrine as applied in contemporary criminal justice policy.  In order to deter, a punishment has to be certain, swift, and sufficiently severe.  While we are good in the United States at ratcheting up the severity of punishments, we fail to ensure certainty and celerity of punishment.  And many would argue that those are the most important components.

If not a deterrent, then what is the purpose of an anti-cyberbullying law?  The purpose, in my view, should be to bring awareness to the problem and to empower local officials to take the necessary steps to respond.  The vast majority of adolescent cyberbullying incidents can and should be dealt with informally by parents with the help and support of educators, other community leaders, and local law enforcement.  Any cyberbullying incident that occurs, regardless of location, that results in a substantial disruption of the learning environment at school, or that makes it difficult for a student to effectively learn, should be subject to reasonable school sanction (and of course parental punishment).  Criminal prosecution should be reserved for the most serious forms of cyberbullying that result in significant harm to the target.  The reality is that we already have several laws that can be applied in these circumstances (criminal harassment, felonious assault, stalking, etc.).  In addition, victims of cyberbullying are always allowed to pursue civil litigation against a bully (civil harassment, defamation of character, libel, etc.).

Many people over the last couple of weeks have asked me what a good cyberbullying law might look like.  Though I am not a legislator (or lawyer), I have thought a bit about this.  In my view, a comprehensive anti-cyberbullying law would be clear, inclusive, and have the support of schools, law enforcement, and parents.  Specifically, a proposal would include the following elements:

• Clear and specific definition of cyberbullying that would hold up to legal scrutiny.
• Different consequences for juveniles and adults—I am hesitant to criminalize the relatively age-appropriate deviant behaviors of adolescents.  Kids make mistakes and experiment with a variety of destructive and hurtful behaviors.  While they need to be punished, we shouldn’t make adolescents felons for their indiscretions.
• Clear directives to local school districts about when and how they can respond to cyberbullying—especially those incidents that are initiated away from the school.
• Appropriately-funded mandates or incentives for Internet safety and responsibility education in schools and communities.

I applaud Congresswoman Sanchez for bringing much-needed dialogue to this important issue.  It is clear that she fully understands the harmful nature of cyberbullying and I certainly appreciate her resolve and persistence in attempting to move toward stopping this pernicious form of interpersonal harm.  While her proposal represents a step in the right direction, it clearly has some significant problems.  I am posting my thoughts here so that we can continue this discussion.  Let’s help Congress and state legislatures better understand this issue by cooperatively developing a more appropriate proposal.  What are your thoughts?  What elements are missing from my proposal?  What are the key issues here?  What would a good cyberbullying law look like to you?

I was a guest on the New Hampshire Public Radio show “Word of Mouth” with Virginia Prescott this morning where I talked about the proposed Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.  You can listen to the brief interview here.  They were gracious enough to send me some potential questions a couple of hours before the interview so I knew what to expect.  Here is a short summary of my responses (even though some of these questions were not ultimately asked):

LORI DREW, THE ADULT DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, WAS FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING MYSPACE’S TERMS-OF-SERVICE… AND ALSO THE “FEDERAL COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT” – ESSENTIALLY AN ANTI-HACKING LAW.  SINCE THERE ARE NO FEDERAL LAWS AGAINST CYBERBULLYING, HOW DO STATES CURRENTLY APPROACH THE ISSUE?

Most states have simply directed school districts to deal with the problem.  They have passed legislation recommending or requiring local school districts to update their harassment and bullying policies to include electronic variants. Unfortunately they have stopped short of providing concrete information regarding when and how schools can respond.  For example, it’s pretty clear that students who use school owned equipment or technology (such as email addresses), or who are on campus when they cyberbully are subject to school discipline.  But what about students who engage in cyberbullying using their own computers on their own time in their bedroom at home?  Does the school have a responsibility or right to discipline the bully in this case?  This is unclear, though there is some existing case law to suggest that if the cyberbullying results in a “substantial disruption” at school that it is then subject to school discipline.  But what exactly is a substantial disruption?  If you are cyberbullying me, Virginia, away from school but we are in the same class at school, clearly my ability to learn is being substantially disrupted.  Nevertheless, I’m not sure this would meet the standard.  These issues need to be clarified.

SINCE MANY OF THESE LAWS ARE LIMITED TO ONLINE HARASSMENT THAT TAKES PLACE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KIDS GO HOME AND USE THEIR LAPTOPS OR CELL PHONES?

That is one of the biggest problems.  Most cyberbullying incidents are initiated or escalated away from school.  Clearly parents have a major role to play in preventing and responding to these behaviors.  Nevertheless, I still feel that schools can be involved as well—at least informally (though parent/principal conferences, education, etc).  And in certain circumstances, like when the behaviors do result in a substantial disruption at school, more formal discipline may be allowed.

ARE THERE ANY STATES WHERE A SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN TAKE ACTION AGAINST AN ADULT?

I am not aware of any state where schools can take action against adults for cyberbullying.  I assume you are referring to a situation where a parent would be somehow disciplined for the actions of their child—again, I am not aware of any such law.  And I don’t know of any situation where a school could take action against an adult in a case like the Lori Drew cyberbullying incident.

GETTING BACK TO THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT’S ON THE TABLE, CONGRESSWOMAN LINDA SANCHEZ HAS PROPOSED A BILL WOULD MAKE IT A FELONY TO “INTIMIDATE OR HARASS SOMEONE USING ELECTRONIC MEANS… AS PART OF A PATTERN OF REPEATED AND HOSTILE BEHAVIOR.”  WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN?

This is the big question—what exactly does that mean?  One of the problems with the proposal is that it can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people.  This is something we have been wrestling with for years: how to come up with a sufficient, concise, and clear definition of cyberbullying.  Due to the nature of the behaviors, any comprehensive definition of cyberbullying risks being too broad.  And lawyers and judges don’t like broad laws.  In spirit, I like the proposed bill.  I’m glad that there is a national discussion about cyberbullying.  Unfortunately, I just don’t think it will hold up in court.

THIS BILL WAS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED IN MAY 2008, BUT IT DIED IN COMMITTEE.  NOW THE BILL HAS SEVENTEEN CO-SPONSORS.  WHY DO YOU THINK MORE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE SUPPORTING IT THIS TIME AROUND?

I think there have been several high profile cases of cyberbullying over the last year and more and more people are as a result beginning to recognize its harmful nature.  Again, this is a good thing.  Even if this proposal isn’t successful, I am glad to see that we are moving in the direction of identifying cyberbullying as something society would like to prevent and condemn.

ON HIS BLOG, UCLA PROFESSOR OF LAW EUGENE VOLOKH ARGUES THAT THIS BILL IS TOO BROAD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.  HE SAYS IT COULD BE USED AGAINST ANYONE WHO SENDS ANGRY EMAILS TO A POLITICIAN OR STARTS A BLOG THAT REPEATEDLY CRITICIZES A COMPANY.  COULD THIS BILL LIMIT FREE SPEECH?

That is the biggest concern.  We always have to balance free speech with responsible speech.  We also have to remember that while students at school don’t “leave their free speech rights at the school house gate,” the rules are different.  Schools have a role to play in teaching students appropriate means of discourse and communication.  They can limit speech that is threatening, offensive, or counter to their educational mission at school.  And once again, if that speech occurs away from school but results in a substantial disruption at school, the school has the authority to respond.

CONGRESSWOMAN SANCHEZ DEFENDED HER BILL ON THE HUFFINGTON POST LAST WEEK.  SHE WROTE, “WHEN SO-CALLED FREE SPEECH LEADS TO BULLIES HAVING FREE-REIGN TO THREATEN KIDS, IT’S TIME TO ACT.”  JUSTIN, YOUR BLOG FOCUSES ON THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE HARASSMENT.  DO YOU AGREE THAT IT’S TIME FOR ACTION?

Yes, I agree that it is time for action.  I agree 100% with what congresswoman is saying, I’m just unsure that this particular bill will be the best means toward that end.  I talk to victims of cyberbullying all of the time.  I have spoken to Tina Meier, I know what cyberbullying has done to her life.  We need to take action.  In my view, however, most of the action needs to be at the local level—parents, schools, and other local community members need to get involved in preventing and responding to cyberbullying.  Only in rare cases will cyberbullying rise to the level where criminal intervention is necessary.  And in most cases there already exists sufficient laws to prosecute based on these circumstances (harassment or stalking laws, for example).  I would hate to see a 15-year-old get sent to jail for 2 years for engaging in typical cyberbullying.

WHAT WOULD A GOOD PIECE CYBERBULLYING LEGISLATION LOOK LIKE, IN YOUR OPINION?

I good piece of legislation would clearly define cyberbullying in a way that is clear, concise, and comprehensive.  Again, this is a big challenge, but this definition should be based on the growing body of evidence emerging from cyberbullying research.  I would like the legislation to clearly spell out the circumstances under which schools can get involved in cyberbullying cases—especially when they occur away from school.  Good legislation would require schools to educate students about the responsible use of technology—and provide funding for that purpose.  Whose responsibility is it to teach kids to use computers and cell phones responsibly?  Again, parents have a role, but often-times their kids know more about the technology than they do.  Since schools are often providing access to computers and/or requiring students to utilize technology to complete school work, they have a responsibility as well to teach youth to use it responsibly.

BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS COULD BE PROSECUTED UNDER THIS BILL.  IF IT DOES BECOME LAW, WOULD THE THREAT OF BEING SENT TO JAIL DETER KIDS FROM HARASSING EACH OTHER ONLINE?

It is unlikely that children (or adults for that matter) would be deterred from engaging in cyberbullying because of this law.  In order to act as a deterrent, a punishment needs to be certain, swift, and sufficiently severe.  While our criminal justice system has been very good at ratcheting up the severity of punishments, there is very little certainty or swiftness of punishment in our system.  It is more likely that students will be deterred by the potential disapproval of parents or peers than any formal criminal justice sanction.  As such, we need to create a culture where all forms of harassment are viewed by society as taboo.

This article from British Columbia refers to a high school principal who bought a cell phone signal jammer from an online dealer in China in order to thwart students from using their phones at school in violation of district policy.  First off, hats off to the resourcefulness of the principal in this situation - even though what he did was later deemed unlawful.  He was probably fed up with abuse and misuse of cell phones on his campus, and his decision may have been prompted by cases that severely compromised the learning environment he was trying to create.  It’s disheartening, though, that it came to this - that educational efforts, deterrent strategies, formal policies in place, and vigilant monitoring and sanctioning did not decrease the problem enough.  I’m not sure of the extent to which they were implemented.  Students are going to use cell phones at school if there is not a complete prohibition against it (and likely even still unless the accompanying penalties are heavy).  Secondly, maybe we can reduce the amount of texting students do between each other during the school day.  That said, we’re finding that parents are often contributing to the problem.  Parents are so used to reaching their children easily and quickly through cell phones.  This convenience is extremely valued, and even if you request them to relay messages through the school front office, it probably is not going to happen.  This is further reason why parents should perhaps formally agree to a policy at the beginning of the school year detailing the penalties their child will face if caught using their phone on campus - and maybe that will dissuade them from contributing to the problem.  Better yet - and as we’ve mentioned in a previous post - make it so the parents are meaningfully inconvenienced when their child breaks the rules.

Here’s a recent query I received from an educator who I have worked with in the past.  I thought her question and my response would be of interest to others so I am posting both here.  Does your school district have a policy regarding cyberbullying or Facebook?  How about cyberbullying on Facebook?

Question: “The reason for my email is that we have recently had issues with Facebook brought to our attention by parents.  Cyberbullying is taking place among our 8th graders and it seems to be affecting the classroom environment.  The principal and I are wondering if you have any sample policies that might help us as we are looking to establish some type of policy quickly to address this problem.”

Response: I am sorry to hear that you are facing problems with Facebook.  We don’t have a sample policy per se, but we suggest elements that you might want to include in your policy.  The problem really isn’t isolated to Facebook.  That is, you don’t need a “Facebook Policy.”  If you tried to be that specific, you would have to update your policy every 6 months or so as different Web sites come in and out of popularity.  You just need a general policy that will cover the kinds of behaviors that are detrimental to your school environment.  You have our book, and you should definitely revisit chapter 5 - especially pages 118-126 to see how your existing policy could be improved based on these suggestion.  Essentially, your policy needs to state that any behavior that disrupts the school environment is subject to discipline.

As I mentioned in my presentation to your folks, you might want to see if you can convene a group of staff, parents, and even students to review your existing policy and to make recommendations for updating it based on these new behaviors that are emerging.  This shouldn’t be a very large group - perhaps 2 or 3 members from each of the above groups - otherwise it may be difficult to get everyone to agree.  This group can then inform your school’s overall approach.  They can make recommendations additions to the policy and for appropriate disciplinary sanctions based on violations of the policy.  I know you are looking for a quick fix (aren’t we all!), but taking the time to develop comprehensive policy, and involving parents and students, will yield dividends in the long run.  It will be easier to sell the policy to parents if key parents are involved in the process.  And the students can help to make sure the policy is comprehensive and realistic.

By the way, in general, if you can demonstrate that the behaviors are substantially disrupting your school environment, even though those behaviors are occurring away from school, the courts have upheld disciplinary sanctions.  And that legal perspective is essentially directed at public schools.  Since you are a private school, you have much more latitude in basically doing what you think is appropriate.  That said, it is still important to have a good policy that parents and even students can get behind.