Blog

We’ve talked in great detail about students bringing their personal electronic devices at school and the complications that may result.  We have also covered standards for searching these devices, and have provided a cell phone search checklist which may help administrators in these situations. In keeping with these discussions, I wanted to take some time to focus in on seizure – or confiscation – of these devices while bracketing the thorny subject of search for a while.  Specifically, I want to be clear and state that even with a suspected or actual policy violation by a student, it may not be in your school’s best interests to seize that student’s device.

I recently chatted this out with Mark Trachtenbroit, Assistant Principal at Wheeler High School in Georgia.  He remarked that his school used to take students’ personal devices when they were displayed or used between the morning bell and the afternoon bell because that contravened the formal rules their school had in place. However, it became a huge chore, leading to many of the complications I wrote about last week and the huge hassle of trying to warehouse, label, and manage all of the confiscated devices (and deal with angry parents who demanded their kid’s device be returned).

As such, the school decided that they would no longer confiscate phones, but just apply moderate penalties to students who broke the rules.  For instance, the first violation would be a stern verbal warning.  The second violation would lead to Saturday school.  The third violation would lead to In-School Suspension.  This tended to work in that it reduced the number of negative outcomes but seemed to be a less-than-ideal solution.  Administrators felt they were, as they say, cutting off their nose to spite their face because punishing teens in this way kept them out of the classroom where they would be learning.  This directly ties into the No Child Left Behind Act and the Adequate Yearly Progress measurement that allows our US Department of Education to determine how each school and school district is doing when it comes to properly educating our students (to do well academically on standardized tests) and meeting annual targets for reading, math, and graduation.  The consequences for failing to meet these goals and targets are simply not worth risking, and it just doesn’t make sense to sternly discipline kids in the 21st Century from being kids in the 21st century.  That is, the big-picture costs of punishing teens for being tethered to their technology is not worth potentially compromising the achievement of federally-mandated requirements.

This is an extremely important point, and one that many people do not seem to understand.

Perhaps the bottom line is that you cannot keep or deter all students from using their phones at school.  It is going to happen.  You can therefore decide to be prohibitive or permissive.  You can officially ban them from campuses, or allow them during certain times (or all times).

Whatever you do, though, you will have to figure out a way to get students, educators, and parents on board, and probably approach it in a way that represents the climate you are trying to build and maintain.  This climate should be all about encouraging the positive and responsible use of technology, and dissuading its misuse and abuse.  We’ll be giving you specific advice to make this happen in weeks ahead.

As regular readers of this blog will know, Sameer and I have had a long partnership with Jostens. When I was in high school in the mid-1990s, our class rings and yearbooks came from Jostens, so I knew of the brand. About four years ago, Charley Nelson, who is the director of educator services for Jostens, contacted me to talk about our cyberbullying work. Little did I know that in addition to their yearbooks and rings (they designed the 2011 Super Bowl ring!), they also coordinate a number of professional development activities for educators, mostly centered on cultivating a positive school climate. Their Renaissance Program emphasizes academic achievement, encourages student and staff recognition, and promotes school pride. We’ve worked with them over the last year to develop materials for “Pause Before You Post” – a campaign to educate teens about responsible personal publishing (online and off). See our “Student Guide to Personal Publishing” here.

The flagship event for Jostens Renaissance each year is their national conference, which draws over 1000 educators and student leaders from around the United States. I have been fortunate to have been a presenter at this conference for the past three years and I will tell you that it is flat out the best educator conference that I have been a part of. The positive energy is palpable and I leave the conference inspired and reinvigorated. There is a lot of learning and networking, infused with A TON of fun. This year, the conference is in Anaheim (July 15-17) and both Sameer and I will be there, presenting on issues related to cyberbullying, sexting, and responsible social networking. Headline speakers include Bill Walton (basketball Hall of Famer) and Liz Murray (Homeless to Harvard). If you have never been to this conference, you need to attend – and there is still time to sign up. I personally guarantee that you will not be disappointed. If you have attended in the past, leave a comment with your experience. If you will be there this year, stop by and say hello. If you are a Facebook follower, find me and mention this blog and I’ll give you a gift (while supplies last!). Hope to see you in Anaheim!

As we have discussed several times on this blog in recent years, there are two cases that addressed issues with off-campus online speech by students that resulted in seemingly conflicting responses by the same court. They potentially have implications for how schools can respond to cyberbullying incidents, so are important to follow. To refresh your memory, Layshock v. Hermitage School District involved 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. In February of 2010, a panel of judges from the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed. In this case it appeared the school failed to effectively argue that Layshock’s actions caused a substantial disruption at school – the standard that was established in the seminal Supreme Court case Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969). According to Tinker, 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.

In the other case (Blue Mountain School District v. J.S.), 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 Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in an opinion that seemed inconsistent with the Layshock ruling.

To resolve these disparate views, the Third Circuit agreed to review the cases collectively (“en blanc”) to offer a perspective. In short, there is nothing too surprising about the remarks of the majority opinions released on Monday. The court re-asserted that schools cannot punish students for off-campus behavior or speech without evidence of a substantial disruption at school (or a high likelihood that such a disruption will occur).

In the Layshock case, the school district conceded that the creation of the MySpace parody profile did not cause a disruption at school. So it is clearly outside the boundaries of formal school discipline. The court also listed several cases where schools were allowed to discipline students for the off-campus behavior (J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002); Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007); and Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008), noting that “each of those cases involved off campus expressive conduct that resulted in a substantial disruption of the school, and the courts allowed the schools to respond to the substantial disruption that the student’s out of school conduct caused.”

In the other case, the Bethlehem Area School District did initially attempt to argue that J.S.’s activities resulted in a significant disruption at school, though neither the District Court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that argument so they backed off. In the original hearing, the District Court supported the disciplinary actions of the school, not because there was evidence of a substantial disruption, but because the content of the off-campus speech was “vulgar, lewd, and potentially illegal.” This was consistent with Supreme Court decisions in Fraser (1986) and Morse (2007). In its review, however, the Third Circuit noted that in both of these cases, the speech was delivered at school (Fraser) or a school sponsored activity (Morse). As such, the vulgarity of the speech was irrelevant and therefore the singular issue is to consider is whether the off-campus speech resulted in a substantial disruption. Therefore, in a divided opinion (8-6) the Third Circuit overturned the District Court, concluding that: “…the school district violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for speech that caused no substantial disruption in school and that could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption in school.”

Judge Jordon noted in a concurring opinion, however, 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.” So students can be punished for off-campus speech or behavior (consistent with Tinker’s disruption clause).

So where does this leave us. Well, the key issue to keep in mind, it seems, is whether a student’s off-campus speech or behavior results, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, a substantial disruption at school. We have little additional clarity regarding what that actually looks like, but we know a bit more about what it isn’t. Staff accessing a harassing profile at school does not constitute a substantial disruption. A student bringing a printed copy of a Web site to school at the request of staff does not cause a substantial disruption. A few students talking in class does not equal substantial disruption.

It also appears that vulgarities directed toward school officials from an off-campus location are not automatically subject to school discipline. Now, if that speech substantially and/or materially disrupts the learning at school, it may be fair game for sanction. It is interesting that free speech advocates are touting this as a victory for students, suggesting these opinions are evidence that there are no conditions under which schools can discipline students for their off-campus speech. This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of the facts. We have long known that students have free speech rights. We also know that those rights are constrained a bit while at school and where the speech substantially disrupts the school environment. That hasn’t changed.

It is important to also point out that both of these cases involved students who were targeting staff. I would be very interested to see if the opinions changed if all players involved were students. If a student creates a Facebook parody profile about another student, could the target’s ability to learn at school be substantially disrupted? It sure seems so. But it remains to be seen whether the higher courts would agree with this rationale.

I encourage you all to read the full versions of the opinions (over 100 pages in total). Layshock is available here and Blue Mountain is here. And feel free to weigh in with your thoughts.

A fun and often-recommended activity to engage youth in considering the responsible use of technology and promoting that message across the student body (or beyond) involves the creation of Public Service Announcements (PSAs). These are creative and informative videos designed to bring attention to a problem relevant to a certain audience, and make a memorable point about it. Often, they promote awareness of a particularly compelling social issue, and work to encourage individuals to act in positive, appropriate ways. They also tend to have a “coolness” factor not present in a handful of other awareness initiatives.

By way of illustration, a group of students can be assigned the task of creating an Anti-Cyberbullying PSA by using a digital video camera, digital camera, cell phone (which they all usually have on hand!), or even a web cam. Typically, they are instructed to brainstorm, plan, and then write out an instructive and memorable script or story while also figuring out backdrops and scenes. It can be short (around 30 seconds) or longer (a few minutes in length) – depending on the content covered and the intent of the video. Of course, it just shouldn’t drag on; it should be as concise and as hard-hitting as possible. These can then be uploaded to YouTube, TeacherTube, or a similar online video repository, with the web address shared widely to inform and educate others about the issue – via email, messages, or perhaps on the school’s official web site. They can also be shown to students in classrooms or through the morning or afternoon video announcements during the school day.

Teaching youth how to make wise decisions with their online participation and interaction seems to work better through repeated reminders that pique their conscience and bring the issue to the forefront of their mind. Perhaps after witnessing correct and healthy behavior by a peer acting out a role in a Public Service Announcement video, a student might be more inclined to mirror that behavioral choice when presented with a social opportunity in which he or she has a decision to make. Perhaps it will induce him or her to “do the right thing” after seeing someone else model that action.

Here are some examples of some student-created PSA videos we have seen:

To be sure, public service announcements don’t have to be “videos” – they can take the picture of colorful posters replete with word art, digital photos, bulletpoints, short narratives and stories, and anything else students may want to include. We encourage schools to administrate the creation of poster PSAs in any class, simply as a very relevant task for students while they discuss and share about cyberbullying, safe social networking, sexting, and other forms of teen technology misuse. This doesn’t need to occur in a computer-themed class – it can occur in a math class, a science class, an English class, a physical education class. In fact, it should occur wherever students are, because it is highly relevant to them.

Adults often complain that it is difficult to obtain and then retain the attention of youth. To that we say, talk to them about these technology-related issues, and give them assignments (such as these PSAs) to *engage* and align their minds and hearts with positive use! If you can connect with them on this level, their ears will perk up and they will lock in to what you have to say. Trust us, give it a try, and let us know how it worked for you!

Here are some examples of some student-created PSA posters we have seen:

If you know of any others – please share them with us and our readers!

I’ve been seeing a lot of “cyberbullying pledges” surfacing in recent months. Obviously, the intention is good – to enlist and rally the support of youth who belong to a school or another organization to end (or at least reduce) the problem of peer harassment. I think that it is important for us to think through the way that we tackle this initiative. Setting up a pledge campaign is fairly uncreative and cost-efficient, which is probably why so many adults think that it is a good idea to demonstrate that “something” is being done in the way of cyberbullying prevention. But what about its utility? We should never implement programming because it is easy to do and we want to check-off an item on our list of efforts made to combat a problem.

Research on “virginity” pledges based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the mid-1990s and on drug/alcohol abstinence in high schools (such as in the DARE program) has shown that those who truly believe in what they are pledging for/against do definitely hold fast to that commitment as time goes on. However, it has also been shown that pledges are useful ONLY in contexts where there are some – but not too many – individuals who pledge. Pledges lose their meaning if everyone is doing it because it ceases to be non-normative. You can’t try to get everyone in a school to pledge to do something, because everyone will generally do so in name only – just to fit in.

Pledging to do something provides adherence to a group identity – and let’s face it, we all want to belong to a group in cultural or counter-cultural ways. To be sure, this notion is exponentially greater for most adolescents in the throes of identity development and exploration. It seems, then, that a teen making a meaningful choice to refrain from engaging in an attractive but wrongful behavior (such as cyberbullying) should do so outside of peer influence and group dynamics which may shape that choice.

My colleague Stan Davis (whose extensive work on bullying and bystanders I greatly respect) has a great idea which works extremely well. He believes that dialoguing about cyberbullying and its impact with students can really help them internalize the harm that is experienced and the negative outcomes that can result, and – more importantly – can help them envision and then realize their potential for the *positive* outcomes that can result. This involves reflecting on the good deeds they have done while interacting online, and the good deeds that others have done online towards them.

He also suggests that young people “write and sign a letter to themselves outlining their own plans for keeping themselves and others safe in the digital world.” The best way to go about this would be to divide it into two parts – “what I will NOT do, and why” and “what I WILL do, and why.” One of Stan’s friends also recommended that these letters should not be read by adults (and the young people should know that the letters will not be read) because “When it is known that adults will read the letters, young people are likely to write what they think adults want to hear rather than what they really plan to do.” Based on experience, this has been proven true. Stan then proposes that the sealed letters are returned to the teens in the near future to “reinforce the resolve they made.”

Let us know your thoughts about pledges and their value – and if you know of any other research on the topic. Also, let us know if you give Stan’s idea a try with the teens you supervise and care for.