Blog

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!

As we work with increasingly younger kids to educate them about the responsible use of technology, we find it extremely important to discuss how they should respond to being cyberbullied. Central to this conversation is covering the difference between “tattling” and “telling.” Perhaps you are extremely familiar with this distinction – but if not, read on. We really need elementary, middle, and even high school youth to understand that we as adults totally “get” that they don’t want to be labeled as narcs, or rats, or tattletales, or whatever the preferred derogatory term is. We understand. We know that teens are hesitant to come to adults for help in part because they are concerned that word will get out that they couldn’t handle the harassment or mistreatment and snitched on the cyberbully. But, we want all youth to realize that it is okay to get help. No one should have to deal with someone else inflicting emotional or psychological pain on them. If you have been the target of cyberbullying, you can’t dismiss it – it affects you and it would affect me. It’s real, and your feelings matter, and you don’t need to always try to suck it up. You want it to stop. If you could get the bully to stop, this wouldn’t be an issue. Perhaps you have a tied, but they just won’t stop. And this is where we as adults can help. But only if we know what is going on.

Teens must very clearly understand how dissimilar “tattling” and “telling” are. *Tattling* is when you are intentionally trying to get another student in trouble for something that they did which, honestly, doesn’t really bother you. *Telling* is completely different, and involves going to an adult and informing them so they know “what’s up” – any immoral or unethical or dangerous or destructive or hateful or threatening behavior that has really affected you (or someone else) on some level. Maybe your feelings have been hurt pretty badly. Maybe you feel scared for your own safety. Maybe you have been completely humiliated. Maybe people are saying stuff that is completely or even partially untrue – and it is ruining your reputation. Again, if you could make the problem go away on your own, this wouldn’t be an issue. But sometimes, you just can’t. And so you have got to tell – or inform – an adult.

Mostly, we as adults don’t want youth to just feel like they have to “take it” and just be an emotional or psychological punching bag for someone else. We want them to feel empowered to 1) acknowledge that what is being done to them is not right, and 2) get help. Hopefully, the adults to whom they go to will first validate the child’s feelings and then calmly and rationally work with that child to come to a mutually-agreeable response plan without flying off the handle. The worst possible thing is to respond in a way that makes the situation worse for the victim and convinces them (and everyone they tell) that the best response is to suffer silently because talking to an adult about the situation will just backfire.

Finally, you may be an adult who is constantly dealing with “tattling” and find yourself naturally hesitant to believe the story of the child in front of you. Take your time in assessing the facts and determining whether meaningful mistreatment is taking place. It very well could be, and you don’t want to regret trivializing harm that is reported to you. Finally, if you are a young person and are really needing the adult you approach to believe you, emphasize to them that you understand the difference between tattling and telling – and need for them to take you seriously. It sounds so basic, but sometimes that is what it takes for some adults to pick up on the gravity of the situation and be compelled to action.

If you are a teen and receive a sexually-explicit image of a classmate via your cell phone (or email, or instant message, or via a Nintendo Dsi, or any other type of electronic communication), what should you do? This can be a challenging situation, to say the least. We know that anywhere from 10-30% (or more) of teens have received such images, and many probably don’t know what to do. You have no doubt seen the examples in the media of teens being cyberbullied, arrested, or even committing suicide as a result of bad decisions involving the circulation of nude personal pictures. My thoughts here are intended to provide you (youth) with a specific and simple strategy to help avoid any of these consequences.

If you do receive such an image, odds are that it was sent by a good friend (or a boyfriend or girlfriend). As a result, you probably don’t want to get this person into too much trouble, but you figure that sending or receiving nude or semi-nude pictures of another teen is probably not going to lead to great things in life (because if you think about it, it is highly inappropriate, morally wrong, and potentially illegal). So what do you do? Well, most adults might advise you to “tell an adult you trust.” This is generally good advice, however in the case of a naked photo of an under-aged youth, this can be devastating for all involved. For example, if you show the image to a teacher, he or she is likely required to report it to the police. Teachers who don’t can lose their teaching license and/or be fired. If they don’t know what to do and seek guidance from a fellow teacher, they could get into even more trouble. For example, if you hand your cell phone with the nude image over to the teacher, and he or she shows another teacher, both teachers (and you) could be charged with “possession” of child pornography since they had possession of your phone. That’s because the police often treat these images as child pornography – irrespective of the intent of the sender or the relationship of those involved. This means that if you take the picture, you can be charged with “creation of child pornography.” If you send or forward the picture, you can be charged with “distribution of child pornography.” If you keep it on your phone, you can be charged with “possession of child pornography.” In some cases you could even end up on state sex offender registries.

My advice to teens who receive a nude or semi-nude image of a classmate is simple: immediately delete it. Don’t tell anyone about it. If there is an investigation and someone asks if you received the image, you should tell them yes, but that you immediately deleted it. If necessary, they can get your cell phone records from your service provider which will show that you deleted it within seconds of receiving it. This is the best situation for you. Of course, some adults aren’t going to like this advice because they want to be in the “know” to attempt to deal with the problem, but I think it is the only safe advice I can offer youth at this point.

The primary goal in sexting incidents is to limit the victimization of the person portrayed in the image. If the individual(s) who initially received the image immediately delete it, there would be no distribution and victimization would be minimized. Be sure to tell your friends that it is in their best interest not to hold onto or send these kinds of images. It just isn’t worth the potential long-term and irreversible consequences to your (and their) reputation.

If you find out that your friends are continuing to distribute naked pictures of themselves or others, you would be wise to let them know how such behavior can seriously mess up their future. Strongly encourage them to stop and to delete the images. If you are concerned about the well-being of the person depicted in the images, you may want to anonymously report the behavior to your school (if there is a way to do this).

We have said it many times on this blog, but it bears repeating here that neither Sameer nor I are attorneys, so you should not interpret this blog as formal legal counsel. We are simply looking out for the best interests of teens and those who interact with them. Stay tuned for a follow-up post in the near future on what teachers should do if a student tells them (or shows them) a sexting image involving a student.

Do students have an expectation of privacy on their cell phones while at school? The short answer to this is a qualified yes. Whether educators have the authority to search the contents of student cell phones depends on a lot of factors. The key issue in this analysis (that we have raised before on this blog) is the standard of reasonableness. According to New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) students are protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In T.L.O., the Supreme Court goes on to say that the standard that law enforcement officers must reach to conduct a search (probable cause that a crime has been committed), is not required of educators. In general, the standard applied to school officials is whether the search is “justified at its inception and reasonable in scope.” Of course there is a bit of subjectivity to this standard and what appears to be reasonable for one person may not be for another. In T.L.O., the Court ruled that for a search of student property to be justified, there must exist: “reasonable grounds for believing that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.” This seems to be the standard by which schools should determine whether a search of a student cell phone is allowable.

There are a couple of cases which have been decided that shed some light on how this particular standard would apply to the search of student cell phones. The case most often cited is Klump v. Nazareth Area School District (2006). In this case, a teacher confiscated a student’s cell phone because it was visible during class – which was in violation of school policy (it accidentally fell out of the student’s pocket). The teacher and assistant principal then searched through the cell phone’s number directory and attempted to call nine other Nazareth students to determine if they too were in violation of the policy. They also accessed text and voice mail messages and communicated with the student’s brother without indicating to him that they were school staff.

The Court agreed that the school was justified in seizing the phone, but should not have used the phone to “catch other students’ violations.” In summary, the U.S. District Court in Klump concluded: “Although the meaning of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ is different in the school context than elsewhere, it is nonetheless evident that there must be some basis for initiating a search. A reasonable person could not believe otherwise.”

In November 2010, a Mississippi federal court identified no Fourth Amendment violation when a teacher seized, and administrators reviewed, photos and text messages in a cell phone confiscated from a boy who used it in violation of a schoolwide ban (J.W. v. Desoto County School District, 2010). Of course, the seizure was allowed because the school had a policy prohibiting the possession or use of cell phones at school. The issue in this case was the legitimacy of the search of the phone’s contents, which included incriminating pictures of the student wearing what appeared to be gang clothing.

The court ruled that the school was justified in searching the cell phone: “Upon witnessing a student improperly using a cell phone at school, it strikes this court as being reasonable for a school official to seek to determine to what end the student was improperly using that phone. For example, it may well be the case that the student was engaged in some form of cheating, such as by viewing information improperly stored in the cell phone. It is also true that a student using his cell phone at school may reasonably be suspected of communicating with another student who would also be subject to disciplinary action for improper cell phone usage” (J.W. v. Desoto County School District, 2010).

I personally believe that the Mississippi court got this case wrong. Searching the student’s phone will not yield any additional evidence that he is in violation of the school’s policy prohibiting possession of the phone at school. Seeing the phone in school already sufficiently established that point. The court argues that “…a student’s decision to violate school rules by bringing contraband on campus and using that contraband within view of teachers appropriately results in a diminished privacy expectation in that contraband.” Clearly the court in Klump did not agree with this reasoning as the court sided with the student. And while New Jersey v. T.L.O. established a different search and seizure standard for educators, the Supreme Court did not in this case suggest that any policy violation whatsoever negated any expectation of privacy a student previously held. The court in J.W. seems to suggest that if a student chooses to deliberately violate a school policy, that student should also be willing to shed any other constitutional protections with respect to the contraband. It should be noted, though, that the Mississippi court did attempt to distinguish the facts of J.W. from Klump by saying J.W. intentionally violated school policy whereas Klump accidentally violated the policy. I’m unconvinced that this should be a salient factor. Does it really matter that much if a policy is accidentally or intentionally violated? Given the many apparent contradictions between Klump and J.W. (and other student cell phone search cases), I would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court review this issue to provide much needed clarity to educators and school law enforcement officers.

At both ends of the continuum of circumstances, the law is fairly clear. For example, if a reputable student advises a staff member that another student has the answers to the math exam on his mobile device, this would almost certainly allow for a search by an administrator. At the other extreme, conducting a search of a cell phone that was confiscated because it was ringing in a student’s backpack would likely not be allowed. Of course, there is quite a bit of gray ground in between to cover.

With all of this said, schools would be wise to include a specific statement in their policies that regulate student-owned devices brought to school. The policy should advise everyone that students who bring their own devices to school are subject to a reasonable search if suspicion arises that the device contains evidence of a violation of school policy or the law. Students, staff, parents, and law enforcement officers working in the schools need to be aware of this policy so that no one is surprised if/when certain actions are taken.

What do you think? Given your knowledge of current law, are educators allowed to search student cell phones simply when they are possessed (with the possession being the sole school policy violation)? Or, should they be allowed to search student cell phones only if they can articulate that they reasonably believe that evidence on the phone will reveal another policy violation? Do you believe the laws need to be changed in this area? Increasing numbers of schools are opening their doors and classrooms to cell phones and other mobile devices. As such, it is imperative that clarity is established in this area of case law and policy.

As we know, students use their smart phones and cell phones to engage in cyberbullying or other forms of teen technology misuse at school, regardless of the presence of formal policies that prohibit their display or use during some or all hours of the school day. Ask any professional at a middle or high school, and they will tell you that violations of the rules occur with regularity. Additionally, the issue is highly-charged and complicated, based on the numerous comments on our blog about cell phone search and seizure at school. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the vast majority of those involved (school personnel and students) still don’t have a meaningful idea as to their rights – and what is or should be allowed at school with regard to the confiscation of, and evidence acquisition from, these devices.

I’d like to ask our readers to skim through the comments and see what I mean. Why do you think we can’t seem to make much forward progress here? With an increasing amount of cell phone usage among our teens, and with more students owning smartphones, it is critical that we come to some sort of consensus that informs our investigation and response protocols. Justin and I are scrutinizing case law and front-line experiences across school districts in our country, writing book chapters and articles on the subject, and are personally committed to providing practical, unclouded guidance here over the next few months.