Blog

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?

I’ve noticed a lot of schools now have their own Facebook pages.  Here are some examples: Ramblewood Middle School; Da Vinci Arts Middle School;  Lincoln High School.  These pages are generally created by teachers, school administrators, or school counselors as a virtual gathering place to students and staff.  Does your school have one?

I can clearly see many advantages of connecting with students using the medium they are using.  Teens are on Facebook everyday, and creating a portal from which they can connect with their schoolmates could certainly be a positive thing.  School Facebook pages can create online communities for current and former students where they can communicate about various issues and display school pride.  Furthermore, important school information can be posted to these pages (sports schedules, early dismissals, lunch menus, etc.).  Student creative work, such as art, writing, or videos, also can be uploaded for all to see.

All that said, there could be problems or potential issues associated with having a school Facebook page. For example, if a student becomes a fan of the school Facebook page and has evidence of violations of school policy or the law on her own Facebook page, does the school employee moderating the school page have an obligation to report that evidence to the school or police?  What if a teacher sees a message on a student’s page that says there will be a party where alcohol will be served at another student’s house on Friday night?  Should (or must) the teacher call the parents of students with questionable material or would there be school consequences (such as removal from sports teams) for inappropriate information?  Is it better that teachers simply don’t know what their students are doing away from the classroom?

In general, I believe the potential benefits would outweigh the risks and challenges associated with school Facebook pages.  To be sure, school officials who set up Facebook pages need to clearly understand their responsibilities in the event they observe inappropriate conduct or information and students too need to understand these issues as well.  As long as appropriate guidelines are established and adhered to, school Facebook pages could be a beneficial way to communicate with students (and parents) using a medium they are already very comfortable with.  What do you think?

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 was talking to a school administrator yesterday…and she posed a question that I couldn’t clearly answer because it doesn’t seem there is a clear answer.  So I wanted to see if any of our readers had some thoughts about it.

If a parent comes to you (you as an educator in the school system) and says that their child is being anonymously cyberbullied by someone from school, and their child is being affected at school because of it – and you do your investigation and find out the identity of the bully (and that it definitely is someone from school) – do you have to keep the identity of that bully private because of FERPA?  What if the parent demands to know who it is, arguing that such information could help that parent better protect the child in the future?  Furthermore, if the parent of the victim adamantly demands to know what the school is doing to specifically discipline that bully and address the issue, do you have to share that information – or can you just say that your school is dealing with the problem and the parent should let you know if it continues?  How exactly does FERPA play a role in these situations?

In this recent story from the West Coast, a 15-year-old high-schooler named Arielle was suspended for two days after surreptitiously capturing video on her cell phone of her chaotic algebra class.  Apparently, the situation was horrible with the teacher unable to control the students, who were participating in paper-ball fights, smoking cigarettes and marijuana, and acting out in other ridiculous ways.  Arielle attempted to inform administrators about the problem, but nothing seemed to change.  So, she attempted to document the madness, and this video was anonymously sent by her friend to the superintendent.  This led to the school punishment, as such videorecording violated the state education code.

This reminds me of the Requa v. Kent (2007) court case.  There, multiple students were involved in the covert recording, posting, and disseminating of video footage depicting and criticizing their teacher’s hygiene, organizational habits, and interactions.  The footage in this case was set to music and edited into a montage, and was done in a way that was crass, offensive, and mean-spirited.  The courts ruled that students *should* have the right to critique the performance and competence of their teachers – and that this right should not only be tolerated but encouraged.  However, doing so in an immature and offensive way was deemed unacceptable, and disrupted “the maintenance of a civil and respectful atmosphere toward teachers and students alike.”

I personally am disappointed with the school district’s decision in the current case.  Arielle informed administrators that her class was basically a joke, but the situation largely remained the same.   She was being denied an equal opportunity to learn in a public school funded by the government and thereby mandated to provide an environment where she and her fellow students felt safe and comfortable.  So, Arielle sought to document what was going on in an attempt to open some eyes and bring some much-needed change.

I think it is weak to blindly point at a policy and claim that privacy rights of the teacher and other students were violated through the cell phone video recording.  I think blanket disciplinary decisions when it comes to youth and technology at school are unwise, because each of these cases are highly unique in their motives, context, use of technology, and ramifications.  I hope that the suspension is overturned, because the policy was probably intended to  prevent adolescent mischief.  Arielle’s videorecording was used to blow the proverbial whistle on an out-of-control situation, and not done in an inappropriate manner.  I also think that this never would have (and never should have) happened had administrators listened to Arielle in the first place when she voiced her concerns.  I definitely messed around in some of my high school classes, but never to this extent, and never in a way that compromised everyone’s ability to learn.  This situation is unconscionable.