Computers have long been a fixture in many American schools. Indeed, we had computers in our middle schools back in the day. And when we visit schools today — large and small, rural and urban — they (of course) all have computers. Many schools have computer labs or general-access machines in libraries or other common areas. In addition, many classrooms have their own computer(s), and teachers regularly use various technologies to deliver educational content or enhance instruction. Some schools have even provided laptops to each individual student (“one-to-one” schools). While there is some debate about whether these programs are worth the money, it is clear that technology is a big part of education. And computers have reduced in relevance in recent years, as we use our smartphone or iPad to do much of what we used to do on desktops and laptops.
Some schools have attempted to prevent inappropriate technology use at school by simply writing a policy that prohibits students from bringing their devices to school. Short of strip-searching students as they come through the front door, it is practically impossible to enforce a complete ban like this. Most administrators have largely conceded this point and therefore have enacted policies that say something to the effect of “If I see it, you lose it.” Our colleague Mike Donlin recently quipped that schools should approach cell phones the same way they do underwear: “We know you have them—we just don’t want to see them in class.” We believe a broad-stroke ban preempts opportunities that exist for students to use technology in positive ways. And there are many.
Allowing students to bring their devices to school holds much promise for furthering their education. Most schools do not have enough resources to provide a laptop or tablet for each student, and since many students already have a cell phone, tablet, or other portable device, few additional expenditures are required (e.g., the school can lend devices to the handful who don’t own one). Once equipped, teachers can ask students to research particular questions using their devices. They can use audience response systems via clickers or cell phone live polling to assess student competency with certain concepts. They can assign creative, interactive projects using the camera functionality and photo- or video-sharing sites. Many teachers use Facebook and Twitter as supplemental instructional tools. Indeed, one ninth-grade science teacher in Atlanta has even used the popular game Angry Birds to teach complicated physics principles. The opportunities are as endless as the Web itself. We have received many phone calls from administrators who are considering opening up their schools to student-owned mobile devices because of the headaches associated with attempting to keep them out and the positives that may accompany using them to help kids learn. According to a report published by Walden University, “Teachers who use technology frequently…report greater benefits to student learning, engagement and skills from technology than teachers who spend less time using technology to support learning.
While we clearly need to recognize the potential problems that may accompany the positives when students “bring their own devices” to school, it is important to stress that technology isn’t the problem. There is nothing inherently problematic about cell phones; they are amazing devices that have revolutionized the way we communicate. Similarly, there is nothing fundamentally dangerous about Facebook. Social networking through that site has allowed interpersonal relationships to start, restart, and thrive, generating many emotional and psychological benefits. However, some will choose to use technological enhancements to cause harm to others or, intentionally or unintentionally, cause harm to themselves. This harm is often not physical—although there might be physical ramifications and side effects. Rather, it tends to manifest in less visible but possibly even more damaging ways. It is those behaviors that we should focus on—not the technology.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of death of teens. In 2009, approximately 3,000 teens died in car accidents. Does this mean we should ban teens from driving? Of course not. But we do need to take steps to prevent accidents from happening, such as providing driver’s education classes, encouraging parents to model appropriate driving habits, establishing safety guidelines, and so forth. The same approach needs to be taken with technology. You wouldn’t just throw your teenager the keys to the family sedan and say, “Good luck and be safe!” But this is often what we do with technology: we assume that children will be safe and smart because we tell them to do so (or because they had to have heard and internalized all of the lessons from school and on the news!).
We need to be much more deliberate and comprehensive than that and regularly remind teens about issues they may run into. They are adolescents. How many times did you learn the lesson on the first go-around when you were a teenager? Probably not as often as you would like. Neither did we, so don’t feel bad. This should serve to inspire us in the ways we deal with and instruct teens. Parents have to do this in their households, and we believe they bear the largest load when it comes to teaching their kids to use technology wisely. However, school personnel unquestionably share a good portion of the responsibility as well, since those kids are their captive audience for much of the day. Most schools now realize that they need to educate students about appropriate online behaviors and take steps to prevent students from misusing technology at school. Educators also know that what happens online—whether during school hours or on evenings and weekends—often directly impacts what happens at school. We propose that schools can take significant strides to prevent cyberbullying and sexting by developing and maintaining a positive, respectful, and nurturing classroom and school climate.
We talk about improving school climate a lot because we believe in it, have studied the existing research about it, and have conducted research on it ourselves. It matters, and it works. The National School Climate Center defines school climate as “the quality and character of school life. School climate is based on patterns of students’, parents’, and school personnel’s experience of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures.” In general, a positive climate is one that engenders respect, cooperation, trust, and a shared responsibility for the educational goals that exist there. Educators, students, and everyone connected to the school consequently take ownership of the mission of the school and work together toward a shared vision. If a climate like this is established, everything else seems to fall into place. For instance, it will definitely lead to more academic success and greater educational exploration.
No one program, policy, or practice can address all of the reasons why young people harm themselves and others. No single strategy can prevent strangers or staff members from jeopardizing the well-being of students. The most prudent course of action for all schools is to address safety comprehensively.
—Daniel L. Duke, author of Creating Safe Schools for All Children
We believe that there will be fewer behavioral problems at school and online, because students will not want to damage the positive relationships they have at school by doing anything that will disappoint or upset the educators or other students to whom they are strongly bonded.
“I am not going to post that online—Mrs. Smith is my favorite teacher and is really awesome and I don’t want her to think badly of me!”
“I don’t want my friends at school to think I was a moron for sending that message.”
“I am totally going to keep my profile page clean, since everyone else at my school does it too.”
“I don’t want to miss out on any opportunities and fall behind my peers, and so I have got to build a positive online reputation!”
“I don’t want to stand out for doing the wrong thing when everyone else is doing the right thing!”
We know that teens are more likely to be deterred from engaging in inappropriate behaviors by a fear of how their friends or family members (or others in their lives they look up to) might respond than by adult nagging. Indeed, we know from experience (and you will likely agree) that this deterrent effect is much stronger than prohibitive policies and laws. Therefore, by developing strong relationships between the school and students, among students themselves, and between the school and their families, this principle can be used to dissuade negative behaviors and encourage positive behaviors even when adults aren’t around—such as when teens are online. And the vast, vast, VAST majority are online, which has revolutionized the way they communicate and the way we have to handle these issues.
Tag Archives: response
Teens and Technology, School District Policy Issues, 2012-2013
With the beginning of the school year upon us again, I thought it might be valuable to review a very important topic. One of the most important steps a district can take to help protect their students and protect themselves from legal liability is to have a clear and comprehensive policy regarding bullying and harassment, technology, and their intersection: cyberbullying.
Almost every state requires districts to have a comprehensive policy in place, and generally involve one (or more) of the following elements:
1. requirement to add “cyberbullying” or “electronic bullying” to current anti-bullying policies;
2. provision of specific graduated consequences and remedial actions for cyberbullying;
3. provision to allow administrators to take reasonable action when off-campus actions have affected on-campus order;
4. requirement to develop new investigative, reporting and disciplinary procedures in cyberbullying cases;
5. Mandate that schools create and implement prevention programming (such as Internet safety, ethics, etiquette training and curricula).
In our award-winning book Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard, we fleshed out what we believe are the most important components of an effective school cyberbullying policy. This stemmed from our research into what schools were currently doing, and what was working, and what was not. Apart from the aforementioned elements, we believe that tying bullying/cyberbullying prevention/response to a more holistic initiative to improve school climate will be most promising. Let’s explain further the elements that should comprise these policies, so you can make sure your school has solid footing before you deal with any incidents this year.
First, it is important that the policy clearly defines the behaviors it seeks to proscribe. The more specific the policy is, the more likely it will withstand legal challenges. As William Shepherd, a Statewide Prosecutor in Florida’s Office of the Attorney General cautions, however, “The law or policy should be specific, but behavior changes over time, so you must have the ability to grow with the times.”
Also, we list below several forms of bullying that should be clearly delineated in your policy. Generally speaking, any communication that has been perceived by a student as unwanted, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, demeaning, belittling, defaming in nature, or is otherwise disruptive to a student’s ability to learn and a school’s ability to educate its students in a safe environment, or causes a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress or fear of bodily injury, should be subject to discipline.
Forms of Bullying
Bullying can occur by one individual or a group of individuals, can be direct or indirect, and can take the following forms:
A. “Physical bullying” – demonstrations of aggression by pushing, kicking, hitting, gesturing, or otherwise invading the physical space of another person in an unwelcome manner. It also includes the unwanted tampering with or destruction of another person’s property.
B. “Verbal bullying” – demonstrations of aggression through insults, teasing, cursing, threatening, or otherwise expressing unkind words toward another person.
C. “Relational bullying” – demonstrations of aggression through exclusion, rejection, and isolation to damage a person’s position and relationship within a social group.
D. “Cyberbullying” – the intentional and repeated harm of others through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.
Cyberbullying can result in discipline whether it occurs on or off campus, irrespective of whether it involves an electronic device at school, at home, or at a third-party location, and if it results in a substantial disruption of the school learning environment as defined in this policy.
It is also important to remember that many districts already have policies in place that prohibit various forms of harassment, including harassment based on race or sex. Any behavior that constitutes sexual harassment, for example, should be handled under those provisions, irrespective of whether the behavior is also considered bullying or cyberbullying.
With regard to penalties, any student found to be participating in, contributing to, and/or encouraging acts of cyberbullying and/or harassment towards another student or staff member must be disciplined. Your policy must identify what specific actions will be taken. To determine the severity of the harassment or discrimination, the following may be considered: how the misconduct affected one or more student’s education; the type, frequency, and duration of the misconduct; the number of persons involved; the subject(s) of harassment or discrimination; the situation in which the incident occurred; and other related incidents at the school. Any cyberbullying that has been perceived as a criminal act, such as a threat to one’s personal or physical safety, will be subject to discipline and result in the notification of law enforcement.
Discipline can include a number of different actions. These can include:
• Parental contact
• Behavioral contracts
• Loss of privileges (either in-school or extracurricular)
• Conferences with students, parents, teachers, or administrative staff
• Interventions by school guidance personnel
• School service work or student work detail
• Removal of student from class
• Loss of bus privileges (parents are thus responsible for transportation)
• In-school alternative assignments or intervention programs
• Detentions (before, during, after school, or on Saturday)
• Restitution
• Restorative Justice
• Assignment to alternative program in lieu of suspension days
• Suspension – removal of student from school for up to 10 days
• Assignment to an alternative educational facility
• Expulsion – removal of student from school for remainder of year plus one additional year
We’ve discussed before that it is critical to link specific behaviors with specific disciplinary outcomes so that students know exactly what may happen if they are caught engaging in cyberbullying behaviors. Don’t be afraid to think creatively about alternative sanctions instead of relying on detention or suspension. For example, cyberbullies could be required (based on the grievance) to research and write an essay on the negative affects of cyberbullying. They could also be required to write a formal apology to the aggrieved party or parties. Disciplinary outcomes should be considered and carried out on a case-by-case basis.
We really think that you should be as specific as possible in your policy – make sure you cover harassment and cheating and disrupting the class environment by texting or Facebooking, and talk about threats and explicit pictures and pornography laws and police intervention. Clearly outline the consequences for prohibited behaviors. Get students and parents in on this discussion. Schools will have problems as the school community gets used to these changes, but hopefully the problems will be few and far between and will get better with time.
Students will learn appropriate behaviors and these should—in time—become the norm if a positive school climate is prioritized and established. For example, ten years ago, cell phones were much more of a problem in our college classrooms than they are now. University students, at least in our experience as professors, have gotten better at cell phone etiquette and are not letting the devices distract from learning. Sure, a phone occasionally will go off in class, but usually the student is apologetic and immediately acknowledges the faux pas. Of course middle and high school students are different from those in a university, but we are optimistic that we can work through the same challenges at the secondary school level.
After a policy is created or revised, the school community needs to be educated about it. Students should be informed about the circumstances under which their personal portable electronic devices can be confiscated and searched. They should also be reminded that anything they do on a school-owned device is subject to review and appropriate discipline. This should be explained to students and parents, possibly through assemblies, orientations, community meetings, and messaging strategies (voice mails, memorandums, etc.). Be intentional about conveying these messages, and don’t just assume they know your policy! As a student recently told us:
“I think it’s a good idea that all schools include in their handbook definitions of the types of bullying and sexting as well as the consequences and/ or disciplinary actions, but then perhaps kids should be quizzed on this every school year. Call me an airhead, but I never read the school’s student handbook until my family moved to Florida my junior year of high school. I remember I got in trouble the first day of school because I clearly did not read the dress code part of the student handbook. My old school handed out agendas and handbooks at the beginning of the school year, but no one ever read them. Those things would just get stuffed at the bottom of our lockers. If all schools enforced something as simple as reading the student handbook and made sure students understand what they’re reading, then I think they would be a step closer to educating kids that they can get help if they’re being bullied.
—Anonymous student from Florida
We’ll talk more about policy and school climate in our next blog, so look for that next week!
Help With Fake Facebook Profile Pages
Imagine you receive an email from a friend that includes a link to a Facebook profile. You click on the link and see your name and picture on the profile. But you didn’t create it. And some of the information included isn’t exactly flattering. In fact, it’s embarrassing, and malicious, and ruining your reputation. Now what do you do? We regularly receive requests from people who find themselves, their kids, or their friends in this situation. The key in responding is to move quickly to gather information and to inform the proper authorities.
If you know who created the profile, ask them to remove it. Facebook has a social reporting tool that allows you to convey your disapproval, and ask that the content be removed, in a respectful way. (You can read Larry Magid’s recent interview with Facebook’s Arturo Bejar where they discuss these options.)
If you don’t feel comfortable with that, or do not know who created it, you can report it to Facebook and it will be disabled while they investigate. If you do not have a Facebook account, you can report imposter profiles here. If the creator of the fake profile attempts to log into the account after it has been reported, Facebook will require the user to prove their identity and display a map that shows where they are at (thereby removing the veil of complete anonymity). I think that is pretty cool! Facebook also educates the user about the consequences of identity theft. The company has developed numerous other tools to help you protect your information and reputation, including a form that allows you to request the records of an account that was impersonating you. Learn about and take advantage of all of these resources.
It is important that you collect as much information about the profile as you can before reporting it to Facebook. Take screenshots (see our fact sheet here) or simply print out the profile and any related information. Note the URL (web address) of the page because it includes the user ID (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000000XXXXXXXX) or username (http://www.facebook.com/username). Try to identify all of the people who are connected to the profile (friends or followers). Collect as much information about them as you can. It might help in determining who was behind the creation of the profile.
Overall, the more information you can gather, the more easily it will be to identify who is responsible, and hold them accountable, if necessary. Once the account has been disabled by Facebook, it will be more difficult for you to get the evidence you need. And if the account creator deletes the account before you have a chance to report it to Facebook or collect the evidence, it can be impossible to obtain information about who created it. So move quickly to capture what you can.
If you believe that what was said or posted about you on the fake profile is of a criminal nature (e.g., a threat or a hate crime) or violates your civil rights (e.g., defamation of character or libel), contact local law enforcement so that they can investigate. This is particularly important if you feel that your safety (or the safety of someone else) is in jeopardy. The police are trained to determine whether information contained on the site could be viewed as a “true threat,” or if it violates the law in any other ways. The first thing the investigating officer should do is complete a formal request to Facebook to preserve the page details and accompanying account information before they are deleted by the user who created the page. Officers can do this even before a formal investigation has begun. The sooner this is done, the better. There are more guidelines for law enforcement officers here.
Law enforcement can also assist you in obtaining a subpoena, which is a legal order that requires a person or entity named to show up at court or to produce documents or other information specified (that could be used as evidence in a trial). While the specific procedures can vary by state, law enforcement officers can obtain a subpoena from a judge, county or state prosecutor, or other qualified attorney, once an investigation has begun. Facebook regularly assists law enforcement in responding to subpoenas by providing information about the creator of the account, including their name, email address, date of birth, and some other account identifiers provided by the user when they signed up. Lawyers can also obtain a subpoena for the purposes of obtaining evidence to be used in a civil case.
With a court order (which can only be issued by a judge), law enforcement officers can get additional information from Facebook, including transactional logs such as intra-session IP addresses. The IP address is the unique identifier that every online device is given. With the IP address, law enforcement will be able to determine the Internet Service Provider (ISP). Again using a court order, the officer will be able to obtain from the ISP the billing address and other subscriber information of the person involved.
If during the course of the investigation the officer determines that criminal charges are appropriate, they may obtain a warrant from a judge for the purpose of collecting even more information from Facebook, including the content of the pages (e.g., photos and comments). A warrant is another court order issued by a judge, but it must be accompanied by probable cause that the information requested is necessary for the purposes of investigating a crime. According to the Stored Communications Act: “A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication…only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure…” So without a warrant, Facebook has no obligation to provide the content of the pages. This is a good thing for those of us who use Facebook and other online environments appropriately and legally: Only when we are implicated in a crime should the content of our profiles be turned over to the government.
The differences described above between what information can be obtained through a request, a subpoena, a court order, or a warrant is determined somewhat by the company (Facebook in this case) but mostly by federal and state law. It largely depends on whether the information requested is the property of the company, the Internet Service Provider, or the customer. Technically, everything you post on Facebook is your property, though you give Facebook permission to use that information for certain purposes as a condition of using the site.
Some states include electronic communications in their impersonation or identity theft laws. For example, it is a class A misdemeanor in New York if someone “Impersonates another by communication by Internet website or electronic means with intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another, or by such communication pretends to be a public servant in order to induce another to submit to such authority or act in reliance on such pretense.” Consult with law enforcement or a local attorney to learn more about the specific laws in your state.
In many cases, however, fake profiles are created for a laugh and the persons responsible perhaps do not fully understand the consequences of their behavior. This is especially true in incidents involving adolescents. So if there is no clear threat or other evidence of criminal behavior, resist contacting the police and try to work through the problem informally, involving parents, schools, and other adults as appropriate.
That said, there have been many incidents where students have created profiles about educators or their classmates that have ended up in court. Try to avoid this by proactively educating your children and students about these issues, and by creating a positive climate at school. In that way, hopefully they will not participate in these behaviors and if someone else does create a fake profile about them, they will know what to do and will feel comfortable turning to an adult for help.
New Teen Sexting Study
There is a new study on teen sexting that has been published (online at least) in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that is receiving tons of media attention. Most research that is published in academic journals is largely ignored by the media and the public, but for some reason this article has generated some interest. To be sure, articles and books that include the word “sex” in the title are likely to draw more attention. (See our new book, entitled “School Climate 2.0: Preventing Cyberbullying and SEXting One Classroom at a Time!”)
The headline that is most commonly pulled from this particular study seems to be that about 28% of the students who responded to the researcher’s survey said that they had “sent a naked picture of themselves through text or e-mail.” This figure is a lot higher than most previously published research. For example, in School Climate 2.0 we reviewed 5 previous studies and our own preliminary research on teen sexting (see also our brief Sexting Fact Sheet). Across these surveys, the percent of students who reported sending a “sext” ranged from 2.5% to 19%. Much of these differences in rates can likely be attributed to the different ways the studies were set up. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2008) reported that 19% of teens had sent a “sexually suggestive picture or video.” Sexually suggestive is quite different than “naked.” Moreover, the National Campaign sample included teens who ranged in age from 13 to 19. By contrast, our sample, which found that 8% of teens had sent a “naked or semi-naked image” of themselves to others, included middle and high school students between the ages of 11 and 18. Consistent with intuition, our analysis also showed that older teens were more likely to participate in sexting and therefore by including 18 and 19 year-olds, as the National Campaign Study did, we would expect the numbers to be higher. A study sponsored by MTV and the Associated Press that recorded the second highest prevalence rate (10%) also included much older respondents (up to age 24) than the other studies.
The new study targeted 10th and 11th graders from 7 high schools in Texas and included students between the ages of 14 and 19. It is unclear from the article if students were randomly selected to participate, meaning the sample would be somewhat representative of all students in 10th and 11th grade from these schools, or if they were chosen deliberately or haphazardly. Knowing more about the broader characteristics of the population of students at the schools would help us in better interpreting the results.
Specifically, the Texas study found that 27.8% of the students had sent a sext. Digging more deeply into the results, we can see that more White/non-Hispanic youth reported that they had sent a sext than other racial groups, and like in our study, older students were involved at higher rates. Almost half (45%) of the 18 and 19 year old students had sent a sext, though this is a tenuous finding as there were only 31 students in the sample who were those ages.
The authors intentionally limited their inquiry to naked pictures and did not include semi-naked images or explicit text. This makes their high prevalence finding even more surprising. So why does this study differ so much from the other available research? Different methodologies between this and the other studies, as discussed above, is probably the most likely cause (different ways of sampling, asking questions, etc.). But it could also be that teens in Texas, or at least the 7 schools targeted in this study, are participating in sexting at a higher rate than the country as a whole. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Texas high school students are slightly more sexually active than the United States as a whole (37.7% compared to 34.2% had sexual intercourse in the previous 3 months), but this alone can’t explain the dramatic difference.
Clearly more research is necessary – at the local, state, and national level. Moreover, qualitative work can perhaps uncover in more detail why teens engage in sexting, and attempt to learn if they understand the potential consequences of the behavior. For example, Jessica Ringrose from the University of London and her colleagues recently released a report that presents the perspectives of 35 students based on an in-depth investigation that included focus groups, individual interviews, and consultations with teachers and other school staff. I was introduced to Jessica’s work when I met her last fall when we both participated in a conference at the University of London. The report describes, among other things, that teens are often pressured, subtly or overtly, into participating in sexting: “Much of young people’s talk, therefore, reflects an experience that is pressurized yet voluntary – they choose to participate but they cannot choose to say ‘no’.” The desire to fit in and be well-liked within one’s peer group results in some teens doing things that they know they shouldn’t. With this in mind, some of the variation in reporting across studies might be explained by teens under-reporting behaviors they know are wrong, or in other cases even over-reporting behaviors they think are social acceptable (see my recent blog on social norming and peer influences here).
In short, we need to continue to work to better understand why teens sext as well as evaluate efforts to prevent them from doing it in the first place. Scaring them with the threat of formal prosecution and severe criminal sanctions undoubtedly will not stop all youth from experimenting with these behaviors (just like it doesn’t stop them from using drugs or participating in other delinquent behaviors – see the work of Raymond Paternoster, and others). Instead, we all need to work to create family, school, and community cultures where sexting, cyberbullying, and other inappropriate behaviors online and off are not tolerated and simply “not what we do.” Behaviors are influenced to a much greater extent by positive relationships (that is, we behave in accordance with the people we care about), and to the extent we develop valued connections in various domains, we will have the power to shape teen behaviors for the better.
Can a School Respond to Off-Campus Cyberbullying?
We discuss the legal issues associated with schools responding to cyberbullying incidents quite often in this space. You can find many blog posts which attempt to clarify the variety of issues raised (see here and here) and we have a summary fact sheet that is available here. Of course the law, and our understanding of it, is constantly evolving. So I thought I would post a (relatively) simplified update with the lineage of case law that demonstrates that schools do in fact have the authority to apply reasonable discipline to students who participate in cyberbullying while away from school. Below I provide a brief one or two sentence summary of the ruling, but I encourage everyone to read the actual facts of each case so that you can better understand the unique contexts of each incident.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): Students have free-speech rights. “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Students have constitutional rights under the First Amendment. Those rights, however, do not grant students the right to substantially interfere with school discipline or the “the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.”
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986): Student’s free-speech rights are limited while at school. “[T]he constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings….” The Supreme Court ruled that there is a substantive difference between a non-disruptive expression (such as in Tinker) and “speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.”
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999): If a school knows about harassment or other hurtful actions against students and doesn’t respond effectively to prevent it from continuing, they may be held responsible. “…the common law, too, has put schools on notice that they may be held responsible under state law for their failure to protect students from the tortious acts of third parties.”
J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District (2000): Schools can discipline students for their off-campus electronic speech (student created a threatening web page about his algebra teacher). “…school officials are justified in taking very seriously threats against faculty and other students.”
Wisniewski v. Board of Education of the Weedsport Central School District (2007): “…it was reasonably foreseeable that Wisniewski’s communication would cause a disruption within the school environment…. The fact that Aaron’s creation and transmission of the IM icon occurred away from school property does not necessarily insulate him from school discipline. We have recognized that off-campus conduct can create a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption within a school…”
Barr v. Lafon (2007): Schools do not need to wait for a substantial disruption to occur at school before taking action. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) ruled that “…appellate court decisions considering school bans on expression have focused on whether the banned conduct would likely trigger disturbances such as those experienced in the past” and pointed to the fact that the high school had even positioned law enforcement officials on campus in previous years to maintain order in an environment of racial hostility and violence. Citing Lowery v. Euverard (2007), the court stated: “…under the Tinker standard a school does not need to wait until a disruption has actually occurred before regulating student speech.”
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools (2011): Schools can discipline students for their online speech, consistent with Tinker. “Kowalski used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate, and did so in a manner that was sufficiently connected to the school environment as to implicate the School District’s recognized authority to discipline speech which “materially and substantially interfere[es] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and collid[es] with the rights of others.”
There are several examples of cases where students were successful in their lawsuits against schools when the student was disciplined for off-campus behavior (see: Klein v. Smith, 1986; Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415, 2000; Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 2010; Blue Mountain School District v. J.S., 2010. In all of these cases, however, the school was incapable of demonstrating that the off-campus behavior or speech resulted in, or had a likelihood of resulting in, a substantial disruption at school. In fact, when the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the schools in Layshock and Blue Mountain, Judge Kent Jordan stated: “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.”
Finally, it is important to point out that I correspond with many of the best and brightest legal minds in the United States and many of them disagree about these issues! We are at a challenging and uncertain time (to say the least) when it comes to education in this country, and the legal ambiguity concerning a school’s authority to respond to off-campus behaviors is just one more example. But the reality, in my view, is that there is no uncertainty about this issue. Schools simply do have the authority to reasonably discipline students for any behavior (whether at school or away from school) if such behavior results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, a substantial or material disruption at school or if the behavior infringes on the rights of other students. So the short answer to the question posed in the title of this blog post is: YES!
But I will conclude my thoughts by asking all of you who read this to let us know if you are aware of any cases where a school was found to be liable for damages for disciplining a student for their off campus behavior which resulted in a substantial disruption at school. I am not aware of any such cases. Part of the trouble here, I think, is that examples of cases like that have not reached a court and therefore we have not received reassurance in our interpretation of the law. Most of the time schools get it right and they do not end up in court. Until more case law is established, we will continue to recommend that schools act in accordance with the cases discussed above.


(15 votes, average: 4.53 out of 5)

(21 votes, average: 4.10 out of 5)