Blog

At the Cyberbullying Research Center we strive to approach the issue of teen technology use and misuse from a data-informed perspective. Just to be clear, data doesn’t just mean bar charts. Over the last ten years we have formally surveyed over 12,000 middle and high school students, so yes, we have a lot of bar charts. But we have also spoken to thousands of teens in schools all around the United States (and abroad). We get emails and phone calls daily from teens, parents, educators, and others who care about the online behaviors of young people. We have done focused interviews with small groups of students. We also review research articles written by other scholars (both published and unpublished). All of these are valuable sources of data. Taken together, we can start to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what is really going on.

Some data sources are definitely better than others, and we take into consideration the quality of the source and the sophistication of the methodology when interpreting results. Randomly selecting participants from a known sample is much better, for example, than arbitrarily selecting people who happen to be at a particular place and time.

To illustrate, I was recently at a school where a teacher told me that *every* student at her school that she had talked to had “either seen or engaged in sexting.” When pressed, she admitted that this wasn’t a “scientific survey,” just a questioning of a few of the students coming out of the cafeteria one day. So she extrapolated that to estimate that “everyone” at her school was in some way involved in sexting. Of course this is ridiculous. I haven’t seen a sexting study report prevalence rates higher than 31% for receiving a “sext” and most studies put the rate in the teens. In fact the Crimes Against Children Research Center recently reported that only 7.1% of students between the ages of 10 and 17 had received a “sext” (and this was a nationally representative survey – about as good as you can get methodologically).

So whenever I find a particular statistic cited, the first thing I do is attempt to uncover the original source and then review the methodology. What was the sample? How were participants selected to be in that sample? What specific questions were asked? Take once again the issue of sexting. How exactly is “sexting” defined? If you ask teens whether they have *ever* seen a nude or semi-nude image of another person on a cell phone, the number who say yes will likely be very high (if they are being truthful). If you ask them, on the other hand, if they had seen a nude or semi-nude image of another student from their school in the last 30 days, the number will be much lower. This is the question that we asked in our research, but even it can be misinterpreted. I mean, what exactly is “semi-nude?”

This brings me to the original point of this post. I have seen too many times to count the statistic that “over 160,000 students stay home every school day due to bullying.” Here are some representative examples:

“Bullying Statistics”

“Facts About Bullying”

“Bullied to Death in America’s Schools”

“Things You Should Know About Bullying”

I have also seen it twice in the last week in summaries for bullying prevention programs being offered by experts. I even found it in a 1993 article in the New York Times. Interestingly, I see it most commonly cited in news reports and governmental reports. Do a Google search for that statistic and you will see it thousands of times. But where did it come from? It has been attributed to many different sources (ABC News, National Education Association, and several books).  Most commonly, it is credited to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At least one CDC report cites a book written in 1998 (Real boys: Rescuing our sons form the myths of boyhood by William Pollack). That book attributes the statistic to the National Association of School Psychologists, but doesn’t provide a specific citation to a specific study or source. So where did it come from? I have put the question to some of the brightest minds in the area of bullying prevention and research and nobody knows. So if anyone out there has a specific study that includes this statistic, I would love to see it.

There is no question that too many students stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying.  The exact number is difficult to really know.  But it does this field a disservice to mis-cite or simply report statistics without being able to substantiate them.  Bullying *is* a serious problem that warrants our attention.  But the case can be made for this using reliable and valid statistics, not hyperbole.

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.

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.

The state of Virginia has recently proposed guidelines for public schools in order to prevent sexual (and other forms of) misconduct between educators and students. Justin and I have blogged about this issue here and here in the past – and it continues to be a topic of strong interest and controversy as we work with administrators across the nation.

First, I really like the fact that Virginia’s Board of Education has attempted to tackle the issue, as so many states and school districts are not being proactive enough to formally hash out this issue.  Seemingly, this was prompted by the fact that 120 of the 169 actions taken against educators’ licenses since 2000 had to do with some type of misconduct involving students.

Also important to mention is that at least 46 educators have been arrested due to this problem, with half of those cases involving problematic computer or cell phone communications. I don’t have the statistics yet, but it is possible that these trends are mirrored in other states across the nation, as I don’t think Virginia is alone in its struggle to address inappropriate interactions between school personnel and students.

First, let me bring your attention to their model policy for electronic communications with students:

• Teachers and other school board employees must restrict electronic communications with students to accounts, systems and platforms provided by the school division.

• Teachers and other employees may not use personal wireless communications devices to “text” students and are prohibited from interacting with students through online social-networking sites.

• Teachers and other school board employees must decline or disregard invitations from students to interact through texting and social-networking sites.

• Teachers and other school board employees may not knowingly engage in online gaming with students.

• School board policy on electronic communications with students also applies to teachers and other employees of virtual school programs and other vendors providing instructional services to students.

Overall, the state’s Department of Education states that communications should be transparent, accessible to supervisors (I don’t see how this differs from “transparency” – someone let me know…), and professional in tone.

They also specify guidelines for in-person communications with students:

• Conversations with students should focus on matters related to instruction and school activities.

• School board employees and volunteers should not initiate discussions about their private lives or the intimate details of the private lives of unrelated students.

• Conversation by school board employees and volunteers with students that could be interpreted as flirtatious, romantic or sexual is prohibited.

• The sharing of sexually explicit or obscene jokes and verbal “kidding” of a sexual nature between school board employees, volunteers and students is prohibited.

• Private, one-on-one conversations with students should take place within the potential view, but out of the earshot of other adults — such as in a classroom with the hallway door open. This policy also applies to conversations between volunteers and unrelated students.

• School board employees may not conduct an ongoing series of one-on-one meetings with a student without the knowledge of the principal and without written permission of a parent or guardian.

• The school board’s policy on in-person communications with students also applies to teachers and other employees of virtual school programs and other vendors providing instructional services to students.

Obviously, interacting via technology allows for personal thoughts, emotional content, and private feelings to be shared more readily than in person – and of course allows for one-on-one conversation outside of the purview of other adults, removing accountability and perhaps increasing notions of undetectability. The vast majority of educators will not abuse this – but some will. I feel that the work that VDOE has done in this area is pioneering, and I look forward to seeing what feedback is received to refine these guidelines before they are codified.

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.