Cyberbullying in America’s Schools
The increase in the knowledge of and use of technology has been extremely beneficial to the world; however, with such life altering inventions come some downfalls as well. The use of the internet is not only an avenue for limitless research and resources, but is a way for bullying to extend past the school yard into student’s screens at school and at home. Cyberbullying via the internet and cell phones has become increasingly problematic and detrimental to the victims. Before widespread use of the internet and cell phones, bullying was confined to face to face interactions in the community or in the school yard. However, with the increased accessibility to the internet for children, bullying has crossed into cyberspace. This issue is particularly relevant for all teachers, because almost all students will have access to the internet either at home, at friend or relative’s house, or at the library, and all students will have access at school. This issue goes beyond the school walls, and has landed in many court rooms and state congressional debates. The debate and issue policy makers, administrators, and educators are faced with are to what extent are the schools legally responsible for preventing, intervening in, or providing consequences for cyberbullying. Creating laws concerning cyberbullying walks a fine line between creating a safe and positive learning environment for all students and between violating the first amendment rights of the students.
With the increase of cyberbullying in today’s schools, organizations, research groups, and professors have been dedicated to defining cyberbullying and offering ways to prevent, intervene, and create consequences for the offense. Stopbullying.gov defines cyberbullying as “bullying that happens through the use of technology such as computers and cell phones,” (stopbullying.gov). The government based website also informs the public that cyberbullying peaks around the end of middle school and the beginning of high school. Educators need to be especially aware of the prevalence of cyberbullying with this age group of students.
In a presentation titled “Cyberbullying 2010: What the Research Tells Us” by Amanda Lenhart, given to a conference on Youth Online Safety, research is presented behind the world of cyberbullying and what it means. Lenhart presents three components of bullying: “Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions, bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time, and bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength, (Lenhart 2010). From her research, which included a nationwide representation of parent-child (children being ages 12-17) in 2009, 2007, and 2006, we are presented with pivotal information about the pivotal role technology plays in children and teens’ lives and how this can be a gateway to cyberbullying. The research shows that 93% on teens go online and 63% of teens go online daily. The students are accessing the internet at both home and school, with 89% of teens accessing the internet from home and 77% of teens using the internet at school. Libraries, friends and relatives houses, and cell phones are also ways that teens access the internet. This shows that internet use is an integral part of teen’s everyday lives in America, and that this needs to be highly considered and addressed- especially because this internet use opens up the availability of cyberbullying.
Teens are using the internet for all different reasons, including school work, watching TV and movies, listening to music, to access the news, and as a resource to access knowledge on information they want to know. Not only are computers a vessel for cyberbullying- 75% of teens having a cell phone in America, where 54% of teens send text messages daily. Teens are exposed to so much technology today more than ever, which means that teachers need to highly consider what this means for students’ social lives and bullying.
School still remains the most common place for bullying to occur, but the drastic increase of use of technology has added onto the amount of bullying that can occur. In the presentation, Lenhart explains some of the differences between face to face bullying and cyberbullying. One difference is that the content of the bullying can be spread with great speed and breadth. Inhibitions are significantly lessened through cyberbullying because of the ease of online communication, (Lenhart 2010). This is understandable because it seems much harder to insult somebody to their face and see their reaction versus insulting someone online without the guilt of their immediate reaction (for example: crying). To go along with this, the bully may not even know how bad they are hurting the victim because they cannot see their immediate reaction. Cyberbullying uses technology as a vehicle for bullying, which makes bullying more accessible and more frequent.
Cyberbullying has some extremely detrimental effects to the victims of the bullying. There are varying degrees of severity of the effects on the victims, however, they are serious and must be taken into considerations my educators and parents. The Cyberbullying Research Center identifies many of the aforementioned negative effects it has on the victim, such as low self esteem, fear of school, academic problems, and school violence. However, it also reveals that cyberbullied youth have reported having suicidal thoughts, and in some cases, they have actually taken their own lives. This proves what an extremely serious detrimental effect cyberbullying has on the youth in America’s schools. In an article in Science Daily, research from the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association is presented, reporting that schools with higher rates of bullying (specifically in Virginia) have significantly lower test scores than schools that report lower rates of bullying. The research that the psychologists at the convention were studying came from the ongoing Virginia High School Safety Study, which compiled surveys from students and teachers from 284 high schools in Virginia. The research showed that passing rates on standardized tests were 3-6% lower in schools where there were high rates of bullying, (APA 2011). The article uses a quote from a clinical psychologist and professor of education at the University of Virginia stating that “ The research underscores the importance of treating bullying as a school wide problem rather than just an individual problem,” (APA 2011). This is important for schools to understand because it shows hat bullying needs to be addressed school wide and not by just a case by case basis. The school wide drops in test scores are a testament to the fact that it is a school wide problem.
The research shows that cyberbullying is becoming more and more prevalent in America’s schools today with the increase of technology is American society. This increase of cyberbullying causes harmful effects on students, resulting in them feeling unsafe at school thus causing academic, emotional, and psychological damage. The most difficult question remains: What are the legal responsibilities of the school? In an article written in the online Journal The Challenge, important legal considerations for school’s responses to cyberbullying are discussed. The article states, “Cyber bullying presents a challenge for schools since it can have unclear boundaries for school intervention,” (DOE 2010). These boundaries are unclear because many times with cyberbullying, the bullying takes place off school grounds with students 24/7 accessibility to the internet, but it comes back into the school with the victims fear and anxiety.
Another way in which the boundaries are unclear is the consideration of the student’s First Amendment right to the Freedom of Speech and how intervening may violate their rights as American citizens. However, this article shows the importance of knowing student’s and schools legal rights, because a standard is mentioned that applies to this complicated boundary issue that gives schools the right and legal responsibility to intervene even if the cyberbullying is occurring off grounds. The standard is called the Tinker standard, and was decided upon in the Supreme Court in 1969, which ruled that “schools must demonstrate that the behavior resulted in substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities in order to use disciplinary measures against students expressing their First Amendment right to free speech, (DOE 2010). This transcends to the world of cyberbullying, because is cyberbullying occurs off of school grounds but is interfering with the student’s learning environment at school, then the school has the right to use disciplinary action against the students, even though the students are exercising their right to the Freedom of Speech. The article described the complicated and challenging nature of balancing a student’s right to free speech against another student’s right to a safe learning environment, and that it is dependent on schools to take preventative measures and address problems early to benefit all students and reduce the harm done.
As described above, it can be very complicated to determine the school’s place in cyberbullying because of the complex relationships between violating student’s first amendment rights and responding to student’s feeling unsafe at school. In an article by Michelle Davis called “Schools tackle legal twists and turns of cyberbullying”, she further explains how complicated the legalities of the world of cyberbullying truly is. She describes almost identical cases going through the court system and arriving at completely opposite results. The article is overwhelming and distressing, because of the legal battles schools have to face in order to create safe environments for their students. However, advice for schools and districts are given for how they can reduce the complicated nature of the legal battle. The article states, “One key component of dealing with the problem is having thoughtful policies in place before incidents take place,” (Davis 2011). The article says that states are now adopting laws that specifically address cyberbullying by requiring schools and districts to adopt anti-cyberbullying policies and programs. However, the states are not providing much guidance or funding for these programs to get started.
In an article on the Cyberbullying Research Center homepage by Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin, ways to identify, prevent, and respond to cyberbullying are outlined. The article describes that one way that cyberbullying occurs so often is because parents and teachers often times do not have the technological skills to keep track of their student’s and child’s technological activities. Youth today understand online communication and internet skills much more than most adults, so this is a way for students to use technology as a vehicle for bullying without the fear of being caught.
The article points of two of the biggest obstacles educators face in trying to stop cyberbullying. The first is that cyberbullying is not seen to be as harmful as it really is. This is thought by some because of the physical realities of face to face bullying seeming to be a bigger problem to worry about in schools. The second challenge Hinduja and Patchin describe relate to who’s responsibility is it to respond to cyberbullying, and who is going to step up to work against it. The three main suspects for responsibility are the parents, teachers, and law enforcement, but each of the three provides reasons for why they are not qualified or responsible for stopping these actions. Because of this, cyberbullying continues to go on and it is not being identified and stopped by the adults around them.
Several of these same articles propose solutions how schools can confront the ever growing issue of cyberbullying within schools in America. In another article written by Michelle Davis, some of the state laws as mentioned above are discussed. Davis describes that one of the most comprehensive anti-cyberbullying laws in the Country is the Massachusetts anti-bullying law. The law specifically refers to cyberbullying, and requires that all teachers and school officials report bullying to the principal. The law also requires that staff and students go through cyberbullying prevention and intervention training in every grade. Unlike most state laws addressing cyberbullying which give unclear models of policies, the Massachusetts law requires that state agencies publish guidelines and sample policies for schools. This seems like a great starting point for schools and school districts in being able to address cyberbullying in a preventative measure and also on how to intervene. This policy incorporates details, funding, and models of policies and requirements that hold schools accountable to address these extremely important issues, unlike vague and unfunded policies in other states. Training for teachers and students in every grade makes sure that cyberbullying is continually addressed in schools so that prevention can be established.
Other school districts around the country are making efforts to stop cyberbullying by designing well thought out district policies. The University of San Diego School of Leadership and Education Sciences give a model school district policy governing electronic communication device, which has a specific section dedicated to cyberbullying. Resources and models such as these should continually be created and adapted and put to use in school districts throughout the country. The model policy, created by the University Of San Diego Center for Education Policy and Law, defines bullying and cyberbullying. Outlining clear definitions in policies is important to create consistent and clear policies. In Section C1 of the model policy, it states, “Cyberbulling through the use of school owned ECDs can begin both on and off campus. Both types have the potential to instantaneously reach a large number of students and public school employees and cause material and substantial disruptions in the public schools,” (Center for Education Policy and Law 2011). This addition stating that cyberbullying can start on or off school grounds is important to understand the schools legal rights for taking action in cases of cyberbullying.
Hinduja and Patchin from the Cyberbullying Research Center describe ways that they think schools should be preventing cyberbullying. The number one most important step they suggest for preventing cyberbullying is to educate the entire school community on safe and responsible internet use. There should be a curriculum devised to educate students, and should be heavily reinforced throughout the year in classes that regularly use technology. If school district’s harassment and bullying policies include disciplinary action taken for students that are engaging in cyberbullying, the schools must create and continually enforce consequences for violators. This includes cyberbullying that takes place on grounds and off, seeing that it disrupts a student’s learning environment at school.
The authors of the article also give their advice for how schools should respond to cyberbullying. One of the ways that was previously mentioned is set up a set of consequences that are strictly enforced as a result of cyberbullying. It is a big enough issue to bring in law enforcement if the specific case passes a certain threshold of severity. Another way in which they suggest schools respond to cyberbullying is by using creative disciplinary approaches for less severe instances of cyberbullying. They suggest for the offender to create anti-cyberbullying posters to put all around the school or to give presentations to younger audiences about the dangers of cyberbullying. I think this is a very good way to approach minor offenses so that the offender has to take a closer look into the harm they caused from cyberbullying. I think this is a good tactic for individual prevention and more efforts towards school prevention. These minor offenses can often be addressed by talking to parents and counseling the bully, but in cases where threats are being made toward another student and the victim doesn’t feel safe at school, actions such as suspensions, change in placement in the school, or even expulsion and police intervention may occur.
Even though almost all perspectives agree that bullying and cyberbullying is a bad thing, some perspectives do not believe that cyberbullying is as detrimental to students as the perspectives mentioned above. One perspective against state wide or district wide reform policies is that cyberbullying is virtually harmless. It is just immature actions of junior high students and should not be taken so seriously. Another perspective against reform policies is that educators and administrators should be paying more attention to the bullying that goes on face to face in school rather than student’s business outside school. Some people may believe that bullying is just a part of life, and that students need to “toughen up” and stand up for themselves when being bullied.
I believe that cyberbullying is a major problem in American schools today, and that it is not innocent acts of adolescent immaturity. It may feel like that to the offender, but the victim is left with emotional damage. I agree with several of the article’s proposed solutions on how the nation, schools, educators, and parents need to intervene with cyberbullying. As a teacher, it may not be possible for me to take the issue to the district, state, or national level fighting for policy changes. However, I believe that there need to be detailed policies following Massachusetts’ model or the model designed by the University of San Diego. I think it’s extremely important that the policies stress the importance of teacher training, funding, definitions, and the school’s legal rights to intervene (on or of school grounds). There also needs to be more research done in the field of cyberbullying so that policy makers, administrators, educators, and parents can have national data about cyberbullying, and then learn how to approach it.
Programs should be designed throughout schools and districts to educate parents on ways to tell if their child is being cyberbullied or is cyberbullying. As an educator, it will be my goal to create a safe and comfortable learning environment for my students, so that if they start to feel unsafe due to cyberbullying, they can bring the issues to me. This trust may be difficult to build at first, but my top priority as a teacher will be to create a safe learning environment for all students. As a teacher, I will also address the risks of cyberbullying, and what we can do as a class or as a school to prevent cyberbullying. It could be a social action project in the classroom or in the school to research the damaging effects of cyberbullying, and then create a campaign against it. Overall, there need to be state policies specifically targeting cyberbullying, but in the meantime, educators need to be highly aware of the detrimental effects of cyberbullying and how to address it and prevent it in schools.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association (2011, August 8). Bullying may contribute to lower test
scores. ScienceDaily.
Davis, M. (2011). Schools tackle legal twists and turns of cyberbullying. Education Week 4:2,
28-31.
Davis, M. (2011). State cyberbullying laws range from guidance to mandate. Education Week
4:2, 32-33.
Hinduja and Patchin, Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to
Cyberbullying, Sage Publications, 2009.
Lenhart, A. (2010). Cyberbullying 2010: What the Research Tells Us. Pew Internet and
American Life Project.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Lawmakers help educators take aim at cyberbullying.
The Challenge 16:1
The increase in the knowledge of and use of technology has been extremely beneficial to the world; however, with such life altering inventions come some downfalls as well. The use of the internet is not only an avenue for limitless research and resources, but is a way for bullying to extend past the school yard into student’s screens at school and at home. Cyberbullying via the internet and cell phones has become increasingly problematic and detrimental to the victims. Before widespread use of the internet and cell phones, bullying was confined to face to face interactions in the community or in the school yard. However, with the increased accessibility to the internet for children, bullying has crossed into cyberspace. This issue is particularly relevant for all teachers, because almost all students will have access to the internet either at home, at friend or relative’s house, or at the library, and all students will have access at school. This issue goes beyond the school walls, and has landed in many court rooms and state congressional debates. The debate and issue policy makers, administrators, and educators are faced with are to what extent are the schools legally responsible for preventing, intervening in, or providing consequences for cyberbullying. Creating laws concerning cyberbullying walks a fine line between creating a safe and positive learning environment for all students and between violating the first amendment rights of the students.
With the increase of cyberbullying in today’s schools, organizations, research groups, and professors have been dedicated to defining cyberbullying and offering ways to prevent, intervene, and create consequences for the offense. Stopbullying.gov defines cyberbullying as “bullying that happens through the use of technology such as computers and cell phones,” (stopbullying.gov). The government based website also informs the public that cyberbullying peaks around the end of middle school and the beginning of high school. Educators need to be especially aware of the prevalence of cyberbullying with this age group of students.
In a presentation titled “Cyberbullying 2010: What the Research Tells Us” by Amanda Lenhart, given to a conference on Youth Online Safety, research is presented behind the world of cyberbullying and what it means. Lenhart presents three components of bullying: “Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions, bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time, and bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength, (Lenhart 2010). From her research, which included a nationwide representation of parent-child (children being ages 12-17) in 2009, 2007, and 2006, we are presented with pivotal information about the pivotal role technology plays in children and teens’ lives and how this can be a gateway to cyberbullying. The research shows that 93% on teens go online and 63% of teens go online daily. The students are accessing the internet at both home and school, with 89% of teens accessing the internet from home and 77% of teens using the internet at school. Libraries, friends and relatives houses, and cell phones are also ways that teens access the internet. This shows that internet use is an integral part of teen’s everyday lives in America, and that this needs to be highly considered and addressed- especially because this internet use opens up the availability of cyberbullying.
Teens are using the internet for all different reasons, including school work, watching TV and movies, listening to music, to access the news, and as a resource to access knowledge on information they want to know. Not only are computers a vessel for cyberbullying- 75% of teens having a cell phone in America, where 54% of teens send text messages daily. Teens are exposed to so much technology today more than ever, which means that teachers need to highly consider what this means for students’ social lives and bullying.
School still remains the most common place for bullying to occur, but the drastic increase of use of technology has added onto the amount of bullying that can occur. In the presentation, Lenhart explains some of the differences between face to face bullying and cyberbullying. One difference is that the content of the bullying can be spread with great speed and breadth. Inhibitions are significantly lessened through cyberbullying because of the ease of online communication, (Lenhart 2010). This is understandable because it seems much harder to insult somebody to their face and see their reaction versus insulting someone online without the guilt of their immediate reaction (for example: crying). To go along with this, the bully may not even know how bad they are hurting the victim because they cannot see their immediate reaction. Cyberbullying uses technology as a vehicle for bullying, which makes bullying more accessible and more frequent.
Cyberbullying has some extremely detrimental effects to the victims of the bullying. There are varying degrees of severity of the effects on the victims, however, they are serious and must be taken into considerations my educators and parents. The Cyberbullying Research Center identifies many of the aforementioned negative effects it has on the victim, such as low self esteem, fear of school, academic problems, and school violence. However, it also reveals that cyberbullied youth have reported having suicidal thoughts, and in some cases, they have actually taken their own lives. This proves what an extremely serious detrimental effect cyberbullying has on the youth in America’s schools. In an article in Science Daily, research from the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association is presented, reporting that schools with higher rates of bullying (specifically in Virginia) have significantly lower test scores than schools that report lower rates of bullying. The research that the psychologists at the convention were studying came from the ongoing Virginia High School Safety Study, which compiled surveys from students and teachers from 284 high schools in Virginia. The research showed that passing rates on standardized tests were 3-6% lower in schools where there were high rates of bullying, (APA 2011). The article uses a quote from a clinical psychologist and professor of education at the University of Virginia stating that “ The research underscores the importance of treating bullying as a school wide problem rather than just an individual problem,” (APA 2011). This is important for schools to understand because it shows hat bullying needs to be addressed school wide and not by just a case by case basis. The school wide drops in test scores are a testament to the fact that it is a school wide problem.
The research shows that cyberbullying is becoming more and more prevalent in America’s schools today with the increase of technology is American society. This increase of cyberbullying causes harmful effects on students, resulting in them feeling unsafe at school thus causing academic, emotional, and psychological damage. The most difficult question remains: What are the legal responsibilities of the school? In an article written in the online Journal The Challenge, important legal considerations for school’s responses to cyberbullying are discussed. The article states, “Cyber bullying presents a challenge for schools since it can have unclear boundaries for school intervention,” (DOE 2010). These boundaries are unclear because many times with cyberbullying, the bullying takes place off school grounds with students 24/7 accessibility to the internet, but it comes back into the school with the victims fear and anxiety.
Another way in which the boundaries are unclear is the consideration of the student’s First Amendment right to the Freedom of Speech and how intervening may violate their rights as American citizens. However, this article shows the importance of knowing student’s and schools legal rights, because a standard is mentioned that applies to this complicated boundary issue that gives schools the right and legal responsibility to intervene even if the cyberbullying is occurring off grounds. The standard is called the Tinker standard, and was decided upon in the Supreme Court in 1969, which ruled that “schools must demonstrate that the behavior resulted in substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities in order to use disciplinary measures against students expressing their First Amendment right to free speech, (DOE 2010). This transcends to the world of cyberbullying, because is cyberbullying occurs off of school grounds but is interfering with the student’s learning environment at school, then the school has the right to use disciplinary action against the students, even though the students are exercising their right to the Freedom of Speech. The article described the complicated and challenging nature of balancing a student’s right to free speech against another student’s right to a safe learning environment, and that it is dependent on schools to take preventative measures and address problems early to benefit all students and reduce the harm done.
As described above, it can be very complicated to determine the school’s place in cyberbullying because of the complex relationships between violating student’s first amendment rights and responding to student’s feeling unsafe at school. In an article by Michelle Davis called “Schools tackle legal twists and turns of cyberbullying”, she further explains how complicated the legalities of the world of cyberbullying truly is. She describes almost identical cases going through the court system and arriving at completely opposite results. The article is overwhelming and distressing, because of the legal battles schools have to face in order to create safe environments for their students. However, advice for schools and districts are given for how they can reduce the complicated nature of the legal battle. The article states, “One key component of dealing with the problem is having thoughtful policies in place before incidents take place,” (Davis 2011). The article says that states are now adopting laws that specifically address cyberbullying by requiring schools and districts to adopt anti-cyberbullying policies and programs. However, the states are not providing much guidance or funding for these programs to get started.
In an article on the Cyberbullying Research Center homepage by Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin, ways to identify, prevent, and respond to cyberbullying are outlined. The article describes that one way that cyberbullying occurs so often is because parents and teachers often times do not have the technological skills to keep track of their student’s and child’s technological activities. Youth today understand online communication and internet skills much more than most adults, so this is a way for students to use technology as a vehicle for bullying without the fear of being caught.
The article points of two of the biggest obstacles educators face in trying to stop cyberbullying. The first is that cyberbullying is not seen to be as harmful as it really is. This is thought by some because of the physical realities of face to face bullying seeming to be a bigger problem to worry about in schools. The second challenge Hinduja and Patchin describe relate to who’s responsibility is it to respond to cyberbullying, and who is going to step up to work against it. The three main suspects for responsibility are the parents, teachers, and law enforcement, but each of the three provides reasons for why they are not qualified or responsible for stopping these actions. Because of this, cyberbullying continues to go on and it is not being identified and stopped by the adults around them.
Several of these same articles propose solutions how schools can confront the ever growing issue of cyberbullying within schools in America. In another article written by Michelle Davis, some of the state laws as mentioned above are discussed. Davis describes that one of the most comprehensive anti-cyberbullying laws in the Country is the Massachusetts anti-bullying law. The law specifically refers to cyberbullying, and requires that all teachers and school officials report bullying to the principal. The law also requires that staff and students go through cyberbullying prevention and intervention training in every grade. Unlike most state laws addressing cyberbullying which give unclear models of policies, the Massachusetts law requires that state agencies publish guidelines and sample policies for schools. This seems like a great starting point for schools and school districts in being able to address cyberbullying in a preventative measure and also on how to intervene. This policy incorporates details, funding, and models of policies and requirements that hold schools accountable to address these extremely important issues, unlike vague and unfunded policies in other states. Training for teachers and students in every grade makes sure that cyberbullying is continually addressed in schools so that prevention can be established.
Other school districts around the country are making efforts to stop cyberbullying by designing well thought out district policies. The University of San Diego School of Leadership and Education Sciences give a model school district policy governing electronic communication device, which has a specific section dedicated to cyberbullying. Resources and models such as these should continually be created and adapted and put to use in school districts throughout the country. The model policy, created by the University Of San Diego Center for Education Policy and Law, defines bullying and cyberbullying. Outlining clear definitions in policies is important to create consistent and clear policies. In Section C1 of the model policy, it states, “Cyberbulling through the use of school owned ECDs can begin both on and off campus. Both types have the potential to instantaneously reach a large number of students and public school employees and cause material and substantial disruptions in the public schools,” (Center for Education Policy and Law 2011). This addition stating that cyberbullying can start on or off school grounds is important to understand the schools legal rights for taking action in cases of cyberbullying.
Hinduja and Patchin from the Cyberbullying Research Center describe ways that they think schools should be preventing cyberbullying. The number one most important step they suggest for preventing cyberbullying is to educate the entire school community on safe and responsible internet use. There should be a curriculum devised to educate students, and should be heavily reinforced throughout the year in classes that regularly use technology. If school district’s harassment and bullying policies include disciplinary action taken for students that are engaging in cyberbullying, the schools must create and continually enforce consequences for violators. This includes cyberbullying that takes place on grounds and off, seeing that it disrupts a student’s learning environment at school.
The authors of the article also give their advice for how schools should respond to cyberbullying. One of the ways that was previously mentioned is set up a set of consequences that are strictly enforced as a result of cyberbullying. It is a big enough issue to bring in law enforcement if the specific case passes a certain threshold of severity. Another way in which they suggest schools respond to cyberbullying is by using creative disciplinary approaches for less severe instances of cyberbullying. They suggest for the offender to create anti-cyberbullying posters to put all around the school or to give presentations to younger audiences about the dangers of cyberbullying. I think this is a very good way to approach minor offenses so that the offender has to take a closer look into the harm they caused from cyberbullying. I think this is a good tactic for individual prevention and more efforts towards school prevention. These minor offenses can often be addressed by talking to parents and counseling the bully, but in cases where threats are being made toward another student and the victim doesn’t feel safe at school, actions such as suspensions, change in placement in the school, or even expulsion and police intervention may occur.
Even though almost all perspectives agree that bullying and cyberbullying is a bad thing, some perspectives do not believe that cyberbullying is as detrimental to students as the perspectives mentioned above. One perspective against state wide or district wide reform policies is that cyberbullying is virtually harmless. It is just immature actions of junior high students and should not be taken so seriously. Another perspective against reform policies is that educators and administrators should be paying more attention to the bullying that goes on face to face in school rather than student’s business outside school. Some people may believe that bullying is just a part of life, and that students need to “toughen up” and stand up for themselves when being bullied.
I believe that cyberbullying is a major problem in American schools today, and that it is not innocent acts of adolescent immaturity. It may feel like that to the offender, but the victim is left with emotional damage. I agree with several of the article’s proposed solutions on how the nation, schools, educators, and parents need to intervene with cyberbullying. As a teacher, it may not be possible for me to take the issue to the district, state, or national level fighting for policy changes. However, I believe that there need to be detailed policies following Massachusetts’ model or the model designed by the University of San Diego. I think it’s extremely important that the policies stress the importance of teacher training, funding, definitions, and the school’s legal rights to intervene (on or of school grounds). There also needs to be more research done in the field of cyberbullying so that policy makers, administrators, educators, and parents can have national data about cyberbullying, and then learn how to approach it.
Programs should be designed throughout schools and districts to educate parents on ways to tell if their child is being cyberbullied or is cyberbullying. As an educator, it will be my goal to create a safe and comfortable learning environment for my students, so that if they start to feel unsafe due to cyberbullying, they can bring the issues to me. This trust may be difficult to build at first, but my top priority as a teacher will be to create a safe learning environment for all students. As a teacher, I will also address the risks of cyberbullying, and what we can do as a class or as a school to prevent cyberbullying. It could be a social action project in the classroom or in the school to research the damaging effects of cyberbullying, and then create a campaign against it. Overall, there need to be state policies specifically targeting cyberbullying, but in the meantime, educators need to be highly aware of the detrimental effects of cyberbullying and how to address it and prevent it in schools.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association (2011, August 8). Bullying may contribute to lower test
scores. ScienceDaily.
Davis, M. (2011). Schools tackle legal twists and turns of cyberbullying. Education Week 4:2,
28-31.
Davis, M. (2011). State cyberbullying laws range from guidance to mandate. Education Week
4:2, 32-33.
Hinduja and Patchin, Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to
Cyberbullying, Sage Publications, 2009.
Lenhart, A. (2010). Cyberbullying 2010: What the Research Tells Us. Pew Internet and
American Life Project.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Lawmakers help educators take aim at cyberbullying.
The Challenge 16:1