Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Teachers College Educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“dangerous or violent behavior.” It is measured on a scale of Level 4 out of 5 levels of infractions, higher levels denoting worse behavior. This language “[e]ngaging in intimidating and bullying behavior, including cyber-bullying” appears to equate actual/physical bullying with virtual/cyberbullying. Students spend more time online, equivalency appears prudent. Protecting staff is also important given the ease with which questionable virtual behavior can become public and have real-world lasting effects. Disciplinary responses are wide: parent conference, in-school disciplinary actions, removal from the classroom by teacher, suspensions by principals and superintendents as well as expulsion (Discipline Code, 2010, p. 22). This diverse list implicitly acknowledges the variety of cyberbullying, allowing tailoring of punishment. New York State The Dignity for All Students Act (2009) is a similarly well-balanced piece of legislation, protecting multiple stakeholders. Section 12, subsection 1 states “[n]o student shall be subjected to harassment by employees or students on school property or at a school function; nor shall any student be subjected to discrimination based on a person’s actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or sex by school employees or students on school property or at a school function” (Dignity for All Students Act, 2009). Due to this general definition of “bullying,” “cyberbullying,” a specific subset of bullying behavior is presumably covered. Any student subjected to these enumerated types of discrimination through electronic means would be afforded similar protection. Unfortunately, the term “cyberbullying” is not included in this Act. This could prove problematic in litigation since the aggrieved would presumably have to prove cyberbullying is a form of bullying and benefit from its protection. Common Law Common law has been inconsistent in its application of the First Amendment to off-campus speech regarding social networking sites, at least at the Federal Court of Appeals. Conflicting decisions in Layshock (2011) and Blue Mountain (2011) led the Third Circuit to vacate these differing opinions. Upon reconsideration they held that the Fraser (1978) standard only applied to on-campus speech and that the Tinker (1969) standard applied to off-campus speech (Sneed et al., 2011) - regulating off-campus speech can only occur if there is a reasonable likelihood that the speech in question will have a material and substantial disruption at the school in question (Sneed et al., 2011). Cases outside the Third Circuit will clarify the disruption necessary to limit off-campus speech. Non-Legal Considerations Limit of Locally-Created Acceptable Use Policies Given my previous experiences as a teacher in Canada and the United Kingdom as well as a researcher in New York schools, I appreciate educator demands in the public system. Given the time and care necessary to draft legally-sound Acceptable Use Policies (AUP), I believe that writing these on anything smaller than a school-district scale by licensed lawyers invites the potential for needless litigation in terms of the AUP being either too stifling in prohibiting or loose in allowing behavior. However, a town hall-type discussion of the language of the AUP, the legal-political-social-educational-technological context that necessitated its creation, and the need for administrators, teachers, parents and students to be vigilant in its application, is prudent. The Virtual v. The Real Social media plays an increasing role in communications. Educators must help students appreciate the costs of using networked communication insensitively. Cognitive development involves an understanding of the differentiation between the physical/real versus the abstract/virtual. Too many students have insufficient understanding of these differences, especially in terms of the real-world costs of imprudent virtual behavior. Educators must be involved in this important, but sensitive, area. 65
References Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). New York City Department of Education. (2010, September). Citywide Standards of Intervention and Discipline Measures (The Discipline Code and Bill of Student Rights and Responsibilities, K-12). Effective September 2010. Joel I. Klein, Chancellor. Retrieved from http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document- 101/Discipline%20Code%20(English).pdf J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, No. 08-4138 (3 rd Cir. June 13, 2011). Layshock v. Hermitage School District, No. 07-4465 (3 rd Cir. June 13, 2011). Sneed, M., Borkowski, J.W. & Lott, C. (2011, July 1). Federal Court of Appeals issues ruling clarifying the application of the First Amendment to off-campus speech on social networking sites. Memorandum to School District Clients and Friends. State of New York. (2009, February 10). Dignity for All Students Act. Senate Bill - S 1987B. Introduced by Sens. Duane, Adams, Breslin, Dilan, Foley, Hassell-Thompson, C. Johnson, Krueger, Little, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Perkins, Savino, Schneiderman, Serrano, Squadron, Thompson and Valesky. Retrieved from http://www.bullypolice.org/ny_law.html Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 66
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Te
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Math Strategies i
Page 5 and 6:
Harnessing the Power of Emotionally
Page 7 and 8:
Think Facts introduces four charact
Page 9 and 10:
Guidelines for an Online Networking
Page 11 and 12:
Mode S = Synchronous A=Asynchronous
Page 13 and 14:
Investigating Potential Factors to
Page 15 and 16:
Investigating the Effects of Choice
Page 17 and 18:
Videogames in Institutional Practic
Page 19 and 20: Youth in the Digital Age: Digital M
Page 21 and 22: Augmenting The Arrival: Students’
Page 23 and 24: Connected to Word Problems: Improvi
Page 25 and 26: ased approach. Future research may
Page 27 and 28: MOOCs, Open Education, and Implicat
Page 29 and 30: Promoting Healthy Eating Habits Thr
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2: Monster Appetite in actio
Page 33 and 34: This year, the first participant gr
Page 35 and 36: Figure 2: The Aesthetigraph represe
Page 37 and 38: Digital Modeling Artifacts as Geome
Page 39 and 40: Using Weblogs to Increase Language
Page 41 and 42: Total 3 Advanced Performance Level
Page 43 and 44: “Media Literacy in Action: Using
Page 45 and 46: Learning Science Systems with Graph
Page 47 and 48: Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (200
Page 49 and 50: Applying Physics to the Real World:
Page 51 and 52: Credibility of Culturally Situated
Page 53 and 54: notion that similarity with the use
Page 55 and 56: Duncan, H., Tan, J. (2012). A Visua
Page 57 and 58: Online Learning Environments in Hig
Page 59 and 60: Exploration of concepts to facilita
Page 61 and 62: Exploring the Intersection of Forma
Page 63 and 64: Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Desi
Page 65 and 66: information and the world according
Page 67 and 68: #phdchat: a community of practice o
Page 69: A Difficult Balance: Regulating Cyb
Page 73 and 74: that children’s photographs were
Page 75 and 76: A variety of data sources were coll
Page 77 and 78: control and mastery increased in vi
Page 79 and 80: Design of computer assisted tools f
Page 81 and 82: Figure 2: Interactive functions of
Page 83 and 84: User Experiences with Avatar Custom
Page 85 and 86: Design Patterns for Promoting Self-
Page 87 and 88: Cooperative Inquiry in Designing Te
Page 89 and 90: Implications Our work with CI exten
Page 91 and 92: References Allen, E., & Seaman, J.
show all

Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Teachers College Educational ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?