"Ouch That Hurt!": Anti-Bullying Strategies for Parents and Educators
1.
2.
3. Grab Your Notecard!
In the next 90 seconds, identify three
things that you would like to understand
and/or take away from this presentation.
Now, in the next 90 seconds, turn to
someone you do not know and share your
choices. From those mutually agree upon
only one choice.
Read me your agreed-upon choice.
4.
5. A long time ago in a distant galaxy ……I began to program with IBM cards
on very big computers that didn’t have the power of your cell phone.
12. "Reality" shows, featuring adults arguing,
shouting and flinging insults and threats at
each other, are nothing more than
sanctioned social bullying.
13.
14. “The data suggests that school-based efforts
to reduce cyberbullying may be more effective
if they focus on youth who already experience
symptoms of depression.”
15.
16. A social phenomenon in which the presence of other people reduces helping behavior
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. Despite the positive results shown by Olweus (1991) and the widespread use of such
programs, recent research questions their effectiveness. J. D. Smith et al. (2004)
quantitatively synthesized the results of 14 evaluation studies of whole-school
antibullying programs. Outcomes were mostly negligible (i.e., effect size r≤.09) or
negative. Only one study yielded an outcome that was categorized as
medium (i.e., the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program),and none was categorized as
large.
36. The authors found that the intervention studies produced meaningful and
clinically important positive effects for about one-third of the variables. The
majority of outcomes evidenced no meaningful change, positive or negative.
The authors conclude that school-bullying interventions may produce modest
positive outcomes, that they are more likely to influence knowledge, attitudes,
and self-perceptions rather than actual bullying behaviors; and that the majority
of outcome variables in intervention studies are not meaningfully impacted.
44. § 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,
the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the
other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place
or places;
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose;
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;
(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;
(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient
hours; or
(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than
specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).
45. According to 204 Pa. Code § 303.2, penalties for criminal offenses depend on a
combination of the gravity score of the offense, the prior record of the offender,
whether a deadly weapon was used and any other aggravating or enhancing
factors.
Suggested maximum sentencing penalties for the following offenses are:
Online Harassment is a misdemeanor of the third degree, and can incur up to
one year in jail and/or fines not exceeding $2,500.
A first violation for online stalking is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and can
include imprisonment for not more than five years and/or fines not in excess of
$10,000.
Unlawful Use of Computers and E-mail, Possession of Online Child Pornography,
Computer Trespass and Computer Theft are felonies of the third degree. These
offenses are punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and/or fines not
exceeding $15,000.
Editor's Notes
Have you ever been a bully, victim or bully/victim at school or at work? Do you have a family member that has been bullied? Cyber bullied? Are you familiar with the Olweus Anti bullying program? Do you have it implemented in your school? Has it worked …to what degree?
“ The APPC research suggests that rates of victimization from cyberbullying have doubled in the past several years compared to other earlier studies” said Dr. Madelyn Gould of Columbia University who reviewed the findings. “Greater efforts will be needed to educate youth about the hazards of this form of bullying and to help young people cope with such abuses”
the correlation directions are all positive, which suggests that offenders tend to view these strategies as ineffective compared to nonoffenders. Offenders often have low school commitment (Patchin, 2006) and may not care if they are not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities as they may not want to participate in these activities in the first place. Hence, strategy 9, revoking the privilege to participate in extracurricular activities would not be an effective strategy to deter offenders from cyber bullying. Offenders may not perceive cyber bullying to be wrong and would not be embarrassed to give a presentation about it making strategy 10 ineffective. They may not believe that strategy 7, netiquette classes, are necessary and may perceive taking the classes as being told what to do online (Moessner, 2007). Hence, they may view strategy 7 as ineffective because it is a strategy in which adults at school tell them what to do online.
Justin Layshock of western Pennsylvania was suspended after he created a MySpace parody in 2005 that said his principal smoked marijuana and hid beer behind his desk. The suspension was overturned by a federal judge, who found that school officials failed to show the student's profile disrupted school operations. The judge's decision was later upheld by an appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. To illustrate the point, here in Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit at one point had two cases with almost identical facts. In each case the student made a MySpace page about a school administrator alleging various false and unsavory facts. After the principal found out, he punished the student and the families sued. The two lower courts split, one saying it was ok for the school to punish and the other said it was not. The cases were appealed to the Circuit Court. There, at first, individual panels each upheld the lower courts' differing rulings. Realizing that was a problem, the court withdrew those rulings and issued new ones that both said those schools could not punish for this off-campus behavior in these particular circumstances. Unfortunately, those Third Circuit decisions came to their single conclusion using different bases. In fact, when you factor in the concurrences, there are many differing ways of reaching that end. As a result, the rule here in the Third Circuit is not really clear. Hooray for students' free speech rights, right? Well .... In Pennsylvania, the School Code includes a section on bullying (§1303.1-A), which includes what we would normally consider cyber-bullying. It gives schools jurisdiction over bullying activity taking place outside the school setting so long as there is an impact either on the school environment or on a student's education. This is good, right? Well, this is essentially the Tinker standard that the Third Circuit could not figure out if it wanted to follow. Maybe because it involves student-on-student misbehavior it will be upheld in any future challenge. This brings us to the Fourth Circuit. That case, also turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court, did involve a student harassing another student online. And there, the court ruled that it is ok to discipline the bullying student, finding that some sort of disruption was foreseeable. I would hope that Pennsylvania schools do not ignore cyber bullying based upon the Third Circuit cases and that they follow the model of the Fourth. Until there is a clearer rule from the various courts, the school administrators should examine those situations and decide if they need to get involved to protect the students attending their schools.
Poll: From your experience have bullying episo... Press F5 or use the tool bar to enter presentation mode in order to see the poll. http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/LTQyMjM1OTAzMQ If you like, you can use this slide as a template for your own voting slides. You might use a slide like this if you feel your audience would benefit from the picture showing a text message on a phone. In an emergency during your presentation, if the poll isn't showing, navigate to this link in your web browser:
