1

Overview
In our preparation, it was clear that we were not arguing whether or not cyberbullying was a
problem. So we focused on finding a fair and thorough definition of cyberbullying and policy
regarding punishment.

In our Bryner and Lanning text, they outline the 1998 standards: Information Power: Building
Partnerships for Learning.
 One of the “Social Responsibility” standards is as follows:
o “The student who contributes positively to the learning community and to society is
information literate and practices ethical behavior in regard to information and
information technology”
 We feel this standard highlights the ideal goal of cyberbullying policies: to correct any
cyberbullying issues and redirect students towards their social responsibilities in regard to
information and information technology.

Discussion
Questions for Baltimore City
1. What is Baltimore City’s definition of cyberbullying?
a. The use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate,
repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm
others.
2. How does your school minimize the use of personal phones, apps, and recreational
technology for cyberbullying?
a. Students are not allowed to use personal devices in a school day. First time it is
taken by the teacher. Second time it is returned to the office and picked up by a
parent. Third time it is to be taken to North Ave, our headquarters. If students are
caught using technology for cyberbullying there is a four level progression ending
in long-term suspension or expulsion.
3. What is Policy EGD?
a. In Baltimore City, via Board Docs, policy EGD stands for Internet Safety /
Acceptable Use of Technology Policy
4. Your summary states it must be deliberate? Are all forms of cyberbullying deliberate, or
can there be accidental harm done?
a. Any time anyone uses technology to harm another person it is deliberate. There
has to be probable cause for cyberbullying to take place. One cannot accidentally
use technology to harm another person.

Questions for AACPS

1. Student handbook seems to focus on Social Responsibility: “The Student who contributes
positively to the learning community and to society is information literate and practices
ethical behavior in regard to information and information technology” But what is
AACPS’s set definition of cyberbullying?
a. AACPS defines cyberbullying as: The use of information and communication
technologies — email, mobile devices, text messages, instant messaging,
defamatory personal websites, personal polling sites, or a combination of these —
 2

to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group

with the intention of physically or psychologically intimidating others (From
AACPS Student Handbook).
b. The key point here is that communication technologies are used deliberately,
repeatedly and/or with hostility to intentionally intimidate another.
2. This policy states students shall “communicate with others using appropriate language in
a courteous and respectful manner,” but Waggoner writes the following: “Kids are going
to be kids and we are unlikely to change this fact” (Pg. 3 of my notes). Should we punish
any language that’s not explicitly courteous?
a. If the student is using school based tech or tools. Consequences are supported if
the student violates the acceptable use policy, as determined by school personnel,
teachers or administrators. The acceptable use policy for students states that,
'Students shall not: create, access or distribute offensive, obscene, bullying, or
inflammatory materials on AACPS technology-related resources or tools (AACPS
Student Handbook).'
3. Does the AACPS have policies or procedures for punishing computer misuse?
There are different levels, but cyberbullying isn’t leveled.
a. Students will faces consequences at levels 3, 4 or 5 for violations deemed to be
'cyberbullying,' per the student handbook. All of these levels require the writing of
a behavioral referral. Level 3 consequences can include 1-3 days suspension.
Level 4 consequences can include 1-3 days suspension, and 4-10 days suspension.
Level 5 consequences can include 4-10 days suspension and 10+ days suspension
(AACPS Student Handbook).

Questions for Both

1. Rigby defined bullying as “the systematic abuse of power in interpersonal relationships
(2008, p. 22). How does your school work to limit individual student power?
a. Phones are to be collected every morning or turned in at the office by the student
or parent. If phones are seen out they are to be taken from the student and turned
into the office. When it happens a second time the parent is called to pick up the
device.
b. AACPS limits student power only when the Code of Conduct or Acceptable Use
Policies are in violation. Students should not be using technology to bully or
intimidate others.
2. Do you think that more preemptive action like Baltimore County’s phone policy would
help reduce bullying?
a. Aside: Do you want me to take a more personal standpoint judging the
appropriateness of the Student Code of Conduct or Acceptable Use Policy?
3. Devine and Cohen claim that bullying occurs “on school grounds or on the way to or
from school.” Does your district specify whether or not cyberbullying relies on location?
Why or why not should it be focused on “school time?”
a. The AACPS Handbook focuses more on what modes of communication are
utilized when the cyberbullying occurs. Specifically, the use of AACPS technology
or web resources for the purposeful intimidation of another. The language is not
as specific when it comes to the time. This could allow for the pursuit of
 3

cyberbullying offenses outside of school hours, when most cyberbullying would

actually be occurring.
b. Cyber bullying can be done outside of school and can only be addressed if
students let adults know about the situation. They do not specify but state that
students should report any type of cyberbullying and to save the evidence for
future use. The City creates a safe environment in using technology in school by
blocking websites that have inappropriate material.
4. How are students/faculty similarly punished? Punished differently?
a. Teachers are asked to model as well as possible but there can be punishments for
teachers. Their accounts can be suspended or terminated. Infractions that result
in irreplaceable loss of data or severe damage to a technology resource and are
classified as a misdemeanor or felony. This includes but is not limited to
copyright violations and virus introduction into a computer or network. Penalties
may include but not be limited to permanent suspension from direct technology
resource access, termination of employment and possible criminal charges. Any
offense that violates local, state or federal laws may result in any and all of the
above penalties and may, in addition, lead to the levy of fines and / or arrest,
litigation, and imprisonment. Students can face a suspension if the behavior is
repeated and not improving. If it continues more for the students can face being
expelled.
b. AACPS code is far more stringent on Faculty. According to the Faculty
Handbook, employees have an obligation to report any misuse, by students or
colleagues to their superiors. This language is very broad and nebulous and
completely open to interpretation. Faculty also should not be using social media
without permission on AACPS technology. Violations can lead to administrative
reprimands and even termination. As reviewed above, student policy violations
will most likely result in a suspension, far less severe than employment
termination.
 4

Revised Definition and Policy

Our group has combined these policies and our research to define cyberbullying as the following:

The use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and
hostile behavior by an individual or group to harm others.

1. Kept broad: “information and communication technologies”

a. Although AACPS Handbook states different technologies, we wanted to ensure
this stayed applicable through technological advances.
2. Left our “intended”
a. While many argue it is always intended, since it is deliberate, repeated, and
hostile, we wanted to highlight “to harm” rather than “to intend harm.”
b. Focus on the way it impacted others, rather than what they were trying to do
3. “Harm” rather than “intimidating”
a. A little more broad which ensures students will seek help. Want to keep it a
simple phrase.
4. Left out “Anonymous” (416)
a. One source stated it had to be anonymous, but we feel that does not cover the
concept.

We agree with the policies stated above, and wanted to clarify a few details of cyberbullying
policy. We have do so by looking at court cases in regards to cyberbullying.
1. School Hours and Cyberbullying:
b. Both policies left open the opportunity to pursue Cyberbullying off school
grounds as it correlates to school atmosphere and a students’ education.
c. Since the case Layshock v. Hemmings (2011), most courts agree that school has
authority to punish student speech off campus as long as there’s a correlation
between student speech and occurrences at school.
d. Therefore, Cyberbullying, even off school grounds, should be pursued by the
school. So we suggest stronger language about cyberbullying: stating it can
occur anywhere and anytime. We did not add this into our definition because
we feel that it is a policy concern rather than a definition concern.
2. Punishment of Cyberbullying
a. Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969 was a Supreme Court decision which stated that
punishment of student speech must have a connection with the substantial
disruption of the education process.
b. We believe this is applicable to cyberbullying policies as well. A student who
uses technology for cyberbullying should not be able to use school technology.
c. The difficulty in regards to the case arises with personal technology. Although
one might argue that a student who uses a personal device for cyberbullying
should only lose personal device access within school hours, we believe that
revoking school technology access does have connection with the substantial
disruption of the education process. The punishment is fair regarding the crime.
 5

Q&A
What Librarians Can Do?
To wrap up our conversation and tie it back into our class, we want to discuss what School
Library Media Specialists can do to help.
1. Beginning the year with Cyberbullying workshops or classes.
a. Teaching students to identify, understand, and report cyberbullying will ensure
students are prepared for possible occurrences.
b. Also, stressing expectations and highlighting positive, online social interaction
and appropriate technology uses can divert possible cyberbullying.

2. If expectations are not being respected, unified discipline can be a fruitful response.
Librarians, administrators, and teachers should create a uniform approach to managing
technology behavior. This ensures unified expectations, rules, and correction procedures.
Some correction procedures can occur in various levels so that punishments increase in
varying offenses. .
a. The leveled correction procedures can also ensure that even basic misuses of
school computers (like chat rooms during instruction or unapproved websites) are
addressed.
 6

References

Agosto, Denise E., Forte, Andrea, & Magee, Rachel (2012). Cyberbullying and teens: What YA

librarians can do to help. Young Adult Library Services 10(2), 38-43. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=cffb3928-0eda-4efc-a0d1-

294e17950cda%40sessionmgr103&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2N

vcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=73183894&db=tfh

Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners (2015). Code of conduct: 2015-2016. Baltimore

City County Public Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cms/lib/MD01001351/Centricity/Domain/8832/201

5-16_PDFs/2015-16_CodeOfConduct-English.pdf

Employee Handbook. Anne Arundel County Public Schools, Apr. 2016,

www.aacps.org/humanresources/handbook.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct. 2016.

Lanning, Scott, & Bryner, John (2010). Essential reference services for today’s school media

specialists (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Snowman, Jack, & McCown, Rick (2015). Psychology applied to teaching (14th ed.). Stamford,

CT: Cengage Learning.

Student Handbook. Anne Arundel County Public Schools, Jul. 2016,

www.aacps.org/html/studt/studenthandbook.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct. 2016.

Waggoner, Charles R. (2016). Cyber bullying: The public school response. Insights to a

Changing World Journal 2016 (1), 10-20. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=cffb3928-0eda-4efc-a0d1-

294e17950cda%40sessionmgr103&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2N

vcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=117152589&db=a9h