Endi starter Packet

And, that time is crucial – Tiller furthers:

Based on her assertion that “no clear case law exists,” Ms. Bough argued that probable cause should apply in schools much of the time.178 In support of this argument, she said that because resource officers work full-time in schools, they develop relationships with students and learn their behavioral patterns.179 As a result, she said, it will be easy for resource officers to develop probable cause.180 While this may be true, Ms. Bough ignores the essence of the Fourth Amendment—that when probable cause is the standard, “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”181 In other words, regardless of how easily a resource officer can develop probable cause, he or she will still have to wait an unreasonable amount of time—at least in the educational environment where “swift and informal disciplinary procedures [are] needed”182—for a warrant to issue.183 This greater need for swiftness in the educational environment, as opposed to other environments, comes from the “responsibility [of schools] to protect student safety and preserve an orderly educational environment.”184 Ms. Bough also argued that, in many situations, school officials should not delegate their responsibility to school resource officers.185 Rather, “[i]f there is suspicion of criminal activity, school officials should be the primary figures in conducting an investigation.”186 The problem with prohibiting teachers from delegating their safety responsibilities, though, is that it would create situations where “teachers . . . who are generally untrained in proper pat down procedures or in neutralizing dangerous weapons . . . conduct a search . . . without the assistance of a school resource officer” and therefore would place teachers unnecessarily in danger.187

The impact is evident – Allison Boyd explains in 2014:

Allison Boyd, 6-25-2014, "Student Safety and Gun Violence in Schools," No Publication, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/gun-violence-student-safety-and-public-health, // ENDI-JM

Weapons in schools are responsible for the deaths of students, staff and nonstudent individuals, including homicides and suicides.6 Between 1 and 2 percent of all youth homicides occur at school, and this percentage has been stable during the past decade.7 Most attacks occur during transition times, such as lunch or the beginning and end of the school day.8 In 2011, 5.9 percent of students stayed home from school at least one day because they did not feel safe either at school or traveling to and from school.9 In the 2010-11 school year, there were 31 school-associated violent deaths. Of these 31 deaths, 17 were staff and nonstudents such as parents; 14 incidents—11 homicides and three suicides—involved students between the ages of 5 and 18. These numbers fluctuate over time. For instance, in the 2006-07 school year there were 63 total deaths, with 32 student homicides and nine student suicides. In total, there were 468 school-associated violent deaths between the 2000-01 and 2010-11 school years.10

Contention 2: Largest Problem in Schools

Melanie Duncan offered insight into K-12 Public Schools in 2016:

Melanie Duncan, 5-25-16, "Drugs, Homelessness and Cyber Bullying Plague Public Schools," Afro, http://www.afro.com/drugs-homelessness-and-cyber-bulling-plague-public-schools/

The May meeting brought together the school system’s support staff, and they used the forum to share information about social services and address student behavioral problems. During the meeting Public School Police Officer Shannon Earl said that gangs are an issue in county schools as well as online bullying through social media. “The biggest problem we’re getting in the school system is cyber bullying,” he said. “There is no magic way to stop it. The best way to stop it is to get rid of all the computers.” Acknowledging the solution is unrealistic, Earl noted that stiff fines and sentencing are serious consequences students can face for participating in bullying over the internet through sites like Twitter, Instagram, and FaceBook. He called it “the long arm of the law,” emphasizing that it is possible for students to be prosecuted even if the attacks are made off school grounds or from a student’s home. “Weekend threats online lead to school conflict – cyber bullying is [a] school disruption,” he said. “In the state of Maryland, that’s a $2500 fine [and] year and a half in [juvenile detention].” Earl said incarceration is a last resort but he is currently working on 10 cyber bullying cases involving county schools. “You hear that statement ‘schoolhouse to jailhouse’,” he said. “We want to stop that. We’re not here to lock you up. We’re here to help you graduate.”

Monica Disare of the Boston Globe corroborated this in a study of 16,000 students and found in 2015:

Monica Disare, 8-3-2015, “Cyberbullying on rise, particularly for teen girls, study says”, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/02/study-boston-area-teens-suggests-cyberbullying-rise/R4fQNCY13o4mrpe41dwagI/story.html // ENDI-JM

A study of more than 16,000 Boston-area high school students suggests cyberbullying is on the rise, most sharply with girls as victims and abetted by the prevalence of smartphones among teenagers. The percentage of the students who said they experienced cyberbullying jumped from 14.6 percent to 21.2 percent over a six-year period ending in 2012, according to the study by the nonprofit Education Development Center. The study used self-reported health survey data from 17 unidentified schools west of Boston. The percentage of girls reporting incidents involving bullying or harassment on forums such as websites and social networks shot up 10 percent, while incidents targeting boys increased 3 percent, according to the study. At the same time, reports of in-person bullying decreased by 3 percent over the period.

Tim Woda indicates the scope of this problem in 2013:

Tim Woda, 7-8-2013, "The Educational Impact of Bullying and Cyberbullying ," http://resources.uknowkids.com/blog/bid/302867/The-Educational-Impact-of-Bullying-and-Cyberbullying // ENDI-JM

Bullying and cyberbullying is becoming a major issue that has gotten increased attention over the last few years, as more and more teens are facing the issue. The results have been devastating. With teen suicide on1 the rise, acts of violence increasing, and more victims being identified, it has affected not only their personal lives, but their education as well. According to the 2011 survey results from the Center for Disease Control (CDC): More than 15,000 students did not go to school because they felt unsafe. Almost 15,000 students carried weapons to school. Over 7% were threatened or injured with a weapons on school grounds. At least 20% reported being bullied on school grounds. Over 16% were victims of some type of cyberbullying. With statistics like these, and the numbers raising, the results are impacting many student's education. Children who are bullied or cyberbullied often suffer from symptoms such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, and unhappiness. They may have trouble sleeping, focusing, or making decisions. Their self-esteem may seem low, or they may isolate themselves. All of these factors are not just impacting their home life. In school, they may drop out of extracurricular activities, they may not speak up in class, they may not ask questions due to fear, they may even isolate themselves at school, which can cause the issue to worsen. Their performance in school also may drop, with many showing a decrease in grades. They may even resist going to school, either by staying home, or leaving school grounds after arrival. Many don't know how to deal with the issue

With a clear disruption in school, Naomi Goodno of Wake Forest qualifies that:

Naomi Harlin Goodno, 11-23-2011, Wake Forest Law Review, "How Public Schools Can Constitutionally Halt Cyberbullying: A Model Cyberbullying Policy that Considers First Amendment, Due Process, and Fourth Amendment Challenges," http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2011/11/how-public-schools-can-constitutionally-halt-cyberbullying-a-model-cyberbullying-policy-that-considers-first-amendment-due-process-and-fourth-amendment-challenges/ // ENDI-JM

Schools, therefore, should incorporate the language of the Tinker two-part standard into their cyberbullying policy.[118]  There is, however, some ambiguity in its application.  Courts have unevenly applied the first Tinker standard (that schools can regulate student speech that causes “material disruption”).[119] Courts tend to consider speech as having materially disrupted school activities if administrators are forced to interrupt their regular duties to deal with the disruption.[120] The disruption must be a real disturbance and something more than a “buzz” about the speech.[121] However, when the speech is violent, threatening, or sexually explicit, courts have often found that there was a material disruption.[122] Moreover, courts have also found that schools may discipline students for speech where “a forecast of substantial and material disruption was reasonable.”[123] Notably, Tinker is different than most cyberbullying cases because Tinker involved political speech. Arguably, then, the threshold for establishing a “material disruption” may be lower for purely hurtful speech.[124] As one scholar noted, “cyberbullying incidents that occur at school—or that originate off-campus but ultimately result in a substantial disruption of the learning environment—are well within the school’s legal authority to intervene.”[125]

This legal authority is reasonable suspicion. Lou Ann Cyrus wrote in 2015:

Lou Ann S. Cyrus and Michael Dunham, “LEGAL MATTERS: COMBATING CYBERBULLYING”, Communicator, March 2015, Volume 38, Issue 7, http://www.naesp.org/communicator-march-2015/legal-matters-combating-cyberbullying // ENDI-JM

Although the First Amendment may prevent schools from censoring student speech, and [but] the Fourth Amendment may prevent schools from performing suspicionless searches, this does not mean that schools are powerless to combat cyberbullying. In addition to education, schools should emphasize to its students that cyberbullying will be taken seriously. Student speech that substantially interferes with the operation of school can be limited. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment would allow for searches of a student’s belongings if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. Currently, an overwhelming majority of states have laws against anti-bullying. Thus, administrators and teachers are within their rights to identify acts of cyberbullying and punish the responsible students. Given the uncertain nature of the law in this area, it is important that schools combat cyberbullying by educating all involved. The best way to police cyberbullying is to promote a culture that condemns it.

Michael Dunham furthers in 2015:

Michael Dunham, Communicator, January 2015, “Policing Internet Harassment: How Schools Can Combat Cyberbullying”, http://shumanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cyberbullying.pdf // ENDI-JM

The Fourth Amendment operates to protect the general public from government searches that are not based on individualized suspicion. However, a much lower standard has traditionally been applied in a school setting. In New Jersey v. T.L.O.4 , the Supreme Court determined that a school administrator may perform an in-school search of a student’s belongings absent probable cause. T.L.O. was extended in 2002 when the Court held in Vernonia Board of Education v. Earls5 that a school district could perform random suspicionless drug testing on students in all competitive extracurricular activities. It is apparent that the Supreme Court's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment decisions strengthen a school’s authority to discipline student expression. The difference, however, between the cases cited above and cyberbullying is the fact that cyberbullying does not have to occur on school grounds. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if the Supreme Court is willing to extend the flexible constitutional standards applicable in school to activities that occur off school grounds. Given the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court, states and lower federal courts have been unable to craft a uniform response. Although state legislatures aim at deterrence and prevention of cyberbullying, many of these laws contain potentially unconstitutional provisions.

Benjamin Nowak of Virginia Tech concludes in 2014:

Benjamin Nowak, 3-26-2014, “Students’ First and Fourth Amendment Rights in the Digital Age: An Analysis of Case Law”, Virginia Tech, https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/47729/Nowak_BA_T_2014.pdf?sequence=1 // ENDI-JM

Students possess reasonable expectations of privacy and, therefore, Fourth Amendment protections in their personal mobile devices and password-protected private Web 2.0 communications. T.L.O governs searches of students’ personal mobile devices and the courts are leaning towards a more narrow fact-based approach in their analyses. Substantive suspicion at the outset and carefully tailored searches will keep school officials from violating students’ Fourth Amendment protections. Vernonia appears to govern cases involving searches of students’ Web 2.0 applications. The courts have limited expectations of privacy to only those Web 2.0 communications that are private, password-protected, and in a student’s exclusive possession. To avoid violating constitutional protections in these types of searches, school officials should carefully weigh the intrusiveness of the search with their interest in “maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds” or “deal[ing] with breaches of public order” (T.L.O., 1985, p.339). Web 2.0 postings or communications that are viewable by “friends,” “followers,” or the general public are not protected by the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, open to searches by school officials. Recommendations – Search and Seizure Based on the limited but growing body of law regarding the search and seizure of students’ personal mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications, it appears as though the T.L.O. and Vernonia standards, when applied narrowly and with fidelity, allow school officials enough flexibility to investigate disputes, accusations, and reasonable suspicions without violating students’ constitutional rights. One recommendation, primarily for parents and students, has emerged from the research. As mentioned previously, students seem to have a false sense of security regarding what they say and do in cyberspace. Parents and students would be wise to educate themselves in the expectations of privacy regarding students’ mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications. The following guidelines will be of assistance:  Students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to their personal mobile devices and, therefore, are protected by the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The probable cause standard and the warrant requirement do not apply to searches within the school setting. So long as reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing exists, school officials do not need student or parent consent to search a personal mobile device.  Similar to a private letter or email, students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their password-protected private Web 2.0 correspondence (i.e. private Facebook messages that are not viewable by “friends” or the general public).  Students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public Web 2.0 postings (i.e. tweets or Facebook wall postings that are viewable by “friends”, “followers”, or the general public).  When students tweet or post on Facebook, they take the risk that their “friends” or “followers” will share that information with school officials. Furthermore, school officials do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they access and search a student’s Facebook postings or tweets through a cooperating witness or third party. In closing, recent case law reveals that the application of longstanding First and Fourth Amendment precedent to student cyberspeech and search and seizure in the digital age has become more consistent over time and has allowed for a workable set of legal guidelines to take shape. For First Amendment issues, Tinker’s material and substantial disruption standard governs. However, two areas remain somewhat unclear. As mentioned previously, the criteria for determining when a disruption rises to the level of material and substantial has not been well defined, which presents a challenge for school officials when responding to actual disruptions or attempting to reasonably forecast a disruption. In addition, the scope of school official’s authority to address student-on-student cyberspeech that is harassing or bullying in nature appears to hinge on the response of the targeted student. This is problematic and begs the question of whether school officials must wait for a potentially serious response before acting. For Fourth Amendment issues, the reasonableness standard set by T.L.O. and Vernonia govern, and when applied narrowly and with fidelity, allow school officials enough flexibility to maintain a safe and secure learning environment without violating students’ constitutional rights.

Preventing cyberbullying is paramount to save students’ GPA. Stuart Wolpert of UCLA in 2010:

Stuart Wolpert, August 19, 2010, "Victims of bullying suffer academically as well, UCLA psychologists report," UCLA Newsroom, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/victims-of-bullying-suffer-academically-168220 // ENDI-DY

Students who are bullied regularly do substantially worse in school, UCLA psychologists report in a special issue of the Journal of Early Adolescence devoted to academic performance and peer relationships. The UCLA study was conducted with 2,300 students in 11 Los Angeles–area public middle schools and their teachers. Researchers asked the students to rate whether or not they get bullied on a four-point scale and to list which of their fellow students were bullied the most — physically, verbally and as the subject of nasty rumors. A high level of bullying was consistently associated with lower grades across the three years of middle school. The students who were rated the most-bullied performed substantially worse academically than their peers. Projecting the findings on grade-point average across all three years of middle school, a one-point increase on the four-point bullying scale was associated with a 1.5-point decrease in GPA for one academic subject (e.g., math) — a very large drop. Teachers provided ratings on how engaged the students were academically, including whether they were participating in class discussions, showing interest in class and completing their homework. The researchers collected data on the students twice a year throughout the three years of middle school and examined the students' grades.

AND the Washington Post in 2014 argues:

Washington Post, 5-20-2014, "Here’s how much your high school grades predict your future salary," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/20/heres-how-much-your-high-school-grades-predict-how-much-you-make-today/ // ENDI-DY

Indeed, for a one-point increase in a person's high school GPA, average annual earnings in adulthood increased [earnings] by about 12[-14] percent for men and about 14 percent for women, the report found. (Men and women were looked at separately since women have lower average earnings than men, making about $30,000 on average in adulthood compared with the average of $43,000 for men.)

Second, increases odds of school violence. Ross Ellis of the Huffington Post argues in 2014:

Ross Ellis, 6-13-2014, "Mass Murders in Schools and Bullying: What We Can Do to Help Stop the Carnage," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-ellis/mass-murders-in-schools-a_b_5492873.html // ENDI-DY

The mass shooting at the University of California Santa Barbara less than two weeks ago has reignited the national debate over access to guns and mental illness. It has been well reported that, like so many other mass killers, Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator who killed six innocent young men and women on that campus, had demonstrated extremely disturbing behavior for quite a while and had been under the treatment of therapists for a number of years. Yet, despite his obvious psychological problems, he was still able to easily obtain a number of handguns and a large supply of ammunition. What has been somewhat restrained as this debate rages on is that, as is the case with so many other mass killers, Rodger may have been a victim of bullying during his adolescence. This is not meant as an excuse for his heinous crimes, or those of the other school shooters. What Rodger, and they did, is unconscionable and unpardonable, and in Rodger’s case if he had not taken the cowardly way out and turned the gun on himself, I would argue that he deserved, at the very minimum, life in prison without any chance for parole. Yet, whether or not Rodger was bullied, the fact is that only a fraction of kids who are bullied bring guns to school. Adelphi University assistant professor of sociology Jessie Klein has said that: “I think it’s not important necessarily whether he particularly was bullied. My concern is that we’ve created a society that is fairly callous in the larger culture, and that people like this perpetrator who have clearly violent proclivities are more likely to act on them in a society where bullying takes place, where people have very little time to stop for one another and support one another.” There is, however, a significant and growing body of research that there is a strong relationship between bullying and mass violence. Professors Michael Kimmel and Matthew Mahler of Stony Brook University (of the State University of New York) have found, for example, that most of the boys who have committed [school] shoot[ers]ings in American high schools and middle schools were “mercilessly and routinely teased and bullied and that their violence was retaliatory against threats to their manhood.” And in his book “Ceremonial Violence,” Professor Jonathan Fast of Yeshiva University examined more than a dozen mass school shootings and found that while there is no single reason for their violent acts, the kids who committed these atrocities suffered from alienation from their peers, neglect and often abuse. Being bullied and being rejected lead to feelings of isolation and powerlessness. In turn, victims often feel an intense desire and need to regain power and turn to violence as their remedy. This violence, coupled with a total lack of any empathy, makes for a deadly recipe. Both Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, who perpetrated the Columbine school massacre, were frequently harassed by athletes and other students. Virginia Tech murderer Seung Hi Cho was similarly picked on and bullied. And Rodger claimed in his 137-page manifesto that he was bullied throughout high school. As it is, bullying is one of the most frequently occurring forms of abuse in schools. One out of four kids is bullied face-to-face and 70 percent of these incidences occur in school. More than 40 percent of children are cyberbullied, harassed through the use of digital technologies such as the Internet or smartphone. Studies have definitively shown that kids who are repeatedly bullied are especially vulnerable to such negative health issues as depression, social isolation, eating and sleep disorders, substance and alcohol abuse, and self-injury such as cutting. While many overcome these issues and grow up to be healthy and happy adults, far too often bullying victims can suffer serious and long-term psychological damage and even post-traumatic stress disorder. As we have all too many times come to know in the past few years, some children and adolescents are so tormented they commit suicide.

Julia Lurie quantifies this in 2014:

Julia Lurie, may 5th 2014, "A shocking number of teens bring weapons to school. Here's one reason why.," Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/bullying-victims-carry-weapons-guns

A new study based on a survey of more than 15,000 American high school students found that victims of bullying are nearly twice as likely to carry guns and other weapons at school. An estimated 200,000 victims of bullying bring weapons to school over the course of a month, according to the authors' analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control's 2011 Youth Risk Surveillance System Survey. That's a substantial portion of the estimated 750,000 high school students who bring weapons to school every month. The study, presented yesterday at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, found that 20 percent of participating students reported being victims of bullying, and that those teens were substantially more likely to carry weapons if they had experienced one or more "risk factors." These included feeling unsafe at school, having property stolen or damaged, having been in a fight in the past year, or having been threatened or injured by a weapon. Among bullying victims experiencing all four of those factors, 72 percent had brought a weapon to school in the past month and 63 percent had carried a gun. Those victims were, according to the study's authors, nearly 50 times more likely to carry a weapon in school as students who weren't bullied. For years, anti-bullying groups have drawn a connection between bullying and school shootings. The Department of Health and Human Services's Stopbullying.gov website reports that the perpetrators of 12 of 15 school shootings in the 1990s had a history of being bullied. Witnesses of a 2013 shooting at Sparks Middle School in Nevada recall the 12-year-old shooter telling a group of students, "You guys ruined my life, so I'm going to ruin yours."

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 356.46 Kb.

Share with your friends: