Docstoc

Koh Storyboard 8441

Document Sample
Koh Storyboard 8441 Powered By Docstoc
					       Proposal for
Developing a Cyber Bullying
          Policy

         Koh Herlong
    The Innovation

   The Innovation is:

A policy on cyber bullying
     Proposal/Purpose

It is recommended that the
district adopt a policy on
cyber bullying, which will
define the behavior as well as
the consequences.
I. Innovation Development
   Process

In this section:
A. Need
B. Research
C. Development
D. Commercialization
 I.       Innovation Development Process
          A. Need

● In one study, 72% of respondents age 12-17 said they were affected
  by online bullying (Juvonen & Gross, 2008).

● In various other surveys (as reported by Bhat, 2008), between 40-60% of
  respondents said they had been cyber bullied. Despite the range of
  answers, cyber bullying is affecting roughly 50% of the student body.

● At least three suicides and one hit-and-run accident are allegedly a
  result of cyber bullying (Bhat, 2008).

● A Cyberbullying Prevention Act (H.R. 6123) has been proposed to
  Congress and is currently under subcommittee review.
 I.      Innovation Development Process
         B. Research

● Bhat (2008) researched the issue and provides an overview of how,
  why, and who. She also outlines a section entitled, Strategies for
  School Counsellors, Guidance Officers, and All School Personnel.

● Juvonen and Gross (2008) performed a study on cyber bullying
  form, tools, and occurrence. From the results, they recommend
  school policies, parent education, and providing advice to students
  for dealing with the issue.

                       continued on next slide
 I.      Innovation Development Process
         B. Research (continued)

● After the death of Megan Meiers, her family lobbied to introduce
  the Cyberbullying Prevention Act (H.R. 6123).

● Hinduja and Patchin (2007) conducted a study on the nature and
  extent of cyber bullying and includes in their discussion three
  specific steps for school policy. They also recommend other
  administrative action.
I.       Innovation Development Process
         C. Development
● The intended audience was school districts and administrators.

● The problems encountered were:

   ·   There is little empirical evidence on the affects of cyber bullying since
       the innovation of cyber bullying itself is relatively new in the
       academic area (Bhat, 2008 and Hinduja & Patchin, 2007).

   ·   There is still debate on whether a school does or should have
       jurisdiction over actions that do not occur on campus (Juvonen &
       Gross, 2008).

                             continued on next slide
 I.      Innovation Development Process
         C. Development (continued)
● The problems continued:

   ·   The studies were “self-selection” (Juvonen & Gross, 2008, p. 498)
       from teen websites and “self-reports” (Juvonen & Gross, p. 503)/
       Therefore the self-selection factor may skew the results.

   ·   Many of the studies stated that a small percent of students report the
       incidence to parents. It is unknown as to how many students would
       not, therefore, report incidence of cyber bullying in the survey.

   ·   Hinduja and Patchin (2008) report that only about 15 states have
       adopted or started the legislative process of adopting a policy on cyber
       bullying.
I.        Innovation Development Process
          D. Commercialization

The adoption of a cyber bullying policy is not yet well diffused into schools.
This might be because:
●    The act of cyber bullying itself is a relatively new problem with the rapid
     growth of technological communication innovations.
●    The problems listed in the previous slides (especially the second and fifth
     bullets) have the issue still up for debate.
●    H.R.6123 is still under committee review.
I.      Innovation Development Process
        D. Commercialization (continued)
 However,
 ● Slide #4 shows a need.
 ● The research shows cyber bullying affects more than just a small percent
   of students.
 ● The suicides indicate the severity.
 ● Legislative action is a long process versus the fast growth of technological
   communication innovations.
I.   Innovation Development Process
     D. Commercialization (continued)


 Conclusion:
 Schools that adopt a policy will be pioneers in the
 industry while recognizing and taking action toward
 creating a safe learning setting and a quality
 educational environment for students (Bhat, 2008).
I.   Innovation Development Process
     D. Commercialization (continued)


 Conclusion:
 Schools that adopt a policy will be pioneers in the
 industry while recognizing and taking action toward
 creating a safe learning setting and a quality
 educational environment for students (Bhat, 2008).
II. Innovation Decision Process

 In this section:
 A. Introduction
 B. Rogers’s (2003) Stages
          Knowledge
          Persuasion
          Decision
          Implementation
          Confirmation
II.   Innovation Decision Process
      A. Introduction
 ●    a cyber bully policy is not a typical
      technology innovation

 ●    no research on timelines and
      implementation of this innovation

 ●    the district will be a pioneer

 ●    the following is an estimated timeline for
      the district to implement
II.      Innovation Decision Process
         B. Rogers’s (2003) Stages

Knowledge-Persuasion-Decision              Implementation –Confirmation
      District Level                          District & School Level



 Timeline: The district will have to set up its own timeline.

 Communication channels: All inter-school and inter-district communication
 channels are per the usual district procedures for communicating district policies.



The following slides describe the above chart.
II.   Innovation Decision Process
      B. Rogers’s (2003) Stages
 ●    Knowledge, Persuasion, and Decision
      would occur at the district level

 ●    Implementation and Confirmation would
      occur on the individual school and teacher
      level
II.    Innovation Decision Process
       B. Rogers’s (2003) Stages
 Knowledge, Persuasion, and Decision

 District level
 Timeline:   occurring with this presentation
 Communication channel: this presentation

 School/teacher level
 Timeline: schools will not have input on district policy
 Communication channel: district will convey the policy per
 usual district policy dissemination
II.      Innovation Decision Process
         B. Rogers’s (2003) Stages
Implementation
District level
Timeline:         Policy will have to be developed
                  Policy approved
                  Policy disseminated to schools

Communication channel: district will convey the policy per usual district
policy dissemination

School level
Timeline:         Schools will implement per district’s given timeline.
Communication channel: district will convey the policy per usual district
policy dissemination
II.      Innovation Decision Process
         B. Rogers’s (2003) Stages
Confirmation
School level
Timeline:         Schools to give feedback to district each quarter

Communication channel: Schools convey the results per usual inter-district
communication policy

District level
Timeline:        District may re-invent (modify) policy after feedback from
schools. Then the cycle restarts at the a new or revised implementation stage.
III. Rate of Adoption S-Curve



Little-to-no academic research on school policy
adoption rate because:

● Innovation is still new.

● We are at the bottom of the S-curve.

● This is a preventative innovation (Rogers, 2003,
  p. 234).
III. Rate of Adoption S-Curve



Using the model of Rogers’s (2003) sample chart for
organizational innovativeness (p. 276), states have adopted
bullying laws. However:

●      Not all of these laws specifically discuss cyber bullying

●     Laws do not necessarily mandate that a school or district
      adopts a policy.
III. Rate of Adoption S-Curve



1999 2000 2001            2002 2003 2004      2005 2006 2007   2008
  .    .    .               .    .    .         .    .    .      .
 GA NH CO                 CT AR VT             AZ ID DE         NE
           LA              NJ CA               IN SC IA         KY
           MS             OK RI               MD AK IL          UT
           OR             WA                   VA        KS     FL
          WV                                   TX       MN
                                               TN       OH
Anti Bullying Law Passage Calendar            ME
The states in red have perfect A++ ratings.
                                               NV
Source: http://www.bullypolice.org/
IV. Attributes that affect adoption rate


 Innovators:     Would need to be the School Board
                 To accept, design, and adopt a policy.

 Early adopters: District level & school administration
IV. Attributes that affect adoption rate

 Relative advantage: This is a preventative innovation which has
     all the unseen advantages as discussed by Rogers (2003).
 Compatibility: See next slide.
 Complexity: See next slide.
 Trialability: The policy can and should be tested and revised
      during its first year in existence and should always be
      reviewed and open to revision as technology changes and
      advances.
 Observability: Like other preventative innovations, it is difficult
     to observe “prevented” behavior or consequences.
IV. Attributes that affect adoption rate

  Top 3 perceived attributes to help adoption.
  Compatibility: Should be treated like ZERO TOLERANCE*
     policies on drugs, alcohol, and firearms, or can be included in
     the Zero Tolerance policy. Also, “Compatibility with Needs”
     (Rogers, 2003, p. 246) may convince the School Board by
     presenting multiple instances and consequences of cyber
     bullying.
  Complexity: Proper dissemination of information and policy can
     reduce complexity.
*Controversy over the current rigidness of Zero Tolerance policy (Skiba,
2008) could cause laggards to reject this policy.
V. Decentralized vs. Centralized


 Of the Rogers’s (2003, p. 396) 6 characteristics, some can
     be diffused from the School Board (centralized) while
     others can be diffused by the individual schools
     (decentralized).

 See suggested breakdown on next slide.
V. Decentralized vs. Centralized

 Suggested diffusion of six characteristics from Rogers
     (2003, p.396) for the cyber bullying policy:
 `
 Centralized:    Decision making power
                 Sources of innovation
                 Decision to diffuse the policy

 Decentralized: Direction of diffusion
                Driving the diffusion process
                Re-invention
VI. Change Agent



 The Change Agent is the School
 Board who will orchestrate 6 of
 Rogers’s (2003) 7 roles of a
 change agent (see next 2 pages).
VI. Change Agent = School Board

 Rogers’s (2003) 7 roles of change agent (pp. 369-370):

 1.   Develop a need for change.
      Provide informative seminars for faculty, parents, and
      students based on real stories of cyber bullying.

 2.   Establish an information change relationship.
      Choose 20% of the schools to be the leaders of this
      innovation and have them meet to exchange
      information.
VI. Change Agent = School Board


3.   Diagnose problems.
     Above 20% meet to diagnose problems in their schools.

4.   Create an intent to change.
     The 20% create the policy with School Board guidance.

5.   Intent into action:
     Based on results of #2, #3, & 4, School Board announces
     policy to all schools and the buy-in/creation by the 20%.
VI. Change Agent = School Board


  6.   Stabilize adoption.
       Create a newsletter or webpage on the success of
       schools who have implemented the policy, as well
       as allowing schools to post some of their
       experiences.

  7.   Terminal relationship: n/a in this situation
VII. Reaching Critical Mass

Three of Rogers’s (2003) four strategies to reach critical
    mass (p. 261).

1.   Highly-respected in system’s hierarchy should be
     targeted.
           This is done in steps #2-4 in previous slides
2.   Shape perception: Adoption is inevitable – it will be
     School Board mandated.
3.   n/a
4.   Incentives: This may have to come from state level –
     providing districts or schools with incentives once
     adopted a policy.
VIII. Organizational Innovations


Rogers’s (2003, p. 403) Authority innovation decision:
   School Board must mandate it, but will gain buy in
   from champions (collective innovation decision) and
   champions will create, implement, revise, and
   ‘champion’ the policy with all schools.

See next chart.
Suggested Approach
          School Board




  Leaders from 20-30% of the schools



          All other schools
Suggested Approach
  Analyze existing models




    Update current policy



          Educate
  References
Bhat, C.S. (2008). Cyber bullying: Overview and Strategies for school counsellors,
   guidance officers, and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance &
   Counselling, (18(1), 53-66.

Bully Policy USA (n.d.). Bully Police USA . Retrieved January 5, 2008 from
   http//www.bullypolice.org..

Govtrack.us (2008). H.R. 6123: Megan Meier cyberbullying prevention act. Retrieved on
   December 27, 2008 from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6123.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying fact sheet: A brief review of relevant
   legal and policy issues. Retrieved December 26, 2008 from
   http://www.cyberbullying.us/resources.php.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: school
   violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89-112.
   References
 Juvonen, J. & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in
    cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505.

 Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusions of innovations. (5th ed.) New York: Free Press.

 Skiba, R. J., (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? American
 Psychologist, 63(9), 852-862.

Note: Some authors spell cyber bullying as one word while others use two words. Also,
Bhat (2008) does spell counsellors with two Ls as does the Journal.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:12/14/2011
language:English
pages:38