ISSN: 2151-0806
students and their families. They have also implemented support services for victims and bystanders (and their families) of violent attacks. Teachers and administration agreed that these measures were prompted by Columbine, Virginia Tech, and similar school catastrophes of the past. While the upper SES schools are thwarting the outwardly physical bullying within their schools, they voiced grave concerns about the increasingly relentless assault of students via computer technology- specifically social media outlets used to slander, humiliate, isolate, and psychologically damage/abuse peers on a public stage such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, or the use of texting/sexting via cell phone and smart phones. The hindering of covert bullying is infinitely more difficult than the obstruction of outward peer-to-peer aggression. Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Hartwell, and Mrs. Carroll described their experience with covert bullying as difficult due to the “sneaky” nature of the actions or lack thereof. When they had discussions with their classrooms regarding bullying, students overwhelmingly responded that, although they were not necessarily “beat up” or physically abused, they had felt bullying due to comments, conversations, and innuendos posted on computers or text messages. The majority of students felt that they were bullied by others at least once in their school life. Students also revealed to Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Hartwell, and Mrs. Carroll that they more often experienced cases of social isolation which, to the students, was more disturbing than a peer-to-peer confrontation. Group B (non-poverty school administrators and teachers) discussed the specific difficulties in countering peer-to-peer complaints that consisted of out-of-school occurrences. Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Nelson described occasions of student misbehaviors occurring on home computers that forced school officials to react with enhanced bullying definitions in the student handbook. Mr. Smith cited that problems of computer and cell phone use had at one time not been a problem, but recently- within the past five years- could no longer be ignored. Mr. Smith experienced several situations within the past year that resulted in parent conferences. Mr. Smith was made aware of bullying behaviors by students when two particular children made increasingly aggressive threats on Facebook. In an attempt to confront the situation, he was forced to involve parents whom had not been aware of the ensuing clash. The situation was resolved by administration and parents, however, the same type of incident occurred at Mitchell Elementary school, resulting with law enforcement intervention, prompted by parents. The issue of technology, though not a targeted problem for the lower SES schools, has become a prominent distraction in the upper SES classrooms. Although administrations have enforced the antibullying regulations regarding bullying via technology, teachers and administrators alike admit that “catching students in the act” is difficult and often borderline infringement of rights. Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Hartwell, and Mrs. Carroll allude to the fact that they are not responsible for the behaviors of students while they are under parental supervision… only while they are at school. But, the ever-complicating dynamics of technological bullying is making the partition between school behaviors and home behaviors more opaque than in the past. The discord between parental responsibility and teacher responsibility has become further blurred by the continuing nature of bullying behaviors and the negative impact these covert aggressions are having on students’ school endeavors. Students suffering from the effects of technological bullying, or covert bullying, are apt to demonstrate anxiety, depression, self-injury, and isolation. Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Hartwell, and Mrs. Carroll reported that students felt that social media outlets were used as a vehicle for the would-be bully to propagate their personal vendetta and generate Peace Studies Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 3, July 2013
Page 135