Credit: http://blog.panorama.it
The verb is so new that Merriam-Webster online can’t turn up a definition. But it’s so prevalent that one in five teachers say that they have fallen victim to it or know someone who has, according to a new survey from the Norton Online Family Report.
Cyberbaiting. Not to be confused with “cyber bait,” a noun that refers to online scams. Cyberbaiting, the verb, “is when students irritate or ‘bait’ a teacher until the teacher gets so frustrated they yell or have a breakdown,” according to Norton. Then, students record the outburst with their cell phones and later post the video or audio online.
Singapore has caught wind of it, and New Zealand too.
The two most recent, high-publicity cases in the U.S. include a 14-year-old disabled student in Ohio, who was verbally abused by her teacher and a teacher’s aide. After multiple reports to school officials – to no avail – the girl’s parents sent her to school with a recording device and caught the statements on record.
“Are you that damn dumb? You are that dumb?” the aide says.
The second case surrounded a New Jersey video, shot from the phone of a 15-year-old special needs student, who was called a “tard” by his teacher during a three-minute recorded rant. He even threatens the student: “I will kick your (expletive) from here to kingdom come.”
In each situation, the student’s word wasn’t believed until the recordings came to light. So it’s hard to argue that cyberbaiting was harmful in either case. (And how often are teachers really losing their cool in class?)
In addition, these situations were unprovoked, although they involved recording a teacher, who was unaware, and distributing the recording publicly. So it begs the question: At what point does the threat of cyberbaiting change the way you teach or deliver instruction? Do you lose your candor? Do you hold back when you should be scolding a wrong? How does this affect rapport with your students?
Teachers, do your schools or districts have policies – or given its relatively new presence, unspoken rules – on the issue?
Click Image To Enlarge
5/29/2012 | The New York Times discusses Mary Nguyen's report "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out."
5/28/2012 | The Washington Post discusses Mary Nguyen's analysis of college dropouts and loan defaults from her Chart You Can Trust, "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out." 
5/24/2012 | Education Week discusses Anne Hyslop's views on Mitt Romney's education plan.
{ 5 comments }
Monica, interesting. Do you think it has been effective?
About two years ago, the district in which my child attends school in the suburbs of Washington, DC instituted a policy against students taking photos at school as part of their policy against the use of cell phones during the school day.
Mamacate, I’m not suggesting that we develop policies to prevent the taping of teachers. As stated, it’s hard to argue that these cases — of recording teachers without their knowledge and distributing it publicly — didn’t serve for good. But for those teachers who are good teachers, who are not abusing their children, is cyberbaiting a concern? The Norton report says one in five teachers has experienced it or knows someone who has. If that’s the case, classroom dynamics could change a lot — which ultimately affects instruction and learning.
Except that I actually don’t respect this blog, I agree with Mamacate. This post doesn’t make sense — first it describes cyberbaiting and then gives two examples of atrocities against children with disabilities — but that don’t appear to involve cyberbaiting. Any editors in the house?
Mamacate, as the parent of a child with autism, you should not respect this blog either — these reformers promote “innovations” that are intended to leave children with disabilities and special health care needs out in the cold. The fact that their post would imply that the children who were victims in these two cases had provoked the abuse demonstrates how insensitive these “reformers” are to issues involving children with disabilities and special health care needs.)
Whoa, is that baiting if the student didn’t intentionally provoke the teacher? These are cases of ABUSE of disabled children, not cyber baiting. Are you actually suggesting that the solution to the examples cited above is developing policies to prevent the taping of teachers? I hope you’ll clarify. I read this blog because I do educational research professionally, but as the mother of an autistic child who was well aware of these cases, I’m shocked to see them presented in this context by a blog I respect.
Comments on this entry are closed.