Making School BullyLaws Matter

Lynne Edmondson & Laura Dreuth Zeman

The authors examine the state-mandatedpolicies governing school bullying in theUnited States. They conclude that theCircle of Courage provides a standard forcreating safe and respecful school climates.

Policy BackgroundOver the last decade, hully prevention activitiesmoved from the local districts to the state houseswhere legislators amended public school laws to in-corporate safety regulations. This shift is attribut-ed to federal mandatesthat required states towrite safe school lawsin order to receive cer-tain educational funds.For instance, the 2001authorization of theElementary and Sec-ondary Education Act,referred to as No ChildLeft Behind, included the Safe and Drug-FreeSchools and Community Act (SDFSC, Title IV, PartA) that tied funding with school laws designedto keep students safe. Though the word "bully"did not appear in the current Act, it did supportbully prevention by requiring states to pass lawsthat mandated districts to write safety plans andimplement consequences for related behaviors(Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2002). ThisAct required that district policies contain a needsassessment, be based on performance measures,be based on scientifically-based research for pro-grams that work, he directed and targeted basedon needs, and include parent input.

Violence prevention programsare considered a hallmark of

the effective strategies toreduce bullying.

Public school laws affecting students with disabili-ties also underwent revisions. Specifically, in 2004,changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Act re-quired that schools discipline all children the same,unless the behavior is a direct result of the student'sdisability or the school failed to implement an in-dividualized educational plan (O'Shea & Drayden,2008). These requirements, while seemingly al-lowing for disability accommodations for childrenwhose symptoms include disruption, providedschools with the authority to extend punishments,such as expulsion, to students with disabilities whoexperience social and behavioral challenges in andaround school. Therefore, students who experience

these challenges may besuspended or expelledunder the new bullying-related revisions, ratherthan getting tested forcertain disabilities orhaving their educationalplans modified to includethe disruptive behaviors.

This legislation also included the Unsafe SchoolChoice Option (Section 9532), which allowed stu-dents to transfer schools if the one they attendedwas classified as "persistently dangerous" or if thestudent was a victim of violence, including bul-lying (Gastic, 2010). Recently introduced federallegislation, H.R. 5184 and H.R. 2262 Safe SchoolsImprovement Act, seeks to amend the Safe andDrug-Free Act to include language specific to bul-lying and harassment. This legislation would re-quire that states collect and report incidences ofbullying, that plans for addressing bullying be in-cluded in student codes of conduct, that schoolspublicly distribute the conduct codes, and thatthere is a clearly established complaint procedureregarding suspected bully behaviors (iiith Con-gress, 2009-2010).

Researchers Srabstein, Berkman, and Pyntikova(2008) examined state statutes to identify changesin public school laws related to bullying. Their studyrepresented one of the first national level analyses ofstate policies following the 2001 changes to the Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Act. Their find-ings indicated that a number of states changed theirpublic school laws to incorporate federal mandatesthat tie funding to safe school laws. The presentstudy goes beyond Srabstein and colleagues (2008)to examine the exact language in state statutes forthemes related to best practices in bully preventionpolicy and the fit of the public school laws with theCircle of Courage model (Brendtro, Brokenleg, &Van Bockern, 2002) that has been proven to be ef-fective in transforming disruptive student behaviorand school climate using a strengths approach.

Literature ReviewAny examination of best practices in bully preven-tion policy would find that it is paramount thatlaws incorporate effective elements of comprehen-sive violence prevention programs. Violence pre-vention programs are considered a hallmark of theeffective strategies to reduce bullying. These pro-grams seek to create school climates that reinforcepositive experiences through education and inter-vention and include, but are not limited to, early in-tervention, conflict resolution, mentoring, positivebehavioral curriculums, and counseling (Hoover& Oliver, 1996; Olweus, 1993). They also include

34 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournaLcom

parents and community members in the develop-ment and implementation of the policies, whichare ideally created at the local level (Schwartz, 1996;Volokh, 2000). Noguera (1995) argues that whileviolence prevention fosters safety in schools, thecounter response of coercion promotes conflict inschools. Coercion tactics include, but are not lim-ited to, metal detectors, zero tolerance, and otherpolicies that criminalize bully behavior (Centersfor Disease Control, 2007).Best practice school bully laws combine education,intervention, and individual responsibility to build-ing positive school climates. Schools often specifystudent responsibilities in codes of conduct. Grona(2000) examined codes of conduct to identify themethods schools used to notify students of theirrights and responsibilities. He found that these codesmay include, but are not limited to, school rules andclearly defined consequences for their violations andthe conditions under which parents are notified ofviolations. In best practice policies, student codes ofconduct also identify environments where school-related misconduct can occur, such as in classroombuildings, at school-sponsored activities, in the com-munity at large, and in cyberspace (Grona, 2000;Redding & Shalf, 2001; Schwartz, 1996).

Best practice school bully lawscombine education, intervention,and individual responsibility to

building positive school climates.This analysis examines state-level school bully lawsin the context of the four constructs of the Circle ofCourage Model as defined by Brendtro, Brokenleg,and Van Bockern (2002). This model includes thethemes of belonging, mastery, independence, andgenerosity. Individuals experience belonging ashuman attachments characterized by trust. Indi-viduals develop mastery by immersion "in an en-vironment with abundant opportunities for mean-ingful achievement" (p. 63) by methods which caninclude stories and games. Individuals develop in-dependence when "adults set clear and consistentexpectations so the young person can successfullynavigate life's challenges" (p. 107). Individuals ex-perience generosity through opportunities for shar-ing, support, loyalty, and empathy.It is argued in this analysis that best practices inbully prevention policy encompass these four con-structs. Specifically, the model incorporates the

themes of belonging through policies that em-phasize citizenship, mastery through policies thatmandate mentoring and educational programs,independence through expectations that studentcodes of conduct include clear behavioral expecta-tions and the consequences for violations, and gen-erosity through policies that emphasize buildingcaring school communities. Further, policy makerscan extrapolate these practice level principles to thestate level and produce effective school codes thataddress bullying.

Data FileThe researchers copied public school laws from on-line legislative depositories of archived state stat-utes. The data selected for inclusion in the analysisfile contained language that specifically addressedbullying. The data consisted primarily of laws en-acted after 2003.

Research QuestionsThis question guided the inquiry: Among statesthat legally mandate public schools to address bul-lying, how extensively have they incorporated lan-guage representing the themes of belonging, mas-tery, independence, and generosity?

Data AnalysisThe researchers thematically analyzed the quali-tative data using an a priori approach. In the firststage of the analysis, researchers constructed atemplate that represented the variables of be-longing, mastery, independence, and generosity.Next, the researchers read and reread the data todetermine its fit into the coding scheme. If thetheme was represented in the law, they codedthe variable "Yes" with notations indicating thewording of the text, and if the theme was notpresent in the law, they coded the variable "No."They used a triangulation process that includedreading the data together, discussing its meaning,reconciling differences in interpretation, codingthe data, and verifying the data codes. The re-searchers included two university faculty withmore than ten years experience each in bully pre-vention who worked in two different statesonemidwestern and one southern.Finally, the researchers converted the "Yes" and"No" values to nominal data where "Yes"=i and"No"=o so that frequency distributions could becalculated. Table i presents the frequency analysisthat include total and percentage "Yes" and "No"

spring 2011 volume 20, number 1 | 35

responses recorded for each variable. This data re-duction process allowed the researchers to gener-ate a numeric answer to the study question. Thefindings include discussions of both the thematicreview of the qualitative data and the frequenciesgenerated from this data reduction.

ResultsThe analysis indicated that thirty-seven states(74%) wrote specific bully-related policies intotheir public school laws. The findings in this arti-cle represent the rate as a percentage of these thir-ty-seven states. Overall, most public school lawsincluded coercion tactics, specifically behaviorexpectations for students and consequences forviolating those expectations. Eighty-one percentof the states (30 of the 37) included requirementsthat schools specify conduct expectations andinfraction consequences. Forty-nine percent ofstates required that school districts specify thesepolicies in student codes of conduct. Fifty-ninepercent of the states included staff training com-ponents in their school codes, which included arequirement that the schools train the respon-sible adults to implement the plan. Fifty-onepercent of the states incorporated school-wideeducational plans into their school codes. Onlyeleven percent of the states required that schoolsinclude character education. Table i presents theresults of the analysis that identified whetherstates incorporated the Circle of Courage con-structs into public school laws.

Independence was the most frequently identifiedaspect of the Circle of Courage model found in pub-lic school laws regarding bullying. For the research-ers to code laws as incorporating independence,evidence was required that students had individualfreedom to make decisions and self-manage, andthat schools hold students responsible for the suc-cess or failure of their own choices. Examples ofindependence found within state policy included acode of conduct, personal responsibility, and lan-guage that emphasized self-control. Nineteen states(51%) addressed the independence construct.

School districts have aresponsibility to provideeducation in a safe and

effectual climate that minimallythreatens students' rights.

Mastery was the second most common componentof the model found in public school laws. The re-searchers coded the law as incorporating mastery ifthere is evidence that states expect schools to rely onadult-student relations to supervise students, to helpstudents practice positive interactions, and/or guidestudents as they build inner satisfaction and compe-tence. Examples of mastery language found withinstate laws included the following terms and programs:diligence, learn by example, conict resolution, andbullying prevention education. Staff developmentrequirements were included in mastery because this

Table 1Frequency Distribution across Circle of Courage Model Variables

Belonging

Mastery

Independence

Generosity

Total Yes

6

15

19

13

Percent Yes16%

41%

51%

35%

Total No

31

22

18

24

Percent No84%

59%

49%

65%

36 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournaLcom

Table 2Circle of Courage Model Variables Applied to States Incorporating 3 or 4 Constructs

State

Georgia

New York

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Belonging

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Mastery

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Independence

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Generosity

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

indicated that the school train adults to take an activerole in creating the school culture. In all, fifteen states(41%) addressed the mastery construct.Fewer states included language in their public schoollaws that included an aspect of generosity. Generos-ity was included if there was evidence that the lawrequires schools to build a community of citizenswho give freely to others who practice caring andliving for others. Public school laws indicating acommitment to the concept of generosity includedlanguage discussing civil school, civility, compas-sion, respect, respectful speech and conduct, peerhelpers, positive human relations, cooperation, andgenerosity. Thirteen states (35%) included wordingin public school laws that addressed the generosityconstruct.Belonging was the least common construct foundin public school laws. The researchers coded lawsas representing the construct of belonging if thelanguage implied all students were important tothe school community and specified steps to insuremanufacture of ties and facilitation of communitywithin the school. Examples of belonging foundwithin state laws included wording emphasiz-ing citizen education, peer helpers, mentors, andschool pride. Only six states (16%) addressed thebelonging construct in their public school laws.

A few states required the implementation of all fourof the Circle of Courage constructs (Table 2). Geor-gia and New York had extensive character educationinitiatives that were inclusive of the four constructs.

Pennsylvania required peer helpers, conflict resolu-tion, and a code of conduct that encompassed allfour constructs. Three states' policies encompassedthree of the study constructs: Virginia, Washing-ton, and West Virginia. These programs includedcivic mindedness, respect, students learning by ex-ample, and character education.

Discussion and ConclusionsThis analysis adapted the Circle of Courage modelfor an analysis of state statutes specifying publicschool laws related to bullying. Specifically, it an-alyzed state laws to determine whether they con-tained language addressing the themes of belong-ing, mastery, independence, and generosity. Thefindings indicated that few states incorporated allthe components of this model into public schoollaws. In fact, the most frequently incorporatedelement was independence, typically representedin requirements that schools include behavioralexpectations and specify consequences for infrac-tions in student codes of conduct. Most states re-lied exclusively on coercive laws, such as thoseauthorizing expulsion or criminal indictments forbully conduct, that have induced schools to adoptpolicies proven ineffective in reducing bullying.Questions may arise from these findings as towhether it is valid to evaluate public school lawsusing the Circle of Courage model. The research-ers argue that the model represents comprehen-sive best practices that can guide policy makers.State statutes that incorporated these themes may

spring 2011 volume 20, number 1 | 37

be used as prototypes of this model. Ultimately, thebenefit to states is the adoption of laws that serve tocreate learning environments that foster commu-nity and responsibility.It seems clear that bullying is more than the currenthot topic. Rather, it is a behavior that society ap-pears to want to address. Perhaps there is not a bet-ter arena to address bullying than public schools.To make comprehensive change, states can changepublic school laws. Some attempts to craft theselaws appeared to be crude and ineffectual, whileothers seemed well thought out as they incorporat-ed best policy practices in bullying. One state hasa policy the researchers referred to as the "don't bea sissy" policy to the extent that the law providedthe bully due process, allowed for aggression as self-defense, and offered victims protection only in theform of removal from school. While it is certainthat policy should be based on the concept that stu-dents have rights, those rights should not infringeon another's right to an education. School districtshave a responsibility to provide that education in asafe and effectual climate that minimally threatensstudents' rights. Therefore, any law should balancethe protection of all students' rights.

Public school laws that incorporate strengths-basedbest practices can include codes of conduct, disci-plinary guidelines, and environmental controls,along with integrating citizenship, caring, rolemodeling, and educational components. In addi-tion, the implementation of the law should havesome flexibility to be case-specific based on the typeof incidents more common in the particular schoolsetting. Furthermore, unfunded mandates withoutconsumer buy-in may lack real commitment, whilewell-written comprehensive policy based on bestpractices could be a success and inspiration. It isthe authors' conclusion that the Circle of Couragecan be a philosophical guide for a rigorous bullyingprevention laws.

Lynne Edmondson, PhD, is associate professor ofHealth at Alabama A&M University in Normal. Contacther by email at Lynne.Edmondson@aamu.edu

Laura Dreuth Zentan, PhD, is professor of SocialWork and Women Studies at Southern Illinois Uni-versity in Carbondale. She can be reached by email atdreuth@siu.edu

Referencesrirth Congress. (2009-2010). H.R. To amend the Safe and

Drug-Free Communities Act to include Bullying. Ac-cessed 8/ro/2oio at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hiii-5i84

Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (2002). Re-claiming youth at risk. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Schoolhealth policies and programs study 2006. Washington,DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

Gastic, B. (2oro). Student safety and the reauthorizationof No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 3p(5),423-425-

Grona, B. (2000). School discipline. American ournal ofCriminal Law, 27, 233-247.

Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The bullying preventionhandbook: A guide for principals, teachers, and counselors.Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Noguera, P. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: Acritical analysis of responses to school violence. Har-vard Educational Review, 65(2), 189-212.

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2002). Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities Act State Grants: Guidancefor state and local implementation of programs. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and whatwe can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

O'Shea, D., & Drayden, M. (2008). Legal aspects of prevent-ing problem behavior. Exceptionality, i5(i), 105-118.

Redding, R., & Shalf, S. (2001). Legal context of school vio-lence: The effectiveness of federal, state, and local lawenforcement efforts to reduce gun violence in schools.Law & Policy, 23(3), 297-343.

Schwartz, W. (1996). An overview of strategies to reduce schoolviolence. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education No.115. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/

Srabstein, J., Berkman, B., & Pyntikova, E. (2008). Antibul-lying legislation: A public health perspective. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 42,11-20.

Volokh, A. (2000). A brief guide to school-violence preven-tion. Journal of Law & Family Studies, 2(2), 99-152.

38 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com

Copyright of Reclaiming Children & Youth is the property of Reclaiming Children & Youth and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.