Anti-Bullying Statute: Getting It Right

By John Strand
Staff Writer

The fact that North Dakota is one of a handful of states without any anti-bullying and anti-harassment laws on the books for the overall safety of kids in our schools gives us an opportunity to study, evaluate, compare, construct and implement model policies. We have the opportunity to learn from other states and to refine our approach and enact statutes that reflect the impact of current technology.

North Dakota’s biennial Legislative Assembly is right around the corner. The chorus of voices expecting lawmaker attention to the bullying issue will likely and properly result in this topic being one of the more significant issues addressed in Bismarck. The ramifications and implications are incalculable, the opportunity ripe and immense.

Pretty much all of us have a horse in this race, as best we can tell. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is about kids, each kid, every kid, all kids. It is about them having the support of their community especially when in a school setting. It is about them being safe and protected, come hell or high water.

There are multiple ways to get this accomplished. For example, we could wait for each and every school district to decide to implement contemporary anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies and protections. Or we could join the vast majority of other states and implement appropriate policies at the state level. That’s another approach, and a good one, we might add.

It is a known fact that only a fraction of our state’s population actually have kids in the schools at any given time. All of us, however, know of what we speak when we discuss bullying and harassment, particularly among youth and often in school settings. All of us know that life is tough for some kids and that they simply do not need additional burdens to carry in an already challenging world. We also all know of successes and failures in how we’ve seen these personal stories unfold.

We have an opportunity at this moment in time to increase the success stories and thereby to reduce the failures, hopefully averting tragic consequences on occasion.

That said, there are some basic considerations to be brought into the picture as many of us advocate for statewide legislation come January 2011. We offer some advice gleaned from our studies of this issue of safety in schools.

:: A statewide policy is our first choice, for obvious reasons. It is fast, comprehensive, and sends a message that is loud and clear.

:: Such a statewide policy warrants specific enumeration. An enumerated law could read like this: “Bullying means any gesture or written, verbal or physical act that takes place on school property, bus or off-site location where school activities are taking place, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical and sensory disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic or association with a person or group with one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics…”
Less desirable is a law not specifically enumerated that could read like this:
“Bullying means any gesture or written, verbal or physical act against any student that takes place on school property…”

:: A model North Dakota policy set by statute would properly define bullying and cyberbullying; it would prohibit bullying and it would delineate a procedure for reporting bullying; it would include anti-retaliation protections; it would spell out investigative procedures; it would define the discipline; and it would encompass thorough distribution and reporting. (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction)

:: State law should specify a time frame for adoption by school districts.

:: The Department of Education would monitor and facilitate the development of the model policy with individual school districts (Connecticut). Some states require frequent updates (Kentucky). Some require mandatory reporting of harassment and stalking to law enforcement (Montana). Some dictate the involvement of citizens other than the local school board in policy development (New Hampshire). Some dictate how the policy is publicized or distributed to parents and students (Delaware).

:: Aside from actual policy language, other related issues may include funding for training for staff and students, and budgeting administrative staff time to effectively implement the policy and develop safe school cultures, the fostering of improved working relationships with local law enforcement, the creation and funding of a bullying hotline, the addition of anti-bullying subjects to available curriculum, and the adoption of a statement of common values or mutual respect, a contract of sorts.

North Dakota may be one of the last states to successfully tackle this very serious topic at the legislative level. However, we have ample opportunity to do it right, especially given the wealth of information and experience of nearly every other state in the Union, hence capitalizing on what works and avoiding pitfalls that do not work.

If the 2011 Legislative Assembly fails to deliver a comprehensive, contemporary statute truly addressing bullying and harassment faced by children in our public schools, they will have left countless kids at risk and at a cost that is honestly immeasurable. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. There are kids whose lives depend on it—and us.

Special thanks to Lisa E. Soronen, Senior Staff Attorney, National School Boards Association, and to the GLESEN organization, for up-to-date information on state anti-bullying laws and policies.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)