Mass. anti-bullying law is a national leader

A number of high-profile bullying cases in Missouri, Ohio, New York, and here in Massachusetts in recent years have resulted in the suicide of young victims.

States across the nation have been adopting laws since 1999 to protect students from bullying. To date, 45 states have adopted anti-bullying laws, with Wisconsin and Massachusetts being the most recent.

Bully Police USA, a watchdog group advocating for the victims of bullies, provides a report on anti-bullying efforts in each state. The organization has given only nine A++ grades, including one for Massachusetts.

The state’s schools are now gearing up to comply with the new law.

Dynamics of bullying
One of the foremost experts on social dynamics in the school setting is Thomas Farmer, an associate professor at Pennsylvania State University. In “Bullying in School: An Exploration of Peer Group Dynamics,” Farmer and co-author Cristin Hall argue that bullying is a byproduct of the natural social dynamics that occur within schools and classrooms. Basically, they believe that children tend to associate with others similar to them in order to support their own behaviors. The result is careful negotiation of relationships among multiple peers and the emergence of a hierarchy of social dominance, where children must continue to jockey for status.

It was once commonly believed that bullies were “socially marginalized” children, that is, the anti-social boy who uses threats and force to get his way. But Farmer’s research, and that of others, concludes that even the social elite (e.g., “popular kids”) use bullying as a way to exercise their power. This helps them to protect their own status by taking advantage of the social vulnerabilities of others. In contemporary society, this is often played out in the cyber activities of children. Such activities are increasingly becoming the focus of anti-bullying efforts.

The Massachusetts law
The new anti-bullying law in Massachusetts incorporates awareness for students and professional development for staff. It mandates the development of a policy prohibiting bullying, which is defined as a written, verbal, or electronic expression or physical act or gesture that causes physical or emotional harm, places a victim in reasonable fear, creates a hostile environment, infringes on the rights of a victim, or disrupts the education process or orderly operation of a school.

Each school must develop a plan to prevent bullying and provide for intervention in consultation with teachers, staff, support personnel, volunteers, administrators, community representatives, local police, students and parents. The consultation must include public notice and comment periods.

Plans must include statements prohibiting bullying, cyber-bullying, and retaliation; clear reporting procedures; provisions for anonymous reporting; procedures for prompt response and investigation; disciplinary actions; procedures for restoring a sense of safety for the victim and strategies for protecting those who report bullying; procedures for notifying parents of victims and perpetrators; disciplinary action for false reporting; and a strategy for counseling for victims and perpetrators.

Plans must also include provisions for informing parents and guardians about the bullying prevention curriculum, which includes how parents can reinforce the curriculum at home, the dynamics of bullying, and online safety and cyber bullying.

The plan is to be administered by the principal and must be posted on each school’s website. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, in conjunction with several state agencies, will release a model plan.

Implementation challenges
Some of the challenges associated with the development and implementation of an anti-bullying plan lie at the local level. Plans from the state can serve as a model, but it is at the local level that the plan must be customized. For example, law enforcement participation and reaction could differ from town to town. It is important that all parties involved clearly understand the objectives and work to establish a comprehensive and compliant plan.

Professional development and staff training is also a concern. Schools across the commonwealth have limited resources; providing training that is uniform to every school may not be possible. The Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State College has developed training for school staff and law enforcement agencies and provides it at low or no cost. Train-the-trainer sessions are scheduled, to ensure a more uniform standard for professional development programs.

Cyber bullying is also a concern, as schools find it difficult to monitor what students are doing via technology at or away from school. Schools must implement Internet safety policies to be adhered to when students and staff use school computers. Schools are also charged with the responsibility of ensuring that outside activities do not disrupt the education process. This may prove more challenging and would require investigation beyond what is normally seen as a school disciplinary function.

Liability concerns
Many schools have expressed concerns regarding liability associated with investigating bullying and cyber bullying. What if a school is overzealous in combating bullying? What about a lax approach?

How liability is established remains to be seen. As principals are charged with investigating reports of bullying, however, it is the opinion of many that an under-reaction poses a far greater liability risk than overreaction. Principals must act on reports and use discretion based on the information provided.

Since the Massachusetts law is evidence-based, reasonableness is key. The basis in evidence provides for a more rational approach, as the term “common sense” can vary in its interpretation.