Study: A Third Of All Students Are Regularly Bullied

The first anti-bullying law was signed in Georgia in 1999, after the shooting at Columbine School. The two shooters planned the attack that stole the lives of thirteen people to retaliate against the bullying they had endured at the high school. This shooting shocked the nation, and an anti-bullying movement began. Montana was the last state to adopt anti-bullying legislation in 2015.

The problem persists even with anti-bullying legislation and school programming, and its effects are far-reaching. Because of this, re-energized anti-bullying efforts will round out the policy response to school safety. If the efforts are done well, that is. School programming and policies must be relevant to today’s students, based in research, and reflected in state and federal policy and legislation.

Anti-bullying programming and policies must be brought to 2018 to be effective for current students. Schools enacted them between 2008-2010, when the graduating class of 2019 high schoolers were in early elementary school. In your teenage years, did you ever re-watch a movie from your childhood and was shocked by how antiquated it looked? This is how anti-bullying programming seems to many students today. It feels irrelevant, unrelatable. I mean, imagine being a high school football player having an elderly woman explain respectful socializing to you, or watching the 2012 movie “Cyberbully”, equipped with 2010 sliding phones with qwerty keyboards and obsolete versions of social medias we use today. These are actual anti-bullying programs implemented in some schools, and they completely overlook differences in school cultures, and the problems and platforms for the problems that kids deal with today. This places a disconnect between the students and the content of lessons, making it harder to see that bullying still happens today. Without effective programming, schools lose a vital chance to minimize the amount of bullying happening in schools and reduce the chances of a violent attack by victims or an escalation by bullies.

No Place for Hate is a notable example of relevant anti-bullying programming. Each school who is certified a “NPFH school”–which they can advertise for admissions and reputation–must complete several school-wide projects created by staff and students to address hate on their campus. NPFH requires that projects fit many criteria, including to promote respect for individual and group differences, involve the students in the planning and implementation, involve ACTIVE learning and discussion, and to spread them out across the whole school year. The diversity-embracing, school-specific, collaborative nature of NPFH projects give anti-bullying efforts a new face that is relevant to students.

One drawback to NPFH projects are not evidence-based unless the students and staff do research themselves. Because of this and other reasons, NPFH cannot stand in for all anti-bullying programming and policies. I discuss how research can be the backbone of lesson plans and policies in my LinkedIn article. For one example, research shows that boys and girls are generally victims of distinct types of bullying. A slightly higher portion of female than of male students report being bullied at school (23% vs. 19%). Conversely, a higher percentage of male than of female students report being physically bullied (6% vs. 4%) and threatened with harm (5% vs. 3%; (NCES, 2016). Further, as student conduct is influence by surroundings, political and cultural climates affect bullying. Teachers can better understand the signs of bullying and harassment with this information, so access to up-to-date research is key.

Finally, state and federal policy and legislation must reflect the need to keep bullying at the forefront of the public’s minds. Any school safety policy related to mental health in schools should specify re-energizing anti-bullying efforts. For example, a new Houston law, “David’s Law,” responds to the issue that many students do not report bullying because they think someone has already noticed, or they worry they will be stigmatized for reporting. The law provides an anonymous tip line, web or mobile app. Students can report bullying and talk about experiences at school through a channel outside of school. This also takes steps to fight victim’s feelings of isolation, as students know that they are heard and that their issue will get a response.

Any effective policy response to the school safety issue must protect students from threats coming from both outside and inside school walls. Whether you believe this protection requires arming teachers or enacting tighter gun laws, treating the plague of school bullying is a critical step to securing mental health in our schools. To properly do this, schools must use evidence-based response and prevention methods and programming, keep these relevant to students today, and we must push for state laws reflecting all of this. School bullying is life-altering. Even a typical case of bullying heavily impacts the victim and his or her family and friends. The far-reaching and long-lasting effects of bullying fits the issue neatly into the mental health and school safety debate.

For more information on protecting children:

Brett H. Pritchard

Law Office of Brett H. Pritchard

Killeen, Texas