Bullying is not considered a crime under the Virginia Code. Here are some of the most common criminal acts associated with bullying: (For more examples and more information about federal law, see the U.S. Department of Education`s Guidelines on Bullying PDF.) There are also considerable differences in the extent of responsibility of schools. Some states limit school authority to school grounds and other school-controlled locations or events. For example, North Carolina`s anti-bullying law is limited to any action that “takes place on school grounds, at a school-sponsored event, or on a school bus.” 25 Other states have given schools the power to address bullying that occurs elsewhere but affects the school environment of the child being bullied. For example, Maryland law covers any act that “takes place on school grounds, at a school activity or event, or on a school bus; or. [s]ubstanti interferes with the proper functioning of a school. 26 The Maryland Act and more than 20 other similar state statutes implicitly grant schools authority over actions unrelated to the school (Suski, 2014). This expanded power is particularly relevant to cyberbullying, as in many cases, electronic forms of bullying occur when students are neither at one school event nor in the presence of the other. The broad powers granted to schools raise questions about student rights (e.g., Speech and Privacy) as well as potential additional expectations for schools to monitor student interactions outside of school campus (see the “Future Directions” section below for a discussion of potential impacts). Similarly, definitions of cyberbullying used across states to address the emerging threat of cyberbullying vary. While some states use the term “cyberbullying,” others simply refer to any “electronic” communication. For example, Iowa prohibits any “electronic, written, verbal, or physical act or behavior toward a student” that constitutes bullying (emphasis added).
It defines the term “electronic” as “any communication involving the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic or similar means.” Electronic” includes, but is not limited to, email communications, Internet communications, pager services, mobile phones and electronic text messages. 16 The Massachusetts definition of cyberbullying includes many of the same means, but also explicitly includes impersonating another person online in a way that causes harm or fear to another student, creates a hostile school environment for another student, violates another student`s rights, or disrupts the school environment.17 The definition of cyberbullying in Massachusetts includes specific mention of electronic forms bullying, or cyberbullying, in these states, the laws do not create separate guidelines for cyberbullying, but add cyberbullying as a type of bullying covered by that state`s respective anti-bullying law or policy. These broad definitions of bullying, which encompass both traditional forms and cyberbullying, combined with the expanded reach of school authority in many states (see below), allow schools to combat bullying in a number of locations – real and virtual. Cormier v. Town of Lynn, 479 Mass. 35 (2018) Although a defendant city “could and should have done more” to protect a student from bullying and its inaction resulted in serious injury to the child during a bullying incident, the measure prohibits prosecution. The Tort Claims Act will sue the city and its employees if they did not “initially” cause the situation. Public calls for zero tolerance for bullying are particularly troubling, despite widespread criticism that zero tolerance is a failed policy. According to the APA Zero Tolerance Working Group (2008), these guidelines prescribe severe penalties that apply to all violations, regardless of the circumstances. For some educators, zero tolerance simply means not ignoring some form of misconduct.
However, the practice of zero tolerance in schools usually involves a specific sanction, such as long-term suspension or expulsion, regardless of the severity of the violation. It is the automatic and harsh nature of punishment that has raised concerns. Critics have objected to the use of automatic school suspensions because it is unnecessarily punitive, does not meet the needs of students who bully and could have a chilling effect on reporting by children and adults. You will need to prove that your employer knew, or should have known, that the conduct constituted harassment. The relevant test is “whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would consider the behaviour to be harassment of the other.” Another tricky area? This is officially considered bullying. Not all conflicts are bullying. And there can be a difference between bullying and teasing. So how does a school decide if something is serious enough to qualify as bullying? In the second multi-state study, the GAO looked at six school districts in eight states (Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Virginia, and Vermont) that differed in terms of several dimensions, including geography, student enrollment, and state anti-bullying policies (e.g., how bullying was defined in the policy, what protected categories of students were listed in the policy). As part of the audit, interviews were conducted with central administrators, principals, school staff and parents (the number of interviews conducted is not specified in the report). The results of these interviews revealed three areas of concern among state officials and local authorities, each of which is addressed in anti-bullying laws and/or policies: (1) challenges in determining appropriate responses to out-of-school incidents, including cyberbullying; (2) difficulties in helping parents and youth distinguish between bullying and other forms of peer aggression and conflict; and (3) barriers arising from lack of resources to train teachers and staff in the prevention, identification and response to bullying (U.S.
Comments are closed.