What Schools Should Know About Bullying - Essay Example

Jeff McDowell Dr. V. Hunt ENC1101 Dec. What Schools Should Know About Bullying Perhaps one of the most difficult things to learn in life is the fact that no matter how much a person may try, he is bound to realize that he is just not cut out like the rest. That no matter how hard he works, he will never be able to measure up to the people he looks up too. That no matter how fast he moves or how many steps he takes, he will always be a step behind. Some days that person might stand strong and hope to prove everyone wrong, but in others, he might fail. Sometimes the taunts and jabs will get to him and there is nothing he can do about it because he is who he is. Probably the worst feeling in the world is being treated like you are less than who you truly are and being placed under someone’s forceful thumb. What then could possibly fix the way you feel? Would retribution be the answer? If so, what is the price of casting someone aside to live a life behind the rest? If things could be solved with money, then placing the value would be simple. But the fact is that branding someone and forsaking him into a time of misery amounts to more than just finances. It amounts to the hopes and dreams of a young boy aspiring to become better and hopefully like the rest. It amounts to the life of a man seeking fulfillment at every which turn he takes desperately wanting to prove that he is not the weakling that he was perceived to be. It amounts to everything that a bullied soul desolately seeks to cry out but could not because he is under the mercy of a heartless tyrant. It amounts to more than just power play. In current times, it amounts to bullying. Plain and simple. But what is bullying? Who is guilty of it? Bullying has been taken to mean as an overt act of a person asserting his authority over another person usually someone perceived as a weaker specie (Snell). Oftentimes, this has been associated with the popular kids in school trying to outsmart and outplay the rest as a means to stake their hold on the majority. But the fact remains that this conduct may not actually be limited to kids bullying their classmates. In fact, there are certain instances when the school itself is guilty of such crime. The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (formerly the National Information Center for Handicapped Children and Youth or NICHCY) declares that the United States have established legislative enactments for close to five decades already, in hopes of assimilating children with disabilities into the mainstream society by providing access to specialized education. To note, five federal laws serve as the chief statutes regulating the societal treatment of children with learning disabilities. These are: (1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act; (3) the Assistive technology Act; (4) the “No Child Left Behind Act; and, (5) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorized on September 23, 1973, is considered as the primal policy which paved the way for the establishment of further laws governing the civil rights of persons with disabilities (Switzer 11). This law made it mandatory for school institutions to provide equal access to education to all students regardless of any disability (Switzer 23). On July 26, 1990, the United States Congress approved the Americans with Disabilities Act highlighting the States’ stand against discrimination of students with learning disabilities (“President”). This law amended the definition of disability as involving major life activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working as was initially defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The definition was then made to encompass activities such as the operation of the immune system, digestive, bowel, bladder, normal cell growth, neurological, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, brain and even reproductive functions (“President”). The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 on the other hand, serves as a supplement to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as this requires the State to provide funding from the US Department of Education to the different learning institutions so that they may be able to provide technology-related assistance to students with learning disabilities (“Disability”). In 2004, the Assistive Technology Act was reintroduced with the launching of assistive technology programs in all states under a formula-based program which was initially slated to run for five years (“Disability”). Under the “No Child Left Behind Act” or NCLB passed in 2001, the need for standards-based education reform is considered as the key factor in establishing high educational norms perceived to bring about the more quality education that is needed (Rotherham). Furthermore, this particular law highlights the need for proper and accurate assessment of the performance of a student with learning disability following a standardized set of evaluation through the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). With the implementation of these laws, the State seems to be in a stable footing with regards to the students with disabilities. The policies have been properly put in place and the funding is continually being poured into the causes. In all its relative and associated concerns, the system appears to be moving in the right direction towards its goals. But then again, it may be working a little too well. The fact remains that these learning institutions are first and foremost, profit-driven entities with the principal objective of obtaining money. In this manner, the fact of their business or the “carrying out of instructions to students” is equivalent to nothing more than a means to an end. While these same educational facilities may utterly pride themselves to do their utmost and go all out in their moral intentions, the reality is that they need funds to continue their operation. This is where one of the problems lies. Public service clashes with private needs. This works as the base that amplifies the space between the current enactments on learning disabilities and its associated consequences. After all, as the age-old saying goes, no one can serve two masters. With the obvious prerequisite of educational facilities to obtain funding from all corners, they have been forced to seek business strategies and marketing schemes to monopolize, manipulate and even dictate the run of the market. But as any business entity, the market is unpredictable at best and downright erratic at times. With the staggering amount of resources allocated for projects headed by the IDEA, standing at $60 billion a year, schools cannot be faulted from wanting to have a slice of such funds (Snell). But in doing so, they have invariably caused persecution of their students. Lisa Snell wrote in 2002 that about twelve percent of the American children attending kindergarten to 12th grade are designated to attend the special education system. Only ten percent of this is deemed as suffering from severe disabilities while all the rest are referred to as those with ‘specific learning disabilities’ (SLD) (Snell). But a problem arises because there remains a need to establish fixed criteria to determine if a child has SLD (Coulson 30). There appears to be no concrete factors to identify students with SLD from those who are on average, low achievers. School facilities often utilize this dilemma as an excuse to drop off students who do not perform on the same level with the other kids into the SLD criteria leading to an abuse of the policy and the harm caused to the “indeterminate” student (Coulson 33). Oftentimes, due to the need to raise funds, some educational institutions exploit this authority with no regards for the student who would have to endeavor classes under the SLD program (Spear-Swerling and Sternberg 67). Furthermore, the effects set off by this “labeling” may be too steep a price to pay for the few meager bucks that it can bring to the school. The fact is that these learning institutions must keep in mind that their authority over the students must not go beyond their mandated responsibilities. They are there to provide educational services to the students while seeking to eliminate any possible dilemmas or impediments to the learning process. Schools are there to help the children grow into productive adults to whom the future lies. Unfortunately when the schools resort to seemingly harmless maneuvering to further the schools income without proper justification, then the educational facility is nothing short of bullying the students and parents into a corner from which they have no means to escape from. It may be for the benefit of the students as a more specialized way of learning that is afforded to them and such may be the primary and best excuse that the schools may have handy. But the fact remains that what makes this situation controversial is the discrimination and misunderstanding that the students tossed into the SLD system have to go through. Good for those who have been able to rise above the judgment, but what of those who cannot? What results then is a highly complex and overly arduous situation that must be overcome by children wrongfully placed in the SLD program. Their school, in the hopes of raising funds and in the august intention of feigning interest in the students’ well-being, places the “indeterminate” kids in the said program without having to bother conducting an in-depth assessment of their individual competencies. As such, the kids have been pushed into a system that they clearly do not belong to. These kids are invariably abandoned into a situation where they will be labeled as someone they are not. Labeling and years of trying to overcome such incapacity will mark the future of such kids all for the reason that their school was too ill-equipped to monitor their performance. Sad to say, but this is the reality. This is what we have to face. This is the challenge we have to overcome for the benefit of the children who are and who will be placed in this situation. Let us raise the awareness of the public to the plight of the children being subjected to the SLD program for the sole motivation of providing additional state funds to the school. Let us advocate the just and moral treatment of these kids and not let them be pawned as commodities that would bring in the money for the educational institutions that vowed to hone their skills and competencies. Let us clamor for the rightful implementation of the statutes regulating the viable treatment of children with disabilities. Let us not allow learning institutions to abuse such privilege and permit them to use such legislative machineries to abuse their authority. Let us join together and battle this evil as nothing good would ever come out from such overt, though oblique school bullying. Work Cited Cheadle, Barbara, ed. "EHA Is Out. IDEA Is In." Future Reflections: The National Federation of the Blind Magazine for Parents and Teachers of Blind Children 10.1 (2006): 56-63. Print. Cortiella, Candace "IDEA 2004 Close Up: Evaluation and Eligibility for Specific Learning Disabilities” GreatSchool. Jan. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. . Coulson, Andrew J. Market Education: the Unknown History. Bowling Green, OH: Social Philosophy & Policy Center, 1999. 30-31. Print. "Disability & Education Laws." National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Sept. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. . “History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA.” U.S. Department of Education. Jul 2007. Web. 30 Nov. 2011 "President Bush Signs ADA Changes into Law." Compliance Tools for HR Professionals HR.BLR.com.n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. . Rotherham, Andrew, and Erin Dillon. "States Evidence: What It Means to Make Adequate Yearly Progress Under NCLB." Education Sector. Jul. 2007. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. . Snell, Lisa. "Special Education Confidential." Reason Magazine. Reason Magazine, Dec 2002. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. . Spear-Swerling, Louise, and Robert J. Sternberg. Off Track: When Poor Readers Become "Learning Disabled. Bouldon, CO: Westview, 1998. 67-68. Print. Switzer, Jacqueline. Disabled Rights: American Disability Policy and the Fight for Equality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 2003. 11-33. Print. Read More