Administration Rules and Policy Interpretation of Bullying - Essay Example

Administration Rules and Policy Interpretation s Administration Rules and Policy Interpretation Introduction Bullyingin schools has escalated to become widely viewed as a social, economic, health and education apprehension, which has been at the forefront of the public debate on both school policy and legislation. In the recent past, elected officials, as well as, members of the school community have grown to view bullying as a potentially catastrophic but neglected issue glaring the youth and the local school systems. While the issue has been somehow downplayed in the past, the focus on youth and bullying was highlighted following the Columbine High School shooting in 1999 that was the pioneer of many high-profile incidents and accidents of violent behavior which show-cased bullying as a looming disaster (Allen, 2010). These incidents triggered a wave of new legislative action within the legislatures, which sought to mitigate the bullying behavior in campuses, as well as, reduce the visible high number of suicides amongst adolescents, and school-attending children that was linked directly to chronic bullying. Education Code sections 200, 220, 233 and 48900.3 describes policies and the intent specific to hate-motivated violence. The sections 422.6. 422.7, 422.75, 422.95, and 628 of the penal code, on the other hand, defines what constitutes hate-motivated crimes. The Education Code Section 35294 requires that each school develop and implement a School Safety Plan as a part of its overall local education plan and revisit the plan annually and amend it as needed. Researchers have commonly defined bullying as a repetitive pattern of aggressive behavior that involves an imbalance of power. In addition, it includes the purposeful inflicting of harm on an individual. Terms commonly used in the California Anti-bullying laws include harassment, discrimination, bullying and intimidation (Allen, 2010). Like any other form of crime, bullying has metamorphosed to include cyber bullying that is also covered by these anti-bullying laws. As a form of violence, bullying can be verbal, sexual, physical or even psychological. Physical bullying takes the forms of kicking, spitting, pushing, or hitting while psychological bullying replicates in intimidation, excluding people from social groups or even spreading malicious rumors. Under the California state law, groups, which have been classified, are drawn from social and economic spheres such as; gender, disability, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or preference, and any other person who might have all or some of the predisposing conditions. Moreover, schools that receive federal funding are required by federal laws to address discrimination on a number of different personal characteristics (Olweus, 2013; Allen, 2010). The key components that can be found in the California anti-bullying laws and policy model are the purpose, scope, prohibited behavior and the enumerated groups. The sample action plan for the local educational agencies in California includes; action steps, the timeline for investigation, appeals process, communications, training/prevention, transparency/monitoring and the legal remedies. Administrators in authority should act to implement the school’s policy on bullying. Practical solutions to this include schedule playground supervision and ensuring students are monitored in the hallways, class, cafeteria, or the restrooms. These areas have been identified as bullying “hotspots.” Another enforcement idea includes scheduling regular school-wide assemblies and the staff development meant sensitize on the policy and communicate the state and school intolerance to bullying behavior (Olweus, 2013). The executors of this policy are expected to post clear expectations for behavior inclusive of the no-bullying rule and the stipulated consequences of breaking the rules. To boost efficiency, they should establish a confidential reporting system for the students who might be bystanders and targets of the bullying actions whereby they can report bullying actions without dread of retaliation and provision of classroom and school activities fashioned to exonerate students’ self-esteem like displaying the special talents, interests, abilities, and hobbies. Other personnel who are used to enforce these rules are teachers. Because teachers are the adults who interact with the students the most, be it in the playground, hallway, or the classroom, it is only natural that they will be looked up to as role models and they will be able to institute a tone of a classroom via their methods and personal bearing. According to the California Education, and owing to their proximity, teachers are instrumental because they afford the students with the avenues to discuss bullying, or solicit their support in branding bullying as an unacceptable behavior (Hutton & Bailey, 2007). Teachers can develop a class action plan so that students can know how to react when they witness a bullying incident, taking immediate action when bullying is reported or observed, as well as, notify the parents of both the bully and the target in a bid to amicably resolve the problems as soon as they occur before they escalate. Students are not left behind too as they are either the perpetrators, witnesses or the target of the bullying incidents. When confronted, most are lost on ways to react and might experience feelings of hurt, guilt and stress as well as the fear of revealing their bullies. Another group that is targeted by this education code is the family. Because children belong to a family unit, this can influence their social behavior greatly. According to Hutton and Bailey (2007), parents and guardians are advised to strive to cultivate a child’s confidence and independence. Research has showed that a child who is both confident and independent is most likely to be successful. However, when the child is the target of bullies, the code advises parents to encourage the children that they are not the problem but the bullies but in a way that does not convince the child to retaliate. The parents are also advised to work with the school staff in addressing the bullying problem and keep up-to-date records of the incidents and detailed child’s experiences. The enforcement procedure for the policy The policy acknowledges that there is no single technique that is right for fighting bullying. A policy, which will work for every community is hard to create. Because every school, community, leaders, guardians/parents are different based on the social, racial, ethnic, economic, or paradigm, they must remain open to new approaches that will accommodate bullying actions as they evolve to. However, a universality can be seen in these steps among schools: Specifying the rules of conduct: this can be done in the school documents, presentations and the orientation sessions that are conducted with the students, parents/guardians, and the faculty. It also includes the school district and the individual school policies, which promote tolerance and positive diversity among the students and staff. Assessing the prevailing school climate: there should be surveys among the students, faculty and the parents aimed at pinpointing possible threats and problems, as well as, the modeling of positive and respectful behavior. Providing training for staff: it should be remembered that bullying keeps mutating. Thus, it is of importance to empower the staff to act immediately and effectively whenever inappropriate behavior occurs in the classroom or any other bullying “hotspots.” Involving community partners: they are resourceful for helping develop both a plan for handling incidents and the ways to assist targets and offenders and their families. Support student-led projects: these projects promote appreciation and the acclamation for the people’s differences while encouraging and promoting dignity and support (Olweus, 2013). A more comprehensive enforcement procedure has the following components: Definitions: purpose statement, scope, prohibited behavior, and the enumeration of groups. Review of school district policies: district policy reviews. District and school policy components: this includes reporting, investigations and response, written records, consequences, and mental health referrals. Other district provisions: the communications, training and prevention, transparency and monitoring, and the right to legal remedies. Therefore, the procedure for the intervening in bullying behavior include, but is not limited to the following All students, staff, and parents receive a summary of the policy prohibiting bullying at the beginning of the school year, school makes reasonable efforts to keep confidential reports of bullying and results from the investigation, staff members are supposed to intervene immediately to a bullying incident while witnesses and targets are also encouraged to report the incidents. The procedure involves mechanisms where such reporting will not reflect on the targets and witnesses in any way (Hutton & Bailey, 2007; Allen, 2010). Away from the California Education Code, the academic success and the well-being of California’s students are attributable to the education leaders at either the site, district, regional or the state level. While the site comprises of teachers and administrators, the education leaders happen to be the key players in ensuring that a conducive environment where teachers want to work and students can comfortably learn thrive. The California governorship has hence heralded the California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL) as a foundation for the education leader preparation continuum since 2001 (Olweus, 2013). Under the leadership of Edmund G. Brown Jr., the incumbent California state governor, there has been promotion and use of state frameworks and guides, which encourage evidence-based instruction strategies to boost learning for the divergent students’ needs. The leadership, in collaboration with other education advisors, has been able to provide access to an array of resources required for effective support of children who are drawn from different socio-economic grounds and maintenance of students’ services such as food and transportation, emergency and risk management procedures and work with the community emergency and welfare agencies. Based on the discussion above, it is my personal perspective that the California Anti-bullying policy will be instrumental in preventing bullying now and in future. By integration of technology to the legal and cultural paradigms, bullying mitigation can only get better. References Allen, K. P. (2010). A Bullying Intervention System: Reducing Risk and Creating Support for Aggressive Students. Preventing School Failure, 54:3, 199-209. Olweus, D. (2013). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We can do. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Hutton, T., & Bailey, K. (2007, September). School Policies Effecitive Strategies for Creating and Legal Issues Safer Schools and Communities Supporting Safe Schools. Retrieved from councilofcollaboratives: http://www.councilofcollaboratives.org/files/HFIlegal.pdf Read More