Making School Bully

Laws Matter
Lynne Edmondson & Laura Dreuth Zeman

Public school laws affecting students with disabilities also underwent revisions. Specifically, in 2004,
changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Act required that schools discipline all children the same,
unless the behavior is a direct result of the student's
disability or the school failed to implement an individualized educational plan (O'Shea & Drayden,
2008). These requirements, while seemingly allowing for disability accommodations for children
Policy Background
whose symptoms include disruption, provided
Over the last decade, hully prevention activities
schools with the authority to extend punishments,
moved from the local districts to the state houses
such as expulsion, to students with disabilities who
where legislators amended public school laws to inexperience social and behavioral challenges in and
corporate safety regulations. This shift is attributaround school. Therefore, students who experience
ed to federal mandates
these challenges may be
that required states to
suspended or expelled
write safe school laws
Violence prevention programs under the new bullyingin order to receive cerrelated revisions, rather
are considered a hallmark of
tain educational funds.
than getting tested for
For instance, the 2001
certain disabilities or
the
effective
strategies
to
authorization of the
having their educational
Elementary and Secreduce bullying.
plans modified to include
ondary Education Act,
the disruptive behaviors.
referred to as No Child
Left Behind, included the Safe and Drug-Free
Researchers Srabstein, Berkman, and Pyntikova
Schools and Community Act (SDFSC, Title IV, Part
(2008) examined state statutes to identify changes
A) that tied funding with school laws designed
in
public school laws related to bullying. Their study
to keep students safe. Though the word "bully"
represented
one of thefirstnational level analyses of
did not appear in the current Act, it did support
state
policies
following the 2001 changes to the Elebully prevention by requiring states to pass laws
mentary
and
Secondary Education Act. Their findthat mandated districts to write safety plans and
ings
indicated
that a number of states changed their
implement consequences for related behaviors
public
school
laws
to incorporate federal mandates
(Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2002). This
that
tie
funding
to
safe school laws. The present
Act required that district policies contain a needs
study
goes
beyond
Srabstein
and colleagues (2008)
assessment, be based on performance measures,
to
examine
the
exact
language
in state statutes for
be based on scientifically-based research for prothemes
related
to
best
practices
in
bully prevention
grams that work, he directed and targeted based
policy
and
the
fit
of
the
public
school
laws with the
on needs, and include parent input.
Circle of Courage model (Brendtro, Brokenleg, &
Van Bockern, 2002) that has been proven to be efThis legislation also included the Unsafe School
fective in transforming disruptive student behavior
Choice Option (Section 9532), which allowed stuand school climate using a strengths approach.
dents to transfer schools if the one they attended
was classified as "persistently dangerous" or if the
student was a victim of violence, including bulLiterature Review
lying (Gastic, 2010). Recently introduced federal
Any examination of best practices in bully prevenlegislation, H.R. 5184 and H.R. 2262 Safe Schools
tion policy would find that it is paramount that
Improvement Act, seeks to amend the Safe and
laws incorporate effective elements of comprehenDrug-Free Act to include language specific to bulsive violence prevention programs. Violence prelying and harassment. This legislation would revention
programs are considered a hallmark of the
quire that states collect and report incidences of
effective
strategies to reduce bullying. These probullying, that plans for addressing bullying be ingrams
seek
to create school climates that reinforce
cluded in student codes of conduct, that schools
positive
experiences
through education and interpublicly distribute the conduct codes, and that
vention
and
include,
but
are not limited to, early inthere is a clearly established complaint procedure
tervention,
conflict
resolution,
mentoring, positive
regarding suspected bully behaviors (iiith Conbehavioral
curriculums,
and
counseling
(Hoover
gress, 2009-2010).
& Oliver, 1996; Olweus, 1993). They also include

The authors examine the state-mandated

policies governing school bullying in the
United States. They conclude that the
Circle of Courage provides a standard for
creating safe and respecful school climates.

34 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournaLcom

parents and community members in the development and implementation of the policies, which
are ideally created at the local level (Schwartz, 1996;
Volokh, 2000). Noguera (1995) argues that while
violence prevention fosters safety in schools, the
counter response of coercion promotes conflict in
schools. Coercion tactics include, but are not limited to, metal detectors, zero tolerance, and other
policies that criminalize bully behavior (Centers
for Disease Control, 2007).
Best practice school bully laws combine education,
intervention, and individual responsibility to building positive school climates. Schools often specify
student responsibilities in codes of conduct. Grona
(2000) examined codes of conduct to identify the
methods schools used to notify students of their
rights and responsibilities. He found that these codes
may include, but are not limited to, school rules and
clearly defined consequences for their violations and
the conditions under which parents are notified of
violations. In best practice policies, student codes of
conduct also identify environments where schoolrelated misconduct can occur, such as in classroom
buildings, at school-sponsored activities, in the community at large, and in cyberspace (Grona, 2000;
Redding & Shalf, 2001; Schwartz, 1996).

Best practice school bully laws

combine education, intervention,
and individual responsibility to
building positive school climates.
This analysis examines state-level school bully laws
in the context of the four constructs of the Circle of
Courage Model as defined by Brendtro, Brokenleg,
and Van Bockern (2002). This model includes the
themes of belonging, mastery, independence, and
generosity. Individuals experience belonging as
human attachments characterized by trust. Individuals develop mastery by immersion "in an environment with abundant opportunities for meaningful achievement" (p. 63) by methods which can
include stories and games. Individuals develop independence when "adults set clear and consistent
expectations so the young person can successfully
navigate life's challenges" (p. 107). Individuals experience generosity through opportunities for sharing, support, loyalty, and empathy.
It is argued in this analysis that best practices in
bully prevention policy encompass these four constructs. Specifically, the model incorporates the

themes of belonging through policies that emphasize citizenship, mastery through policies that
mandate mentoring and educational programs,
independence through expectations that student
codes of conduct include clear behavioral expectations and the consequences for violations, and generosity through policies that emphasize building
caring school communities. Further, policy makers
can extrapolate these practice level principles to the
state level and produce effective school codes that
address bullying.

Data File
The researchers copied public school laws from online legislative depositories of archived state statutes. The data selected for inclusion in the analysis
file contained language that specifically addressed
bullying. The data consisted primarily of laws enacted after 2003.

Research Questions
This question guided the inquiry: Among states
that legally mandate public schools to address bullying, how extensively have they incorporated language representing the themes of belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity?

Data Analysis
The researchers thematically analyzed the qualitative data using an a priori approach. In the first
stage of the analysis, researchers constructed a
template that represented the variables of belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity.
Next, the researchers read and reread the data to
determine its fit into the coding scheme. If the
theme was represented in the law, they coded
the variable "Yes" with notations indicating the
wording of the text, and if the theme was not
present in the law, they coded the variable "No."
They used a triangulation process that included
reading the data together, discussing its meaning,
reconciling differences in interpretation, coding
the data, and verifying the data codes. The researchers included two university faculty with
more than ten years experience each in bully prevention who worked in two different statesone
midwestern and one southern.
Finally, the researchers converted the "Yes" and
"No" values to nominal data where "Yes"=i and
"No"=o so that frequency distributions could be
calculated. Table i presents the frequency analysis
that include total and percentage "Yes" and "No"
spring 2011 volume 20, number 1 | 35

responses recorded for each variable. This data reduction process allowed the researchers to generate a numeric answer to the study question. The
findings include discussions of both the thematic
review of the qualitative data and the frequencies
generated from this data reduction.
Results
The analysis indicated that thirty-seven states
(74%) wrote specific bully-related policies into
their public school laws. The findings in this article represent the rate as a percentage of these thirty-seven states. Overall, most public school laws
included coercion tactics, specifically behavior
expectations for students and consequences for
violating those expectations. Eighty-one percent
of the states (30 of the 37) included requirements
that schools specify conduct expectations and
infraction consequences. Forty-nine percent of
states required that school districts specify these
policies in student codes of conduct. Fifty-nine
percent of the states included staff training components in their school codes, which included a
requirement that the schools train the responsible adults to implement the plan. Fifty-one
percent of the states incorporated school-wide
educational plans into their school codes. Only
eleven percent of the states required that schools
include character education. Table i presents the
results of the analysis that identified whether
states incorporated the Circle of Courage constructs into public school laws.

Independence was the most frequently identified

aspect of the Circle of Courage model found in public school laws regarding bullying. For the researchers to code laws as incorporating independence,
evidence was required that students had individual
freedom to make decisions and self-manage, and
that schools hold students responsible for the success or failure of their own choices. Examples of
independence found within state policy included a
code of conduct, personal responsibility, and language that emphasized self-control. Nineteen states
(51%) addressed the independence construct.

School districts have a

responsibility to provide
education in a safe and
effectual climate that minimally
threatens students' rights.
Mastery was the second most common component
of the model found in public school laws. The researchers coded the law as incorporating mastery if
there is evidence that states expect schools to rely on
adult-student relations to supervise students, to help
students practice positive interactions, and/or guide
students as they build inner satisfaction and competence. Examples of mastery language found within
state laws included the following terms and programs:
diligence, learn by example, conict resolution, and
bullying prevention education. Staff development
requirements were included in mastery because this

Table 1
Frequency Distribution across Circle of Courage Model Variables
Total Yes

Percent Yes

Total No

Percent No

Belonging

16%

31

84%

Mastery

15

41%

22

59%

Independence

19

51%

18

49%

Generosity

13

35%

24

65%

36 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournaLcom

Table 2
Circle of Courage Model Variables Applied to States Incorporating 3 or 4 Constructs
State

Belonging

Mastery

Independence

Generosity

Georgia

New York

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

indicated that the school train adults to take an active

role in creating the school culture. In all,fifteenstates
(41%) addressed the mastery construct.
Fewer states included language in their public school
laws that included an aspect of generosity. Generosity was included if there was evidence that the law
requires schools to build a community of citizens
who give freely to others who practice caring and
living for others. Public school laws indicating a
commitment to the concept of generosity included
language discussing civil school, civility, compassion, respect, respectful speech and conduct, peer
helpers, positive human relations, cooperation, and
generosity. Thirteen states (35%) included wording
in public school laws that addressed the generosity
construct.
Belonging was the least common construct found
in public school laws. The researchers coded laws
as representing the construct of belonging if the
language implied all students were important to
the school community and specified steps to insure
manufacture of ties and facilitation of community
within the school. Examples of belonging found
within state laws included wording emphasizing citizen education, peer helpers, mentors, and
school pride. Only six states (16%) addressed the
belonging construct in their public school laws.
A few states required the implementation of all four
of the Circle of Courage constructs (Table 2). Georgia and New York had extensive character education
initiatives that were inclusive of the four constructs.

Pennsylvania required peer helpers, conflict resolution, and a code of conduct that encompassed all
four constructs. Three states' policies encompassed
three of the study constructs: Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. These programs included
civic mindedness, respect, students learning by example, and character education.
Discussion and Conclusions
This analysis adapted the Circle of Courage model
for an analysis of state statutes specifying public
school laws related to bullying. Specifically, it analyzed state laws to determine whether they contained language addressing the themes of belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity. The
findings indicated that few states incorporated all
the components of this model into public school
laws. In fact, the most frequently incorporated
element was independence, typically represented
in requirements that schools include behavioral
expectations and specify consequences for infractions in student codes of conduct. Most states relied exclusively on coercive laws, such as those
authorizing expulsion or criminal indictments for
bully conduct, that have induced schools to adopt
policies proven ineffective in reducing bullying.
Questions may arise from these findings as to
whether it is valid to evaluate public school laws
using the Circle of Courage model. The researchers argue that the model represents comprehensive best practices that can guide policy makers.
State statutes that incorporated these themes may
spring 2011 volume 20, number 1 | 37

be used as prototypes of this model. Ultimately, the

benefit to states is the adoption of laws that serve to
create learning environments that foster community and responsibility.
It seems clear that bullying is more than the current
hot topic. Rather, it is a behavior that society appears to want to address. Perhaps there is not a better arena to address bullying than public schools.
To make comprehensive change, states can change
public school laws. Some attempts to craft these
laws appeared to be crude and ineffectual, while
others seemed well thought out as they incorporated best policy practices in bullying. One state has
a policy the researchers referred to as the "don't be
a sissy" policy to the extent that the law provided
the bully due process, allowed for aggression as selfdefense, and offered victims protection only in the
form of removal from school. While it is certain
that policy should be based on the concept that students have rights, those rights should not infringe
on another's right to an education. School districts
have a responsibility to provide that education in a
safe and effectual climate that minimally threatens
students' rights. Therefore, any law should balance
the protection of all students' rights.
Public school laws that incorporate strengths-based
best practices can include codes of conduct, disciplinary guidelines, and environmental controls,
along with integrating citizenship, caring, role
modeling, and educational components. In addition, the implementation of the law should have
someflexibilityto be case-specific based on the type
of incidents more common in the particular school
setting. Furthermore, unfunded mandates without
consumer buy-in may lack real commitment, while
well-written comprehensive policy based on best
practices could be a success and inspiration. It is
the authors' conclusion that the Circle of Courage
can be a philosophical guide for a rigorous bullying
prevention laws.

Lynne Edmondson, PhD, is associate professor of

Health at Alabama A&M University in Normal. Contact
her by email at Lynne.Edmondson@aamu.edu

References
rirth Congress. (2009-2010). H.R. To amend the Safe and
Drug-Free Communities Act to include Bullying. Accessed 8/ro/2oio at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=hiii-5i84
Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (2002). Reclaiming youth at risk. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). School
health policies and programs study 2006. Washington,
DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
Gastic, B. (2oro). Student safety and the reauthorization
of No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 3p(5),
423-425Grona, B. (2000). School discipline. American ournal of
Criminal Law, 27, 233-247.
Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The bullying prevention
handbook: A guide for principals, teachers, and counselors.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Noguera, P. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A
critical analysis of responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189-212.
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2002). Safe and DrugFree School and Communities Act State Grants: Guidance
for state and local implementation ofprograms. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what
we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
O'Shea, D., & Drayden, M. (2008). Legal aspects of preventing problem behavior. Exceptionality, i5(i), 105-118.
Redding, R., & Shalf, S. (2001). Legal context of school violence: The effectiveness of federal, state, and local law
enforcement efforts to reduce gun violence in schools.
Law & Policy, 23(3), 297-343.
Schwartz, W. (1996). An overview of strategies to reduce school
violence. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education No.
115. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Srabstein, J., Berkman, B., & Pyntikova, E. (2008). Antibullying legislation: A public health perspective. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 42,11-20.
Volokh, A. (2000). A brief guide to school-violence prevention. Journal ofLaw & Family Studies, 2(2), 99-152.

Laura Dreuth Zentan, PhD, is professor of Social

Work and Women Studies at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. She can be reached by email at

dreuth@siu.edu

38 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com

Copyright of Reclaiming Children & Youth is the property of Reclaiming Children & Youth and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.