Educators' minds, not N.J.'s bullying law, need to change | Opinion
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist The Star-Ledger
on April 05, 2016 at 1:50 PM, updated April 05, 2016 at 3:31 PM
comments
ByStuart Green
Answering daily anti-bullying hotline calls for the past dozen years and as a former chairmanof the New Jersey Commission on Bullying in Schools has provided me with adeep understandingand a pained perspective on bullying.
I viewed the enactment of the state's Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights in 2011 as a terrific act of hope and healing. This law, which obtained the highest level of bi-partisan support, was a shining moment for anti-bullying advocates. I've also appreciated for years The Star Ledger's strong support of our anti-bullying efforts.
However, your editorial "On N.J. bullying law, can we get off the crazy train?" takes the anti-bullying law to task for problems for which the law isn't responsible.
It is many educators who are failing children, not the law.
You're right that the law is not perfect. For example, one of the changes recommended by New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Task Force— to include in the law's definition of bullying that bullying is a pattern of negative acts in which a vulnerable child is targeted —is indeed needed and would improve the law.
Another suggestion of the task force, however — that school administrators have more discretion to decide when bullying has occurred —would inevitably lead to more problems. School administration and staff "discretion" in addressing bullying is one of the very problems the law was created to fix.
In response to an editorial calling to re-examine the state's definition of "bullying," Assemblywoman Veneiri-Huttle says the law is purposefully flexible in order to reflect complex human behavior.
Prior to the passage of the law, school administrators and staff have routinely failed to prevent and address bullying adequately. And still today, there is not enough attention to the problem, despite the law. Many school administrators and staff interpret the law too narrowly, carrying out its "letter" rather than its "spirit."
They focus mainly on single incidents of harm, rather than on the patterns which invariably characterize bullying. They respond bureaucratically, requiring that hurt children and their families file notices, fill out forms, and testify to the harm done as if they were in a police station or courtroom rather than a school.
Sadly, it is still common that children repeatedly hurt (or isolated over the course of months or years) do not receive adequate attention or resolution.
Most important to preventing bullying, schools fail to focus on the gaps in school culture and climate which give rise to bullying. Anti-bullying advocates and researchers are very clear on what is needed to prevent and address bullying. Schools need to establish and maintain cultures ("how we do things here") and climates ("how the school feels") which provide strong norms and supports for all children, especially those vulnerable.
Children most vulnerable to bullying include those with special needs, those perceived as different from the majority in gender identify or expression, those in racial or ethnic or religious minorities, and those children whose appearance is different or stigmatized in any way.
Tragically and importantly, children are sometimes hurt not only by peers but also by adults in school—most harmfully by teachers who humiliate and denigrate their students. Also, as news stories regularly describe, hazing —a form of bullying —is common. The primary cause of hazing is coaches and other adults who do not establish supportive team cultures or adequately supervise youth, whether on the field or in the locker room.
However, as common as bullying is, there is peer conflict which is not bullying.
The case you highlight — of the girl whose social media activity drew negative scrutiny—was, in fact,notbullying. But the anti-bullying law did not require the school administrator in that case to "threaten an investigation." Instead, the administrator was misunderstanding the entire point of the law. The law only asks administrators and staff to make a greater effort to understand the social status, functioning and relationships of the children in their care, and not just when aso-called incidentis reported. Such understanding is what allows an administrator to understand that peer conflict, and not bullying, has occurred.
School administrators and staff are perfectly capable of noticing, understanding and appreciating the social and emotional functioning of all the children they serve. In truth, an evidence-based and modern view of education clearly indicates that this is the most important of all educational tasks. Learning and academic performance is critically impacted by whether children feel safe, supported, nurtured and engaged in their educational settings, from the earliest ages.
Not ensuring that all children feel safe in this way is a form of institutional neglect of children. It is not the law that needs an urgent change —it is the hearts and minds of many educators.
Stuart Greenis director of theNew Jersey Coalition for Bullying Awareness and Preventionand associate director of Overlook Family Medicine.