nasp gpr, lgbt & mac committees nasp convention joint session philadelphia, pa 2/21/12
DESCRIPTION
NASP GPR, LGBT & MAC Committees NASP Convention Joint Session Philadelphia, PA 2/21/12. Promoting Policies and Legislation to Ensure Safe Schools for All. Prior to 1999, no states had clear statutes addressing school bullying - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
NASP GPR, LGBT & MAC Committees NASP Convention Joint Session
Philadelphia, PA 2/21/12
Promoting Policies and Legislation to Ensure Safe Schools for All
2
3
Prior to 1999, no states had clear statutes addressing school bullying
Today, 46 states have enacted laws that contain specific bullying provisions
4
Purpose of U.S. Department of Education study:
What is current status of bullying legislation in the states?
How are policies formulated at the state and local level?
5
USDOE –Identified Key Components And School District Policy Subcomponents In State Bullying Legislation
Prohibition and purpose statementStatement of scopeProhibited behaviorEnumeration of groupsDevelopment and implementation of local policiesReview of local policies
Components of local policiesCommunicationsTraining and preventionTransparency and monitoringRight to pursue other legal remedies
6
Components of Local Policies
DefinitionsReportingInvestigatingWritten recordsSanctionsReferrals
7
Analysis of State Bullying LegislationKey Findings
From 1999 to 2010, more than 120 bills were enacted by state legislatures that have introduced or amended education or criminal justice statutes to address bullying and related school behaviorsForty- five state laws direct school districts to adopt bullying policiesForty two state laws containing clear statements prohibiting students from bullying. Three states prohibit bullying without defining the prohibited behaviors.Most states frame legislation as law governing “bullying,” “bullying and harassment,” or “bullying, harassment, or intimidation,” using the term interchangeably.Thirty six states now include provisions in their education codes prohibiting cyberbullying or bullying using electronic media
Analysis of State Bullying LegislationKey Findings
Nine states distinguish between “bullying” and “harassment,” and define them separately under the law. Two states only address “harassment” as it pertains to behavior in schools, with no mention of “bullying.”
Thirteen states specific that schools have jurisdiction over off-campus bullying behavior if it creates a hostile school environment
The least expansive state laws outline district requirements to develop local bullying policies without specifying policy content
9
Enumeration of Specific Characteristics
Seventeen state bullying and harassment laws include language enumerating the characteristics of protected groups.Conveys explicit legal protections for certain groups or classes of individuals, or for anyone bullied based on personal characteristics, such as physical appearance or sexual orientation.Seventeen state laws currently include language that names or references protected classes in their bullying definitions or in their harassment provisionsSexual orientation is listed as a protected class in 14 of the 17 states with enumeration language
10
11
Other experts advise against inclusion of protected classes, arguing that bullying be defined solely based on behavior and not characteristics of studentThey argue that the politicized nature of enumeration discussions lengthens debate over which classes to include, and delays enactment.This argument has been a key factor in those states that have failed to pass bullying legislation.Ex. Missouri law prohibits any school district from adopting a policy that safeguards specific classes of students
12
Proponents point out that naming groups provides a clear directive to schools about the need to safeguard student populations that are most vulnerable to bullying.
Example: NASP and other advocacy organizations recommend inclusion of LGBT youth who experience high rates of bullying but are not legally protected under civil rights legislation.
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enumeration is an “essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete”
Research found positive effects within school environments when policies contain these explicit protections for vulnerable populations
13
Enumeration of Groups
Each of the district policies that name protected groups define bullying as potentially motivated by characteristics of students that are bullied.
These policies do make it clear that behavior does not need to reflect the bullied students’ characteristics to constitute bullying
Enumeration language found in these policies communicates protections for specific classes of students but does not restrict bullying definitions to acts motivated by target characteristics
14
Analysis of State Model Bullying PoliciesKey Findings
Twenty seven state laws recommend or require state education agencies and create and disseminate state model policies or guidance to assist school districts with the development of bullying policies.
41 states have created model bullying policies, 12 of which were not required or encouraged by state law to do so.
The majority of state model policies were developed after 2006
15
Analysis of State Model Bullying PoliciesKey Findings
Bullying infraction consequences, reporting procedures, investigations, and guidelines for communicating policies were the most frequently covered components. Legal remedies for victims were addressed least frequently ( 9 states).
Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island developed state model policies that best covered the U.S. Department of Education-identified key components of bullying laws and policies.
16
Analysis of School District Bullying PoliciesKey Findings
The district policy component least frequently observed pertains to procedures for addressing mental health concerns of students who are bullied
District policies not only contain definitions of bullying and core district policy components, but also other key components, including procedures for publicizing policies, training and prevention for students and school personnel, and transparency and monitoring
17
Analysis of School District Bullying PoliciesKey Findings
District policies are generally more expansive than their authorizing legislation
Districts located in states with more expansive legislation have produced the expansive school district policies, although several school districts with less expansive laws have also substantially expanded the scope and content of their policies beyond the minimum legal expectations
18
To Summarize…
State legislation concerning bullying has grown rapidly and nearly all states currently have bullying lawsThere is currently a rapid expansion and revision of state bullying legislationSome key components are included in legislation in many more states than othersStates differ substantially in the number of components they include in legislation and in the ways in which those components are addressed
19
To Summarize…
Many states have expanded bullying legislation to respond to emerging problems related to cyber-bullyingMost states (41) have developed model bullying policies or other widely available guidance documentsPolicies in the randomly sampled set of 20 districts investigated tend to be more expansive than state legislation or policies in the states in which they are locatedAt least in the context of the sample, more expansive school district policies tend to be in states with more expansive legislation
20
National Law
21
Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA)/Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA)
Safe Schools Improvement Act
Student Nondiscrimination Act
Whom does the bill protect?
All students regardless of background-including LGBTQ
Any student who is discriminated against because of real or perceived LGBT status
What does the bill prohibit
Schools and districts must prohibit bullying and harassment in conduct policy
Protects students from discrimination by school personnel, as well as other students.
Where do these protections apply?
Any public k-12 school; any incident of bullying or harassment that impacts a student’s ability to participate in programs and activities
Any public K-12 schools; any incident of harassment of discrimination that impacts a student’s ability to participate in programs and activities
How can students seek remedies
Schools and districts must establish reporting and response systems.
Students may pursue claims through school system. May sue to ensure compliance with the law.
Other Information
Encourages a focus on prevention and professional development
Based on existing federal protections. Includes bullying and harassment as examples of discrimination
22
School Systems
23
Why?
Sexual orientation (38%)Look, talk or dress (33%)Race (20%)Lower SES (14%)Gender (11%)Religion (10%)
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007).
24
Who is involved right now?
Victims (11% currently, 30% frequently)Bullies (13%)Bully-Victims (6%)Witnesses (80% of students, 58% of HS Teachers)
Associated environmental factors:Conventional crimeChild maltreatmentHaving a peer or sibling be victimized Sexual abuseWitnessing violence
Holt, M.K., Finkelhor, D., & Kantor, G.K. (2007).
25
Bullying and SuicideBoth victims and perpetrators of bullying are at a higher risk for suicide than their peers. Children who are both victims and perpetrators of bullying are at the highest risk.
LGBT youth experience more bullying (including physical violence and injury) at school than their heterosexual peers
A review of the research found that the relationship between bullying and suicide risk was stronger for LGBT youth than for heterosexual youth
(SPRC Suicide and Bullying Issue Brief, 2011)
26
CDC Coordinated School Health
PBIS anti-bullying State Standards:1) Social Emotional Learning; or 2) Health
Oregon State Health Standards for Anti-BullyingExamine how violence, aggression, bullying and harassment affect health, safetyRecognize diversity among relationships including disability, gender, race, sexuality, and body sizeAdvocate respect for diversityDesign a campaign for preventing violence, aggression, bullying & harassmentExplain pro-social behaviors and explain how they may prevent violence (e.g., helping others, being respectful of others, cooperation, consideration).
29
Accountability
Coordinated School Health Model
PBISState
Standards
School Improvemen
t Plan
30
School Improvement Plan
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GOAL (SMART GOAL):1. Students will increase healthy habits and reduce
alcohol, tobacco and drug use. 2. Students will increase knowledge of human diversity
and develop interpersonal skills to counter bullying, harassment and conflict.
3. Students will develop mindfulness, distress tolerance, and emotional regulation skills, recognize the signs of anxiety/depression/suicide, and access appropriate support services when needed.
Guidelines and Procedures to Implement the Bullying and Harassment Policy
& Dating and Sexual Violence Policy for Students
School Climate Context
There is growing appreciation that school climate—the quality and character of school life—fosters children's development, learning, and achievement.
School climate reflects the norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching, learning and leadership practices, and organizational structures that comprise school life.
(Introduction to National School Climate Standards)
Standard Four of Five National School Climate Standards
The school community creates an environment where all members are welcomed, supported, and feel safe in school: socially, emotionally, intellectually, & physically.
Indicators emphasize need for measurement data
School Climate Resources
For full Standards document, go to: http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/standards.php
For information on National School Climate Center’s assessment tool: http://www.schoolclimate.org/programs/csci.php
Providence School DistrictStudent Enrollment: 24,050 students
45 schools: 22 elementary, 6 middle, 10 high schools
17% of students have an Individualized Educational Plan District under “Corrective Action”70% of students are below grade level, no AYP 26% drop out rate
Successes
Approved Aligned Instructional System Policy: Core Curriculum Implementation of Criterion Based Hiring SystemOngoing Implementation of PBISReceived Race to the Top Funding
Challenges
Stability of Leadership in the District Collective bargaining agreementsState funding formula (6/10/10)Student Achievement DataSignificant Disproportionality
500
505
510
515
520
06 07 07 08 08 09
School Year
Total # of SAO Referrals by School year
06 07
07 08
08 09
Reasons for SAO Referrals (top 7)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Violation
Perc
enta
ge 06 0707 0808 09
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
2007-2009 Threats of Violence Referrals included:
Threats made against an Administrator/teacher/student/bldg./gang/police officer/school/staff member.
“Masked Referrals” Victims of bullying
weapons, disruption, fightingSelf-Injurious behaviors
weapon, threat of violence to self, disruptionSuicide Ideation Students in psychiatric crisis
e.g, level II threats of viol./staff/admin., bldg, disruption
Phase I: Aug 2009 - Jan 2010
“Improving District Prevention of Threatening & Self-Injurious Behaviors”
PartnershipsElizabeth A’Vant PPSD School Psychologist
Sara Dinklage RI Student Assistance Services
Randy Ross New England Equity Assistance
Extensive Professional Development on Bullying/Harassment
Central Office StaffPrincipalsAssistant PrincipalsGuidance CounselorsStudent Assistance Counselors
PsychologistsSocial WorkersBehavior CoachesTeachersParents
Phase IICreating Comprehensive Policy
Administrative support to revise policyForming a Collaborative Team
Union OfficialsCommunity PartnersLegal OfficeTeachersSchool AdministratorsCentral Office
Phase IICreating Comprehensive Policy
Comprehensive PolicyIncludes adults Distinguishing bullying from harassmentCyberbullyingRetaliationParent reporting & communicationSupport for target and for aggressorAccountability/Data CollectionProcedural Guide/Manual
Group worked from Dec.2009 - June 2010Adopted by School Board Aug 10,2010
Phase IIIIdentification & Development of Standardized Procedures
Group worked from September 2010 – April 2011
Development of Procedures and tracking tools to execute/implement the revised policies (e.g., standardized complaint forms, investigation form, safety plan, notifications, timeline, consequences, and reporting).
Report, Investigate, Take Action (RITA protocol)
Adopted by School Board June 2011
Intervention ProceduresReport -Investigate-Take Action (RITA)
o Safety Plans Standardized FormMechanism for informing all relevant adultsPeriodically reviewed as deemed necessary
o ConsequencesReasonable timely age-appropriate corrective actionRange from positive behavioral supports up to
including suspension or exclusiono Social Emotional Interventions
Social Skills Counseling Functional Behavioral Assessments Behavior Intervention Plan Referral to outside agencies
48
Phase IV Next Steps
Standardized Training delivered to all students (just completed development of training power point and hand-outs)
Parent Training Sessions
Support Staff including bus drivers, crossing guards, maintance, and Cafeteria workers
Revise Code of Conduct to include retaliation.
Lessons LearnedStaff Engagement
Leadership
Positive professional relationships
Tie in with other related initiatives, such as suicide prevention
Making Collaboration Successful
Shared motivations
Team goals, roles, deadlines
Ideas/creativity of the group
Constant feedback
Lessons Learned (2)
Importance of interpersonal relationships
Diversity - harassment vs. bullyingCultural competence training neededSocial support among adults
Lessons Learned (3)Safety is essential for student achievement and mental healthPolicy and implementation procedures:
Clear rules and normsEnsuring physical securitySupporting social-emotional security
Select, implement, and embed social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula and approaches
Contacts
GPR: Barry Barbarasch [email protected]: Kelly [email protected]: Jim [email protected] Affairs: Liz A’[email protected]