First Person

Voices: Time to toughen anti-bullying laws

Diana Kurniawan argues that Colorado’s anti-bullying laws don’t go far enough.

I believe Devin Scott, a pupil at Vista Ridge High School in Colorado Springs, committed suicide on Aug. 7, 2012, as a result of ongoing bullying (although police determined officially Devin was not a victim of cyberbullying). The day before his death, kids showed up in his neighborhood to watch him fight.

This is just one of the many instances of bullying that happen in Colorado, and bullying is now an epidemic that can stem from simple jealousies between students and lead to the most outrageous online harassments and physical attacks.

The repercussions can be as detrimental as suicide or death, and there have been many cases where the perpetrators were not caught or they were deemed not responsible for the crime they have committed.

Colorado Senate Bill 12-046 on Disciplinary Measures in Public Schools describes bullying as follows:

“Bullying” means any written or verbal expression, physical, electronic act, gesture, or a pattern thereof, that is intended to coerce, intimidate, or cause any physical, mental, or emotional harm to any student. Bullying is prohibited against any student for any reason, including but not limited to any such behavior that is directed toward a student on the basis of his or her academic performance or against whom federal and state laws prohibit discrimination upon any of the bases described in Section 22-32-109 (1) (ll) (I). This definition is not intended to infringe upon any rights guaranteed to any person by the first amendment to the United States constitution of to prevent the expression of any religious, political, or philosophical views (Colorado Senate Bill SB12-046, www.colorado.gov).

The punishment for the acts of bullying is as follows according to the bill:

Each school district’s policy shall set forth appropriate disciplinary consequences for students who bully other students and for any person who takes any retaliatory action against a student who reports in good faith an incident of bullying, which consequences shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws(Colorado Senate Bill SB12-046, www.colorado.gov).

The problem with the enforcement of this law is that it has not been significantly efficient in terms of curbing bullying on school grounds or incidents that occur away from educational facilities, as proven by Devin’s death. The prevention needs to start at the first sign of a problem, whether it’s simple name calling or physical violence.

What distinguishes bullying from mere aggression is that bullying is repetitive and involves a power imbalance between a socially powerful perpetrator and a socially weaker victim.” (Sacks, et al. 2009).

In short, we need stronger laws to combat bullying.

Colorado’s anti-bullying law requires district boards of education to adopt policies concerning bullying prevention. The state statute also requires school boards to adopt policies and procedures for dealing with students who cause disruption in the classroom, on school grounds, in school vehicles, or at school activities or sanctioned events.

These policies must also allow teacher to remove such students from their classroom. A third offense results in removal from the class for the remainder of the term of the class.

Bullying is a policy problem

Bullying should be a prosecutable act beyond the school level with each proven offense resulting in a criminal citation with the possibility of it becoming a misdemeanor. This crime should be punishable through a fine, juvenile detention, sentencing to long-term community service or rehabilitation. By increasing verbal warnings and criminal reports at first signs of bullying with this proposed state law, there will be more awareness of its crucial repercussions.

Colorado should introduce a “bystander reporting act,” also known as a good Samaritan law to eliminate the epidemic of bullying. Through the addition of a law like this, the public would begin to understand the severity of bullying and what it problems it can create for victims in the long run. A so-called “bystander reporting act” could increase the proactive involvement of innocent bystanders who witness bullying.

By enforcing a Bystander Reporting Act at the school level, those who are more vulnerable to violent crimes are secure knowing someone will be able to report even the slightest possible act of violence. This reporting act will place more of a focus on preventing bullying – and serves as a deterrent for the students who may be bullies.

Under this tweak to the current law, a bystander could be protected under the anonymity rule. This piece of added security would enhance the safety of the educational facilities.

“Many people mistakenly believe that they have only two options in instances of actual or potential violence: intervene physically and possibly expose themselves to personal harm, or do nothing…However, physical force and passive acceptance are only two of countless possible options. There are numerous ways that bystanders can prevent, interrupt, or intervene in abusive behaviors, and the majority carry little or no risk of physical confrontation.”  (Katz, 2006).

The prototypical bystander reporting act or Good Samaritan Law is not high-risk if individuals are allowed to report the incident without having to expose their identities except for an administrative purpose. The reports at the school level can become citations. And, and after several episodes involving the same person, the bullying becomes a misdemeanor that can result in juvenile detention or rehabilitation. The record can be negotiated on its permanency after the juvenile  turns 18 years old.

This form of non-violent and non-threatening action is a great first response and prevention tactic to curtail bullying.

Through the protection provided by the Bystander Reporting Act – along with citations and rehabilitation – there will be a higher rate of reportable bullying crimes. This method not only increases safety within the school, but outside the school zones and environment as well.

First Person

What I learned about the limits of school choice in New York City from a mother whose child uses a wheelchair

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

As a researcher interested in the ways online platforms impact learning and educational decision-making, I’ve been trying to understand how New York City parents get the information to make a crucial decision: where to send their children to school.

So for the past six months, I’ve been asking local parents about the data they used to choose among the system’s 1700 or so schools.

I’ve heard all sorts of stories about the factors parents weigh when picking schools. Beyond the usual considerations like test scores and art programs, they also consider the logistics of commuting from the Bronx to the East Village with two children in tow, whether the school can accommodate parents and children who are still learning English, and how much money the parent-teacher association raises to supplement the school’s budget.

But for some families, the choice process begins and ends with the question: Is the building fully accessible?

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires public buildings constructed after 1992 to be fully accessible to people in wheelchairs. However, most New York City public school buildings were constructed prior to that law, and high construction costs have limited the number of new, fully accessible buildings.

As a result, a shocking 83 percent of New York City schools have been found non-compliant with the ADA, according to a two-year federal Department of Justice investigation whose findings the city Department of Education largely disputes. Recently, the city’s Office of Space Management has begun surveying buildings for full accessibility, but more work remains to be done.

One parent’s struggle to find a school suitable for her son, who has a physical disability but no cognitive issues, illustrates what a major role accessibility plays in some families’ decision-making.

Melanie Rivera is the mother of two and a native New Yorker living in Ditmas Park in Brooklyn’s District 22 who shared her story with me — and gave me permission to share it with others. Here is what she told me, in her own words:

My son Gabriel is seven years old. He was born with a condition called arthrogryposis, which affects the development of his joints. His hips, knees, and feet are affected and he has joint contractures, so his legs don’t bend and straighten the way most people’s do. In order to get around, he uses a combination of crutches and a wheelchair.

Before I had my differently-abled son, I was working in a preschool for children with special needs. The kids I worked with had cognitive developmental disabilities.

Despite my professional experience, I was overwhelmed when it was my turn to help my child with different abilities navigate the public school system. I can only imagine the students falling by the wayside because their parents don’t have that background.

When I was completing my son’s kindergarten application, I couldn’t even consider the academics of the school. My main priority was to tour the schools and assess their level of accessibility.

There are only a couple of ADA-accessible schools in my district, and there was no way of indicating on my son’s kindergarten application that he needed one. When we got the admissions results, he was assigned to his zoned school – which is not accessible.

I entered lengthy and extensive mediation to get him into an ADA-accessible school. At that point, I knew I would just have to take what I could get. For families whose children have special needs, “school choice” can ring hollow.

The process of finding any accessible school was a challenge. The DOE website allows families to search for ADA-accessible schools. But the site describes most schools as “partially accessible,” leaving it up to parents to call each school and say, “What do you mean by this?”

When I called the schools and asked, “Are you a barrier-free school?” the staff in the office didn’t know what the term meant. They might reply, “Oh yeah, we have a ramp.” I’d have to press further: “But can you get to the office? Can you get to every floor in the building?” The response was often, “Oh, I don’t know.”

Even the office staff didn’t know. But for my son’s sake, I needed to know.

Gabriel deserves the full range of academic and social experiences. So every day I make sure he’s learning in the least-restrictive environment — from the classroom, to phys ed, to field trips.

I believe the Department of Education also wants to make schools accessible and to place students with different abilities in settings where they’ll flourish, but the current system is not equipped to follow through on those good intentions. While I see gradual changes, I still know that if I don’t find the best placement for my son the system definitely won’t.

At the school level, administrators should know the details of their own school’s accessibility. Teachers should learn to include children with different abilities in their classrooms. Such a commitment means recognizing the value of inclusivity — not viewing accessibility as something ADA says you must do.

Before I had Gabriel, I never thought about accessibility. I never looked at street cutouts or thought about how to enter a store with steps. We’re probably all guilty of perpetuating exclusion at one point or another.

Recognizing that will allow us to change the status quo. It will allow every individual with a physical disability to fully participate in the public school system.

Claire Fontaine is a researcher at Data & Society, a research institute in New York City focused on social, cultural, and ethical issues arising from technological development. Kinjal Dave is a research assistant at Data & Society. You can read more about their project, which seeks to better understand the ways in which diverse New York City parents draw on school performance data, online dashboards, and school review websites when researching schools for their children.

First Person

I covered Tennessee’s ed beat for Chalkbeat. Here’s what I learned.

PHOTO: Marta W. Aldrich
Grace Tatter covers a press conference at the Tennessee State Capitol in 2015.

For three years, I covered the Statehouse for Chalkbeat Tennessee, reporting on how policies from Nashville trickled down into more than 1,800 public schools across the state.

Now I’m starting back to school myself, pursuing graduate studies aimed at helping me to become a better education journalist. I’m taking with me six things I learned on the job about public education in Tennessee.

1. Apathy is often cited as a major problem facing education. That’s not the case in Tennessee.

I heard from hundreds of parents, educators, and students who were passionate about what’s happening — good and bad — inside of schools. I covered crowded school board meetings and regularly scrambled for an open seat at legislative hearings where parents had filled the room after driving since dawn to beat the opening gavel. Not incidentally, those parents usually came from communities with the “worst” schools and the lowest test scores. While many disagreements exist about the best way to run schools, there is no shortage of people, particularly parents and educators, who care.

2. Tennessee has one of the most fascinating education stories in America.

I’ve had a front-row seat to massive changes in K-12 education under reforms ushered in by Race to the Top — an overhaul being tracked closely well beyond the state’s borders. But the national interest and import doesn’t end with changes stemming from the $500 million federal award. Tennessee is home to some of the nation’s premier education researchers, making its classrooms laboratories for new ideas about pre-K, school turnaround, and literacy instruction, just to name a few. And at the legislature, more lobbyists are devoted to education than to most any other cause. A lot of eyes are on Tennessee schools.

3. The education community is not as divided as it looks.

During the course of just a few years, I watched state lawmakers change their positions on accountability and school vouchers. I witnessed “anti-charter” activists praise charter leaders for their work. I chronicled task force meetings where state leaders who were committed to standardized testing found middle ground with classroom educators concerned that it’s gone too far. In short, a lot of people listened to each other and changed their minds. Watching such consensus-building reminded me that, while there are no simple debates about education, there is a widespread commitment to making it better.

4. Money matters.

Even when stories don’t seem to be about money, they usually are. How much money is being spent on testing, teacher salaries, school discipline reform? How much should be available for wraparound services? Why do some schools have more money than others? Is there enough to go around? Tennessee leaders have steadily upped public education spending, but the state still invests less than most other states, and the disparities among districts are gaping. That’s why more than a handful of school districts are battling with the state in court. Conversations about money are inextricable from conversations about improving schools.

5. Race is a significant education issue, but few leaders are willing to have that conversation.

More than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, Tennessee’s schools are largely racially segregated. Yet most policymakers tread lightly, if ever, into conversations about achieving real racial integration. And in many cases — such as a 2011 law enabling mostly white suburban Shelby County towns to secede from the mostly black Memphis district — they’ve actually gone backwards. Then there’s the achievement data. The annual release of test scores unleashes a flurry of conversation around the racial achievement gap. But the other 11 months of the year, I heard little about whether state and local policies are closing those gaps — or contributing to them — or the historical reasons why the gaps exist in the first place. To be sure, state leadership is trying to address some of Tennessee’s shortcomings. For example, the State Department of Education has launched modestly funded initiatives to recruit more teachers of color. But often, race and racism are the elephants in the room.

6. Still, there’s lots to celebrate.

If there were unlimited hours in the day, I could have written thousands of stories about what’s going right in public education. Every day, I received story ideas about collaborations with NASA in Oak Ridge, high school trips to Europe from Memphis, gourmet school lunches in Tullahoma, and learning partnerships with the Nashville Zoo. Even in schools with the steepest challenges, they were stories that inspire happiness and hope. They certainly inspired me.

Grace Tatter graduated from public schools in Winston-Salem, N.C., and received her bachelor’s degree in history from the University of North Carolina. She’s now pursuing a master’s degree in specialized studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.