Introduction
Averting bullying is the obligation of every parent, educator, and student ( Hatzenbuehler, Schwab-Reese, Ranapurwala, Hertz, & Ramirez, 2015). Essentially, bullying can affect everyone including the bully, the bullied, and the witnesses of the bullying. Some of the widely noted effects of bullying include anxiety and depression, feelings of loneliness and sadness, poor academic performance, alcohol and substance abuse, suicide, and dropping out of school ( Seelman & Walker, 2018). Since 2010 when bullying-linked suicides brought bullying issues into the national limelight, all states have enacted laws to address the menace ( Waldman, 2018) . Some states’ anti-bullying laws are definite and comprehensive, entailing a list of 16 recommendations as provided by the Department of Education, while others are open-ended, where the plans to curb bullying are crafted by individual districts. In that light, the present paper explores various resources to weigh the effectiveness of these anti-bullying laws.
The Effectiveness of the Anti-bullying Laws
According to Cohen & Freiberg (2013), school climate is fundamentally about healthy and productive relationships. The main goal for eliminating harassment in schools is to create school environments that are free from any type of mean-spirited conduct. Thus, i n its initial guidance, the DOE insinuated that the best anti-bullying regulations should incorporate 10 elements in its definitions. The regulations can range from a description of bullying and cyber-bullying to the inclusion of non-exhaustive lists of bullying practices and behaviors, and acknowledging that bullying could be physical or verbal, and direct or indirect ( Waldman, 2018) . Nevertheless, out of the 50 states, only seven states’ definitions of bullying and cyber-bullying incorporate all ten components: Maryland, Connecticut, Nevada, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maryland. Notably, DOE suggested that the anti-bullying laws should cover conduct on school or campus premises, school-based transportation, school-based activities regardless of their location, and through school-based technology. However, according to Waldman (2018), only 25 states have explicitly limited school bullying laws and policies along these provisions. Moreover, cyber-bullying often occurs entirely off campus and has continuously affected the on-campus educational environment for students. Equally important, the failure of the DOE to stipulate whether state anti-bullying laws should require private learning institutions to craft bullying programs has greatly reduced the effectiveness of these policies because only six states outlaw bullying in both public and private schools; these states include Maryland, Illinois, Rhode Island, Iowa, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, the DOE recommended that anti-bullying laws interdict bullying along 10 characteristics: color, race, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, gender identity, ancestry, religion, physical appearance, and gender. Nonetheless, only 21 states incorporated at least one of these attributes ( Waldman, 2018). In a survey involving around 145,000 students from grade 9 through grade 12 to study the frequency of bullying on lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, and queers (LGBTQ), it was established that the rate of bullying had declined by 12.5%, cyber-bullying declined by around 6%, while suicidal thoughts among LGB teenagers declined by approximately 7% ( Waldman, 2018). The study indicated that the main factor linked to the declined rates of bullying, cyber-bullying, and suicide thought among LGB community in various states was largely due to the states’ general commitment to LGBTQ equality and not due to the enactment of anti-bullying laws (Waldman, 2018). Notably, Waldman (2018) indicated that mere enactment and execution of anti-bullying laws, even a comprehensive one as recommended by the DOE, had little or zero impact on the LGB students’ health and safety. Rather, the study found that the most crucial factor that explained cross-state variances in levels of bullying, cyber-bullying, and suicidal thoughts among students was the individual states’ greater commitment to prevent such occurrences. For instance, it was unraveled that states that had laws that, among other components, protected LGBTQ community from harassment on the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation tended to have lower levels of LGB bullying, fewer cases of LGB cyberbullying, and fewer LGB students reported that they had earnestly contemplated suicide.
In another cross-sectional observational study conducted by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2015) using a population-based survey of 64,000 teenagers in grades 9 through 12 from 25 states, several deductions were made. First, the authors found significant variations in the rates of bullying and cyber-bullying across all 25 states. Second, the study found that individuals in states that adopted at least one of 16 DOE recommended elements in their anti-bullying laws recorded around 25% decline in odds of reporting bullying and around 20% decline in cyberbullying compared to other states that did not incorporate even a single component in their laws and policies. Nonetheless, the authors attributed these declines to three key constituents of anti-bullying laws as provided by the DOE: description of outlawed bullying behaviors, statement of scope, and stipulations for school districts to craft and execute local laws. Further, the research found that rates of bullying ranged from approximately 15% in Alabama to South Dakota’s 26%, and an overall average of 20% across all 25 states explored in the survey. Additionally, Alabama recorded the lowest cases of cyberbullying at 12%, while South Dakota recorded the highest rates among all 25 states at 20%. The overall average in cyber-bullying for all 25 states was approximately 16%.
In addition, Sabia and Bass (2017) noted that many laws were hurriedly executed as a response to bullying-linked tragedies; hence, they were not crafted as collaboratively as they could have been. People were trying to contain a challenge and they rushed to adopt multiple statutes without sufficient scrutiny to understand what conducts and communications would be prohibited. As a result, the anti-bullying laws have not been adequately effective in accomplishing their purpose. Equally important, even though numerous researches have exhibited an encouraging correlation between comprehensively-defined policies and reduction in rates of bullying, Seelman, and Walker (2018) noted difficulties in understanding which program was effective and why. Besides, the DOE did not provide the forms and severity of punishments for various forms of bullying in its 16-recommendations framework. Also, a great extent of bullying often transpires in the absence of teachers’ attention, such as in playgrounds and hallways; this makes it difficult for teachers to monitor and counter such actions through the application of appropriate laws. Table 1 exhibits bullying location statistics in schools.
Bullying Location Statistics in the U.S.
Source: The National Centre for Education Statistics (2016)
It is worth noting that, today, bullying occurs through mobile phones which have divergent ramifications for privacy. The Supreme Court prohibits police from searching any content of a mobile phone without a warrant (Sabia & Bass, 2017). Hence, it is difficult for the police and other law enforcement officers to investigate and contain cyber-bullying despite the enactment of multiple anti-bullying laws and programs across all states.
Conclusion
Various studies used in this essay have exhibited that the enactment of anti-bullying laws alone has a negligible significant impact on mitigating bullying and cyber-bullying across different states in the U.S. This trend shows that merely enacting a law is rarely if ever, enough to contain a social problem. Despite a notable reduction of the cases of harassment among students, studies have indicated that bullying and cyber-bullying are still prevalent, hence; there is a need for broader research and policy formulation to ensure health and safety for all students in American schools. Besides, various resources have indicated that the laws have played a minor role in mitigating the cases of bullying. Therefore, since the anti-bullying laws are not sufficiently effective on their own, there is a need for all states to strengthen their commitment to equality and protecting vulnerable individuals, especially from the LGBTQ community.
References
Cohen, J., & Freiberg, J. A. (2013). School climate and bullying prevention. School Climate Practices for Implementation and Sustainability , 1 , 1-5.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Schwab-Reese, L., Ranapurwala, S. I., Hertz, M. F., & Ramirez, M. R. (2015). Associations between antibullying policies and bullying in 25 states. JAMA Pediatrics , 169 (10), e152411-e152411.
National Centre for Education Statistics. (2016). Indicators of school crime and safety. Institute of Education Science , 1-235.
Sabia, J. J., & Bass, B. (2017). Do anti-bullying laws work? New evidence on school safety and youth violence. Journal of Population Economics , 30 (2), 473-502.
Seelman, K. L., & Walker, M. B. (2018). Do anti-bullying laws reduce in-school victimization, fear-based absenteeism, and suicidality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 47 (11), 2301-2319.
Waldman, E.A. (2018). Are anti-bullying laws effective? Cornell Law Review , 103(135), 135-154.
