NJ BULLYING.org

2/24/09: Article about last week's public hearing

NJ's newspapers have done a good job of covering the hearings, but I'm posting today's article from the Philadelphia Inquirer because their article has the most in-depth focus on the recent hearing and the issue.

Commission Lawrenceville hearing

2/23/09: NJ Commission Public Hearings (this week and next)

See attached notice - a hearing this Wednesday in Gloucester and one next week in Jersey City. You are invited - urged, really - to attend, and provide testimony if you wish - instructions for doing so are in the linked notice (below).

Hearings

Two Commission public events have already been held - a set of focus groups on February 9th in Monroe, and a Public Hearing in Lawrenceville last week (2/18). Both events were well attended and the input and testimony valuable. Especially powerful and important testimony came from parents of children bullied, though the experts and organizational representatives who testified were also very helpful. The hearings and events represent only way source of input to the Comission. Each of the Commissions (14) have their own organizational experiences with the issue, including with the community, various Commissioners have been holding informal meetings and calls with various expert and involved individuals and groups since the beginning of the Commission process (10/08), and there are additional advisory groups (on legal matters and on evidence-based school practices) providing reports as well. Out of all this will come a report, in mid-July, to the Governor and Legislature, with the Commission's recommendations.

2/23/09: Complications Inevitably Arise ...

Some of the complications that may arise as schools address bullying issues are captured in the following story about a boy in a Connecticut school whose parents are upset because the boy "was labeled a bully." As the story explains, there were several incidents in which the boy was identified as bullying others. From the parent's point of view, their son was victimized and striking back. There are numberous issues which may be relevant here. First, as the school principal points out, there is no indication that this phenomenon (mislabeling as "a bully") occurs much (if at all) - that's important because a legislator in the area is suggesting a new law requiring "due process" before a child is "identified as a bully." Second, it's not clear why a 'labeling' process (e.g., a letter in the boy's school record, in this case) was required (if it was) or needed. Third, as we have argued before, schools need to take a "relational" rather than "incident-based" view of bullying (and ideally proactive) - so that the emphasis is on good understanding of the circumstances (e.g., the relationship between the child targeted and those hurting him or her, the adequacy of the school's support of the targeted youth or youth who share the targeted characteristics) of the bullying, rather than only reacting to each incident when it occurs. There is something appealing about adopting a legalistic framework in addressing bullying - it fits the analogy between bullying and assault, emphasizes that there is indeed a victim and the importance of consquences and redress, etc. But because bullying is occurring between children, and in school, and is primarily a function of school culture and climate, a legalistic approach primarily or by itself won't adequately address the problem. It should be possible, e.g., in this case and others, to understand who is being bullied. But that is not to say things can't get complicated - for one thing there are a relatively small percentage of children who are bullied and also bully others.

Backlash on B

A wider issue that arises as the focus on bullying grows is the critique offered by researchers who use social norms theory (a recent study by David Craig and others, e.g. - description linked below). This is the idea that perceived norms strongly influence behavior. In this view, if students receive information that bullying is common, they may bully more (or helpfully intervene less) than if they perceived bullying as less commonly occurring. Of course, reality has a role to play here - how commonly bullying is actually occurring. But how the facts are presented is always another issue. In any case, no important issue is without its complications - and these are two recent examples.

soc norms

2/23/09: A critique of law

As the article linked below notes, a NY anti-bullying law is still being discussed. What's interesting about this article (from press in Saratoga) is the extensive quoting from bullypolice.org (a non-profit org which devotes itself to tracking the status of anti-bullying laws nationally). Bullypolice does good work - when last checked they rated NJ's law(s) in the Bplus range and liked Delaware's and Georgia's laws more (in part because of increased accountablity and consequences as compared to NJ's - and lots of other states' - laws). This article cites Florida and Kentucky as good examples, and lists a number of criteria for what makes a good law. A helpful review.

NY law - recs

2/23/09: The tragic death of Lawrence King

One of the questions raised by the suit is the extent to which the school's level of support of the child, or proactive support for the range of gender identity and expression can be said to have played a role in his death.

King suit 2-09

2/23/09: Stalking and bullying

Is stalking a form of bullying? While the Times article (linked below) does not address this explicitly, the question is implicitly present. How much stalking behavior starts at early ages? Is there an imbalance of power which makes it difficult for the target to defend herself? Are there institutional factors (in schools, or workplaces, or society) which provide implicit support to the person stalking (or inadequately address the behavior), while limiting options and support for the person targeted?

Stalking - NY Times 2-09

2/6/09: Supporting All Students

An exciting change is taking place! I'm inferring such a development from the appearance in today's NY Times of an article entitled "Powerhouse School District Reaches Beyond the Elite," and some other similar developments I've seen. The article is about a NY school district, Port Washington on Long Island, which is conducting a vigorous effort to engage so-called "middle" students (sometimes defined in negative terms as those without stellar grades and those who are not otherwise - e.g., athletically - 'stars') in more educational and extra-curricular activities in schools. ((The term "engagement" here is used deliberately, since 'school engagement' (usually defined as the student's perception that the school "cares about me") is one of the key characteristics which researchers suggest determines school success. (At the very least, this sense of engagement makes it much more likely a student will actually keep attending school - a common sense minimal requirement for the possibility of success, other factors aside.)) The "news" in this news story is that all students appear to be benefitting from this strategy, not only the 'middle' students. To those of us who are anti-bullying advocates, this is no surprise. To us, the proper headline for such a story would be: "Powerhouse School District Supports All Students." Such culture and climate change in a school, as multiple studies have indicated (though not conclusively shown), is powerful and indeed benefits all students. To us, supporting all students should be non-controversial. But of course, predictably, there are some objections. Some who are stars, and presumably their families, worry that education and will be somehow watered down if we actually start paying more systematic attention to the bulk of students who need more support. In fact, as the article (below) describes, such potential (or even actual) 'watering down' is not a problem. And the benefits of supporting all students are great, including (though not mentioned in this particular article) improving peer relations and reducing bullying.

Beyond the Elite

1/30/09: Workplace Protections - Children Too?

It's interesting, from the point of view of a bullying-focused advocate, to see the now rapid strengthening of national (federal) protections for workers against workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation. (See the NY Times Editorial, today, attached below.) In terms of bullying, we have in NJ Frank Vespa-Papaleo's (when he was Director of NJ Division on Civil Rights) groundbreaking decision in the LW case that employer obligations to protect workers from harassment also applied to the situation of children in school, reasoning which was substantially upheld both by NJ's Court of Appeals as well as the NJ Supreme Court (discliamer: I am not a lawyer, so take my descriptions of court decisions with a grain of salt). However, note that in some sense Vespa-Papaleo's courageous (given the storm he stirred up) decision was stating the obvious (which no one else before him had ever noticed, or stated!). That is, that the NJ Law Against Discrimination, on which Vespa-Papaleo relied (because it is one of the strongest in the nation) does not ever use the word "adult" to describe the workers it is protecting - in fact, the law uses only the word "person." That's the sense in which it could have been evident that the law's sense of justice (protecting vulnerable workers) should have also applied to children in 'work-like' (e.g., school) settings. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I am noting the quickening process now taking place through the new US administration's actions (e.g., the Ledbetter law) and the US Supreme's Court's actions (see the attached Editorial). Is the need to strengthen protections for children in schools also obvious?

Times Editorial - workplace protections

1/27/09: 'Digital Harassment' new campaign

A New York Times article published today (in the 'Advertising' section) describes a new Ad Council campaign just started (w help from Google) which is aimed at helping teens (especially girls) who are harassed by cell phone (text messaging) and other electronic means (cyberbullying, in other terms). As the article accurately notes, the electronic bullying is occuring between kids who have relationships in 'real space', not only in 'cyberspace' - and most of those relationships are 'building-based' (school) and in the local community. The article also makes the connection (a continuum) between dating violence and cyberbullying. Here's the article:

Digital harassment 1-09

(1/14/09 - new item on 'News' page)

1/13/09: Commission - Public Hearings

Details for the NJ Commission on Bullying in Schools public hearings are attached. The hearings represent one (important) way for the Commission to view the problem of bullying in NJ, especially for public (e.g., parents, others) to offer input. It is only one way of course. Each of the Commission members has had years of exposure to the problem, hearing from respective communities, studying the issue, etc. In addition, the Commission members receive other input and testimony from experts to whom they've reached out and others who have been in contact. In addition, there is access by email and other means of submitting written testimony. See the attached notices (duplicated in pdf and Word document form). The first hearing is coming up in about two weeks, with two other hearings in the month following. Hearings are located in North, Central and South New Jersey, at public sites (e.g., schools, a college). Contact info for questions, etc. are on the notices.

Public hearings notice Public hearing notice - Word

1/13/09: Cyberbullying Report

A NY Times article summarizing a report about to issued from a Harvard-led national task force on cyberbullying makes the point (as Nancy Willard and other experts have made before) that the threat of sexual predation on-line and on social networking sites specifically is more limited than is typically believed (though any incident is of concern, of course), but that cyberbullying (peer harassment, including on a sexual basis) is the much more common threat. This finding seems consistent with the small number of good studies previously done. Here is the article.

Task Force Report 1-09

1/6/09: Updates - Apology

Apologies for the long interval (11-23-08 thru today) between notes here. There is much to report. I'll write a very short, informal notice at the moment, then fill in with longer pieces and attachments in notes to follow:

(1) A change of great importance to anti-bullying advocates in NJ is that Frank Vespa-Papaleo has left the directorship of the state's Division on Civil Rights, as of 12/31/08. We assume this also means that Frank will no longer participate on the Commission (on Bullying in Schools). The Division is ably represented on the Commission by Frank's associate Esther Nevarez, who has attended meetings to this point for Frank (who was working hard on the Civil Unions Commission, along other work). (A longer note about Frank's work will be posted here shortly.) We should look forward to the appointment of a new Director, and hope for equally strong leadership and action on bullying and related issues - which is only to be expected and very likely for anyone who leads DCR.

(2) The Commission (on Bullying) had a third meeting in December and has a fourth meeting coming up next week (January 12th). The core work is still going on - trying to work out a set of recommendations for strengthening NJ's approach to bullying, through law and through a school-based initiative. Public hearings are now scheduled (I'll post a notice about the hearings, with all details, very shortly - a notice is coming from the Advocate's office and will be widely distributed.)

(3) There have been mutliple interesting news stories, and professional publications about bullying - those will be posted shortly as well. A recent highlight of those (which I'll post) is a report of the American Psychological Association's Zero Tolerance Task Force, which essentially affirmed the relatively uselessness (and occasional harm) zero tolerance approaches do, both in terms of bullying and in terms of fair treatment of students and impact on school climate. (Article posted below.)

Zero tol APA 12-08

2008

11/23/08: Updates

(1) Commission:

The second meeting of the NJ Commission on Bullying in Schools was held on November 18th. The focus in this meeting was the core work: (1) discussing the legal issues associated with childhood bullying in preparation for recommending to the legislature any changes in law or legal procedure which would strengthen support for bullied children and their families, while protecting all those involved; and (2) discussing a new state initiative on bullying to be conducted conjointly by DOE (Department of Education) and AG (Attorney General's office). To that end, two subcomittees, one for each of these tasks, were created and each group met, then reported back to the full group. Logistics were necessarily addressed as usual: a schedule of all remaining meetings (through July 20th) was decided upon - meetings will take place variously at NJ Principals and Supervisors headquarters in Monroe or NJ Law Center in New Brunswick. Given the central role of DOE and AG, staff of each of those offices will begin attending the meetings, so that representatives of each agency can participate on both subcommittees. The chairperson again emphasized that most of the work will have to be done between the meetings, given the tight schedule: The full report for both aspects must be finalized and turned in by July 20th. That means a draft of the report will have to be ready by April. The public hearings are taking place between January and March. It was decided there will be four public hearings - the first three will be in traditional individual testimony format, one for each NJ region; the fourth meeting will be a series of focus groups. The Public Advocate's office is sending our a press release and letter, including by email, to all identified child-focused agencies and organizations in NJ, asking for input by letter and email, as well as a notification of the upcoming hearings. Meanwhile, Commission members are reaching out to various parties for expertise beyond that represented in the Commission itself.

(2) Workplace Bullying:

A conference on workplace bullying was held at NJ Law Center today. The conference, co-sponsored by the Organization of Chinese Americans and the NJ State Bar Foundation, was excellent. Featured speakers included Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie, psychologists who are the best known national advocates on this issue, and NJ Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, already known for her advocacy on childhood bullying issues and currently sponsoring in NJ a healthy workplace bill, with input from the Namie's organization (Healthy Workplace Institute). For me, a striking take-home point was the way in which the adult anti-bullying movement seems very clear that the only way changes in workplace bullying behavior will occur is through changes in law. Specifically, changes in law which increase the potential burden and risk to employers of having bullying occur is seen as the main factor in getting employers to make the necessary changes in the culture and climate of the workplace. It is especially interesting that advocates such as the Namies take this position (if I understood them correctly), given the similarities perceived between workplace bullying and school (childhood) bullying. That is, in workplace bullying, just as in our understanding of childhood bullying, the phenomenon is seen as primarily a function of the environment (culture and climate), as a behavior which is modeled in adult relations, as a behavior which is implicitly encouraged and sustained by inadequate prevention and response on the part of those responsible for the environment (workplace or school), etc. etc. Their clarity on this issue makes a childhood bullying advocate wonder whether the belief that this issue can be adequately addressed by schools without lawsuits and other means of enhancing 'burden and risk' is a naive view. A chilling side-comment made at the conference was the observation by one expert presenter (in a less formal Q and A segment) that even after a successful anti-bullying system has been put in place in a workplace, the work done is typically undone whenever a new CEO and set of executives come in. This is work well worth doing - advocates in both the childhood and workplace bullying arena agree that addressing bullying is a matter of morality, rights and integrity, so the work must of course be done. But despite the slow progress made and one's optimistic nature, the task is daunting.

11/13/08: Commission Update

So the first meeting of the new Commission on Bullying in Schools was October 20th. That meeting was mainly occupied with introductions to the task and logistics, including setting up subsequent meeting dates/times, selecting a chairperson, discussing structure (e.g., subcommittees), sharing (among the 14 commissioners, all of whom were present) concerns about childhood bullying, from personal/professional and organizational perspectives. Only the next meeting was set - it's November 18th 4pm. More time will have to be used at the Nov 18th meeting to set up the remaining meetings, including the public hearings. The Commission was given a 9-month life by the state legislation which set it up. So the Commission ends on July 20th. There will be a meeting monthly between now and then (e.g., mid-Dec, mid-Jan, etc.).

There of those meetings will occur on days on which there will also be a public hearing. The legislation requires (and it's a good idea of course) public hearings for north, central and south New Jersey (one hearing each). The dates and locations for those hearings are to be determined. The state's Public Advocate office handles all logistics for the Commission, including setting up and managing the hearings.

The Commission's main work product will be a written report which (mainly) makes recommendations to the state legislature about changes in law which ought to be made to strengthen NJ's response to childhood bullying, and which proposes and details a new state initiative on childhood bullying to be managed by the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office (both of which are represented on the Commission). (To read the full law, click here https://wwwnet1.state.nj.us/GOV/APPT/GOV_APPT_WEB/Default.aspx.)

Most of the work will have to be done, of course, between Commission meetings, through individual reading/thinking and discussions, including between Commission members, mostly conducted by phone and email, but with smaller (e.g., sub-committee) or even smaller (e.g., one-to-one) meetings. Testimony at the public hearings (which will be recorded/transcribed, I'm told), including submission of supplemental written materials, is one type of input which can (and needs to) influence the report. But much more input is needed of course.

One source of that input is the entire literature on childhood bullying and related issues which is already available (books, journal articles, etc.). And even though scientific attention to chidlhood bullying is arguably only about 35 years old (and in the U.S. even newer - perhaps ten years, post-Columbine), there is a fair amount of such literature to review. (Fortunately, many of all of us, visitors to this website included, have been reading that literature as it emerged, for all these years.) Another source of input is expert opinion (hopefully from experts who have also been closely following the evolving science). So lots of phone conversations and outreach to experts needs to (and is) taking place. The voices of parents of bullied children, and of children themselves, is of course of great importance. Again, those of us involved in this work, in addition to our own experiences as parents - and survivors - have been hearing from children and parents about these issues for all these years, and the public hearings will hopefully provide more of those voices.

At the end of the day, there is far from a guarantee that this work (the Commission's) will produce significant change, which is not said to minimize in any way the credit deserved by the organizations which helped bring this issue to the legislature and the legislators' and Governor's good work in producing this law and establishing the Commission. It is just the reality that many Commission reports are produced, but not all such reports are concretized and enacted, for many reasons (money being only one of them). The quality of the report is one factor, the extent to which the public supports such work and expects recommendations to be followed is another factor, and circumstances (e.g., an economic downturn affecting public interest and government priorities, and available rseources) is another. The Commission on Bullying in Schools has begun and there is lots of work to do. Let's see what happens!

10/29/08: Reminder: Coalition Meeting This Monday (11/3)

Here is the program for the upcoming NJ Coalition meeting this Monday at NJ Law Center (courtesy of NJ State Bar Foundation). The meeting is, as usual, limited to representatives of organizations which address or are concerned about childhood bullying. (The space is small and the meeting is not designed for individual education but primarily for updates and networking.) If you would like to attend (there is no cost), you must RSVP (by Friday morning 10/31 at the latest) to Stuart Green at 908 522-2581.

Coalition meeting 11-3 program

10/29/08: OKLAHOMA SURVEY AND A HIGH QUALITY REPORT

A report of a survey of children conducted in Oklahoma in 2005 and an accompanying report just issued in 2008 (not sure why the gap between the year the survey was conducted - apparently 2005 - and issuance of the report, apparently a few weeks ago, but ... ) just came to my attention (thanks to Dr Michael Greene). I haven't seen the survey instrument itself as yet (though it's reportedly of high quality, a modification of Olweus' , and may be useful for NJ purposes) and the survey results are not surprising, essentially finding again (in Oklahoma) roughtly similar results to those found by survey after survey in the US (and some other countries) over the years. But the short summary report accompanying the survey is also nicely done, neatly stating key elements of a systemic approach to bullying in schools, with a solid introduction. Worth looking at.

Oklahoma report 10-08

10/23/08: COMMISSION BEGINS!

The NJ Commission on Bullying in Schools has finally begun it's work. The first meeting occurred on Monday, 10/20 at the office of the Public Advocate in Trenton. All 14 members of the Commission were present. (For the full list of members, click here https://wwwnet1.state.nj.us/GOV/APPT/GOV_APPT_WEB/Default.aspx). Organizations represented include: Department of Education, NJ School Boards Association, NJ State Bar Foundation, NJ Principals and Supervisors Association, NJ Education Association, P-FLAG and GLSEN, Anti-Defamation League, NJ Division on Civil Rights, Princeton Center for Leadership Training, Arab-American Family Center of NJ and Rider University, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Center, and the Coalition. While there are numerous important child-focused and bullying-focused organizations not represented - the Coalition has had, at various points, over 25 different organizations participating - the Commission members were those appointed by the Governor and legislators, which created the Commission. As previously noted on this page, the Commission has what seems a very short time (nine months from 10/20) to produce a meaningful, comprehensive and practical report on bullying. As per the law's requirements, the report must recommend to the legislature what changes in law and regulation are still needed to support a strengthened approach to childhood bullying in NJ, and the report must propose in detail a new state initiative on bullying in NJ. While it is the responsibility of the Commission to carry out these tasks, it would not be possible to accomplish them without much input from the organizations who are not represented on the Commission, from NJ experts on bullying and related issues who are not Commission members and from the community, including parents, children, school staff, and others. This is not to say that the Commission lacks such expertise - there is a wide range of useful background and expertise in education, law, advocacy and community work with children represented in the Commission's membership. The first meeting was primarily about logistics, including planning for the public hearings (there will be three, on each in north, south and central NJ), and for setting up the necessary sub-committees (no way a group of 14 can efficiently address all the necessary issues meeting as a whole). Among the issues likely to be addressed in sub-committees are 'data', 'training' and 'legal issues.' It seems evident the Commission will need to look at what other states have done/are doing and reach out to a wide range of national and international experts on bullying. For further information on the Commission's work, or to provide suggestions for the work, at this initial point, contact the Department of the Public Advocate (at publicadvocate@advocate.state.nj.us or 609 826-5090) or contact Stuart Green, who is chairing the Commission, at stuart.green@atlantichealth.org or at 908 522-2581).

10/7/08: NEW GLSEN CAMPAIGN:

GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), which has a national as well as NJ organizational structure, is doing some of the most important, and leading, work on bullying. What makes their work so impressive is not only the quality but the range: they do it all: research, public education, legislative advocacy and specific school-based programming projects. Their latest effort targets an important aspect of the school (and community) environment - the use of the term 'gay' as a casual, negative descriptor for all types of things. Here's the NY Times article about the new initiative:

GLSEN campaign

9/26/08: COMMISSION UPDATE!

The first meeting of the Commission is finally scheduled - for October 20th. The NJ Public Advocate's office is handling the logstics and facilitating the process. As of that first meeting, it will be possible - I think - to have at least an initial sense of what the Commission's work might yield (no guarantees, despite the importance). We've therefore scheduled an NJ Coalition meeting for November 3rd. The meeting will include a brief report from the Commission meeting (by Stuart Green) and feature a talk by youth violence expert Dr Michael Greene on the issues an initiative on bullying in NJ must address. We appreciate, as usual, the support of Leisa-Anne Smith (also a Comission member) and NJ State Bar Foundation (host of the meeting). As usual, the Coalition meeting is primarily for organizational networking/information sharing but if you/your organization hasn't received an email invitiation by Monday, feel free to contact (908 522-2581 or njbullying@yahoo.com).

8/28/08: New Research!

See the 'Research' page on this site for summaries or copies of articles from a special issue of the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health just published. The journal did an exceptional job of obtaining review articles from many of the major researchers in the field. There are many particular issues addressed by the various articles - perhaps the key one, in terms of an overview of where we are from an evidence-based perspective, is the article by Rigby and Slee which addresses interventions. As the article concludes, we have a beginning understanding of what measures may effectively address bullying but the results vary pretty widely, according to such factors as the quality of implementation, buy-in by school staff, ages of the children addressed, severity of the bullying, etc. Much more effort to intervene and study the interventions is needed. Given the importance of the issue, the level of funding and extent of support - financial and technical - available to schools is currently trivial.

8/21/08: New 'News' items:

1. Juvenile justice system in Texas

An editorial in the NY Times two weeks ago (? date) about juvenile justice conditions in Texas. The trigger for the editorial is release of a report on Texas Youth Commission facilities which notes the lack of appropriate education and care for incarcerated youth. This is especially so because of the large number of youth who have special learning needs and "emotional disturbance" and who not only receive very poor treatment in these facilities but arguably ended up in these facilities in large part because of poor services at their local schools, ending with being "dumped" (the editorial says) out of those schools and "onto streets," with their final destination being youth facilities. What struck me about this editorial is having read this year the previous news reports of conditions in the Texas system, which eloquently and clearly described the rampant violence (much of it bullying) occurring in this system, both in terms of harsh treatment by peers and harsh treatment by staff. This series of reports - and the reality of child life in that system - is a classic example of treatment of children which is bullying but not labeled as such, and additionally highlights the importance of providing adequate support of children in need. These issues ought to be - and are - concerns for all those concerned about childhood bullying. There is a thin (if non-existent) line between harsh treatment of children in our insitutions generally and a more narrow focus on "bullying in schools." One wonders how children are treated in NJ's youth facilities - much better one assumes, but it's worth thinking about.

2. A model for the Commission on Bullying in Schools?

For those of us awaiting the start of work by the NJ Commission on Bullying in Schools, it was very interesting to note the passage and signing by Gov. Corzine of recent health care reform laws. The laws (according to an 8/9 article in the Star Ledger and an acompanying editorial) "put into practice several key recommendaitons made by the NJ Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources." One bill creates "an early warning system" which allows the NJ Dept of Health and Sr Services to monitor the financial health of the state's hospitals and "take action before a crisis strikes." Another law creates a special fund ($44 million) to provide "support and a mechanism" for working with hospitals to address service problems. Another law requires psychiatric hospitals to conduct public meetings for the communities served. Another law requires hospital board members to undergo extensive training in their "roles and responsibilities." What's of interest about these laws, from an anti-bullying advocate perspective, is not of course anything about hospitals. It's the way in which one can easily see how such approaches would be helpful in addressing bullying. It would be interesting if - analogously - we had law which:

further empowered the State Department of Education (e.g.,) to monitor each school district/school to identify the status of anti-bullying and student-support efforts "before a crisis strikes."
created a special fund to provide "support and a mechanism" for work with schools to address bullying problems.
required public meetings or reports to communities on the status of anti-bullying and student support efforts by schools.
and required school board members to have intensive and specific education about bullying and peer violence. etc. etc.
And of course it's not without interest or importance that these laws flowed from the work of a state Commission!

8/5/08: Commission Update:

It's now been about nine months since the NJ law establishing the Commission on Bullying in Schools was passed, and almost that long since the date passed on which the Commission's work was set (by the law) to begin. It's been a frustrating wait. I'm sure in the interim those appointed to the Commission have continued working on bullying-related issues for their own organizations and interests, and hopefully also doing preparatory thinking about how to develop the state initiative which is one of the Commission's goals. (The other job of the Commission is to recommend changes or additional approaches to bullying legally and legislatively - see below, for the law.) I've met individually, whenever possible, with individuals appointed as the names became known and with contacts in organizations who had not yet made recommendations. Once the Commission officially starts, the law sets a very short time period of only nine months for doing the work - whether this can be extended remains to be seen, but I'm not counting on it. So 'pre-work' before the Commission begins, seemed important to do. (As those of you involved with the Coalition know, many discussions about a state anti-bullying initiative and even development of materials which could be used, has already been done - but the Commission itself must decide how to build on existing efforts.)

I remain excited by the possibility we can do substantial good. But there is no denying the barriers, including a variable track record for state Commissions (I'm told by those with much more experience in these matters), and reasonable questions about whether and how what the Commission recommends will be meaningfully enacted. Nonetheless, I'm grateful to Garden State Equality and others involved in the development of the law, and to the legislators who enacted it, and I'm hopeful we can do meaningful good.

Having said all that, we still haven't begun! So here's where we are - I think it's important you know. Once the Governor's office is satisfied it has all the members identified, hopefully this week, the Advocate's office will begin the process of contacting everyone and setting up a structure for meetings and the work. As a member of the public, and/or even more so if you have specific bullying-related experience/expertise, you can and should expect to have input. One way to do that is to begin communicating (even more) with those appointed. (Once the Commission begins, outreach for input, in terms of public hearings at least, is mandated.) You can link to the latest list of announced appointments from our website, or you can go directly to the Governor's site. (The Governor's page shows several organizations' appointees as missing, but I'm told - by the organizations - that all persons have already been recommended, and are only awaiting the Governor's office recognition/appointment.)

On this site, www.njbullying.org, on this page, scrolling down a bit, you'll find the Commission page link),

or go directly to:

https://wwwnet1.state.nj.us/GOV/APPT/GOV_APPT_WEB/Default.aspx

Here is the law, for those who haven't seen it, which includes the Commission's mission:

Commission on Bullying in Schools

Board Name:

Commission on Bullying in Schools

Legal Authority:

P.L. 2007, c.303

Purpose:

The commission shall study and make recommendations regarding: the implementation and effectiveness of school bullying laws and regulations; the adequacy of legal remedies available to students who are victims of bullying and their parents and guardians; the adequacy of legal protections available to teachers who are in compliance with school bullying policies; training of teachers, school administrators, and law enforcement personnel in responding to, investigating and reporting incidents of bullying; funding issues related to the implementation of the State school bullying laws and regulations; and the implementation of a possible collaboration between the Department of Education and the Division on Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety on a Statewide initiative against school bullying.

Special Requirements:

The commission shall consist of 14 members as follows: the Commissioner of the Department of Education, or his designee; the Director of the Division on Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety, or his designee; the Governor shall appoint eight public members: one representative of the New Jersey Education Association, one representative of the New Jersey School Boards Association, one representative of the Anti-Defamation League, one representative of the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association, and four public members with a background in, or special knowledge of, the legal, policy, educational, social or psychological aspects of bullying in schools; the President of the Senate shall appoint two public members with a background in, or special knowledge of, the legal, policy, educational, social or psychological aspects of bullying in schools; and the Speaker of the General Assembly shall appoint two public members with a background in, or special knowledge of, the legal, policy, educational, social or psychological aspects of bullying in schools. The members shall be appointed within 30 days of enactment. The commission shall conduct a minimum of three public hearings: one in the northern portion of the State; one in the central portion of the State; and one in the southern portion of the State. The commission shall report its findings and recommendations, along with any legislation it desires to recommend for adoption by the Legislature, to the Governor and the Legislature in accordance with section 2 of P.L.1991, c.164 (C.52:14-19.1). The commission shall issue its final report no later than nine months after final appointment of its members. The commission shall expire upon submission of its final report to the Governor and the Legislature.

Stuart Green

NJ Coalition for Bullying Awareness and Prevention

(908) 522-2581 / cell: (908) 447-0477

www.njbullying.org;

njbullying@yahoo.com

7/21/08: Children 'Overestimate' Bullying?

A recent Star Ledger story reported on a recently published survey which had as one of its findings that while NJ children thought more than 3/4 of all children in their schools were involved in bullying, 'only' 20% or so (if I recall) actually were (directly involved in bullying). So the headline noted this 'overestimation' or apparent excess of fear about bullying. (I'll post the articles themselves, including the study, when I can.) I was called by a reporter to comment. Here is the (email query and response):

Dear Mr. Green,
I'm a reporter for The Star-Ledger and I'm working on a piece about a new survey of perceptions of bullying by New Jersey middle school students. The survey found that the kids overestimated the prevalence of bullying in their schools. While they reported they did not engage in bullying they estimated that it happens frequently in the schools by someone else. The authors feel that, A, this could lead to more bullying or reluctance to intervene because kids think it happens so frequently, and B, that school should recast their message indicate most kids are against bullying and peer pressure can be exerted against bullies, and C, that the anti bullying messages themselves might be responsible for kids overestimating bullying in school.

Here is my response:

I haven't seen the survey yet so I can't judge its accuracy, but let's assume it's good data (surveys commonly are not good data, but ... ):

 This one survey would not be consistent with most or all previous evidence (mostly survey data, admittedly), of which I'm aware. That either means most or all of the previous data was not accurate, or that the current survey is not accurate, or that something important has changed.

- It's unlikely tho still possible that most or all of the previous data was (collectively) not accurate.

- In terms of the accuracy of the current survey, the issue is what is the basis for comparison? That is, the rate at which kids report bullying occurs (in the present survey) is obviously being compared to something else (e.g., a more accurate report about the rate at which bullying is actually occurring). I'm not aware that we have any good data, in NJ or anywhere else, about the actual rate at which bullying is occurring (and such reports themselves depend on how bullying is defined, who's conducting the data, whether the data collection is anonymous or not, etc. etc.). So what is the idea of kids over-estimating bullying based on (what comparison)? From what you wrote, it seems as if the rate at which kids report bullying occurring is being matched against kids' report of how much/often they themselves engage in bullying. If that's all the comparison is, it's not much to report. Kids are of course likely to respond no (or to minimize) if asked if and how much they themselves bully. It's not even clear that kids will report accurately how much they are bullied. Again, it depends on how the data is collected, the questions are formulated, etc. etc.

- If something important has changed (i.e., kids now perceive and/or report more bullying than is actually occurring), what could have happened?

- Well, it's possible that bullying has become such a media focus and parent/community concern at present, that the perception of bullying occurring (by kids or anyone else) has now exceeded the actual rate (assuming we know it) at which bullying occurs in school. But even if this is so, it does not mean anything especially good for the lives of those kids in the school who are being bullied. Schools generally are not yet systematically and adequately taking such great care of kids being bullied, nor especially systematic or effective steps to prevent that bullying from occurring. Nor are schools currently over-committing resources to bullying, nor over-focusing on it (in their actions). So it's not as if - based on this survey, e.g. - schools can now cut back on something they weren't doing enough of in the first place. In other words, I don't see much reason to stop pursuing the goal of having schools effectively address bullying because of this report.

- However, there is one important implication of such a result (the survey), worth thinking about. We know, from some recent research done on problematic alcohol use in college, that the perception by college students that "everyone" (peers) drinks can apparently be a factor which leads some students to drink more or more often than they otherwise would have. As I'm sure you know, this is complicated research, needs a lot of replication and may or may not be actually true, as many have pointed out. But anyway, based on some findings that suggest this may be true (more drinking if college students think 'everyone drinks'), some have suggested that college campaigns to decrease drinking remind students that most college students don't drink or get into trouble with alcohol (e.g., binge drink). It remains to be seen, as far as I know, whether such new campaigns, with this slant, actually decrease college student drinking. Anyway, if the middle school situation is similar (may or may not be), it might be good to remind students that most kids don't bully (and certainly not hype how common bullying is.

That's a reasonable suggestion. Nancy Willard, who writes extensively about cyberbullying and internet safety, has, for example, pointed out that there's a lot of hype around the danger of the internet for kids, though this is not to say there aren't some real risks and dangerous situations which do occur.  I agree w her about this. It may also be true about bullyinjg.

- But so what? The big danger today is not that we overhype or overestimate bullying. The real, actual danger - which currently exists in all schools of which I'm aware - is that we do not do enough to prevent and address bullying (at whatever rate it occurs) and do not do anywhere near enough to adequately protect and support vulnerable kids.

Stuart Green

Director, NJ Coalition for Bullying Awareness and Prevention
www.njbullying.org
(908) 522-2581

njbullying@yahoo.com

6/27/08: News about Bullying (That Doesn't Speak Its Name) ...

Every day in newspapers across the land stories appear which are about bullying - but the reading public would never know it. That's because the word "bullying" doesn't appear in the headline - or anywhere else in the story! Therapists often use the concept of "the elephant in the room" to refer to issues of which everyone in a family is aware (e.g., substance use problems) but no one wants to openly acknowledge. That would make bullying an "invisible elephant." That is, the issue is present and central but no one sees it as such. Examples abound. For example, in the New York Times, there are bullying-related stories almost daily - but since the word bullying isn't used, it would be easy to miss. For example, a story the in the Times the other day was about school programs for gifted/talented children. The story described disparities in how children were being admitted to such programs. From an anti-bullying advocate's point of view (mine, in this case), the bullying-related issue was obvious (but not raised in the story): Here's a letter sent to the Times about it:

To the Editor:
Disparities in "gifted and talented" program admission are inevitable ("Gifted Programs in the City are Less Diverse" 6/19/08). In addition to limited access, the existence of these programs in schools inherently mischaracterizes and minimizes the needs of students not labeled gifted and talented. Schools with gifted and talented programs implicitly divide students into three groups: gifted/talented, special needs and those in the middle range. But only those designated gifted and talented receive consistently positive special attention and opportunities. In fact, all students are gifted and talented in various ways - if one doubts this, ask a child's parent. And every student needs "extra" or "special" support to maximize those gifts, at whatever level. Schools are capable of providing positive support and enhanced opportunities to every student and should be held responsible for doing so. Instead, students not perceived as gifted or talented often stand in the shadows in their own school.
Stuart Green

Director, NJ Coalition for Bullying Awareness and Prevention
www.njbullying.org

While some may disagree with the specific point of view (in this case, questioning the existence of gifted/talented programs in a system which does not provide equal enrichment for all students), this is an issue we ought to address.

     Another example was in the Times Metro Section (B1) on 6/25. The headline was: "Holding Back Young Students: Is Program a Gift or Stima?" The article describes a program in the East Ramapo school district in which 12% of its first graders are held back to repeat the grade, but with enhanced support and teaching. As you'd expect from the comment on gifted/talented programs, we're in favor of enhanced support and teaching (for all students). In fact, most of what the article describes, from the point of view of parents and children, as well as teachers and administrators, is positive outcomes of the program. But being held back, as the article describes, also brings "stigma." Just to be clear, the stigma essentially consists of other students "picking on" the student held back (though there is also an issue of the student's self-perception). The problem, from an anti-bullying perspective, is that the "stigma" issue is implicitly presented as if nothing could be done about it. There is no mention in the article of this easily anticipated and inevitable aspect of the (beneficial, as reported) program being addressed. That's what's wrong (assuming the article is accurate/complete). Anyone planning to implement such a 'held back' program (or any other program which targets specific groups of students for "special" services) needs to concurrently plan to address (and prevent) any stigmatizing (bullying) behavior on the part of other students. (This would be done in the usual recommended ways - see the rest of this site for a hundred pointers on how to do this).

     More examples of "the invisible elephant" to be posted soon...

6/19/08: IMPORTANT (EVEN 'URGENT'!): I'm very concerned that it's now been almost six months and the Commission on Bullying in Schools hasn't yet begun its work. In the law itself, it was stated that all members of the Commission should be appointed within 30 days. We are obviously far past that point. All of the 'direct appointees' (citizens appointed by the Governor) have been named, but the remaining five agency representatives have not yet been. The agencies concerned are Division on Civil Rights, Department of Education, NJ Principals and Supervisors Association, School Boards Association and NJ Education Association. It is the Governor's office which must appoint those representatives, I believe (though I assume the persons appointed would be administrators or staff of those agencies who have been identitified/recommended by their particular agency). It is also the Governor's office which must schedule the first meeting of the Commission and decide on other aspects of the Commission's functioning. Once the first meeting occurs, the Commission has (by law) only nine months to do its job - a very short time for a big task, though lots of prep work has been done - in effect - by many of the Commission members and agencies. Nonetheless, all issues relevant to the creation of a new state initiative and to recommendation to the legislature about new law must be examined during this nine-month period. In addition, at least three public hearings must be held (one for each part of the state - North, Central, South), and (one assumes) the Commission is certainly going to want to call on various experts for advice. That's a lot to do once the clock starts ticking. It's a big task - yet I'm very eager to get started on this because there's the hope and potential that we can make a difference in the lives of bullied children and their families, beyond what's already being done by many good people and agencies. As members of the public, you may want to contact your own government representatives and/or those you may know in state government, or the Governor's office, and ask about the scheduled start of the Commission's work. Let's get started!

6/16/08: New book by Ken Rigby!

Here's another book very worth mentioning - it came out in 2007 but hasn't been mentioned on this site (though the author has been). It's Children and Bullying: How Parents and Educators Can Reduce Bullying at School by Ken Rigby (Paperback - Dec 19, 2007). Rigby is the Australian researcher (and interventionist) who's been at the heart of so much of the good work (especially research and analysis) that's been done on bullying over the past twenty years. He somehow manages to pull off the difficult feat of being a passionate advocate for anti-bullying work, a supporter (in effect, though he might deny it a bit) of the whole school approach (not because he endorses Olweus' approach over others, specifically, but just because he - rightly - points out the benefits of approaching the issue of bullying systemically) and a very rational analyst and presenter of what's known about bullying. And he does this all, in his writing, is a supportive, appealing tone, with great clarity, which also recognizes the difficulty of dealing with bullying. He's written a number of books before this one, including one of the most important, a work with Peter Smith and Debra Pepler, Bullying in School, which came out in '04 and summarized the research to that point, and several guides (similar to the new one). This latest one, though, is especially good in reviewing the issue. He's addressing, as he points out, the two groups with the highest stake in adderssing bullying. Rigby is, above all, rational and reliable. The points he makes, the resources and websites he recommends, his reporting of what we know are highly evidence-based, expert and reasonable. In terms of the whole schools approach and Olweus' model, Rigby accurately points out that there have been Olweus-model implementations which haven't produced the very good results Olweus himself (implementing his own model, of course) have achieved. This even includes an implementation by Olweus' US associate, Sue Limber, in South Carolina. In the past, in talks and writing, Rigby's suggested that where whole-school implementations have produced poor results, lack of teacher buy-in (probably due to inadequate attention to this factor during prep for implementation) could be the explanation. However, as Rigby rightly points out, we need to study more and know more about how to prevent and address bullying. I especially like in this book his listing of "pro's" and "con's" about using certain approaches which (inevitably) imply that the targeted child's behavior has contributed to the bullying, or which rely on "shaming" approaches to the bullying child (and which we don't advocate using). This is a good book, a good guide for paents and educators, and a welcome resource.

6/3/08: New book on cyberbullying!

A new book by on cyberbullying ("Cyberbullying," by Kolwalski, Limber and Agatston) recently came out. See the attached review for a good critique. The book is widely available in paperback though the review (below) indicates (I think inaccurately) that the intended audience is primarily adademic. As the review indicates, the book can be useful for parents (and schools) looking for guidance. This is not surprising in that one of the authors is Susan Limber, PhD, one of Olweus' major U.S. associates and the lead consultant for the HRSA website (www.stopbullyingnow.org). The endorsements on the back of the paperback edition, from Dr Dan Olweus and from Stan Davis, are an indicator of the quality of the work. The book provides a useful guide to the legal issues surrounding bullying, a good table of bullying laws and is in general a useful review for all audiences. The short introduction, by John Halligan, whose son Ryan was one of the first publicly known cyberbullying-related deaths (due to the important continuing work his father has been doing), is the most powerful part of the book and useful for its insights in its own right. It sets the tone for another (we now have a few) useful work. This and Willard's book (Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats) make a good tandem (and Willard is well used as a resource for this work). An interesting point the reviewer (a psychiatrist, I believe) makes is that cyberbullying and 'offline' bullying (school-based, mainly) may be different phenomena in some fundamental ways, which has big implications for addressing it effectively. On the other hand, the harm cyberbullying does and the way in which it does it will seem very familiar to a target of bullying generally. Also, the key understanding contributed by Olweus - that adults are primarily responsible for the bullying which occurs between children - seems as applicable to cyberbullying as to bullying. Anyway, here's the review:

Book review - cyberbullying

6/3/08: Good cyberbullying article

Here's an article from E-School News about cyberbullying which does a very good job of reviewing some aspects of the issue, in the course of a story mainly about a girl's cyberbullying-related suicide and the way in which the girl's mother has found great meaning in working to address the issue. The death of Megan Meier of Missouri has become another of the tragedies which draw attention to bullying and unfortunately one of the only type of event that ultimately creates a change in societal attitudes and actions. Her situation had the unique aspect of an adult apparently being the person targeting the girl (in this case by creating a false persona of an adolescent boy on a social networking site and using that to attract and then harass and verbally assault the girl). The article benefits from comments by Nancy Willard, who has become (in the view of many) the country's leading advocate and expert (as a lawyer) on cyberbullying. The quality of her comments is very strong, including her understanding that some of the talk and outreach to kids about cyberbullying can indeed be - as she calls it - "fearmongering" and not helpful. Here's the article:

ESchool News cyberbullying article