Bullying in various forms is on the rise in schools in the US and yet there is no federal law addressing this concern. The Department of Education provides some guidelines for states to create laws and policies to be implemented by individual school districts. We cross-referenced various statistics including the Department of Education and individual state government reports filed within the past few years to understand the discrepancies in state policies and bullying numbers across the country. We dug deeper into the prevention methods and policies enacted by each state –as well as its history –to uncover the underlying connections that provide for successful, or not-so-successful, anti-bullying environments.

1. A comparative study
Whitepaper on
Anti-Bullying Legislation in the
United States
April 2017
Created by:
Marisa Ahmed

2. Bullying in various forms is on the rise in schools in the US and yet there is no federal law addressing this concern. The Department of
Education provides some guidelines for states to create laws and policies to be implemented by individual school districts. We cross
referenced various statistics including the Department of Education and individual state government reports filed within the past few years
to understand the discrepancies in state policies and bullying numbers across the country. We dug deeper into the prevention methods
and policies enacted by each state –as well as its history –to uncover the underlying connections that provide for successful, or not-so-
successful, anti-bullying environments.
ABSTRACT
1 Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

3. Abstract 1
Introduction 3
Components of Bullying Laws 5
Comparing state laws and policies 6
Qualitative differences in state laws 9
Bullying trends after enactment of anti-bullying policies 11
Best Practices for dealing with cyberbullying in schools 13
Conclusion 14
Contents
2Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

4. Classmates, peers, sisters, brothers, bullies, victims. Bullying (cyberbullying and face-to-face) and its consequences affect all children across
the country and around the world. Every student either has been directly impacted or associated with some instance of bullying. And in the
past few years, cyberbullying –bullying and harassment online– has become a major concern for educators, parents, and lawmaking officials.
However, no federal law directly addresses bullying of any sort. In a rather decentralized system, states create legislation intended to be
enforced by the public school districts under their jurisdiction – a complex undertaking with at least 16,000 individual public school districts
nationwide. Unfortunately, these policies are usually created after a traumatic, high-profile bullying-related suicide occurs.
Recently, WalletHub.com (which periodically conducts studies on education, finance, health etc.) released its ‘2016’s States with the Biggest
Bullying Problems’ study that uses 17 core metrics to 1) compare the prevalence of bullying and 2) assess state-government prevention
efforts across the country. Their findings suggest that high frequency of both in-person and online harassment are dominated by four states
- Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan, and West Virginia. On the other end of the spectrum Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and the District of
Columbia consistently report lowest rates. (We would use these eight states as our sample group for purposes of this whitepaper.)
introduction
1
“Table 5. Number of public school districts, by locale code (CCD) and state: 2003-04”, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/RuralEd/TablesHTML/5localedistricts.asp
2
Vermont Bully Prevention Law created in 2004 after Vermont teen Ryan Halligan commits suicide due to bullying; Florida’s Jeffery Johnson Stand Up for All Students Act
created after Florida teen Jeffery Johnson commits suicide due to cyberbullying in June 2005; Missouri creates ‘Megan’s Law’ (which later died in Congress) in August 2008
after Megan Meier commits suicide due to MySpace bullying.
3
“2016’s States with the Biggest Bullying Problems,” https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-at-controlling-bullying/9920/
4
“State Bullying Laws,” https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf
“Key Components in State Anti-Bullying Laws”, https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/key-components/index.html
“U.S. Education Secretary Highlights Best Practices of Bullying Policies,” https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-education-secretary-highlights-best-practices-
bullying-policies
3Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

5. 4Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

6. The 11 key components highlighted by the Department of Education are : 5
On December 16, 2010, the Secretary of Education released a statement announcing federal initiatives to address the emerging (cyber)bullying
crisis – two months had passed since Tyler Clementi took his own life after intimate information was shared online.
The Department of Education then reviewed state laws/policies and sent a report highlighting 11 key components to all state governors, chief
state school officials, and state education boards in hopes that “highlighting these best practices will help policymakers as they work to keep
our children safe and learning.”
1. Purpose Statement: Purpose of laws and policies and prohibitions against bullying
2. Statement of Scope
3. Specification of Prohibited Conduct: Defining what bullying entails
4. Enumeration of Specific Characteristics
5. Development and Implementation of Local Educational Agency (LEA) Policies: Includes review of district policies and implementation
6. Components of LEA Policies: The bullying policies need to clearly define prohibited behavior, lay down responsibilities for reporting and
recording incidents, and investigating reports, consequences for bullies/perpetrators, and counseling services for all involved.
7. Review of Local Policies
8. Communication Plan: The anti-bullying policies need to be conveyed clearly to all students, parents and school personnel.
9. Training and Preventative Education: Students and school staff should be provided appropriate training to recognize and deal with
bullying.
10. Transparency/Monitoring
11. Statement of Rights to Other Legal Recourse: Legal remedies available to victims should be clearly stated in the policies.
Components of Bullying Laws
5
www.stopbullying.gov
5 Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

7. Every state in the US is expected to have a 1) Bullying Law and 2) Model Policy* for schools to follow (save for North Carolina). This includes
provisions for cyberbullying. In the table below, we show how our sample states rate against the 11 component guidelines outlined by the DoE.
*Model policies provide state guidance, direction, and recommended standards to help local school systems create their own district and
school policies or administrative regulations. Model policies may be developed based on requirements of state or federal laws.
Comparing state laws and
policies
6
“Policies & Laws,” https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.html
6Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

8. • All four states with the lowest frequency of bullying specify groups/characteristics protected under law from any forms of discrimination
or bullying based on identifiers such as race, religion, sex, and mental/physical/developmental disability, etc.
• In contrast, of the four states with the highest frequency of bullying, only Idaho outlines this distinction.
• In addition, Michigan, West Virginia, and Nebraska do not include definitions of what prohibited bullying is in their Model Policies for the
school districts. This is a serious shortcoming as vague guidelines may prove ineffective in cyberbullying laws due to 1) lack of clarity in
what constitutes cyberbullying (harassment along racial lines, sexual orientation, etc.) and 2) downplaying the seriousness of targeted
groups who have been historically oppressed.
• Michigan, West Virginia, and Nebraska fall short on mandating procedures for referring victim/ bully to counseling or mental health
services in their laws and policies. The importance of counseling cannot be overlooked as often bullying is a way to redirect the
insecurities of the aggressor, and can also result in serious harm to the victim - sometimes leading to suicide. Counseling and proper
attention are necessary to break the bully-victim cycle.
• Nebraska, Michigan, and Idaho also do not require school districts to report number of reported bullying incidents. In the absence
of proper statistics, policy makers and the general public remain unaware of the seriousness and urgency of tackling the problem of
cyberbullying to the detriment of students.
Other than these differences, each state’s anti-bullying plan tends to comply with the 11 key elements as outlined by the DoE. The major
variance in bullying frequency across state lines can be attributed to cultural differences along state lines and regions within the US.
Regardless, much can be inferred from analyzing the state legislation alone.
key differences
7 Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

9. In 2011, the DoE ranked each state’s law’s compliance with the 11 key components on a scale from 0 (worst) – 2 (best).
Of a total of 30 possible points:
• Average Score: 16.63
• Median Score: 17.5
• Highest Scoring State: New Jersey, Washington (30)
• Lowest Scoring State: Minnesota
The table shows where our eight featured states stand in relation to the rest of the states. (1 = worst, 46 = best)
*Note: Bullying policies and strategies are constantly evolving. The DOE ranking serves as a starting point for statewide anti–bullying legislation.
7
The scope of analyzing regional differences in bullying culture is too large for the goal of this specific paper. There are limited resources on this topic within the
United States itself. However, for more information concerning cultural differences as it relates to bullying, the following sites may be helpful (though more so
internationally focused): “School Bullying in Different Cultures: Eastern and Western Perspectives”; “Bullying from a Cross-Cultural Perspective,” https://ir.lib.
hiroshima-u.ac.jp/files/public/3/31504/20141016181724342790/JEducSci_4_29.pdf ; “This map shows the US really has 11 separate ‘nations’ with entirely
different cultures, “ http://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states-2015-7
8
“State Bullying Laws,” https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf
8Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

10. Averaging the scores for our 8 featured states, we see that numerically the largest gaps in the quality between the states with the highest
and lowest frequencies are present in Enumerated Groups, Reporting, Communication Plan, Training/Prevention, and Legal Remedies. We
have discussed the importance of Enumerated Groups and Legal Remedies in the section on ‘Comparing State Laws and Policies’.
Discrepancies in scores for a Communication Plan (procedure for notifying students, students’ families, and staff of policies related to
bullying, including its consequences) can be attributed to and are reliant upon the other components; essentially, how prevalent anti-bullying
culture is within the state determines how exhaustive schools must be in publicizing anti-bullying information/procedures.
However, all eight states have policies for Reporting and Training/Prevention requirements – so what distinguishes effective law in this
context? We will now examine these two aspects that are key factors in controlling the spread of bullying. Since the DOE report, some
states have revised their anti-bullying legislation and these changes are accounted for in the following analysis.
Qualitative differences in
state laws
9 Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

11. Reporting & the Importance of Anonymity
The anti-bullying laws of Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia (through the Bullying Prevention Act) require that
school districts allow students to report bullying anonymously, and outline procedures to do so, though citing “no formal disciplinary action
is taken solely on the basis of an anonymous report”. In comparison, neither of the states with the highest frequency of bullying account for
this.
This provision encourages students and teachers to report bullying so that the relevant parties receive the help they need in a discrete
manner. Often times, victims or witnesses of bullying refrain from seeking help out of fear the situation will get worse, or that they will have to
explain personal details they would rather not share.9
According to the Pacer Center Teens Against Bullying, teens do not seek help for fear of:
• compromising their identity – potentially experiencing more abuse than if they had kept quiet
• being punished
• their parents’ overreacting
Research by Miriam Hirschstein, Ph.D. in “Why Don’t Kids Report Bullying?” also finds that 1) adults rarely intervene and/or 2) some kids feel
powerless reaching out to someone else for help.10
In the year since implementation of the form we have
had around 144 submissions with around 3 false
reports… we believe that the time spent in follow up
and investigation is well worth the payoff of having
student feel safe at school. In fact, the number of
reports has been manageable and have also lead to
more prevention than punitive action.
[This] was a clear case of bullying and an instance in
which intervention could prevent a possible instance
of violence. This report allowed the school a chance to
intervene and stop this cycle of behavior and prevent
a retaliatory fight or worse. Our approach with this
issue was to share the report with the student and
encourage him to reflect on the impact of his behavior.
Like so many other aggressive students, this behavior
stemmed from other students bullying him.
A testimonial posted on Cyberbullying Research Center details the impact anonymous reporting had on a San Diego middle school:11
To summarize:
• Anonymous reporting systems have led to an increase in more preventative than punitive action.
• Support resolves the issue without any party being exposed as a “rat”, restoring a safe school environment.
• Intermittent follow-ups help to keep bullying numbers down.
9
“Reasons Teens Don’t Tell,” http://www.pacerteensagainstbullying.org/tab/experiencing-bullying/reasons-teens-dont-tell/
10
“Why Don’t Kids Report Bullying?,” https://www.education.com/reference/article/why-kids-do-not-report-bullying/
11
“Anonymous Reporting for Bullying and Cyberbullying Incidents,” http://cyberbullying.org/anonymous-reporting-for-bullying-and-cyberbullying-incidents
10Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

12. prevention plan
Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia all have explicit legislation requiring a cyberbullying prevention program
(see table below) – all which have a heavy focus on digital citizenship and digital literacy for both students and educators.
Teaching best practices for online safety and responsible technology usage helps create conscientious students by changing the culture of
online behavior to preventative and positive. Students are better equipped to protect themselves from online harassment.
Prevention policies in low-frequency states
12
“Florida District Digital Classrooms Plan Guidance,” https://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-7696/dps-2016-107d.pdf
13
“NC Digital Learning Competencies for Educators,” http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/dtl/digitallearningnc/competencies/
14
“Safe School Act Statewide Bullying Policy”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmjpp0_6kb0
15
“Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s Youth Bullying Prevention Task Force,” http://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/
DCBullyingPreventionPolicy_PressQ_022513.pdf
11 Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

13. Meanwhile … bullying numbers for Michigan, Nebraska, Idaho, and West Virginia are on the rise
Bullying trends after
enactment of anti-bullying
policies
Since each of the states passed the additional legislation, bullying has shown a steady downward trend. The following statistics are taken
from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) Statistics on Bullying.16
District of Columbia – No information was recorded for bullying statistics before the 2012 provisions were enacted. However, their recent
Youth Risk Behavior Survey reports that less than 1% of middle and high school students in DC schools reported being bullied during the
2015-2016 school year [source].
16
“High School YRBS Youth Online,” https://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/app/Default.aspx
12Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

14. Best Practices for dealing
with cyberbullying in
schools
The numbers and analysis in this paper demonstrate the need to educate students, parents, and schools about cyberbullying and the
need to implement policies that create a safe environment in schools. We talked to a cross-section of principals and administrators for the
purposes of this paper, and list down certain best practices that they recommend for schools to follow.
1. Establish an anonymous reporting system to enable students to report incidents of bullying without worrying about backlash or being
singled out as a “rat”. For example, the Cabarrus County Schools (NC) created an online reporting system that provides the student the
option to report anonymously, or provide their name if they wish. At the same time, paper copies were also made available for those who
felt more comfortable reporting offline.
2. Define bullying in all forms for the benefit of all stakeholders so that they can determine if what they are experiencing/reporting is bullying.
3. Provide students information about bullying in writing and through dedicated workshops at the beginning of every school year. This
should include information about what bullying entails, reporting process, disciplinary consequences, and School Board policies that
relate to bullying/harassment.
4. Create a process for investigating bullying claims. This could include interviewing possible victims, witnesses, and offenders, collecting
evidence, etc.
5. Create a process for resolving conflicts that include working with students/bullies to help them understand that what they were doing was
bullying, educate them on why it was wrong and inform them of the consequences.
6. Establish a culture of trust and respect between students and staff to encourage reporting of bullying incidents.
7. Provide training to school staff on how to respond to reported cases of bullying/harassment.
8. Provide Digital Citizenship training to all students, staff, and teachers.
13 Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

15. Across the United States, it seems effective anti-bullying legislation is distinguished by the quality of the 1) reporting system and 2) the
training/prevention plans. Due to the decentralized system of anti-bullying laws in the country, the ‘quality’ of the programs enacted are
dependent on the execution by an individual state. When comparing legislation of states with a high frequency of bullying to the legislation of
states with a low frequency of bullying, we found that reduced bullying rates were attributed in large part to the following:
These provisions are further strengthened by clear communication of enumerated groups, definitions, and resulting consequences by the
school district.
conclusion
1. Reporting systems serve their purpose better when they are anonymous and easily accessible online – this eliminates a teen’s initial
apprehensions related to reporting an instance of bullying.
2. For training/preventions plans, the most successful programs include specific guidelines for cyberbullying and are continuous throughout
the school year.
14Whitepaper on antibullying legislation in the United States

16. www.securly.com