Dennis Leone on another topic: Anti-bullying bills

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/05/06/anti-bullying-bills-are-ill-considered.html

Anti-bullying bills are ill-considered

Columbus Dispatch, May 6, 2011
BY DENNIS A. LEONE

Three anti-bullying bills are quietly moving forward in the General Assembly that would increase the likelihood of litigation against public school districts and transfer yet more parent responsibility into the hands of educators and school-board members. They may become new laws before you know it. Here they are:

• House Bill 155 — This proposed bill would expand the current definition of bullying in Ohio law to include an “electronic act (a.k.a. cyber-bullying) committed through the use of a cell phone, computer or other personal electronic communication device.” But here’s the catch: The bill would require school boards to have a policy stipulating that a student may be suspended at school for electronic acts or alleged bullying that occur off school property at night and over the weekend. This bill also would command principals to first determine whether such will “materially and substantially disrupt the school.”

Do we really want principals trying to decide on Monday morning what really happened over the weekend, who really started a neighborhood fight and what really triggered mean-spirited Saturday night electronic communications between students on their Facebook accounts?

• House Bill 116 — Some lawmakers may think that current law is insufficient even though it requires school boards to implement anti-bullying policies and disciplinary consequences for students. Now, proposed House Bill 116 would require “age-appropriate instruction” about bullying for “each student enrolled in the district.” The bill does not say “all students,” it says “each student.” So, large-group student meetings may no longer be sufficient to communicate such policies.

• House Bill 208 — This bill, if passed, would redefine harassment and bullying as “any act that is based on an actual or perceived trait of a student.” Nineteen “traits and characteristics of a student” will apply, including race, gender identity, ancestry, political beliefs, and something called “family status.” Will principals be expected to become mind readers to determine, for example, whether a student’s decisions off school property were motivated by the political beliefs of another student?

Some parents and lawmakers forget that current Ohio law says that harassment really isn’t bullying unless it has occurred “more than once” and unless it has been “sufficiently severe, persistent and pervasive.” It is clear that what used to be known as teasing, name calling, banter, pushing, shoving, insults and playground misconduct now are defined as bullying by many parents and students. Parents have been given a new weapon to defend their children that they’ve never had before.

Lost in the discussion about these bills is the fact that parents should be held legally responsible for what their children do off school property. Some years ago, the legislature deemed it proper to pass a law (Ohio Revised Code 3321.38) that enables the juvenile court to prosecute parents and fine them $500 if their children are habitually absent from school. If you really want to stop cyber-bullying off school property, then hold the parents legally responsible and require them to take away the electronic devices they purchased for their children.

Another current Ohio law (ORC 3109.10) holds parents liable for a fine of up to $10,000 if their children maliciously assault someone. Courts have imposed larger fines on parents if their children commit acts of ethnic intimidation against another person. It is even possible for parents to be charged with “contributing to the delinquency of a child,” pursuant to yet another Ohio law (ORC 2919.24). None of these laws ever attempted to transfer the parents’ responsibility to the public schools.

These bills would put more on the legal plate of public school educators — who already are expected to warn students about dating violence, to teach them about venereal disease, to promote abstinence and, of course, to raise achievement test scores. I am waiting to see the lawsuit by a mother who wishes to blame the school district for her daughter’s pregnancy and her premarital sexual activity because enough wasn’t taught beforehand by her teachers.

And wait until you hear about proposed House Bill 109. If passed, it will impose $50 fines on parents from lower-performing school districts if they fail to attend parent-teacher conferences. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But guess what? The bill requires the school administrator — not the courts — to somehow collect the money and further requires the school administrator to waive the fine if the parent can show “good cause” for not attending the conference. Would you like to be the administrator who is supposed to make that judgment?

Dennis A. Leone, a former school superintendent, is an assistant professor of educational administration for Ashland University.