Op-ed: A New and Better Way of Preventing Bullying

It was just a year ago that a spate of teen suicides placed bullying at the top of our national consciousness. First there was Billy Lucas. Then Tyler Clementi. Then Seth Walsh.

Seth, a 13-year-old from Tehachapi was bullied, quite literally, to death because he was gay. Faced with relentless attacks and a school that was either unable or unwilling to provide a safe environment, Seth took his own life.

While these stories -- and the national attention -- emphasized anti-LGBT bullying, any child can be targeted for bullying. The lesson that we should take from the past year should not be that "gay kids are victims," but "we are failing to provide all kids with a safe environment." And a new California law offers good ways (and inferior ways) to accomplish that important goal.

Anybody who's ever been bullied knows the tricks you use to avoid being targeted. You take different routes to school. You linger longer in your classroom or your cafeteria so you can spend less time at recess where you feel vulnerable, you fake illness to avoid school altogether, and eventually far too many kids drop out.

When Gov. Jerry Brown signed Seth's Law, it was a crucial step toward guaranteeing California's children can learn in a safe environment. From now on, schools will be required to address bullying. From now on, schools will be required to act. To do something. Moreover, while Seth's Law provides schools with a framework for addressing bullying, it purposefully does not dictate what principals and educators should do with bullies.

Given the attention over the past year, many schools will be tempted to implement "zero tolerance" policies. Zero tolerance is easy to administer. Zero Tolerance "sends a message." Zero tolerance will, no doubt, be appealing to school administrators looking to draw a line in the sand.

I hope they'll consider a different path and use the leeway the law provides to implement alternative solutions.

California schools issue 700,000 to 800,000 suspensions and expulsions every year. Most of the time, these kids aren't hard cases; many are kicked out for issues that were once solved by a visit to the principal's office or a call to a parent. More and more, districts are resolving any problem by removing a child from school.

The over-use of zero-tolerance exacerbates a double tragedy. When adults allow bullying to persist, they deny kids a place where they can feel safe. But when we cast the bullies aside, we damn them to the same fate.

The truth is that bullying is a deeper issue; removing bullies from school, in all likelihood, removes them from the one environment that exists to help them deal with their issues more constructively. Bullying is a symptom, not the disease, and we should all focus on treating the latter.

If zero tolerance were effective, we'd be having a different conversation. But the research is clear. Removing students from school doesn't hold them accountable for their actions. It doesn't make kids safer. It doesn't raise test scores and it doesn't boost graduation rates.

Schools have been presented with a Hobson's choice -- an either-or scenario in which neither the kid who bullies nor the kid who is bullied come out ahead. They can either tell the victim to "tough it out" or they can tell the bully to "get out."

We need a third way, and a healthier way, for dealing with the full range of kids and behavior in the school setting. We need to acknowledge that while a kid who is bullied is at risk for serious health or mental health issues, the bully is probably suffering from mental health, behavioral, or family violence issues. More often than not, the bully is also a victim who also needs a safe haven. We need to recognize that while bullying and intolerance are indeed unacceptable, a kid who bullies may be frantically waving a red flag for help and support. He must be accepted even as his behavior is rejected.

We should see Seth's Law not as a measure to protect the weak -- our state's young men and women are anything but weak -- but as an opportunity to empower students. Seth's Law gives schools a chance to change their culture and students a chance to set a tone of tolerance of diversity; nothing will be as powerful for eliminating bullying as rendering it "not cool" by the kids themselves.

Across California and across the country, schools are stepping away from zero tolerance and toward a new approach called restorative discipline. Restorative discipline teaches accountability by requiring bullies to "make it right" with the kids they hurt. In communities where this approach is being tried, suspensions are down. Expulsions have nearly stopped.

Restorative discipline may not have saved Seth Walsh's life, but his legacy is an opportunity. An opportunity for schools to re-evaluate their response not only to bullying, but also to the bullies themselves.

As part of our statewide Health Happens in Schools campaign, The California Endowment will be dedicating time, attention and resources to working with school officials, parents, and young people to thoughtfully address bullying -- and responses to bullying. Not only can we can learn from the pain suffered by Seth Walsh, Tyler Clementi, and Billy Lucas, but also we can help prevent others from suffering similar pain by developing policies that teach our kids rather than blindly punishing them.

DANIEL ZINGALE is senior vice president of The California Endowment.