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.