Others’ Opinion: Strengthen Minnesota’s anti-bullying law in 2014
Published 9:54 am Monday, January 20, 2014
Maybe the 11th time is the charm.
The opening of the 2014 legislative session next month marks the 11th year in a row lawmakers will have an opportunity to bolster Minnesota’s anti-bullying law. For the sake of all kids in public schools, let’s hope that finally happens.
Minnesota has long been known as having one of the weakest anti-bullying laws for schools, yet repeated failures to amend it has meant the second-graders of 2004 will graduate high school this spring having been educated in an environment nationally noted for not doing enough to stop bullying.
Today’s second-graders — and all students — need to know schools will be safer in 2015, not in another 11 years.
Admittedly, it won’t be an easy nor guaranteed fix. As this board has noted previously, if elected officials truly wanted to end bullying, they would find ways to legislate the home environment of kids. Of course, that’s a much bigger political risk than mandating schools fix the problem.
Still, if the 2014 Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton are going to address bullying through the schools, there are some key points any legislation needs to include.
Most of all, changes must be holistic and come with the funds and resources to implement them.
Building off previous years’ efforts, proponents of change want to require schools to more thoroughly examine claims about bullying. They also want teachers to be better trained to identify bullying and take a more active role in preventing it.
All those are salient points. Implementing them, though, will require more resources, whether in the form of hiring more staff, paying for training or adding training time to teachers’ contracted days.
But that seems like only half a solution.
Training should go beyond just teachers and staff. Proven anti-bullying programs and curriculum for students of all ages should be included. And just as for teachers, these efforts should be added to existing class requirements, not shoehorned into the current school day.
Finally, serious consideration should be given to incorporating a zero-tolerance policy on bullying just as schools do with weapons.
Yes, that might seem like an overreach. But it also might achieve two critical objectives the state’s 37-word law has failed to accomplish.
First, it would show students and their parents the state is serious about the problem. Second, it would provide a direct connection to the home environment, which is usually the source of the problem anyway — even if legislators are afraid to go there.
— St. Cloud Times