Running head: POLICY INNOVATION

Antibullying Policy Innovation

Based on the fact that bullying is one of the most topical and acutest difficulties faced
by contemporary schools, effectiveness of nationwide and local institutional policies is the
underpinning to elimination of this problem. The paper offers a critical overview of the
article by Nickerson, Cornell, Smith, and Furlong (2013) who have articulated a renewed
theoretical framework for developing comprehensive and evidence-based solutions to address
the issue.
In accordance with the succinct but thorough academic literature review conducted by
the scholars, extensively developed laws and regulations in the field have many too obvious
gaps. Since 1999 through 2010, 120 state bills have been passed into laws in order to mitigate
and minimize the cases of bullying at schools (Nickerson et al., 2013). Of course, this fact
clearly demonstrates that the problem is recognized and policy-related measures are
undertaken by practitioners. Nonetheless, the efficiency of such legal models put into practice
is yet to be questioned. To be more precise, only 25 out of 50 states have legally established
trainings for the school staff whereas creation of special committees capable to develop
antibullying preventive strategies is regulatory emphasized in 10 out of 50 states (Nickerson
et al., 2013). While each second legislation has indicated a mental health service for the
victims as mandatory, an actual service is provided only in 13 states (Nickerson et al., 2013).
At the same time, the researchers have not considered the issue of mental health services for
the bullies, bystanders or witnesses of this violent phenomenon in their article, though the
above perspective is very important. Presumably, the laws and policies evaluated by the
authors did not have these aspects highlighted as well notwithstanding these stakeholders also
suffer psychological harm in the process. In any case, one may boldly agree with the scholars
that besides the evident gaps in the regulations, there is little guidance on the substance of

POLICY INNOVATION

those policies or methods that should be used to achieve the goal of reducing bullying at
school (Nickerson et al., 2013, p. 269).
Apart from the initially flawed legislations created to eliminate bullying, Nickerson et
al. (2013) have discovered that policymakers and practitioners failed to take into account a
number of factors which can ensure a holistic approach to developing the problem solution.
In particular, the researchers have proposed a mandatory five-paradigm model as a
centerpiece of any bullying-focused school policy. Drawing upon the scholars rationale, the
main aspects to consider involve: (a) assessment of bullying prevalence development of
school-wide antibullying policy (b) delivery of school-wide personnel training; (c)
implementation of evidence-based antibullying programs and their elements; (d)
enhancement of strong leadership for proper prevention; (e) application of effective
discipline-related measures (Nickerson et al., 2013). Undoubtedly, each of these approaches
defines a specified side of bullying as a phenomenon which determine the success of
anticipated outcomes of the future program. To illustrate, an assessment stage allows
administrators or teachers to clarify the prevalent type of school-wide harassment and its
main features, such as whether bullying is based on race, gender, and physical appearance, to
list a few. Hence, understanding the problem in-depth is crucial at the program preparatory
and planning phase. Similarly, untrained staff members will not likely to implement even the
best antibullying campaign in a proper manner without a well-organized training on the issue
as well as with the lack of strong leaders as visionary change-initiators, transformational
culture-developers, and supportive supervisors. Finally, if prevention strategies do not work
out, only accurately and appropriately undertaken disciplinary measures can ensure than
antibullying initiatives are complete and successful. As a result, the evidence-based
background of the programs will be vital in this case. Therefore, with a reference to multiple
aspects of the problem, a school-wide policy of bullying elimination can be holistic and

POLICY INNOVATION

multifaceted simultaneously, thus, effective. Omission of any of the above components will
make the strategy fragmented and initially flawed.
Moreover, even if these problem determinants, risks and relevant stakeholders were
detected accordingly, the ways to address the issue through their engagement oftentimes
appeared to be misleading. For instance, in light of bullying prevalence assessment,
Nickerson et al. (2013) have mentioned the use of untested assessment tools as a constant
reason for misperceptions of the acuteness of bullying accidents at schools. Of course,
innovations and school-centric initiatives should be welcomed. Nonetheless, any of these
techniques must have sufficient scholarship- and evidence-based justification. To provide
another illustration, numerous schools still refer to out-of-school suspensions and zerotolerance policies as disciplinary endeavors to punish bullies. This is regardless of the fact
that many recent and earlier studies have demonstrated their ineffectiveness and even
detrimental effects. In contrast, restorative justice practices are widely recommended in this
respect. However, while the origin of this technique is linked to prisons, it is somehow
stereotypically avoided by many educational institutions, though been proved effective. At
the same time, the method of shared concern or the no blame or support group approach
are significant and verified emerging trends to consider whereas they engage multiple
stakeholders in antibullying community treatment, so to speak (Nickerson et al., 2013, p.
277). Such important omissions in the antibullying policies once again show the lack of
academic foundation in policymaking processes which is a severe misguiding position of
decision-makers in the field.
To summarize, bullying is an extremely important issue in todays school-wide
environment. Nevertheless, the policies practiced in order to eliminate this phenomenon are
inevitably flawed due to numerous defects in their overall composition. Hence, the above

POLICY INNOVATION

framework proposed by Nickerson et al. (2013) as a well-rationalized underpinning of both

nationwide and local-level regulations seems more than relevant in this light.

POLICY INNOVATION

5
Reference

Nickerson, A. B., Cornell, D. G., Smith, D. J., & Furlong, M. J. (2013). School antibullying
efforts: Advice for education policymakers. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 268282. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2013.787366