Tag Archives: Bullying

Home / Posts tagged "Bullying" ()

Science Reveals Prevalent Threads in School Shootings

Justifiably, we will heed a call to action in response to the shooting that left two young people dead at Saugus High School.

One political tribe will extend its thoughts and prayers and the other will demand sensible gun control. In a matter of days, the rhetoric and, sadly, the memory of the event, will vanish from the headlines. That is until it happens again.

The problem of mass shootings is complex. Likewise, a tangible solution will most likely be complex, but the threat can be assuaged by investigating the cohesion among mass shooters.

Ponder that most elected officials and every corporation of importance is protected by the employment of multidisciplinary teams trained in threat assessment.

These teams scrutinize behaviors such as threats posted on social media or those communicated to third parties. These depend not on political talking points, but on scientifically validated behavioral analysis. Yet inexplicably, in most jurisdictions, our children are not protected by this approach. This needs to change.

Criminologists Jillian Peterson and James Densley have been pursuing data-driven prevention strategies.

Their research has reviewed all mass shootings involving four or more deaths since 1966, and all shootings in workplaces, schools, and places of worship shootings since 1999. Their data reveal four commonalities among perpetrators of these mass shooters:

  • First, these mass shooters experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at an early age.
  • Second, virtually every mass shooter they studied had reached a recognizable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.
  • Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.
  • Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. For instance, in 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members.

Likewise, the Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center published its 2019 annual report this month scrutinizing mass shooters for commonality. The findings revealed that two-thirds had a history of mental health symptoms, including depression, suicidal tendencies or psychosis.

Practically all had a significant life stressor within five years and made threatening communications. Three-fourths provoked concern from others prior to the attack. Research by the FBI identifies the same commonalities.

In spite of this, the media and many politicians tend to view each mass shooter as unique. They are not. Their focus ignores the commonalities and instead centers on the identification of the individual’s motive.

These actors and their narrative, whether it’s Incel, white nationalism, religious extremism or ideology, should be considered pieces of a larger puzzle. Rather than staring at the individual actor trying to understand him, it’s important to examine them in a broader perspective for commonality with other attackers.

The Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, the FBI, and criminologists such as Peterson and Densely realize that we can save lives by identifying and managing threats in a coordinated, behavior focused, multi-disciplinary methodology.

The science confirms that regardless of the narrative or motive, in nearly every instance other persons knew some details of a planned attack.

A coordinated system of information gathering, including anonymous reporting, as well as public awareness of the need to say something when people become aware of concerning behavior is needed.

Every regional jurisdiction must possess a multidisciplinary threat management plan to investigate concerning behaviors. These teams must utilize behavior driven standardized criteria based on science. Recognizing the commonality with childhood trauma, these teams must ensure that children receive evidence based services.

Some ideas put forward by Peterson and Densely to prevent future mass shootings: potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures like metal detectors and police officers.

They advocate for weapons to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensing, universal background checks, safe storage campaigns and red-flag laws, measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

Peterson and Densely also recommend making it more difficult for potential perpetrators to find validation for their planned actions by pointing to media campaigns like #nonotoriety, which seeks to starve perpetrators of the oxygen of publicity and by looking at how we consume, produce, and distribute violent content on media and social media.

The crisis of mass shootings and school shootings is complicated. But there also are common threads. Solutions need to be based in science not exaggeration.

The HIB Law

New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Classifies HIB as:

Harassment, intimidation, or bullying refers to any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it is a single incident or several incidents, that is rationally recognized as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that transpires on school property, at any school sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that significantly disturbs or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students and that:

  1. a reasonable person should recognize, under the circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student or damaging the student’s property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to his person or damage to his property;
  2. has the effect of offending or humiliating any student or group of students; or
  3. creates an intimidating educational environment for the student by inhibiting a student’s education or by relentlessly or persistently causing physical or emotional harm to the student.
Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying (HIB)

New Jersey has been at the forefront of establishing a strong statutory, regulatory policy and program agenda to support the prevention, remediation, and reporting of HIB in schools. Supplied below are information and resources to assist schools in the formation of HIB policies, the implementation of HIB program strategies, the execution of pre-emptive responses to HIB and the adoption of efficient HIB reporting processes.

Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABR)

Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act-2012 Amendments

The laws referenced below can be viewed at the New Jersey Legislature.

  • N.J.S.A.18A:37-13 through 17
  • N.J.S.A.2C:16-1  Bias intimidation

The codes listed below can be found at: N.J.A.C.6A:16

  • N.J.A.C. 6A:16-5.2 Violence Awareness
  • N.J.A.C. 6A:16-5.3 Incident reporting of violence, vandalism and alcohol and other drug abuse
  • N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7 Harassment, intimidation, and bullying

N.J.A.C. 6A:3, Controversies and Disputes

For concerns regarding your school district HIB policy, contact the district Anti-Bullying Coordinator or the Anti-Bullying Specialist in your school.

New Jersey Bullying Report 2011-2012

Originally Posted in Huffington Post

New Jersey education officials now have some handle on just how much bullying happens in the state’s public schools. Data made public Tuesday show there were 12,024 instances of harassment, intimidation and bullying reported in the 2011-12 school year–the first year the state’s tough new anti-bullying law was in effect.

New Jersey used a new definition of the behaviors, so there are no previous data for comparison. The numbers of incidents reported Tuesday vary widely by district and may reflect how diligent each school is at reporting, rather than how much bullying there is.

Bullying in school, once written off as just something kids have to deal with, has evolved into a serious issue. New Jersey was among a wave of states that passed anti-bullying laws a decade ago after the school shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado.

In 2012, it’s far more widely seen as a real problem. On Tuesday, a television anchorwoman in La Crosse, Wis., went on air with a four-minute segment criticizing a man who emailed her about her weight. Jennifer Livingston called the man a bully and told young viewers not to let people like him affect them.

New Jersey’s law got an overhaul, which advocates said made it the nation’s toughest, in a law passed in 2010 and signed by Gov. Chris Christie in 2011. Though the bill was already in the works, attention given to the 2010 suicide of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, whose freshman-year roommate used a webcam to watch him kissing another man, resulted in quick passage of the state’s new law.

Now, schools are required to have anti-bullying programs and coordinators while those measures previously had been merely recommended.

And schools are required to report instances of bullying to the state.

In the state’s report tabulating those reports for the first time, Woodbridge, a district with more than 13,000 students, had the most reported incidents, with 177. Newark, the state’s largest school district with more than 39,000 pupils last year, had 105 reported incidents.

In Camden’s school district, there were 35 reported incidents. But at D.U.E. Season, a small charter school in Camden – and not considered part of the school district – there were 16.

Some mid-size districts reported no bullying incidents.

The state also says that there were fewer assaults, fights, criminal threats, robbery, extortion and vandalism last year, compared with the previous school year.

While relatively small numbers, there were more cases of students caught with guns and drugs at school.