School security is one of the world’s biggest issues. In California not many schools have security for their schools and that raises many questions for parents and teachers. All parents want their children to be safe and they don’t want anything bad to happen to them. They don’t know what might happen to them when they go to school. Some schools don’t have security systems because they don’t have government support to afford security for their school. Parents think twice before sending their kids to school with no security because of the crime that’s been happening lately. Department of Education should know that when kids are at school it’s their responsibility to protect kids from any crime. The main problem is the crime that is happening
Pushing, shoving, name calling, teasing. When one reads these words, the first thing that we might associate it with is bullying. Whether or not we have experienced it ourselves, we have at least heard about it. However, as technology advances, so does the method of bullying. Today in our world that is run by technology, the modern method of bullying is called cyber bullying. The most recent definition of this is, “…………………This type of bullying allows the perpetrator to hide behind a computer screen or a phone screen and harass their victims without the need to meet face to face. This causes a new problem to arise in our public schools. Traditional bullying taking place at school was easy to spot and see; therefore, immediate punishment
At some point during your childhood, you may have encountered that troubled individual, typically known as the “bully” that drove fear in the hearts of the weakest link by humiliating them, taking what is rightfully theirs, constantly picking on them and sometimes even inflicting physical abuse. Well I hate to break it to you but this individual is back and is more equipped than before, preying on the weak and vulnerable in the cyber world (internet). Most recently, it took a crime wave of “cyber bullying” before our media and leaders in the Untied States gave it attention; now that the American people realize that the “classroom bully” has evolved into a more dangerously clever and
Cyberbullying has become a new and growing problem within today’s society (Hanel, Trolley 33). On May 9th, 2007, the Minnesota State Legislature first amended the original bullying law from 2005 in attempt to strengthening it (Minnesota State Legislature, “Approved 2005”, “Amended 2007”). As stated on a report by the United States Department of Education, Minnesota has one of the weakest bullying laws in the nation (United States Department of Education, “Analysis”). Bully Police graded Minnesota’s law as a C-, the lowest grade of all bullying laws currently regulated in the U.S. (Weber, “MPR News Investigation”; Bully Police, “Minnesota 2007”).
Cyberbullying is defined as, ¨...bullying that takes place using electronic technology¨ by stopbullying.gov. Recently, schools have been taking actions to punish students for what they do or say online. There have been many debates and trails to figure out whether or not schools should have the power to limit and punish students’ speech online. The Supreme Court ruled that if online speech is disruptive, schools can punish students. School districts should not have the power to limit online speech because online speech does not affect most students and teachers, is not very disruptive, and free speech is a precious right.
“Several states across the United States have been continuously adding cyberbullying on top of harassment laws that have already been in place” (National Conference of State Legislatures). The crackdown on cyberbullying has become a big priority for many lawmakers nationwide. New laws will give power to school officials and prosecutors to make decisions based on the severity of the situation. A school official will have the ability to suspend or expel the bully, while a prosecutor will have the ability to fine the bully and/or up to one year of imprisonment. In the state of Maryland as of October 1, 2013, ‘Grace’s Law’, was passed. This law states that, “It prohibits a person from using an “interactive computer service to maliciously engage in a course of conduct that inflicts serious emotional distress on a minor or places a minor in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Violators who are guilty of a misdemeanor are punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and/or $500 maximum fine” (General Assembly of Maryland). ‘Grace’s Law’ was proposed after 15 year old Grace McComas committed suicide in April of 2012, after relentlessly being cyber bullied over Twitter, Facebook, and Email. Seeing cyberbullying laws being passed by states makes it more comforting for victims of cyberbullying because he/she knows that their bully will one day be held liable for their vile behaviors.
According to California law, legislators, law enforcement personnel and school officials are required to make a safe environment for all children and the community-at-large. The California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act is the specific provision in the Penal Code that requires action by schools because “the right of every person, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, or handicap, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, and physical harm caused by the activities of violent groups and individuals.” Obviously, this is an ambiguous law and as problematic as it is to find out what the law stipulates, it is just as difficult to
Recently, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 1555 (2012), amending the state’s statutes surrounding issues of harassment, intimidation, bullying and cyberbullying (Oregon Department of Education, 2016). Cyberbullying is “conduct that disrupts a student’s ability to learn and a school’s ability to educate its students in a safe environment” (30 ORS § 339.353). The Senate Bill amendments include increased accountability for public school districts, which include the mandatory adoption of a policy prohibiting acts such as harassment and cyberbullying. The policy must also include the requirement that a school employee report such an act of cyberbullying to the appropriate school administrator (Hinduja & Patchin, 2016). Resultantly, the first step in this case is to report this alleged cyberbullying to the school principal. Having examined the state statute requirements for a circumstance of
New Jersey Assembly Bill 826 prohibits smoking in automobiles when children are present. The primary sponsor is Charles Mainor, an Assemblyman for District 31. There are several co-sponsors; they are Assemblyman Vincent Prieto (District 32), Assemblywoman Cleopatra Tucker (District 28), Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. (District 7), Assemblyman Angel Fuentes (5), Assemblyman Gilbert Wilson (District 5), and Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz (District 21). Bill A826 establishes a $100 fine to any person smoking in a motor vehicle with a child of 16 years or younger present. No motor vehicle points or automobile insurance points will be assessed from a violation of the provisions of the bill. A826 also requires the Chief Administrator of the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission to establish a public awareness campaign to inform the public about its provisions. There is no fiscal note attached (New Jersey Assembly Bill 826).
What then is the actual definition of the act of bullying? Bullying in the State of Nevada is defined as carrying out actions that may be “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and intended to “cause the student to suffer harm or serious emotional distress” (Cyberbully tactics are focus of state law, 2010). Cyber bullying elsewhere is bullying by means of electronic communication (Cyberbully tactics are focus of state law, 2010). In Texas, bullying means engaging in written or verbal expression or physical conduct that will physically harm another student or student’s property, or is persistent enough to create an intimidating or threatening educational environment for a student (Grobe, 2012). These definitions are typical of those used in other states.
Since the first two bills I chose to track died early in the session I got the privilege of choosing two new bills. For this round I chose House Bill 1438 and House Bill 1024. These bills have been significantly more active and will most likely become law.
I am writing to respectfully request for the reconsideration and support of the Senate Bill 323, which is critical as health care coverage continues to evolve in the state of California. Senate Bill 323 would increase access to health care for all Californians by allowing nurse practitioners (NP) to practice to the fullest extent license and fully utilizing their training and education.
Students can send cruel comments through texts and emails instead of doing it in person. A whole group of students can send anonymous messages and slander through Facebook or YouTube. The home address or cell phone number of the victim can be posted online. Videos and pictures of an individual during a vulnerable or intimate time in their life can be used on the internet to continue their humiliation for years to come. Victims are no longer safe in their own home because their bullies can follow them online. In addition, teachers cannot witness these online altercations like they could with altercations in a classroom. Being unable to track student behavior online, instructors could no longer report activity unless it occurred in their presence or they are notified by a student. School boards cannot respond to these internet attacks with their sweeping policies because they did not apply to off campus situations. Federal laws provided little relief. “In January 2006, the United States made it a federal crime to harass people on the internet.—but the law applied only to people over the age of eighteen.”(Klein 119-120) Cyber-bullies in secondary school could commit acts of aggression without worries of repercussion. If caught, online abuser could evoke their first amendment rights, which defendsfreedom of speech. No one willing to stop these attackers would know what was happening until it was too late for the
The Center presented the officials with a made-up scenario in which a student, using the web, threatened to inflict bodily harm on another student. On a scale of one to ten, one meaning no law enforcement role was required and ten requiring a “significant” role, the respondents rated the situation a 9.1. This was the scenario that drew the strongest approval of police intervention (Patchin). Interestingly, one of Rebecca Sedwick’s tormentors told her to die via a Facebook post (Slifer, Fla. Girls). In such a case, the Cyberbullying Research Center instructed law enforcement officials to discuss publicly the consequences of cyberbullying for education and deterrence purposes (Patchin). Obviously, talking things over cannot prevent everything, but it increases awareness in school administrators and parents. The Center also asserted officers should “discipline students for conduct outside of school if it infringes on the rights of other students or causes material disruptions to the school’s learning environment” (Patchin). Ultimately, the Center left interpretations of cyberbullying incidents and the required responses to the officers themselves. In fact, the Center more clearly defines law enforcement’s role in cyberbullying cases in its general statement found on its homepage. The document says officials should
Lawmakers, activists, and parents have all been working to institute laws to help reconcile the bullying that has invaded the schools. It has not been a speedy process, only nine states require the schools to report bullying to the local authorities (Garby, 2013). New Jersey has the stiffest anti-bullying law thus far, by suspending or