PHOENIX — State lawmakers are weighing a one-size-fits-all definition of what constitutes bullying in public schools.
The measure, which has passed the Senate and awaits a final House vote, is drawing objections from at least one senator who contends it is so flawed, it would allow some forms of bullying to occur without school intervention.
Arizona law already requires school districts to come up with policies to prohibit students from being harassed, intimidated and bullied on school grounds, on buses, at bus stops and school-sponsored events and activities. Those policies also are supposed to deal with bullying that occurs electronically.
Senate Bill 1508 would require those policies to include specific definitions.
Sen. Mitzi Epstein said it is written in such a way that it effectively would allow some minor forms of bullying, which later can escalate.
The Tempe Democrat specifically cites language in the bill that says bullying includes activities that are “sufficiently severe, persistent and pervasive’’ that the conduct or threats create “an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for a student.’’
“This is a good definition for when something is a big problem,’’ Epstein told colleagues during floor debate. “But bullying starts out as a little problem. And our schools need policies that will address the little problems.’’
Bolick
Sen. Shawnna Bolick, sponsor of the measure, who was on the Senate floor during Epstein’s comments, did not address those concerns during debate.
Asked Monday by Capitol Media Services for a response to what Epstein said, Bolick instead referred to a press release she issued last month when she defended the change, saying there is a need for “standardized policies with prevention measure and interventions to protect Arizona’s youth.’’
Bolick, a Phoenix Republican, told colleagues she helped write the bill following the 2022 suicide of Andrew Harstad, a 15-year-old freshman at Hamilton High School in Chandler.
“He was bullied so many times that he actually took his life,’’ Bolick said.
It wasn’t just Epstein who questioned the idea of creating a state law detailing what is bullying.
Rebecca Beebe of the Arizona School Administrators Association pointed out that districts already are required to adopt bullying policies. More to the point, she said, these are crafted with local input versus being dictated by the Legislature.
Beebe also pointed out that Bolick’s legislation uses provisions in the state criminal code when defining “harassment’’ and “intimidation,’’ things she said include racketeering and stalking that have no relevance to school situations, and are not relevant to what essentially is a civil matter in a public school.
“The criminal code is not the right place for an educational setting to pull for those definitions,’’ she said.
Isela Blanc, who lobbies for the Arizona Education Association, noted that the mandate to adopt this specific version of bullying legislation applies only to traditional public schools. Left out, she said, are charter schools, which actually are public schools in Arizona, as well as private schools, many of which get state funds through the system of vouchers that parents can use to pay tuition.
At least part of that got the attention of Rep. Matt Gress — if only briefly.
The Phoenix Republican, who voted for the measure in the House Education Committee which he chairs, and who previously was a member of a school district governing board, said during the committee hearing that he believes bullying is a problem that extends beyond public schools. He said he wanted the measure expanded to include charter schools.
That, however, drew concerns from Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Glendale, who is president of Choice Academies, made up of three charter schools.
“The charters are kind of up to here in being mandated,’’ Fink said. But she said the schools do have their own policies about harassment and intimidation.
In the end, Gress never offered an amendment to expand the reach of SB 1508 to charter schools, saying it “got lost in the legislative shuffle.’’
“We can come back next year to address it,’’ he told Capitol Media Services.
With or without applying the measure to charter schools, some lawmakers had separate concerns about the mandates.
“We’re going to create another law on top of the law we already have to require that our districts do what they’re already doing,’’ said Rep. Anna Abeytia, a Phoenix Democrat.
But Rep. Lydia Hernandez, D-Phoenix, told colleagues that about 70% of her neighbors have complained of a “lack of response from the districts, not taking care, not addressing a situation.’’ This language, she said, would make clear the responsibilities of school boards.
Hernandez also pointed out that the Arizona School Boards Association supports the measure.
SB 1508 still needs a final roll-call vote in the House.
During Senate discussion, Bolick said she wanted to craft something with even more teeth, making schools subject to civil liability in cases where they did not take reasonable action to prevent and stop bullying. But Bolick did not, questioning whether than ever would become law.
She cited the decision last year by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to veto a somewhat different measure, one that would have opened the door to lawsuits against school districts and other public entities if a child were sexually abused by an employee and the district had not taken reasonable action to investigate.
In that veto, Hobbs wrote that legislation expanding liability for public entities “needs to be carefully tailored and thoroughly executed,’’ saying that bill “does not meet that standard.’’
SB 1508, Bolick said, was a reasonable alternative.
The issue of litigation is not academic.
Jordan and Kassidy Harstad did file sit against the Chandler school district, arguing that their son’s death could have been prevented had school administrators done more to address their concerns. But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adam Driggs said there is nothing in Arizona law permitting such a wrongful death claim.
“Arizona law does not create a duty for schools or districts to take steps to prevent suicide by individuals committed to their custody where it is unknown that there is a risk of suicide,’’ he wrote last year. That ruling has been appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
