Analysis of State Bullying 

Laws and Policies

Submitted to

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Prepared by

Victoria Stuart-Cassel, M.P.P.A.

Ariana Bell

J. Fred Springer, Ph.D.

EMT Associates, Inc.

771 Oak Avenue Parkway, Suite 2

Folsom, CA 95630

2011
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number 

ED-CFO-10-A-0031/0001 with EMT Associates. Erica Lee served as the contracting officer’s 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of 

the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is 

intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Carmel Martin

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Stuart Kerachsky

Director

December 2011

This report is in the public domain with the exception of the cover photograph, which are © 

iStockphoto LP 2010. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Although 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service, Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies, Washington, D.C. 2011. 

This report is also available on the Department’s website at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html 

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center 

at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

Content Contact

Erica Lee

202-260-1463

erica.lee@ed.gov 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies iii

Contents

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... ix

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... x

State Bullying Laws...........................................................................................................................................xi

State and School District Policies.................................................................................................................xiv

I. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1

Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Description of the Key Components.............................................................................................................. 5

Research Methods.............................................................................................................................................. 7

Methods for Study Question 1: Compiling and Coding State Laws .................................................. 7

Methods for Study Question 2: Compiling and Coding State Model Policies ...............................11

Methods for Study Question 3: Sampling, Compiling, and Coding School District Policies ......12

Structure of the Report ...................................................................................................................................13

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation ...................................................................15

Key Findings .....................................................................................................................................................15

History and Scope of Bullying Legislation in U.S. States...........................................................................16

Legislative History, Construction of State Statutes, and Key Components ............................................18

Discussion of Key Components ....................................................................................................................21

Prohibition and Purpose Statement ......................................................................................................22

Statement of Scope..................................................................................................................................23

Prohibited Conduct ................................................................................................................................. 25

Enumeration of Specific Characteristics..............................................................................................27

Development and Implementation of School District Policies........................................................29

Review of Local Policies.........................................................................................................................31

Communications ......................................................................................................................................32

Training and Prevention .........................................................................................................................33

Transparency and Monitoring ...............................................................................................................34

Right to Pursue Other Legal Remedies ................................................................................................35

School District Components ..........................................................................................................................36

Coverage of Key Components in State Legislation....................................................................................40

Expansiveness Ratings Across States............................................................................................................42

Summary............................................................................................................................................................45

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies .............................................................47

Key Findings .....................................................................................................................................................47

States With Model Policies and Requirements for Development in Legislation ....................................47

Structure of Model Policy Requirements .....................................................................................................49

Types of Model Policies ..................................................................................................................................50

Coverage of Key Components in State Model Policies .............................................................................51

Expansiveness Ratings Across State Model Policies..................................................................................53

Summary............................................................................................................................................................57
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies iv

Contents (continued)

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies.........................................................59

Key Findings .....................................................................................................................................................59

Selected Districts and Local Bullying Policies.............................................................................................59

District Policy Components ...........................................................................................................................60

Prohibitions and Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................61

Statement of Scope..................................................................................................................................62

Prohibited Behaviors...............................................................................................................................63

Enumeration of Groups .........................................................................................................................65

Reporting ..................................................................................................................................................66

Investigations and Response ..................................................................................................................67

Written Records .......................................................................................................................................68

Consequences and Sanctions .................................................................................................................68

Mental Health Referrals..........................................................................................................................69

Additional Components ..................................................................................................................................70

Review of Local Policies.........................................................................................................................70

Communication .......................................................................................................................................71

Training and Prevention .........................................................................................................................71

Transparency and Monitoring ...............................................................................................................72

Right to Seek Other Legal Remedies....................................................................................................73

District Policy Coverage of Key Components............................................................................................73

Expansiveness Ratings Across District Policies..........................................................................................75

Summary............................................................................................................................................................78

V. Summary and Discussion .......................................................................................79

References ..........................................................................................................................................81

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing 

Examples of Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws.......85

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies...............97

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms as Defined in State Legislation ............................131

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State 

Legislation................................................................................................................147

Appendix E: State Model Policies and Guidance by Legislative Requirement .....................157

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Within-State Comparisons Among State 

Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies ........................163
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies v

Exhibits 

Executive Summary

Exhibit A. Number of state bullying laws enacted by year: 1999–2010 ...........................................xi

Exhibit B. Description of U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and 

policy components and school district policy subcomponents .....................................xii

Exhibit C. State legislation coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key 

components, by number of states (n=46)........................................................................xiii

Exhibit D. State law coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative 

and policy components and subcomponents: Number of components and 

subcomponents covered in state laws, by number of states (n=46) ............................xiv

I. Introduction

Exhibit 1. Description of 11 U.S. Department of Education-identified key components and 

school district policy subcomponents in state bullying legislation .................................. 6 

Exhibit 2. Key state bullying legislation and policy components identified by the U.S. 

Department of Education: Criteria used to rate the expansiveness of components 

and subcomponents ............................................................................................................... 9 

Exhibit 3. Selection of school districts for analysis of bullying policies, by region, urban 

code, and state ....................................................................................................................... 13 

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

Exhibit 4. Number of state bullying laws enacted by year: 1999–2010 .......................................... 16 

Exhibit 5. Terms used in framing state bullying legislation, by number of states (n=46) ............18

Exhibit 6. Eleven key legislative and policy components and six school district policy 

subcomponents identified by the U.S. Department of Education, by category ..........21

Exhibit 7. Statements of scope of bullying legislation, by number of states (n=46) ....................23

Exhibit 8. State bullying legislative language to define bullying behavior and associated 

harm, by number of states (n=46) .....................................................................................26

Exhibit 9. State legislation addressing cyberbullying or electronic bullying acts, by number 

of states (n=46).....................................................................................................................27

Exhibit 10. Enumerated characteristics in bullying legislation, by number of states (n=17) .........28

Exhibit 11. State law requirements for the adoption of school district bullying policies and 

date required, by state (n=50).............................................................................................30

Exhibit 12. Legislative expectations for communicating school district bullying policies, by 

number of states (n=46) ......................................................................................................33

Exhibit 13. Legislative requirements for reporting bullying incidents: Number of states by 

reporting type (n=46) ...........................................................................................................37

Exhibit 14. Coverage of key components: Number of components and policy 

subcomponents covered in bullying laws, by number of states (n=46) ....................... 40 

Exhibit 15. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components 

in state bullying legislation, by state (n=46)......................................................................41

Exhibit 16. Distribution of expansiveness ratings for state bullying laws, by number of states 

(n=46).....................................................................................................................................42

Exhibit 17. Extent of expansiveness for state bullying legislation for U.S. Department of 

Education-identified key components, by state (n=46) ..................................................43
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies vi

Exhibits (continued)

III. Analysis of States’ Model Bullying Policies

Exhibit 18. State law recommendations and requirements for the adoption of state model 

bullying policies or other guidance documents, by state (n=50) ................................... 48 

Exhibit 19. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components 

in state model bullying policies and guidance documents, by state (n=41) ................. 52 

Exhibit 20. Coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components: Number 

of components and policy subcomponents covered in state model bullying 

policies and guidance documents, by number of states (n=41)..................................... 53 

Exhibit 21. Extent of expansiveness of state model bullying policies and guidance 

documents, by state (n=41) ................................................................................................. 54 

Exhibit 22. Distribution of expansiveness ratings for state model policies and guidance 

documents, by number of states (n=41)........................................................................... 55 

Exhibit 23. Comparison of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key 

components between state legislation and state model bullying policies, by key 

component (n=46) ............................................................................................................... 56 

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

Exhibit 24. Statements of scope in school district bullying policies, by number of school 

districts (n=20)......................................................................................................................62

Exhibit 25. School district bullying policy language to define bullying behavior and 

associated harm, by number of school districts (n=20)..................................................63

Exhibit 26. Number of district policies addressing cyberbullying or electronic acts (n=20) .........64

Exhibit 27. Enumerated characteristics in school district bullying policies, by number of 

school districts (n=20) .........................................................................................................66

Exhibit 28. School district policy requirements for reporting bullying incidents, by number of 

school districts (n=20) .........................................................................................................67

Exhibit 29. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components 

in local district and board bullying policy documents, by state (n=20) ........................74

Exhibit 30. Extent of expansiveness of district policy components in selected district and 

board bullying policies, by state (n=20) ............................................................................76

Exhibit 31. Comparison between bullying state law and local policy expansiveness ratings, by 

state (n=20)............................................................................................................................77
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Acknowledgements

vii

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this study. 

First, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for the guidance and support provided by 

the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, we would like to thank Erica Lee of the Policy and 

Program Studies Service, who served as the project officer and whose direction, support, and 

dedication to the study have been invaluable throughout the report development process. We would 

also like to thank Deborah Temkin of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, who 

offered further review and guidance. Our appreciation also extends to the representatives of the 

state education agencies who reviewed and provided feedback on our interpretation of their 

legislation and policies.

Additionally, we would like to recognize the important contributions of our Expert Panel members 

who advised on the study approach and content. In particular, we would like to thank Dr. Howard 

Adelman; Dr. Sheri Bauman; Anne Gilligan; Thomas Hutton, JD; Dr. Susan Limber; Robert Salem, 

JD; and Dr. J. David Smith. Their review and input on the study was highly valued. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all the above individuals, any errors in judgment 

or fact are the responsibility of the authors. 

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

ix

Executive Summary

Bullying in schools has become widely viewed as an urgent social, health, and education concern that 

has moved to the forefront of public debate on school legislation and policy. Increasingly, elected 

officials and members of the school community have come to view bullying as an extremely serious 

and often neglected issue facing youths and local school systems (Swearer, Limber, & Alley, 2009).

The focus on youth bullying has intensified over the past 12 years as a catalyzed reaction to school 

violence that is often linked explicitly or by inference to bullying. The Columbine High School 

shooting in 1999 was the first of many high-profile incidents of violent behavior that appeared to 

implicate bullying as an underlying cause (Greene & Ross, 2005). The incident ignited a wave of new 

legislative action within state legislatures that aimed to curtail bullying behavior on school campuses 

or to mitigate its effects. The trend was later fueled by a number of highly visible suicides among 

school-age children and adolescents that were linked to chronic bullying, attracting national attention 

to the issue (Marr & Field, 2001). The heightened visibility has coincided with an expansion of 

research knowledge identifying a range of serious and long-term consequences associated with 

bullying behavior, such as increased depression, substance use, aggressive impulses, and school 

truancy (Nansel, et al., 2001; Roland, 2002; Klomek, et al., 2007; Gastic, 2008; O’Brennan, 

Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009; Juvonen, 2009). Together these factors have placed increased pressure 

on governments and school systems for solutions to more effectively prevent or reduce bullying in 

schools.

To address these issues, in August 2010, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services cohosted the first Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit, 

which brought together government officials, researchers, policymakers, and education practitioners 

to explore potential strategies to combat bullying in schools. This summit highlighted the need for 

more comprehensive information about the current status of state legislation, as well as information 

on how existing laws and policies translate into practice within elementary and secondary school 

systems. 

To address this gap in information, the U.S. Department of Education, Program and Policy Studies 

Service, initiated a study designed to answer the following study questions: 

1. To what extent do states’ bullying laws cover U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and policy 

components? 

The first study question concerns the need for an informative and clearly focused analysis of 

state legislation to describe the purpose and structure of laws and their definitions, key 

provisions, similarities, and differences. To address this question, the study includes a 

systematic review and coding of components in laws governing K–12 education. The review

identifies the types of provisions that are addressed in legislation and measures their 

expansiveness. The review of legislation is based on a framework conceptualized by the U.S. 

Department of Education (“the Department”) that was disseminated to school districts 

nationally and is presented in Exhibit 1 in Chapter 1 of the report (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2010a). The review covers legislation enacted through April of 2011, across the 50 

U.S. states. 

2. To what extent do states’ model bullying policies cover U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative 

and policy components? 

The second study question focuses on the nature and content of model policies and guidance 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

x 

documents that have been developed by state education agencies, or school boards 

associations, pursuant to legislation. These policies guide and support district efforts to develop 

and implement effective bullying policies. The study reviews and systematically codes model 

policy documents available for 41 states to determine the coverage and expansiveness of key 

components. 

3. To what extent do school districts’ bullying policies cover U.S. Department of Education-identified school district 

policy subcomponents? 

The third study question focuses on the structure and content of bullying policies developed at 

the local school district level that directly shape implementation within the school environment. 

The study involves a systematic review and coding of components in district policies for a small 

sample of urban and rural school districts that was selected to incorporate the geographic and 

community diversity of U.S. school districts. The analysis aims to determine the types of 

definitions and policy components that are present in local policy documents in addition to 

providing a measure of their expansiveness. The analysis also examines the relationship 

between state legislation and local policy development (e.g., the degree to which state legislation 

shapes local policy). 

4. How are state laws translated into practice at the school level? 

The final study question focuses on how bullying laws and their legislative requirements are 

implemented by school districts and schools. The question will be answered through a series of 

case studies conducted at 24 school sites across four states. The purpose of the case studies will 

be to highlight lessons from the field on how state legislation and model policies are shaping 

implementation of bullying programs and procedures, and to assess the ways that state and 

district policies facilitate or create challenges for effective implementation.

The second study phase will be launched in the fall of 2011. The remainder of this summary 

provides highlights of the findings and conclusions across the full report. 

Key Findings

• Forty-six states have bullying laws and 45 of those laws direct school districts to 

adopt bullying policies. However, three of the 46 states prohibit bullying 

without defining the behavior that is prohibited.

• Thirty-six states include provisions in their education codes prohibiting 

cyberbullying or bullying using electronic media. Thirteen states specify that 

schools have jurisdiction over off-campus behavior if it creates a hostile school 

environment.

• Forty-one states have created model bullying policies, 12 of which were not 

mandated to do so under law. Three other states, including Hawaii, Montana,

and Michigan, also developed model policies in the absence of state bullying

legislation.

• Among the 20 school district bullying policies reviewed in this study, districts 

located in states with more expansive legislation produced the most expansive 

school district policies. However, several school districts in states with less 

expansive laws also substantially expanded the scope and content of their 

policies beyond the minimum legal expectations.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

xi

State Bullying Laws

In the aftermath of the 1999 Columbine shootings and in response to a bullying-related suicide, the 

state of Georgia became the first state to pass bullying legislation, which required schools to 

implement character education programs that explicitly addressed bullying prevention. Since that 

time, there has been a wave of new legislation at the state level to define acts of bullying in the 

school context and to establish school or district policies that prohibit bullying behavior. Exhibit A 

shows that from 1999 to 2010 there were more than 120 bills enacted by state legislatures nationally 

that have either introduced or amended education or criminal statutes to address bullying and related 

behaviors in schools. Twenty-one new bills were passed in 2010 and eight additional bills were 

signed into law through April 30, 2011. With the spate of legislation passed in recent years, there are 

only four remaining states (Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, and South Dakota) without bullying laws.

1

 

Exhibit A. Number of state bullying laws enacted by year: 1999–2010

1 1 

11

5 

8 

5 

11

9 

14

20

15

21

0 

5 

10

15

20

25

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Exhibit reads: One state enacted bullying legislation in 1999. 

Note: Analyses in this report reflects state bullying legislation enacted through April 30, 2011. The analyses do not reflect the 

recent enactment of House Bill 688 in the state of Hawaii, or amendments to other states’ legislation that occurred after April 30, 

2011, including, but not limited to, new laws passed in California, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas during their states’ 2011 

legislative sessions. 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Profile of State Legislation 

Because all but a few states have passed multiple laws, amendments, or revisions that address 

bullying in schools, profiling the current status of legislation in states required identifying multiple 

provisions currently in the education code, or, in a few instances, in the criminal code. To profile the 

content and scope of bullying laws across states, this report adapted a framework developed by the 

U.S. Department of Education and identified in its December 2010 Dear Colleague Letter that 

organizes legislative and policy provisions in bullying laws into 11 categories or key components.

This study does not evaluate the impact of such components. 

 

1 Analyses in this report reflect enacted bullying legislation as of April 2011. These analyses do not include the enactment 

of Hawaii’s bullying legislation, House Bill 688, which was signed into law on July 11, 2011.

Bills enacted 

or amended
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

xii

The content of each states’ legislation was mapped onto the 11 components of bullying laws 

identified by the Department to assess both the coverage (i.e., did the law include any provision 

related to this component of bullying law?) and expansiveness (i.e., what was the scope and detail of 

the provisions addressing this component?) of legislation for each state. Exhibit B briefly 

summarizes the content of the 11 components and six district policy subcomponents used to profile 

state legislation. The display groups components by four focus areas. 

1. Purpose and Definition (four components) concerns prohibitions of bullying and how behavior is 

defined. These provisions include the purpose of laws and policies, the scope of school 

jurisdiction for regulating these behaviors, the definition of behavior that is prohibited, and the 

enumeration of protected groups.

2. District Policy Development and Review (two components) concerns requirements for districts to 

develop and implement policies and for districts and state education agencies to review policies 

for compliance. 

3. School District Policy Components (one component—six policy subcomponents) concerns provisions that 

assign responsibility for carrying out application of the law, and sets parameters concerning 

how this application will be carried out (e.g., how policies will be communicated, how records 

will be kept, how monitoring and other accountability procedures will be used). 

4. Additional Components (four components) concerns how policies will be communicated, how 

monitoring and other accountability procedures will be used, the actions and interventions that 

may be undertaken to prevent bullying behavior, and assurances of legal remedies for victims.

Exhibit B. Description of U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and policy 

components and school district policy subcomponents

Component Content

Definitions

Purpose Purpose of laws and policies and prohibitions against bullying

Scope Scope of laws and policies (e.g., where policies apply)

Prohibited behavior Specific behaviors defined as bullying

Enumerated groups Group characteristics as target of intention

District policy development and review

District policy Development and implementation of policies

District policy review Review of school district policies

District policy components

Definitions Definitions of prohibited behavior outlined in policies

Reporting Responsibilities for reporting bullying incidents

Investigations Responsibilities for investigating reports

Written records Responsibilities for keeping records of incidents

Consequences Consequences or sanctions for bullying perpetrators

Mental health Counseling, services for victims/perpetrators

Additional components 

Communications Communication of policy to students, parents, and school personnel.

Training/ prevention Prevention and training for school personnel and students

Transparency/monitoring Monitoring incidents and actions/public reporting

Legal remedies Victim rights to pursue legal remedies

Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education (2010a) 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

xiii

Coverage 

Exhibit C summarizes the degree to which state laws have language that addresses each of these 

components and district policy subcomponents, regardless of content or detail. There are significant 

differences in the number of the 46 states that address individual components. Forty-three state laws 

cover definitions of prohibited behavior that define bullying in operational terms (i.e., direct or 

indirect acts, patterns of behavior, motivation, and intent). The purpose statement, scope of laws, 

expectations for communication of policy, and consequences for students who bully are also 

covered broadly, addressed by 39, 44, 42, and 42 states, respectively. At the other extreme, mental 

health or other supportive services provisions for victims of bullying are covered in 13 state laws.

Definitional components receive some of the strongest emphasis in state laws with the exception of 

the enumeration of groups, which is covered in 17 states. The enumeration of groups conveys 

specific protections for individuals with characteristics that may motivate bullying behavior (e.g. 

disability, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] identity, race/ethnicity, or gender). As 

indicated in legislative debate and other policy discussion, this element represents a point of 

disagreement and contention in some contexts. 

Exhibit C. State legislation coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components, by 

number of states (n=46)

18

18

39

42

13

42

18

31

36

29

20

45

17

43

44

39

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Exhibit reads: Thirty-nine state laws covered the purpose or intent of the law and prohibitions against bullying.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Exhibit D illustrates that among the 46 states with bullying legislation, Maryland and New Jersey are

the only states that contains provisions covering all of the key components and school district policy 

subcomponents. Seventeen total states, including Maryland and New Jersey, cover between 13 and 

16 components, and 17 others cover between nine and 12. Twelve states with legislation cover half 

or fewer components. States differ substantially in the number of components covered by their 

Legal remedies

Transparancy/monitoring

Training/prevention

Communications

Mental health referrals

Sanctions

Written records

Investigations

Reporting

Definitions

District policy review

District policy

Enumerated groups

Prohibited behavior

Scope

Purpose

Key Elements

Number of states
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

xiv

legislation. Additionally, states also address each component in different ways and with different 

levels of detail and specificity. 

Exhibit D. State law coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and policy 

components and subcomponents: Number of components and subcomponents covered in 

state laws, by number of states (n=46)

4 

1 

11

17

17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No legislation

1 to 4 Components

5 to 8 Components

9 to 12 Components

13 to 16 Components

Components covered in state laws

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Seventeen state laws covered anywhere from 13 to 16 key components and district policy components.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Expansiveness 

To provide a more precise differentiation of state legislation, each state’s laws were systematically 

reviewed to assess their expansiveness. Coding criteria were developed for each component to 

identify language and provisions according to inclusiveness (e.g., more broadly defined prohibited 

behavior without limiting conditions or broader school jurisdiction over behavior), explicitness (e.g., 

use of concrete directives to convey policy expectations), degree to which less discretionary language 

was used, and degree to which mechanisms to ensure accountability were included with respect to 

components. 

There were several shared characteristics among states with less expansive coverage of key 

components. These states typically included laws that required local school districts to adopt bullying 

policies but that failed to outline any requisite components. These states were also more likely to 

have laws that were constructed by amending existing statutes, rather than incorporating new 

sections of law that explicitly addressed bullying behavior. 

State and School District Policies

State legislation sets the parameters for policy guidance at the state and school levels where policy is 

more directly related to implementation in schools. This section provides a brief summary of policy 

emphases at state and school district levels, and relates them to the state legislation.

State Model Policies and Guidelines 

Twenty-seven states’ laws encourage or require states to develop model policies addressing 

harassment, intimidation, or bullying, and 41 states have developed bullying policy models or state 

guidelines that are available for dissemination to local school districts. These documents provide 

specific guidance to school districts on how to draft district bullying policies and how to implement 

provisions outlined in the law. Most deadlines for completing policy documents were from 2007 

forward. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

xv

Twenty-six of the 27 states with model policy requirements have developed state policies, as have 12 

other states without any legal requirements. Three other states without bullying legislation—Hawaii, 

Michigan, and Montana—also have adopted state model policies and guidelines. These model 

policies may play an important role in closing gaps in bullying prevention and enforcement for 

districts and schools lacking clear direction under the law. Nine states nationally have not developed 

model bullying policies, although some may provide guidance to districts in other forms. South 

Dakota is the only state with no bullying law and no source of state guidance for schools to respond 

to bullying on their campuses. 

State model policies and guidance document address most key components more frequently than 

state legislation. The greatest differences in coverage between the model policies and laws are found 

in the following areas: 

• Enumeration of protected groups. Enumeration of groups is addressed in more than two-thirds (71 

percent) of state model policies, whereas only a little over one-third of laws (37 percent) contain 

similar language on this component. This may reflect the fact that the inclusion of enumerated 

groups has been a focus of controversy in legislative and political debate in several states.

• Investigations and use of written records. School district policy requirements concerning the 

investigation of bullying incidents and the use of written records to document reports and 

investigation procedures are more frequently addressed in state policy than in legislation. This is 

consistent with the delegation of administrative detail to state agencies and local school 

districts.

• Mental health referrals. Provisions to address the mental health needs of students who bully and 

students who are targeted by bullying behavior are present in approximately half of all model 

policies (51 percent) compared to only one-quarter (28 percent) of state laws. 

• Transparency and monitoring. State guidelines for school districts to report and compile bullying 

incidents are outlined in two-thirds (68 percent) of all state model policies, compared to 

approximately two-fifths (39 percent) of legislative statutes.

State model policies and guidance documents are less likely than state legislation to address two key 

components. 

• Victim rights to pursue legal remedies were less frequently mentioned in state policy. This 

component pertains to assurances for victims of their legal rights under federal or state law 

and does not pertain to school or district jurisdiction.

• Scope. State model policies are also somewhat less likely to contain language regarding scope or 

jurisdiction of the law, although 88 percent of state model policies do address school 

jurisdiction in policy documents.

States that are among the top 10 in key component coverage in their laws also tend to be high in 

coverage of components in state policies. North Carolina is an exception, with state policy covering 

only five key components. On the other hand, states that are in the bottom 10 with respect to key 

coverage in their laws often have strong coverage in their state policies: examples include Colorado, 

Wisconsin, and Missouri. Clearly, strong state policy can be written without strong state legislation. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies 

Executive Summary

xvi

School District Policies 

The study included a review of bullying policies in 20 school districts that varied by region and 

urbanicity. Key components that were common to nearly all local district policies include statements 

prohibiting bullying behavior, procedures for reporting, and discussions of consequences. This 

finding conforms to patterns in state legislation, which emphasize traditional approaches to 

managing bullying misconduct that involve reporting and investigating bullying complaints and 

imposing disciplinary actions. 

Districts located in states with more expansive legislation tended to have more expansive local 

policies. Districts in states with less expansive legislation produced local policies that covered fewer 

key components in some cases. However, some district policies, such as those in Colorado and 

Texas, substantially expanded the scope and content of their policies beyond minimum standards 

required by law.

While this report focuses on documenting and profiling policy across the states, these policies may

not benefit schools or students unless they can be successfully implemented. For example, 

legislation that defines prohibited bullying behaviors, and specifies graduated and substantial 

sanctions, will often require extensive implementation procedures, such as reporting requirements, 

investigation, and procedures for implementing the sanction (e.g., expulsion). Whether these 

necessary actions are feasible within resource constraints cannot be determined through a policy 

review alone. These questions require more information and represent the central focus of the 

second phase of the study. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

1 

I. Introduction

Background

Bullying in schools has become widely viewed as an urgent social, health, and education concern that

has moved to the forefront of public debate on school legislation and policy. Increasingly, elected 

officials and members of the school community have come to view bullying as an extremely serious 

and often neglected issue facing youths and local school systems (Swearer, Limber, & Alley, 2009).

The focus on youth bullying has intensified over the past 12 years as a catalyzed reaction to school 

violence that is often linked explicitly or by inference to bullying. The Columbine High School 

shooting in 1999 was the first of many high-profile incidents of violent behavior that was 

presumably tied to bullying as an underlying cause. It ignited a wave of new legislative action within 

state legislatures that aimed to curtail bullying behavior on school campuses (Greene & Ross, 2005). 

This initial trend was later fueled by a number of highly visible suicides among school-age children 

and adolescents that have been linked to chronic bullying and have attracted national attention to 

the issue. This heightened visibility has coincided with an expansion of research knowledge 

identifying a range of serious and long-term consequences associated with bullying behavior that 

include increased depression, substance use, aggressive impulses, and school truancy (Nansel, et al., 

2001; Roland, 2002; Klomek, et al., 2007; Gastic, 2008; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009; 

Juvonen, 2009). These factors have placed greater pressure on governments and school systems for

solutions to more effectively prevent or reduce bullying in schools. 

Researchers have traditionally defined bullying as a repeated pattern of aggressive behavior that 

involves an imbalance of power and that purposefully inflicts harm on the bullying victim (Sherer & 

Nickerson, 2010; Limber, 2003; Olweus, 1993). Bullying assumes a variety of forms including direct 

physical or verbal actions that cause physical or emotional distress, or indirect acts of social 

aggression that are used to damage a victim’s personal relationships or social standing (Sherer & 

Nickerson, 2010; Smith, et al., 2005). Although bullying occurs at any age, research indicates that 

more direct physical forms of bullying tend to escalate through elementary school and middle school 

and gradually decline as students reach high school, whereas verbal and indirect bullying typically 

increase through adolescence (Cohn & Canter, 2003). 

Advances in communication technologies and the growth of social networking sites have added a 

new and complex dimension to the bullying problem that challenges many conventional 

assumptions about bullying behavior. ‘Cyberbullying’ is commonly defined as “willful and repeated 

harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (Hinduja & 

Patchin, 2008). Several aspects of cyberbullying behavior increase its propensity to damage or harm 

victims. Specifically, physical distance or separation between students who bully and those targeted 

as victims, as well as the difficulty identifying perpetrators, lessens personal accountability and 

encourages more cruel and abusive behavior (Shariff, 2009). The use of technology to rapidly 

transmit content to a wide audience also makes acts of cyberbullying highly visible, more pervasive 

and more permanent. Because cyberbullying is a relatively new phenomenon and because the 

victimization typically occurs in off-campus settings, it also imposes challenges for schools to 

effectively enforce policies without overreaching their legal authority (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). 

Although estimates of bullying prevalence vary across studies, surveys measuring schools’ 

experiences managing bullying-related disciplinary issues suggest the problem is relatively 

widespread. The most recent national survey data on school violence and student safety available 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

2 

from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) measures how frequently school 

administrators respond to disciplinary problems related to bullying on their school campuses. 

According to survey findings, about 39 percent of middle school administrators and 20 percent of 

administrators at the elementary and high school level reported that bullying took place on a daily or 

weekly basis. Nineteen percent of middle schools and 18 percent of high schools reported daily or 

weekly problems with cyberbullying, either at school or away from school (Neiman, 2011). 

The NCES survey also measures how frequently students are the targets of bullying behavior 

(Robers, et al., 2010). The most recent data focusing on school-age youths ages 12–18 asks students

if they had been bullied at school at any time during the past school year.2 Twenty-one percent of 

those surveyed reported that they had been made fun of by their peers, 18 percent had been the 

subject of rumors, 11 percent had been pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on, and 6 percent had been 

threatened with harm. These findings are comparable to other nationally representative surveys of 

high school-age students, which indicate that over a 12-month period as many as 20 percent of 

students experience bullying on school property (CDC, 2010).3

The NCES survey findings also provide national estimates on the prevalence of cyberbullying 

among school-age students, which indicates that about 4 percent of youths ages 12–18 had been 

cyberbullied in the year prior to the study (Robers, et al., 2010). Lifetime prevalence among 11–18 

year‐olds may reach as high as 20 percent according to other related studies. The NCES study also 

indicates that about the same percentage of students had been involved in the cyberbullying of other 

youths (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).

 

School-based surveys conducted at the elementary and middle school grades suggest that bullying 

prevalence may be even higher among youths in lower grade levels. Data collected from more than 

11,000 elementary and middle school students measuring overt and relational aggression found that 

61 percent of girls and 60 percent of boys had been bullied one or more times a month by being 

“teased in a mean way,” and that 22 percent of girls and 33 percent of boys had been threatened 

with physical harm. Forty-six percent of girls and 31 percent of boys experienced relational 

aggression in the form of being “ignored on purpose” (Nishioka, et al., 2011). 

Improved estimates of bullying prevalence have been accompanied by an expansion in the body of 

research concerning the serious health and social consequences of bullying behavior. Previously 

accepted as a normative experience of childhood and adolescence that most children move past or 

outgrow, researchers now link bullying to a broad range of long-term harms for both students who 

bully and students who are bullied. One of the earliest large-scale studies of bullying prevalence in 

U.S. schools documented a relationship between bullying victimization and poor psychosocial 

adjustment, manifested in students’ difficulty making friends, poorer relationships with peers, and 

 

2 Bullying was defined as “being made fun of; being the subject of rumors; being threatened with harm; being pushed, 

shoved, tripped, or spit on; being pressured into doing things did not want to do; excluded from activities on purpose; or 

having property destroyed on purpose.” According to study findings, 32 percent of students reported being bullied at 

school in the year prior to the study and 7 percent reported being bullied “almost every day.”

3 Bullying was defined as “when 1 or more students tease, threaten, spread rumors about, hit, shove, or hurt another 

student over and over again. It is not bullying when 2 students of about the same strength or power argue or fight or 

tease each other in a friendly way. Students were asked “During the past 12 months, have you ever been bullied on 

school property?” and “During the past 12 months, have you ever been electronically bullied (including being bullied 

through E-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, Websites, or texting.)?”
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

3 

increased sense of loneliness (Nansel, et al., 2001). Research indicates that students who are bullied 

also show increased anxiety levels and psychosomatic symptoms and experience higher rates of 

eating disorders and aggressive-impulsive behavior problems (Craig, 1998; Gini, 2008; KaltialaHeino, Rimpela, Rantanen, & Rimpela, 2000; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009). Youths who 

are bullied have also been show to be at greater risk of developing poor self-esteem, depression, 

suicidal ideations, and suicide attempts (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Klomek, et al., 2007; Ivarsson, 

Broberg, Arvidsson, & Gillberg, 2005; Roland, 2002). Finally, studies have shown that youths who 

are chronically bullied demonstrate lower academic achievement and school connectedness, as well 

as higher rates of truancy and disciplinary problems (Juvonen, 2009; You et al., 2008; Gastic, 2008).

In addition to the negative outcomes experienced by bullied youths, students who engage in bullying 

behavior are at higher risk for long-term socio-emotional and physical health consequences than 

non-bullying involved youths. Research indicates that students who bully have higher substance use 

rates, poorer social skills, greater mental health problems, and exhibit increased aggressive-impulsive 

behaviors as adults (Houbre, Tarquinio, Thrillier, & Hergott, 2006; Niemela et al., 2011; O’Brennan, 

Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, & Rimpela, 2000; Ragatz, Anderson, 

Fremouw, & Schwartz, 2011). One study exploring the relationship between bullying and criminality 

found that 60 percent of boys who bullied in middle school and high school had been convicted of 

one or more crimes before they reached the age of 25, and 40 percent of those had three or more 

convictions (Fox et al., 2003). Youths who bully are also likely to become more violent over time 

and continue to engage in bullying behavior as adults, either in the workplace or in their partner 

relationships (Garbarino & deLara, 2003). “Bully/victims” or children that are bullied and who then 

go on to bully other youths are known to be a particularly high-risk group (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & 

Sawyer, 2009). Specifically, one study found that bullying-involved youths who were bully/victims 

felt less safe and more disconnected to their school environments than their peers and were at 

increased risk for aggressive-impulsive behavior (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009). Overall, 

research indicates that students who bully or are bullied are at significantly greater risk of developing 

and experiencing an array of negative socio-emotional, health, and academic outcomes.

Public concern over the physical and emotional health of bullying victims and the climate of public 

schools has created demand for a government response. This increased pressure for stronger school 

policy and action to mitigate bullying problems is reflected in the proliferation of proposed 

legislation at the state and federal level, as well as an increase in the number of court cases filed 

seeking legal remedies for students who have been victimized (Greene & Ross, 2005). Prior to 1999 

no states had clear statutes specifically addressing school bullying. Now 46 states have enacted laws 

that contain specific bullying provisions, the most recent of which was signed into law in April 2011. 

The research literature examining legislation that has emerged around youth-bullying issues and the 

legal implications for schools also has vastly expanded (Srabstein, Berkman, & Pyntikova, 2008; 

Alley & Limber, 2009; Green & Ross, 2005; Limber, 2003). These studies have brought to light the 

somewhat disparate nature of legislation that defines and addresses bullying behavior, and have

identified gaps and inconsistencies in the way that laws have been implemented (Associated Press, 

2009). Recent studies commissioned by state legislatures examining the impact of bullying legislation 

within individual states are now beginning to emerge, and have produced somewhat mixed findings 

regarding the promise of bullying legislation to reduce bullying incidents. A formal report conducted 

in 2008 examining bullying in Washington schools concluded that despite enactment of bullying 

legislation in 2002, school districts did not appear to be addressing bullying uniformly in the state 

and bullying had not declined substantially since the first bullying legislation was passed (Kester & 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

4 

Mann, 2008). The study prompted the state legislature to enact more stringent and more expansive 

laws in 2010 in an attempt to strengthen bullying procedures at the school district level. Similarly, a 

recent study of South Carolina’s Safe School Climate Act found that the law had not substantially 

improved the climate of South Carolina schools due to inadequate implementation of its provisions 

(Troy, 2010). In Vermont a study examining compliance with requirements for districts to “ensure 

that teachers and other staff receive training in preventing, recognizing, and responding to 

harassment” found that no mandatory in-service or pre-service training options have been 

developed to address school bullying and no mechanism was available to monitor training 

compliance (Vermont Human Rights Commission, 2009). 

Study Purpose

The evolving legal and policy environment surrounding bullying in schools has established a need 

for information regarding the current status of bullying legislation in states and the way policies are 

formulated at the state and local level. To address these issues, in August 2010, the U.S. Department 

of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cohosted the first Federal 

Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit, which brought together government officials, researchers, 

policymakers, and education practitioners to explore potential strategies to combat bullying in 

schools. This summit highlighted the need for more comprehensive information about the current 

status of state legislation, as well as information on how existing laws and policies translate into 

practice within elementary and secondary school systems. 

To address this gap in information, the U.S. Department of Education, Program and Policy Studies 

Service, initiated a study designed to answer the following study questions: 

1. To what extent do states’ bullying laws cover U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative and policy 

components? 

The first study question concerns the need for an informative and clearly focused analysis of 

state legislation to describe the purpose and structure of laws and their definitions, key 

provisions, similarities, and differences. To address this question, the study includes a 

systematic review and coding of components in laws governing K–12 education. The review 

identifies the types of provisions that are addressed in legislation and measures their 

expansiveness. The review of legislation is based on a framework conceptualized by the U.S. 

Department of Education (“the Department”) that was disseminated to school districts 

nationally and is discussed in the next section titled Description of the Key Components (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010a). The review covers legislation enacted through April of 2011, 

across the 50 U.S. states. 

2. To what extent do states’ model bullying policies cover U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative 

and policy components? 

The second study question focuses on the nature and content of model policies and guidance 

documents that have been developed by state education agencies, or school boards associations, 

pursuant to legislation. These policies guide and support district efforts to develop and 

implement effective bullying policies. The study reviews and systematically codes model policy 

documents available for 41 states to determine the coverage and expansiveness of key 

components. 

3. To what extent do school districts’ bullying policies cover U.S. Department of Education-identified school district 

policy subcomponents? 

The third study question focuses on the structure and content of bullying policies developed at 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

5 

the local school district level that directly shape implementation within the school environment. 

The study involves a systematic review and coding of components in district policies for a small 

sample of urban and rural school districts that was selected to incorporate the geographic and 

community diversity of U.S. school districts. The analysis aims to determine the types of 

definitions and policy components that are present in local policy documents in addition to 

providing a measure of their expansiveness. The analysis also examines the relationship 

between state legislation and local policy development (e.g., the degree to which state legislation 

shapes local policy). 

4. How are state laws translated into practice at the school level? 

The final study question focuses on how bullying laws and their legislative requirements are 

implemented by school districts and schools. The question will be answered through a series of 

case studies conducted at 24 school sites across four states. The purpose of the case studies will 

be to highlight lessons from the field on how state legislation and model policies are shaping 

implementation of bullying programs and procedures, and to assess the ways that state and 

district policies facilitate or create challenges for effective implementation.

This report presents the results of the first phase of research, which was guided by the first three 

study questions. Each section of the analysis focuses on documenting the presence of key 

components in laws or policy documents, and on rating the expansiveness of their content. The 

report also includes an analysis of the relationships between state legislation and school district 

policies to determine how closely policies conform to requirements in the law. The second phase of 

the study will involve intensive case studies in schools to analyze the implementation of laws at the 

district and school-site level. The second study phase will be launched in the fall of 2011.

Description of the Key Components

In December 2010, in response to several requests for technical assistance surrounding the drafting 

of bullying laws and policies, the Department released a guidance document titled “Anti-Bullying

Policies: Examples of Provisions in State Laws.” The document identified key policy components present 

in current state bullying statutes as of the end of 2010. The document did not evaluate the impact of 

such components, but built upon previous work on bullying laws (Limber & Small, 2003; Srabstein 

et al., 2008) and general policy theory (Desimone, 2002) that suggest that additional detail 

encourages implementation with greater fidelity to the intention of the laws. It further reflects the 

trend that state legislatures have added detail to such statutes over time. The Department identified 

components based on their presence in at least two current state statutes and their potential to 

inform implementation at the state and local levels. Components that conflict with the Department’s 

limited authority to require, or imply, any mandate on schools to implement specific curriculum, 

policies, or strategies (20 U.S.C. 1232a) were not included. 

The Department organized the components into 11 categories or components, and provided 

examples of comprehensive and detailed laws from a wide range of states. The school district policy 

component was grouped into six subcomponents that are commonly prescribed under law as

provisions of school district policies. These 11 key components and six policy subcomponents 

underlie the study approach to reviewing the content of laws concerning bullying in schools (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010a). Each of the 11 key components is described in Exhibit 1. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

6 

Exhibit 1. Description of 11 U.S. Department of Education-identified key components and school district 

policy subcomponents in state bullying legislation

1. Prohibition and Purpose Statement Outlines the range of detrimental effects bullying has on students, including 

impacts on student learning, school safety, student engagement, and the school environment. It also declares that 

any form, type, or level of bullying is unacceptable, and that every incident needs to be taken seriously by school 

administrators, school staff (including teachers), students, and students’ families.

2. Statement of Scope Covers conduct that occurs on the school campus, at school-sponsored activities or events 

(regardless of the location), on school-provided transportation, or through school-owned technology or that 

otherwise creates a significant disruption to the school environment.

3. Prohibited Behavior Provides a specific definition of bullying that includes a clear definition of cyberbullying. The 

definition of bullying includes a nonexclusive list of specific behaviors that constitute bullying, and specifies that 

bullying includes intentional efforts to harm one or more individuals, may be direct or indirect, is not limited to 

behaviors that cause physical harm, and may be verbal (including oral and written language) or non-verbal. The 

definition of bullying can be easily understood and interpreted by school boards, policymakers, school 

administrators, school staff, students, students’ families, and the community. Is consistent with other federal, 

state, and local laws.

- Prohibited conduct also includes: 

- Retaliation for asserting or alleging an act of bullying.

- Perpetuating bullying or harassing conduct by spreading hurtful or demeaning material even if the material 

was created by another person (e.g., forwarding offensive e-mails or text messages).

4. Enumeration of Groups Explains that bullying may include, but is not limited to, acts based on actual or 

perceived characteristics of students who have historically been targets of bullying, and provides examples of 

such characteristics. Makes clear that bullying does not have to be based on any particular characteristic. 

5. Development and Implementation of Local Policies Directs every district to develop and implement a policy 

prohibiting bullying, through a collaborative process with all interested stakeholders, including school 

administrators, staff, students, students’ families, and the community, in order to best address local conditions. 

6. Review of Local Policies Includes a provision for the state to review local policies on a regular basis to ensure 

the goals of the state statute are met. 

7. Components of Local Policies The Department identified six components that laws typically mandate or 

encourage districts to cover in their local district policies. These include:

- Definitions: Includes a definition of bullying consistent with the definitions specified in state law.

- Reporting: Includes a procedure for students, students’ families, staff, and others to report incidents of 

bullying, including a process to submit such information anonymously and with protection from retaliation. The 

procedure identifies and provides contact information for the appropriate school personnel responsible for 

receiving the report and investigating the incident. 

- Investigating: Includes a procedure for promptly investigating and responding to any report of an incident of 

bullying, including immediate intervention strategies for protecting the victim from additional bullying or 

retaliation, and includes notification to parents of the victim, or reported victim, of bullying and the parents of 

the alleged perpetrator, and, if appropriate, notification to law enforcement officials.

- Written records: Includes a procedure for maintaining written records of all incidents of bullying and their 

resolution.

- Sanctions: Includes a detailed description of a graduated range of consequences and sanctions for bullying.

- Referrals: Includes a procedure for referring the victim, perpetrator, and others to counseling and mental and 

other health services, as appropriate.

8. Communications Includes a plan for notifying students, students’ families, and staff of policies related to bullying, 

including the consequences for engaging in bullying.

9. Training and Prevention Includes a provision for school districts to provide training for all school staff, including, 

but not limited to, teachers, aides, support staff, and school bus drivers, on preventing, identifying, and responding 

to bullying. Encourages school districts to implement age-appropriate school- and community-wide bullying 

prevention programs. 

10.Transparency and Monitoring Includes a provision for school districts to report annually to the state on the 

number of reported bullying incidents, and any responsive actions taken. Includes a provision for school districts 

to make data regarding bullying incidence publicly available in aggregate with appropriate privacy protections to 

ensure students are protected.

11.Right to Pursue Other Legal Remedies Includes a statement that the policy does not preclude victims from 

seeking other legal remedies. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education (2010a)
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

7 

Research Methods

This study documents the content of state bullying legislation and its relationship to state and local 

school policies. The scope of the review is limited to the 50 U.S. states. The District of Columbia 

and the U.S. territories were excluded from the analysis because their governance structures (i.e., 

legislative bodies and administrative agencies) are different from those in states. Researchers

reviewed and coded legislation and policy documents that were aligned with the three key study 

questions through the following activities: 1) a systematic review of state laws and statutes in the 46 

states with enacted legislation by April 30, 2011; 2) a review of state model policy documents 

produced in the 41 states with such documents; and, 3) a review of local district and school board 

policies for a sample of 20 local school districts. The remainder of this section discusses these 

activities in detail. 

The Department shared the draft report with all 50 states, so that states could review the 

descriptions of their laws and policies for accuracy. In response to states’ comments, researchers 

revised the report where appropriate, to accurately portray state laws and policies.

Methods for Study Question 1: Compiling and Coding State Laws

The approach to reviewing state bullying legislation began with preparation of a legislative history 

for each state, listing any relevant bills enacted since 1999, when the first bullying law was passed. 

The legislative history identified the complete set of bullying statutes introduced or amended in the 

state legislature. Each statute was linked to its authorizing bill to trace the progression of introduced, 

amended, and repealed legislation chronologically within states (see Appendix B Summary of 

Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies). This process of preparing legislative 

histories uncovered important distinctions in the way in which state laws were crafted. Specifically, 

some states approached legislation through a series of amendments to existing laws addressing 

school safety planning or student conduct, while others introduced new statutes, or series of 

statutes, that are exclusive to combating bullying in schools. These differences in legislative approach 

influence how laws governing bullying are structured within each state. 

Legislative Searches 

There were several strategies used to search for and compile legislative bills and statutes. These 

strategies included: a) cross-referencing print resources and searchable databases that summarize 

bullying legislation (i.e., National Council of State Legislatures [NCSL], the National School Boards 

Association [NSBA], the Anti-Defamation League [ADL], Olweus State Bullying Laws and 

Information, http://www.bullypolice.org, and the Cyberbullying Research Center); b) conducting 

open and targeted searches of state legislature websites for bill text, administrative codes or statutes, 

and any pending legislation; and, c) cross-referencing legislative histories against documents the 

Department compiled through a recent search using the LexisNexis database. 

Education Codes Versus Criminal Statutes 

The initial document search yielded state statutes which encompassed both the education and 

criminal justice codes for many states. Although the focus of the bullying analysis was on legislation 

impacting the governance of schools, increasingly states have moved to criminalize bullying behavior 

by introducing statutes within their criminal codes that impose criminal sanctions for youth bullying 

and cyberbullying behavior. For purposes of the analysis, criminal laws were included in the state 

legislative review if they met certain criteria. Specifically, in order for criminal justice statutes to be 

coded, they: a) had to contain clear language granting jurisdiction over student behavior in school 

settings; and b) must have been referenced in an education statute or bullying bill. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

8 

Coding and Analysis Procedures Based on Key Components 

To review and code state bullying laws and statutes, the analysis used a systematic coding framework 

to describe the content and expansiveness of legislation (i.e., purpose and intent, definitions, and 

legal requirements of states and school districts). The coding framework supports quantifiable 

measurement of key components and allows for consistency in discussing differences and similarities 

in laws, despite a high degree of diversity with regard to their structure and content.

The coding of state legislation was completed using Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software to 

categorize and code text in statutes. The full text of laws was first reviewed to inventory the range of 

provisions present in legislation and to identify specific constructs that were relevant to the analysis 

questions. A coding framework was developed and used to code each set of statutes according to 

specific constructs within each component of the Department’s conceptual framework using a 

dichotomous “yes” or “no” rating (e.g., does the law text require that district policies mandate 

reporting by school personnel who witness a bullying situation?). 

There were two approaches used to synthesize and present analysis findings: 

• The first approach involved using the coded text to determine whether each key component 

was represented in a state’s statutes and to compare states based on an overall count of the 

number of components present. States were credited with covering a key component if any

language pertaining to that component was mentioned, regardless of the degree of clarity or 

detail (e.g., did the law include any mention of reporting of bullying incidents?). 

• The second approach involved using the more detailed information contained in coded text to 

assign a systematic 0-to-2 rating to each key component to measure its expansiveness. Ratings 

are based on criteria developed for purposes of the study and reflect the scope of definitions 

and legislative provisions observed in state laws. 

Exhibit 2 presents the scoring criteria used to assign ratings within each key component. 

Expansiveness was interpreted differently across components; however, components in law that 

were rated as more expansive are generally: a) more inclusive (e.g., defined prohibited behavior 

broadly without any limiting conditions, or extended school jurisdiction to cover off-campus 

conduct); b) are more prescriptive (e.g., used concrete directives to convey policy expectations); c) 

use less discretionary language (e.g., used the term “shall” instead of “may”); or d) establish stronger 

measures of accountability. Statutes that impose more stringent administrative requirements, or that 

are more punitive, were not necessarily rated as more expansive. As an example, language pertaining 

to consequences in school district policies was viewed as more expansive if it outlined provisions for 

both punitive (e.g., disciplinary actions) and non-punitive consequences for aggressive students (e.g., 

behavioral interventions). Laws were not necessarily more expansive because they imposed tougher 

sanctions, such as mandatory law enforcement reporting. For each state with legislation, individual 

ratings within each component were totaled to arrive at a composite measure of expansiveness for 

each state. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

9 

Exhibit 2. Key state bullying legislation and policy components identified by the U.S. Department of 

Education: Criteria used to rate the expansiveness of components and subcomponents

Key 

Component

Rating

0 1 2

Purpose None

State legislation or policy 

does not contain a 

prohibition against 

bullying.

Prohibits behavior

State legislation or policy contains an 

explicit prohibition against bullying, but 

does not contain language articulating 

the purpose or intent. To receive 

minimum rating of 1 a policy must 

contain a statement prohibiting bullying.

Prohibits behavior and describes policy 

purpose and intent

State legislation or policy contains BOTH

an explicit prohibition against bullying and 

language articulating the purpose or intent.

Statement of 

scope

None

State legislation or policy

does not contain any 

language defining scope.

Less expansive

State legislation or policy includes 

statement of scope covering behavior 

on school grounds or at schoolsponsored events, and other schoolrelated locations (e.g., bus stops, 

adjacent property) or events (i.e., offcampus school functions or where 

school staff is responsible for students).

More expansive

State legislation or policy includes 

statement of scope that covers off-campus 

behavior that creates a hostile environment 

at school.

Prohibited 

behavior

Least expansive

State legislation or policy 

does not define prohibited 

behavior or contains 

limited descriptions of 

behavior. 

Moderate

State legislation or policy describes 

prohibited behavior but does not 

mention cyberbullying, or mentions 

cyberbullying without any formal 

definition of bullying behavior.

Most expansive

State legislation or policy describes 

prohibited behaviors and includes explicit 

language addressing cyberbullying or 

bullying by electronic means.

Enumeration 

of groups 

None

Does not define bullying 

in terms of victims’ 

characteristics.

Less expansive

Enumerates victims’ characteristics but 

limits coverage to only those protected 

classes.

Less restrictive with explicit protections 

for vulnerable populations

State legislation or policy enumerates 

protected classes, but does not limit 

coverage under law to members of those 

classes (e.g., “including, but not limited 

to”).

District 

policy 

development

None

State legislation does not 

require districts to 

develop or adopt local 

policies.

Limited requirements

State legislation requires districts to 

adopt local policies, but does not 

specify completion dates.

Extensive requirements

State legislation requires districts to adopt 

local policies with specified dates, and sets 

requirements for policy development (e.g., 

requirement for collaborative planning and 

development)

District 

policy 

components

Definitions

None

State legislation does not 

contain explicit 

requirement for definitions 

in school district policies.

Any definition

State legislation requires that policies 

contain a definition of prohibited 

behavior.

Conforms to state 

State legislation explicitly requires that 

policies contain a definition that is 

consistent with state legislation or that is 

inclusive of the state definition.

District 

policy 

components

Reporting

None

State legislation or policy 

does not contain any 

explicit district 

requirements related to 

incident reporting.

Encouraged reporting and 

procedures

State legislation or policy encourages 

reporting by school personnel and 

outlines specific mechanisms, such as 

designating school personnel or 

providing for anonymous reporting.

Mandatory reporting by staff and/or 

students

State legislation or policy mandates that 

school personnel and/or students who 

witness bullying must report. Typically 

includes immunity clauses. May also 

address anonymous reporting and 

confidentiality.

District 

policy 

components

Investigations 

and 

Response

None

State legislation or policy 

does not contain any 

explicit district 

requirements related to 

investigation of reports.

General requirement for 

investigation

State legislation or policy contains 

language related to investigating 

complaints. May designate school 

personnel to receive reports and 

conduct investigations.

Specific requirements for investigation

State legislation or policy contains specific 

language outlining an investigation 

process. Process may include parent 

notification and safeguards for victims.

Continued on next page.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

10

Exhibit 2. Key state bullying legislation and policy components identified by the U.S. Department of 

Education: Criteria used to rate the expansiveness of components and subcomponents

(Continued)

Key 

Component

Rating

0 1 2

District 

policy 

components

Written 

Records

None

State legislation or policy 

does not address written 

documentation for reporting 

or investigations.

Documentation of reporting

State legislation or policy establishes 

procedures for reporting or 

investigations that include written 

documentation.

Documentation of reporting, 

investigation, and response

State legislation or policy requires district 

to maintain written documentation of 

reported incidents, and includes specific 

language outlining written requirements 

or forms (e.g., communicating information 

on the schools’ response to parents of 

victims in writing).

District 

policy 

components

Sanctions

None

State legislation or policy 

does not address disciplinary 

actions or other 

consequences for prohibited 

behavior.

Disciplinary consequences (punitive 

only)

State legislation or policy requires the 

inclusion of consequences or 

sanctions, but focuses on punitive 

consequences only.

Expansive consequences (punitive 

with supportive interventions)

State legislation or policy requires 

districts to address consequences or 

sanctions that include both punitive 

sanctions and supportive or remedial 

interventions for aggressors.

District 

policy 

components

Referrals

None

State legislation or policy 

does not address counseling 

or other supportive services 

for victims.

Limited counseling, intervention 

component

State legislation or policy encourages 

districts to address counseling or other 

supportive services for victims.

Strong counseling component

State legislation or policy requires that 

districts provide counseling or other 

supportive services to victims.

Review of 

policy

None

State legislation or policy 

does not require individual 

schools or districts to submit 

policies for review. 

Less extensive review

State legislation or policy requires 

school districts to submit their policy to 

the state department of education or 

other state agency for review.

More extensive review

State legislation or policy establishes 

guidelines for policy review that may 

include sanctions for districts not in 

compliance.

CommunicationsLittle or no required 

communications

State legislation or policy 

does not outline any 

requirements for publicizing 

policies, uses vague 

language, or only requires 

that policies be publicly 

posted. 

Somewhat visible

State legislation or policy contains 

explicit requirements for 

communicating policies to parents, 

students, and staff in writing (e.g., in 

codes of conduct, student handbooks, 

or employee manuals) and may 

encourage districts to discuss policies 

with students and school personnel.

Most visible

State legislation or policy meets minimum 

criteria for a 1 rating and requires that 

districts actively discuss or review 

policies with school personnel or 

students.

Training and 

prevention

No training and prevention 

component

State legislation or policy 

does not contain any explicit 

requirements for employee 

training or school prevention 

or intervention strategies for 

students and/or staff. 

Limited training and prevention 

component

State legislation or policy includes 

requirements for employee training on 

bullying policies and/or discussion of 

policies with students and includes 

language related to school-wide 

bullying prevention and education. 

Programs are encouraged, but not 

required.

Strong training and prevention 

component

State legislation or policy includes 

mandatory requirements for schools to 

address training and prevention for both 

students and staff, including but not 

limited to school-wide bullying prevention, 

education, or intervention strategies.

Transparency and 

monitoring

No mandated reporting

State legislation or policy 

does not require districts to 

record incidents of bullying 

apart from required Safe and 

Drug Free Schools and 

Communities Act (SDFSCA) 

reporting.

Internal school or district reporting 

required only

State legislation or policy requires 

districts to record information related to 

the number of reported incidents. No 

requirement to report data to the state.

State reporting requirements-defined

State legislation or policy requires 

districts to report incidence data to the 

state. State legislation or policy outlines 

specific data requirements and/or 

reporting mechanisms and timelines. May 

include sanctions for failing to report.

Continued on next page.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

11

Exhibit 2. Key state bullying legislation and policy components identified by the U.S. Department of 

Education: Criteria used to rate the expansiveness of components and subcomponents

(Continued)

Key 

Component

Rating

0 1 2

Victim’s 

right to 

redress

No language

State legislation or policy 

does not include language 

related to the victim’s right to 

redress.

Contains language

State legislation or policy includes 

statements related to a victim’s right to 

redress.

Methods for Study Question 2: Compiling and Coding State Model Policies

The intent of the second study component was to review and describe state model bullying policies 

that provide guidance to support district bullying policy development. The approach was similar to 

the approach used to review state legislation and is detailed below. 

Searches for State Model Policy Documents and Criteria for Inclusion 

The process of searching for and compiling state model policy documents involved first reviewing 

state legislation to determine which states were mandated by law to develop model policies, and to 

record specific deadlines established in law for states to comply with requirements. Internet searches 

were conducted for states with specific requirements, using an open Google search for model 

bullying policies by state. This step was followed by targeted searches of state departments of 

education and school boards association websites when documents could not be immediately 

located through the initial search. Documents were downloaded and briefly reviewed by title and 

content to confirm their appropriateness to the study and website locations were recorded for all 

documents that met the criteria (i.e., documents must pertain to bullying or harassment), must 

provide guidelines that support the creation of policies, and must be developed by the state entity or 

a partner organization. Searches were then conducted for all remaining states that did not specify 

recommendations or requirements for the development of model policies, and for states without 

bullying legislation. The search results identified 41 state bullying policies, or guidance documents, 

across the 50 states. The states represented in the document sample include 26 states that have 

created model policies of the 27 states with specific policy requirements (i.e., one state model policy 

remains under development), 12 states that have created model policies without any specific 

legislative mandate to do so, and three states (i.e., Hawaii, Michigan, and Montana) without state 

bullying laws. 

Not all model policies for states with specific legislative requirements had published documents 

online. Model policy documents for five states—Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and 

Wyoming—could not be located on department websites. Four state departments were directly 

contacted by telephone to request a copy of their policy documents. Each of the four states 

contacted provided copies of their model policy documents upon request. Information regarding the 

status of the Illinois state model policy was located online. This information documented the recent 

formation, in March of 2011, of a sub-committee of the state bullying prevention task that would be 

charged with developing the model policy. 

Coding and Analysis of State Model Policies Based on Key Components 

The methods used to review and code state model policies were similar to those used to code state 

statutes. The procedure involved applying a systematic coding framework developed for the 

legislative review to describe the content and expansiveness of model policy documents (i.e., 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

12

purpose and intent, definitions, and specific guidance and requirements for school districts). The 

coding of model policies was completed using Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software to categorize 

and code text in retrieved documents. The standard coding framework was used to code each set of 

statutes within each key component using a dichotomous “yes” or “no” rating (e.g., does the law 

text require that district policies mandate reporting by school personnel who witness a bullying 

situation?). Coded text was then assigned a systematic 0-to-2 rating on each key component to 

measures its expansiveness. Ratings were based on the same criteria developed for legislative ratings. 

Methods for Study Question 3: Sampling, Compiling, and Coding School District Policies 

The approach for reviewing district bullying policies involved selecting a sample of 20 school 

districts from different regions of the country and describing the structure and content of their local 

district and school board policies. While the small sample size is not representative of policy 

characteristics nationally, the analysis provides initial information on the content of school district 

bullying policies in states with different bullying laws and state models for policy development. This 

initial look at local policies was limited to the review and evaluation of large districts as to scope and 

content of policies covering a significant number of students across the U.S. The review used the 

following research methods to achieve these information objectives.

Sampling Procedure Using Random Selection 

A sampling frame was created from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common 

Core of Data for 2006–07, which includes information on school district location and student 

enrollment. The data file was merged with the urban centric codes (i.e., city, fringe of city, town, 

rural) for each district. The school districts were ranked from largest to smallest based on student 

enrollment and the top 10 percent of districts was selected as the universe of large districts that 

would form the sampling frame. Districts were then grouped according to 10 sampling strata 

defined by the intersection between geographic region (i.e., Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, 

Northwest, and Southwest) and urban centric code (i.e., city, fringe of city, town, rural). Within each 

sampling stratum, five districts were randomly selected to form the sampling frame of 50 potential 

school districts nationwide. Within each stratum, districts were rank-ordered from largest to smallest 

by enrollment. This ensured that the largest districts within each stratum had the highest possibility 

of inclusion in the study sample. Elementary school districts or districts that did not support K–12 

enrollment were replaced with unified school districts to ensure that policies would be representative 

of all grade levels. 

Policy Criteria 

Once the set of 50 districts was selected, open Web searches were used to locate district bullying 

policies online. If a bullying policy could not be located for a district, sampling design called for

replacement by selecting the next district on the list. For each of the sampling stratum, however, 

Web searches yielded a relevant school board or district policy related to bullying behavior for the 

first district on the list. School board or district policies were considered relevant for analysis if they 

were policy documents that outlined procedures or guidelines covering the entire district (i.e., not 

specific to an individual schools site) and referenced the terms “bullying” or “harassment.” For 15 

of the 20 districts, the document identified was a school board or district policy document and in 

five districts the document was a student of code of conduct governing district-wide behavior. All 

district policies were readily accessible online and did not require extensive searches. Districts 

included in the analysis are shown in Exhibit 3. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

13

Exhibit 3. Selection of school districts for analysis of bullying policies, by region, urban code, and 

state

Northeast City New York Southwest City Texas

City-Fringe Pennsylvania City-Fringe Arizona

Town Connecticut Town Texas

Rural Maryland Rural New Mexico

Southeast City South Carolina West City Colorado

City-Fringe Georgia City-Fringe Utah

Town Louisiana Town Nevada

Rural Virginia Rural California

Midwest City Ohio

City-Fringe Missouri

Town Michigan

Rural Indiana

Exhibit reads: The first district included in the study sample was selected from among districts in urban areas of the Northeast 

region of the U.S. and was located in New York state.

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district Web sites. 

Coding and Analysis of School District Policies 

The methods used to review school district policies were similar to those used to code state statutes

and state model policies. This procedure involved applying the systematic coding method to 

categorize and rate policy content based on coverage and expansiveness of components (i.e., 

purpose and intent, definitions, and specific guidance and requirements for school districts). The 

content of district policies was first coded by assigning a dichotomous “yes” or “no” value to 

indicate whether or not an element was present in the policy. The district policy components were

then rated on a 0-to-2 scale measuring the expansiveness of its coverage. Ratings within components 

were based on the same criteria developed for legislative ratings. However, the review of district 

policies was limited to the six district policy components identified in the key element framework, 

covering nine specific dimensions. These include four dimensions related to bullying definitions 

under the first policy component (i.e., purpose, scope, prohibited behavior, and enumeration of 

groups) and five other components of policies (i.e., reporting, investigations, written records, 

consequences, and mental health referrals). 

The four remaining key components (i.e., communication, prevention and training, transparency and 

monitoring, and legal remedies) were excluded from the review of district policies because they

covered other legal expectations for schools and districts that were not consistently required to be 

included as components of policies. These are provisions that districts may be implementing at the 

local district and school level, but that may not be reflected in formal board policies or codes of 

conduct. Accordingly, these additional provisions were reviewed and discussed in narrative, due to 

their presence in some policy documents, but were excluded from systematic ratings of coverage or 

expansiveness. When comparing total ratings of expansiveness between district policies and their 

respective state laws, total ratings of legislation were adjusted to reflect only the nine key 

components dimensions reviewed at the district level.

Structure of the Report

Chapter II presents findings from the analysis of state legislative bills and statutes enacted since 1999

to determine the extent to which state legislative language covers the core components of bullying 

legislation and policy. This section includes an analysis of each state law with regard to its 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

I. Introduction

14

expansiveness in addressing key components. This section is introduced by a brief overview of the 

evolving legislative and policy environment concerning bullying in public school systems. This

discussion documents trends within state legislatures to enact new statutes or to amend existing laws 

and profiles the structure and substance of the body of bullying legislation.

Chapter III focuses on the development of state model policies by state education agencies and 

school boards associates that provide guidance to districts in developing local district bullying 

policies, and ensuring district compliance with the law. These policies are often developed in 

reaction to legislative requirements contained in new statutes. The section focuses on both the 

coverage and expansiveness of key components in model policy documents. 

Chapter IV presents findings from an analysis of 20 school districts’ bullying policies selected from 

across different regions of the country within different urban-rural locales. The analysis also 

examines the coverage and expansiveness of key components in local policies and explores the 

relationship between local policy content and state legislation within each district’s respective state. 

Chapter V is a brief summary of findings and conclusions. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

15

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

The Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colo., was the first nationally visible incident of 

student-perpetrated school violence that was presumed to be tied to a history of bullying 

victimization (Greene & Ross, 2005). In the aftermath of the school shooting and in reaction to a 

local bullying-related suicide in the state, Georgia became the first state to pass bullying legislation

requiring schools to implement character education programs to address bullying prevention 

(Associated Press, 2009). Since that time, there has been a proliferation of new laws at the state level 

that define acts of bullying in the school context and establish school or district policies prohibiting 

bullying behavior. 

Key Findings

• From 1999 to 2010, more than 120 bills were enacted by state legislatures

nationally that have either introduced or amended education or criminal justice 

statutes to address bullying and related behaviors in schools.

• Forty-five state laws direct school districts to adopt bullying policies. 

• Forty-two state laws contain clear statements prohibiting students from bullying. 

Three states prohibit bullying without defining the prohibited actions or 

behaviors.

• Most states frame legislation as law governing “bullying,” “bullying and 

harassment,” or “bullying, harassment, or intimidation” using terms 

interchangeably. Nine states distinguish between “bullying” and “harassment” 

and define them separately under the law. Two states only address “harassment” 

as it pertains to behavior in schools, with no mention of “bullying.”

• Thirty-six states now include provisions in their education codes prohibiting 

cyberbullying or bullying using electronic media.

• Thirteen states specify that schools have jurisdiction over off-campus bullying 

behavior if it creates a hostile school environment.

• The most commonly covered components in legislation are requirements to 

develop district policies, statements of scope defining school jurisdiction over 

bullying acts, definitions of prohibited behavior, and disciplinary consequences. 

Procedural components in laws are more likely to involve direct mandates, 

whereas programmatic components (e.g., training and prevention) are often 

prescribed using discretionary language.

• The least expansive state laws outline district requirements to develop local 

bullying policies without specifying policy content.

As of April of 2011, 46 states nationally had enacted bullying laws. North Dakota was the most 

recent to take action with the passage of Assembly Bill 216, which was signed into law in April 2011. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

16

The states of Hawaii,4

This chapter presents findings from a detailed analysis of the scope and content of legislative bills 

and corresponding statutes in each of the 50 states. The purpose is to address the first study 

question examining the extent to which state laws cover key components identified by the U.S. 

Department of Education as core elements of bullying laws and policies.

 Michigan, Montana, and South Dakota are the only remaining states without 

state bullying statutes, though each have pending bills in their state legislatures. Forty-six states 

nationwide, including the four without legislation, introduced bills within their 2011 legislative 

sessions through April of 2011 to combat bullying in their local school systems. 

History and Scope of Bullying Legislation in U.S. States

From 1999 to 2010 state legislatures nationally enacted more than 120 separate bills that either 

introduced or amended bullying statutes in their education or criminal codes. Exhibit 4 reports the 

growth in legislative activity over the previous eleven-year period. Twenty-one new bills were passed 

in 2010 and eight bills were signed into law through April 30, 2011. In the four years from 2006 to 

2010, 35 states also enacted new cyberbullying laws in their education or criminal codes (NCSL, 

2010). This profusion of state legislation reflects the rapidly evolving political and policy 

environment surrounding bullying in schools, where lawmakers are continually refining state 

legislative expectations for schools in response to new problem dimensions (e.g., the growth of 

cyberbullying), and to emerging research concerning effective policy strategies for combating school 

bullying. 

Exhibit 4. Number of state bullying laws enacted by year: 1999–2010

1 1 

11

5 

8 

5 

11

9 

14

20

15

21

0 

5 

10

15

20

25

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Exhibit reads: One state enacted bullying legislation in 1999. 

Note: Analyses in this report reflects state bullying legislation enacted through April 30, 2011. The analyses do not reflect the 

recent enactment of House Bill 688 in the state of Hawaii, or amendments to other states’ legislation that occurred after April 30, 

2011, including, but not limited to, new laws passed in California, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas during their states’ 2011 

legislative sessions.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

 

4 Analyses in this report reflect enacted bullying legislation as of April 2011. These analyses do not include the enactment 

of Hawaii’s bullying legislation, House Bill 688, which was signed into law on July 11, 2011.

Bills enacted 

or amended
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

17

States With No State Legislation 

As of April 2011, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, and South Dakota were the only remaining U.S. states 

that had not enacted legislation targeting bullying in their public school systems.5 North Dakota was

without legislation until April of 2011 when it became the 46th state in the nation to pass its first 

bullying law. The challenge to enact laws within these states reflects the highly politicized nature of 

debate surrounding school bullying legislation. Two major issues at the center of the debate include 

disagreement over the inclusion of explicit protections for sexual orientation, and concerns about 

granting state legislatures control over education policy. These issues, which appear again in later 

discussion, underlie how states have balanced discretion between state and local control over policy 

and how they have addressed certain components within law. 

Framing Legislation: Harassment Versus Bullying 

Many bullying laws enacted since 1999 were originally modeled on existing civil rights legislation that 

protects groups from various forms of harassment under the law. The legislative language used in 

crafting bullying laws often borrows directly from harassment statutes (Green & Ross, 2005). This 

has frequently led to a conflation of terms used to define prohibited conduct, with “bullying” and 

“harassment” often used interchangeably in laws, despite their important legal distinctions. 

Harassment is distinguishable from more general forms of bullying in that it must be motivated by 

characteristics of the targeted victim. It is generally viewed as a subset of more broadly defined 

bullying behavior (Greene & Ross, 2005). Harassment also violates federal civil rights laws as a form 

of unlawful discrimination. Federal civil rights laws that are enforced by the Department’s Office for 

Civil Rights (OCR) include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, or national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). There is currently no legislation at the federal 

level that prohibits bullying in schools. 

The legal distinctions between bullying and harassment can have important implications for how 

laws are implemented and enforced (Sacks & Salem, 2009). For example, the potential violation of a 

student’s civil rights in harassment cases may prompt schools to establish separate policies and 

procedures for addressing bullying and harassment, or may encourage districts to apply the more 

rigorous standards for investigating harassment claims to any bullying incident to protect schools 

from liability. The conflation between bullying and harassment also may create challenges for 

schools around interpreting how they must legally respond to different types of bullying and 

harassment claims. In an Oct. 26, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter, the Department’s OCR reminded

school districts that student misconduct that falls under the school’s bullying policy also may trigger 

legal responsibilities under one or more of the federal civil rights laws. The letter stated that 

harassment “creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or 

persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the 

services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school. When such harassment is based on race, 

color, national origin, sex, or disability, it violates the civil rights laws that OCR enforces” (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010b). 

 

5 Analyses in this report reflect enacted bullying legislation as of April 2011. These analyses do not include the enactment 

of Hawaii’s bullying legislation, House Bill 688, which was signed into law on July 11, 2011.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

18

The review of state bullying legislation reveals clear differences in the terms used to define bullying 

and harassment and in how bullying laws are framed. Exhibit 5 shows that 17 state laws currently 

use the terms “bullying, harassment, and intimidation” synonymously in crafting legislation. 

Fourteen states refer to “bullying” exclusively in legislative statutes, whereas two state laws—

Kentucky and Alabama—prohibit harassment without any mention of bullying. Nine other state 

laws use both “bullying” and “harassment” to describe prohibited behavior within a single set of 

statutes, but define the terms separately. The remaining states use different combinations of terms, 

including references to other forms of conduct, such as sexual harassment and hazing that are 

integrated into bullying language. These differences suggest a high degree of legislative and policy 

diversity in how bullying behavior is defined across states and school districts, and how definitions 

of prohibited conduct are applied within their school settings. They also reflect a lexicon that has 

not yet reached consensus on the use of specific terms. In the legal context, this sometimes 

contributes to confusion concerning how a specific incident should be treated. 

Exhibit 5. Terms used in framing state bullying legislation, by number of states (n=46)

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

9 

14

17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Bullying or intimidation (excludes harassment)

Bullying, cyber-bullying, harassment or hazing

Bullying, harassment, or sexual harassment

Harassment or discrimination

Harassment only

Bullying and harassment (defined separately)

Bullying only

Bullying, harassment, or intimidation

Terms used in 

framing laws

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Seventeen state laws are framed as laws addressing “bullying, harassment, or intimidation.” 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Legislative History, Construction of State Statutes, and Key Components

The legislative histories compiled for each state to track the chronology of new and amended 

legislation (included in Appendix B) uncover important differences and similarities in how laws are 

constructed, how much autonomy is granted to state agencies and localities in carrying out legislative 

requirements, and in the range of provisions that are prescribed under the law. In the majority of 

states, bullying laws are drafted as comprehensive sections of new legislation or as a series of 

consecutive statutes. These laws often share a core structure that includes: a) a preamble or 

statement of purpose; b) definitions; c) requirements for school districts to develop local bullying 

policies; d) prescribed components of local district policies; e) other school district requirements; 

and f) requirements for state education agencies. Other state bullying laws were established through 

a series of amendments to existing statutes or sections of law, such as school safety legislation (e.g., 

California, Colorado) or regulations related to student conduct (e.g., Texas, Nebraska). These laws 

are likely to cover a narrower range of key components or provisions.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

19

State legislative approaches also set different expectations for how bullying policies are formulated. 

These expectations reflect different perspectives on where local control over policy should be 

permitted, and the degree to which mandatory and more prescribed policy requirements are 

desirable. The review identified four different models of state legislation that reflect key differences 

in how states balance state and local control over bullying policy development and accountability. 

Legislative Control Over Policy Development (25 States) 

The first model includes state laws that set expectations for districts to develop local policies, and 

prescribe specific provisions in school district bullying policies. These laws largely centralize control 

over policy development within the state legislature, and may or may not require state education 

agencies to develop model policies or guidelines to help schools achieve compliance with legal 

requirements. The laws within this category vary with regard to the range of components that are 

prescribed in district policies, and the details of that prescription. 

State Department of Education Control Over Policy Development (Four States) 

The second model, epitomized by state legislation in Nevada, Maine, Virginia, and Washington also 

centralizes control at the state level, but within the state department of education. The laws require 

districts to develop policies that conform to a state model policy, and grant the state department of 

education authority over creating the state model. These laws delineate few or no specific

requirements for the content of the state model policy or policies at the district level. 

Mix of Legislative and State Department of Education Control Over Policy Development (Six States) 

The third model requires districts to develop local school district policies that adhere to legislative 

requirements, but gives discretion to state education agencies to elaborate or formulate policy 

provisions. These laws define a larger role for state model policies in setting policy standards. Three 

states, for example, require state departments of education to develop state model policies, and 

outline minimum provisions that must be covered. Districts are then required to adopt the state 

model. One other state requires districts to cover certain legislative provisions in their local policies 

and expects districts to adopt a model developed by the state. Another state law outlines minimum 

requirements for the content of both district policies and state model policy development. 

Local District Discretion and Control Over Policy Development (11 States) 

The final model includes laws that set expectations for districts to create local policies, and transfers 

discretion over policy development to school districts. These laws may or may not provide states 

with additional support for developing their local policies by requiring state education agencies to 

develop state models and guidelines. Specifically, 10 states require districts to develop bullying 

policies, but do not set any specific requirements for their provisions or content. One other state, 

Wisconsin, requires districts to develop local policies and prescribes provisions that must be 

contained in the state model, but does not require school districts to adopt the model policy. 

This variation in states’ approaches to balancing state and local control reflects different perspectives 

within state legislatures regarding an appropriate role for the state in setting education policy, and 

contributes to further diversity in how bullying laws and policies are implemented across districts 

and states.

Bullying and Criminalization 

Recent state legislation and policy addressing school bullying has emphasized an expanded role for 

law enforcement and the criminal justice system in managing bullying on school campuses. Though 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

20

historically, authority over youth bullying has fallen almost exclusively under the purview of school 

systems, legislation governing the consequences for bullying behavior reflects a recent trend toward

treating the most serious forms of bullying as criminal conduct that should be handled through the 

criminal justice system. 

This shift is evident in the growing number of state bullying laws that now require mandatory 

reporting by school personnel of offenses that may violate criminal statutes. Seven state bullying 

laws now include provisions for criminal sanctions for bullying behavior, either by mandating school 

personnel to report bullying acts that potentially violate criminal law or by requiring policies to 

contain clear procedures for determining when and how violations should be reported to law 

enforcement. Missouri’s state law further mandates that schools impose sanctions on school staff 

who fail to comply with law enforcement reporting requirements (Mo. Rev. Stat. §167.117.1). 

An increasing number of states also have introduced bullying provisions into their criminal and 

juvenile justice codes. For example, North Carolina recently passed a new law to criminalize 

cyberbullying, making it an offense punishable as a misdemeanor for youths under 18 (N.C. Gen. 

Stat. §14-458.1). The state of Idaho’s key piece of bullying legislation resides within Title 18 of their 

state criminal code. The law provides a definition and prohibition of harassment, intimidation, and 

bullying among students, including bullying committed through use of technology (i.e., landline, car 

phone or wireless telephone, or through the use of data that are or computer software that is 

accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network). The law also includes a 

statement that any “student who personally violates any provision of this section may be guilty of an 

infraction” under the criminal code (Idaho Code §18-917A). Key legislation recently passed in the 

state of Kentucky, known as the Golden Rule Act, amends provisions of the state’s education code, 

but also references statutes in the criminal code related to “harassing behavior” and “harassing 

communications” (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §158.444). The Virginia state legislature recently considered 

legislation that would make most serious cases of bullying punishable by a $2,500 fine and up to a 

year in prison, and would give victims legal recourse to sue students who bully. 

The criminalization of bullying behavior was also evident in a recent Massachusetts lawsuit filed in 

state criminal court against five students whose alleged involvement in the persistent bullying of 

another girl contributed to her suicide. The youths involved in the case were charged with a number 

of criminal violations, including assault, criminal harassment, and civil rights violations (Khadarco, 

2011). The five students were sentenced to probation and community service and the court case sets

an important legal precedent as the first highly visible case of school bullying where students have 

faced criminal charges for their misconduct (Eckholm & Zezima, 2010). The legal action in the case 

generated broad public support, with 61 percent of registered voters in Massachusetts at the time 

expressing approval for making school bullying a crime (Suffolk University Political Research 

Center, 2010).

The Role of Administrative Regulations 

State legislatures also may grant regulatory authority to state boards and education agencies to 

implement rules that govern their administration. Several states, including Idaho, Hawaii, New 

Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia, have established administrative rules 

and regulations that pertain to school bullying or to the safety of the school environment. 

Researchers reviewed state bullying rules and regulations as background for this study. These varied 

in length and content, ranging from general statements prioritizing a child’s right to a safe 

educational environment to more extensive regulations that closely resemble legislation. As an 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

21

example, the state of Rhode Island’s Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education 

Basic Program Regulations outlines additional expectations beyond legislation for schools to 

establish a supportive and nurturing school community. The regulation affirms the right of students 

to attend school in a safe school environment free from discrimination against identified groups, 

reasserts expectations for districts to prevent and respond appropriately to bullying incidents, and 

emphasizes the use of positive behavioral supports and discipline to ensure that schools promote 

positive climate. The Rhode Island Board of Regents also expands on state law through a direct 

Policy Statement on Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression. 

The statement contains explicit requirements for districts to address harassment and bullying based 

on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity/expression through the enforcement of 

appropriate student and staff behavior and disciplinary policies. Administrative rules and regulations 

were not systematically coded within the scope of this study, with the exception of the Board of 

Education’s legislative rule for West Virginia, which is an official harassment and violence policy and 

functions as a model bullying policy for the state. Within states, however, these rules and regulations 

can serve an important function by imposing additional legal expectations on schools, clarifying 

school district obligations to comply with state law, or serving as models for local policy 

development. 

Discussion of Key Components

The next section describes state bullying legislation within each of the key components identified in 

the Department’s framework. The structure and organization of the key components represents the 

structure of most bullying legislation in states, and covers all of the major components found in 

existing laws. Exhibit 6 lists the 11 key components and six specific subcomponents of the 

framework that pertain to the content of school district policies. 

Exhibit 6. Eleven key legislative and policy components and six school district policy subcomponents

identified by the U.S. Department of Education, by category 

Purpose

Scope

Prohibited behavior

Enumeration of groups

District policy development

School district components

Communications

Training and prevention

Transparency and monitoring

Rights to legal remedies

Definitions

Reporting

Investigations

Written records

Sanctions

Mental health

District policy review

Definitions Additional elements

District policy 

development 

and review

District

policy 

components

Eleven key components

Six school district policy subcomponents
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

22

This following narrative provides a detailed discussion of the content of legislation within each key 

component and provides examples to illustrate the range of required or encouraged provisions 

found in states laws. 

Prohibition and Purpose Statement

Fifteen states’ laws contain purpose statements that communicate the context 

or rationale for the law.

Purpose statements in legislation outline the range of detrimental effects of bullying on students and 

their school environments and communicate the importance of enacting the law. The purpose 

statement also conveys explicit prohibitions against bullying and related behaviors. Legislation was 

rated as more expansive when it contained a clear prohibition against bullying that was accompanied 

by statements communicating the legislative intent. Prohibitions found in legislation were either 

stated directly or indirectly through requirements for school districts to include prohibitions in their 

local policies.

Legislative bills that were enacted into law often included a preamble or purpose statement that

communicated the purpose of the legislation. Fifteen states have carried this language into specific 

statutes in their education codes to signal the importance of the law and help frame the overall 

intent of the enacted statutes. These purpose statements embody different perspectives on the 

bullying issue. The most common themes emphasized the civil rights of students to be free from 

bullying and harassment, the need for safety and security of the school environment, the importance 

of positive school climate to support learning and achievement, or the detrimental effects of school 

bullying. The following examples illustrate differences in legislative emphasis:

• Arkansas state law finds that every student “has the right to receive his or her public education 

in a public school environment that is reasonably free from substantial intimidation, 

harassment, or harm or threat of harm by another student” (Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514). 

• Illinois state statutes include a finding of the General Assembly that “bullying has been linked 

to other forms of antisocial behavior, such as vandalism, shoplifting, skipping and dropping out 

of school, fighting, using drugs and alcohol, sexual harassment, and sexual violence” (105 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. §5/27-23.7). This finding, encoded into law, establishes the justification for why 

new legislation was necessary to combat bullying behaviors in Illinois public schools. 

• Iowa statutes state a commitment to providing students with “a safe and civil school 

environment in which all members of the school community are treated with dignity and 

respect. The general assembly finds that a safe and civil school environment is necessary for 

students to learn and achieve at high academic levels” (Iowa Code §280.28). 

Thirty-nine state bullying laws directly prohibit bullying behavior or require 

that school district policies contain clear prohibitions. 

Though most state laws communicate the intent to address bullying conduct in schools, not all state 

statutes contain clear legal prohibitions against bullying behavior. Seven states—California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania—were less explicit in 

communicating legal expectations and avoided concrete prohibiting statements. The following state 

statutes provide examples of alternative language used in place of outright prohibitions: 

• Connecticut statute requires each district to adopt policies “to address the existence of bullying 

in its schools” (Conn. Rev. Stat. §10-222-D); 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

23

• Pennsylvania requires districts to adopt bullying policies that “delineate disciplinary 

consequences for bullying,” (Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1303.1-A); and, 

• Missouri statutes state that a district bullying policy “shall be founded on the assumption that 

all students need a safe learning environment” (Mo. Rev. Stat. §160.775). 

In addition to prohibiting bullying, 25 state laws also prohibit, or require district policies to prohibit, 

reprisal against students or school personnel who report bullying incidents or who are involved with 

bullying investigations. Twenty states either directly prohibit or impose consequences for false 

reporting. 

Statement of Scope

Forty-four state laws include language on scope, which establishes where 

legislation applies and what conditions must be present for schools to have 

authority over student conduct. 

The statement of scope is one of the most common components of state bullying legislation. Idaho 

and Minnesota are the only two states that do not address scope in any form in their state bullying 

laws. As shown in Exhibit 7 all bullying laws covering scope apply to student conduct that occurs on 

school grounds or property, and nearly all apply to school-sponsored functions or events. Eleven 

laws covering school-sponsored functions extend jurisdiction to any activities, on or off campus, 

that are school-related, or that are supervised by school personnel, regardless of whether the 

function is sponsored by the school. More than three-quarters of state legislation also covers student 

conduct that occurs on buses or other school-owned or leased vehicles. 

Exhibit 7. Statements of scope of bullying legislation, by number of states (n=46)

2 

4 

6 

11

13

19

37

41

44

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No statement of scope

Adjacent to campus

In-transit

School functions off/on campus

Off-campus conduct

Bus stops

Bus/vehicle

School-sponsored functions

School grounds/property

Categories of scope

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Forty-four state laws cover school grounds or school property in language describing the scope of school 

jurisdiction in enforcing bullying prohibitions. 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Thirteen state laws extend the jurisdiction of schools to cover off-campus bullying conduct that is 

serious or disruptive enough to create a hostile learning environment. Massachusetts provides an 

example of the types of language found in legislation that extend scope to off-campus bullying acts. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

24

The law states that bullying is prohibited at any location, activity, or function that is not schoolrelated, or using technology or devices that are not owned by the school, “if the bullying creates a 

hostile environment at school for the victim, infringes on the rights of the victim at school, or 

materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school (Mass. 

Gen. Laws. ch.71 §37O). For purposes of the analysis, legislation was rated as more expansive if it 

grants schools jurisdiction over both on-campus and off-campus bullying or cyberbullying behavior. 

School jurisdiction over off-campus conduct is particularly relevant to issues of cyberbullying 

because students often commit acts of cyberbullying outside of the school setting using their own 

technology, rather than relying on school owned or leased computer systems. Experts, therefore, 

argue the need for schools to develop provisions for responding to any off-campus speech and 

behavior that results in “substantial disruption of the learning environment” (Hinduja & Patchin, 

2008). The following are examples of state laws that address off-campus conduct, particularly related 

to cyberbullying: 

• Arkansas statutes prohibit bullying by an electronic act “whether or not the electronic act 

originated on school property or with school equipment, if the electronic act is directed 

specifically at students or school personnel and maliciously intended for the purpose of 

disrupting school, and has a high likelihood of succeeding in that purpose (Ark. Code Ann. §6-

18-514). 

• Louisiana’s cyberbullying provisions covers cyberbullying that occurs off school campus if the 

“actions are intended to have an effect on the student when the student is on school property

(La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §416.13). 

Responding to off-campus behavior can create challenges for schools in identifying students 

responsible for cyberbullying offenses and investigating complaints (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). 

Schools that impose disciplinary consequences for off-campus conduct have often faced legal 

challenges for allegedly violating students’ rights to free speech (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). These 

first amendment concerns are reflected in nine states’ statutes that each contains specific assurances 

that enforcement of school bullying policies shall not infringe upon a student’s right to free speech 

or expression. In five states—Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois—legislatures have 

minimized these challenges by limiting school jurisdiction over cyberbullying behavior to acts that 

are committed using school-owned or -leased computers, computer networks, or other technology. 

The uncertainty surrounding the legal authority of schools to enforce rules governing off-campus 

behavior and the increasing number of court cases brought against districts may have led some 

elected officials and educators to rethink the scope of their legislation. For example, New 

Hampshire’s Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention Act was recently amended in 2010 to expand 

jurisdiction to off-campus conduct that “occurs off of school property or outside of a schoolsponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities or 

substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school” (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F). The statute 

recently faced repeal within the state legislature based on the argument that covering bullying off 

school property “oversteps schools’ responsibility” (Schiller, 2011). Although the proposed 

legislative amendment has since been overruled by the Senate, this legislative action could signal a 

shift within some states toward refocusing legislation that is perceived to have overreached in terms 

of expectations placed on schools. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

25

Prohibited Conduct

Forty-three states include descriptions of bullying behavior that is prohibited 

under the law. 

Prohibited conduct focuses on how bullying is defined in laws and policies and on what types of 

actions and conditions are prohibited. Experts argue that the way that bullying is defined in law has 

important implications for how behavior is viewed within the school community and the extent to 

which school personnel and other students recognize and respond to bullying situations (Swearer, 

Limber, & Alley, 2009). Failing to provide clear definitions of bullying also can lead to inconsistent 

approaches among school personnel to identification and enforcement (Swearer, Limber, & Alley, 

2009). A significant challenge in defining bullying is determining when developmentally appropriate 

problem behavior, such as teasing, progresses into more serious misconduct that warrants 

intervention or disciplinary action. The growth of cyberbullying introduces added challenges to

defining conduct that reasonably requires school action or enforcement. For purposes of the 

analysis, legislative statutes related to prohibited conduct are rated as more expansive when they 

include clear definitions of prohibited actions and conditions and also reference cyberbullying or 

electronic communications. The definitions of bullying contained in state laws are presented in 

Appendix C. 

Forty-three state laws include definitions of prohibited conduct that may or may not be adopted into 

local district policies. Three states—Arizona, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—include prohibitions 

against bullying in their state statutes without specifically defining the behavior that is prohibited. 

Instead laws place responsibility for developing definitions with the state education agency through 

the mandatory development of a model bullying policy, or with local school districts through 

requirements that districts craft their own policies locally. Wisconsin requires districts to adopt their 

own definitions and to include them in district policies. Arizona state law does not define bullying 

conduct in any statute, nor does it require that policies at the local level contain definitions in any 

form. 

Reviewing sections of legislation that describe prohibited behavior uncovered substantial variation in 

how bullying is defined across states. Though many terms and phrases are common to many states’ 

definitions, no definitions are identical. Some state laws focus on specific actions (e.g., physical, 

verbal, or written), some focus on the intent or motivation of the aggressor, others focus on the 

degree and nature of harms that are inflicted on the victim, and many address multiple factors. In 

many instances, minor language, omitted or inserted into laws, can significantly alter the way in 

which the behavior and circumstances are legally defined (e.g., inclusion of the terms “physical,” 

“overt,” or “repeated”).

Although definitions vary, there are also examples of common language shared across many state 

laws. For example, the condition that bullying is sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile 

educational environment is present in 21 state laws. Similarly, 15 states incorporate the legal concept 

of the “reasonable person,” which serves as a comparative standard for determining whether 

observed behavior constitutes bullying. Each of these phrases borrows from existing civil rights 

legislation at the federal level (Green & Ross, 2005). 

Fewer than half of the states conform to research-based definitions by describing bullying behavior 

as being repetitive in nature. Fourteen states actually restrict legal definitions of bullying to actions 

that are persistent, pervasive, or repeated over time. No states explicitly require that behavior involve 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

26

an imbalance of power to be legally defined as bullying, although some states incorporate this 

concept into their bullying legislation and model policies. 

Most bullying laws do conform to research-based definitions by emphasizing the intentional nature 

of bullying behavior and the harms inflicted on targeted victims. Exhibit 8 reports the language 

commonly found in state legislation that identifies the impacts of bullying on victims. State laws 

most frequently define bullying as acts imposing “general harms,” “threats of fear of harm,”

“physical harm” or “property damage.” Less frequently laws described acts that “disrupt the school 

setting,” “interfere with learning,” or “cause psychological harm.”

Twenty-nine states define bullying in a way that encompasses relational aggression, 

while eight states clearly limit bullying behavior to physical or verbal acts.

Prior studies of state bullying legislation also have focused on the extent to which state bullying 

definitions are inclusive enough to capture forms of social or relational aggression (Temkin, 2008). 

Relational aggression is defined as behavior that is intended to disrupt or harm a person’s selfesteem or social status. It is typically used to undermine another child’s relationships with friends or 

their feelings of inclusion in a social group (Swearer, 2008; Lee, 2009). Definitions of bullying 

adopted in early legislation often focused on overt physical or verbal acts. Missouri state law 

provides an example of a law that primarily defines bullying as a form of physical aggression, or, 

more specifically, as “intimidation or harassment that causes a reasonable student to fear for his or 

her physical safety or property” (Mo. Rev. Stat. §160.775. 1).

Exhibit 8. State bullying legislative language to define bullying behavior and associated harm, by 

number of states (n=46) 

20

26

27

27

29

31

31

43

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Disrupts school setting

Interferes with learning

Psychological harm

Physical harm

Property damage

Creates hostile environment

Threats or fear of harm

General harm

Exhibit reads: Legislation in 43 states includes the language “general harm” to define bullying behaviors.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

As the body of legislation is continually amended, many states’ definitions have expanded to 

encompass a broader range of direct and indirect actions, which include gestures, rumor-spreading, 

or other forms of social exclusion that meet criteria for relational aggression. Twenty-nine states 

now have definitions that can be interpreted to cover relational aggression, and many contain clear 

and specific prohibitions against these types of behaviors. 

Legislative language used in

defining bullying behaviors

Number of states
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

27

Thirty-six states now include specific statutes addressing cyberbullying or the use of 

electronic communications to inflict harm on victims.

The growth in cyberbullying behavior and the challenges it poses to schools has resulted in more 

states amending legislation to address cyberbullying among students. As shown in Exhibit 9, 36 state 

laws now include language that prohibits cyberbullying and 25 include specific definitions of 

cyberbullying behavior. Twelve states used the term “cyberbullying” explicitly, while others 

incorporate a range of related terms. These include references to electronic communications, 

harassing communications, electronic acts, electronic abuse, use of electronic means, or use of data 

or computer software. The specific definitions of cyberbullying found in state legislation are 

presented in Appendix D. 

Exhibit 9. State legislation addressing cyberbullying or electronic bullying acts, by number of states 

(n=46)

Prohibited, defined

25 (54%)

Prohibited, not defined

11 (24%)

Not mentioned

10 (22%)

Exhibit reads: Twenty-five states, or 54 percent of states with bullying laws, include language that prohibits and specifically 

defines cyberbullying or electronic acts. 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Enumeration of Specific Characteristics

Seventeen state bullying and harassment laws include language enumerating the 

characteristics of protected groups.

The enumeration of specific characteristics refers to the language in bullying legislation that conveys 

explicit legal protections for certain groups or classes of individuals, or for anyone bullied based on 

personal characteristics, such as physical appearance or sexual orientation. Enumeration can be used 

in bullying legislation to limit the legal definition of bullying to acts that are motivated by 

characteristics, or it can be used more symbolically to communicate that discrimination against 

certain groups will not be tolerated. Although outside the scope of this report, some state and local 

anti-discrimination laws may also create legal responsibilities for school districts to address bullying 

and harassment based on enumerated characteristics.

Exhibit 10 reports the number of states with legislation listing protected classes and the different 

individual characteristics or attributes that are enumerated in state statutes. Seventeen state laws 

currently include language that names or references protected classes in their bullying definitions or 

in harassment provisions that are directly linked to or referenced in bullying statutes. Eleven states—

Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 

Oregon, Virginia, and Washington—all prohibit bullying based on a non-exhaustive list of identified 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

28

characteristics or attributes, in addition to prohibiting other forms of bullying behavior that are not 

motivated by characteristics of the target or victim. Six other states also enumerate protected 

categories, but are more restrictive in how bullying is defined. For example, Iowa and New Jersey

only prohibit bullying behavior that is motivated by characteristics of the target or victim, including, 

but not limited to the characteristics listed in the law. California, Florida, and Vermont each define 

bullying and harassment separately, but limit definitions of harassment, or characteristic-based 

bullying, to only those categories listed. Alabama’s harassment law only prohibits behavior that is 

motivated by the characteristics of named groups and grants the state department of education 

authority over defining the minimum list of groups that are protected. The law gives local school 

districts further discretion to expand upon the enumerated categories based on local circumstances.

Mississippi does not enumerate protected groups in its law, but does define bullying as behavior that 

is motivated by the perceived or actual characteristics of the victim. 

Exhibit 10. Enumerated characteristics in bullying legislation, by number of states (n=17) 

2 

2 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

12

12

14

14

16

16

16

17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Obesity/weight

Academic status

Physical appearance

Family status

Socio-economic status

Marital status

Association with groups/individuals

Age

Gender identity or expression

Ancestry/ethnicity

Sexual orientation

National origin

Sex or gender

Religion/religious practice

Disability

Race

Enumerated characteristics

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Race is a protected group in 17 state bullying laws. 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Other states include language in their legislation discouraging or prohibiting school districts from 

defining bullying in terms of the characteristics of targeted students. For example, Missouri state law 

prohibits any school district from adopting a policy that safeguards specific classes of students, 

citing a commitment to providing equal protections for all students in its public schools. Although 

Florida’s bullying law explicitly prohibits harassment based on sex, religion, or race, it also requires 

that each district’s bullying and harassment policy “afford all students the same protection regardless 

of their status under the law,” while allowing districts to “establish separate discrimination policies 

that include categories of students” (Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147). 

The protected groups most commonly referenced in state bullying laws are those covered under 

federal legislation, which include race, national origin, religion, sex or gender, and disability. Sexual 

orientation is also listed as a protected class in 14 of the 17 states with enumeration language. Other 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

29

characteristics that appear in state laws include ethnicity, gender identity or expression, family status, 

physical appearance, weight, marital status, socioeconomic status, age, academic status, and 

association with protected groups or individuals, regardless of whether the target is a group member.

The history of legislative activity around school bullying in states that have not yet enacted bullying 

laws suggests that enumeration of protected groups or characteristics has been the subject of 

controversy in crafting legislation, revealing divergent perspectives on the importance and benefit of 

naming classes that are specifically protected under bullying laws and policies. Proponents in favor 

of inclusion argue that naming groups provides a clear directive to schools about the need to 

safeguard populations that are most vulnerable to bullying, without affecting protections for other 

students. Advocates have pushed for the inclusion of enumeration in state laws on behalf of lesbian, 

gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youths who experience extremely high rates of bullying 

victimization, but who are not legally protected under federal civil rights legislation (AntiDefamation League, 2009). The U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling in Romer v. Evans (1996), supported 

the use of enumeration of groups in law by arguing that it provides an “essential device used to 

make the duty not to discriminate concrete” (Anti-Defamation League, 2009). In the Romer case, 

the court struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment as a violation of the equal 

protection clause. The proposed amendment forbade the state and its agencies from enacting, 

adopting, or enforcing any laws or policies giving special legal protections to homosexuals. 

Civil rights advocacy organizations who research the prevalence and reporting of bullying behaviors 

have found positive effects within school environments when policies contain these explicit 

protections for vulnerable populations. Specifically, studies have shown that there is lower 

prevalence of bullying behavior and increased propensity to report threats or bullying acts against 

LGBT students when specific protections are covered under school bullying policies (GLSEN, 

2010).

Other experts advise against the inclusion of protected classes in legislation, arguing that bullying 

should be defined solely based on behavior and not on the characteristics of students who are 

bullied. They also argue that the highly politicized nature of the enumeration discussion often 

lengthens debate within state legislatures over which classes should or should not be protected in 

laws, delaying their enactment (Alley & Limber, 2009). In states without bullying legislation, this 

controversy has been a key factor contributing to the failure to pass proposed bullying legislation 

(Heywood, 2009). Legal experts also caution against limiting definitions of bullying to behavior 

motivated by certain listed characteristics since most bullying is motivated by factors like personal 

appearance that are unrelated to class or group affiliation (Sacks & Salem, 2009).

Development and Implementation of School District Policies

Forty-five states’ bullying laws instruct school districts to develop and adopt local 

policies to respond to bullying in schools. 

Almost all state bullying legislation requires school districts to develop and implement bullying 

policies. Statutes typically require districts to create and adopt school policies according to 

established deadlines, and some set expectations for states to review policies to ensure compliance. 

Exhibit 11 identifies which states include specific policy requirements and indicates whether laws 

establish specific time lines for their development. The most expansive laws are those that mandate 

a district policy and set deadlines for districts to comply that are written into statutes. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

30

Thirty-two states identify a specific date by which local policies need to be updated or created. 

Twenty-six of these states set deadlines dated 2007 forward. This exhibit highlights the recent nature 

of most state legislation and suggests that the majority of school districts are governed by new or 

revised bullying policies that have only been implemented within the past five years. 

Exhibit 11. State law requirements for the adoption of school district bullying policies and date required, 

by state (n=50) 

State 

District 

policy 

required

Required 

date, 

if specified

State 

District 

policy 

required

Required 

date, 

if specified

Alabama  7/1/2010 Montana No law

Alaska  7/1/2007 Nebraska  7/1/2009

Arizona  Nevada 

Arkansas  New Hampshire  1/1/2011

California  New Jersey  9/1/2011

Colorado  8/8/2001 New Mexico  4/1/2007

Connecticut  2/1/2009 New York 

Delaware  1/1/2008 North Carolina  12/31/2009

Florida  12/1/2008 North Dakota  7/1/2012

Georgia  8/1/2011 Ohio  9/29/2010

Hawaii a No law Oklahoma 

Idaho  Oregon 

Illinois  Pennsylvania  1/1/2009

Indiana  Rhode Island  9/1/2004

Iowa  9/1/2007 South Carolina  1/1/2007

Kansas  South Dakota No law

Kentucky  11/30/2008 Tennessee  1/1/2006

Louisiana  8/1/2001 Texas b Not required

Maine  9/1/2006 Utah  9/1/2012

Maryland  7/1/2009 Vermont  1/15/2007

Massachusetts  12/31/2010 Virginia 

Michigan No law Washington  8/1/2011

Minnesota  West Virginia  12/2001

Mississippi  12/31/2010 Wisconsin  8/15/2010

Missouri  9/1/2007 Wyoming  12/31/2009

Exhibit reads: Alabama state law required school districts to develop district bullying policies by July 1, 2010.

a Analyses in this report reflect enacted bullying legislation as of April 2011. These analyses do not include the enactment of

Hawaii’s bullying legislation, House Bill 688, which was signed into law on July 11, 2011.

b On May 9, 2011, Texas passed a law requiring school districts to adopt a bullying policy. This legislation was not included in 

the current analyses, as this table is current through April 30, 2011.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Most state laws convey expectations for districts to develop policies that delineate a range of 

required components, such as reporting and investigation procedures, consequences for prohibited 

conduct, school personnel training provisions, or support services for victims. As discussed in an 

earlier section of Chapter II, the majority of state laws prescribe minimum components that must be 

covered in district policy documents. Twenty-six states, for example, contain a designated section of

statute that lists these policy provisions. Nine states require or encourage districts to develop content 

based on components of model policies created by state departments of education or school boards 

associations. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

31

Ten state laws are less prescriptive, requiring that districts develop and adopt school bullying 

policies, without specifying policy components. These states may outline responsibilities for districts 

to respond to school bullying, such as monitoring and reporting incident data, but do not explicitly 

require expectations to be tied to a bullying policy. Two of these 10 states—Nebraska and 

Minnesota—set minimum requirements for districts to develop policy documents, but do not set 

legal requirements for their content, placing full discretion over policy development at the local level.

Another of the 10 states—California—requires school districts to adopt policies addressing peer 

harassment, but does not set similar policy expectations for governing bullying in schools. 

As of April 2011, Texas was rated as the only state without any formal requirement for districts to 

create bullying or harassment policies. Until recently, Texas state law only required districts to 

develop general codes of conduct governing student behavior in schools, which listed bullying as 

one of several prohibited behaviors. The requirement was changed in June 2011 when the governor 

of Texas signed new legislation requiring districts to create and adopt formal bullying policies for 

Texas public schools. 

State laws also vary in how they instruct school districts to integrate new bullying provisions into 

existing school-based policy documents. Several states require districts to create stand-alone policies 

that are also integrated into school disciplinary policies or codes of student conduct. Six states—

Delaware, Florida, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia—all require districts to 

integrate bullying policies into existing policies on school discipline. Missouri only requires language 

on harassment to be contained within the discipline policy due to the criminal classification of the 

offense. Five other states—Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine and New York—require districts to 

integrate the bullying policy into the student code of conduct, and one—Mississippi—requires that 

policies be placed in both the student discipline policy and code of conduct. Two states—Idaho and 

Indiana—direct districts to address bullying as prohibited conduct within their disciplinary policies 

but do not require the development of a stand-alone bullying document. For example, Idaho’s state 

law outlines powers and duties of local school boards to “prescribe rules for the disciplining of 

unruly or insubordinate pupils, including rules on student harassment, intimidation and bullying”

(Idaho Code §33-512). The remaining states do not include specific language regarding how policies 

should be integrated into existing school policy documents. 

Nineteen states also include an additional provision requiring or encouraging local districts to 

develop policies through a collaborative process involving interested stakeholders. The types of 

stakeholders identified in laws include parents or guardians, students, volunteers, school personnel, 

community representatives, and members of local law enforcement. Policy experts have suggested 

that this type of collaborative process promotes agreement about behavioral norms and 

expectations, ensures that community values are reflected in district policies, and promotes policy 

awareness throughout the school community (Lerman, 2010).

Review of Local Policies

Twenty states outline accountability measures that require school districts to 

submit bullying policies to the state for review.

Districts in 20 states are required to submit their new or revised policies to the state department of 

education or other state agency for review following their development. The remaining states only 

require that districts develop local policies, but do not create mechanisms for formal review outside 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

32

of the district. More expansive laws are those that require a review of policies and outlined detailed 

provisions regarding the review process. 

Legislation in eight states—Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, and Washington—mandates a formal review of policies at the state or county level. For 

example, Arkansas’ newly amended state law requires review of district policies by the state 

department of education, which “may recommend changes or improvements to the districts if the 

state board determines that the policies need improvement (Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-1005). Five states’ 

laws threaten sanctions for districts that are not in compliance with the requirements of the law. 

Among these five states, Delaware has one of the strongest accountability provisions for policy 

development and review. Its statutes require that districts develop and submit local bullying policies 

to the Delaware Department of Education by a specified date and mandates annual policy reviews 

by this department to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations. State funding 

provided to districts through the Comprehensive School Discipline Improvement Program is 

contingent upon state approval of each district’s bullying prevention policy. The law further states 

that “to the extent that funding is available the State Department of Education will provide for an 

award system for schools with exemplary programs based on criteria promulgated by the Delaware 

Department of Education” (Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14 §4112D). 

The state of Florida is another example of a state with strong accountability measures. The law 

makes the distribution of safe schools funds to a school district contingent upon the department of 

education’s approval of the school district’s bullying and harassment policy. The department’s 

approval of each school district’s policy must be certified by the department and must be “in 

substantial conformity with the department’s model bullying and harassment policy.” The Florida 

law further states that starting in fiscal year 2010–11 funds provided to a school district “shall be 

contingent upon and payable to the school district upon the school district’s compliance with all 

reporting procedures contained in this section”(Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147). 

Communications

Forty-two laws require school districts or boards of education to include 

procedures for publicizing bullying policies. 

Clear communication of policies is essential to ensure that all members of the school community 

have a shared understanding of how bullying is defined, are knowledgeable about their personal 

responsibilities related to bullying in schools (e.g., expected conduct, requirements for reporting) and 

are aware of the consequences for violating school guidelines (Lerman, 2010). Forty-two states

contain language conveying expectations for school districts to develop procedures to publicize their 

local policies. These requirements range from general directives to disseminate policies to students, 

parents, and school personnel, to more specific requirements for how policies should be 

communicated. Examples include requirements to post policies on websites or in visible locations 

on school campuses, publicize policies in student and employee handbooks or codes of conduct, 

encourage or mandate active discussion with students regarding policy contents, and actively discuss 

policies with school personnel to ensure consistent application and enforcement (e.g., through inservice trainings). More expansive laws are those that mandate districts to actively communicate with 

students and school personnel about policy contents and to disseminate copies of policies in writing. 

Exhibit 12 identifies the number of state laws that set requirements for policies to be communicated 

to school personnel, families, and students. Forty-one states contain specific language regarding how 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

33

policies should be communicated. Thirty-two states require local districts to publish their policies 

(e.g., prohibited behaviors, consequences, and procedures for reporting) in the student codes of 

conduct or student handbooks, and 22 require that policies be contained in employee handbooks or 

personnel manuals. Sixteen states either require or encourage districts to hold active discussions with 

students about behavioral guidelines related to school bullying policies. 

Exhibit 12. Legislative expectations for communicating school district bullying policies, by number of 

states (n=46)

5 

11

22

32

42

0 10 20 30 40 50

Discussions with students are encouraged

Discussions with students are required

Requirements to publish policies in employee manuals

Requirement to publish policies in student handbooks

Clear communication requirements

Expectations for communication of policy

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Forty-two state laws have established clear requirements for school districts to communicate bullying policies.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Training and Prevention

The training and prevention components of state legislation encompass a range of provisions, 

including professional development activities for school personnel to educate them on how to 

prevent and appropriately respond to bullying situations, bullying education or awareness programs 

for students, and programs that promote whole-school approaches to improving climate in schools 

related to bullying and harassment. States use different approaches to legislating training and 

prevention components. For school personnel training, state laws typically mandate or encourage 

professional development as a component of school district bullying policies. For prevention, state 

laws either require or encourage school districts to implement prevention programs directly, often as 

a component of district policy, or transfer control over prevention policy to locally established 

committees and task forces. The most expansive bullying laws contain provisions for mandatory 

prevention education or training for both students and school personnel. 

Ten states either mandate or encourage districts to establish bullying 

prevention task forces, safe schools committees, or other local advisory groups 

to address school-wide prevention.

Ten states either require or encourage school districts to establish a local prevention task force or 

safe schools committee to examine bullying issues on school campuses and to develop approaches 

to bullying prevention and education. Specific responsibilities outlined in laws include monitoring 

bullying prevalence, providing training for school personnel, and developing school-based 

prevention and intervention strategies. The formation of a local task force was mandated in six 

states and encouraged in four others. 

Twenty-five states mandate that districts develop and implement training for 

school personnel.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

34

Research has demonstrated that school personnel are often unaware of how to respond to bullying 

thereby necessitating training (Allen, 2010). Twenty-five states require local school districts to 

develop and implement staff training to educate personnel about bullying policies and to support 

consistent enforcement. Another eight state laws included discretionary language encouraging 

schools to incorporate employee in-service training programs. 

Twenty states mandate that districts implement bullying prevention, education, 

or awareness programs for students and 11 states use discretionary language to 

encourage prevention efforts.

Research has shown that whole-school prevention programs establish expectations related to 

bullying and can shift cultural norms regarding the acceptance of bullying acts and the roles of 

bullies and bystanders (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009). Among states that address bullying 

prevention, education, or awareness programs in their laws, 20 mandate implementation, and 

another 11 encourage schools to comply with prevention recommendations. The following provides 

examples of legislative expectations for prevention programming: 

• Maryland’s bullying legislation requires county boards of education to develop an educational 

bullying, harassment, and intimidation prevention program for students, staff, volunteers, and 

parents (Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424.1). 

• New Hampshire state laws requires each school district to provide educational programs for 

students and their families on “preventing, identifying, responding to, and reporting incidents 

of bullying or cyberbullying” (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:5). 

Only three state laws include language in legislation identifying sources of funding to support 

bullying prevention programming. The remaining states do not address issues of funding, or 

encourage districts to implement prevention as funds become available. This finding reflects

concerns often raised by school districts regarding the presence of unfunded mandates in state 

bullying laws (Associated Press, 2009). 

Transparency and Monitoring

Eighteen state laws outline specific requirements for monitoring and compiling 

data on bullying complaints.

For schools to effectively address issues with school-based crime and violence they need an accurate 

understanding of the extent, nature, and context of the problem (Nieman, 2010). However, the 

accurate monitoring and reporting of bullying incidents in schools represents a potential challenge 

for states and school districts. Although requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as amended, stipulate that states must make information on suspensions and expulsions 

related to threatening (e.g., bullying) or violent behavior available to the public, reporting is usually 

too general to allow bullying-related incidents to be isolated from other types of data. 

About one-third of states require school districts to compile and report data involving incidents of 

bullying behavior on their school campuses through legislation, although recent amendments to 

state laws have added data-reporting provisions. Sixteen states now require that bullying incident 

data maintained by local districts be reported to the state board of education. A few states also 

mandate that state boards compile district data into formal reports that are posted publicly or 

reported to the state legislature. Two states only require districts to compile incident data locally. For 

example, the state of Ohio requires district offices to compile a written summary of reported 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

35

incidents and to submit data to the local school board to be posted on the school board website; 

however, there is no expectation that districts submit compiled data to the state (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.

§3313.666).

Few laws contain detailed language articulating the data elements or data reporting procedures to be 

used in preparing and submitting incident reports. One exception is the state of Florida where 

district bullying policies require the adoption of procedures for reporting incidents of bullying or 

harassment as part of their uniform school safety and discipline reporting. The law specifically 

requires districts to report individual incidents and their consequences, including discipline and 

referrals. The reports also include data on incidents of bullying or harassment that do not meet the 

criteria of a prohibited act, presumably to provide information to use in assessing the adequacy of 

definitions. The law requires the department of education to aggregate information contained in the 

reports and links district compliance with incident reporting requirements to the distribution of safe 

schools funds (Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147).

The state of Maryland also requires the state department of education to create a standardized 

reporting form that identifies the victims and the aggressor, describes the incident and its location, 

documents any physical injuries that occurred, the number of resulting absences from school, and 

any requests for mental health services for the victim or victim’s family. The form is distributed to 

each public school, and schools must submit these forms to the county board of education. The 

county board of education provides annual summaries of compiled data to the state board (Md. Code 

Ann., Educ. §7-424). These types of clearly outlined procedures for data monitoring and reporting 

were relatively rare in state bullying legislation.

Right to Pursue Other Legal Remedies

Eighteen state laws include specific statutes addressing the rights of bullying 

victims to seek legal remedies under law.

Schools have the responsibility to ensure the safety of the school environment and to provide 

students with appropriate care and supervision while on school property or when attending schoolrelated events. When students experience persistent bullying and harassment school personnel and 

boards of education may be held liable for failing to protect them from foreseeable risks, and may be 

subject to civil claims under state law or federal law (Hutton & Bailey, 2007). These types of claims 

may offer legal remedies to bullying victims in accordance with their rights under state and federal

law.

Legal claims against schools are often brought as harassment claims under federal civil rights laws 

protecting classes of individuals discriminated against on the basis of race, national origin, sex, or 

disability (Sacks & Salem, 2009). The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Davis 

v. Monroe County Board of Education established the precedent that schools receiving federal funds 

could be held liable for damages in peer harassment cases. School may be liable if the harassment is 

proven to be so “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” that it deprives the victim of access to 

educational opportunities or benefits, and if the school had actual knowledge of the harassment but 

was “deliberately indifferent” to it. The court’s ruling in Davis, which involved a claim for peer-onpeer sexual harassment in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, has been 

applied in cases involving harassment based on race, color, and national origin in violation of Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and harassment based on disability in violation of Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sacks & Salem, 2009).
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

36

The Davis ruling has moved school districts to respond more proactively to bullying issues on their 

campuses to limit liability. 

In addition to seeking claims under federal civil rights statutes, victims of bullying may seek legal 

remedies under state tort law. These claims have involved rights of action, such as negligence or 

wrongful death lawsuits when bullying contributes to the suicide of a victim. 

Bullying legislation in 18 states conveys assurances to victims that state bullying statutes do not limit 

the rights of victims to make legal claims against individuals or schools or to pursue other legal 

remedies. These assurances in legislation are commonly titled the “victims’ rights to redress” and 

their language is fairly uniform across states. For example, North Carolina’s bullying statutes assert 

that the law should not be “interpreted to prevent a victim of bullying or harassing behavior from 

seeking redress under any other available law, either civil or criminal” (N.C. Gen. Stat. §115C-407.18). 

Similarly, an Oregon statute addressing victim redress asserts that the law “may not be interpreted to 

prevent a victim of harassment, intimidation or bullying or a victim of cyberbullying from seeking 

redress under any other available law, whether civil or criminal.” Statutes also often state that 

provisions do not “create or alter any tort liability” or “do not create any statutory cause of action” 

meaning that districts cannot be held liable for failing to implementing bullying policies (R.I. Gen. 

Laws §16-21-26). 

School District Components

In addition to the 10 key components discussed in the previous sections, the Department’s guidance 

establishes a separate category for components of school district policies that are often prescribed in 

state bullying laws. The six subcomponents include: definitions of bullying, reporting, investigations 

and response, written records, sanctions, and mental health referrals. The following section provides 

a discussion of each specific subcomponent. The information presented encompasses all provisions 

present in each state’s law, regardless of whether the component is contained within a section of law 

delineating requirements of school district policies, or is addressed in other sections of legislative 

text.

Twenty-nine state laws require local bullying policies to contain a definition of 

bullying and 23 states require that local definitions conform to those contained 

within the law. 

Twenty-three states specifically require that definitions of bullying adopted by school districts 

conform to how state legislatures define bullying in the law. These requirements generally grant 

districts local autonomy to expand on required language as long as new definitions do not impose 

limiting conditions on protected groups or prohibited behaviors. As an example, Pennsylvania 

statutes limit the scope of the state bullying law to acts that “occur in a school setting;” however, the 

law also states that school entities “shall not be prohibited from defining bullying in such a way as to 

encompass acts that occur outside a school setting” as long as those acts meet other criteria for 

prohibited behavior under the law (Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1303.1-A).

Thirty-six state laws require that district policies establish reporting 

procedures. Twenty-two laws require district policies to either mandate or 

encourage reporting of bullying incidents by school personnel. 

Exhibit 13 shows the number of states with or without reporting requirements and the number that 

assign legal responsibility for reporting to school staff or students. Fifteen states mandate that 

district policies require reporting by school personnel who have first-hand knowledge of bullying on 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

37

their school grounds. Two additional states—Alaska and South Carolina—require mandatory 

reporting by staff and by students who witness bullying. 

Exhibit 13. Legislative requirements for reporting bullying incidents: Number of states by reporting type 

(n=46)

2 

5 

15

24

0 10 20 30 40 50

Reporting mandatory for students and staff

Reporting encouraged

Reporting mandatory for staff only

No requirements for reporting by students or staff

Legislative requirements

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Twenty-four state laws do not establish requirements for reporting bullying incidents. 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Unlike states that have moved toward mandatory involvement of school personnel in responding to 

bullying situations on school grounds, Alabama’s state statutes absolve school personnel of any 

liability related to reporting of bullying incidents (Ala. Code §16-28B-5). The Alabama law requires 

that the state model policy include language clarifying that it is the “sole responsibility of the 

affected student, or the parent or guardian of the affected student, to report incidences of 

harassment.” Alabama school districts, in turn, are required to develop local policies that conform to 

the state model.

Research studies and national survey data findings suggest that many students are reluctant to seek 

help when they are bullied or feel threatened at school (Eliot, 2010). These findings are supported by 

recent data from the 2009 national Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) survey, which found 

that only one-third of secondary school students who had been bullied at school ever notified a 

teacher or other adult about the experience (CDC, 2010). Accordingly, experts have argued for the 

importance of creating mechanisms for students to report bullying anonymously. Thirteen states 

mandate that districts establish procedures for anonymous reporting by students, although language 

sets limits on imposing disciplinary actions without a documented report. The state of Colorado has 

enacted specific legislation (Senate Bill No. 07-197) that establishes the Safe-To-Tell electronic 

hotline, which provides students, teachers, and other school employees with the means to relay 

information anonymously regarding threats in the school setting (NCSL, 2011). 

Thirty-one state laws require that district policies outline procedures for 

investigating bullying complaints.

The language regarding investigations in most state laws involves a simple directive that policies 

establish investigation procedures. As an example, Delaware statutes contain a requirement that 

“each school have a procedure for the administration to promptly investigate in a timely manner and 

determine whether bullying has occurred” (Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 14, §4112D). Some states, however, 

convey more detailed expectations for investigations in policies. Fourteen states’ policy 

requirements, for example, include mandatory provisions for parent notification in bullying 

situations for both the victim and the aggressor. Ten states specify that an investigation and followup must include safeguards for victims and witnesses who report bullying incidents to protect them 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

38

from further bullying threats or retaliation. Ten of the 31 states required that districts include formal 

processes for following up on investigations and require that schools communicate the results of the 

investigation to parents and guardians of involved students. 

Procedures for investigating bullying complaints required under law are usually discussed in general 

terms giving districts the flexibility to establish their own local procedures. There are, however, 

notable exceptions. New Jersey, for example, has one of the most prescriptive laws regarding the 

conduct of investigations of bullying complaints, which lays out detailed administrative requirements 

for school personnel. The state law mandates that investigations be conducted by a school bullying 

specialist appointed within each district, that they be initiated within one day of a report, and be 

completed within a 10-day period. The law further outlines a series of detailed steps for reviewing 

investigative procedures. 

Eighteen states include language regarding written documentation of 

bullying complains and investigations.

Studies conducted within school settings emphasize the importance of written records, including the 

use of standardized reporting or complaint forms, documentation of investigations, and formal 

written communications with parents or guardians. Researchers suggest that use of written reports 

and documentation are important for creating a record of bullying situations that can help monitor 

problems and how they are resolved. This information can facilitate communication among school 

personnel and help determine the seriousness of the issue (Allen, 2010). 

The language regarding use of written records as part of reporting and investigation procedures 

varies considerably across states. For example, West Virginia state law requires a policy for 

“documenting any prohibited incident that is reported” (W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-3). Arizona’s state 

statutes include a similar provision requiring policies to include “a procedure for parents and 

guardians of pupils to submit written reports to school officials of suspected incidents of 

harassment, intimidation or bullying” (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §15-341). Alabama’s harassment law is much 

more extensive requiring “a clearly defined procedure for students to use in reporting harassment, 

including, but not limited to, written reports on local board approved complaint forms and written 

reports of instances of harassment, intimidation, violence, and threats of violence based on the 

personal characteristics of a student” (Ala. Code §16-28B-4).

Forty-two state laws require that district policies contain clear statements 

regarding disciplinary sanctions for prohibited behavior.

Most state statutes reflect a traditional approach to intervening in bullying situations involving 

investigation and use of disciplinary sanctions or consequences to correct misconduct (Allen, 2010). 

State laws with more expansive policy requirements outline a range of graduated sanctions for 

bullying behavior that includes nonpunitive responses to bullying behavior, such as Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). PBIS is a prevention-based, school-wide system for 

promoting and reinforcing behavioral expectations in the school setting that uses structured 

behavioral interventions and supports to respond to problem behaviors. It is often applied within 

school settings to address bullying-related problems (Illinois PBIS Network, 2010).

Illinois state statutes offer an example of policy requirements that emphasize both punitive and 

nonpunitive responses to bullying behavior. The state law requires that district policies “must 

include provisions in the student discipline policy to address students who have demonstrated 

behaviors that put them at risk for aggressive behavior, including without limitation bullying, as 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

39

defined in the policy. These provisions must include procedures for notifying parents or legal 

guardians and early intervention procedures based upon available community-based and district 

resources” (105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. §5/10-20.14).

Bullying legislation in the state of Georgia offers an example of one of the strongest punitive 

sanctions for bullying behavior. It requires as a component of district policy that any student 

involved in bullying on three or more occasions be automatically transferred to an alternative school 

(Ga. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4).

State laws strongly emphasize disciplinary consequences for bullying behavior that, in some states, 

include the potential for criminal charges and penalties. Fifteen states have each passed bullying laws 

that include procedures for imposing criminal sanctions for bullying behavior, either by requiring 

districts to develop protocols for law enforcement reporting as part of their bullying policies, or by 

mandating or encouraging reporting for offenses that may violate criminal law. Alaska and Illinois 

statutes require districts to establish procedures and guidelines for law enforcement reporting 

without mandating reporting explicitly. Similarly, Maine requires the development of a state model 

policy that outlines procedures for law enforcement reporting (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 20-A, 

§1001.15). Missouri state threatens penalties for school personnel who fail to report incidents that 

constitute a criminal offense (Mo. Rev. Stat. §167.117.1).

Thirteen states include language regarding a school district’s role in 

facilitating access to mental health services or supports for targets of bullying. 

Researchers and practitioners have argued the importance of providing support for victims of 

bullying, including protections from continuing harm and mental health services (Lerman, 2010). 

Thirteen states have specific provisions that either require or encourage districts to respond to the 

mental health needs of victims. Oklahoma statutes offer a strong example, stating that policies shall 

include a procedure whereby “a school may recommend that available community mental health 

care options be provided to the student, if appropriate” (Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 70, §24-100.4).

Mental health provisions in state statutes represent a range of expectations for what district policies 

should contain for addressing mental health needs of bullying-involved youths. One of the least 

stringent requirements was found in Delaware state law, which mandates that district policies 

include “a procedure for communication between school staff members and medical professionals 

who are involved in treating students for bullying issues.” The policy does not, however, convey any 

clear expectation that schools actually provide or link students to these services (Del. Code Ann. Tit. 

14, §4112D). 

More expansive laws include mandates for counseling or intervention services for targets of bullying 

provided through the district or through arrangements with community-based providers. The state 

of New Jersey has one of the strongest counseling and intervention components written into law. It 

requires that policies articulate a range of possible responses to any identified incident of bullying, 

harassment, or intimidation, which “shall include an appropriate combination of counseling, support 

services, intervention services, and other programs” (N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A:37-15). The states of 

Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey contain explicit language related to 

providing student support to both victims and bullies. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

40

Coverage of Key Components in State Legislation

The next section summarizes the results of a systematic review of state bullying legislation examining 

the extent to which legislative statutes across the 50 states cover the 11 key components. 

Researchers reviewed and coded each of the 11 key components, of which the school district policy 

component was divided into six separate subcomponents. This resulted in a total of 16 dimensions 

that were reviewed and rated by the research team. For the initial analysis, researchers credited states 

as covering a component if there was any relevant language found in their legislation, regardless of 

how extensively a component was addressed. For example, in reviewing the training and prevention 

component, state laws that encourage districts to develop local prevention task forces would be 

coded the same as a more expansive state law, for example, one that mandates districts to develop 

and implement whole-school, evidence-based curricula. 

Seventeen state laws cover 13 to 16 components and district policy 

subcomponents. Twelve states cover only half of all components or fewer.

Exhibit 14 illustrates that among the 46 states with bullying legislation, Maryland and New Jersey are

the only states with legislative language encompassing all of the key components and school district 

policy subcomponents. Seventeen total states, including Maryland and New Jersey, cover between 13 

and 16 components and 17 others cover between nine and 12. Eleven states with legislation cover 

five to eight components, and one state covers between one and four. The results suggest that states 

vary substantially in the overall breadth of their school bullying laws. 

Exhibit 14. Coverage of key components: Number of components and policy subcomponents covered 

in bullying laws, by number of states (n=46)

4 

1 

11

17

17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No legislation

1 to 4 components

5 to 8 components

9 to 12 components

13 to 16 components

Exhibit reads: Seventeen state laws cover anywhere from 13 to 16 key components and district policy components.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Exhibit 15 shows the key components that are most frequently observed in state laws (i.e., 

components covered in 40 or more laws). These include requirements for districts to develop local 

bullying policies, descriptions of prohibited behavior, statements of scope, expectations for 

communication of policies, and consequences for prohibited conduct. More than half of state laws 

also require district policies to contain definitions of bullying behavior, set expectations for reporting 

and investigations, and include language addressing school personnel training and bullying 

prevention. Less than half of state bullying laws enumerate specific groups protected under the law, 

mandate that policies be submitted to the state for review, or require districts to document bullying 

incidents with written records or to compile and report incident data. In addition less than half set 

provisions for mental health or other supports for victims or include language in law conveying the 

rights of victims to pursue legal recourse for bullying. 

Elements covered in law

Number of states
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

41

Exhibit 15. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components in state 

bullying legislation, by state (n=46)

Definitions

District policy 

review & 

development

District policy components Additional 

components

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumerated groupsDistrict 

policy

District 

policy 

reviewDefinitionsReportingInvestigationsWritten recordsConsequencesMental healthCommunicationsTraining/ preventionTransparency/ monitoringLegal remedies

TOTAL

Alabama               14

Alaska         8

Arizona           10

Arkansas               14

California             12

Colorado         8

Connecticut             12

Delaware              13

Florida                15

Georgia          9

Idaho      5

Illinois           10

Indiana         8

Iowa              13

Kansas      5

Kentucky           9

Louisiana            11

Maine             12

Maryland                 16

Massachusetts              13

Minnesota   2

Mississippi         8

Missouri        7

Nebraska     4

Nevada             12

New Hampshire               14

New Jersey                 16

New Mexico            11

New York              13

North Carolina              13

North Dakota              13

Ohio              13

Oklahoma           10

Oregon *               14

Pennsylvania          9

Rhode Island          9

South Carolina            11

Tennessee            11

Texas       6

Utah         8

Vermont              13

Virginia            11

Washington                15

West Virginia               14

See notes at end of table. 

Continued on next page.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

42

Exhibit 15. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components in state 

bullying legislation, by state (n=46) (Continued)

Definitions

District policy 

review & 

development

District policy components Additional 

components

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumerated groupsDistrict policyDistrict policy reviewDefinitionsReportingInvestigationsWritten recordsConsequencesMental healthCommunicationsTraining/ preventionTransparency/ monitoringLegal remedies

TOTAL

Wisconsin         8

Wyoming             12

TOTAL: 39 44 43 17 45 20 29 36 31 18 42 13 42 39 18 18

PERCENT: 85% 96% 93% 37% 98% 43% 63% 78% 67% 39% 91% 28% 91% 85% 39% 39%

Exhibit reads: Alabama state bullying laws covered 14 of 16 key components and district policy subcomponents.

* Oregon’s earlier legislation required that school districts submit their school bullying policy to the superintendent of public 

instruction by Jan. 1, 2004. This subsection of Or. Rev. Stat. §339.362 was repealed upon districts’ completion of the 

requirement.

Notes: Coverage of key components reflects state bullying legislation enacted through April 30, 2011. The analysis does not 

reflect the recent enactment of House Bill 688 in the state of Hawaii, or amendments to other states’ legislation that occurred after 

April 30, 2011, including, but not limited to, new laws passed in California, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas during their 

states’ 2011 legislative sessions. 

State education agencies may establish additional requirements or expectations for school districts through departmental rules 

and regulations that are not reflected in coding of legislation. For example, Georgia state law does not set legal requirements for 

school districts to report bullying incidents to the state; however, the Georgia Department of Education’s (GaDOE) data collection 

guidelines and procedures require that all incidents of bullying be reported by the local education agency through the GaDOE 

Student Record Data Collection System.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

Expansiveness Ratings Across States

As described in the methods section of the introduction, researchers also rated each state’s laws 

within key components and assigned a score of 0 to 2 measuring the overall expansiveness of their

provisions (see Exhibit 2). Researchers summed the ratings to create a composite score across all of 

the components and school district policy subcomponents. The expansiveness ratings range in 

possible value from 0 to 32 covering 16 components and district policy subcomponents. The 

distribution of ratings illustrates the variance in expansiveness of laws across states. The summary of 

total ratings is presented in graphic format in Exhibit 16. 

Exhibit 16. Distribution of expansiveness ratings for state bullying laws, by number of states (n=46)

4 

6 

12

16

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No legislation

0 to 8 

9 to 14

15 to 20

21 to 32

Distribution of expansiveness ratings

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Twelve states are in the 21 to 30 expansiveness rating range. 

Note: The distribution of expansiveness ratings shows the number of state laws that fell within each scoring range (i.e., 0 to 8, 

9 to 14, 1 to 20, and 21 to 32) on a possible rating scale of 0 to 32 on measures of expansiveness.

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

43

Total ratings and ratings within key component are presented numerically by state in rank order 

from most to least expansive in Exhibit 17. The exhibit shows the considerable variation found 

across states on measures of expansiveness, with scores ranging from a low score of 2 to a high 

score of 30 out of a possible 32 points. This finding highlights the diversity in breadth and specificity 

found in legislation, pointing to differences in how laws are structured and the number of provisions 

they contain. By their nature, laws that shift more control over bullying policy to the local level are 

generally rated as less expansive than those that are more prescriptive in nature, identifying specific 

provisions to contain in school district policies. Bills that integrate bullying provisions into the 

existing structure of education statutes (i.e., school safety plans or codes of conduct), also tend to be 

less expansive in terms of their coverage of components than bills that introduce sets of statutes 

specific to bullying that address multiple dimensions of the bullying problem (e.g., prevention, 

training, reporting, investigation).

More expansive laws govern many different facets of the school bullying issue. For example, these 

laws contain clear and inclusive definitions of prohibited behavior, establish expectations for 

reporting, investigation and use of sanctions, contain accountability measures to ensure compliance, 

focus on the needs of victims, and promote prevention and intervention as strategies to reduce 

bullying behavior.

Exhibit 17. Extent of expansiveness for state bullying legislation for U.S. Department of Educationidentified key components, by state (n=46)

Definitions

District policy 

review & 

development

District policy components Additional elements

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumerated groupsDistrict 

policy

District 

policy 

reviewDefinitionsReportingInvestigationsWritten recordsConsequencesMental healthCommunicationsTraining/ preventionTransparency/ monitoringLegal remedies

TOTAL

Alabama 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 20

Alaska 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 10

Arizona a 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 13

Arkansas 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 21

California 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 17

Colorado 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 11

Connecticut 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 22

Delaware 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 22

Florida 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 24

Georgia b 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 13

Idaho 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 6

Illinois 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 16

Indiana 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8

Iowa 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 19

Kansas 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6

Kentucky 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 15

Louisiana 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 17

Maine 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 20

Maryland 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28

Massachusetts 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 23

Minnesota c 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Mississippi 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 11

See notes at end of table. 

Continued on next page.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

44

Exhibit 17. Extent of expansiveness for state bullying legislation for U.S. Department of Educationidentified key components, by state (n=46) (Continued)

Definitions

District policy 

review & 

development

District policy components Additional elements

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumerated groupsDistrict 

policy

District 

policy 

reviewDefinitionsReportingInvestigationsWritten recordsConsequencesMental healthCommunicationsTraining/ preventionTransparency/ monitoringLegal remedies

TOTAL

Missouri 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 10

Nebraska 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

Nevada 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 19

New Hampshire 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 27

New Jersey 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 30

New Mexico 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 16

New York 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 20

North Carolina 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 20

North Dakota 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 20

Ohio 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 18

Oklahoma 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 14

Oregon d 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 21

Pennsylvania 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 13

Rhode Island 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 14

South Carolina 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 19

Tennessee 2 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 14

Texas 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 5

Utah 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 13

Vermont 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 22

Virginia 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 18

Washington 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 30

West Virginia 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 23

Wisconsin 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 9

Wyoming 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 19

Average Rating: 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.6 1.7 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.3 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.8 16.5

Exhibit reads: Alabama’s legislation was rated 20 out of a possible 32 points measuring the expansiveness of their bullying 

laws.

a State bullying statutes in Arizona do not include a definition of bullying behavior, but were rated 1 for prohibited behavior based 

on legal prohibitions against cyberbullying or electronic communications.

b State education agencies may establish additional requirements or expectations for school districts through departmental rules 

and regulations that are not reflected in coding of legislation. For example, Georgia state law does not set legal requirements for 

school districts to report bullying incidents to the state; however, the Georgia Department of Education’s (GaDOE) data 

collection guidelines and procedures require that all incidents of bullying be reported by the local education agency through the 

GaDOE Student Record Data Collection System.

c State bullying statutes in Minnesota do not include a definition of bullying behavior, but were rated 1 for prohibited behavior 

based on legal prohibitions against cyberbullying or electronic communications.

d Oregon’s earlier legislation required that school districts submit their school bullying policy to the superintendent of public 

instruction by Jan. 1, 2004. This subsection of Or. Rev. Stat. §339.362 was repealed upon districts’ completion of the 

requirement.

Notes: Expansiveness ratings cover state bullying legislation enacted through April 30, 2011. Ratings do not reflect the recent

enactment of House Bill 688 in the state of Hawaii, or amendments to other states’ legislation that occurred after April 30, 2011, 

including, but not limited to, new laws passed in California, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas during their states’ 2011 

legislative sessions. 

Source: State bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

45

Summary

The discussion highlights the rapid increase in state legislation concerning bullying, and the variety 

of ways in which legislation is revised, expanded, and occasionally refocused. In addition, this 

discussion identifies instances in which state legislation relevant to bullying may be fragmented 

across separate bills, and may in some instances be found in either education or criminal codes, or 

both. The implication for a comprehensive review of this legislation is that it cannot be limited to a 

single piece of legislation, or the most recent piece of legislation. Accordingly, the review in this 

report, to the extent possible, considers the full scope of relevant legislation to define the current 

status of bullying law in each state. The section also identifies examples of important themes and 

issues that distinguish between states’ approaches to bullying legislation and that have significant 

implications for implementation of the laws. 

The review of legislation provides information on topics that have clear, sometimes controversial, 

implications for the refinement and strengthening of a school’s capacity to reduce bullying behaviors 

in schools. Many of the issues that have oriented this review, or that have emerged as it has 

proceeded, involve the degree to which legislation supports effective implementation. That is, the 

laws cannot achieve their purpose without supporting effective policies and actions at the school 

district and school level. Important issues on which the review provides information and that will 

guide the case approach include: 

• Definitions 

Definition of terms is essential to the implementation of bullying policy. One of the most 

significant challenges to legislation has been in defining what types of behavior, and what 

conditions, constitute school bullying (e.g., what actions, what frequency, intent, location, and 

what degree of harm to victims), which can take place under often varied and difficult-to-define 

circumstances. Since there is no standard definition of bullying that is universally accepted in 

the research field or at the federal level, the states must establish their own definitions through 

legislative debate and administrative action. Legal reviews of court decisions have suggested 

that, in certain cases, language used in legislation to define bullying has been either too broad or 

too specific to provide adequate protection to victims (Sacks & Salem, 2009). States also have 

struggled to strike an appropriate balance between state and local control in establishing and 

enforcing district and school-based bullying policies. 

• Jurisdiction Over Off-Campus Conduct 

A second important issue concerns the jurisdiction where school policies will apply. State, 

district, and school policies most often limit application of policies to the “school,” but this 

may be defined differently across school settings. In some instances, policies have been 

interpreted as applying to students whether at school or not, largely to address challenges of 

cyberbullying that are often committed “off–campus” using personal technology, but that can 

seriously impact the on-campus environment. 

• Implementation and Mandates 

Research focusing on the experiences of school districts in implementing bullying legislation 

has shown that legislative requirements for bullying prevention programs, such as whole-school 

bullying education, often represent unfunded mandates, leaving schools to reallocate scarce 

resources to fund implementation (Associated Press, 2009).As a consequence, schools often 

struggle to comply with state law. Similarly, laws that have failed to specify dates and time lines 

for schools to fulfill state policy requirements have resulted in little or no accountability at the 

local level. This issue is a specific example of a larger theme that is very evident in the 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

II. Analysis of State Bullying Legislation

46

differences in state legislation that are highlighted in this report. States differ significantly in the 

degree to which state policy sets requirements for school district or school policy and 

implementation, or leave major decisions about the nature of policy to school district’s and 

schools. 

• Balance of State and Local Control 

Most state laws create requirements for school districts to develop and implement local bullying 

policies and delineate specific policy components. These specific requirements can range from 

broad, and somewhat vaguely defined, to extremely prescriptive in nature. Other states require

state departments of education and other state education agencies to create model policies and 

guidelines to assist school districts with local development and implementation of policy.

• Emerging Issues and the Need for Legislative Revision 

The majority of states show active or pending bullying legislation in the current 2011 legislative 

session. These pending bills, which aim to amend existing laws, reflect emerging issues related 

to school bullying, including the need to more explicitly recognize and respond to cyberbullying 

and the need to communicate protections for youths who are at greatest risk of being targeted 

by aggressors. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

47

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

Twenty-seven state laws include requirements to develop model policies addressing harassment, 

intimidation, or bullying and 41 states have developed bullying policy models or state guidelines that 

are available for dissemination to local school districts. These documents provide specific guidance 

to school districts on how to draft district bullying policies and how to implement provisions 

outlined in the law. 

The second study question focuses on the nature and content of model policies and guidance 

documents that have been developed by state boards or education agencies pursuant to legislation. 

These policies guide and support district efforts to develop and implement effective local bullying 

policies in compliance with the law. This section describes requirements in state legislation regarding 

the development of model policies and evaluates state progress toward complying with legal 

mandates. The section also discusses the differences and similarities in the documents that have 

been developed with regard to their structure and format, their coverage of key components, and 

their overall expansiveness. The state model policy documents are listed by title in Appendix E. 

Key Findings

• Twenty-seven state laws recommend or require state education agencies to create 

and disseminate state model policies or guidance to assist school districts with 

the development of bullying policies. Twenty-six states with explicit 

requirements have produced state models or guidance documents.

• Forty-one states have created model bullying policies, 12 of which were not 

required or encouraged by law to do so. Three other states, including Hawaii, 

Montana, and Michigan, developed model policies in the absence of state 

bullying legislation.

• The majority of state model policies were developed after 2006, indicating how 

recently most state laws were passed.

• Bullying infraction consequences, reporting procedures, investigations, and 

guidelines for communicating policies (in 40 states’ guidance) were the most 

frequently covered components. Legal remedies for victims were addressed least 

frequently (in nine states’ guidance).

• Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island developed state 

model policies that best covered the U.S. Department of Education-identified key 

components of bullying laws and policies.

States With Model Policies and Requirements for Development in Legislation

Previous studies of state bullying legislation identified 11 states as of July 2008 that required their 

state education agencies to develop model policies or technical support to assist with the creation of 

local bullying policies (Alley & Limber, 2009). Since that time, 16 additional states have enacted new 

legislation that either encourages or requires states to provide model policies for their school 

districts. Twenty-seven state laws now include specific provisions addressing the creation of model 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

48

policies to address harassment, intimidation, or bullying (see Exhibit 18). These documents provide 

specific guidance to school districts on how to draft local district bullying policies and how to 

implement provisions outlined in the law. 

Exhibit 18. State law recommendations and requirements for the adoption of state model bullying 

policies or other guidance documents, by state (n=50)

State model policies/

guidance documents

State model policies/

guidance documents

State

State model 

policy required

or encouraged?

Policy 

developed?

Date 

specified? State

State model 

policy required

or encouraged?

Policy 

developed?

Date 

specified?

Alabama Y Y N Montana No Law Y --

Alaska Y Y 1/1/2007 Nebraska Not Mandated Y --

Arizona N N -- Nevada Y Y N

Arkansas Not Mandated Y N New Hampshire Not Mandated Y --

California Y Y N New Jersey Y Y 4/5/2011

Colorado Not Mandated Y -- New Mexico Not Mandated Y --

Connecticut Y Y 2/1/2010 New York Y Y --

Delaware Y Y N North Carolina Not Mandated Y --

Florida Y Y 10/1/2008 North Dakota N N --

Georgia Y Y 1/1/2011 Ohio Y Y 9/30/2007

Hawaii No Law Y -- Oklahoma Not Mandated Y --

Idaho Not Mandated Y -- Oregon Not Mandated Y --

Illinois Y N 3/1/2011 Pennsylvania Not Mandated Y --

Indiana N N -- Rhode Island Y Y 12/1/2003

Iowa Not Mandated Y -- South Carolina Y Y 9/1/2006

Kansas N N -- South Dakota No Law N --

Kentucky Y Y 8/31/2008 Tennessee N N --

Louisiana Y Y -- Texas N N --

Maine Y Y 2/15/2006 Utah Y Y 9/1/2011

Maryland Y Y 3/31/2009 Vermont Y Y 1/1/2005

Massachusetts Y Y N Virginia Y Y N

Michigan No Law Y -- Washington Y Y 8/1/2010

Minnesota N N -- West Virginia Y Y 9/1/2011

Mississippi Y Y 2002–03 Wisconsin Y Y 3/1/2010

Missouri Not Mandated Y -- Wyoming Y Y 9/1/2009

Exhibit reads: Alabama state law requires the state develop a model policy, which it did, but does not specify a completion date.

Source: Review of state bullying laws enacted through April 30, 2011.

State laws assign responsibility for developing model policies to different state entities, including 

regional or state departments of education, state school boards associations, or superintendents of 

public instruction. Most often laws require that the state departments of education assumes 

responsibility for developing and disseminating the model bullying policy. Nineteen of the 27 laws 

that set legal obligations for state policy development also identify a specific deadline for policies to 

be completed. 

Of the 27 states with legislative requirements, Illinois is the only one that has not yet created its 

model policy, due to the recent enactment of the law. The policy is being crafted by a stateappointed bullying task force and is currently under review. The state of New York also recently 

passed a new law that will not take effect until July of 2012. New York’s Commissioner of 

Education has developed a policy addressing cyberbullying in schools; though it’s more general 

bullying policy is still under development. The state of Louisiana passed legislation requiring that the 

department of education develop a bullying behavior incident checklist, and this document is 

included in the current analysis.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

49

Forty-one states now have bullying policy models or state guidelines that are available for 

dissemination to local school districts. Twenty-six of those are in states with specific legislative 

recommendations or requirements, whereas 12 others established model policies without any legal 

requirement. Three states without bullying legislation—Hawaii, Michigan, and Montana—have 

adopted state model policies and guidelines. For these states model policies may assume greater 

importance by closing gaps in bullying prevention and enforcement for schools lacking clear 

direction under the law. 

Nine states nationally have not developed model bullying policies, or other guidance documents, 

although some provide guidance to districts in other forms, such as links to online bullying 

resources or links to model policies of other states. For example, the state of Tennessee does not 

have a state model policy and is not required to develop one; however, the Tennessee Department 

of Education distributes copies of the Tennessee Code to inform districts about their legal 

responsibilities and expectations under the law. South Dakota is the only state with no bullying law 

and no source of state guidance for schools to respond to bullying on their campuses. 

Structure of Model Policy Requirements

As discussed in Chapter II of the report, state laws used different approaches to communicate 

expectations to states and school districts about their responsibilities for addressing bullying. 

Different approaches to model policy development reflect different perspectives on where policy 

discretion should be permitted, and the degree to which mandatory and specific policy requirements 

are desirable. Four different models involving provisions for state model policy development were 

observed in state laws. These are discussed below. 

• Model Policies Mandated With Specific Requirements—Adoption by School Districts Required. The first 

model is the most prescriptive and highly structured with regard to state model policy 

development. State laws that adhere to this model mandate that states not only develop models 

for local school districts to follow, but also identify specific provisions that must be present in 

policies. School districts are obligated to adopt local policies that conform to the state model. 

Districts have the authority to enhance provisions, but not to exclude them. 

• Model Policies Mandated With Specific Requirements—Adoption by School Districts Optional. The second 

model requires state departments or boards of education to develop model policies and 

delineates specific components that must be present. School districts may choose to adopt any 

or all provisions contained in state models but are not required to do so. Wisconsin’s school 

bullying law is an example. The law requires the department of education to create a model 

policy that covers ten specific components, including definitions and prohibitions against 

bullying, reporting and investigation procedures, and disciplinary alternatives for students who 

engaged in bullying or retaliatory behavior. The law states that districts “may adopt the model 

policy” created by the department when developing their school district policies (Wis. Stat. 

§118.46). This model offers guidance to school districts, while allowing for local control over 

policy development. 

• Model Policies Mandated With No Specific Requirements—Adoption by School Districts Optional. The 

third model includes laws that mandate the development of state model policies to support 

school district implementation, but that do not delineate any specific requirements and do not 

require that policies be adopted. This was the most common model found in state legislation.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

50

• Discretionary Model Policies With No Specific Requirements—Adoption by School Districts Optional. The 

fourth model encourages states to develop model policies, but does not explicitly require it. The 

New Hampshire Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention Act is an example, which states that the 

“department of education may develop a model policy in accordance with the requirements set 

forth in this chapter, which may be used by schools, school districts, and chartered public 

schools as a basis for adopting a local policy” (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F). This was the least 

prescriptive of the four models regarding state policy development. However, New 

Hampshire’s legislation is highly prescriptive regarding the content of school district policy 

development, outlining 14 detailed provisions that must be present in district policy documents.

These four models, which characterize the various mechanisms for formulating bullying policy at the 

state level, illuminate the diversity in attitudes about state and local control in establishing school 

harassment, intimidation, and bullying policies and may contribute to greater diversity in bullying 

policy implementation at the local district level.

Types of Model Policies

The search for state model policies and guidance documents uncovered substantial diversity in how 

documents were structured and framed. Bullying guidance in many states was embedded within 

school safety manuals, school discipline or code of conduct manuals, and violence prevention 

programs and did not specifically mention the words “bullying” or “harassment” in the title. Other 

states created policy documents that were extremely detailed and lengthy, exceeding 100 pages in 

some cases, such as Colorado. Other model policies were extremely brief one or two page 

documents (e.g., North Carolina). 

Documents shared the purpose of providing guidance and examples to individual school districts for 

creating local bullying policies and generally fell into the two categories of model policies or 

guidance documents. Model or sample policies were standardized versions of draft policies that 

conform to state legislative requirements and could be adopted wholesale by districts. Eleven states 

created these standardized model policies. Utah’s XYZ School District Discipline Model Policy 

provides an example of a complete model that could be directly integrated into district policy. 

Guidance documents were more oriented toward offering recommendations or guidelines for 

districts on how to develop their own local policies and how to implement provisions in the law. As 

an example, Arkansas’ model policy, titled Recommendations for Writing Anti-Bullying Policies 

provides very general guidance to schools on how to draft local policies, but does not address 

implementation of specific bullying provisions. 

In addition to official state model policies and guidance documents, several states provided 

supplemental resources and materials on departmental websites to further assist school districts in 

implementing school bullying policies. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, for example, provides a range of resources on its website to help local school 

districts implement bullying policies. These tools include a checklist for tracking components of 

policies at the local level and resources addressing policy considerations for special needs students.

For example, along with their model policies, such states as Massachusetts, Idaho, New Mexico, and 

Oklahoma, distributed sample complaint forms for individuals who are witnesses to or victims of 

school bullying. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

51

Coverage of Key Components in State Model Policies

This next section describes how well state model policies cover key components identified in the 

U.S. Department of Education framework. Both the framework and the analysis of legislation 

covered 16 different components or dimensions of state laws. These included components 

pertaining to: 

• Definitions (Purpose Statement, Scope, Prohibited Behavior, and Enumeration of Groups); 

• Review of School District policies (District Policy Review); 

• District policy components (Reporting, Investigations and Response, Written Records, Consequences, and 

Mental Health Referrals); and, 

• Other district provisions (Communications, Training and Prevention, Transparency and Monitoring, Right 

to Legal Remedies).

The methods used to review and code state model policies were similar to those used to code state 

statutes. The procedure involved applying a systematic coding framework developed for the 

legislative review to describe the content and expansiveness of model policy documents. 

Exhibit 19 reports the number of key components that were identified in each state’s model policy 

and the number and percentage of model policies that covered each component. For the review of 

state model policies two components from the larger framework—the district policy development 

and review requirements—were excluded, as these components were primarily relevant to 

requirements established in legislation. The district policy component measuring definitions was 

replaced with the four key components that cover definitions of bullying behavior (i.e., purpose 

statement, scope, prohibitions, and enumeration of groups). Therefore, the maximum number of 

components that can be covered by a state model policy was 13. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

52

Exhibit 19. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components in state 

model bullying policies and guidance documents, by state (n=41) 

Definitions District policy components Additional components

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumerated groupsReportingInvestigationsWritten recordsConsequencesMental healthCommunicationsTraining/ preventionTransparency/ monitoringLegal remedies

TOTAL

Alabama          9

Alaska             12

Arkansas       6

California          9

Colorado              13

Connecticut             12

Delaware            11

Florida             12

Georgia           10

Hawaii              13

Idaho          9

Iowa            11

Kentucky            11

Louisiana          8

Maine            11

Maryland             12

Massachusetts              13

Michigan          9

Mississippi            11

Missouri            11

Montana          9

Nebraska        7

Nevada          9

New Hampshire            11

New Jersey              13

New Mexico            11

New York            11

North Carolina      5

Ohio             12

Oklahoma            11

Oregon           10

Pennsylvania           10

Rhode Island              13

South Carolina          9

Utah             12

Vermont            11

Virginia           10

Washington             12

West Virginia            11

Wisconsin             12

Wyoming            11

TOTAL: 37 36 39 29 40 40 35 40 21 40 39 28 9

PERCENT: 90% 88% 95% 71% 98% 98% 83% 98% 51% 98% 95% 68% 22%

Exhibit reads: The state model policy of Alabama covered nine out of a possible 13 components.

Source: Review of state model policies and guidance documents available as of April 30, 2011. 

Exhibit 20 shows the distribution of states by the number of key components covered in their 

model policies. More than half of all policy documents covered between nine and 11 components of 

the total 13 dimensions rated. Thirteen of the 41 policy documents were more extensive, covering 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

53

between 12 and13 key components and district policy components, and the remaining four model 

policies were less expansive, covering between one and eight dimensions reviewed (see Exhibit 20). 

The majority of key components and district policy subcomponents were well covered in policy 

documents, although there were exceptions. Mental health referrals and legal remedies for victims 

represented areas that were covered less broadly than other components. It also was notable that 

more than half of state model policies covered enumeration of groups, despite the fact that 

protected groups were enumerated in only 17 of 46 state laws. 

Exhibit 20. Coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components: Number of 

components and policy subcomponents covered in state model bullying policies and 

guidance documents, by number of states (n=41) 

9 

4 

24

13

0 5 10 15 20 25

No state model policy or 

guidance

1 to 8 components

9 to 11 components

12 to 13 components

Elements covered in state model policy

Number of states

Exhibit reads: Model policies and guidance documents for 13 states cover 12 or 13 components. 

Source: Review of state model policies and guidance documents available as of April 30, 2011.

Expansiveness Ratings Across State Model Policies

Each state model policy also was rated within key components and assigned a score of 0 to 2 

measuring the overall expansiveness of its provisions (see Exhibit 2 in Chapter I). Ratings within key 

components were summed to create a composite score across all of the components and school 

district components. The expansiveness ratings ranged in possible value from 0 to 26 covering eight 

key components and five components of district policies covering a total of 13 rated dimensions. 

The distribution of ratings illustrates the variance in expansiveness of state model policies across 

states. The total ratings and ratings within key components are presented numerically in rank order 

from most to least expansive model policies in Exhibit 21. States without bullying legislation 

produced model policies that also ranged in their expansiveness. That is, the state of Hawaii received 

the highest rating of expansiveness among states with model policies, despite the absence of any 

state bullying legislation, while Michigan’s state model policy received an average rating, and 

Montana’s policy fell below average. South Dakota is now the only state without bullying legislation 

that also lacks a state model policy.

The components of state model policies that were more or less broadly covered in policies, based on 

the previous analysis, were similar to components that were more or less expansive. Specifically, 

more expansive components of policies were definitions of prohibited behavior, consequences, 

communications, and reporting and investigations. Less expansive components included assurances 

of legal redress for victims and mental health referrals. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

54

Exhibit 21. Extent of expansiveness of state model bullying policies and guidance documents, by state

(n=41) 

Definitions District policy components Additional components

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumerated groupsReportingInvestigationsWritten recordsConsequencesMental healthCommunicationsTraining/ preventionTransparency/ monitoringLegal remedies

TOTAL

Alabama 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 10

Alaska 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 0 19

Arkansas 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7

California 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 15

Colorado 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 19

Connecticut 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 19

Delaware 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 18

Florida 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 22

Georgia 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 16

Hawaii 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 25

Idaho 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 14

Iowa 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 17

Kentucky 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 14

Louisiana 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 13

Maine 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 15

Maryland 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 22

Massachusetts 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 23

Michigan 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 16

Mississippi 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 18

Missouri 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 18

Montana 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 12

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 9

Nevada 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 15

New Hampshire 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 19

New Jersey 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 22

New Mexico 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 18

New York 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 20

North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 6

Ohio 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 20

Oklahoma 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 17

Oregon 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 12

Pennsylvania 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 14

Rhode Island 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 24

South Carolina 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 13

Utah 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 19

Vermont 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 15

Virginia 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 17

Washington 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 24

West Virginia 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 19

Wisconsin 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 19

Wyoming 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 18

Average 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.4

Exhibit reads: The state of Alabama received a rating of 10 out of a possible 26 points measuring expansiveness.

Source: State model policies and guidance documents available as of April 30, 2011.

Exhibit 22 demonstrates the amount of variation in the content of legislation enacted across states. 

Though more than one-third of all model policies ranged from 17 to 20 points on measures of 

expansiveness, the remaining states were fairly evenly distributed, with six policies scoring under 13, 

11 policies scoring between 13 to 16, and seven policies with high scores ranging from 21 to 25 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

55

points. This suggests that school districts are receiving relatively diverse guidance from their state 

departments of education on how to formulate district bullying policies. 

Exhibit 22. Distribution of expansiveness ratings for state model policies and guidance documents, by 

number of states (n=41) 

9 

6 

11

17

7 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

No state model policy or guidance

0 to 12 rating

13 to 16 rating

17 to 20 rating

21 to 25 rating

Exhibit reads: Model policies and guidance documents for seven states received an expansiveness rating between 21 and 25 

of a possible 26 points.

Note: The distribution of expansiveness ratings shows the number of state model policies that fell within each scoring range 

(i.e., 0 to 12, 13 to 16, 17 to 20, and 21 to 25) on a possible rating scale of 0 to 26 on measures of expansiveness.

Source: State model policies and guidance documents available as of April 30, 2011.

Exhibit 23 demonstrates the breadth of state model policies in coverage of key components relative 

to state legislation. The greatest differences in coverage between the model policies and laws are 

found in the following areas: 

• Enumeration of protected groups. Enumeration of groups is addressed in more than two-thirds (71

percent) of state model policies, whereas only a little over one-third of laws (37 percent) contain 

similar language on this component. This may reflect the fact that the inclusion of enumerated 

groups has been a focus of controversy in legislative and political debate in several states.

• Investigations and use of written records. School district policy requirements concerning the 

investigation of bullying incidents and the use of written records to document reports and 

investigation procedures are more frequently addressed in state policy than in legislation. This is 

consistent with the delegation of administrative detail to state agencies and local school 

districts.

• Mental health referrals. Provisions to address the mental health needs of students who bully and 

students who are targeted by bullying behavior are present in approximately half of all model 

policies (51 percent)compared to only one-quarter (28 percent) of state laws. 

• Transparency and monitoring. State guidelines for school districts to report and compile bullying 

incidents are outlined in two-thirds (68 percent) of all state model policies, compared to 

approximately two-fifths (39 percent) of legislative statutes. 

Distribution of expansiveness ratings

Number of school 

district policies
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

56

State model policies are less likely than state legislation to address two key components: 

1. Victim rights to pursue legal remedies are not covered extensively in either legislation or model 

policies, but are more likely to appear in state laws (39 percent) than in state model policies (22 

percent). This component conveys legal assurances to victims that they may bring claims 

against an individual or school district under other federal or state laws. 

2. Scope. State model policies are also somewhat less likely to contain language regarding scope or 

jurisdiction of the law, although 88 percent of state model policies do address school 

jurisdiction in policy documents.

Exhibit 23. Comparison of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components 

between state legislation and state model bullying policies, by key component (n=46)

Percent of laws or state model policies covering key components

39%

39%

85%

91%

28%

91%

39%

67%

78%

37%

93%

96%

85%

22%

68%

95%

98%

51%

98%

83%

98%

98%

71%

95%

88%

90%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Legal remedies

Transparency/monitoring

Training/prevention

Communications

Mental health referrals

Consequences

Written records

Investigations

Reporting

Enumerated groups

Prohibited behavior

Scope

Purpose

Key components Model policy State law

Exhibit reads: Purpose statements were covered in 90 percent of state model policies compared to 85 percent of state laws.

Source: State model policies and guidance documents available as of April 30, 2011.

States with more expansive coverage of key components in their laws also tend to produce more 

expansive state policies. Specifically, half of the 10 top rated laws also are rated in the top 10 on 

similar measures of their model policies. On the other hand, states with less expansive legislation 

also often produce more comprehensive state policy documents. Examples include Colorado, 

Wisconsin, and Missouri. Clearly, states can expand upon legislation through the development of 

more extensive policies particularly in states that mandate the adoption of policies at the school 

district level that conform to the state model. The converse is also true. Alabama, Louisiana, and 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

III. Analysis of State Model Bullying Policies

57

North and South Carolina each have more expansive state legislation, but are among the bottom 10 

with respect to the expansiveness of their state model policy documents.

Summary

The evaluation of model bullying policies formulated by state departments of education suggests 

that state agencies are recognizing the importance of providing local school districts with guidance 

on how to develop bullying policies, and often borrow from each other in crafting model bullying 

policies for their states. Although only 27 state laws legally require departments to provide guidance 

documents, 41 states have developed them, with the majority drafted in the most recent three or 

four-year period. For states without bullying legislation, these state models replace legislative 

requirements as the leading source of guidance on policy development. The review of coverage and 

expansiveness of model policies also shows how policies expand upon minimum requirements 

established under law, particularly around prescribed components of school districts’ policies, 

providing resources to districts to support local implementation.

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

59

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

The third component of the legislative and policy analysis seeks to evaluate the scope and content of 

a selection of bullying policies created by 20 school districts. The purpose of this exploratory 

analysis is to understand how local school district policies within a small sample of school districts 

address each of the key components and how the scope and content of district policies compare to 

their respective laws in each state. The analysis explores the assumption that state legislation can 

provide guidance and support for district and school policies addressing bullying behaviors and can 

help establish clear and consistent expectations and consequences for prohibited behavior (Lerman, 

2010). 

Key Findings

• Key components common to nearly all 20 school district policies include 

statements prohibiting bullying behavior, statements of scope, definitions of 

prohibited behavior, and discussions of sanctions for bullying behavior. This 

pattern conforms to traditional approaches to managing bullying behavior that 

emphasize reporting and disciplinary actions in response to individual conduct.

• The district policy component least frequently observed pertains to procedures 

for addressing mental health concerns of students who are bullied. 

• District policies not only contain definitions of bullying and core district policy 

components, but also other key components, including procedures for 

publicizing policies, training and prevention for students and school personnel, 

and transparency and monitoring. 

• District policies are generally more expansive than their authorizing legislation. 

• Districts located in states with more expansive legislation have produce the most 

expansive school district policies, although several school districts with less 

expansive laws also have substantially expanded the scope and content of their 

policies beyond the minimum legal expectations. 

Selected Districts and Local Bullying Policies

District bullying policies were collected from 20 school districts that were randomly selected based 

on geographic region and urban or rural locale. The sample included 19 states, with two districts 

selected from the state of Texas. The analysis focused on 20 moderate- to large-size school districts 

that each enroll 9,000 students or more. The selected sample of 20 districts supports a total school 

enrollment of over 1 million students in grades K through 12. Although the districts were selected 

on a stratified-random basis, the sample is too small to be considered truly representative of all 

districts in the country. Nevertheless, it should be indicative of policies and practices found across 

the country. 

District bullying policies show considerable variation in both their structure and the way in which 

policies are framed. Fifteen of the reviewed documents are stand-alone school board policies 

ranging in length from one to six pages. Five other district policies are embedded within larger codes 

of conduct governing all forms of behavior and discipline within the school setting. These codes of 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

60

conduct either integrate bullying language into more general discussions of discipline management 

by including “bullying and intimidation” on lists of behavioral infractions or establish separate 

sections of code specific to bullying issues. 

Policies also vary with regard to how they are framed. Specifically:

• About half of all policies are strictly “bullying” policies. 

• Two districts with “bullying” policies also maintain separate, but related policies addressing 

“harassment.” 

• Five documents are framed as policies on “bullying, harassment, and intimidation” where terms 

are used interchangeably. 

• One district policy addresses “bullying and cyberbullying” and one addresses “bullying and 

hazing,” and 

• Three policies address a wide range of related behaviors, for example, policies governing 

“threats, bullying, cyberbullying, intimidation, harassment, and hazing,” “bullying, taunting, 

stalking, hazing, and other forms of harassment, including sexual harassment,” or “bullying, 

intimidation, and hostile or offensive conduct.” 

The way school board policies are framed reflects the same variation in terminology observed in 

state legislation, which reflects how the bullying issue was defined. Later discussion will focus on the 

extent to which actual definitions of bullying behavior discussed in district policies conform to how 

behavior was defined in state laws. 

District Policy Components

The analysis in this section describes local policies in terms of their coverage of the six key policy 

components identified by the Department. Policies are rated within each component according to 

their coverage and overall expansiveness. The six components include: 1) bullying definitions; 2) 

reporting procedures; 3) investigations and response; 4) use of written records; 5) consequences or 

sanctions for prohibited behavior; and, 6) procedures for counseling or referral for mental health 

services and supports. The first component—bullying definitions—encompasses four components 

from the larger framework measuring purpose, scope, prohibited behavior, and enumeration of 

groups. These components together establish how bullying is operationally defined. The review 

covers each of these nine dimensions (i.e., the four definitional components of component one and 

the five remaining district policy components). 

Reviews of state legislation also revealed that some laws establish additional requirements for district 

policies beyond the six core components conceptualized by the Department. For example, states 

that mandate districts to implement bullying prevention programs often require that prevention 

strategies be addressed in district policies. In states where prevention is simply encouraged, the 

inclusion of prevention language in policy is often left to the discretion of local school systems. 

Similarly, states that mandate training for school personnel typically require that training provisions 

be addressed in school district policies. 

Other such components as expectations for publicizing policy content or for documenting bullying 

incidence also may not be explicitly required as a component of policy, but schools and districts are 

still expected to comply with these legal requirements. Accordingly, districts may be implementing 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

61

these provisions without addressing them in their formal policy documents. These additional 

components were excluded from systematic coding of coverage or expansiveness in order to 

conform to the guiding conceptual framework for the study, but are discussed briefly in narrative 

sections of the chapter due to their presence in most policies. 

Prohibitions and Purpose Statement

Eighteen district policies contain clear prohibitions against bullying behavior on 

their school campuses and most include language conveying the purpose for 

establishing the policy. 

Thirteen of the 20 districts in the sample are required by law to contain bullying prohibitions in their 

district policies. Each of these 13 districts has policies that include the necessary prohibiting 

statements, as do five other districts without any legal requirements. In all, 18 school board policies 

or codes of conduct directly prohibit bullying behavior or list bullying as a prohibited disciplinary 

infraction. The two remaining school board policies, each in states without mandatory prohibitions, 

use less explicit language to communicate expectations to schools. For example:

• A district’s policy in Arizona expresses the school board’s commitment “to providing all 

students with a safe school environment where everyone is treated with respect” and states that 

“students have a right to be free from any form of bullying.” 

• A district’s policy in Missouri conveys the district’s commitment “to maintaining a learning and 

working environment free of any form of bullying or intimidation.”

Nine policies also contain specific prohibitions against reprisal or retaliation against individuals who 

witness or report bullying incidents, and five prohibit false reporting. 

Statements communicating the purpose or intent of a policy represent different orientations toward 

addressing bullying behavior. Several policies emphasize individual rights of students, for example, 

characterizing bullying as a “violation of basic rights of the students and staff to be in a safe and 

orderly learning environment.” Other policies reflect the importance of promoting school climate, 

for example, by expressing the need to ensure a “safe, caring, and respectful learning environment” 

or by recognizing “the negative effect that bullying has on student health, welfare and safety and on 

the learning environment at schools.” 

Other policies emphasize the importance of discipline and personal conduct. One purpose 

statement communicates the expectation that students “exhibit appropriate conduct that does not 

infringe upon the rights of others.” Two policies include language referencing law enforcement 

involvement. Specifically one warns that “criminal acts or disruptive behavior of any kind will not be 

tolerated and any individual who engages in such activity will be subject to school disciplinary action, 

prosecution, or both.” Another policy cautions that bullying “may in circumstances be a violation of 

federal or state law.” This language reflects the emerging trend of imposing criminal sanctions for 

bullying behavior to deter future aggressors. 

These different orientations communicate the intent behind legislation and policy, as well as the 

relative importance placed on different aspects of the bullying issue, such as a strong emphasis on 

promoting positive school climate and prevention, versus an emphasis on strong enforcement of 

rules of conduct. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

62

Statement of Scope

Nineteen district policies contain a statement of scope establishing parameters for 

where bullying policies apply. Ten district policies extend the schools’ jurisdiction to 

any off-campus conduct that negatively impacts the school environment.

The statements of scope that establish school jurisdiction over bullying behavior are similar to those 

found in state legislation. The number of policies that address conduct occurring on school grounds 

or property, at school-sponsored events, or other school settings is shown in Exhibit 24. Eight 

policies extend enforcement of bullying behavior to school-sponsored events or activities that are 

held “off-campus,” for example, at “times when conduct is related to school” or “when conduct has 

a connection to school or any district curricular or non-curricular activity.” Twelve district policies 

address bullying behavior that occurs on school buses or other vehicles, five cover bus stops, and 

five address behavior that takes place while students are in-transit (e.g., walking to and from 

campus). 

Ten districts adopt the broadest language found in bullying policies concerning scope. This language 

extends jurisdiction over student conduct to off-campus acts that have the effect of creating a 

hostile learning environment. For example: 

• A district policy in Connecticut states that “bullying which occurs outside of the school may be 

addressed by school officials if it has a direct and negative impact on a student’s academic 

performance or safety in school.” 

• One Texas district policy grants schools the “authority to administer discipline whenever the 

interest of the school is involved, on or off school property, in conjunction with or 

independent of classes and school-sponsored activities.” 

• A district policy in Louisiana covers off-campus conduct as it relates to acts of cyberbullying. 

Exhibit 24. Statements of scope in school district bullying policies, by number of school districts (n=20)

1 

5 

5 

8 

10

12

16

19

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

No statement of scope

In-transit

Bus stops

School functions off/on campus

Off campus conduct

Bus/vehicle

School-sponsored functions

School grounds/property

Categories

of scope

Number of school 

districts

Exhibit reads: The statement of scope in 19 school district policies grants jurisdiction on school grounds or property. 

Note: The policy from a school district in New Mexico was the only policy that did not contain language defining the scope of the 

school’s jurisdiction over bullying behavior.

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

63

The policy from a Pennsylvania district does not address off-campus conduct, but does 

communicate parental responsibility for students’ off-campus behavior. The policy encourages 

parents “to contact one another directly in an attempt to resolve those situations that occur outside 

of the school setting.” Pennsylvania state law, as noted in an earlier section, does not require 

enforcement of off-campus but grants districts discretion to extend school jurisdiction over offcampus behavior. There is one district in New Mexico that did not address scope in its bullying 

policy. 

Prohibited Behaviors

Definitions for prohibited conduct in school district policies also show substantial variation across 

local school systems, which reflect the same general variation observed in state laws. The strongest 

illustration of this inconsistency is found in how two Texas districts define prohibited conduct. 

Whereas one policy conforms closely to the state legislative definition, the other defines bullying 

much differently. This lack of conformity also appears in other areas across the selected sample of 

policies. For example, whereas one policy considers “normal rough-housing and friendly teasing” to 

be acceptable behavior distinguishable from actions that are meant to cause harm, another states 

that “friendly or playful teasing may be considered bullying when such repeated behaviors continue 

despite clear signs of distress or opposition on the part of the victim.” 

All district definitions include language capturing the general harm of bullying and the physical and 

psychological damage incurred by victims. Exhibit 25 illustrates how frequently certain language 

appears in district policies to characterize the impact of bullying on victims and their school 

environments. About half of the policies capture threats or fear of harm in their bullying definitions 

and six policies cover damage to property. District policies also address the impact on the larger 

school environment when bullying creates a hostile environment for bullying victims, interferes with 

learning, or disrupts the school setting. These factors are often central in legal arguments for why 

schools should have jurisdiction over off-campus behavior, with the onus placed on schools to 

demonstrate that the behavior has disrupted the on-campus school environment (Hutton, 2007).

Exhibit 25. School district bullying policy language to define bullying behavior and associated harm, by 

number of school districts (n=20)

6 

8 

10

11

13

16

17

20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Property damage

Disrupts school setting

Interferes with learning

Threats or fear of harm

Creates hostile environment

Psychological harm

Physical harm

General harm

Language in policies to

define bullying behaviors

Number of school 

districts

Exhibit reads: Policies in 20 school districts use the language “general harm” to define bullying behaviors.

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

64

Fewer than half of all definitions establish the condition that bullying behavior 

must be repeated, systematic, or part of a pattern of behavior.

Bullying policies in seven of the 20 districts are consistent with research-based definitions that 

require bullying to be reoccurring or part of a pattern of behavior. Eleven districts do not contain 

any specific language pertaining to the number of acts. Two districts clearly specify that bullying may

be a single act or occurrence and does not have to be part of a repeated pattern.

More than half of definitions contained in district policies were inclusive of 

behaviors that constitute relational aggression.

Eleven local policies contain inclusive language capturing relational aggression. For example, one 

district defines bullying as “physical, emotional, and verbal acts” that include “threatening looks, 

gestures, rumors, false accusations, social isolation.” One district defines bullying as a “written or 

verbal expression or physical conduct,” but provides examples in the policy that include rumor 

spreading and ostracism. Another example from policy includes a prohibition against “indirect 

actions that are intended to inflict physical or emotional discomfort upon another and can result in 

cruel rumors, false accusations, and social isolation.” The nine remaining policies, however, focus 

largely on written, verbal, or physical acts. 

The majority of district policies contain specific prohibitions against 

cyberbullying or other electronic acts, though many restrict prohibitions to use of 

school computers or technologies.

Fifteen of the 20 school district policies contain language pertaining to cyberbullying or acts of 

bullying using electronic means. Exhibit 26 demonstrates that nearly half of districts prohibit 

cyberbullying and also provide concrete definitions of the types of cyberbullying behavior that are 

prohibited under the policy. An example of one of the most comprehensive cyberbullying 

definitions is found in a district policy from Colorado, which defines cyberbullying as “the use of 

information and communication technologies such as E-mail, cell phone, and pager text messages, 

instant messaging, defamatory personal websites, and defamatory online personal polling websites, 

to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to 

harm others.” 

Exhibit 26. Number of district policies addressing cyberbullying or electronic acts (n=20)

Prohibited, defined

(9)

Prohibited, not defined

(6)

Not mentioned

(5)

Exhibit reads: Policies in nine districts include language that prohibits and specifically defines cyberbullying or electronic acts. 

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

65

Four other districts prohibit cyberbullying, without providing a specific definition, while the 

remaining seven districts do not specifically address cyberbullying in their board policies. Seven 

districts use the term “cyberbullying,” five refer to “electronic communication” or use of “electronic 

media,” and one uses the term “online harassment.” 

School district policy provisions addressing cyberbullying are not always consistent with the 

language in their respective states’ legislation. For example:

• Districts in Colorado and New York each add clauses into their local policies to address 

cyberbullying even though cyberbullying is not covered under their respective state laws. 

• A district in Nevada omits language covering cyberbullying despite explicit requirements to 

address cyberbullying under state law. School districts within Nevada are required to adopt the 

model policy created by the department of education, although the policy has only recently 

been developed. This may account for differences between Nevada’s legislative requirements 

and provisions found in the district’s policy documents. The district does, however, prohibit 

“online harassment” through its acceptable Internet use policy. 

Enumeration of Groups

Sixteen school district bullying and harassment policies identify groups of 

students who are explicitly protected from bullying and harassment under schoolbased policies. 

The enumeration of groups in school district bullying policies is contained within bullying 

definitions, in separate definitions of harassment within the same policy, or in separate peer 

harassment policies that are referenced in bullying policy documents. Although the focus of the 

study is on policies governing bullying in schools, the conflation between bullying and harassment, 

evident in how bullying is defined and how legislation and policy is formulated, creates an 

inextricable link between the two categories of behavior. 

Each of the district policies that name protected groups define bullying as potentially motivated by 

characteristics of students who are bullied, although all of the policies make clear that behavior does 

not need to reflect bullied students’ characteristics to constitute bullying. For example, the Maryland 

district policy states that bullying “takes many forms and may include many different behaviors,”

and identifies “motivation by any actual or perceived characteristic” as one of several possible 

conditions that may characterize bullying behavior. District policies are also inclusive in their 

language regarding named groups, commonly using the phrase “including, but not limited to” to 

expand coverage under the policy to any targeted student regardless of their group affiliation or 

personal characteristics. In effect, the enumeration language found in policies communicates 

protections for specific classes of students but does not restrict bullying definitions to acts that are 

motivated by target characteristics. 

Exhibit 27 illustrates that the most common groups or classes listed in district bullying and 

harassment policies are groups protected under federal civil rights legislation, including race or 

national origin, religion, disability, and sex. Half of the policies, or eight of 16, also add protections 

for sexual orientation, and five cover gender identity or expression. Other less commonly named 

characteristics include age, physical appearance, and socioeconomic or family status. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

66

Exhibit 27. Enumerated characteristics in school district bullying policies, by number of school districts

(n=20)

1 

2 

2 

2 

5 

8 

12

12

13

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Socio-economic status

Family status

Age

Physical appearance

Gender identity or expression

Sexual orientation

Sex or gender

Religion/religious practice

Disability

Race/color/national origin

Enumerated characteristics

Number of school 

districts

Exhibit reads: Race/color/national origin is a protected group in 16 school district bullying policies. 

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts.

Reporting

Seventeen district bullying policies contain specific procedures for reporting 

incidents of bullying on school campuses.

Procedures for reporting bullying incidents are present in almost all bullying policies, though 

reporting requirements vary considerably in terms of responsibilities assigned to parents, students, 

and school personnel. The three districts without reporting procedures each integrate bullying 

provisions into their student codes of conduct and do not have stand-alone bullying policies, which 

may explain why reporting was not addressed. 

Typically, the discussion of procedures found within local policies outline detailed steps for 

reporting incidents on school campuses and identify personnel responsible for receiving bullying 

complaints. This contrasts with state legislation which is typically limited to use of general directives 

requiring districts to address reporting procedures. Exhibit 28 shows that 17 of the 20 policies 

reviewed outline responsibilities for members of the school community related to reporting bullying 

incidents. Specifically, 10 districts mandate school personnel to report any knowledge of bullying on 

the school campus. Four of those districts also obligate students to report acts that are witnessed. 

Three district policies encourage staff and students to report bullying, but do not require it, and 

three district codes of conduct that cover bullying behavior do mention reporting of bullying 

incidents. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

67

Exhibit 28. School district policy requirements for reporting bullying incidents, by number of school 

districts (n=20)

3 

3 

4 

10

0 5 10 15 20

No requirement for staff reporting

Encouraged reporting by staff/students

Mandatory staff and student reporting

Mandatory staff reporting

Reporting requirements

Number of school 

districts

Exhibit reads: Ten district policies mandate that school personnel report bullying incidents.

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts.

Two district policies in Pennsylvania and Colorado convey expectations for staff to take “immediate, 

appropriate steps to intervene” in any observed bullying situations. However, neither policy requires 

staff to report the incident unless the employee determines that the problem has not been 

sufficiently resolved.

An Arizona district’s policy states that “students, parents, and District employees have a right and 

responsibility to report incidents of bullying.” It is one of only four policies that mandate reporting 

by students. It also requires that reports be submitted within 30 days of the incident and states that 

“failure to report an alleged bullying incident may subject district employee to disciplinary action.” 

A district in New Mexico also has a stringent policy that imposes penalties on school personnel for 

failing to comply with policy provisions. Specifically, the policy outlines mandatory reporting 

requirements for school personnel who either witness or receive a report of a bullying incident, and 

includes requirements for school administrators to conduct a confidential investigation of all 

bullying complaints. School personnel who fail to “discharge a duty imposed by the policy,” such as 

reporting a suspected bullying incident, may be subject to sanctions, including a warning or 

reprimand, suspension, termination, or discharge. 

Investigations and Response

Sixteen district policies address the investigation of bullying complaints.

District bullying policies or codes of conduct for 16 school districts outline expectations for how 

districts should investigate bullying complaints. Eight district policies with less expansive provisions 

provide assurances that reported incidents of bullying will be investigated, but do not outline specific 

details of the investigation procedures. For example, the language might state that “reported 

incidents of bullying will be investigated promptly and thoroughly by the school administration” or 

that a “designee shall ensure that all reports involving student bullying in any such circumstance are 

promptly and thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action is taken.” 

Eight other district policies provided detail specifying how bullying complaints must be investigated 

and outlining specific steps or components of the formal investigation procedure. Examples include 

language establishing precise time lines for completing the investigation, requiring safeguards be 

established for students who are bullied or witnesses who are involved in an investigation, providing 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

68

assurances that the confidentiality of those involved in the investigation be maintained, and 

establishing appeal procedures for students who are dissatisfied with the outcome of an 

investigation. The school district policy in Utah is the only policy that outlines special 

accommodations for young students and students with special needs who may have difficulty 

preparing written statements (e.g., use of tape recorders or transcription) as part of an investigation. 

Written Records

Thirteen district policies or codes of conduct require written reports of bullying 

incidents or written documentation of an investigation and resolution of complaints.

Nearly three-quarters of reviewed school district policies include specific language requiring written 

documentation of bullying complaints or investigations. The degree of detail varies between policies, 

ranging from brief mentions of written formats to more concrete explanations of documentation 

requirements. The less detailed policies set simple requirements, for example, “that reported 

incidents be reduced to written form” or limited its written requirements to cases involving 

suspension or expulsion of a student. Other policies establish clear expectations related to the use of 

written forms and timing of their submission. 

For example, one policy requires that “a written report shall be prepared upon the completion of the 

investigation. If the complaint involves the superintendent of schools, the report shall be made and 

filed directly with the school board. Another documentation requirement contained within a student 

code of conduct outlined each student’s right to due process, which includes the right to “receive 

written notice of the reasons for disciplinary action for alleged violations.” 

One of the more expansive district policies was one that required parents or guardians and school 

personnel who receive reports or who witness acts of bullying to submit a report in writing. The 

policy also requires that schools notify the parents of students involved in verified acts of bullying by 

mail in the form of a notice that describes “the schools’ response and any consequences that may 

result in further acts of bullying.” Another expansive policy also requires school personnel to report 

incidents in writing. The policy further mandates that the administrator who receives the report shall 

investigate the complaint and file a report with the school superintendent on components of the 

investigation, findings, and proposed actions within 10 days of receipt of the complaints. The 

superintendent is expected to respond by either “approving the proposal or directing further or 

different actions” within five school days. Three policies specifically referred to standardized 

reporting forms (e.g., statement of facts form) or mentioned “use of appropriate district forms.” 

Consequences and Sanctions

All 20 school district policies include specific provisions addressing consequences or 

sanctions for bullying behavior.

All district policies reference consequences, or identify specific disciplinary actions that can be 

imposed, often including suspension or expulsion. These sections of policy vary, ranging from very 

brief references, for example, a statement that the district “will act appropriately within the discipline 

codes of the District,” to very detailed sections outlining a series of graduated consequences for 

bullying behavior by levels of offense. Policies contained within student codes of conduct are more 

likely to delineate specific consequences than stand-alone bullying policies, which may or may not 

reference other disciplinary codes. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

69

Ten district policies that address bullying consequences focus largely on punitive sanctions that 

often include suspension, expulsion, transfer to alternative programs, or denial of participation in 

extracurricular or co-curricular activities.” The Georgia school district includes the most stringent 

school-based disciplinary approach, which mandates the expulsion of students upon a third bullying 

offense. Noted in an earlier discussion, this consequence is a required provision in district policies

under Georgia state law. 

A majority of bullying policies also outline procedures for reporting bullying offenses to law 

enforcement if the behavior is in violation of criminal law. This expanded role for law enforcement 

in response to school disciplinary problems reflects a relatively recent trend toward criminalization 

of school-based offenses that might not traditionally fall under the purview of law enforcement

agencies. This shift is similarly observed in state legislation, which increasingly requires district 

policies to establish clear procedures that either facilitate or mandate law enforcement reporting.

Ten district policies suggest a range of disciplinary consequences for prohibited behavior that 

include nonpunitive behavioral supports for aggressive students and that range from very general to 

relatively detailed. For example: 

• A district’s code of conduct policy in New York outlines a broad range of guidance 

interventions to address bullying and cyberbullying behavior. These include, but are not limited 

to, interventions by counseling staff, positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), 

peer mediation and conflict resolution, and referrals to counseling services. 

• A district’s policy in Colorado, by contrast, states that “the discipline process should be 

instructive and corrective and that its focus should be on helping the student to change or 

control inappropriate behavior, rather than on punishment.” 

The different approaches to enforcing bullying prohibitions reflect the different options available to 

districts to respond to bullying behavior, as well as different orientations that schools adopt to deal 

with bullying effectively.

Mental Health Referrals 

Four district policies communicate clear provisions to address the mental health 

needs of students who are bullied and 10 contain counseling provisions or other 

nonpunitive behavioral interventions for students who bully others. 

Bullying prevention and intervention approaches often emphasize the importance of intervening 

with youths involved in bullying to provide psychological supports and address concerns that place 

youths at-risk for bullying or bullying victimization (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010). However, among 

the board policies or codes of conduct reviewed, only four policies from districts in Connecticut, 

Maryland, New York, and Utah contain some form of mental health component addressing the 

psychological support needs of students who are bullied. The following are examples of language 

found in the four policy documents conveying each districts’ approach to delivering supports to 

students targeted by bullying: 

• A district policy in Connecticut calls for “case-by-case interventions for addressing reported 

incidents against a single individual or recurrently perpetuated bullying incidents by the same 

individual that may include both counseling and discipline.” 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

70

• A district policy in Maryland mandates implementation of a whole-school bullying program that 

must include “support services for the bully, victim, witnesses, and bystanders.” 

• A district policy from New York states that “when a student or group of students engages in 

bias-based bullying, intimidation or harassment of another student or group of students, both 

the victim and the student who engages in this behavior should be referred to separate 

appropriate counseling, support and education services provided by school staff or a 

community-based agency.”

• A district policy in Utah communicates the intent “to respond to school-related bullying 

incidents by implementing prevention efforts where victims of bullying can be identified and 

assisted.”

As noted in the previous section, 10 school district policies include language outlining nonpunitive 

responses to bullying behavior to support and intervene with students who bully. The language used 

to describe these alternative consequences varies, ranging from descriptions of individual 

interventions that aim to address the psycho-social needs of aggressive students, to more general 

mentions of “referrals to counseling” or “education for perpetrators,” which are listed as options for 

disciplining in codes of conduct. These provisions are coded in the analysis under ratings of 

consequences and sanctions. Specifically, policies outlining use of positive behavioral supports for 

bullies in addition to more traditional discipline methods (e.g., suspension and expulsion) are rated 

as more expansive than those relying on purely punitive sanctions to respond to school bullying 

behavior. Overall, provisions to address either the psychological needs of bullied students or the 

behavioral support needs of students who engage in bullying had relatively limited coverage in 

school district policies. This is consistent with the limited coverage of these provisions in state laws.

Additional Components

The remaining key components cover other legislative requirements and expectations for schools 

and districts that were not conceptualized as district policy components in the U.S. Department of 

Education’s key component framework. These additional components include requirements for how 

policies should be communicated to members of the school community, expectations for 

implementing prevention strategies and school personnel training, requirements for documenting 

and reporting bullying incidents, and statements regarding victims’ rights to legal remedies. These 

additional provisions were reviewed and discussed in narrative due to their presence in the majority 

of district policies, but were excluded from systematic ratings of policy coverage or expansiveness.

Review of Local Policies

Three school districts’ policies included specific language outlining a process for 

policies to be reviewed by the state department of education.

School districts in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania are 

required by law to submit their school district bullying or harassment policies to the state 

department of education for review. Although it was not anticipated that policy documents would 

contain language outlining the review process, districts in Connecticut, Maryland, and Utah each

mentioned requirements for review under state law. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

71

Communication

Seventeen districts include language related to communication of policies. 

The majority of school board policies or codes of conduct include some language reflecting how 

policies are communicated. For example, a district’s school board policy in Utah requires schools to 

publicly post rules and disciplinary policies and to communicate rules and procedures in writing to 

new and returning students at the beginning of each school year, to transfer students at the time of 

their enrollment, and to parents and guardians. 

Three districts’ policies have strong communication provisions that require schools to actively 

review and discuss school bullying policies with students and school personnel. Specifically: 

• A school board policy in Louisiana requires that the district bullying policy be publicly posted 

in accessible locations on school campuses and requires the district to establish a method for 

discussing the policy with students, administrators, teachers, and other school personnel who 

are in contact with students. 

• A district policy in Maryland creates a standardized form for reporting bullying incidents and 

requires that information on the form be communicated to members of the school community 

through multiple sources. 

• A district policy in South Carolina places responsibility with the superintendent to ensure that 

the policy is provided to students, staff, parents/legal guardians, volunteers, and members of 

the community and to establish a process for discussing the policy with students. 

Training and Prevention

Eleven district policies include provisions for training school personnel or 

implementing prevention programs or strategies. 

State legislation communicates district responsibilities for school personnel training and prevention 

differently. For example, staff training is often listed as a required component of school district 

policies, whereas prevention programming is often suggested rather than mandated, and is typically 

addressed outside of prescribed district policy provisions. Accordingly, districts may be addressing 

bullying prevention or training, even though their activities are not communicated through formal 

school policies. 

Training for School Personnel 

Nine school districts in the sample are in states with laws mandating training for school personnel, 

and one is in a state that encourages training, but does not require it. The other half of districts are 

in states where legislation does not address school personnel training in any form. The expectations 

for training conveyed in school district bullying policies vary with regard to the implied purpose of 

training programs and the level of detail with which training requirements are communicated. Most 

policy provisions are oriented toward training school personnel on enforcement of the bullying 

policy. For example, Missouri’s policy requires the district to “provide training for employees relative 

to enforcement of this policy.” Virginia’s district policy mandates that school personnel receive inperson training “to ensure a consistent approach is adopted on a division-wide basis.” Maryland’s 

district policy states that the district shall develop educational programs for teachers and 

administrators to support implementation and enforcement of the bullying policy. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

72

Training components of other district policies focus on educating school personnel about the nature 

of bullying behavior. For example, Utah’s district policy outlines plans for training students, staff, 

and volunteers on overt aggression, relational aggression or “indirect, covert, or social aggression,” 

and cyberbullying, and provides for training and education specific to bullying “based upon students’ 

actual or perceived identities, and conformance or failure to conform with stereotypes.”

Prevention 

Prevention program expectations found in district polices vary regarding the extent to which they 

provide clear guidelines and expectations related to specific prevention programs or activities. Some 

policies are vague, communicating the importance of school-wide prevention efforts for maintaining 

positive school climate, without outlining specific requirements for schools to follow. Other policies 

present clear expectations for schools. For example, a district policy from Pennsylvania indicates 

that students “will be provided with skills to deal with bullying situations and will be made aware of 

available resources to assist in resolution of the problem.” A district policy from Utah outlines a 

requirement that each school develop a local prevention program by adopting a district approved 

model. The program must provide discussion and training on bullying issues on an annual basis, and 

must include an assessment of bullying prevalence in the school with documentation of locations 

where students feel most unsafe, and strategies for providing students and staff with awareness, 

intervention skills, and social skills training. The policy also requires that districts adopt a school 

bullying prevention program that includes strategies to promote bullying awareness and to build 

intervention and social skills. The training program targets students and all staff, including aides, 

custodians, kitchen and lunchroom workers, secretaries, paraprofessionals, and coaches. The district 

policy from Connecticut offers another example of a more comprehensive prevention component. 

That is, Connecticut district policy requires the district to implement a prevention and intervention 

strategy, which may include a number of suggested components, including: positive behavioral 

interventions and supports or other evidence-based model approaches for safe school climate, 

surveys to determine prevalence of bullying, increased adult supervision of areas where bullying 

typically occurs, individual interventions with the bullies, parents and staff, individual interventions 

with bullied students, their parents, and staff, and school-wide training related to safe school climate.

Transparency and Monitoring

Three districts included provisions for monitoring and reporting incidents of 

bullying on their school campuses.

Transparency and monitoring were covered under three district policies, although more districts may 

be performing data recording and reporting functions without specifically addressing these activities 

in their written policies. Only one policy required schools to establish a system for recording 

bullying incidents and to report data to the state department of education. Specifically:

• A district’s policy in Connecticut contains the strongest provisions for monitoring by requiring 

that each school contain a “publicly available list of the number of verified bullying acts that 

occurred there, and within available appropriations, report such number to the Department of 

Education annually and in such manner as prescribed by the Commissioner of Education.” 

• A district’s policy in Utah requires that an assessment of bullying prevalence be completed as 

an element of each school’s bullying and hazing prevention program. The focus of the 

assessment, however, is on identifying locations on campus where students are most unsafe and 

where supervision may be needed, rather than on monitoring bullying prevalence over time. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

73

• A district’s policy in Colorado encourages schools to collect and monitor bullying-related data 

using surveys, questionnaires, discipline statistics, and information reported under “learning 

environment goal(s)” in their annual school improvement plans. 

Right to Seek Other Legal Remedies

Two district policies include language communicating assurances to bullying 

victims of their rights to pursue other legal remedies under state or federal law. 

Statements communicating the rights of victims to seek redress under the law are present in two

district policies. These statements vary with regard to their specificity. For example, a district policy 

in Virginia guarantees individuals the right “to pursue other avenues of recourse to address concerns 

relating to prohibited harassment, including initiating civil action, filing a complaint with outside 

agencies or seeking redress under state or federal law.” The second policy, from a district in 

Maryland, simply states that the policy “does not limit the legal rights of a victim of bullying, 

harassment, or intimidation.” These two districts are each in states that contain legal assurances of 

victims’ rights in the text of legislation.

District Policy Coverage of Key Components 

Each of the 20 district policies was reviewed to determine the extent to which policies covered nine 

key components, including four components that together comprise how bullying is defined and five 

policy components that are typically required by law to be addressed in local board policy 

documents. 

The total count of components covered in school board policies or codes of conduct across each of 

the nine dimensions is shown in Exhibit 29. One district in the sample has a policy addressing fewer 

than half of the nine dimensions reviewed. This policy focuses primarily on individual conduct and 

associated consequences for bullies and does not address support for victims or conditions in the 

larger school environment that prevent or mediate bullying behavior, such as clear communication, 

prevention and training for students and school personnel, or provisions to ensure accountability. 

This district is located in a state that falls among the bottom 10 with regard to the expansiveness of 

their bullying legislation. 

Overall the key components that are common to nearly all local district policies include statements 

prohibiting bullying behavior, definitions of prohibited behavior, statement of scope, and 

discussions of consequences. This conforms to the pattern found in many states’ legislation that 

emphasizes more traditional approaches to addressing bullying, focusing on individual conduct. 

Components that are least frequently observed across the nine coded dimensions include procedures 

addressing mental health needs of victims, and the use of written records. Mental health supports 

for students who are victims of bullying are only addressed in four policy documents, although 

districts do promote counseling as a strategy to address behavioral issues for bullies. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

74

Exhibit 29. Extent of coverage of U.S. Department of Education-identified key components in local 

district and board bullying policy documents, by state (n=20)

School District Components

Definitions Provisions

State

PurposeScopeProhibited behaviorEnumeration of groupsReportingInvestigationWritten recordsConsequencesMental health

TOTAL

Arizona        7

California         8

Colorado         8

Connecticut          9

Georgia       6

Indiana        7

Louisiana         8

Maryland          9

Michigan        7

Missouri     4

Nevada       6

New Mexico        7

New York      5

Ohio         8

Pennsylvania         8

South Carolina        7

Texas (city)         8

Texas (town)      5

Utah         8

Virginia         8

18 19 20 16 17 16 13 20 4

90% 95% 100% 80% 85% 80% 65% 100% 20%

Exhibit reads: The district selected from Arizona covered seven school district policy components in its local bullying policy.

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts. 

Comparison Between Definitions in State Legislation and Model Policies and Definitions in 

District Policies 

The analysis of school district policy content also focused on assessing the extent to which 

definitions in school policies conform to definitions in legislation to evaluate the degree of 

consistency in how bullying is defined within states. This review uncovered substantial differences in 

the way bullying is defined across state agencies and local school systems within individual states. 

Among school districts in the sample, 18 are governed by laws that define bullying behavior. Ten 

districts are explicitly required to define bullying within their school district policies. Of those 10

districts, seven must adopt the same legal definition of bullying found in state statute, and three 

others are granted discretion over how bullying in schools is defined. In eight districts, legal 

expectations for bullying definitions are unspecified or unclear, and in two others there is no state 

legislation, or else the law does not define bullying or set expectations for local policies. The 

following summary explores the relationship between state and district definitions of bullying within 

each of these policy settings. 

• District policies must adopt the legal definition of bullying as defined in state statute. Of the seven districts 

that must legally define bullying based on state definitions, five districts meet the requirement 

and two others in New York and Nevada do not. Enacted legislation in New York does not go 

into effect until July 2012, which may explain why the district code of conduct does not 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

75

conform to the law. State law in Nevada requires districts to adopt the standard definition 

included in its state model policy, although the state model was not drafted until 2011. 

• District policies must include a definition but are given discretion over how bullying is defined. The state laws 

of New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia outline the specific provisions that must be 

contained in district policies, which either include a definition of bullying or require the 

adoption of model policies. The law does not explicitly require the definition to match the legal 

definition in state statutes. New Mexico and Pennsylvania have state model policies that define 

bullying using the same definition in the law; however, neither of the two district policies 

matches the legal definition found in the legislation and state model policy for their respective 

states. The definition in the district policy in Virginia also did not conform to the definition in 

the model regulation for codes of conduct.

• District policy requirements did not specify how bullying should be defined or requirements were unclear. Eight 

districts are in states that do not require local policies to include definitions of bullying or 

dictate how bullying should be defined. Five of these eight districts adopt the state’s legal 

definition and, of those, two are in states with model policies that adopt the same definition. 

Two districts are in states with either no bullying legislation (i.e., Michigan) or in states where 

bullying behavior is not defined at the legislative level (i.e., Arizona). Specifically:

• The Michigan school district policy was created without legislative guidance, although the 

Michigan State Board of Education model policy was adopted in September of 2006. The 

selected district policy was most recently revised in November of 2004. The definitions of 

bullying are dissimilar. Michigan had one of the earliest state model policies to be developed; 

however, the finding indicates that districts are not required to adopt the new model policy or 

to update their existing policies. 

• A district’s policy in Arizona was developed without guidance from a legal definition and 

without a model policy from the state. 

In all, only half of the 20 school district definitions of bullying conform to how bullying is defined in 

their state legislation. 

Expansiveness Ratings Across District Policies

The next section describes the content of school district policies according to the same approach 

used to rate state legislation in Chapter II, adjusted to reflect the fewer number of key components 

that are most relevant to school district policies. Specifically, each of the 20 policies was 

systematically rated on nine components or subcomponents—four components measuring how 

bullying is defined and five policy components that are typically required by law to be present in 

most school district policies. Components and policy subcomponents were each assigned a 0 to 2 

rating based on their expansiveness, and scores were summed to arrive at a total rating, ranging in 

value from zero to 18. To compare each district’s policy rating to legislation in their respective 

states, ratings of state laws presented in Chapter II were adjusted to also reflect the same nine 

components analyzed in district policies. 

Exhibit 30 contains school district bullying policy ratings on measures of expansiveness. These

scores ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 17. The average total rating across all 20 districts was 

11.6. Purpose statements, descriptions of prohibited behavior, reporting procedures, statement of 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

76

scope, enumeration of protected groups, and content on consequences or sanctions all rated highly 

on measures of expansiveness. Least expansive components addressed in policies involved the use 

of written records, procedures for investigations, and mental health referrals for victims. These 

patterns were generally consistent with more or less expansive components of legislation. 

Exhibit 30. Extent of expansiveness of district policy components in selected district and board bullying 

policies, by state (n=20)

School District Components

Definitions Provisions

State

PurposeScopeProhibited BehaviorEnumeration of GroupsReportingInvestigationWritten RecordsConsequencesMental Health

TOTAL

Arizona 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 1 0 10

California 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 14

Colorado 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 14

Connecticut 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 17

Georgia 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 8

Indiana 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 8

Louisiana 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 16

Maryland 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 16

Michigan 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 9

Missouri 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 6

Nevada 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 10

New Mexico 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 12

New York 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 10

Ohio 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 13

Pennsylvania 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 14

South Carolina 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 11

Texas (city) 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 14

Texas (town) 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 9

Utah 2 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 13

Virginia 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 14

Average: 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.3 11.6

Exhibit reads: The Arizona school district received an expansiveness rating of 10 out of a possible 18 points.

Note: Rating reflects school district or board policies for enumerated groups in bullying policies and harassment policies that 

were specifically referred to in bullying policies. Sixteen school districts covered enumerated groups either in the 

bullying/harassment policies or referred to harassment in the bullying policies. Four districts covered enumerated groups only in 

their harassment policies. All 20 school districts covered enumerated groups somewhere in their body of district policies.

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts. 

Exhibit 31compares the expansiveness ratings of district policies and their respective state laws. For 

comparative purposes, ratings for state laws were adjusted to only encompass the sum of ratings for 

the nine components and policy subcomponents reviewed at the school district level that address 

expectations for district policy content. The comparison generally shows that the content of district 

policies is more expansive than the content of legislation. This pattern is found in 15 of the 19 

school districts and states reviewed, excluding the state of Michigan, which has not yet enacted state 

bullying legislation. Two policies from Arizona and Missouri are as equally expansive as their 

respective state laws. The two remaining policies from districts in New York and Georgia are less 

expansive than their authorizing legislation; however, in both Georgia and New York, state 

legislation was only recently enacted; it went into effect in August of 2011 in Georgia and will go 

into effect in 2012, in New York.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

77

Exhibit 31. Comparison between bullying state law and local policy expansiveness ratings, by state

(n=20)

14

12

9 

14

11

14

13

10

12

10

6 

9 

16

16

8 

8 

17

14

14

10

9 

5 

5 

5 

9 

6 

9 

11

10

9 

6 

0 

15

10

6 

9 

13

4 

10

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Virginia

Utah 

Texas (Town)

Texas (City)

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

Ohio

New York

New Mexico

Nevada

Missouri

Michigan

Maryland

Louisiana

Indiana

Georgia

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Arizona

Expansiveness rating

State law District policy

Exhibit reads: Arizona’s legislation received 10 out of a possible 18 points measuring the expansiveness of its bullying law. 

Source: School district or board policies retrieved from district websites from twenty randomly selected school districts. 

Districts in Maryland and Connecticut, two of the states with the most expansive laws in the sample, 

also produced the two most expansive local district policies. This suggests that more prescriptive 

legislative expectations may drive to some extent the development of broader and more in-depth 

coverage of key components in school district policies. In the state of Missouri, less expansive 

legislation produced less expansive policy, although this was an exception. Instead, the largest 

differences between ratings of state laws and local policies are in those states with the least expansive 

legislation, (i.e., 9 points or fewer). The gap between law and policy ratings in these states ranges 

anywhere from 1 to 10 total points out of a possible 18-point rating. Notably, the state of Colorado 

has the least expansive state law within the study sample with regard to school district policy 

expectations, whereas the district policy from Colorado is rated as one of the most broadly defined 

and detailed. Similar differences were found between laws and policies in Pennsylvania and Texas, 

where districts cover more components in substantially greater breadth and depth than is required 

under law. This finding suggests that local policy formulation may be influenced by many different 

factors, and is not exclusively tied to legislative expectations. 

States and districts
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

IV. Analysis of School District Bullying Policies

78

Summary

In 46 states, bullying legislation requires or encourages school districts to develop bullying policies. 

Indeed, local policies will provide the most direct requirements and guidance for implementation of 

bullying strategies in schools. This section profiled policies in 20 school districts across the nation, in

environments that varied from rural to urban, providing preliminary information on this critical link 

in the chain from state laws to the school environments that impact students directly. With just three

exceptions, local district policies were as expansive, or more expansive, than the state laws under 

which they were developed. This may reflect the necessities of local policy that is closer to 

implementation, and it may also reflect other influences, such as the state model policy or guidelines. 

Although they are more expansive, the district policies reflect a similar ordering of emphasis on 

components to state policy. The sections of policies that discuss prohibited behaviors, the reporting 

of incidents, statement of scope, enumeration of protected groups, and consequences and sanctions 

were more expansive than sections of policies that focused on investigations and written records of 

bullying incidence or providing assistance to bullying victims. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

V. Summary and Discussion

79

V. Summary and Discussion

Bullying behavior among youths is an increasing concern facing elementary and secondary school 

systems. Fueled by a number of high-profile bullying incidents, there is a growing public awareness 

that bullying represents a serious and often neglected youth problem. Research and professional 

understanding of the bullying issue also has revealed the serious and lasting consequences of 

bullying behavior for students who are bullied, their families and their peers, for the students who 

bully other youths, and for the social and educational climate of schools. Accordingly, there is 

growing pressure on governments and schools to devise effective solutions to combat bullying 

behavior both on and off school campuses. 

This report provides a systematic description of the status of bullying state legislation current to 

April 2011. The review includes comprehensive documentation of the development of legislation in 

the state and of the development of state model policies and guidance materials pursuant to this 

legislation. It also provides documentation of district bullying policies in a stratified random sample 

of 20 school districts nationwide. The analysis at each of these levels includes an assessment of the 

degree to which policies include 11 key components of policies identified by the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Major findings concerning the current status of bullying legislation and policy across states include: 

• State legislation concerning bullying has grown rapidly and nearly all states currently 

have bullying laws. 

From 1999 to 2010 there were more than 120 bills enacted by state legislatures nationally that 

have either introduced or amended education or criminal statutes to address bullying and 

related behaviors in schools. Twenty-one new bills were passed in 2010 and eight additional 

bills have been signed into law as of April 30, 2011, with only four states as of that date without 

legislation specifically addressing bullying. Analyses in this report reflect state bullying 

legislation enacted through April 30, 2011. The analyses do not reflect the recent enactment of 

House Bill 688 in the state of Hawaii, or amendments to other states’ legislation that occurred 

after April 30, 2011, including, but not limited to, new laws passed in California, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, and Texas during their states’ 2011 legislative sessions.

• There is currently a rapid expansion and revision of state bullying legislation. 

Legislative activity remains high as states replace or revise their legislation. In the six years from 

2000 to 2006, 48 pieces of state legislation concerned bullying. In just over four years since that 

time, there has been 78 pieces of state bullying legislation. As bullying becomes more 

recognized as a problem, and as states gain experience with implementing and assessing early 

statutes, revision is to be expected. 

• Some key components are included in legislation in many more states than others. 

The most commonly covered key components are the development and implementation of 

district policies, the scope of jurisdiction over bullying acts, definitions of prohibited behavior, 

and disciplinary consequences. At the other extreme, referrals for mental health counseling are 

covered in only 11 state laws. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

V. Summary and Discussion

80

• States differ substantially in the number of components they include in legislation and 

in the ways in which those components are addressed. 

Among the 46 states with bullying legislation, only two contain provisions covering all of the 

key components and school district components. However, 17 states include between 13 and 

16 components and 17 others cover between 9 and 12. Twelve states with legislation covered 

half (eight) or fewer components. States differ substantially in the number of components 

covered by their legislation and also address each component in different ways, with different 

levels of detail and specificity.

• Many states have expanded bullying legislation to respond to emerging problems 

related to cyberbullying. 

Thirty-six states include provisions in their education codes prohibiting cyberbullying or 

bullying using electronic media. Thirteen state laws specify that their school bullying statutes 

cover off-campus conduct if it creates a hostile school environment, granting schools authority 

to address cyberbullying activities that originate outside of the school setting. 

• Most states (41) have developed model bullying policies or other widely available 

guidance documents concerning bullying. 

Twenty-six of the 27 states with model policy recommendations or requirements have 

developed state policies, as have 12 other states without a legal requirement that they do so. 

Three states without bullying legislation—Hawaii, Michigan, and Montana—also have adopted 

state model policies and guidelines. 

• Policies in the randomly sampled set of 20 districts investigated tend to be more 

expansive than state legislation or policies in the states in which they are located. 

This report profiled policies in 20 school districts in varied state environments across the 

nation, providing preliminary information on how state laws translate into school-based policies 

that impact students directly. With a few exceptions, local district policies were as expansive, or 

more expansive, than the state laws under which they were developed. District and school 

policy is closer to implementation, and may focus more on the detailed guides and requirements 

that are necessary to effectively put bullying policies into practice. State model policies and 

guidelines are often more detailed than legislation, and may help districts write more expansive 

policy. 

• At least in the context of our sample, more expansive school district policies tend to be 

in states with more expansive legislation. 

Among the 20 reviewed school district bullying policies, districts located in states with more 

expansive legislation have the most expansive school district policies, although school districts 

with the least expansive laws each substantially expand on the scope and content of their 

policies beyond the minimum legal expectations. 

While this report focuses on documenting and profiling policy across the states, these policies may 

not benefit schools or students unless they can be successfully implemented. For example, 

legislation that defines prohibited bullying behaviors, and specifies graduated and substantial 

sanctions, will often require extensive implementation procedures, such as reporting requirements, 

investigation, and procedures for implementing the sanction (e.g., expulsion). Whether these 

necessary actions are feasible within resource constraints cannot be determined through a policy 

review alone. These questions require more information and represent the central focus of the 

second phase of the study. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

References

81

References

Allen, Kathleen P. 2010 “A Bullying Intervention System: Reducing Risk and Creating Support for 

Aggressive Students.” Preventing School Failure. 54(3):199–209. 

Alley, Rebecca, and Susan Limber. 2009. “Legal Issues for School Personnel.” In Bullying Prevention 

and Intervention: Realistic Strategies for Schools. The Guildford Press: New York. 

Anti-Defamation League. 2009. Bullying/Cyberbullying Prevention Law-Model Statute and Advocacy Toolkit.

Accessed December 2010.http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/AntiBullying%20Law%20Toolkit_2009.pdf. (reposted link because copy-pasting the one before in 

the format that it is for some reason yielded an extra %20 in the address bar that made it 

inaccessible)

Associated Press. 2009. “School Bullying Laws Give Scant Protection.” USA Today, September 14. 

Accessed December 5, 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-09-14-bullyinglaws_N.htm.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. “YRBSS 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior 

Surveillance Overview.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed March 2011. 

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm. 

Cohn, Andrea, and Andrea Canter. 2003. “Bullying: Facts for Schools and Parents.” National 

Association of School Psychologists. 

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/bullying_fs.aspx. Accessed April 2011.

Craig, Wendy M. 1998. “The Relationship Among Bullying, Victimization, Depression, Anxiety, and 

Aggression in Elementary School Children.” Personal and Individual Differences. 24(1):123–130.

Desimone, Laura 2002. “How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully 

implemented?” Review of Educational Research. 72(3):433–479.

Eckholm, Erik, and Katie Zezima. 2010. “6 Teenagers Are Charged After Classmate’s Suicide.” 

http://www.nytimes.com. Accessed May 2011.

Eliot, Megan, Dewey Cornell, Anne Gregory, and Xitao Fan. 2010. Supportive school climate and 

student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 

48:533–553.

Fox, James Alan, Delbert S. Elliot, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Sanford A. Newman, and William 

Christenson. 2003. “Bullying Prevention is Crime Prevention.” A Report by Fight Crime: Invest in 

Kids. Washington D.C.

Garbarino, James, and Ellen deLara. 2003. “Words Can Hurt Forever” Educational Leadership. March 

2003:18–21.

Gastic, Billie. 2008. “School Truancy and the Disciplinary Problems of Bullying Victims.” Educational 

Review. 60(4):391–404.

Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. 2010. “The 2009 National School Climate Survey: 

Key Findings on the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our 

Nation’s Schools.” Accessed March 2011. http://www.glsen.org.

Gini, Gianluca. 2008. “Associations Between Bullying behavior, Psychosomatic Complaints, 

Emotional, and Behavioral Problems.” Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health. 44: 492-497.

Greene, Michael B., and Randy Ross. 2005. “The Nature, Scope, and Utility of Formal Laws and 

Regulations that Prohibit School-Based Bullying and Harassment.” Persistently Safe Schools 2005. 

The National Conference of the Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence. 

Heywood, Todd A. 2009. “Coalition Fracturing Over Anti-bullying Legislation.” Michigan Messenger. 

February 27.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

References

82

Hinduja, Sameer and Justin Patchin. 2011. “Cyberbullying: A Review of the Legal Issues Facing 

Educators.” Preventing School Failure. 55(2):71–78.

Houbre, Barbara, Cyril Tarquinio, Isabelle Thuillier, Emmanuelle Hergott. 2006. “Bullying Among 

Students and its Consequences on Health.” European Journal of Psychology of Education. 

21(2):183–208.

Hutton, Thomas, and Kirk Bailey. 2007. “School Policies and Legal Issues Supporting Safe 

Schools.” The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence & Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory. 

Illinois Positive Behavior & Intervention Support (PBIS) Network. 2010. Effective Bullying 

Prevention (BP) within a School-wide System of Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports 

(PBIS). Technical Assistance (TA) Brief. Accessed August 2011. 

https://sites.google.com/a/pbisillinois.org/curriculum/training-curriculumresources/conference-presentations-handouts/bullyingforum 

Ivarsson, Tord, Anders G. Broberg, Tomas Arvidsson, and Christopher Gillberg. 2005. “Bullying in 

Adolescence: Psychiatric Problems in Victims and Bullies as Measured by the Youth Self Report 

(YRS) and the Depression Self-Rating Scale (DSRS).” Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 59(5):365–373.

Juvonen, Jaana, Yueyan Wang, and Guadalupe Espinoza. 2010 Bullying Experiences and 

Compromised Academic Performance Across Middle School Grades. The Journal of Early 

Adolescence. 31(1):152–173.

Kaltiala-Heino, Riittakerttu, Matti Rimpela, Paivi Rantanen, and Arja Rimpela. 2000. “Bullying at 

School – An Indicator of Adolescents at Risk for Mental Disorders.” Journal of Adolescence. 

23:661–674.

Kester, Kyra, and Candiya Mann. 2008. Bullying in Washington Schools: Updated 2008. Social and 

Economic Sciences Research Center. Washington State University.

Khadaroo, Stacy. 2011. “Phoebe Prince bullies sentenced, but how do they make things right?” 

Accessed May 5, 2011. CS Monitor.com.

Klomek, Anat Brunstein, Frank Marracco, Marjorie Kleinman, Irvin S. Schonfeld, and Madelyn S. 

Gould. 2007. “Bullying, Depression, and Suicidality in Adolecents.” Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 46(1):40–49. 

Lee, Eunju. 2009. “The Relationship of Aggression and Bullying to Social Preference: Differences in 

Gender and Types of Aggression.” International Journal of Behavioral Development. 33(4):323–330. 

Lerman, Bradford C. 2010. “Addressing Bullying Policy and Practice.” Principal Leadership. 

11(1):34–37. Accessed February 2011. http://www.nassp.org. 

Limber, Susan P. 2003. “Efforts to Address Bullying in U.S. Schools.” American Journal of Health 

Education. 34(5):23–29.

Limber, Susan, and Small, Mark A. 2003. “U.S. Laws and Policies to Address Bullying in Schools.” 

School Psychology Review. 32:445-455.

Marr, Niel, and Tim Field. 2001. Bullycide: Death at Playtime. Success Unlimited: Oxfordshire. UK.

Nansel, Tonja R., Mary Overpeck, Ramani S. Pilla, W. June Ruan, Bruce Simons-Morton, SPeter 

Scheidt. 2001. “Bullying Behaviors Among U.S. Youth: Prevalence and Association with 

Psychosocial Adjustment.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 285:2,094–2,100. Accessed 

April 20, 2011. http://www.jama.ama-assn.org. 

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Education Bill Tracking Database. 

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12913. Accessed January 2011.

National School Boards Association (NSBA) State Anti-Bullying Statutes. 

http://www.nsba.org/SchoolLaw/Issues/Safety/Table.pdf. Accessed July 2011. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

References

83

Neiman, Samantha. (2011). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the 

School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2009–10 (NCES 2011-320). U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Niemela, S., A. Brunstein Klomek, L. Sillanmaki, H. Helenius, J. Piha, K. Kumpulainen, I. Moilanen, 

T. Tamminen, F. Almqvist, and A. Sourander. 2011. “Childhood Bullying Behaviors at Age 

Eight and Substance Use at Age 18 Among Males: A Nationwide Prospective Study.” Addictive 

Behaviors. 36:256–260.

Nishioka, Vicki, Michael Coe, Art Burke, Makota Hanita, and Jeffrey Sprague. 2011. “StudentReported Overt and Relational Aggression and Victimization in Grades 3–8.” Issues and Answers 

Report, REL 2011–No. 114. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. 

O’Brennan, Lindsey M., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Anne L. Sawyer. 2009. “Examining 

Developmental Differences in the Social-Emotional Problems among Frequent Bullies, Victims, 

and Bully/Victims.” Psychology in the Schools. 46(2):100–115.

Olweus, Dan. 1993. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge: Blackwell. 

384–437. 

Patchin, Justin W., and Sameer Hinduja. 2010. “Cyberbullying and Self-Esteem.” Journal of School 

Health. 80(12):614–21. 

Ragatz, Laurie L., Ryan J. Anderson, William Fremouw, and Rebecca Schwartz. 2011. “Criminal 

Thinking Patterns, Aggression Styles, and the Psychopathic Traits of Late High School Bullies 

and Bully-Victims.” Aggressive Behavior. 37(2):145–160.

Robers, Simone, Jijun Zhang, and Jennifer Truman (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 

(NCES 2011-002/ NCJ 230812). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 

Justice. Washington, DC. 

Roland, Erling. 2002. “Bullying, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts.” Educational Research. 

44(1):55–67.

Sacks, Julie, and Robert S. Salem. 2009. “Victims Without Legal Remedies: Why Kids Needs Schools 

to Develop Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Policies.” Albany Law Review. 72(3):147–190.

Schiller, Howard, editor. 2011. “Bullying bill delivers the wrong message.” Accessed April 2011. 

http://www.SeacoastOnline.com. 

Shariff, Shaheen. 2009. Confronting Cyber-bullying: What Schools Need to Know to Control Misconduct and 

Avoid Legal Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sherer, Yiping C., and Amanda B. Nickerson. 2010. “Anti-Bullying Practices in American Schools: 

Perspectives of School Psychologists.” Psychology in the Schools. 47(3):217–229.

Smith, David J., J. Bradley Cousins, and Rebecca Stewart (2005) “Anti-Bullying Interventions in 

Schools: Ingredients of Effective Programs.” Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4):739–762.

Srabstein, Jorge, Benjamin E. Berkman, and Eugenia Pyntikova. 2008. Anti-Bullying Legislation: A 

Public Health Perspective. Journal of Adolescent Health. 42(1):11–20.

Suffolk University Political Research Center. 2010. Poll Shows Support for Criminalization of 

Bullying. Accessed June 2011. http://www.suffolk.edu/40787.html.

Swearer, Susan M. 2008. “Relational Aggression: Not Just a Female Issue.” Journal of School Psychology. 

46(6):611–616. 

Swearer, Susan, Susan Limber, and Rebecca Alley. 2009. “Developing and Implementing an 

Effective Anti-Bullying Policy.” In Bullying Prevention and Intervention: Realistic Strategies for Schools. 

New York: The Guilford Press. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

References

84

Temkin, Deborah. 2008. “Addressing Social Aggression in State Anti-Bullying Policies.” Perspectives 

on Urban Education. Accessed March 2011. http://www.urbanedjournal.org. 

Troy, Terry M. 2010. Blocking the Bullies: Has South Carolina’s Safe School Climate Act Made Public 

Schools Safer? Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 83(3):96–100.

U.S. Department of Education. 2010a. “Anti-Bullying Policies: Examples of Provisions in State 

Laws.” Last modified December 16, 2010. 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/101215.html. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2010b. “Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying.” Last 

modified October 26, 2010. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague01010.html. 

Vermont Human Rights Commission. 2009. Report of the Study Committee: Harassment, Bullying, 

and Cyberbullying of Students in Vermont Schools. Presented to the House and Senate 

Committee on Education and Judiciary, 2009 Legislative Session. 

You, Sukkyung, Michael J. Furlong, Erika Felix, Jill D. Sharkey, Diane Tanigawa, and Jennifer Greif 

Green. 2008. “Relations Among School Connectedness, Hope, Life Satisfaction, and Bullying 

Victimization.” Psychology in the Schools. 45(5):446–460.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

85

Appendix A 

U.S. Department of Education 

Dear Colleague Letter 

Summarizing Examples of Department Key 

Components of State Bullying Laws 

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

87

December 16, 2010 

Dear Colleagues: 

Recent incidents of bullying have demonstrated its potentially devastating effects on students, 

schools, and communities and have spurred a sense of urgency among State and local educators and 

policymakers to take action to combat bullying. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) 

shares this sense of urgency and is taking steps to help school officials effectively reduce bullying in 

our Nation’s schools. Bullying can be extremely damaging to students, can disrupt an environment 

conducive to learning, and should not be tolerated in our schools. 

Along with our partners from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior, 

Defense, and Justice, we are in the process of developing key strategies to support and encourage 

efforts to prevent bullying in our schools. Our ongoing work has included the first-ever Federal 

Bullying Prevention Summit in August, the launch of our interagency bullying-resource website, 

http://www.bullyinginfo.org, the continued support and growth of the Stop Bullying Now! 

campaign, and the development of research and guidance on bullying prevention. The Department 

also awarded eleven Safe and Supportive Schools Grants to states to develop measurement systems 

to assess schools‟ conditions for learning, including the prevalence of bullying, and to implement 

programs to improve overall school safety. 

Recent guidance includes a Dear Colleague Letter issued on October 26 by the Department’s Office 

for Civil Rights (OCR) that explains how, under certain circumstances, bullying may trigger legal 

responsibilities for schools under the civil rights laws enforced by OCR and the Department of 

Justice that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, 

disability, and religion.1

Numerous stakeholders, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National 

Association of School Boards, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, individual 

State legislators, and local school districts, among others, have asked the Department to provide 

assistance in crafting effective anti-bullying laws and policies. In response, the Department has 

prepared the attached summary of examples that illustrate how some states have tried to prevent and 

reduce bullying through legislation. States and local school districts can use these examples as 

technical assistance in drafting effective anti-bullying laws, regulations, and policies. The Department 

will also be working to produce additional helpful resource information. 

 Schools must protect students from bullying and harassment on these bases, 

in addition to any obligations under state and local law. 

 

1 The federal civil rights laws enforced by the Department include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 

which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. OCR’s Dear Colleague 

letter on discriminatory harassment under these statutes is available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html. The Department of Justice has jurisdiction 

to enforce Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, 

religion, or national origin. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

88

Forty-five states have already passed laws addressing bullying or harassment in school. Ultimately 

State officials will determine whether new or revised legislation and policies should be introduced to 

update, improve, or add bullying prevention provisions. It is our hope that this information will be 

of assistance to State officials and other interested stakeholders. 

Though laws are only a part of the cure for bullying, the adoption, publication, and enforcement of a 

clear and effective anti-bullying policy sends a message that all incidents of bullying must be 

addressed immediately and effectively, and that such behavior will not be tolerated. State laws, and 

their related district- and school-level policies, cannot work in isolation, however. When responding 

to bullying incidents, schools and districts should remember that maintenance of a safe and equitable 

learning environment for all students, including both victims and perpetrators of bullying, often 

requires a more comprehensive approach. 

If you wish to receive further technical assistance on addressing bullying, please do not hesitate to 

contact the Department’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools by visiting its website at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html or by calling at 202-245-7896. 

I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure equal access to education and to promote 

safe and respectful schools for all of our students. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Arne Duncan 

Attachment 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

89

Anti-Bullying Policies: 

Examples of Provisions in State Laws 

In response to requests for assistance by state and local officials, educators, and policymakers, we 

summarize below examples of key components of state anti-bullying laws. This document serves as 

technical assistance for those stakeholders looking to develop or revise anti-bullying legislation or 

policies. The Department has organized the key components into eleven categories for convenience. 

We include citations to state laws that illustrate the key components we identified, but we do not 

endorse any particular laws. Additional examples are included at the end of the document, but these 

citations are not intended to be comprehensive. Many other state and local laws and policies may 

provide helpful guidance on developing effective anti-bullying policies. As part of our technical 

assistance effort to disseminate useful information on this important topic, we welcome other 

examples of laws and policies that may be working effectively to address bullying in schools. States 

and local educational agencies (LEAs) should seek the guidance of state and local legal officials to 

ensure that the legislation is consistent with all applicable federal and state laws. The Department 

also plans to release a compendium of all current state laws and a study of their implementation. 

The following are examples of components found in current state laws on bullying:

I. Purpose Statement

• Outlines the range of detrimental effects bullying has on students, including impacts on 

student learning, school safety, student engagement, and the school environment. 

• Declares that any form, type, or level of bullying is unacceptable, and that every incident 

needs to be taken seriously by school administrators, school staff (including teachers), 

students, and students’ families. 

• Example:

1

o Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 70, §24-100.3 (2009): “The Legislature finds that 

bullying has a negative effect on the social environment of schools, creates a climate 

of fear among students, inhibits their ability to learn, and leads to other antisocial 

behavior. Bullying behavior has been linked to other forms of antisocial behavior, 

such as vandalism, shoplifting, skipping and dropping out of school, fighting, and the 

use of drugs and alcohol. . . . Successful programs to recognize, prevent, and 

effectively intervene in bullying behavior have been developed and replicated in 

schools across the country. These schools send the message that bullying behavior is 

not tolerated and, as a result, have improved safety and created a more inclusive 

learning environment.” 

II. Statement of Scope

• Covers conduct that occurs on the school campus, at school-sponsored activities or 

events (regardless of the location), on school-provided transportation, or through 

school-owned technology or that otherwise creates a significant disruption to the school 

environment. 

• Example:

2

o Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. §20-33-8-13.5 (b) (2010), Disciplinary Rule Requirements: 

“The discipline rules [related to bullying]...must apply when a student is: (1) on 

school grounds immediately before or during school hours, immediately after school 

hours, or at any other time when the school is being used by a school group; (2) off 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

90

school grounds at a school activity, function, or event; (3) traveling to or from school 

or a school activity, function or event; or (4) using property or equipment provided 

by the school.”

III. Specification of Prohibited Conduct 

• Provides a specific definition of bullying that includes a clear definition of cyberbullying. 

The definition of bullying includes a non-exclusive list of specific behaviors that 

constitute bullying, and specifies that bullying includes intentional efforts to harm one or 

more individuals, may be direct or indirect, is not limited to behaviors that cause physical 

harm, and may be verbal (including oral and written language) or non-verbal. The 

definition of bullying can be easily understood and interpreted by school boards, 

policymakers, school administrators, school staff, students, students’ families, and the 

community. 

• Is consistent with other federal, state and local laws. (For guidance on school districts’ 

obligations to address bullying and harassment under federal civil rights laws, see the 

Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying, issued by the Department’s Office for 

Civil Rights on October 26, 2010, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf.)

• Prohibited Conduct also includes: 

(1) Retaliation for asserting or alleging an act of bullying.

(2) Perpetuating bullying or harassing conduct by spreading hurtful or demeaning 

material even if the material was created by another person (e.g., forwarding 

offensive e-mails or text messages).

• Examples:

3,4

o Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. 1006.147(3) (2010): “(a) ‘Bullying’ means systematically and 

chronically inflicting physical hurt or psychological distress on one or more students 

and may involve: (1) Teasing; (2) Social exclusion; (3) Threat; (4) Intimidation; (5) 

Stalking; (6) Physical violence; (7) Theft; (8) Sexual, religious, or racial harassment; 

(9) Public humiliation; or (10) Destruction of property. . . . (d) The definitions of 

‘bullying’ and ‘harassment’ include: (1) Retaliation against a student or school 

employee by another student or school employee for asserting or alleging an act of 

bullying or harassment...[and] (2) Perpetuation of [bullying or harassing] conduct ... 

by an individual or group with intent to demean, dehumanize, embarrass, or cause 

physical harm to a student. . . .” 

o Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256.C.2 (2009): “‘Cyberbullying’ means bullying by use 

of any electronic communication device through means including, but not limited to, 

e-mail, instant messaging, text messages, blogs, mobile phones, pagers, online games 

and websites.”

IV. Enumeration of Specific Characteristics

• Explains that bullying may include, but is not limited to, acts based on actual or 

perceived characteristics of students who have historically been targets of bullying, and 

provides examples of such characteristics.

• Makes clear that bullying does not have to be based on any particular characteristic. 

• Examples:

5

o North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §115C-407.15(a) (2010): “Bullying or harassing 

behavior includes, but is not limited to, acts reasonably perceived as being motivated 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

91

by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, such as race, color, religion, 

ancestry, national origin, gender, socioeconomic status, academic status, gender 

identity, physical appearance, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, developmental, 

or sensory disability, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have 

one or more of these characteristics.”

o Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28A.300.285.2 (2010): “Nothing in this 

section requires the affected student to actually possess a characteristic that is a basis 

for the...bullying.” 

V. Development and Implementation of LEA Policies

• Directs every LEA to develop and implement a policy prohibiting bullying, through a 

collaborative process with all interested stakeholders, including school administrators, 

staff, students, students’ families, and the community, in order to best address local 

conditions. 

• Example: 

o Maryland: Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424.1(c) (2010): “[1] Each county board shall 

establish a policy prohibiting bullying, harassment, or intimidation. . . . [3] A county 

board shall develop the policy in consultation with representatives of the following 

groups: (i) Parents or guardians of students; (ii) School employees and 

administrators; (iii) School volunteers; (iv) Students; and (v) Members of the 

community”6

VI. Components of LEA Policies

A. Definitions 

• Includes a definition of bullying consistent with the definitions specified in state law. 

Example:

7

o Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. §339.356.2 (2009): “School districts must include in the 

policy... (b) Definitions of “harassment,” “intimidation,” or “bullying,” and of 

“cyberbullying” that are consistent with [this statute].”

B. Reporting Bullying 

• Includes a procedure for students, students’ families, staff, and others to report incidents 

of bullying, including a process to submit such information anonymously and with 

protection from retaliation. The procedure identifies and provides contact information 

for the appropriate school personnel responsible for receiving the report and 

investigating the incident. 

• Example:8

o Georgia: GA. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4(c) (2010): “Such ... policy shall include: . . . 

(5) A procedure for a teacher or other school employee, student, parent, guardian, or 

other person who has control or charge of a student, either anonymously or in such 

person's name, at such person’s option, to report or otherwise provide information 

on bullying activity; (6) A statement prohibiting retaliation following a report of 

bullying....” 

• Requires that school personnel report, in a timely and responsive manner, incidents of 

bullying they witness or are aware of to a designated official.

• Example:

9
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

92

o Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §118.46.1(a) (2009): “The [policy on bullying] shall include all 

of the following: . . . (6) A requirement that school district officials and employees 

report incidents of bullying and identify the persons to whom the reports must be 

made.”

C. Investigating and Responding to Bullying 

• Includes a procedure for promptly investigating and responding to any report of an 

incident of bullying, including immediate intervention strategies for protecting the victim 

from additional bullying or retaliation, and includes notification to parents of the victim, 

or reported victim, of bullying and the parents of the alleged perpetrator, and, if 

appropriate, notification to law enforcement officials. 10

• Example:

11

o Massachusetts: 2010 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. Ch. No. 71.37O(g) (2010): “...Upon 

receipt of such a report, the school principal or a designee shall promptly conduct an 

investigation. If the school principal or a designee determines that bullying or 

retaliation has occurred, the school principal or designee shall (i) notify the local law 

enforcement agency if the school principal or designee believes that criminal charges 

may be pursued against a perpetrator; (ii) take appropriate disciplinary action; (iii) 

notify the parents or guardians of a perpetrator; and (iv) notify the parents or 

guardians of the victim, and to the extent consistent with state and federal law, notify 

them of the action taken to prevent any further acts of bullying or retaliation.” 

D. Written Records 

• Includes a procedure for maintaining written records of all incidents of bullying and their 

resolution. 12

• Example:

13

o California: Cal. Educ. Code §234.1 (2010): “The department shall assess whether 

local educational agencies have done all of the following: . . . (e) Maintained 

documentation of complaints and their resolution for a minimum of one review 

cycle.”

E. Sanctions 

• Includes a detailed description of a graduated range of consequences and sanctions for 

bullying. 14

• Example:

15

o Alabama: Ala. Code §16.28B.5 (2010): “The model policy, at a minimum, shall 

contain all of the following components: . . . [4] A series of graduated consequences 

for any student who commits an act of intimidation, harassment, violence or threats 

of violence. Punishment shall conform with applicable federal and state disability, 

antidiscrimination, and education laws and school discipline policies.” 

F. Referrals 

• Includes a procedure for referring the victim, perpetrator and others to counseling and 

mental and other health services, as appropriate.

• Example:

16

o Maryland: Md. Code. Ann., Educ. §7-424.1.b (2010): “[2] The model policy...shall 

include: . . . (viii) Information about the types of support services available to the 

student bully, victim, and any bystanders....” 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

93

VII. Review of Local Policies

• Includes a provision for the state to review local policies on a regular basis to ensure the 

goals of the state statute are met. 

• Example:

17

o Illinois: 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7(d) (2010): “The policy must be updated 

every 2 years and filed with the State Board of Education after being updated. The 

State Board of Education shall monitor the implementation of policies created under 

[this subsection of the statute].”

VIII. Communication Plan

• Includes a plan for notifying students, students’ families, and staff of policies related to 

bullying, including the consequences for engaging in bullying. 

Example:

18

o Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514(b) (2009): “The policies shall: . . . [6] Require 

that notice of what constitutes bullying, that bullying is prohibited, and the 

consequences of engaging in bullying be conspicuously posted in every classroom, 

cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus in the district; and [7] 

Require that copies of the notice...be provided to parents, students, school 

volunteers, and employees.”

IX. Training and Preventive Education

• Includes a provision for school districts to provide training for all school staff, including, 

but not limited to, teachers, aides, support staff, and school bus drivers, on preventing, 

identifying, and responding to bullying. 

• Example:

19

o South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-140(E) (2009): “Information regarding a 

local school district policy against harassment, intimidation or bullying must be 

incorporated into a school employee training program. Training also should be 

provided to school volunteers who have significant contact with students. 

o Massachusetts: 2010 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. Ch. No. 92.3(d)-2010: “The 

plan...shall include a provision for ongoing professional development to build the 

skills of all staff members, including, but not limited to, educators, administrators, 

school nurses, cafeteria workers, custodians, bus drivers, athletic coaches, advisors to 

extracurricular activities and paraprofessionals, to prevent, identify and respond to 

bullying.” 

• Encourages school districts to implement age-appropriate school- and community-wide 

bullying prevention programs. 

• Example:

20

o South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-140 (F) (2009): “Schools and school 

districts are encouraged to establish bullying prevention programs and other 

initiatives involving school staff, students, administrators, volunteers, parents, law 

enforcement, and community members.”

X. Transparency and Monitoring

• Includes a provision for LEAs to report annually to the state on the number of reported 

bullying incidents, and any responsive actions taken. 

• Example:

21
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

94

o New York: N.Y. Educ. Law §15 (2010): “The Commissioner shall create a 

procedure under which material incidents of discrimination and harassment on 

school grounds or at a school function are reported to the department at least on an 

annual basis. Such procedure shall provide that such reports shall, wherever possible, 

also delineate the specific nature of such incidents. . . .”

• Includes a provision for LEAs to make data regarding bullying incidence publicly 

available in aggregate with appropriate privacy protections to ensure students are 

protected. 22

• Examples:

23

o Iowa: Iowa Code §280.28.7 (2008): “The board of directors of a school district and 

the authorities in charge of each nonpublic school...shall report data collected...as 

specified by the department, to the local community.”

o Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3313.666.10 (2010): “...the district administration... 

[shall] provide ... a written summary of all reported incidents and post the summary 

on its website....” 

XI. Statement of Rights to Other Legal Recourse

• Includes a statement that the policy does not preclude victims from seeking other legal 

remedies. 

• Example: 

o Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §339.364 (2009): “Victim may seek redress under other 

laws. ... [This statute] may not be interpreted to prevent a victim of harassment, 

intimidation or bullying or a victim of cyberbullying from seeking redress under any 

other available law, whether civil or criminal.”

Endnotes

1 For additional examples of purpose statements, see: 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7.a (2010); Iowa Code 

§280.28.1 (2008); Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424 (2010); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.132 (2009); N.J. Stat. Ann. 

§18A:37.13 (2010); Or Rev. Stat. §339.353 (2009); Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-1014 (2010); W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-1 

(2009). 2 For additional examples of statements of scope, see: Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514.2 (2009); Ga. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4 

(2010); 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7.a (2010); 2010 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. Ch. No. 92-2010 (Lexis Nexis 

2010); Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424 (2010). 3 For additional examples of bullying definitions, see: Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14, §4112D.a (2010); Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-

8256 (2009); 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7(b) (2010). 4 For additional examples of cyberbullying definitions, see: Iowa Code §280.28.2 (a) (2008); Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-

424.3 (2010); 2010 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. Ch. No. 92-2010 (Lexis Nexis 2010); N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A 37.14.2 (2010); 

Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 70, §24-100.3 (2009). 5 For additional examples of characteristic enumeration, see: 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7.a (2010); Iowa Code 

§280.28 (2008); Or Rev. Stat. §339.351.3(2009). 6 For additional examples of requirements for LEA policies, see: Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14, §4112D.b (2010); Fla. Stat. 

Ann. 1006.147 (2010); N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A 37.15 (2010). 7 For additional examples regarding definitions in LEA policies, see: Delaware Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14, §4112D.b 

(2010); Fla. Stat. Ann. 1006.147 (2010); Iowa Code 280.28.3 (2008); Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424.1 (2010); N.J. Stat. 

Ann. §18A 37.15.b.2 (2010); N.C. Gen. Stat.§115C-407.16.b.2 (2010); S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-140 (2010). 8 For additional examples regarding requirements procedures for reporting bullying, see: Ariz. Rev. Stat. §14-341 (2010); 

Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147 (2010); Iowa Code §280.28.3.c (2008); Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424 (2010); Or Rev. Stat. 

§339.356.2.g (2009); S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-140 (2010). 9 For additional examples regarding requirements for reporting of school staff, see: Alaska Stat. §14.33.220 (2010); GA. 

Code Ann. §20-2-751.4.c.2 (2010); W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-3.4 (2009).
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Summarizing Examples of 

Department Key Components of State Anti-Bullying Laws

95

10 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) contains provisions restricting release of information pertaining 

to disciplinary actions taken against students. State and local officials are encouraged to seek guidance to make sure 

any policies comply with these provisions. 11 For additional examples regarding requirements for investigating and responding to bullying, see: GA. Code Ann. §20-

2-751.4.c.3 (2010); Iowa Code §280.28.3.f (2008); Or. Rev. Stat. §339.356.2.h (2009). 12 FERPA contains provisions regarding the appropriate safeguarding of privacy in educational records. State and local 

officials are encouraged to seek guidance to make sure any policies comply with these provisions. 13 For additional examples on requirements for maintaining written records, see: Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424 (2010). 14 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act contains provisions related to the use of disciplinary measures with 

students with disabilities. State and local officials are encouraged to seek guidance to make sure any policies comply 

with these provisions. 15 For additional examples regarding sanctions, see: Connecticut Gen. Stat. Ann §10-222d; Massachusetts St. 2010, c.92; 

New Mexico NMAC §6.12.7; Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 70, §24-100.4 (2009). 16 For additional examples regarding referrals, see: Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147 (2010); Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 70, §24-100.4 

(2009). 17 For additional examples regarding review of policies, see: 24 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §13-1303.1-a (2009). 18 For additional examples regarding communication plans, see: Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14, §4123.a (2010); Fla. Stat. Ann. 

§1006.147 (2010); Iowa Code §280.28.3 (2008); N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A 37.15.b.10-11 (2010). 19 For additional examples regarding training of staff, see: Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-222d (2010); Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14, 

§4123.a (2010); Iowa Code §280.28.3 (2008); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.§383.133 (2009); Or. Rev. Stat. §339.359 (2009); 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §21-4-311 (2010). 20 For additional examples regarding bullying prevention programming, see: Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424 (2010); 2010 

Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. Ch. No. 92-2010 (Lexis Nexis 2010); Or. Rev. Stat. §339.359 (2009). 21 For additional examples regarding reporting incidents to the State, see: Alaska Stat. §14.33.210 (2010); Conn. Gen. 

Stat. §10-222d (2010); Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424 (2010); 22 FERPA contains provisions regarding the appropriate safeguarding of privacy in educational records. State and local 

officials are encouraged to seek guidance to make sure any policies comply with these provisions. 23 For additional examples regarding requirements for reporting data to the public, see: Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147 (2010); 

Iowa Code §280.28 (2008).

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

97

Appendix B 

Summary of Bullying Legislation, 

State Statutes, and Model Policies

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

99

Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

Alabama

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Alabama House Bill No. 216, Act No. 2009-571 – The Alabama Student Harassment Prevention Act 

Alabama Code §16-28B-1 – Student Harassment Prevention Act.

Alabama Code §16-28B-2 – Legislative intent.

Alabama Code §16-28B-3 – Definitions.

Alabama Code §16-28B-4 – Prohibited behavior; complaints; school plans or programs.

Alabama Code §16-28B-5 – Model policy.

Alabama Code §16-28B-6 – Duties of schools.

Alabama Code §16-28B-7 – Freedoms of speech and expression.

Alabama Code §16-28B-8 – Implementation of standards and policies.

Alabama Code §16-28B-9 – Adoption of local policies.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Alabama Code §13A-11-8 – Harassment or harassing communications.

Alabama Code §16-28B-3 – Definitions.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Alabama Code §16-28B-1 – Student Harassment Prevention Act.

Alabama Code §16-28B-2 – Legislative intent.

Alabama Code §16-28B-3 – Definitions.

Alabama Code §16-28B-4 – Prohibited behavior; complaints; school plans or programs.

Alabama Code §16-28B-5 – Model policy. 

Alabama Code §16-28B-6 – Duties of schools.

Alabama Code §16-28B-7 – Freedoms of speech and expression.

Alabama Code §16-28B-8 – Implementation of standards and policies.

Alabama Code §16-28B-9 – Adoption of local policies.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

ALSDE Model Anti-Harassment Policy

http://www.alabamaschoolboards.org/PDFs/Harassment%20Policy%20Act%202009.pdf

Alaska

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2006 Alaska HB No. 482 – Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying Policy

Alaska Statute §14.33.200 – Harassment, intimidation, and bullying policy.

Alaska Statute §14.33.210 – Reporting of incidents of harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

Alaska Statute §14.33.220 – Reporting; no reprisals.

Alaska Statute §14.33.230 – Immunity from suit.

Alaska Statute §14.33.250 – Definitions.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

100

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Alaska Statute §11.41.260 – Stalking in the first degree.

Alaska Statute §11.41.270 – Stalking in the second degree.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Alaska Statute §14.33.200 – Harassment, intimidation, and bullying policy.

Alaska Statute §14.33.210 – Reporting of incidents of harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

Alaska Statute §14.33.220 – Reporting; no reprisals.

Alaska Statute §14.33.230 – Immunity from suit.

Alaska Statute §14.33.250 – Definitions.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

School Discipline and Safety - Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying—AR 5030(a), AR 5131.43(a-b), BP 5131.43(a-d), BP 5137

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/SchoolSafety/Docs/PolicySamples.pdf

Sample Issues and Areas to Consider When Developing Local Policies for Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/SchoolSafety/Sample%20Issues%20and%20Areas.pdf

Arizona

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 Arizona House Bill No. 2415

Arizona Revised Statute §15-341.37 – Prescribe and enforce policies and procedures.

2005 Arizona House Bill No. 2368

Arizona Revised Statute §15-341.37 – Prescribe and enforce policies and procedures.

Arizona Revised Statute §15-341.38 – General powers and duties; immunity; delegation.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

2010 Arizona Senate Bill No. 1266

Arizona Revised Statute §8-309 – Unlawful use of an electronic device by a minor.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Arizona Revised Statute §15-341.38 – General powers and duties; immunity; delegation.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Arkansas

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 Arkansas Senate Bill No. 852 – Act to Clarify Arkansas’s Antibullying Policies and Protect Student Dignity

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(a) and (b)(1) and (2) –Anti-bullying policies.

2007 Arkansas House Bill No. 1072 – Act to Define Bullying and Cyberbullying

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(a) and (b)(1) and (2) –Anti-bullying policies.

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(b)(1) –Anti-bullying policies.

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(2) –Anti-bullying policies. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

101

2005 Arkansas House Bill No. 1708 – Act to Define Bullying and Cyberbullying

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514 – Anti-bullying policies.

2003 Arkansas House Bill No. 2274, Act No. 681 – Require Schools to Adopt Anti-Bullying Policies

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-1005(a)(5) – Student services program defined.

 Criminal Code Statutes  

Arkansas Code Annotated §5-41-108 – Unlawful computerized communications.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(a) and (b)(1) and (2) – Anti-bullying policies. 

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(b)(1) – Anti-bullying policies. 

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-514(2) – Anti-bullying policies. 

Arkansas Code Annotated §6-18-1005(a)(5) – Student services program defined.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Recommendations for Writing Anti-Bullying Policies

http://arkedu.state.ar.us/commemos/static/fy0203/1698.html

California

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 California Assembly Bill No. 2791

California Education Code §32280

California Education Code §32281

California Education Code §32282

California Education Code §32282.5

California Education Code §32283

California Education Code §32284

California Education Code §32285

California Education Code §32286

California Education Code §32287

California Education Code §32288

California Education Code §32289

2008 California Assembly Bill No. 86

California Education Code §32261

California Education Code §32265 

California Education Code §32270 

California Education Code §48900

2006 California Assembly Bill No. 606 – Safe Place to Learn Act

California Education Code §234

California Education Code §234.1

California Education Code §234.2

California Education Code §234.3
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

102

2003 California Senate Bill No. 719

California Education Code §32260 

California Education Code §32261 

California Education Code §32262 

California Education Code §32265 

California Education Code §32270 

2003 California Senate Bill No. 257, Chapter 890

California Education Code §32261

California Education Code §32270 

California Education Code §32271 

California Education Code §32280 

California Education Code §32290 

California Education Code §35294.2 

California Education Code §32295 

2001 California Assembly Bill No. 79, Chapter 646

California Education Code §35294.2

1998 California Assembly Bill No. 499

California Education Code §220

California Education Code §220.1

1998 California Senate Bill No. 1751

California Education Code §32275

 Criminal Code Statutes 

California Penal Code §422.55

California Penal Code §422.56

California Penal Code §422.57

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

California Education Code §32261 

California Education Code §32262 

California Education Code §32265 

California Education Code §32270 

California Education Code §35294.2 

California Education Code §48900 

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Sample Policy for Bullying Prevention

Sample Policy for Conflict Resolution

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/samplepolicy.asp
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

103

Colorado

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2001 Colorado Senate Bill No. 01-080 Policy – Concerning the Prevention of Bullying

Colorado Revised Statutes §22-32-109.1 (2) – Community consultation on safe school plan, including conduct and discipline code.

Colorado Revised Statutes §22-32-109.1 Board of Education – specific powers and duties – safe schools.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Colorado Revised Statutes §18-3-602 – Stalking.

Colorado Revised Statute §18-9-111 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Colorado Revised Statutes §22-32-109.1 (2) – Community consultation on safe school plan, including conduct and discipline code.

Colorado Revised Statutes §22-32-109.1 – Board of Education – specific powers and duties – safe schools.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Colorado School Violence Prevention and Student Discipline Manual

http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/violence_prevention/svpm2008.pdf

Connecticut

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1141

Connecticut General Statutes §10-222h – Analysis of bullying policies.

2008 Connecticut Senate Bill No. 5826

Connecticut General Statutes §10-145a – Teacher preparation-bullying training.

Connecticut General Statutes §10-220a – In-service training. Professional development committees.

Connecticut General Statutes §10-222d – Policy on bullying behavior.

Connecticut General Statutes §11-4a – Reporting to state (covered under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-222d)

2006 Connecticut House Bill No. 5563

Connecticut General Statutes §10-15b – Records.

Connecticut General Statutes §10-222d – Policy on bullying behavior.

2002 Connecticut Substitute House Bill No. 5425

Connecticut General Statutes §10-222d – Policy on bullying behavior.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Connecticut General Statutes §53a-182b – Harassment.

Connecticut General Statutes §53a-183 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Connecticut General Statutes §10-145a – Teacher preparation-bullying training.

Connecticut General Statutes §10-220a – In-service training. Professional development committees.

Connecticut General Statutes §10-222d – Policy on bullying behavior.

Connecticut General Statutes §10-222h – Prevention or intervention strategy.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

104

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Connecticut Asssociation of Boards of Education Sample Policy No. 5131.911(a-e)

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ02-03/c20.pdf

Delaware

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2007 Delaware House Bill No. 7 – School Bullying Prevention Act

Delaware Code Annotated Title 14, §4112D – School bullying prevention.

Delaware Code Annotated Title 14, §4123A – School bullying prevention and criminal youth.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Delaware Code Annotated Title 11, §1311 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Delaware Code Annotated Title 14, §4112D – School bullying prevention.

Delaware Code Annotated Title 14, §4123A – School bullying prevention and criminal youth.

Delaware 14:601

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Delaware's Model Bully Prevention Policy

http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/students_family/climate/files/bully%20prevention%20policy%20template.pdf

Florida

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Florida House Bill No. 669 – Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act

Florida Statutes Annotated §1006.07 – District school board duties relating to student discipline and school safety.

2007 Florida Senate Bill No. 114 – An Act Relating to School Safety

Florida Statutes Annotated §1006.147 – Bullying and harassment prohibited.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Florida Statutes Annotated §784.048 – Stalking, definitions, penalties.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Florida Statutes Annotated §1006.07 – District school board duties relating to student discipline and school safety.

Florida Statutes Annotated §1006.147 – Bullying and harassment prohibited.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Florida Department of Education Model Policy Against Bullying and Harassment

http://www.fldoe.org/safeschools/doc/modelpolicy.doc

Georgia

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Georgia Senate Bill No. 250

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.4 –Policies prohibiting bullying; assignment to alternative school; notice.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

105

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-1181 – Disrupting public school penalty.

2009 Georgia House Bill No. 84, Chapter 282 – 1999 Georgia Laws Policy from Department of Education

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.4 – Policies prohibiting bullying; assignment to alternative school; notice.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.5 – Policies prohibiting bullying; assignment to alternative school; notice.

2004 Georgia State Board of Education Administrative Rule No. 160-4-8-.15 – Student Discipline

2002 Georgia Senate Bill No. 291

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.5 – Student codes of conduct; safety rules on school buses; distribution.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.6 – Disciplinary policy for students committing acts of physical violence against teacher, school bus driver, or other school 

official or employee.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-759 – Policies prohibiting bullying; assignment to alternative school; notice.

1999 Georgia House Bill No. 84

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-145 – Character education.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.4 – Policies prohibiting bullying; assignment to alternative school; notice.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-8-5 – Law enforcement powers of school security personnel in each public school system of the state; certification; carrying of 

firearms or weapons.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Georgia Code 16-11-127.1 – Weapons definition.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-145 – Character education. 

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.4 – Policies prohibiting bullying; assignment to alternative school; notice.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.5 – Student codes of conduct; safety rules on school buses; distribution.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-751.6 – Disciplinary policy for students committing acts of physical violence against teacher, school bus driver, or other school 

official or employee.

Georgia Code Annotated §20-2-1181 – Disrupting public school penalty. 

Georgia State Board of Education Administrative Rule No. 160-4-8-.15 – Student Discipline

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Policy for Prohibiting Bullying, Harassment and Intimidation

http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GaDOE%20Bullying%20Policy_March%202011.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6396BF6C5C6239F136

E50A26DD7EAEDF85CAE123079D2FE5F&Type=D

Hawaii

Legislative History

Administrative Rule

Hawaii State Board of Education Administrative Rule §8-19

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Recommendations for Addressing Harassment in Hawaii Public Schools

http://doe.k12.hi.us/harassment/080306harassment_sscac.pdf

Hawaii State Board of Education Administrative Rule §8-19

http://www.spinhawaii.org/sap/Ch.19.BOE.r.pdf
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

106

Idaho

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Idaho House Bill No. 636 Chapter No. 181

Idaho Code §33-131 – Internet use policy required.

2006 Idaho House Bill No. 750aa as Amended – Jared's Law

Idaho Code §18-917a – Student harassment, intimidation, bullying.

Idaho Code §33-205 –Denial of school attendance. 

Idaho Code §33-512 –Governance of schools. 

Idaho State Board of Education Administrative Rule §08.02.03.160 – Safe environment and discipline. 

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Idaho Code §18-7095 – Stalking in the first degree.

Idaho Code §19-7906 – Stalking in the second degree.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Idaho Code §18-917a – Student harassment, intimidation, bullying.

Idaho Code §33-131 – Internet use policy required.

Idaho Code §33-205 – Denial of school attendance.

Idaho Code §33-512 – Governance of schools.

State Board of Education Administrative Rule §08.02.03.160 – Safe environment and discipline.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Idaho School Violence/Safety Policies/Procedures Manual

http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/safe_drugfree/docs/pub_docs/Section2.pdf

Illinois

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Illinois Senate Bill No. 3266 

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/10-20.14 – Amends student discipline policies.

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-23.7 – Amends bullying prevention.

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-23.9 – Bullying prevention task force.

30 Illinois Compiled Statutes §805/8.34 – No reimbursement from the state.

2010 Illinois House Bill No. 6391 

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-13.3 – Internet safety education curriculum.

2006 Illinois Senate Bill No. 2630

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-23.7 – Bullying prevention.

2001 Illinois Senate Bill No. 1026

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/22-12 – Preventing or interfering with a child's attendance at school.

2001 Illinois House Bill No. 646

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/10-20.14 – Student discipline policies.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

107

 Criminal Code Statutes 

720 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/12-7.5 – Cyberstalking.

720 Illinois Compiled Statutes §21/10 – Definition (stalking).

720 Illinois Compiled Statutes §135/1-2 – Harassment through electronic communications.

720 Illinois Compiled Statutes §135/1-3 – Evidence inference (harassment).

720 Illinois Compiled Statutes §135/2 – Sentence (harassment).

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/10-20.14 – Student discipline policies.

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/22-12 – Preventing or interfering with attendance.

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-13.3 – Internet safety education curriculum.

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-23.7 – Amends bullying prevention.

105 Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/27-23.9 – Bullying prevention task force.

30 Illinois Compiled Statutes §805/8.34 – No reimbursement from the state.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Indiana

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Indiana House Bill No. 1276

Indiana Code Annotated §20-33-8-0.2 – Bullying.

2005 Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 285

Indiana Code Annotated §5-2-10.1-2 – Purpose and composition of fund; grant priorities and amounts. 

Indiana Code Annotated §5-2-10.1-11 – School safety specialist training and certification program.

Indiana Code Annotated §5-2-10.1-12 – Safe school committees; school plans; copies of floor plans to law enforcement agency and fire department.

Indiana Code Annotated §20-8.1-5.1-0.2 –Definition.

Indiana Code Annotated §20-8.1-5.1-7.7 – Discipline rules. 

Indiana Code Annotated §20-10.2-3 – Strategic and continuous school improvement and achievement plan. 

Indiana Code Annotated §20-33-8-0.2 – Bullying.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Indiana Code Annotated §35-45-2-2 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Indiana Code Annotated §5-2-10.1-2 – Purpose and composition of fund; grant priorities and amounts. 

Indiana Code Annotated §5-2-10.1-11 – School safety specialist training and certification program.

Indiana Code Annotated §5-2-10.1-12 – Safe school committees; school plans; copies of floor plans to law enforcement agency and fire department.

Indiana Code Annotated §20-8.1-5.1-0.2 – Definition. 

Indiana Code Annotated §20-8.1-5.1-7.7 – Discipline rules. 

Indiana Code Annotated §20-10.2-3 – Strategic and continuous school improvement and achievement plan.

Indiana Code Annotated §20-33-8-0.2 – Bullying.

Indiana Code Annotated §20-33-8-13.5 – Discipline rules prohibiting bullying required Sec. 13.5.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

108

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Iowa

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2007 Iowa Senate File No. 61

Iowa Code §280.12 – School improvement advisory committee.

Iowa Code §280.28 –Harassment or bullying prevention goals, programs, training, and other initiatives.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Iowa Code §708.7 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Iowa Code §280.12 – School improvement advisory committee.

Iowa Code §280.28 – Harassment or bullying prevention goals, programs, training, and other initiatives. 

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Sampl Anti-Bullying/Harassment Policy

http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1030&Itemid=1293

Kansas

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Kansas House Bill No. 2758

Kansas Statutes Annotated §72-8256 – Bullying, school district policies.

2007 Kansas House Bill No. 2310

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Kansas Statutes Annotated §21-3438 – Stalking.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Kansas Statutes Annotated §72-8256 – Bullying, school district policies.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Kentucky

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Kentucky House Bill No. 91, Chapter No. 125 – The Golden Rule Act

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.148 – Student discipline guidelines and model policy.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.150 – Suspension or expulsion of pupils.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.440 – Legislative findings on school safety and order.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.441 – Definitions for chapter.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.444 – Administrative regulation relating to school safety – role of department of education to maintain statewide data 

collection system – reportable incidents – annual statistical reports – confidentiality.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

109

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §525.070 – Harassment.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §525.080 – Harassing communications.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.148 – Student discipline guidelines and model policy.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.150 – Suspension or expulsion of pupils.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.440 – Legislative findings on school safety and order.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.441 – Definitions for chapter.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §158.444 – Administrative regulation relating to school safety – role of department of education to maintain statewide data 

collection system – reportable incidents – annual statistical reports – confidentiality.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §525.070 – Harassment.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated §525.080 – Harassing communications.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Policies Related to Issues Found in KRS §158.156

http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A644E9E5-6E49-46F1-92F0-703F97091434/0/HB91ModelPolicyFinal.pdf

Louisiana

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Louisiana House Bill No. 1259, Act No. 989 – Cyberbullying

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §14:40.7 – Cyberbullying.

Children's Code Article 730(11) – Grounds.

2010 Louisiana House Bill No. 1458, Act No. 755

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(A) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(B) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(C) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(D) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

2010 Louisiana Senate Bill No. 568

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:53(A) – Training for school board members.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:53(B) – Training for school board members.

2001 Louisiana House Bill No. 364, Act No. 230

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §14:40.2 – Stalking.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §14:40.3 – Cyberstalking.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §14:40.7 – Cyberbullying.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(A) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions. 

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(B) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(C) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:416.13(D) – Student code of conduct requirement; harassment, intimidation, and bullying; prohibition; exemptions.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §14:40.7 – Cyberbullying.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

110

Children's Code Article 730(11) – Grounds. 

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:53(A) – Training for school board members.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated §17:53(B) – Training for school board members.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, and Cyberbullying Behavior Checklist

(The Louisiana Department of Education does not currently publish this document online in the public domain, and it is available by request.)

Maine

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2005 Legislative Document No. 564, House Paper No. 419 – An Act to Amend the Laws Governing the Student Code of Conduct

Maine Revised Statute Annotated Title 20-A, §1001.15H – Adoption of student code of conduct.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Maine School Management Association Sample Policy

http://www.maine.gov/education/bullyingprevention/samplepolicy.html

Maryland

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Maryland House Bill No. 199 – Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation - Policy and Disciplinary Standards

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424– Reporting incidents of harassment or intimidation against students.

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424.1 – Model policy prohibiting bullying, harassment and intimidation.

2008 Maryland House Bill No. 1158

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424 – Reporting incidents of harassment or intimidation against students.

2008 Maryland House Bill No. 1209

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424 – Reporting incidents of harassment or intimidation against students.

2005 Maryland House Bill No. 407 – Safe School Reporting Act of 2005

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424 – Reporting incidents of harassment or intimidation against students.

2003 Code of Maryland State Board of Education Regulation §13A.01.04.03 – School Safety 

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Maryland Code Annotated, Criminal §3-805 – Misuse of electronic mail.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424 – Reporting incidents of harassment or intimidation against students.

Maryland Code Annotated, Education §7-424.1 – Model policy prohibiting bullying, harassment and intimidation.

Maryland Code Annotated, Criminal §3-805 – Misuse of electronic mail.

Code of Maryland State Board of Education Regulation §13A.01.04.03 – School Safety

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Maryland's Model Policy to Address Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation

http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/0700B064-C2B3-41FC-A6CF-D3DAE4969707/19401/ModelBullyingPolicyDRAFT102108.pdf
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

111

Massachusetts

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Senate Bill No. 2404, Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2010 – Bullying in Schools Act

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §69 Section 1D – The board shall establish a set of statewide educational goals for all public elementary and secondary 

schools in the commonwealth.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71 Section 18 – Evening schools.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71, Section 37H – Policies relative to conduct of teachers or students; student handbooks.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71, Section 37O – Definitions.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71 Section 93 – Policy regarding internet safety measures for schools providing computer access to students. 

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71B – Children with special needs.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43 – Stalking; punishment.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §265 Section 43A – Criminal harassment; punishment.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §268 Section 13B – Intimidation of witnesses, jurors and persons furnishing information in connection with criminal 

proceedings.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §269 Section 14A – Annoying telephone calls.

2010 House Bill No. 4459, Chapter 97 of the Acts of 2010 – An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools

General Laws Chapter §69 Section 1D – The board shall establish a set of statewide educational goals for all public elementary and secondary schools in the 

commonwealth.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §69 Section 1D – The board shall establish a set of statewide educational goals for all public elementary and secondary 

schools in the commonwealth.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71 Section 18 – Evening schools.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71, Section 37H – Policies relative to conduct of teachers or students; student handbooks.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71, Section 37O – Definitions.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71 Section 93 – Policy regarding internet safety measures for schools providing computer access to students.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §71B – Children with special needs.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43 – Stalking; punishment.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §265 Section 43A – Criminal harassment; punishment.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §268 Section 13B – Intimidation of witnesses, jurors and persons furnishing information in connection with criminal 

proceedings.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter §269 Section 14A – Annoying telephone calls.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan

http://www.doe.mass.edu/bullying/#1

Michigan

Legislative History

No State Legislation
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

112

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Anti-Bullying Policy

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/SBE_Model_Anti-bullying_Policy_Revised_9.8_172355_7.pdf

Minnesota

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2007 Minnesota Senate Bill No. 646 – School Board Policy, Prohibiting Intimidation and Bullying (same as House File No. 504)

Minnesota Statutes §121A.0695 – School board policy, electronic.

2005 Minnesota House File No. 141

Minnesota Statutes §121A.03 – Model policy.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Minnesota Statutes §609.749 – Stalking; penalties.

Minnesota Statutes §609.795 – Letter, telegram, or package; opening; harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Minnesota Statutes §121A.0695 – Prohibiting intimidation and bullying.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Mississippi

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Mississippi Senate Bill No. 2015 – Bullying and Harassing Behavior in Public Schools

Mississippi Code §37-11-67 – Bullying or harassing behavior in public schools prohibited.

Mississippi Code §37-11-69 – Discipline policies against bullying or harassing behavior.

2007 Mississippi Senate Bill No. 2324 – Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Models in Public Schools

Mississippi Code §37-11-20 – Intimidation, threatening or coercion of students for purpose of interfering with attendance.

Mississippi Code §37-11-54 – State Board of Education to develop list of conflict resolution and peer mediation materials.

2001 Mississippi Senate Bill No. 2390 – Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation

Mississippi Code §37-11-54 – State Board of Education to develop list of conflict resolution and peer mediation materials.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Mississippi Code §97-3-107 – Stalking.

Mississippi Code §97-29-45 – Obscene electronic communications.

Mississippi Code §97-45-17 – Posting of messages through electronic media.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Mississippi Code §37-11-20 – Intimidation, threatening or coercion of students for purpose of interfering with attendance.

Mississippi Code §37-11-54 – State Board of Education to develop list of conflict resolution and peer mediation materials.

Mississippi Code §37-11-67 – Bullying or harassing behavior in public schools prohibited.

Mississippi Code §37-11-69 – Discipline policies against bullying or harassing behavior.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

113

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Mississippi School Safety Manual, School Safety Law and Policy Development

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/lead/osos/SchoolSafetyManual2005.pdf

Missouri

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Missouri House Bill No. 1543 

Missouri Revised Statutes §160.775 – Anti-Bullying policy requirements.

2008 Missouri Senate Bill No. 818 

Missouri Revised Statutes §160.261.1 – Discipline, written policy established by local boards of education.

Missouri Revised Statutes §565.225.1 – Definitions of stalking.

Missouri Revised Statutes §565.090.1 – Definitions of harassment.

2006 Missouri Senate Bill No. 894

Missouri Revised Statutes §160.775 – Anti-bullying policy required, definition, requirements.

1996 Missouri House Bill No. 1301, Missouri House Bill No. 1298, Missouri Senate Bill No. 944 – Safe Schools Act

Missouri Revised Statutes §167.117 – Principal, teachers, school employees to report certain acts.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Missouri Revised Statutes §160.261 – Discipline, written policy established by local boards of education.

Missouri Revised Statutes §160.775 – Anti-bullying policy required, definition, requirements.

Missouri Revised Statutes §167.117 – Principal, teachers, school employees to report certain acts.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Prohibition Against Illegal Discrimination and Harassment

Hazing and Bullying

(The Missouri School Boards’ Association does not currently publish these documents online in the public domain, and they are available by request.)

Montana

Legislative History

No State Legislation

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Hazing/Harassment/ Intimidation/Bullying/Menacing Policy No. 3226

http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/safeschools/BullyingPolicy.pdf (Pages 6 and 7)

Model Policy for School Districts on Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying

http://www.opi.mt.gov/pdf/safeschools/ModelBullyingPolicy.pdf

Nebraska

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Nebraska Legislative Bill No. 861
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

114

Nebraska Revised Statutes §79-267 – Student conduct constituting grounds for long-term suspension, expulsion, or mandatory reassignment; enumerated; 

alternatives for truant or tardy students.

2008 Nebraska Legislative Bill No. 205

Nebraska Revised Statutes §79-2,137 – School district; development and adoption of bullying prevention and education policy; review.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Nebraska Revised Statutes §79-267 – Student conduct constituting grounds for long-term suspension, expulsion, or mandatory reassignment; enumerated; 

alternatives for truant or tardy students.

Nebraska Revised Statutes §79-2,137 – School district; development and adoption of bullying prevention and education policy; review.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Board Policy: Anti-Bullying

http://www.education.ne.gov/StateBoard/General_Education_Policy_Statements_Index/G11_2003.pdf

Nebraska State Board of Education Policy: Anti-Bullying

http://www.education.ne.gov/safety/Docs/Bully_Policy.pdf

Nebraska Department of Education Implementation Plan To Address Bullying In Schools

http://www.education.ne.gov/safety/Docs/BullyingImplementationPlan.pdf

Considerations for Policy Development

http://www.education.ne.gov/safety/Bullying_Prevention/Bullying_Prevention_Policy_Dev.html 

Program Development

http:// www.education.ne.gov/safety/Bullying_Prevention/Bullying_Prevention_Program_Development.html

Staff Development

http://www.education.ne.gov/safety/Bullying_Prevention/Bullying_Prevention_Staff_Dev.html 

Parent Information

http://www.education.ne.gov/safety/Bullying_Prevention/Bullying_Prevention_Parent_Information.html

Nevada

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Nevada Assembly Bill No. 163

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.121 – Definitions.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.122 – “Bullying” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.123 – “Cyberbullying” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.124 – “Electronic communication” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.125 – “Harassment” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.129 – “Intimidation” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.132 – Legislative declaration concerning safe and respectful learning environment.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.133 – Policy by Department concerning safe and respectful learning environment.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.134 – Adoption of policy by school districts for provision of safe and respectful learning environment; training to 

school personnel, and annual report of violations.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.135 – Bullying, cyberbullying, harassment and intimidation prohibited.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.136 – School officials prohibited from interfering with disclosure of violations.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.137 – Immunity for reporting of violations; exceptions.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

115

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §389.520 – Policy for the ethical, safe and secure use of computers and other electronic devices.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §392.915 – Cyberbullying. 

2005 Nevada Assembly Bill No. 202

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.121 – Definitions.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.132 – Legislative declaration concerning safe and respectful learning environment.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.139 – Text of certain provisions required to be included in rules of behavior.

2003 Nevada Senate Bill No. 1

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §392.463 – Adoption of plan to ensure public schools are safe and free of controlled substances; written rules of behavior 

and punishments; distribution of plan and rules to pupils; availability for inspection.

2001 Nevada Assembly Bill No. 459

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §200.575 – Stalking.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.121 – Definitions.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.122 – “Bullying” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.123 – “Cyberbullying” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.124 – “Electronic communication” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.125 – “Harassment” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.129 – “Intimidation” defined.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.132 – Legislative declaration concerning safe and respectful learning environment.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.133 – Policy by Department concerning safe and respectful learning environment.

Nevada Revised Statute Annotated §388.134 – Adoption of policy by school districts for provision of safe and respectful learning environment; training to school 

personnel, and annual report of violations.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.135 – Bullying, cyberbullying, harassment and intimidation prohibited.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.136 – School officials prohibited from interfering with disclosure of violations.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.137 – Immunity for reporting of violations; exceptions.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §388.139 – Text of certain provisions required to be included in rules of behavior.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §389.520 – Policy for the ethical, safe and secure use of computers and other electronic devices.

Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §392.915 – Cyberbullying.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Nevada Department of Education Model School District Policy 

Safe and Respectful Learning Environment (SRLE)

 (The Nevada Department of Education does not currently publish this document online in the public domain, and it is available by request.)

New Hampshire

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 New Hampshire House Bill No. 1523 –Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention Act

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-D:9 – Liability for reporting.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:1 – Title.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:2 – Purpose and intent.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

116

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:3 – Definitions.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:4 – Pupil safety and violence prevention.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:5 – Training and assessment.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:6 – Reporting.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:7 – Immunity.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:8 – School district discrimination or harassment policies.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:9 – Private right of action not permitted.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:10 – Public academies.

2005 New Hampshire Board of Education Rule No. Ed 306.04 – Policy Development 

2004 New Hampshire House Bill No. 1162 –Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention Act

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:3 – Definitions.

2002 New Hampshire Senate Bill No. 155

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:5 – Training and assessment.

2000 New Hampshire Senate Bill No. 360 – Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention Act

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §190:2 – Interception and disclosure of telecommunication or oral communications prohibited.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:1 – Title.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:2 – Purpose and intent.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:3 – Definitions.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:4 – Pupil safety and violence Prevention.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

New Hampshire Revised Statutes §644:4 – Harassment

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-D:9 – Liability for reporting

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:1 – Title.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:2 – Purpose and intent.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:3 – Definitions.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:4 – Pupil safety and violence prevention.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:5 – Training and assessment.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:6 – Reporting.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:7 – Immunity. 

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:8 – School district discrimination or harassment policies.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:9 – Private right of action not permitted.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated §193-F:10 – Public Academies.

State Board of Education Rule §306.04 – Policy development.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

New Hampshire School Boards Association Sample Policy JICK Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention – Bullying

http://www.moultonborough.k12.nh.us/Draft_Bullying_Policy.pdf
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

117

New Jersey

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 3466, Chapter No. 122 – Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-14 – Harassment and bullying prevention strategies.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-15 – Adoption of policy concerning harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-15.1 – Electronic communication and harassment and bullying prevention.

2007 New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 3803 – Harassment and Bullying Prevention (same as Senate Bill No. 993)

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-14 – Definitions relative to adoption of harassment and bullying prevention policies.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §2C:12-10 – Definitions; stalking designated as a crime.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §2C:12-10.1 – Conviction for stalking, permanent restraining order.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-14 – Harassment and bullying prevention strategies.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-15 – Adoption of policy concerning harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §18A:37-15.1 – Electronic communication and harassment and bullying prevention.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Policy and Guidance for Prohibiting Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying on School Property, at School-Sponsored Functions and on School Buses

http://www.state.nj.us/education/parents/bully.htm

New Mexico

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 New Mexico Senate Bill No. 78

New Mexico Education Code §22-2-21. – Bullying prevention programs

2006 New Mexico Department of Public Education Rule Title 6, Chap. 12, Part 7 – Bullying Prevention

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.1 – Issuing agency

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.2 – Scope

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.3 – Statutory authority

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.4 – Duration

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.5 – Effective date

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.6 – Objective

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.7 – Definitions

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.8 – Requirements

 Criminal Code Statutes 

New Mexico Code §30-3A-3 – Stalking.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

New Mexico Education Code §22-2-21. – Bullying prevention programs

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.1 – Issuing agency

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.2 – Scope
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

118

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.3 – Statutory authority

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.4 – Duration

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.5 – Effective date

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.6 – Objective

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.7 – Definitions

New Mexico Administrative Code §6.12.7.8 – Requirements

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

School District Anti-Bullying Policy Guidance Document, School District Anti-Bullying Policy Sample

http://www.ped.state.nm.us/sfsb/tools/dl10/Anti%20Bullying%20Policy%20Guidance%20Document.pdf

New York

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 New York Law Article No. 55, §2801-a – School Safety Plans

2010 New York Assembly Bill No. 3661 – Dignity for All Students Act 1987B

New York Education Law §10 – Legislative intent.

New York Education Law §11 – Definitions.

New York Education Law §12 – Discrimination and harassment prohibited.

New York Education Law §13 – Policies and guidelines.

New York Education Law §14 – Commissioner’s responsibilities.

New York Education Law §15 – Reporting by commissioner.

New York Education Law §16 – Protection of people who report discrimination or harassment.

New York Education Law §17 – Application.

New York Education Law §18 – Severability and construction.

2008 New York Senate Bill No. 7051

New York Education Law §814 – Courses of study in internet safety.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

New York Penal Law §240.30 – Aggravated harassment in the second degree.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

New York Law Article No. 55, §2801-a – School safety plans.

New York Education Law §10 – Legislative intent.

New York Education Law §11 – Definitions.

New York Education Law §12 – Discrimination and harassment prohibited.

New York Education Law §13 – Policies and guidelines.

New York Education Law §14 – Commissioner’s responsibilities.

New York Education Law §15 – Reporting by commissioner.

New York Education Law §16 – Protection of people who report discrimination or harassment.

New York Education Law §17 – Application.

New York Education Law §18 – Severability and construction.

New York Education Law §814 – Courses of study in internet safety.

New York Penal Law §240.30 – Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

119

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Guidance on Bullying and Cyberbullying 

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/technology/internet_safety/documents/cyberbullying.pdf

North Carolina

Legislative History

Criminal Code Statutes

2009 North Carolina House Bill No. 1261 – Cyberbullying; Penalty

North Carolina General Statute §14-458.1 – Cyberbullying penalty.

Education Code Statutes

2009 North Carolina Senate Bill No. 526 – School Violence Prevention Act

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.5 – Bullying and harassing behavior.

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.6 – Policy against bullying and harassing behavior.

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.7 – Prevention of school violence.

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.8 – Construction of statute.

2004 North Carolina State Board of Education Policy No. HRS-A-007 – Policy for Anti-Harassment, Bullying, and Discrimination

 Criminal Code Statutes 

North Carolina General Statute §14-196.3 – Cyberstalking.

North Carolina General Statute §14-196(b) – Harassment over the telephone.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.5 – Bullying and harassing behavior.

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.6 – Policy against bullying and harassing behavior.

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.7 – Prevention of school violence.

North Carolina General Statute §115C-407.8 – Construction of statute.

North Carolina General Statute §14-458.1 – Cyberbullying penalty.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Policy for Anti-Harassment, Bullying, and Discrimination

http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us/policies/HRS-A-007.asp?pri=03andcat=Aandpol=007andacr=HRS

North Dakota

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 North Dakota House Bill No. 1465

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §1 – Bullying – definition.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §2 – “Conduct” includes the use of technology or other electronic media.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §3 – Professional development activities.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §4 – Bullying prevention programs.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §5 – Causes of action – immunity – school districts.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §6 – Causes of action – immunity – nonpublic schools.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §1 – Bullying – definition.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

120

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §2 – “Conduct” includes the use of technology or other electronic media.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §3 – Professional development activities.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §4 – Bullying prevention programs.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §5 – Causes of action – immunity – school districts.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 15.1-19 §6 – Causes of action – immunity – nonpublic schools.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Ohio

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Ohio House Bill No. 19

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3313.666 – District policy prohibiting harassment required.

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3313.667 – District bullying prevention initiatives.

2006 Ohio House Bill No. 276 – Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying Policy, Adopt Own

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3301.22 – Model harassment prevention policy.

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3313.666 – District policy prohibiting harassment required.

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3313.667 – District bullying prevention initiatives.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §2903.211 – Menacing bys.

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §2917.21(A) – Telecommunications harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3301.22 – Model harassment prevention policy.

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3313.666 – District policy prohibiting harassment required.

Ohio Revised Code Annotated §3313.667 – District bullying prevention initiatives.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Anti-harassment, Anti-intimidation or Anti-bullying Model Policy

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=29538

Oklahoma

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Oklahoma Senate Bill No. 1941 – Oklahoma School Security Act

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.3 – School bullying prevention act – legislative findings – purpose of act – definitions.

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.4 – School bullying prevention act – control and discipline of child – prohibition of harassment, intimidation, and 

bullying. 

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.5 – School bullying prevention act – safe school committees.

2002 Oklahoma House Bill No. 2215 – School Bullying Prevention Act (same as Oklahoma House Bill No. 992)

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100 – Oklahoma school bullying prevention act.

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.2 – School bullying prevention act.

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.3 – School bullying prevention act – legislative findings – purpose of act – definitions.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

121

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.4 – School bullying prevention act – control and discipline of child – prohibition of harassment, intimidation, and 

bullying. 

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.5 – School bullying prevention act – safe school committees.

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §6-114 (renumbered as §24-100.4)

Oklahoma House Bill No. 2287 – Oklahoma Safe Schools Act Program

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Oklahoma Statute §21-1172 – Obscene, threatening, or harassing telecommunications.

Oklahoma Statute §21-1173 – Stalking.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.2 – School bullying prevention act.

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.3 – School bullying prevention act – legislative findings – purpose of act – definitions.

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.4 – School bullying prevention act – control and discipline of child – prohibition of harassment, intimidation, and 

bullying. 

Oklahoma Statute Annotated Title 70, §24-100.5 – School bullying prevention act – safe school committees.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Safe Schools Guide: Selected Strategies and Resources

http://www.sde.state.ok.us/Schools/SafeHealthy/pdf/SafeSchlGuide.pdf

Oregon

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Oregon House Bill No. 2599

Oregon Revised Statute §339.351 – Definitions.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.356 – District policy required.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.359 – Training programs; prevention task forces, programs and other initiatives.

2007 Oregon House Bill No. 2637

Oregon Revised Statute §339.351 – Definitions.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.353 – Findings.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.356 – District policy required.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.359 – Training programs; prevention task forces, programs and other initiatives.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.362 – Retaliation against victims and witnesses prohibited; school employee immunity.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.364 – Victim may seek redress under other laws.

2001 Oregon House Bill No. 3403 

Oregon Revised Statute §339.351 – Definitions.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.353 – Findings.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.356 – District policy required.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.359 – Harassment, intimidation or bullying prevention task forces, programs, and other initiatives.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.362 – District shall adopt a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.364 – Victim may seek redress under other laws.

1997 Oregon House Bill No. 3544 – Two-Year Pilot Program

Oregon Revised Statute §163.730 – Definitions for ORS §30.866 and §163.730 to §163.750
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

122

Oregon Revised Statute §163.732 – Stalking.

Oregon Revised Statute §166.065 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Oregon Revised Statute §339.351 – Definitions.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.353 – Findings.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.356 – District policy required.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.359 – Training programs; prevention task forces, programs and other initiatives.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.362 – Retaliation against victims and witnesses prohibited; school employee immunity.

Oregon Revised Statute §339.364 – Victim may seek redress under other laws.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Memorandum No. §002-2009-10 – Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying Policy and Procedures

http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?=5118

Pennsylvania

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Pennsylvania House Bill No. 1067 – Each School Adopt a Bullying Policy

24 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute §13-1303.1-A – Policy relating to bullying.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute Title 18 §2709.1 – Stalking.

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute Title 18 §2709 – Harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

24 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute §13-1303.1-A – Policy relating to bullying.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Bullying/Cyberbullying Policy No. 249

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/890097/bullying_cyberbullying_pdf?qid=56614459andrank=3

Rhode Island

Legislative History *

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Rhode Island House/Assembly Bill No. 7213 (same as Senate Act No. 2012)

Rhode Island General Laws §16-21-26 – Student discipline codes.

2003 Rhode Island House/Assembly Bill No. 5919

Rhode Island General Laws §16-21-24 – Requirements of school safety plans, school emergency response plans, and school crisis response plans.

2008 Rhode Island Senate Bill No. 2021

Rhode Island General Laws §11-52-4.2 – Cyberstalking and cyberharassment prohibited. 

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Rhode Island General Laws §16-21-24 – Requirements of school safety plans, school emergency response plans, and school crisis response plans.

Rhode Island General Laws §16-21-26 – Student discipline codes.

* Note: Rhode Island passed legislation in 2008 governing cyberharassment. Cyberbullying is also covered under statutes within the Education Code.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

123

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

A Guide to Preventing Bullying, Teen Dating Violence, and Sexual Violence in Rhode Island Schools

http://www.ride.ri.gov/commissioner/edpolicy/documents/20080401_guidebullyingtdv_v1_kr.pdf

Guidance on Developing Required Policies against Bullying

http://www.ride.ri.gov/psi/docs/child_family/substance/bullying %20guidance %20and %20modelpolicy %2011-21-03.pdf

South Carolina

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 South Carolina House Bill No. 4758

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-425 – Transfer upon violation of restraining order; interscholastic activity eligibility.

2006 South Carolina House Bill No. 3573 - Safe School Climate Act

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-110 – Safe school climate act.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-120 – Definitions.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-130 – Prohibited conduct; reports by witnesses.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-140 – Local school districts to adopt policies prohibiting harassment, bullying prevention programs.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-150 – Availability of civil or criminal redress; immunity of reporting school employee or volunteer.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

South Carolina Code Annotated §16-3-1700 – Harassment and stalking.

South Carolina Code Annotated §16-17-430 – Unlawful communication.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-110 – Safe school climate act.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-120 – Definitions.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-130 – Prohibited conduct; reports by witnesses.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-140 – Local school districts to adopt policies prohibiting harassment, bullying prevention programs.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-150 – Availability of civil or criminal redress; immunity of reporting school employee or volunteer.

South Carolina Code Annotated §59-63-425 – Transfer upon violation of restraining order; interscholastic activity eligibility.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Policy Prohibiting Harassment, Intimidation or Bullying 

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Innovation-and-Support/Youth-Services/Safe-And-Drugfree-Schools/Model-Bullying-Policy.pdf

South Dakota

Legislative History

No State Legislation

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

124

Tennessee

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Tennessee Senate Bill No. 283 (same as House Bill No. 451)

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1016 – District policy requirement.

2009 Tennessee Senate Bill No. 113 

Tennessee Code Annotated §39-17-308 – Cyberbullying.

2007 Tennessee Senate Bill No. 1910

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-4301 – Reporting student offenses – non-specific language-assault.

2005 Tennessee House Bill No. 2114, Substituted for Senate Bill No. 1621

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1014 – Purpose.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1015 – Scope and definition.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1016 – District policy requirement.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1017 – Adoption of policy – transmission of copy of policy to the commissioner of education.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1018 – Reporting and immunity.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1019 – Encouraged task forces.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Tennessee Code Annotated §39-17-315 – Stalking.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Tennessee Code Annotated §39-17-315 – Stalking.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1014 – Purpose.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1015 – Scope and definition.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1016 – District policy requirement.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1017 – Adoption of policy – transmission of copy of policy to the commissioner of education.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1018 – Reporting and immunity.

Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1019 – Encouraged task forces.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy – State distributes Tennessee Code Annotated §49-6-1016 in lieu of a state model policy, upon request.

Texas

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2007 Texas Senate Bill No. 137

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.217 – Community education relating to internet safety.

2005 Texas House Bill No. 283 

Texas Education Code Annotated §25.0342 – Transfer of victims of bullying.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.001 – Student code of conduct.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.083a – Discipline management policies; sexual harassment.

1995 Texas Education Code Annotated §37.123 – Disruptive activities.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.124 – Disruption of classes.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

125

Criminal Code Statutes

2009 Texas House Bill No. 2003

Texas Penal Code §33.07 – Online harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Texas Education Code Annotated §25.0342 – Transfer of victims of bullying.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.001 – Student code of conduct.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.083a – Discipline management policies; sexual harassment.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.123 – Disruptive activities.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.124 – Disruption of classes.

Texas Education Code Annotated §37.217 – Community education relating to internet safety.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

No Model Policy

Utah

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 Utah Senate Joint Resolution No. 27 – Bullying and Cyberbullying Standards for School Districts Joint Resolution

2009 Utah State Board of Education Policy No. R227-613 – School Bullying and Hazing Policies and Training

2008 Utah State Board of Education Policy No. R227-609 – Standards for school discipline plans

2008 Utah House Bill No. 325 – Bullying and Hazing

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-101 – Title.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-102 – Bullying and hazing definitions.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-201– Bullying and hazing prohibited.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-202 – Retaliation ad making false allegation prohibited.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-301– Reporting of bullying and hazing.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-302 – Model policy.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-401– Bullying and hazing policy.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-402 – Other forms of legal redress.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-501– Training, education, prevention.

2003 Utah Education Code §53A-11-904 – Grounds for Suspension or Expulsion from a Public School

Criminal Code Statutes

2009 Utah Senate Bill No. 91

Utah Code §76-5-106.5 – Stalking.

Utah Code §76-9-201 – Electronic communication harassment.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Utah State Board of Education Policy §R227-609 – Standards for school discipline plans.

Utah State Board of Education Policy §R227-613 – School bullying and hazing policies and training.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11-904 – Grounds for suspension or expulsion from a public school.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-101 – Title.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-102 – Bullying and hazing definitions.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-201– Bullying and hazing prohibited.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

126

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-202 – Retaliation ad making false allegation prohibited.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-301– Reporting of bullying and hazing.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-302 – Model policy.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-401– Bullying and hazing policy.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-402 – Other forms of legal redress.

Utah Code Annotated §53A-11a-501– Training, education, prevention.

Utah Code Annotated §76-9-201 – Electronic communication harassment.

Utah House Bill SJR 27 – Bullying and cyberbullying standards for school districts joint resolution.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

USOE Model Policy Bullying and Hazing

http://www.schools.utah.gov/law/DOCS/PAPERS/Model-Policy.aspx

XYZ School District Student Discipline Model Policy

http://www.schools.utah.gov/law/DOCS/PAPERS/Student_Discipline_Plans_Model_Policy_11-08.aspx

Utah State Board of Education Rule §R277-609

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-609.htm

Vermont

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2008 Vermont Senate Bill No. 357, Act No. 174

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §19 – Study of bullying and harassment in schools.

2007 Vermont Senate Bill No. 51, Act 41 – Gender Identity

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §(a) – Classifications and definitions.

2004 Vermont House Bill No. H629

Vermont Department of Education Act 117 – An act relating to bullying prevention policies.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §11(a)(32) – School discipline policies; bullying.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §1161a(a)(6) – School discipline policies; bullying.

2004 Vermont House Bill No. 113, General Assembly Act No. 91 – An Act Relating to Harassment in Schools

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §11 – Classifications and definitions.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §1161a – Discipline.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §14 – Harassment; notice and response.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §565 – Harassment and hazing prevention policies.

1994 Vermont Act No. 162, S. 313 – An Act Relating to Harassment Policies in Schools

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Vermont Statute Title 13, Chapter 19, §1027 – Disturbing peace by use of telephone or other electronic communications.

Vermont Statute Title 13, Chapter 19, §1061 – Definitions.

Vermont Statute Title 13, Chapter 19, §1062 – Stalking.

Vermont Statute Title 13, Chapter 19, §1063 – Aggravated stalking.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §11 – Classifications and definitions.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §14 – Harassment; notice and response.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

127

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §565 – Harassment and hazing prevention policies.

Vermont Statute Annotated Title 16, §1161a – Discipline.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Bullying Prevention Plan

http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/pgm_safeschools/pubs/bullying_prevention_04.pdf

Virginia

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Virginia House Bill No. 907 – Reports of Certain Acts to School Authorities; Local Law-Enforcement Authorities to Report

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-279.3:1 – Reports of certain acts to school authorities; local law enforcement authorities to report.

2009 Virginia House Bill No. 1624 

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-279.6 – Board of education guidelines and model policies for codes of student conduct.

2005 Virginia House Bill No. 2267 – Harassment; Immunity for any School Employee or Volunteer who Reports Incident

Virginia Code Annotated §8.01-220.1:2 – Civil immunity for teachers under certain circumstances.

2005 Virginia House Bill No. 2879

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-208.01 – Character education.

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-279.6 – Board of education guidelines and model policies for codes of student conduct.

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-279.3:1 – Reports of certain acts to authorities.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Virginia Code Annotated §8.01-220.1:2 – Civil immunity for teachers under certain circumstances.

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-208.01 – Character education.

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-279.3:1 – Reports of certain acts to school authorities; local law enforcement authorities to report.

Virginia Code Annotated §22.1-279.6 – Board of education guidelines and model policies for codes of student conduct.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Cyberbullying and School Policy 

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/prevention/bullying/index.shtml (Index of Documents)

Student Conduct Policy Guidelines

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/guidance/safety/student_conduct.pdf

Washington

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Washington Substitute House Bill No. 2801 – Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying

Washington Revised Code §28A.300.285 – Harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policies and procedures.

Washington Revised Code §43.06B.060 – Public school antiharassment policies and strategies – lead agency.

2007 Washington Substitute Senate Bill No. 5288 – Cyberbullying

Washington Revised Code §28A.300.285 – Harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policies and procedures.

2002 Washington House Bill No. 1444 – Bullying 

Washington Revised Code §28A.300.285 – Harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policies and procedures.

Washington Revised Code §28A.600.480 – Reporting of harassment, intimidation, or bullying.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

128

2001 Washington Senate Bill No. 6153

2001 Washington House Bill No. 1041 (same as Senate Bill No. 5842)

Washington Revised Code §28A.640.020 – Sexual harassment policies.

 Criminal Code Statutes 

Washington Revised Code §9.61.260 – Cyberstalking.

Washington Revised Code §9A.36.080(3) – Specific characteristics.

Washington Revised Code §9A.46.020 – Definition, penalties – harassment.

Washington Revised Code §9A.46.110 – Stalking.

Washington Revised Code §10.14.20 – Definitions.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Washington Revised Code §9A.36.080(3) – Specific characteristics.

Washington Revised Code §28A.300.285 – Harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policies and procedures.

Washington Revised Code §28A.600.480 – Reporting of harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

Washington Revised Code §43.06B.060 – Public school antiharassment policies and strategies – lead agency.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

The Prohibition of Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying, Policy/Procedure No. 3207P

http://www.k12.wa.us/SafetyCenter/Guidance/pubdocs/Anti-BullyingProcedureFinal.pdf 

West Virginia

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2011 West Virginia House Bill No. 3225

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-2 – Definitions.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-3 – Policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying.

2008 West Virginia House Bill No. 4368 (same as Senate Bill No. 594)

West Virginia Code Annotated §18A-5-1 – Authority of teachers and other school personnel; exclusion of pupils having infectious diseases; suspension or 

expulsion of disorderly pupils; corporal punishment abolished.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18A-5-1c – Bill of rights and responsibilities for students and school personnel.

2007 West Virginia Legislative Rule Board of Education No. 2421 – Harassment and Violence Policy

2003 West Virginia Legislative Rule Board of Education No. 4373/No. 4336 – Student Code of Conduct

2001 West Virginia House Bill No. 3023

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2-7B – Programs in drug prevention and violence reduction.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-1 – Legislative findings.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-2 – Definitions.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-3 – Policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-4 – Immunity.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-5 – Policy training and education.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-6 – Liability.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2-7B – Programs in drug prevention and violence reduction.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-1 – Legislative findings.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

129

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-2 – Definitions.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-3 – Policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-4 – Immunity.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-5 – Policy training and education.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18-2C-6 – Liability.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18A-5-1 – Authority of teachers and other school personnel; exclusion of pupils having infectious diseases; suspension or 

expulsion of disorderly pupils; corporal punishment abolished.

West Virginia Code Annotated §18A-5-1c – Bill of rights and responsibilities for students and school personnel.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

West Virginia State Board of Education Rule, §126-18 – Racial, Sexual, Religious/Ethnic Harassment and Violence, Policy No. 2421

http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2421.html

State Board of Education Rule §126-99 – Student Code of Conduct, Policy No. 4373,

http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2421.html

Wisconsin

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2010 Wisconsin Senate Bill No. 154, Act No. 309

Wisconsin Statute §118.13 – Pupil discrimination prohibited.

Wisconsin Statute §118.46 – Policy on bullying.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Wisconsin Statute §118.13 – Pupil discrimination prohibited.

Wisconsin Statute §118.46 – Policy on bullying.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Model Bullying Policy

http://dpi.wi.gov/sspw/doc/modelbullyingpolicy.doc

Bullying Prevention Guidelines

http://dpi.wi.gov/sspw/pdf/bullyingguide.pdf

Wyoming

Legislative History

 Education Code Statutes 

2009 Wyoming House Bill No. 0223

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-311 – Safe school climate act.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-312 – Definitions.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-313 – Prohibition against harassment, intimidation or bullying; reporting to school officials.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-314 – School district implementation; state policies, training and technical assistance.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-315 – Applicability; no civil liability created; immunity.

Consolidated List of Bullying Laws in State Legislative Analysis

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-311 – Safe school climate act.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-312 – Definitions.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix B: Summary of Bullying Legislation, State Statutes, and Model Policies

130

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-313 – Prohibition against harassment, intimidation or bullying; reporting to school officials.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-314 – School district implementation; state policies, training and technical assistance.

Wyoming Statute Annotated §21-4-315 – Applicability; no civil liability created; immunity.

State Model Policies/Guidance Documents

Anti Bullying Model Policy I

Anti Bullying Model Policy II

(The Wyoming Department of Education does not currently publish these documents online in the public domain, and they are available by request.)

Note: Because of ongoing change in school bullying policies, state model policies and other guidance documents, web links to state policy or documents on relevant state web sites 

(Appendix B) may have changed, as data collection for this study was completed on April 30, 2011.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

131

Appendix C 

Bullying and Related Terms 

As Defined in State Legislation

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

133

Bullying and Related Terms as Defined in State Legislation

State Terms Legislative Text 

Alabama Harassment A continuous pattern of intentional behavior that takes place on school property, on a 

school bus, or at a school-sponsored function including, but not limited to, written, 

electronic, verbal, or physical acts that are reasonably perceived as being motivated by 

any characteristic of a student, or by the association of a student with an individual who 

has a particular characteristic, if the characteristic falls into one of the categories of 

personal characteristics contained in the model policy adopted by the department or by 

a local board. To constitute harassment, a pattern of behavior may do any of the 

following: 

 a. Place a student in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or damage to his or 

her property. 

 b. Have the effect of substantially interfering with the educational performance, 

opportunities, or benefits of a student. 

 c. Have the effect of substantially disrupting or interfering with the orderly operation 

of the school. 

 d. Have the effect of creating a hostile environment in the school, on school 

property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored function. 

 e. Have the effect of being sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive enough to 

create an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student. 

Ala. Code §16-28B-3

Alaska Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

"Harassment, intimidation, or bullying" means an intentional written, oral, or physical 

act, when the act is undertaken with the intent of threatening, intimidating, harassing, 

or frightening the student, and 

 (A) physically harms the student or damages the student's property; 

 (B) has the effect of substantially interfering with the student's education; 

 (C) is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or threatening 

educational environment; or 

 (D) has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school; 

Alaska Stat. §14.33.250

Arizona Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

No definition in state legislation

Arkansas Bullying (1) "Attribute" means an actual or perceived personal characteristic including without 

limitation race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, socioeconomic status, academic 

status, disability, gender, gender identity, physical appearance, health condition, or 

sexual orientation;

(2) "Bullying" means the intentional harassment, intimidation, humiliation, ridicule, 

defamation, or threat or incitement of violence by a student against another student or 

public school employee by a written, verbal, electronic, or physical act that may address 

an attribute of the other student, public school employee, or person with whom the 

other student or public school employee is associated and that causes or creates actual 

or reasonably foreseeable:

 (A) Physical harm to a public school employee or student or damage to the public 

school employee's or student's property;

 (B) Substantial interference with a student's education or with a public school 

employee's role in education;

 (C) A hostile educational environment for one (1) or more students or public school 

employees due to the severity, persistence, or pervasiveness of the act; or

 (D) Substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school or educational 

environment;

(3) "Electronic act" means without limitation a communication or image transmitted by 

means of an electronic device, including without limitation a telephone, wireless phone 

or other wireless communications device, computer, or pager;

(4) "Harassment" means a pattern of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct relating to 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

134

State Terms Legislative Text 

another person's constitutionally or statutorily protected status that causes, or 

reasonably should be expected to cause, substantial interference with the other's 

performance in the school environment; and

(5) "Substantial disruption" means without limitation that any one (1) or more of the 

following occur as a result of the bullying:

 (A) Necessary cessation of instruction or educational activities;

 (B) Inability of students or educational staff to focus on learning or function as an 

educational unit because of a hostile environment;

 (C) Severe or repetitive disciplinary measures are needed in the classroom or during 

educational activities; or

 (D) Exhibition of other behaviors by students or educational staff that substantially 

interfere with the learning environment.

Ark. Code. Ann.§6-18-514

Harassment (4) "Harassment" means a pattern of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct relating to 

another person's constitutionally or statutorily protected status that causes, or 

reasonably should be expected to cause, substantial interference with the other's 

performance in the school environment;

Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514

California Bullying (f) As used in this chapter, "bullying" means one or more acts by a pupil or group of 

pupils as defined in Section 48900.2, 48900.3, or 48900.4. 

(g) As used in this chapter, an "electronic act" means the transmission of a 

communication, including, but not limited to, a message, text, sound, or image by 

means of an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, wireless 

telephone or other wireless communication device, computer, or pager. 

Cal. Educ. Code §32261

(r) Engaged in an act of bullying, including, but not limited to, bullying committed by 

means of an electronic act, as defined in subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 32261, 

directed specifically toward a pupil or school personnel. 

Cal. Educ. Code §48900

Harassment The department shall assess whether local educational agencies have done all of the 

following: 

 (a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on the 

characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220.

Cal. Educ. Code §234.1

(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or 

more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:

 (1) Disability.

 (2) Gender.

 (3) Nationality.

 (4) Race or ethnicity.

 (5) Religion.

 (6) Sexual orientation.

 (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived 

characteristics.

(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6. 

Cal. Penal Code §422.55

No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, 

nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that 

is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal 

Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, 

or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student 

financial aid.

Cal. Educ. Code §220

Colorado Bullying "Bullying" means any written or verbal expression, or physical act or gesture, or a 

pattern thereof, that is intended to cause distress upon one or more students in the 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

135

State Terms Legislative Text 

school, on school grounds, in school vehicles, at a designated school bus stop, or at 

school activities or sanctioned events. The school district's policy shall include a 

reasonable balance between the pattern and the severity of such bullying behavior. 

Colo. Rev. Stat. §22-32-109.1

Connecticut Bullying “Bullying” means any overt acts by a student or a group of students directed against 

another student with the intent to ridicule, humiliate, or intimidate the other student 

while on school grounds or at a school-sponsored activity which acts are repeated 

against the same student over time. 

Conn. Gen. Stat.§10-222d

Delaware Bullying "Bullying" means any intentional written, electronic, verbal or physical act or actions 

against another student, school volunteer or school employee that a reasonable person 

under the circumstances should know will have the effect of:

 (1) Placing a student, school volunteer or school employee in reasonable fear of 

substantial harm to his or her emotional or physical well-being or substantial damage to 

his or her property. 

 (2) Creating a hostile, threatening, humiliating or abusive educational environment 

due to the pervasiveness or persistence of actions or due to a power differential 

between the bully and the target; or 

 (3) Interfering with a student having a safe school environment that is necessary to 

facilitate educational performance, opportunities or benefits; or 

 (4) Perpetuating bullying by inciting, soliciting or coercing an individual or group to 

demean, dehumanize, embarrass or cause emotional, psychological or physical harm to 

another student, school volunteer or school employee. 

Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 14, §4112D

Florida Bullying (2) Bullying or harassment of any student or employee of a public K-12 educational 

institution is prohibited: 

 (a) During any education program or activity conducted by a public K-12 

educational institution;

 (b) During any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity or on a 

school bus of a public K-12 educational institution; or

 (c) Through the use of data or computer software that is accessed through a 

computer, computer system, or computer network of a public K-12 educational 

institution.

(3)For purposes of this section: 

 (a) “Bullying” means systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt or 

psychological distress on one or more students and may involve: 

 1. Teasing; 

 2. Social exclusion;

 3. Threat;

 4. Intimidation;

 5. Stalking;

 6. Physical violence;

 7. Theft;

 8. Sexual, religious, or racial harassment;

 9. Public humiliation; or

 10. Destruction of property.

 (b) “Harassment” means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of 

data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed against a 

student or school employee that: 

 1. Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or her 

person or damage to his or her property;

 2. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational 

performance, opportunities, or benefits; or

 3. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school.

 (c) Definitions in s. 815.03 and the definition in s. 784.048(1)(d) relating to stalking 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

136

State Terms Legislative Text 

are applicable to this section.

 (d) The definitions of “bullying” and “harassment” include: 

 1. Retaliation against a student or school employee by another student or school 

employee for asserting or alleging an act of bullying or harassment. Reporting an act of 

bullying or harassment that is not made in good faith is considered retaliation.

 2. Perpetuation of conduct listed in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) by an 

individual or group with intent to demean, dehumanize, embarrass, or cause physical 

harm to a student or school employee by: 

 a. Incitement or coercion;

 b. Accessing or knowingly causing or providing access to data or computer 

software through a computer, computer system, or computer network within the scope 

of the district school system; or

 c. Acting in a manner that has an effect substantially similar to the effect of 

bullying or harassment.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147

Harassment (b) “Harassment” means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of 

data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed against a 

student or school employee that: 

 1. Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or her 

person or damage to his or her property;

 2. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational 

performance, opportunities, or benefits; or

 3. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147

Georgia Bullying "Bullying" means an act which occurs on school property, on school vehicles, at 

designated school bus stops, or at school related functions or activities, or by use of 

data or software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, computer 

network, or other electronic technology of a local school system, that is: 

 (1) Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury on another person, when 

accompanied by an apparent present ability to do so; 

 (2) Any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or 

expect immediate bodily harm; or 

 (3) Any intentional written, verbal, or physical act, which a reasonable person would 

perceive as being intended to threaten, harass, or intimidate, that: 

 (A) Causes another person substantial physical harm within the meaning of Code 

§16-5-23.1 or visible bodily harm as such term is defined in Code §6-5-23.1; 

 (B) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's education; 

 (C) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or 

threatening educational environment; or 

 (D) Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school. 

Ga. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4

Idaho Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

(1) No student shall intentionally commit, or conspire to commit, an act of harassment, 

intimidation or bullying against another student.

(2) As used in this section, "harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any 

intentional gesture, or any intentional written, verbal or physical act or threat by a 

student that:

 (a) A reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect 

of:

 (i) Harming a student; or

 (ii) Damaging a student’s property; or

 (iii) Placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person; or

 (iv) Placing a student in reasonable fear of damage to his or her property; or

 (b) Is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an intimidating,

threatening or abusive educational environment for a student.

An act of harassment, intimidation or bullying may also be committed through the use 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

137

State Terms Legislative Text 

of a land line, car phone or wireless telephone or through the use of data or computer 

software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(3) A student who personally violates any provision of this section may be guilty of an 

infraction.

Idaho Code §18-917a

Illinois Bullying (b) In this Section:

"Bullying" means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including 

communications made in writing or electronically, directed toward a student or 

students that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of 

the following:

 (1) placing the student or students in reasonable fear of harm to the student's or 

students' person or property;

 (2) causing a substantially detrimental effect on the student's or students' physical or 

mental health;

 (3) substantially interfering with the student's or students' academic performance; or

 (4) substantially interfering with the student's or students' ability to participate in or 

benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school.

Bullying, as defined in this subsection (b), may take various forms, including without 

limitation one or more of the following: harassment, threats, intimidation, stalking, 

physical violence, sexual harassment, sexual violence, theft, public humiliation, 

destruction of property, or retaliation for asserting or alleging an act of bullying. This 

list is meant to be illustrative and non-exhaustive. 

105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7

Indiana Bullying “Bullying” means overt, repeated acts or gestures, including : 

 (1) verbal or written communications transmitted; physical acts committed; or any 

other behaviors committed; by a student or group of students against another student 

with the intent to harass, ridicule, humiliate, intimidate, or harm the other student. 

Ind. Code Ann. §20-33-8

Iowa Harassing and 

bullying 

“Harassing” and “bullying” shall be construed to mean any electronic, written, verbal, 

or physical act or conduct toward a student which is based on any actual or perceived 

trait or characteristic of the student and which creates an objectively hostile school 

environment that meets one or more of the following conditions: 

 (1) Places the student in reasonable fear of harm to the student’s person or property, 

 (2) Has a substantially detrimental effect on the student’s physical or mental health, 

 (3) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s academic performance, 

 (4) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s ability to participate in 

or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school. 

Iowa Code §280.28

Kansas Bullying (1) "Bullying" means: 

 (A) Any intentional gesture or any intentional written, verbal, electronic or physical 

act or threat that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an 

intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for a student or staff

member that a reasonable person, under the circumstances, knows or should know will 

have the effect of: 

 (i) Harming a student or staff member, whether physically or mentally; 

 (ii) damaging a student's or staff member's property; 

 (iii) placing a student or staff member in reasonable fear of harm to the student 

or staff member; or 

 (iv) placing a student or staff member in reasonable fear of damage to the 

student's or staff member's property; 

 (B) cyberbullying; or 

 (C) any other form of intimidation or harassment prohibited by the board of 

education of the school district in policies concerning bullying adopted pursuant to this 

section or subsection (e) of K.S.A. 72-8205, and amendments thereto. 

Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

138

State Terms Legislative Text 

Kentucky Harassment A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to intimidate, harass, annoy, or 

alarm another person, he or she: 

 (a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him to physical contact; 

 (b) Attempts or threatens to strike, shove, kick, or otherwise subject the person to 

physical contact; 

 (c) In a public place, makes an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or 

addresses abusive language to any person present; 

 (d) Follows a person in or about a public place or places; 

 (e) Engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or 

seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose; or 

 (f) Being enrolled as a student in a local school district, and while on school 

premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored event: 

 1. Damages or commits a theft of the property of another student; 

 2. Substantially disrupts the operation of the school; or 

 3. Creates a hostile environment by means of any gestures, written 

communications, oral statements, or physical acts that a reasonable person under the 

circumstances should know would cause another student to suffer fear of physical 

harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment. 

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §525.070

Louisiana Harassment, 

intimidation, 

and bullying

The terms "harassment,” "intimidation,” and "bullying" shall mean any intentional 

gesture or written, verbal, or physical act that: 

 (a) A reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect of 

harming a student or damaging his property or placing a student in reasonable fear of 

harm to his life or person or damage to his property; and 

 (b) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or 

abusive educational environment for a student. 

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §416.13

Maine Bullying, 

harassment, 

sexual 

harassment

For the purpose of this policy, “bullying” means any physical act or gesture or any

verbally, written, or electronically communicated expression that:

A reasonable person should expect will have the effect of: Physically harming a student 

or damaging a student’s property; Placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm 

or damage to his/her property; or Substantially disrupting the instructional program or 

the orderly operations of the school; or Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it 

creates an intimidating, hostile educational environment for the student who is bullied. 

Maine School Management Association Sample Policy (2006) 

Maryland Bullying, 

harassment, or 

intimidation 

"Bullying, harassment, or intimidation" means intentional conduct, including verbal, 

physical, or written conduct, or an intentional electronic communication, that: 

 (i) Creates a hostile educational environment by substantially interfering with a 

student's educational benefits, opportunities, or performance, or with a student's 

physical or psychological well-being and is: 

 1. Motivated by an actual or a perceived personal characteristic including race, 

national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, ancestry, 

physical attribute, socioeconomic status, familial status, or physical or mental ability or 

disability; or 

 2. Threatening or seriously intimidating; and 

 (ii) 1. Occurs on school property, at a school activity or event, or on a school bus; or 

 2. Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of a school. 

Md. Educ. Code Ann. §7-424

MassachusettsBullying "Bullying,” the repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic 

expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof, directed at a victim 

that: 

 (i) causes physical or emotional harm to the victim or damage to the victim's 

property; 

 (ii) places the victim in reasonable fear of harm to himself or of damage to his 

property; 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

139

State Terms Legislative Text 

 (iii) creates a hostile environment at school for the victim; 

 (iv) infringes on the rights of the victim at school; or 

 (v) materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly 

operation of a school. 

For the purposes of this section, bullying shall include cyberbullying. 

Mass. Gen. Laws. §71-37O

Michigan -- No state legislation

Minnesota Intimidation 

and bullying

No definition in state legislation

Mississippi Bullying or 

harassing 

behavior

“Bullying or harassing behavior” is any pattern of gestures or written, electronic or 

verbal communications, or any physical act or any threatening communication, or any 

act reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating

characteristic, that takes place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, or 

on a school bus, and that: 

 (a) Places a student or school employee in actual and reasonable fear of harm to his 

or her person or damage to his or her property; or 

 (b) Creates or is certain to create a hostile environment by substantially interfering 

with or impairing a student’s educational performance, opportunities or benefits. 

For purposes of this section, “hostile environment” means that the victim subjectively 

views the conduct as bullying or harassing behavior and the conduct is objectively 

severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would agree that it is bullying or 

harassing behavior. 

Miss. Code. Ann. §37-11-67

Missouri Bullying "Bullying" means intimidation or harassment that causes a reasonable student to fear 

for his or her physical safety or property. Bullying may consist of physical actions, 

including gestures, or oral, cyberbullying, electronic, or written communication, and any 

threat of retaliation for reporting of such acts. 

Mo. Rev. Stat. §160-775

Montana -- No state legislation

Nebraska Bullying Bullying means any ongoing pattern of physical, verbal, or electronic abuse on school 

grounds, in a vehicle owned, leased, or contracted by a school being used for a school 

purpose by a school employee or his or her designee, or at school-sponsored activities 

or school-sponsored athletic events. 

Neb. Rev. Stat. §79-2,137

Nevada Bullying “Bullying” means a willful act or course of conduct on the part of one or more pupils 

which is not authorized by law and which exposes a pupil repeatedly and over time to 

one or more negative actions which is highly offensive to a reasonable person and is 

intended to cause and actually causes the pupil to suffer harm or serious emotional 

distress. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.122

Harassment “Harassment” means a willful act or course of conduct that is not otherwise authorized 

by law and: Is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and Intended to cause and 

actually causes another person to suffer serious emotional distress. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.125

Intimidation “Intimidation” means a willful act or course of conduct that is now otherwise 

authorized by law and: Is highly offensive to a reasonable person; and Poses a threat of 

immediate harm or actually inflicts harm to another person or to the property of 

another person. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.129

New 

Hampshire

Bullying “Bullying” means a single significant incident or a pattern of incidents involving a 

written, verbal, or electronic communication, or a physical act or gesture, or any 

combination thereof, directed at another pupil which ” 

 (1) Physically harms a pupil or damages the pupil’s property; 

 (2) Causes emotional distress to a pupil, 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

140

State Terms Legislative Text 

 (3) Interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities, 

 (4) Creates a hostile educational environment; or 

 (5) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school, 

“Bullying” shall include actions motivate by an imbalance of power based on a pupil’s 

actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the 

pupil’s association with another person and based on the other person’s characteristics, 

behaviors, or beliefs. 

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:4

New 

Jersey

Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

2. As used in this act:

"Electronic communication" means a communication transmitted by means of an 

electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular phone, computer, 

or pager;

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any gesture, any written, verbal or 

physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a series 

of incidents, that is reasonably perceived 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 takes place 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 substantially 

disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other 

students and that:

 a. a reasonable person should know, 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;

 b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students; or

 c. creates a hostile educational environment for the student by interfering with a 

student's education or by severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to 

the student. 

N. J. Stat. Ann. §18A-37-14

New 

Mexico

Bullying “Bullying” means any repeated and pervasive written, verbal or electronic expression, 

physical act or gesture, or a pattern thereof, that is intended to cause distress upon one 

or more students in the school, on school grounds, in school vehicles, at a designated 

bus stop, or at school activities or sanctioned events. Bullying includes, but is not 

limited to, hazing, harassment, intimidation or menacing acts of a student which may, 

but need not be based on the student’s race, color, sex, ethnicity, national origin, 

religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. 

N.M. Admin. Code §6.12.7.7 

Harassment “Harassment” means knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to 

annoy, alarm or terrorize another person. 

N.M. Admin. Code §6.12.7.7 

New 

York

Discrimination 

or harassment 

(including 

bullying, 

taunting, or 

intimidation) 

"Harassment" shall mean the creation of a hostile environment by conduct or by verbal 

threats, intimidation or abuse that has or would have the effect of unreasonably and 

substantially interfering with a student's educational performance, opportunities or 

benefits, or mental, emotional or physical well-being; or conduct, verbal threats, 

intimidation or abuse that reasonably causes or would reasonably be expected to cause 

a student to fear for his or her physical safety; such conduct, verbal threats, 

intimidation or abuse includes but is not limited to conduct, verbal threats, intimidation 

or abuse based on a person's actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, 

ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. 

N.Y. Educ. Law §11

North 

Carolina

Bullying or 

harassing 

behavior

“Bullying or harassing” behavior is any pattern of gestures or written, electronic, or 

verbal communications, or any physical act or any threatening communication, that 

takes place on school property, at any school sponsored function, or on a school bus, 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

141

State Terms Legislative Text 

and that: 

 (1) Places a student or school employee in actual and reasonable fear of harm to his 

or her person or damage to his or her property; or 

 (2) Creates or is certain to create a hostile environment by substantially interfering 

with or impairing a student’s educational performance, opportunities, or benefits. For 

purposes of this section, “hostile environment” means that the victims subjectively 

views the conduct as bullying or harassing behavior and the conduct is objectively 

severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would agree that it is bullying or 

harassing behavior. 

Bullying or harassing behavior includes, but is not limited to, acts reasonably perceived 

as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, such as race, 

color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, socio economic status, academic status, 

gender identity, physical appearance, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, 

developmental or sensory disability, or by association with a person who has or is 

perceived to have one or more of these characteristics. 

N.C. Gen. Stat. §115C-407.15

North 

Dakota

Bullying 1. "Bullying" means:

 a. Conduct that occurs in a public school, on school district premises, in a district 

owned or leased school bus or school vehicle, or at any public school or school district 

sanctioned or sponsored activity or event and which: 

 (1) Is so severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive that it substantially interferes 

with the student's educational opportunities;

 (2) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of harm;

 (3) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of damage to property of the 

student; or

 (4) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the public school; or

 b. Conduct that is received by a student while the student is in a public school, on 

school district premises, in a district owned or leased school bus or school vehicle, or at 

any public school or school district sanctioned or sponsored activity or event and 

which:

 (1) Is so severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive that it substantially interferes 

with the student's educational opportunities;

 (2) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of harm;

 (3) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of damage to property of the 

student; or

 (4) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the public school. 

N.D. Cent. Code §15.1-19-1 

2. "Conduct" includes the use of technology or other electronic media. 

N.D. Cent. Code §15.1-19-2 

Ohio Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

“Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means either of the following:

 (1) Any intentional written, verbal, or physical act that a student has Exhibited 

toward another particular student more than once and the behavior both:

 (a) Causes mental or physical harm to the other student;

 (b) Is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, 

threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.

 (2) Violence within a dating relationship. 

Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. §3313.666

Oklahoma Harassment, 

intimidation, 

and bullying

“Harassment, intimidation, and bullying” means any gesture, written or verbal 

expression, electronic communication, or physical act that a reasonable person should 

know will harm another student, damage another student’s property, place another 

student in reasonable fear of harm to the student’s person or damage to the student’s 

property, or insult or demean any student or group of students in such a way as to 

disrupt or interfere with the school’s educational mission or the education of any 

student. “Harassment, intimidation, and bullying” include, but are not limited to, 

gestures, written, verbal, or physical acts, or electronic communications; 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

142

State Terms Legislative Text 

Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 70, §24-100.3

Oregon Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any act that:

 (a) Substantially interferes with a student’s educational benefits, opportunities or 

performance;

 (b) Takes place on or immediately adjacent to school grounds, at any schoolsponsored activity, on school-provided transportation or at any official school bus stop;

 (c) Has the effect of:

 (A) Physically harming a student or damaging a student’s property;

 (B) Knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm to the 

student or damage to the student’s property; or

 (C) Creating a hostile educational environment, including interfering with the 

psychological well-being of a student; and

 (d) May be based on, but not be limited to, the protected class status of a person.

(3) “Protected class” means a group of persons distinguished, or perceived to be 

distinguished, by race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital 

status, familial status, source of income or disability. 

Or. Rev. Stat. §339.351

Pennsylvania Bullying “Bullying” shall mean an intentional electronic, written, verbal or physical act, or a 

series of acts: 

 (1) Directed at another student or students; 

 (2) Which occurs in a school setting; 

 (3) That is severe, persistent or pervasive; and 

 (4) That has the effective of doing any of the following: 

Substantially interfering with a student’s education;

Creating a threatening environment; or Substantially disrupting the orderly operation of 

the schools; and “school setting” shall mean in the school, on school grounds, in 

school vehicles, at a designated bus stop or at any activity sponsored, supervised, or 

sanctioned by the school. 

24 Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1303.1-A

Rhode 

Island

Harassment, 

intimidation or 

bullying 

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means an intentional written, electronic, verbal 

or physical act or threat of a physical act that, under the totality of circumstances: 

 (i) A reasonable person should know will have the effect of: physically harming a 

student, damaging a student's property, placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to 

his or her person, or placing a student in reasonable fear of damage to his or her 

property; or 

 (ii) Is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, 

threatening or abusive educational environment for a student. 

R.I. Gen. Laws §16-21-26

South 

Carolina

Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

“Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means a gesture, an electronic communication, 

or a written, verbal, physical, or sexual act that is reasonably perceived to have the 

effect of: 

 (a) harming a student physically or emotionally or damaging a student’s property, or 

placing a student in reasonable fear of personal harm or property damage; or 

 (b) insulting or demeaning a student or group of students causing substantial 

disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of the school. 

S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-120

South 

Dakota

-- No state legislation

Tennessee Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any act that substantially interferes with a 

student's educational benefits, opportunities or performance, that takes place on school 

grounds, at any school-sponsored activity, on school-provided transportation, or at any 

official school bus stop, and that has the effect of:

 (1) Physically harming a student or damaging a student's property;

 (2) Knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm to the student or 

damage to the student's property; or 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

143

State Terms Legislative Text 

 (3) Creating a hostile educational environment.

Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-1015

Texas Bullying "Bullying" means engaging in written or verbal expression or physical conduct that a 

school district board of trustees or the board's designee determines: 

 (1) will have the effect of physically harming a student, damaging a student's 

property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to the student's person or of 

damage to the student's property; or 

 (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive enough that the action or threat 

creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student. 

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §25.0342

Harassment "Harassment" means threatening to cause harm or bodily injury to another student, 

engaging in sexually intimidating conduct, causing physical damage to the property of 

another student, subjecting another student to physical confinement or restraint, or 

maliciously taking any action that substantially harms another student's physical or 

emotional health or safety. 

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §37.001

Utah Bullying (1)(a)"Bullying" means intentionally or knowingly committing an act that:

 (i) (A) endangers the physical health or safety of a school employee or student;

 (B) involves any brutality of a physical nature such as whipping, beating, 

branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the 

body, or exposure to the elements;

 (C) involves consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance;

 (D) involves other physical activity that endangers the physical health and 

safety of a school employee or student; or

 (E) involves physically obstructing a school employee's or student's freedom to 

move; and

 (ii) is done for the purpose of placing a school employee or student in fear of:

 (A) physical harm to the school employee or student; or

 (B) harm to property of the school employee or student.

 (b) The conduct described in Subsection (1)(a) constitutes bullying, regardless of 

whether the person against whom the conduct is committed directed, consented to, or 

acquiesced in, the conduct. 

Utah Code §53A-11a-102

Harassment (4) "Harassment" means repeatedly communicating to another individual, in an 

objectively demeaning or disparaging manner, statements that contribute to a hostile 

learning or work environment for the individual.

Utah Code §53A-11a-102

Hazing (5) (a) "Hazing" means intentionally or knowingly committing an act that:

 (i) (A) endangers the physical health or safety of a school employee or student;

 (B) involves any brutality of a physical nature such as whipping, beating,

branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the 

body, or exposure to the elements;

 (C) involves consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance;

 (D) involves other physical activity that endangers the physical health and 

safety of a school employee or student; or

 (E) involves physically obstructing a school employee's or student's freedom 

to move; and

 (ii) (A) is done for the purpose of initiation or admission into, affiliation with, 

holding office in, or as a condition for, membership or acceptance, or continued 

membership or acceptance, in any school or school sponsored team, organization, 

program, or event; or

 (B) if the person committing the act against a school employee or student 

knew that the school employee or student is a member of, or candidate for, 

membership with a school, or school sponsored team, organization, program, or event 

to which the person committing the act belongs to or participates in. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

144

State Terms Legislative Text 

Utah Code §53A-11a-102

Vermont Bullying (32) "Bullying" means any overt act or combination of acts directed against a student by 

another student or group of students and which: 

 (A) is repeated over time; 

 (B) is intended to ridicule, humiliate, or intimidate the student; and 

 (C) occurs during the school day on school property, on a school bus, or at a 

school-sponsored activity, or before or after the school day on a school bus or at a 

school-sponsored activity. 

Vt. Stat. Ann. §11(a)(32)

Harassment (26)(A) "Harassment" means an incident or incidents of verbal, written, visual, or 

physical conduct based on or motivated by a student's or a student's family member's 

actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, or disability that has the purpose or effect of objectively 

and substantially undermining and detracting from or interfering with a student's 

educational performance or access to school resources or creating an objectively 

intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. 

 (B) "Harassment" includes conduct which violates subdivision (A) of this 

subdivision (26) and constitutes one or more of the following: 

 (i) Sexual harassment, which means conduct that includes unwelcome sexual 

advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal, written, visual, or physical 

conduct of a sexual nature when one or both of the following occur: 

 (I) Submission to that conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or 

condition of a student's education. 

 (II) Submission to or rejection of such conduct by a student is used as a 

component of the basis for decisions affecting that student. 

 (ii) Racial harassment, which means conduct directed at the characteristics of a 

student's or a student's family member's actual or perceived race or color, and includes 

the use of epithets, stereotypes, racial slurs, comments, insults, derogatory remarks, 

gestures, threats, graffiti, display, or circulation of written or visual material, and taunts 

on manner of speech and negative references to racial customs.

 (iii) Harassment of members of other protected categories, which means conduct 

directed at the characteristics of a student's or a student's family member's actual or 

perceived creed, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, 

or disability and includes the use of epithets, stereotypes, slurs, comments, insults, 

derogatory remarks, gestures, threats, graffiti, display, or circulation of written or visual 

material, taunts on manner of speech, and negative references to customs related to any 

of these protected categories. 

Vt. Stat. Ann. §11(a)(32)

Virginia Bullying, 

harassment, or 

intimidation 

Non-criminal behavior associated with bullying includes intimidation, taunting, namecalling, and insults. The definition developed for the Virginia Department of Education 

Annual Discipline, Crime, and Violence Report is “repeated negative behaviors 

intended to frighten or cause harm” that may include, but are not limited to, verbal or 

written threats or physical harm. Another form of bullying occurs through the use of 

electronic means and is referred to as cyber bullying. Typically, cyber bullying is defined 

as using information and communication technologies, such as cell phone text 

messages and pictures and internet e-mail, social networking Web sites, defamatory 

personal Web sites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support 

deliberate, hostile, behavior intended to harm others.

Sample Conduct Standard: Bullying (2009)

Students, either individually or as part of a group, shall not harass or bully others. The 

following conduct is illustrative of bullying:

 1. Physical intimidation, taunting, name calling, and insults

 2. Comments regarding the race, gender, religion, physical abilities or characteristics 

of associates of the targeted person

 3. Falsifying statements about other persons
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

145

State Terms Legislative Text 

 4. Use of technology such as e-mail, text messages, or Web sites to defame or harm 

others.

Student Conduct Policy Guidelines (2009)

Washington Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

"Harassment, intimidation, or bullying" means any intentional electronic, written, 

verbal, or physical act, including but not limited to one shown to be motivated by any 

characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080(3), or other distinguishing characteristics, when the 

intentional electronic, written, verbal, or physical act: 

 (a) Physically harms a student or damages the student's property; or 

 (b) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's education; or 

 (c) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or threatening 

educational environment; or 

 (d) Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school. 

Nothing in this section requires the affected student to actually possess a characteristic 

that is a basis for the harassment, intimidation, or bullying. 

Wash. Rev. Code §28A.300.285

(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally 

commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, 

color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, 

or sensory handicap:

 (a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person; 

 (b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or 

another person; or

 (c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or 

members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or 

property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the 

circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable 

person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, 

gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory 

handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the 

context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. 

Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim 

that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat. 

Wash. Rev. Code §9A.36.080(3)

West 

Virginia

Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

Definitions.

(a) As used in this article, "harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any intentional 

gesture, or any intentional electronic, written, verbal or physical act, communication, 

transmission or threat that:

 (1) A reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect 

of any one or more of the following:

 (A) Physically harming a student;

 (B) Damaging a student's property;

 (C) Placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person; or

 (D) Placing a student in reasonable fear of damage to his or her property;

 (2) Is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, 

threatening or emotionally abusive educational environment for a student; or

 (3) Disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school. 

W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-2. 

Wisconsin Bullying No definition in state legislation

Wyoming Harassment, 

intimidation, or 

bullying 

(i) “Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any intentional gesture, any 

intentional electronic communication or any intentional written, verbal or physical act 

initiated, occurring or received at school that a reasonable person under the 

circumstances should know will have the effect of: 

 (A) Harming a student physically or emotionally, damaging a student's property or 

placing a student in reasonable fear of personal harm or property damage; 

 (B) Insulting or demeaning a student or group of students causing substantial 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix C: Bullying and Related Terms As Defined in State Legislation

146

State Terms Legislative Text 

disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of the school; or 

 (C) Creating an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for a 

student or group of students through sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive 

behavior. 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §21-4-312
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

147

Appendix D

Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic 

Communications in State Legislation 

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

149

Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications 

In State Legislation

State Terms Definition

Alabama Electronic act Written, electronic, verbal or physical acts. 

Ala. Code §16-28B-3 

Alaska -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Arizona Electronic 

communication

Prescribe and enforce policies and procedures to prohibit pupils from harassing, 

intimidating and bullying other pupils on school grounds, on school property, on 

school buses, at school bus stops, at school sponsored events and activities and 

through the use of electronic technology or electronic communication on school 

computers, networks, forums and mailing lists that include the following 

components: 

Ariz. Rev. Stat. §15-341-37

Arkansas Electronic act (3) "Electronic act" means without limitation a communication or image 

transmitted by means of an electronic device, including without limitation a 

telephone, wireless phone or other wireless communications device, computer, 

or pager; 

Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514 

California Electronic act (g) As used in this chapter, an "electronic act" means the transmission of a 

communication, including, but not limited to, a message, text, sound, or image by 

means of an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, wireless 

telephone or other wireless communication device, computer, or pager. 

Cal. Educ. Code §32261

Colorado -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Connecticut -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Delaware Use of data or 

computer 

software

(2)a. A statement prohibiting bullying of any person on school property or at 

school functions or by use of data or computer software that is accessed through 

a computer, computer system, computer network or other electronic technology 

of a school district or charter school from kindergarten through grade 12. 

Del. Code Ann. Tit. 14, §4112D

Florida Use of data or 

computer

(2)Bullying or harassment of any student or employee of a public K-12 

educational institution is prohibited: 

 (a)During any education program or activity conducted by a public K-12 

educational institution;

 (b)During any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity or on a 

school bus of a public K-12 educational institution; or

 (c)Through the use of data or computer software that is accessed through a 

computer, computer system, or computer network of a public K-12 educational 

institution.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147

(b)“Harassment” means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use 

of data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed 

against a student or school employee that: 

 1. Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or 

her person or damage to his or her property;

 2. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational 

performance, opportunities, or benefits; or

 3. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147

(2) Perpetuation of conduct listed in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) by an 

individual or group with intent to demean, dehumanize, embarrass, or cause 

physical harm to a student or school employee by: Accessing or knowingly 

causing or providing access to data or computer software through a computer, 

computer system, or computer network within the scope of the district school 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

150

State Terms Definition

system; 

Fla. Stat. Ann. §1006.147

Georgia Use of data or 

software

(a) As used in this Code section, the term "bullying" means an act which occurs 

on school property, on school vehicles, at designated school bus stops, or at 

school related functions or activities, or by use of data or software that is 

accessed through a computer, computer system, computer network, or other 

electronic technology of a local school system; 

Ga. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4

Idaho Use of 

communications 

technology

An act of harassment, intimidation or bullying may also be committed through 

the use of a land line, car phone or wireless telephone or through the use of data 

or computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or 

computer network. 

Idaho Code §18-917A

Illinois Communications 

made 

electronically 

‘Bullying" means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, 

including communications made in writing or electronically. 

105 Ill. Comp. Stat. §27-23.7

Indiana -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Iowa Electronic act a. “Electronic” means any communication involving the transmission of 

information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. 

“Electronic” includes but is not limited to communication via electronic mail, 

internet-based communications, pager service, cell phones, and electronic text 

messaging. 

b. “Harassing” and “bullying” shall be construed to mean any electronic, written, 

verbal, or physical act or conduct. 

Iowa Code §280.28

Kansas Cyberbullying (2)"Cyberbullying" means bullying by use of any electronic communication 

device through means including, but not limited to, e-mail, instant messaging, 

text messages, blogs, mobile phones, pagers, online games and websites. 

Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256

Kentucky Harassing 

communications

(1) A person is guilty of harassing communications when, with intent to 

intimidate, harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she: 

 (a) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, 

telegraph, mail, or any other form of written communication in a manner which 

causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate communication; 

 (b) Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with no 

purpose of legitimate communication; or 

 (c) Communicates, while enrolled as a student in a local school district, with 

or about another school student, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, the 

Internet, telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written 

communication in a manner which a reasonable person under the circumstances 

should know would cause the other student to suffer fear of physical harm, 

intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment and which serves no purpose of 

legitimate communication. 

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §525.080

Louisiana Cyberbullying The term “cyberbullying” shall mean harassment, intimidation, or bullying of a 

student on school property by another student using a computer, mobile phone, 

or other interactive or digital technology or harassment, intimidation, bullying of 

a student while off school property by another student using any such means 

when the action or actions are intended to have an effect on the student when 

the student is on school property. 

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §17:416.13 

A. Cyberbullying is the transmission of any electronic textual, visual, written, or 

oral communication with the malicious and willful intent to coerce, abuse, 

torment, or intimidate a person under the age of eighteen. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

151

State Terms Definition

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:40.7 

Maine Cyberspace, 

electronically 

communicated 

expression 

For the purpose of this policy, “bullying” means any physical act or gesture or 

any verbally, written, or electronically communicated expression that.

Threats of harm to a student, to his/her possessions, or to other individuals,

whether transmitted verbally, in writing, or through cyberspace. 

Maine School Management Association Sample Policy (2006)

Maryland Electronic 

communications

"Electronic communication" means a communication transmitted by means of 

an electronic device, including a telephone, cellular phone, computer, or pager. 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. §7-424

Massachusetts Cyberbullying "Cyberbullying'', bullying through the use of technology or any electronic 

communication, which shall include, but shall not be limited to, any transfer of 

signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature 

transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic 

or photo optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet 

communications, instant messages or facsimile communications. Cyberbullying 

shall also include (i) the creation of a web page or blog in which the creator 

assumes the identity of another person or (ii) the knowing impersonation of 

another person as the author of posted content or messages, if the creation or 

impersonation creates any of the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), 

inclusive, of the definition of bullying. Cyberbullying shall also include the 

distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or 

the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or 

more persons, if the distribution or posting creates any of the conditions 

enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), inclusive, of the definition of bullying. 

Mass. Gen. Laws §71-37O

Michigan -- No state legislation

Minnesota Electronic forms Each school board shall adopt a written policy prohibiting intimidation and 

bullying of any student. The policy shall address intimidation and bullying in all 

forms, including, but not limited to, electronic forms and forms involving 

Internet use. 

Minn. Stat. §121A.0695

Mississippi Electronic 

communication

“Bullying or harassing behavior” is any pattern of gestures or written, electronic 

or verbal communications, or any physical act or any threatening communication 

Miss. Code Ann. §37-11-67

Missouri Cyberbullying or 

electronic 

communication

2. "Bullying" means intimidation or harassment that causes a reasonable student 

to fear for his or her physical safety or property. Bullying may consist of physical 

actions, including gestures, or oral, cyberbullying, electronic, or written 

communication, and any threat of retaliation for reporting of such acts. 

Mo. Rev. Stat. §160.775

Montana -- No state legislation

Nebraska Electronic abuse Bullying means any ongoing pattern of physical, verbal, or electronic abuse. 

Neb. Rev. Stat. §792-2,137

Nevada Cyberbullying, 

electronic 

communication

“Cyberbullying” means bullying through the use of electronic communication. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.123

“Electronic communications” means the communication of any written, verbal, 

or pictorial information through the use of an electronic device, including, 

without limitation, a telephone, a cellular phone, a computer or any similar 

means of communication. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.124

New 

Hampshire

Cyberbullying I. (a) "Bullying'' means a single significant incident or a pattern of incidents 

involving a written, verbal, or electronic communication, or a physical act or 

gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another pupil which: 

 (1) Physically harms a pupil or damages the pupil's property; 

 (2) Causes emotional distress to a pupil; 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

152

State Terms Definition

 (3) Interferes with a pupil's educational opportunities; 

 (4) Creates a hostile educational environment; or 

 (5) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school. 

 (b) "Bullying'' shall include actions motivated by an imbalance of power based 

on a pupil's actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or 

motivated by the pupil's association with another person and based on the other 

person's characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs. 

II. "Cyberbullying'' means conduct defined in paragraph I of this section 

undertaken through the use of electronic devices. 

III. "Electronic devices'' include, but are not limited to, telephones, cellular 

phones, computers, pagers, electronic mail, instant messaging, text messaging, 

and websites. 

IV. "Perpetrator'' means a pupil who engages in bullying or cyberbullying. 

V. "School property'' means all real property and all physical plant and 

equipment used for school purposes, including public or private school buses or 

vans. 

VI. "Victim'' means a pupil against whom bullying or cyberbullying has been 

perpetrated. 

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:3

New Jersey Electronic 

communication

"Electronic communication" means a communication transmitted by means of 

an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular phone, 

computer, or pager;

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any gesture, any written, verbal or 

physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a 

series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived 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 

takes place 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 substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly 

operation of the school or the rights of other students and that:

 a. a reasonable person should know, 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;

 b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students; 

or

 c. creates a hostile educational environment for the student by interfering 

with a student's education or by severely or pervasively causing physical or 

emotional harm to the student. 

N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A: 37-14

New Mexico Electronic 

expression

(a) “Bullying” means any repeated and pervasive written, verbal or electronic 

expression, physical act or gesture, or a pattern thereof, that is intended to cause 

distress upon one or more students in the school, on school grounds, in school 

vehicles, at a designated bus stop, or at school activities or sanctioned events. 

N.M. Admin. Code §6.12.7.7

New York -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

North Carolina Electronic 

communications, 

cyberbullying

(a) As used in this Article, "bullying or harassing behavior" is any pattern of 

gestures or written, electronic, or verbal communications, or any physical act or 

any threatening communication, that takes place on school property, at any 

school sponsored function, or on a school bus, and that: 

 (1) Places a student or school employee in actual and reasonable fear of harm 

to his or her person or damage to his or her property; or

 (2) Creates or is certain to create a hostile environment by substantially 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

153

State Terms Definition

interfering with or impairing a student's educational performance, opportunities, 

or benefits. For purposes of this section, "hostile environment" means that the 

victim subjectively views the conduct as bullying or harassing behavior and the 

conduct is objectively severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would 

agree that it is bullying or harassing behavior.

N.C. Gen. Stat §115C 407.15

(a) Except as otherwise made unlawful by this Article, it shall be unlawful for any 

person to use a computer or computer network to do any of the following:

(1) With the intent to intimidate or torment a minor:

a. Build a fake profile or Web site;

b. Pose as a minor in:

1. An Internet chat room;

2. An electronic mail message; or

3. An instant message;

c. Follow a minor online or into an Internet chat room; or

d. Post or encourage others to post on the Internet private, personal, or sexual 

information pertaining to a minor.

(2) With the intent to intimidate or torment a minor or the minor's parent or 

guardian:

a. Post a real or doctored image of a minor on the Internet;

b. Access, alter, or erase any computer network, computer data, computer 

program, or computer software, including breaking into a password protected 

account or stealing or otherwise accessing passwords; or

c. Use a computer system for repeated, continuing, or sustained electronic 

communications, including electronic mail or other transmissions, to a minor.

(3) Plant any statement, whether true or false, tending to provoke or that actually 

provokes any third party to stalk or harass a minor.

(4) Copy and disseminate, or cause to be made, an unauthorized copy of any data 

pertaining to a minor for the purpose of intimidating or tormenting that minor 

(in any form, including, but not limited to, any printed or electronic form of 

computer data, computer programs, or computer software residing in, 

communicated by, or produced by a computer or computer network).

(5) Sign up a minor for a pornographic Internet site.

(6) Without authorization of the minor or the minor's parent or guardian, sign up 

a minor for electronic mailing lists or to receive junk electronic messages and 

instant messages, resulting in intimidation or torment of the minor. 

N.C. Gen. Stat §14-458.1

North Dakota Technology or 

other electronic 

media 

1. "Bullying" means:

 a. Conduct that occurs in a public school, on school district premises, in a 

district owned or leased schoolbus or school vehicle, or at any public school or 

school district sanctioned or sponsored activity or event and which: (1) Is 

so severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive that it substantially interferes with 

the student's educational opportunities; 

 (2) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of harm;

 (3) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of damage to property 

of the student; or

 (4) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the public school; or

 b. Conduct that is received by a student while the student is in a public 

school, on school district premises, in a district owned or leased schoolbus or 

school vehicle, or at any public school or school district sanctioned or sponsored 

activity or event and which:

 (1) Is so severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive that it substantially 

interferes with the student's educational opportunities;

 (2) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of harm;

 (3) Places the student in actual and reasonable fear of damage to property 

of the student; or
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

154

State Terms Definition

 (4) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the public school.

2. "Conduct" includes the use of technology or other electronic 

media.

N.D. Cent. Code 15.1-19 §1-2 

Ohio -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Oklahoma Electronic 

communications

1. “Harassment, intimidation, and bullying” means any gesture, written or verbal 

expression, electronic communication, or physical act that a reasonable person 

should know will harm another student, damage another student’s property, 

place another student in reasonable fear of harm to the student’s person or 

damage to the student’s property, or insult or demean any student or group of 

students in such a way as to disrupt or interfere with the school’s educational 

mission or the education of any student. “Harassment, intimidation, and 

bullying” include, but are not limited to, gestures, written, verbal, or physical acts, 

or electronic communications;

2. “At school” means on school grounds, in school vehicles, at designated 

school bus stops, at school-sponsored activities, or at school-sanctioned events;

3. "Electronic communication" means the communication of any written, 

verbal, or pictorial information by means of an electronic device, including, but 

not limited to, a telephone, a cellular telephone or other wireless 

telecommunication device, or a computer; and

4. "Threatening behavior" means any pattern of behavior or isolated action, 

whether or not it is directed at another person, that a reasonable person would 

believe indicates potential for future harm to students, school personnel, or 

school property.

Okla. Stat. Ann. §70-24-100.3

The policy shall:

1. Specifically prohibit threatening behavior, harassment, intimidation, and 

bullying by students at school and by electronic communication, whether or not 

such communication originated at school or with school equipment, if the 

communication is specifically directed at students or school personnel and 

concerns harassment, intimidation, or bullying at school;

Okla. Stat. Ann. §70-24-100.4

Oregon Cyberbullying “Cyberbullying” means the use of any electronic communication device to 

harass, intimidate or bully. 

Or. Rev. Stat. §339.351

Pennsylvania Electronic act (e) For purposes of this article, "bullying" shall mean an intentional electronic, 

written, verbal or physical act, or a series of acts:

 (1) directed at another student or students;

 (2) which occurs in a school setting;

 (3) that is severe, persistent or pervasive; and

 (4) that has the effect of doing any of the following:

 (i) substantially interfering with a student's education;

 (ii) creating a threatening environment; or

 (iii) substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school; and

"school setting" shall mean in the school, on school grounds, in school vehicles, 

at a designated bus stop or at any activity sponsored, supervised or sanctioned by 

the school.

Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1303.1-A

Rhode Island Electronic 

communications

"Electronic" communications shall include any verbal, textual or graphic 

communication of any kind effected, created or transmitted by the use of any 

electronic device, including, but not limited to, a computer, telephone, cellular 

telephone, text-messaging device and/or personal data assistance device. 

R.I. Gen. Laws §16-21-26 

South Carolina Electronic “Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means a gesture, an electronic 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

155

State Terms Definition

communications communication, or a written, verbal, physical, or sexual act. 

S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-120

South Dakota -- No state legislation

Tennessee -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Texas -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Utah (3) "Cyber-bullying" means using the Internet, a cell phone, or another device to 

send or post text, video, or an image with the intent or knowledge, or with 

reckless disregard, that the text, video, or image will hurt, embarrass, or threaten 

an individual, regardless of whether the individual directed, consented to, or 

acquiesced in the conduct, or voluntarily accessed the electronic communication. 

Utah Code Ann. §53A-11a-102

(1) As used in this section:

 (a) "Adult" means a person 18 years of age or older.

 (b) "Electronic communication" means any communication by electronic, 

electro-mechanical, or electro-optical communication device for the transmission 

and reception of audio, image, or text but does not include broadcast 

transmissions or similar communications that are not targeted at any specific 

individual. 

 (c) "Electronic communication device" includes telephone, facsimile, 

electronic mail, or pager.

 (d) "Minor" means a person who is younger than 18 years of age.

(2) A person is guilty of electronic communication harassment and subject to 

prosecution in the jurisdiction where the communication originated or was 

received if with intent to annoy, alarm, intimidate, offend, abuse, threaten, harass, 

frighten, or disrupt the electronic communications of another, the person:

 (a) (i) makes repeated contact by means of electronic communications, 

whether or not a conversation ensues; or

 (ii) after the recipient has requested or informed the person not to contact 

the recipient, and the person repeatedly or continuously:

 (A) contacts the electronic communication device of the recipient; or

 (B) causes an electronic communication device of the recipient to ring or 

to receive other notification of attempted contact by means of electronic 

communication;

 (b) makes contact by means of electronic communication and insults, taunts, 

or challenges the recipient of the communication or any person at the receiving 

location in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response;

 (c) makes contact by means of electronic communication and threatens to 

inflict injury, physical harm, or damage to any person or the property of any 

person; or

 (d) causes disruption, jamming, or overload of an electronic communication 

system through excessive message traffic or other means utilizing an electronic 

communication device.

 (3) (a) (i) Electronic communication harassment committed against an adult is 

a class B misdemeanor, except under Subsection (3)(a)(ii).

 (ii) A second or subsequent offense under Subsection (3)(a)(i) is a:

 (A) class A misdemeanor if all prior violations of this section were 

committed against adults; and

 (B) a third degree felony if any prior violation of this section was 

committed against a minor.

 (b) (i) Electronic communication harassment committed against a minor is 

a class A misdemeanor, except under Subsection (3)(b)(ii).

 (ii) A second or subsequent offense under Subsection (3)(b)(i) is a third 

degree felony, regardless of whether any prior violation of this section was 

committed against a minor or an adult.

 (4) (a) Except under Subsection (4)(b), criminal prosecution under this section 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix D: Definitions of Cyberbullying and Electronic Communications in State Legislation

156

State Terms Definition

does not affect an individual's right to bring a civil action for damages suffered as 

a result of the commission of any of the offenses under this section.

 (b) This section does not create any civil cause of action based on 

electronic communications made for legitimate business purposes. 

Utah Code Ann. §76-9-201

Vermont -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Virginia Cyberbullying Another form of bullying occurs through the use of electronic means and is 

referred to as cyber bullying. Typically, cyber bullying is defined as using 

information and communication technologies, such as cell phone text messages 

and pictures and internet e-mail, social networking Web sites, defamatory 

personal Web sites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support 

deliberate, hostile, behavior intended to harm others. 

Student Conduct Policy Guidelines (2009)

Washington Electronic act Behaviors/Expressions — Harassment, intimidation, or bullying can take many 

forms including, but not limited to slurs, rumors, jokes, innuendos, demeaning 

comments, drawings, cartoons, pranks, gestures, physical attacks, threats or other 

written, oral, physical, or electronically transmitted messages or images.

Prohibition of Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying Policy No. 3027 (2010)

Harassment, intimidation, or bullying — is an intentional electronic, written, 

verbal, or physical act that:

 (A) Physically harms a student or damages the student’s property.

 (B) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s education.

 (C) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or 

threatening educational environment.

 (D) Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the 

school.

Conduct that is “substantially interfering with a student’s education” will be 

determined by considering a targeted student’s grades, attendance, demeanor, 

interaction with peers, participation in activities, and other indicators. Conduct 

that may rise to the level of harassment, intimidation, and bullying may take 

many forms, including, but not limited to, slurs, rumors, jokes, innuendoes, 

demeaning comments, drawings, cartoons, pranks, ostracism, physical attacks or 

threats, gestures, or acts relating to an individual or group whether electronic, 

written, oral, or physically transmitted messages or images. There is no 

requirement that the targeted student actually possess the characteristic that is the 

basis for the harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

Prohibition of Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying Policy No. 3027P (2010)

West Virginia Electronic act (b) As used in this article, an electronic act, communication, transmission or 

threat includes but is not limited to one which is administered via telephone, 

wireless phone, computer, pager or any electronic or wireless device whatsoever, 

and includes but is not limited to transmission of any image or voice, email or 

text message using any such device. 

W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-2 

Wisconsin -- No cyberbullying prohibition in legislation

Wyoming Intentional 

electronic 

communication

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any intentional gesture, any 

intentional electronic communication or any intentional written, verbal or 

physical act. 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §21-4-312
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix E: State Guidance and Model Policies By Legislative Requirement

157

Appendix E 

State Guidance and Model Policies 

By Legislative Requirement

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix E: State Guidance and Model Policies By Legislative Requirement

159

State Model Policies and Guidance by Legislative Requirement

State SMP Required

by Law

SMP Required

by Date Document Title

Alabama Yes None ALSDE Model Anti-Harassment Policy

Alaska Yes 1/1/2007 Sample Issues and Areas to Consider When Developing 

Local Policies for Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying

School Discipline and Safety – Harassment, Intimidation 

and Bullying – AR 5030(a-b), AR 5131.43(a-b), BP 5030(ae), BP 5131.43(a-d), BP 5137

Arizona No -- NO MODEL POLICY

Arkansas Yes None Recommendations for Writing Anti-Bullying Policies

California Yes None Sample Policy for Bullying Prevention 

Sample Policy for Conflict Resolution

Colorado Not mandated -- Colorado School Violence Prevention and Student 

Discipline Manual

Connecticut Yes 2/1/2010 Connecticut Asssociation of Boards of Education Sample 

Policy No. 5131.911(a-e)

Delaware Yes None Delaware's Model Bully Prevention Policy

Florida Yes 10/1/2008 Florida Department of Eduaction Model Policy Against 

Bullying and Harassment

Georgia Yes 1/1/2011 Policy for Prohibiting Bullying, Harassment and 

Intimidation 

Hawaii No Law -- Recommendations for Addressing Harassment in Hawaii 

Public Schools

Hawaii Administrative Rule §8-19

Idaho Not mandated -- Idaho School Violence/Safety Policies/Procedures Manual

Illinois a Yes 3/1/2011 NO MODEL POLICY

Indiana No -- NO MODEL POLICY

Iowa Not mandated -- Sample Anti-Bullying/Harassment Policy

Kansas b No -- NO MODEL POLICY

Kentucky Yes 8/31/2008 Model Policies Related to Issues Found in KRS §158.156

Louisianac No -- NO MODEL POLICY

Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, and Cyberbullying 

Behavior Checklist

Maine Yes 2/15/2006 Maine School Management Association Sample Policy

Maryland Yes 3/31/2009 Maryland's Model Policy to Address Bullying, Harassment, 

or Intimidation

Massachusetts Yes 12/31/2010 Model Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan

Michigan No law -- Model Anti-Bullying Policy 

Minnesota No None NO MODEL POLICY

Mississippi Yes 2002–2003

School year

Mississippi School Safety Manual, School Safety Law and 

Policy Development

Missouri Not mandated -- Prohibition Against Illegal Discrimination and Harassment

Hazing and Bullying 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix E: State Guidance and Model Policies By Legislative Requirement

160

State SMP Required

by Law

SMP Required

by Date Document Title

Montana No law -- Hazing/Harassment/Intimidation/Bullying/Menacing, 

Policy No. 3226

Model Policy for School Districts on Harassment, 

Intimidation, and Bullying

Nebraska Not mandated -- Board Policy: Anti-Bullying 

Nebraska Department of Education Implementation Plan to 

Address Bullying in Schools

Website: Considerations for Policy Development

Website: Program Development

Website: Staff Development

Website: Parent Information

Nevada Yes None Nevada Department of Education Model School District 

Policy – Safe and Respectful Learning Environment (SRLE)

New Hampshire Not mandated -- New Hampshire School Boards Association Sample Policy

JICK Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention – Bullying 

New Jersey Yes 12/1/2002 Model Policy and Guidance for Prohibiting Harassment, 

Intimidation and Bullying on School Property, at SchoolSponsored Functions and on School Buses

New Mexico Not mandated -- School District Anti-Bullying Policy Guidance Document, 

School District Anti-Bullying Policy Sample

New York d Yes Legislation Not 

Effective yet 

(7/2012)

Guidance on Bullying and Cyberbullying

North Carolina Not mandated -- Policy for Anti-Harassment, Bullying, and Discrimination

North Dakota No law -- NO MODEL POLICY

Ohio Yes 9/30/2007 Anti-Harassment, Anti-Intimidation or Anti-Bullying Model 

Policy 

Oklahoma Not mandated -- Safe Schools Guide: Selected Strategies and Resources

Oregon Not mandated -- Memorandum No. 002-2009-10 – Harassment, Intimidation, 

and Bullying Policy and Procedures 

Pennsylvania Not mandated -- Bullying/Cyberbullying, Policy No. 249

Rhode Island Yes 12/1/2003 Guidance on Developing Required Policies Against Bullying

A Guide to Preventing Bullying, Teen Dating Violence, and 

Sexual Violence in Rhode Island Schools

South Carolina e Yes 9/1/2006 Model Policy Prohibiting Harassment, Intimidation or 

Bullying 

South Dakota No law -- NO MODEL POLICY

Tennessee f No -- NO MODEL POLICY 

Texas No -- NO MODEL POLICY

Utah Yes 9/1/2008 Utah State Board of Education Rule §R277-609

USOE Model Policy Bullying and Hazing 

XYZ School District Student Discipline Model Policy

Vermont Yes 1/1/2005 Model Bullying Prevention Plan

Virginia Yes None Student Conduct Policy Guidelines

Cyberbullying and School Policy
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix E: State Guidance and Model Policies By Legislative Requirement

161

State SMP Required

by Law

SMP Required

by Date Document Title

Washington Yes 8/1/2010 The Prohibition of Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying, 

Policy/Procedure No. 3207P

West Virginia Yes 9/1/2001 State Board of Education Rule §126-18 – Racial, Sexual, 

Religious/Ethnic Harassment and Violence Policy, Policy 

No. 2421

State Board of Education Rule §126-99 – Student Code of 

Conduct, Policy No. 4373

Wisconsin Yes 3/1/2010 Model Bullying Policy

Bullying Prevention Policy Guidelines

Wyoming Yes 9/1/2009 Anti Bullying Model Policy I

Anti Bullying Model Policy II

a. Illinois – Legislation establishes a Bullying Task Force that shall submit a report to the governor and the general assembly on any 

recommendations for preventing and addressing bullying in schools, and a proposed timeline for meeting the task force’s charges identified in 

this section.

b. Kansas – The State Department of Education provides copies of the other states’ model bullying policies on their website, including those of 

Michigan, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.

c. Louisiana – The State Department of Education is required by law to develop a behavior incidence checklist for documenting details of reported 

incidents. The behavior checklist was not included for the current analyses.

d. New York – Commissioner has responsibilities to provide direction, which may include development of model policies. We spoke to a 

representative on the telephone, who stated it is a work-in-progress. The Dignity for All Students Act has been passed, but it is not effective until 

July 2012. So far, a task force has been formed, and it is in the preliminary stages.

e. South Carolina – A footnote in South Carolina’s Model Policy Prohibiting Harassment, Intimidation or Bullying indicated that it was adapted 

from New Jersey’s Model Policy and Guidance for Prohibiting Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying on School Property, at School-Sponsored 

Functions and on School Buses.

f. Tennessee – Distributes Tenn. Code. Ann. §49-6-1016 in lieu of a state model policy, which is available upon request. 

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model 

Policies, and School District Policies

163

Appendix F

Definitions of Bullying: 

Within-State Comparisons Among State Legislation, 

State Model Policies, 

And School District Policies

Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

165

Definitions of Bullying: Within-State Comparisons Among State Legislation, 

State Model Policies, and School District Policies

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

AZ NO LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION NO MODEL POLICY Definition: Bullying is the act of systemically and 

chronically inflicting physical harm and/or 

psychological distress on others (to include, but not 

limited to, fear, anxiety, psychological and emotional 

harm).

CA (f) As used in this chapter, "bullying" 

means one or more acts by a pupil or group 

of pupils as defined in Section 48900.2, 

48900.3, or 48900.4. 

(g) As used in this chapter, an "electronic 

act" means the transmission of a 

communication, including, but not limited 

to, a message, text, sound, or image by 

means of an electronic device, including, 

but not limited to, a telephone, wireless 

telephone or other wireless communication 

device, computer, or pager. 

Cal. Educ. Code §32261

(r) Engaged in an act of bullying, including, 

but not limited to, bullying committed by 

means of an electronic act, as defined in 

subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 32261, 

directed specifically toward a pupil or 

school personnel. 

Cal. Educ. Code §48900

The department shall assess whether local 

educational agencies have done all of the 

following: 

 (a) Adopted a policy that prohibits 

discrimination and harassment based on 

the characteristics set forth in Section 

422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220.

Cal. Educ. Code §234.1

(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act 

committed, in whole or in part, because of 

one or more of the following actual or 

The School District will not tolerate behavior that infringes 

on the safety of any student. A student shall not intimidate 

or harass another student through words or actions. Such 

behavior includes: direct physical contact, such as hitting 

or shoving; verbal assaults, such as teasing or name-calling; 

and social isolation or manipulation.

Harassment of students or staff, such as bullying, 

including cyberbullying, intimidation, hazing or 

initiation activity, ridicule, extortion, or any other 

verbal, written, or physical conduct that causes or 

threatens to cause bodily harm or emotional suffering, 

in accordance with the section entitled 

"Bullying/Cyberbullying" below. "Cyberbullying" 

includes the transmission of communications, posting 

of harassing messages, direct threats, social cruelty, or 

other harmful texts, sounds, or images on the Internet, 

social networking sites, or other digital technologies 

using a telephone, computer, or any wireless 

communication device. Cyberbullying also includes 

breaking into another person's electronic account and 

assuming that person's identity in order to damage that 

person's reputation or friendships. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

166

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

perceived characteristics of the victim:

 (1) Disability.

 (2) Gender.

 (3) Nationality.

 (4) Race or ethnicity.

 (5) Religion.

 (6) Sexual orientation.

 (7) Association with a person or group 

with one or more of these actual or 

perceived characteristics.

(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not 

limited to, a violation of Section 422.6. 

Cal. Penal Code §422.55

No person shall be subjected to 

discrimination on the basis of disability, 

gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, 

religion, sexual orientation, or any other 

characteristic that is contained in the 

definition of hate crimes set forth in 

Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any 

program or activity conducted by an 

educational institution that receives, or 

benefits from, state financial assistance or 

enrolls pupils who receive state student 

financial aid.

Cal. Educ. Code §220

CO "Bullying" means any written or verbal 

expression, or physical act or gesture, or a 

pattern thereof, that is intended to cause 

distress upon one or more students in the 

school, on school grounds, in school 

vehicles, at a designated school bus stop, or 

at school activities or sanctioned events. 

The school district's policy shall include a 

reasonable balance between the pattern and 

the severity of such bullying behavior. 

Colo. Rev. Stat. §22-32-109.1

“Bullying” means any written or verbal expression, or 

physical act or gesture, or pattern thereof, intended to 

cause distress upon one or more students in the school, on 

school grounds, in school vehicles, at a designated school 

bus stop, or at school activities or sanctioned events.

DEFINITION 

"Bullying" means any written, verbal or pictorial 

expression, physical act or gesture, or a pattern thereof 

by a student that is intended to cause distress upon one 

or more students and is sufficiently severe that it has 

the effect of: 

 1. Creating an intimidating, hostile, or significantly 

offensive environment for the learning or performance 

of school-sanctioned activities of any student; or 

 2. Unreasonably interfering with or disrupting the 

educational performance or participation in any other 

school-sanctioned activity of any student. 

EXAMPLES OF BULLYING 

Examples of acts that may constitute bullying include: 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

167

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

• Derogatory written or pictorial communications in 

any media (e.g., letters, notes, voice mail, text messages, 

pager messages, newspaper articles, invitations, posters, 

photos, cartoons); 

• Derogatory verbal comments (e.g., name-calling, 

taunting, hostile teasing, spreading rumors, epithets, 

jokes, or slurs); 

• Threats of force or violence against a person's body, 

possessions or residence (e.g., obtaining food or money 

by threats of force); or 

• Physical conduct (e.g., provocative gestures, overly 

rough horseplay, restricting freedom of action or 

movement, violence, defacing or destruction of 

property). 

CYBERBULLYING 

Cyberbullying involves the use of information and 

communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone 

and pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory 

personal websites, and defamatory online personal 

polling websites, to support deliberate, repeated, and 

hostile behavior by an individual or group that is 

intended to harm others. Cyberbullying will not be 

tolerated and will constitute the same levels of 

disciplinary action as other types of bullying. 

CT “Bullying” means any overt acts by a 

student or a group of students directed 

against another student with the intent to 

ridicule, humiliate, or intimidate the other 

student while on school grounds or at a 

school-sponsored activity which acts are 

repeated against the same student over 

time. 

Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-222d

For purposes of this policy, bullying’ means any overt 

act(s) by a student or a group of students directed against 

another student with the intent to ridicule, harass, 

humiliate or intimidate the other student while on school 

grounds, at a school-sponsored activity or on a school bus, 

which act(s) are committed more than once against any 

student during the school year. This policy may include 

provisions addressing bullying outside of the school setting 

if it has a direct and negative impact on a student’s 

academic performance or safety in school.

Bullying is defined as any overt acts by a student or 

groups of students directed against another student with 

the intent to ridicule, harass, humiliate, or intimidate the 

other student while on school grounds, at a school 

sponsored activity, or on a school bus, which acts are 

committed more than once against any student during 

the school year. Bullying which occurs outside of the 

school setting may be addressed by school officials if it 

has a direct and negative impact on a student’s 

academic performance or safety in school. It can also be 

defined as repeated and systemic harassment and 

attacks on others, perpetrated by individuals or groups. 

Bullying takes many forms and may include many 

different behaviors, such as, but not limited to: 

•Physical violence and attacks; 

•Verbal/written taunts, name-calling, and put-downs, 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

168

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

including ethnically or racially based verbal written 

abuse and gender-based verbal-written putdowns; 

•Threats and intimidation; 

•Extortion or stealing of money and possessions; 

•Exclusion from the peer group;

•Sexually offensive.

GA "Bullying" means an act which occurs on 

school property, on school vehicles, at 

designated school bus stops, or at school 

related functions or activities, or by use of 

data or software that is accessed through a 

computer, computer system, computer 

network, or other electronic technology of 

a local school system, that is: 

 (1) Any willful attempt or threat to inflict 

injury on another person, when 

accompanied by an apparent present ability 

to do so; 

 (2) Any intentional display of force such 

as would give the victim reason to fear or 

expect immediate bodily harm; or 

 (3) Any intentional written, verbal, or 

physical act, which a reasonable person 

would perceive as being intended to 

threaten, harass, or intimidate, that: 

 (A) Causes another person substantial 

physical harm within the meaning of Code 

§16-5-23.1 or visible bodily harm as such 

term is defined in Code §6-5-23.1; 

 (B) Has the effect of substantially 

interfering with a student's education; 

 (C) Is so severe, persistent, or 

pervasive that it creates an intimidating or 

threatening educational environment; or 

 (D) Has the effect of substantially 

disrupting the orderly operation of the 

school. 

Ga. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4

(a) As used in this Code section, the term 

"bullying" means an act which occurs on 

Definition of Terms

A. Bullying: In accordance with O.C.G.A. §20-2-751.4, 

bullying means an act which occurs on school property, on 

school vehicles, at designated school bus stops, or at 

school related functions or activities, or by use of data or 

software that is accessed through a computer, computer 

system, computer network, or other electronic technology 

of a local school system, that is: 

 1) Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury on 

another person, when accompanied by an apparent present 

ability to do so; 

 2) Any intentional display of force such as would give 

the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm; 

or 

 3) Any intentional written, verbal, or physical act, which 

a reasonable person would perceive as being intended to 

threaten, harass, or intimidate, that: 

 i. Causes another person substantial physical harm 

within the meaning of O.C.G.A. §16-5-23.1 or visible 

bodily harm as defined in O.C.G.A. §16-5-23.1;

 ii. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a 

student’s education; 

 iii. Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates 

an intimidating or threatening education environment; or 

 iv. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the 

orderly operation of the school.

B. Harassment and Intimidation: Harassment and 

intimidation means any gesture or written, verbal, or 

physical act, or any electronic communication that is 

reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any 

actual or perceived characteristic including race, color, 

ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, 

national origin, physical attributes, socioeconomic status, 

physical or mental ability or disability, or by any other 

Bullying behavior is defined as: 

• Willful attempt or threat to inflict injury on another 

person when accompanied by an apparent present 

ability to do so or; 

• Intentionally Exhibiting a display of force such as 

would give the victim reason to fear or expect 

immediate bodily harm, or; 

• Any intentional written, verbal or physical act, which a 

reasonable person would perceive as being intended to 

threaten, harass or intimidate that: 

• Causes substantial physical harm or bodily harm 

capable of being perceived by a person other than the 

victim and may include, but is not limited to, 

substantially blackened eyes, substantially swollen lips 

or other facial or body parts, or substantial bruises to 

body parts; 

• Has the effect of substantially interfering with the 

victim student’s education; 

• Is so severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an 

intimidating or threatening educational environment; or 

• Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly 

operation of the school.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

169

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

school property, on school vehicles, at 

designated school bus stops, or at school 

related functions or activities, or by use of 

data or software that is accessed through a 

computer, computer system, computer 

network, or other electronic technology of 

a local school system; 

Ga. Code Ann. §20-2-751.4

distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school 

property, at any school-related functions or activities or on 

a school bus and that: 

 1) A reasonable person should know, under the 

circumstances, will have the effect of harming a student or 

school employee or damaging his or her property; 

 2) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a 

student’s educational performance, or school employee’s 

work performance, or either’s opportunities, or benefits; 

 3) Has the effect of having a substantial negative impact 

on a student’s or a school employee’s emotional or 

psychological well-being; or 

 4) Has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student 

or school employee in such a way as to cause substantial 

disruption in, or substantial interference with, or the 

orderly operation of the school.

C. Visible Bodily Harm: In accordance with O.C.G.A. §16-

5-23.1, visible bodily harm is defined as bodily harm 

capable of being perceived by a person other than the 

victim and may include, but is not limited to, substantially 

blackened eyes, substantially swollen lips or other facial or 

body parts, or substantial bruises to body parts.

Cyberstalking or engaging in conduct to communicate, or 

to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language 

by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic 

communication, directed at or about a specific person, 

causing substantial emotional distress to the victim 

Cyberbullying or the willful, hostile and repeated 

harassment and intimidation of a person through the use 

of digital technologies, including, but not limited to, email, 

blogs, social networking websites (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, 

etc.) chat rooms, texts, and instant messaging.

IN “Bullying” means overt, repeated acts or 

gestures, including : 

 (1) verbal or written communications 

transmitted; 

 (2) physical acts committed; or any other 

behaviors committed; 

 (3) by a student or group of students 

against another student with the intent to 

NO MODEL POLICY Bullying is defined as any act of threatening or 

intimidating behavior with the intent to harass, ridicule, 

humiliate, intimidate or harm another student. This 

includes engaging in the act of bullying while using 

school provided equipment or property. The act of 

“bullying” means overt, repeated acts or gestures that 

may be verbal, written communications or physical acts 

or any other behavior that fits the definition above. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

170

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

harass, ridicule, humiliate, intimidate, or 

harm the other student. 

Ind. Code Ann. §20-33-8 

LA The terms "harassment,” "intimidation,” 

and "bullying" shall mean any intentional 

gesture or written, verbal, or physical act 

that: 

 (a) A reasonable person under the 

circumstances should know will have the 

effect of harming a student or damaging his 

property or placing a student in reasonable 

fear of harm to his life or person or

damage to his property; and 

 (b) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive 

that it creates an intimidating, threatening, 

or abusive educational environment for a 

student. 

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §416.13

The term “cyberbullying” shall mean 

harassment, intimidation, or bullying of a 

student on school property by another 

student using a computer, mobile phone, or 

other interactive or digital technology or 

harassment, intimidation, bullying of a 

student while off school property by 

another student using any such means 

when the action or actions are intended to 

have an effect on the student when the 

student is on school property. 

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §17:416.13 

A. Cyberbullying is the transmission of any 

electronic textual, visual, written, or oral 

communication with the malicious and 

willful intent to coerce, abuse, torment, or 

intimidate a person under the age of 

eighteen. 

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:40.7

NO MODEL POLICY Threat, bullying, intimidation and harassment shall mean 

any intentional gesture or written, verbal, or physical act 

that a reasonable person under the circumstances should 

know will have the effect of harming a student or 

damaging his/her property or placing a student in 

reasonable fear of harm to his/her life or person or 

damage to his/her property and is so severe, persistent, or 

pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or 

abusive educational environment for a student.

Threats, harassment, intimidation, bullying, including 

cyberbullying, shall also include maliciously written, 

printed, or the use of a computer or other electronic 

means to send electronic mail or electronically 

communicate to any person, verbal or a physical act to the 

person, property, or reputation of another, with the intent 

to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, 

to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or 

her will.

MD "Bullying, harassment, or intimidation" 

means intentional conduct, including 

II. Definition of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation. As 

used in this policy, “bullying, harassment, or intimidation” 

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to ensure all students a 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

171

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

verbal, physical, or written conduct, or an 

intentional electronic communication, that: 

 (i) Creates a hostile educational 

environment by substantially interfering 

with a student's educational benefits, 

opportunities, or performance, or with a 

student's physical or psychological wellbeing and is: 

 1. Motivated by an actual or a 

perceived personal characteristic including 

race, national origin, marital status, sex, 

sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, 

ancestry, physical attribute, socioeconomic 

status, familial status, or physical or mental 

ability or disability; or 

 2. Threatening or seriously 

intimidating; and 

 (ii) 1. Occurs on school property, at a 

school activity or event, or on a school bus; 

or 

 2. Substantially disrupts the orderly 

operation of a school. 

Md. Code. Ann., Educ.§7-424

"Electronic communication" means a 

communication transmitted by means of an 

electronic device, including a telephone, 

cellular phone, computer, or pager. 

Md. Code. Ann., Educ.§7-424

means intentional conduct, including verbal, physical, or 

written conduct or an intentional electronic 

communication that creates a hostile educational 

environment by substantially interfering with a student’s 

educational benefits, opportunities, or performance, or 

with a student’s physical or psychological well-being and is: 

motivated by an actual or a perceived personal 

characteristic including race, national origin, marital status, 

sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, ancestry, 

physical attributes, socioeconomic status, familial status, or 

physical or mental ability or disability; or, threatening or 

seriously intimidating; and, occurs on school property, at a 

school activity or event, or on a school bus; or, 

substantially disrupts the orderly operation of a school.

“Electronic communication” means a communication 

transmitted by means of an electronic device, including a 

telephone, cellular phone, computer, or pager.

school environment that is free from bullying, 

harassment, and intimidation.

II. Policy Statement

It is the policy of [school district name] to prohibit 

bullying, harassment, or intimidation of any person on 

school property or at school-sponsored functions or by 

the use of electronic technology at a [school district 

name] public school. Further, it is the policy of [school 

district name] to prohibit the reprisal or retaliation 

against individuals who report acts of bullying, 

harassment, or intimidation or who are victims, 

witnesses, bystanders, or others with reliable 

information about an act of bullying, harassment, or 

intimidation. 

Bullying definition 

Bullying, harassment, or intimidation: Intentional 

conduct, including verbal, physical, or written conduct 

or an intentional electronic communication that creates 

a hostile educational environment by substantially 

interfering with a student’s educational benefits, 

opportunities, or performance or with a student’s 

physical or psychological well-being and is: motivated 

by an actual or a perceived personal characteristic 

including race, national origin, marital status, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, religion, ancestry, physical 

attributes, socioeconomic status, familial status, or 

physical or mental ability or disability; or threatening or 

seriously intimidating; and occurring on school 

property, at a school activity, or on a school bus; or 

substantially disruptive to the orderly operation of a 

school. 

Electronic communication: A communication 

transmitted by means of an electronic device, including 

but not limited to a telephone, cellular phone, 

computer, or pager. 

MI NO LEGISLATION “Harassment or bullying” is any gesture or written, verbal, 

graphic, or physical act (including electronically transmitted 

acts — i.e. internet, cell phone, personal digital assistant 

(pda), or wireless hand held device) that is reasonably 

perceived as being motivated either by any actual or 

B. PROHIBITED CONDUCT 

1. Bullying, taunting, hazing, and other forms of 

harassment, is the physical or verbal communication 

(written or oral) directed toward a student or a student's 

property or possessions by another student or staff 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

172

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

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 impairment; or by any other distinguishing 

characteristic. Such behavior is considered harassment or 

bullying whether it takes place on or off school property, 

at any school-sponsored function, or in a school vehicle.

“Harassment” is conduct that meets all of the following 

criteria: 

• is directed at one or more pupils; 

• substantially interferes with educational opportunities, 

benefits, or programs of one or more pupils;

• adversely affects the ability of a pupil to participate in or 

benefit from the school district’s educational programs or 

activities because the conduct, as reasonably perceived by 

the pupil, is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive 

as to have this effect; and, 

• is based on a pupil’s actual or perceived distinguishing 

characteristic (see above), or is based on an association 

with another person who has or is perceived to have any 

of these characteristics.

“Bullying” is conduct that meets all of the following 

criteria: 

• is directed at one or more pupils; 

• substantially interferes with educational opportunities, 

benefits, or programs of one or more pupils; 

• adversely affects the ability of a pupil to participate in or 

benefit from the school district’s educational programs or 

activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical 

harm or by causing emotional distress; and, 

• is based on a pupil’s actual or perceived distinguishing 

characteristic (see above), or is based on an association 

with another person who has or is perceived to have any 

of these characteristics.

member in a single incident or on repeated occasions. 

2. Bullying is the hostile, intimidating, provoking, 

threatening, or objectively offensive conduct which has 

the purpose or effect of disrupting and interfering with 

the ability of students to attend school or participate in 

school activities in an environment conducive to 

learning and to courteous and peaceable social 

interaction. 

3."Garret’s Law,” M.C.L.A. 750.411t, prohibits a person 

who attends, is employed by, or is a volunteer of an 

educational institution from engaging in or participating 

in the hazing of an individual. This law applies to those 

attending the high school and junior high schools of the 

School District. "Hazing" is defined as an intentional, 

knowing, or reckless act by a person acting alone or 

acting with others that is directed against an individual 

and that the person knew or should have known 

endangers the physical health or safety of the individual, 

and that is done for the purpose of pledging, being 

initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding 

office in, or maintaining membership in any 

organization and includes: 

•Physical/brutality, such as whipping, beating, striking, 

branding, electronic shocking, placing a harmful 

substance on the body, or similar activity. 

•Physical activity, such as sleep deprivation, exposure to 

the elements, confinement in a small space, or 

calisthenics, that subjects the other person to an 

unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the 

physical health or safety of the individual. 

•Activity involving consumption of a food, liquid, 

alcoholic beverage, liquor, drug, or other substance that 

subjects the individual to an unreasonable risk of harm 

or that adversely affects the physical health or safety of 

the individual. 

•Activity that induces, causes, or requires an individual 

to perform a duty or task that involves the commission 

of a crime or an act of hazing. 

•Activity that is normal and customary in an athletic, 

physical education, military training, or similar program 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

173

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

sanctioned by the educational institution is excluded. A 

student who engages in or participates in the hazing of 

an individual in violation of "Garret’s Law" shall be 

subject to discipline from the School District in 

addition to any criminal punishment. 

•Sexual harassment is unwelcomed sexual advances or 

any form of sexual remarks or non-consensual sexual 

contact of a student by a student or any member of the 

staff. 

•Other prohibited conduct constituting harassment 

includes conduct, physical or verbal communication 

(written or oral), which has the purpose or effect of 

creating an intimidating, provoking, hostile, 

discriminatory, or objectively offensive environment on 

the basis of gender, religion, race, color, national origin 

or ancestry, age and/or disability that disrupts or 

interferes with a student's ability to attend school or 

participate in school activities in an environment 

conductive to learning and to courteous and peaceable 

social interaction. 

C. OTHER PROHIBITED CONDUCT

Bullying, taunting, stalking, hazing and other forms of 

harassment, including sexual harassment by students or 

staff members, fellow students, or other persons 

present on the school premises or at a school activity 

(e.g. visiting speakers, athletic team members, volunteer 

and/or parent) is strictly forbidden. Any student found 

to have harassed a staff member, student, or other 

person present on school premises or at a school 

activity, will be subject to discipline in accordance with 

the Code of Conduct and applicable laws.

MO "Bullying" means intimidation or 

harassment that causes a reasonable student 

to fear for his or her physical safety or 

property. Bullying may consist of physical 

actions, including gestures, or oral, 

cyberbullying, electronic, or written 

communication, and any threat of 

retaliation for reporting of such acts. 

Mo. Rev. Stat. §160-775

Harassment — A form of discrimination, as defined 

above, that occurs when the school or work environment 

becomes permeated with intimidation, ridicule or insult 

that is sufficiently severe or pervasive enough that it 

unreasonably alters the employment or educational 

environment. Behaviors that could constitute illegal 

harassment include, but are not limited to, the following 

acts if based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, 

ancestry, disability, age or any other characteristic 

Bullying is the intentional action by an individual or 

group of individuals to inflict physical, emotional or 

mental suffering on another individual or group of 

individuals. The District is committed to maintaining a 

learning and working environment free of any form of 

bullying or intimidation by students toward District 

personnel or students on school grounds, or school 

time, at a school sponsored activity or in a school 

related context. Bullying occurs when a student:
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

174

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

protected by law or a belief that such a characteristic exists: 

graffiti; display of written material or pictures; name 

calling; slurs; jokes; gestures; threatening, intimidating or 

hostile acts; theft; or damage to property.

Bullying — For purposes of this policy, bullying is defined 

as intimidation or harassment of a student or multiple 

students perpetuated by individuals or groups. Bullying 

includes, but is not limited to: physical actions, including 

violence, gestures, theft, or damaging property; oral or 

written taunts, including name-calling, put-downs, 

extortion, or threats; or threats of retaliation for reporting 

such acts. Bullying may also include cyberbullying or 

cyberthreats. Cyberbullying is sending or posting harmful 

or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital 

communication devices. Cyberthreats are online materials 

that threaten or raise concerns about violence against 

others, suicide or self-harm.

Communicates with another by any means including 

telephone, writing, cyberbullying or via electronic 

communications, with the intent to intimidate, or inflict 

physical, emotional, or mental harm without legitimate 

purpose, or Physically contacts another person with the 

intent to intimidate or to inflict physical, emotional, or 

mental harm without legitimate purpose. Physical 

contact does not require physical touching, although 

touching may be included. 

NV “Bullying” means a willful act or course of 

conduct on the part of one or more pupils 

which is not authorized by law and which 

exposes a pupil repeatedly and over time to 

one or more negative actions which is 

highly offensive to a reasonable person and 

is intended to cause and actually causes the 

pupil to suffer harm or serious emotional 

distress. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.122

“Cyberbullying” means bullying through 

the use of electronic communication. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.123

“Electronic communications” means the 

communication of any written, verbal, or 

pictorial information through the use of an 

electronic device, including, without 

limitation, a telephone, a cellular phone, a 

computer or any similar means of 

communication. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.124

“Harassment” means a willful act or course 

of conduct that is not otherwise authorized 

The XXXXX School District shall assure that any person 

who believes that he or she has been a victim of bullying, 

cyber-bullying, harassment, and/or intimidation as defined 

by NRS 388.125 and/or NRS 388.129 (See Appendix B) 

by any or all individuals as specified by NRS 388.135 

(Appendix C) is encouraged and instructed to adhere to 

the following reporting mechanism.

Definition of Bullying.

Bullying is distinguishable from roughhousing or 

friendly teasing in that bullying is intentionally hurtful 

and motivated by the desire to harm the victim. For the 

purpose of this policy, bullying consists of repeated 

systematic abuse and harassment of a person or persons 

by another. Bullying is usually characterized by the 

following seven elements: 

 1. A desire to hurt or harm motivates the perpetrator. 

 2. This desire to hurt or harm results in hurtful or 

harmful action(s) taken by the perpetrator. 

 3. A formal or informal power imbalance exists 

between the perpetrator and the victim. 

 4. The action(s) taken by the perpetrator are 

manifestations of the unjust use of power. 

 5. The perpetrator enjoys carrying out the action(s). 

 6. The victim has a sense of being oppressed. 

 7. The perpetrator typically repeats the hurtful or 

harmful actions against the victim.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

175

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

by law and: Is highly offensive to a 

reasonable person, and Intended to cause 

and actually causes another person to suffer 

serious emotional distress. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.125

“Intimidation” means a willful act or 

course of conduct that is now otherwise 

authorized by law and: Is highly offensive 

to a reasonable person; and Poses a threat 

of immediate harm or actually inflicts harm 

to another person or to the property of 

another person. 

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.129

NM A. “Bullying” means any repeated and 

pervasive written, verbal or electronic 

expression, physical act or gesture, or a 

pattern thereof, that is intended to cause 

distress upon one or more students in the 

school, on school grounds, in school 

vehicles, at a designated bus stop, or at 

school activities or sanctioned events. 

Bullying includes, but is not limited to, 

hazing, harassment, intimidation or 

menacing acts of a student which may, but 

need not be based on the student’s race, 

color, sex, ethnicity, national origin, 

religion, disability, age or sexual orientation.

B. "Department” means the public 

education department.

C. “Harassment” means knowingly 

pursuing a pattern of conduct that is 

intended to annoy, alarm or terrorize 

another person.

N.M. Admin. Code §6.12.7.7

Definitions

1. “Bullying” means any repeated and pervasive written, 

verbal or electronic expression, physical act or gesture, or a 

pattern thereof, that is intended to cause distress upon one 

or more students in the school, on school grounds, in 

school vehicles, at a designated bus stop, or at school 

activities or sanctioned events. Bullying includes, but is not 

limited to, hazing, harassment, intimidation or menacing 

acts of a student which may, but need not be based on the 

student’s race, color, sex, ethnicity, national origin, religion, 

disability, age or sexual orientation.

2. “Harassment” means knowingly pursuing a pattern of 

conduct that is intended to annoy, alarm or terrorize 

another person.

3. “Disability Harassment” is defined as intimidation or 

abusive behavior toward a student based on disability that 

creates a hostile environment by interfering with or 

denying a student’s participation in or receipt of benefits, 

services, or opportunities in the district.

Harassment and Disability Harassment include but are not 

limited to: 

 a. Verbal acts, teasing, use of sarcasm, jokes; 

 b. Name-calling, belittling; 

 c. Nonverbal behavior such as graphic or written 

statements; 

 d. Conduct that is physically threatening, harmful, or 

humiliating; or 

A. Definitions

1. “Unlawful harassment” means verbal or physical 

conduct based on a student’s actual or perceived race, 

color, national origin, gender, religion, or disability and 

which has the purpose or effect of substantially 

interfering with a student’s educational performance or 

creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive 

environment. Sexual harassment of students and hazing 

are addressed by separate Board policies. See Policy 

Nos. A-0300-ACA.

2. “Bullying” or “intimidation” means intimidating or 

offensive verbal or physical conduct toward a student, 

including through electronic media, when such conduct 

is habitual or recurring, including, but not limited to, 

verbal or physical confrontation, threats, stalking and 

name-calling. 

3. “Name-calling,” means the chronic, habitual, or 

recurring use of names or comments to or about a 

student regarding the student’s actual or perceived 

physical or personal characteristics when the student 

has indicated by his or her conduct, that the names or 

comments are unwelcome, or when the names or 

comments are clearly unwelcome, inappropriate, or 

offensive by their nature.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

176

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

 e. Inappropriate physical restraint by adults.

4. “Racial Harassment” consists of physical or verbal 

conduct relating to an individual’s race when the conduct: 

 a. Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, 

hostile, or offensive academic environment; 

 b. Has the purpose or effect of substantially or 

unreasonably interfering with an individual’s academic 

performance; or 

 c. Otherwise adversely affects an individual’s academic 

opportunities.

5. “Sexual Harassment” means any unwelcome sexual 

advances, requests for sexual favors, or other inappropriate 

verbal, written, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. 

Sexual harassment may take place under any of the 

following circumstances: 

 a. When submission to such conduct is made, explicitly 

or implicitly, a term or condition of obtaining an 

education; or 

 b. Submission to or rejection of that conduct or 

communication by an individual is used to factor in 

decisions affecting that individual’s education; or 

 c. That conduct or communication has the purpose or 

effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with an 

individual’s education, or creating an intimidating, hostile 

or offensive educational environment.

6. “Hazing” means committing an act against a student, or 

coercing a student into committing an act, that creates a 

risk of harm to a person, in order for that student to be 

initiated into or affiliated with a student organization, or 

for any other purpose. Hazing includes but is not limited 

to: 

 a. Any type of physical brutality such as whipping, 

beating, striking, branding, shocking, or placing a harmful 

substance on the body. 

 b. Any type of physical activity such as sleep 

deprivation, exposure to weather, confinement in a 

restricted area, calisthenics or other activity that subject the 

student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely 

affects the mental or physical health or safety of the 

student. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

177

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

 c. Any activity involving the consumption of any 

alcoholic beverage, drug, tobacco product or any other 

food, liquid, or substance that subjects the student to an 

unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the 

mental or physical health or safety of the student. 

 d. Any activity that intimidates or threatens the student 

with ostracism, that subjects the student to extreme mental 

stress, embarrassment, shame, or humiliation, that 

adversely affects the mental health or dignity of the student 

or discourages the student from remaining in school. 

 e. Any activity that causes or requires the student to 

perform a task that involves a violation of state or federal 

law, or district policies.

NY "Harassment" shall mean the creation of a 

hostile environment by conduct or by 

verbal threats, intimidation or abuse that 

has or would have the effect of 

unreasonably and substantially interfering 

with a student's educational performance, 

opportunities or benefits, or mental, 

emotional or physical well-being; or 

conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or 

abuse that reasonably causes or would 

reasonably be expected to cause a student 

to fear for his or her physical safety; such 

conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or 

abuse includes but is not limited to 

conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or 

abuse based on a person's actual or 

perceived race, color, weight, national 

origin, ethnic group, religion, religious 

practice, disability, sexual orientation, 

gender or sex. 

N.Y. Educ. Law §11

Bullying is “aggressive behavior that is intentional and 

involves an imbalance of power or strength. Usually, it is 

repeated over time. 

Cyberbullying, which is sometimes referred to as online 

social cruelty or electronic bullying, can involve: sending 

mean, vulgar, or threatening messages or images; posting 

sensitive, private information about another person; 

pretending to be someone else in order to make that 

person look bad; (or) intentionally excluding someone 

from an online group.

Intimidation, Harassment, Menacing, and Bullying are 

defined as: “Threatening, stalking or seeking to coerce or 

compel a person to do something; intentionally placing or 

attempting to place another person in fear of imminent 

physical injury; or engaging in verbal or physical conduct 

that threatens another with harm, including intimidation 

through the use of epithets or slurs involving race, 

ethnicity, national origin, religion, religious practices, 

gender, sexual orientation, age or disability that 

substantially disrupts the educational process.”

Cyberbullying, unlike physical bullying, does not provide 

an option for its victims to walk away. NYSDCJS defines 

sexting as “sending, receiving or forwarding sexually 

suggestive nude or nearly nude photos through text 

message or email.” Cyberbullying is a form of electronic 

aggression and that both it and sexting are inappropriate 

and will not be tolerated on school grounds or at schoolEngaging in intimidating and bullying behavior, 

including cyberbullying — threatening, stalking or 

seeking to coerce or compel a student or staff member 

to do something; engaging in verbal or physical conduct 

that threatens another with harm; taunting and/or 

intimidation including through the use of epithets or 

slurs involving actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, 

national origin, citizenship/immigration status, religion, 

religious practices, gender, gender identity, gender 

expression, sexual orientation or disability.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

178

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

sponsored events or functions, using either school or 

personal information technology equipment.

OH “Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” 

means either of the following:

 (1) Any intentional written, verbal, or 

physical act that a student has Exhibited 

toward another particular student more 

than once and the behavior both:

 (a) Causes mental or physical harm to 

the other student;

 (b) Is sufficiently severe, persistent, 

or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, 

threatening, or abusive educational 

environment for the other student.

 (2) Violence within a dating relationship. 

Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. §3313.666

3.1. Harassment, intimidation or bullying means any 

intentional written, verbal, graphic, or physical act that a 

student or group of students Exhibited toward other 

particular student more than once and the behavior both: 

 3.1.1. Causes mental or physical harm to the other 

student; and 

 3.1.2. Is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it 

creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational 

environment for the other student.

3.2. Harassment, Intimidation or Bullying also means 

electronically transmitted acts i.e., Internet, cell phone, 

personal digital assistance (PDA) or wireless hand-held 

device that a student has Exhibited toward another 

particular student more than once and the behavior both: 

 3.2.1. Causes mental or physical harm to the other 

student/school personnel; and 

 3.2.2. Is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it 

creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational 

environment for the other student/school personnel. 

3.3. In evaluating whether conduct constitutes harassment, 

intimidation or bullying, special attention should be paid to 

the words chosen or the actions taken, whether such 

conduct occurred in front of others or was communicated 

to others, how the perpetrator interacted with the victim, 

and the motivation, either admitted or appropriately 

inferred.

Harassment, intimidation or bullying by one student 

toward another particular student or students means 

either of the following: 

 (1) an intentional written, verbal, or physical act that 

occurs more than once and the behavior both causes 

mental or physical harm to the other student and is 

sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates 

an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational 

environment for the other student, or 

 (2) violence within a dating relationship. 

PA “Bullying” shall mean an intentional 

electronic, written, verbal or physical act, or 

a series of acts: 

 (1) Directed at another student or 

students; 

 (2) Which occurs in a school setting; 

 (3) That is severe, persistent or 

pervasive; and 

 (4) That has the effective of doing any of 

the following: 

Substantially interfering with a student’s 

Bullying means an intentional electronic, written, verbal or 

physical act or series of acts directed at another student or 

students, which occurs in a school setting and/or outside a 

school setting, that is severe, persistent or pervasive and 

has the effect of doing any of the following: 

 1. Substantial interference with a student’s education. 

 2. Creation of a threatening environment. 

 3. Substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the 

school. 

Bullying, as defined in this policy, includes cyberbullying.

A student is being bullied if s/he is exposed repeatedly 

over time to negative actions by one or more 

individuals. A bully is defined as an individual who 

repeatedly engages in negative actions toward others. 

Negative actions include physical, verbal, or indirect 

actions that are intended to inflict physical or emotional 

discomfort upon another and can result in cruel rumors, 

false accusations, and social isolation. These actions 

may include, but are not limited to: 

 1. Name calling. 

 2. Teasing. 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

179

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

education;

Creating a threatening environment; or

Substantially disrupting the orderly 

operation of the schools; and “school 

setting” shall mean in the school, on school 

grounds, in school vehicles, at a designated 

bus stop or at any activity sponsored, 

supervised, or sanctioned by the school. 

24 Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1303.1-A 

 3. Threatening looks. 

 4. Gestures. 

 5. Note writing. 

 6. Electronic communication. 

 7. Extortion. 

 8. Physical intimidation. 

 9. Threats. 

 10. Assault

SC “Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” 

means a gesture, an electronic 

communication, or a written, verbal, 

physical, or sexual act that is reasonably 

perceived to have the effect of: 

 (a) harming a student physically or 

emotionally or damaging a student’s 

property, or placing a student in reasonable 

fear of personal harm or property damage; 

or 

 (b) insulting or demeaning a student or 

group of students causing substantial 

disruption in, or substantial interference 

with, the orderly operation of the school. 

S.C. Code Ann. §59-63-120

The district board of trustees establishes that “harassment, 

intimidation or bullying” means a gesture, an electronic 

communication, or a written, verbal, physical, or sexual act 

that takes place on school property, at any schoolsponsored function where the school is responsible for the 

child or on a school bus or other school related vehicle, at 

an official school bus stop and that: 

 a) a reasonable person should know, under the 

circumstances, that the act(s) will have the effect of 

harming a student, physically or emotionally, or damaging 

the student’s property, or placing a student in reasonable 

fear of harm to his person or damage to his property; or 

 b) has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student 

or group of students in such a way as to cause substantial 

disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly 

operation of the school.

For purposes of this policy, harassment, intimidation or 

bullying is defined as a gesture, electronic 

communication, or a written, verbal, physical, emotional 

or sexual act reasonably perceived to have the effect of 

any of the following: 

•harming a student physically or emotionally or 

damaging a student's property, or placing a student in 

reasonable fear of personal harm or property damage 

•insulting or demeaning a student or group of students 

causing substantial disruption in, or substantial 

interference with, the orderly operation of the school 

•demonstrates motivation 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.

TX "Bullying" means engaging in written or 

verbal expression or physical conduct that a 

school district board of trustees or the 

board's designee determines: 

 (1) will have the effect of physically 

harming a student, damaging a student's 

property, or placing a student in reasonable 

fear of harm to the student's person or of 

damage to the student's property; or 

 (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, or 

pervasive enough that the action or threat 

creates an intimidating, threatening, or 

abusive educational environment for a 

student. 

NO STATE MODEL POLICY Bullying occurs when a student or group of students 

engages in written or verbal expression or physical 

conduct that: 

 1. Will have the effect of physically harming a 

student, damaging a student’s property, or placing a 

student in reasonable fear of harm to the student’s 

person or of damage to the student’s property; or 

 2. Is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that 

the action or threat creates an intimidating, threatening, 

or abusive educational environment for a student. 

Bullying of a student may include hazing, threats, 

taunting, teasing, confinement, assault, demands for 

money, destruction of property, theft of valued 

possessions, name calling, rumor spreading, and 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

180

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §25.0342

"Harassment" means threatening to cause 

harm or bodily injury to another student, 

engaging in sexually intimidating conduct, 

causing physical damage to the property of 

another student, subjecting another student 

to physical confinement or restraint, or 

maliciously taking any action that 

substantially harms another student's 

physical or emotional health or safety. 

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §37.001

ostracism. 

Bullying or harassment, which may include the 

following offenses:

Committing extortion, coercion, or blackmail, or 

forcing an individual to act through the use of force of 

threat of force. Making ethnic, racial or religious slurs 

or any other harassment based on race, color, national 

origin, religion, or disability. Verbal abuse or derogatory 

or offensive remarks addressed to others

Damaging or vandalizing property of other students. 

Conduct that constitutes sexual harassment or sexual 

abuse whether the conduct is by word, gesture, or any 

other sexual conduct, including without limit, requests 

for sexual favors. Dating violence, meaning the 

intentional use of physical, sexual, verbal or emotional 

abuse to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control another 

person in a dating relationship.

UT (1)(a)"Bullying" means intentionally or 

knowingly committing an act that:

 (i) (A) endangers the physical health 

or safety of a school employee or student;

 (B) involves any brutality of a 

physical nature such as whipping, beating, 

branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric 

shocking, placing of a harmful substance 

on the body, or exposure to the elements;

 (C) involves consumption of any 

food, liquor, drug, or other substance;

 (D) involves other physical activity 

that endangers the physical health and 

safety of a school employee or student; or

 (E) involves physically obstructing 

a school employee's or student's freedom 

to move; and

 (ii) is done for the purpose of placing a 

school employee or student in fear of:

 (A) physical harm to the school 

employee or student; or

 (B) harm to property of the school 

employee or student.

“Bullying” means behavior that: 

 (1) is intended to cause harm or distress; 

 (2) exists in a relationship in which there is an imbalance 

of power; 

 (3) may be repeated over time; and 

 (4) may also include definitions provided in §53A-lla102.

USOE MODEL POLICY: BULLYING AND HAZING

Definitions 

A. “Bullying” means intentionally or knowingly 

committing an act that: 

 1. endangers the physical health or safety of a school 

employee or student; a. involves any brutality of a physical 

nature such as whipping, beating, branding, calisthenics, 

bruising, electric shocking, placing of a harmful substance 

on the body, or exposure to the elements; b. involves 

forced or involuntary consumption of any food, liquor, 

drug, or other substance; c. involves forced or coerced 

actions or activities of a sexual nature or with sexual 

connotations; d. involves other physical activity that 

endangers the physical health and safety of a school 

employee or student; or e. involves physically obstructing a 

school employee’s or student’s freedom to move; and 

Bullying means intentionally or knowingly committing 

an act that is done for the purpose of placing a school 

employee or student in fear of: 

 1) physical harm to the school employee or student 

or 

 2) harm to property of the school employee or 

student. 

Acts of bullying may include: 

 1) endangerment to the physical health or safety of a 

school employee or student; 

 2) any brutality of a physical nature such as shipping, 

beating, branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric 

shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, 

or exposure to the elements to a school employee or 

student; 

 3) forced or unwilling consumption of any food, 

liquor, drug, or other substance by a school employee 

or student; 

 4) other physically obstructing a school employee’s or 

student’s freedom to move. 

The conduct described above constitutes bullying, 

regardless of whether the person against whom the 

conduct is committed directed, consented to, or 
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

181

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

 (b) The conduct described in Subsection 

(1)(a) constitutes bullying, regardless of 

whether the person against whom the 

conduct is committed directed, consented 

to, or acquiesced in, the conduct. 

Utah Code §53A-11a-102

(4) "Harassment" means repeatedly 

communicating to another individual, in an 

objectively demeaning or disparaging 

manner, statements that contribute to a 

hostile learning or work environment for 

the individual.

Utah Code §53A-11a-102

(5) (a) "Hazing" means intentionally or 

knowingly committing an act that:

 (i) (A) endangers the physical health 

or safety of a school employee or student;

 (B) involves any brutality of a 

physical nature such as whipping, beating, 

branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric 

shocking, placing of a harmful substance 

on the body, or exposure to the elements;

 (C) involves consumption of any 

food, liquor, drug, or other substance;

 (D) involves other physical 

activity that endangers the physical health 

and safety of a school employee or student; 

or

 (E) involves physically 

obstructing a school employee's or 

student's freedom to move; and

 (ii) (A) is done for the purpose of 

initiation or admission into, affiliation with, 

holding office in, or as a condition for, 

membership or acceptance, or continued 

membership or acceptance, in any school 

or school sponsored team, organization, 

program, or event; or

 (B) if the person committing the 

act against a school employee or student 

 2. is done for the purpose of placing a school employee 

or student in fear of: a. physical harm to the school 

employee or student; or b. harm to property of the school 

employee or student. 

 3. The conduct described above constitutes bullying, 

regardless of whether the person against whom the 

conduct is committed directed, consented to, or acquiesced 

in, the conduct.

B. “Hazing” means intentionally or knowingly committing 

an act that: 

 1. endangers the physical health or safety of a school 

employee or student; 

 a. involves any brutality of a physical nature such as 

whipping, beating, branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric 

shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or 

exposure to the elements; 

 b. involves consumption of any food, liquor, drug, 

or other substance; 

 c. involves forced or coerced actions or activities of 

a sexual nature or with sexual connotations; 

 d. involves other physical activity that endangers the 

physical health and safety of a school employee or student; 

or e. involves physically obstructing a school employee’s or 

student’s freedom to move; and 

 2. is done for the purpose of initiation or admission 

into, affiliation with, holding office in, or as a condition 

for, membership or acceptance, or continued membership 

or acceptance, in any school or school sponsored team, 

organization, program, or event; or 

 3. if the person committing the act against a school 

employee or student knew that the school employee or 

student is a member of, or candidate for, membership with 

a school, or school sponsored team, organization, 

program, or event to which the person committing the act 

belongs to or participates in. 

 4. The conduct described in above constitutes hazing, 

regardless of whether the person against whom the 

conduct is committed directed, consented to, or acquiesced 

in, the conduct.

C. “Cyberbullying” means the use of email, instant 

acquiesced in, the conduct.

Cyberbullying means the use of email, instant 

messaging, chat rooms, pagers, cell phones, or other 

forms of information technology to deliberately harass, 

threaten, or intimidate someone for the purpose of 

placing a school employee or student in fear of 

 a) physical harm to the school employee or student; 

or 

 b) harm to property of the school employee or 

student.
Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies

Appendix F: Definitions of Bullying: Comparisons Among State Legislation, State Model Policies, and School District Policies

182

State Legislative Definition State Model Policy Definition School District Policy Definition

knew that the school employee or student 

is a member of, or candidate for, 

membership with a school, or school 

sponsored team, organization, program, or 

event to which the person committing the 

act belongs to or participates in. 

Utah Code §53A-11a-102

messaging, chat rooms, cell phones, or other forms of 

information technology to deliberately harass, threaten, or 

intimidate someone for the purpose of placing a school 

employee or student in fear of: 

 1. physical harm to the school employee or student; or 

 2. harm to property of the school employee or student.

Utah Admin. Code R277-609

VA NO LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION

A. The Board of Education shall establish 

guidelines and develop model policies for 

codes of student conduct to aid local 

school boards in the implementation of 

such policies. The guidelines and model 

policies shall include, but not be limited to,

 (i) criteria for the removal of a student 

from a class, the use of suspension, 

expulsion, and exclusion as disciplinary 

measures, the grounds for suspension and 

expulsion and exclusion, and the 

procedures to be followed in such cases, 

including proceedings for such suspension, 

expulsion, and exclusion decisions and all 

applicable appeals processes; 

 (ii) standards, consistent with state, 

federal and case laws, for school board 

policies on alcohol and drugs, gang-related 

activity, hazing, vandalism, trespassing, 

threats, search and seizure, disciplining of 

students with disabilities, intentional injury 

of others, self-defense, bullying, the use of 

electronic means for purposes of bullying, 

harassment, and intimidation, and 

dissemination of such policies to students, 

their parents, and school personnel; 

Va. Code Ann. §22.1-279.6

Non-criminal behavior associated with bullying includes 

intimidation, taunting, name-calling, and insults. The 

definition developed for the Virginia Department of 

Education Annual Discipline, Crime, and Violence Report 

is “repeated negative behaviors intended to frighten or 

cause harm” that may include, but are not limited to, 

verbal or written threats or physical harm. Another form 

of bullying occurs through the use of electronic means and 

is referred to as cyber bullying. Typically, cyber bullying is 

defined as using information and communication 

technologies, such as cell phone text messages and pictures 

and internet e-mail, social networking Web sites, 

defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory online 

personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, hostile, 

behavior intended to harm others.

Sample Conduct Standard: Bullying (2009)

Students, either individually or as part of a group, shall not 

harass or bully others. The following conduct is illustrative 

of bullying:

 1. Physical intimidation, taunting, name calling, and 

insults 

 2. Comments regarding the race, gender, religion, 

physical abilities or characteristics of associates of the 

targeted person

 3. Falsifying statements about other persons

 4. Use of technology such as e-mail, text messages, or 

Web sites to defame or harm others.

Student Conduct Policy Guidelines (2009)

Bullying - A pattern of aggressive, intentional or 

deliberately hostile behavior that occurs repeatedly and 

over time. Bullying behaviors normally fall into three 

categories, physical, emotional and verbal, and may 

include, but are not limited to, intimidation, assault; 

extortion; oral or written threats; teasing; putdowns; 

name-calling; threatening looks; gestures, or actions; 

rumors; false accusations; hazing, social isolation, and 

cyberbullying.