Kulsoom Basharat

3/18/2015
Memo #2

As indicated previously, bullying is a prevalent issue within schools. It is a major public

health and safety problem. (M. Fekkes, 2005) It is important to develop sound and practical
policies designed to address this issue. It is equally important to have a set of criterion that can
provide a framework to evaluate policies to help clarify alternatives to policymakers. The
evaluation of alternatives based on the criteria is important as it helps improve policymaking by
rationalizing the selection of alternatives so that institutions such as school systems, in this
case, can achieve their desired goals by selecting an alternative that optimally addresses the
issue. (Rossell, 1993) A thorough selection of criterion will help to assess the anticipated
outcomes for each alternative. The criterions I have selected to evaluate the alternatives are
efficient, informative, robust, effective, and sustainable.

The efficient criteria will be assessed from the point of view of being cost-efficient
(economically feasible) for the school systems to implement and operate the specific policy
alternatives. This is an important criterion since school systems have limited resources in terms
of funding and staff, and it would be practical to select the most efficient policy design. This
criterion assesses whether a bullying policy would be relatively easier to implement; meaning it
will not be too cumbersome or labor intensive. It would also allow school administrators to
accurately allocate resources towards a policy that could potentially provide a positive return
on the investment.

The second criterion is informative. This will evaluate policy alternatives that are likely
to promote awareness and knowledge on all matters relating to bullying within school systems.
Studies have shown that making children more aware of bullying problems can potentially
1

Kulsoom Basharat
3/18/2015
Memo #2

increase the likelihood that they will be able to identify and confidently report bullying. (Peter
Smith, 2003) Also as teachers and administrators become more aware of the signs and/or
triggers of bullying behavior both in the victim and the perpetrator, they can stop the behavior
by addressing specific incidences and traits. (M. Fekkes, 2005)

The third and one of the most important criterions is robust. This is defined according to
how comprehensive the policy is. It is important that policies cover a wide spectrum of bullying
behavior and not just focus on addressing one specific kind of bullying. It is critical that policies
contain all of the intricacies and potential impacts an issue entails. When dealing with bullying
behavior, it is fundamental in having all parties (school staff, students, and parents) involved in
efforts to prevent and truly diminish bullying behavior in schools. (M. Fekkes, 2005)

The fourth criterion I have chosen is to evaluate policy alternatives is based upon
whether or not they will be effective. This will assess how likely the policy is expected to
achieve objectives and benefits thereby producing desired outcomes. This criterion will also
evaluate if the policies will utilize resources appropriately to support the effort. Efficient
policies are not necessarily effective. There have been numerous policies that have proven to
have been ineffective in varying degrees and perpetuate the bullying behavior. If policies do not
qualitatively address the root causes, then desired goals cannot be achieved.

The last but also important criterion is sustainable. In conjunction with the effective
criterion, this will measure the likelihood of the policy alternative to be potentially successful.
While this criterion is difficult to use because this would have to be assessed long after the
2

Kulsoom Basharat
3/18/2015
Memo #2

policy

has

been

implemented,

the

evaluation

of

sustainability

is

based

on

projections/anticipated outcomes. Policies that potentially could empower school staff and
students to continue the efforts long after they have been implemented would prove to be
viable polices. Since policymaking is about setting guidelines for the future, it is critical that
alternatives be adaptable to any type of future bullying methods and also that policies can be
applicable as time changes through feasible and timeless practices.

Other criterion that can be used to evaluate bullying policy alternatives are relevance
(customized targeted approach based on subjects) and risk (threat of failure of the alternative).
The tradeoffs of using the selected criterion instead of using these two are minimal since the
likelihood of success of an alternative is evaluated by the effective and sustainable criterion.

Currently there are a variety of policies on bullying that are implemented within Fairfax
County Public School (FCPS). The set of policy alternatives I would like to evaluate leverage
existing practices and theories currently being utilized. I have extracted and pieced together
feasible policy options that aim to address shortfalls within current policies. The policy
alternatives are as follows:

The first alternative is to develop a comprehensive 360 degree policy that addresses
bullying in all aspects. This policy will provide training on how to recognize and prevent the
onset of the bullying behavior, and will solicit active involvement from the parent/guardian,
teachers, peers, and administrators. This policy also will include providing transformative
justice to all parties involved after an incident occurs. This policy would involve the entire
3

Kulsoom Basharat
3/18/2015
Memo #2

school, provide classroom curriculum that fosters positive relationship among students, will
impose mandatory training on teachers and they will be held accountable for any incidences
that occur while student under their supervision and the policy will further enhance existing
peer support networks.

The second alternative is geared towards middle and high school bullies. This three
strike policy will enforce a mandatory eight week summer course for perpetrators who have
bullied their peers on three separate occasions. This policy will not replace any immediate
disciplinary action that will need to take place after each incident; rather it will be in addition to
the repercussions. The summer course will be a combination of coursework and community
service, followed by some form of restorative justice where all parties involved will participate
in therapy session to discuss why the incident occurred and what impacts it had on all of the
individuals involved.

The third policy alternative is to develop a grade based tailored course that addresses
bullying prevention, intervention, and mediation techniques at each age level. This would be
offered in grades K through 12. The course would be part of a physical/health education class.
This course will be taught at a level that can be easily understood by each student.

The last policy alternative is to do nothing. This option would consider things as they
currently are within FCPS.

Kulsoom Basharat
3/18/2015
Memo #2

Criteria

Alternatives
360

3 Strikes

Tailored Course

Do Nothing

Efficient

10

Informative

10

10

Robust

10

Effective

10

10

Sustainable

10

Table 1 Criteria/Alternatives Matrix

The policy alternatives were evaluated using the criterion efficient, informative, robust,
effective and sustainable. The values were ranked by using an ordinal scale, 1 (low), 5
(medium), and 10 (high). The weight on each criterion is equal .25. The highest alternative(360
degree) received a rating of 11.25. Below are the calculations for the ratings:

Alternatives

Ratings

360

.25x5+.25x10+.25x10+.25x10+.25x10=11.25

3 Strikes

.25x1+.25x5+.25x5+.25x10+.25x1=5.5

Tailored Course

.25x10+.25x10+.25x1+.25x5+.25x5=7.75

Do Nothing

.25x5+.25x5+.25x1+.25x5+.25x1=4.25
Table 2 Total Rating Comparison for Alternatives

Kulsoom Basharat
3/18/2015
Memo #2

Bibliography
BullyingStatistic.org. (2013). Bullying and Suicide. Retrieved from
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html
Cohen, N. (2014, December 19). To Stop a Bully. Retrieved from Richmondmag.com:
http://richmondmagazine.com/news/news/bullying-prevention-program/
Education, U. D. (2014, October 21). Retrieved from Bullying of Students with Disabilities Addressed in
Guidance to Americas Schools: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/bullying-studentsdisabilities-addressed-guidance-america%E2%80%99s-schools
Gregory, C. (2011, March 16). Obama commits $132M to anti-bullying what will that mean? Retrieved
from http://corinnegregory.com/blog/2011/03/16/obama-commits-132m-to-anti-bullyingwhat-will-that-mean/
Krause, C. (2011, June 27). Bullying. Retrieved from Fairfax Mental Health:
http://www.fairfaxmentalhealth.com/bullying
M. Fekkes, F. P.-V. (2005). Bullying: who does what, when and where? Involvement of children,
teachers, and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research Theory and Practice, 8191.
Peter Smith, K. A. (2003). Interventions to Reduce School Bullying. Can J Psychiatry, 591-599.
Rossell, C. H. (1993). Using Multiple Criteria to Evaluate Public Policies- The Case of School
Desegregation. American Politics Quarterly, 155-184.
Schools, F. C. (2015). fcps.org. Retrieved from Bullying Prevention and Intervention: www.fcps.org
Survey, F. C. (2014). Fairfax County Youth Survey Results. Fairfax: Fairfax County.
Virginia, B. o. (2013). Model Policy to Address Bullying in Virginia's Schools.