Implementation of New York State's Dignity for All Students Act: Missing the Forest for the Trees

• In Event: 16.038 - Shifting Policy Approaches to "Safe" Schooling: Preparing Preservice Teachers to Understand and Address Systemic Marginalizations

Abstract

There is very little research exploring the implementation of anti-bullying law. What research there is has noted that while many teachers and administrators may report awareness of the law and an expectation for implementation, few report changes in the culture of their schools (Terry, 2010). Teachers and administrators report a lack of specific information on how to implement, lack of clarity on the specifics of compliance, and a lack of staff development to support implementation. Those who have had some professional development in relation to anti-bullying legislation report that it was inadequate in content and in the time devoted to it. Teachers often have reported that “implementation” means merely distributing a policy and asking staff to read it. Additionally, research has revealed that only the most severe forms of bullying are reported with little attention to preventative, pro-active measures (Terry, 2010). This was true for our study on implementation of the New York State Dignity for All Students Act (DASA).

In this paper, the authors focus on a portion of data from a larger evaluation study on implementation of DASA. This sub-set of data consists of 17 one hour semi-structured interviews (Patton, 2001) with Dignity Act Coordinators (DAC) in schools in upstate New York. The interview protocol covered their professional development training for the DAC position, responsibilities as DAC, DASA efforts at their school and district levels, and their experiences with supporting or including LGBT students through DASA. Analysis utilized Carspecken’s (1996) approach to critical ethnography.

Overall, this research indicates that New York schools have focused most of their attention on creating systems for reporting bullying or harassment incidents and on investigation procedures. The findings do not include any meaningful engagement with proactive efforts to developing positive, inclusive school culture. More specific findings include: DACs are receiving training on codes of conduct, avoiding lawsuits, the language in the legislation, the definition of a bullying act, how to complete forms for incident reporting, and responsibilities for reporting. They are not being trained on recognizing bias-based incidents or working with diverse populations; No interview respondents reported that their DASA professional development focused on pro-actively creating supportive environments or offered significant education on LGBT students and families in schools; When interview respondents were asked about their schools’ proactive efforts to develop positive school culture, most educators did not understand what a proactive approach might look like.

Knotts (2009) argues: “While the laws raise consciousness and explicitly demand protection against harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation, without systemic implementation, the language in the laws themselves lays only the groundwork for potential change” (p. 600). In order to realize the change possible through DASA, we need to improve the preparation of our education workforce to teach diverse students from diverse families, to feel qualified and comfortable to teach LGBT curricular content, to understand how marginalization works in schools and be able to address it.

Author

• Elizabethe Payne, Queering Education Research Institute (QuERI)