Any policy that strives to stamp out bullying, whether in Columbus schools or elsewhere, is a policy toward a worthwhile endeavor. There is no excuse for officials or districts to turn a blind eye toward this type of behavior excusing it as a “kids will be kids” byproduct of a group of children. Bullying can have long lasting affects on victims and needs to be dealt with promptly and decisively. The definition of bullying to be used in Columbus schools, however, leaves something to be desired.

Columbus Schools Need a Better Definition of Bullying

The definition of bullying being used in Columbus schools describes physical, written, or verbal acts against fellow students, but adds the words "more than once." I would argue that we all know what bullying is and that there should be zero tolerance for this type of behavior. By including the statement that an act is not considered bullying unless it happens for a second time gives the bully one free shot at a victim. That is simply not acceptable in Columbus schools or anywhere else, for that matter.

If we are talking about a physical act of violence that an adult commits, do they get one freebie before it is considered a crime? Not at all! Anyone who chooses to bully another student needs to take responsibility for their actions from the very first time they behave in that manner. All acts of bullying are harmful to the victims involved, whether it's the first time or not, and administrators at Columbus schools need to step up and recognize that fact.

Consequences of Bullying Should be Spelled Out

Not only should the definition of bullying used by Columbus schools be tightened up, but the consequences for this type of behavior should also be explained in detail with the objective of making consequences a deterrent in themselves. Students and parents should know what to expect if their child is bullied and, more importantly, know the consequences should their child be the bully.

For the policy to be effective, all bullying incidents at Columbus schools must be taken seriously. All allegations of bullying need to be investigated promptly, and if they are found to have merit, the penalty should be imposed with no exceptions. It's the only way that the problem of bullying at Columbus schools and in other jurisdictions has a chance of being overcome.

Too many people have the opinion that children have always picked on each other and that's just the way it is. I believe that over time our attitudes toward what is considered acceptable behavior can and does change. The students at Columbus schools deserve to learn in an environment that encourages tolerance. The victims of bullying at Columbus schools are not the problem; the problem of bullying lies squarely with the bullies themselves.

Let's tell officials at Columbus schools that their policy needs to be rewritten so that bullying incidents are dealt with the first time they occur, not give bullies a free first shot.

Patricia Hawke is a staff writer for Schools K-12, providing free, in-depth reports on all U.S. public and private K-12 schools. For more information please visit Columbus Public Schools.

In response to a recent evaluation of Los Angeles schools, Superintendent Brewer released a new strategy for helping failing secondary (high schools, grades 9-12) schools improve. Called “The Strategic Plan for High Priority Schools”, it is a document that is intended to address the problems inherent in these schools and the goals that have been set to solve them.

Los Angeles schools who attend these failing schools (approximately 13 in all) may feel like they are being taken care of by their school board, if they take the time to even think about it. Most likely, they have their minds on other, more pressing (to them) matters, such as living in poverty, learning to speak English, learning with disabilities and whether or not to stay in school at all.

These students attending these Los Angeles schools may look to their school as a place of sanctuary, but given the habit of teens to bring wear their problems on their sleeves, it’s doubtful that even the best school can offer much sanctuary from a stressful life.

The Plan: Inspired or Misguided?

So is the “Plan” misguided? I believe that the leaders of Los Angeles schools truly want to improve their schools that need improving. Is the plan the best way to go? Well, let’s take a look at a few of its high points.

• Local Control – individual Los Angeles schools will be given control over how they will improve. With district support, these Los Angeles schools can use what methods work best for their particular students. (One has to wonder, however, that if the administrators of these Los Angeles schools were doing their best in the first place, whether the problems would be as extensive as they currently are.)

• Rigorous Curriculum – Setting a higher standard for students to reach is all well and good, but if the students attending these failing Los Angeles schools are already behind, (and it’s a good bet that this is so, especially if we’re talking about those in danger of dropping out or with learning disabilities) it’s hard to see how raising the bar will help. Perhaps more concentration should go into getting these students of Los Angeles schools back on track academically speaking.

• High Quality Instruction – This simply means putting better teachers in the classrooms. Too often, low-achieving schools are the dumping ground for what’s wrong with the teaching profession; they’ll take any assignment they can get in order to keep their jobs. They’re teaching for the paycheck (as unbelievable as THAT may be) and little else. Improving teacher quality is imperative; principals have got to be able to rearrange, reassign, retrain or even FIRE ineffective teaching staff. Failing teachers working at failing Los Angeles schools really do not deserve job security. We wouldn’t accept that from a doctor, lawyer, policeman or even preacher, so why should teaching be any different?

While these are only a few areas which are addressed in “The Strategic Plan for High Priority Schools”, it is easy to see that Los Angeles schools have their work cut out for them. Reform is necessary, and won’t be simple. Hopefully, the leaders of Los Angeles schools will stick to their jobs for the long haul and fix what’s wrong with these Los Angeles schools.

Patricia Hawke is an expert researcher and writer on real estate topics such as economics, credit improvement tips, home selling advice and home buying preparations and education for relocating families. For more information please visit Los Angeles Unified School District

Now that lists of high school rankings are being published in the media, parents, teachers, and students will no doubt be wondering where "their" school ranks on the list. The lists of high school rankings are based on student test results. I would argue that the criteria for what makes a high school a good one should be based on something more than what these tests measure.

What are the Basis of High School Rankings?

When you look at high school rankings, information other than the test scores may also be included. Along with the test results, the total number of students attending the school, and the student-to-teacher ratio is also provided. The percentage of students receiving a free or discounted lunch is also tracked.

Since the high school rankings do show that it is possible to have a good number of students getting a free or discounted lunch yet do well on tests, why is this figure included in the numbers prepared for publication?

Again, the administrators and the public are basing their opinion about what makes a school a good one simply on a snapshot of the test results from a single day. This view of high school rankings is a very narrow one. What about intangibles? What about facility attitudes toward teaching? What about student safety? Is the environment encouraging or discouraging. For example, taking California’s API scores, a school catering to a naturally above average student body in aptitude may end up with the highest test scores without teaching or challenging its students. Another school that begins with a student body collectively average or below in natural aptitude may score much lower but provide a challenge and significant improvement to the student body. Which school is then doing its job better? Put another way, if we truly want to get a good handle on high school rankings and what they mean, we need to keep in mind that they only tell one part of the story. Consider, if you will, a competition of any kind. It could be an athletic or academic one. At the end of the day, the winners will be selected. The standings don't show what the competitors went through to prepare for that day, who competed while battling symptoms of the flu, or which ones had trouble concentrating on the task at hand because of problems at home.

High school rankings do the same thing. They show a snapshot of one day but don't take into consideration the hard work the students are putting forward when they go to school or how much progress they have made over the school year. The high school rankings don't indicate which students were fortunate enough to have teachers who were willing to offer extra help or lend an ear when students had a problem they wanted to discuss.

All of these elements have a bearing on high school rankings. You simply can't take all the work that goes into a school year and choose one day that will indicate whether the students are a success or not. Check out the high school rankings if you want to, but do keep in mind that a set of figures does not tell the whole story about a school.

Patricia Hawke is a staff writer for Schools K-12, providing free, in-depth reports on all U.S. public and private K-12 schools. For more information please visit High School Rankings