When compared to HB 242 (The Strama/Davis big bully bill) the committee substitute for HB 1942 (or CSHB 1942) is far less comprehensive. Strama's bill, as originally filed, did four major things:
- Require that all staff, teachers, parents and students receive training on how to identify and prevent bullying;
- Allow for the transfer of bullies to different classes/campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred);
- allow school administrators to address cyberbullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations; and
- Require school districts to annually report instances of bullying to the state, enumerating the report by motivating bias including sexual orientation, but not gender identity and expression.
- Require that school health curriculums include information on how to "effectively address awareness, prevention, identification, and resolution of and intervention in bullying," but would not require training for staff, teachers or parents (the bill says that districts "may" provide training for teachers, but does not require it);
- Allow for the transfer of bullies to different classes/campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred);
- Allow school administrators to address cyberbullying, but only if it "occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, or on a vehicle operated by the district;"
- Not require any state-level reporting on instances of bullying; and
- Further clarify the requirements of anti-bullying policies schools must adopt in their Student Codes of Conduct.
"'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." (emphasis added)
However, that definition only applies to section 25, which gives school districts the ability to transfer the victims of bullying to other classes or campuses. There are other sections of the education code which talk about bullying, but they do not have their own definitions.
CSHB 1942 fixes this by redefining bullying for the entire code (including Sec 25.0342) as
"bullying" means engaging in written or verbal expression, expression through electronic means, or physical conduct that occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, or on a vehicle operated by the district and that: (1) has the effect or 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; (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive enough that the action or threat creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student; (3) exploits an imbalance of power between the student perpetrator and the student victim through written or verbal expression or physical conduct; and (4) interferes with a student ’s education or substantially disrupts the operation of a school. (emphasis added)The use of the word "and" in the proposed new definition (instead of the word "or") means that, to be considered bullying, the behavior will have to meet every criteria in the definition. Under this definition if a bully threatens to harm a student in a severe and pervasive way that exploits an imbalance of power and interferes with a student's eduction, but isn't persistent about it, it wouldn't count as bullying. If a bully physically harms a student in a severe, persistent and pervasive way that substantially disrupts the operation of the school, but administrators do not perceive an imbalance of power, it wouldn't count as bullying. The use of the word "and" where previously "or" was used weakens the existent protections in the code.
The next step in the process will be for the "Calendars Committee" to place CSHB 1942 on the House's schedule. The House divides bills into seven calendars, depending on what the bill does. Different calendars are heard on different days and the Calendars Committees determine which bills go on which calendars. The Public Education Committee recommended CSHB 1942 be placed on the General State Calendar, which is reserved for non-emergent bills that have a statewide impact but only effect some citizens (in this case students). CSHB must be debated on the House floor before midnight on May 12 in order to move on to the next step in the process: Senate consideration. Last session similar legislation (HB 1324 by Strama (D-Travis Co)) failed to pass because it didn't make this deadline (for more information read LQ's Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part II).
Once CSHB 1942 reaches the floor there will be an opportunity to amend it. With such a carefully crafted compromise, however, it's likely that Democratic members who find fault with the bill will be encouraged to not attempt to make it better. The best hope for improving this legislation (for instance fixing that whole and/or issue) is for members to speak privately with Rep. Patrick and the bill's co-authors (Shelton, Strama, Eissler and Guillen) about any desired changes before CSHB 1942 reaches the floor. If Patrick is agreeable a "friendly amendment" can be offered to fix any issues without subjecting the bill to prolonged debate which might endanger it.
CSHB 1942 incorporates ideas from a number of bills filed this session, including HB 24, HB 195, HB 224/SB 242, SB 42 and SB 205 and is the result of compromises designed to appease a majority Republican committee and a majority Republican Legislature (10 of the 11 committee members voted in favor of the bill, including 5 Republicans and the bill's principal author, Diane Patrick is a Republican). By removing any recognition of sexual orientation (let alone gender identity and expression) as a motivating bias for bullying, and by removing any suggestion that administrators have a responsibility to respond to off-campus bullying the crafters of this compromise have made it more appealing to the majority of legislators. Although it will likely face some opposition on the floor it is likely to pass, provided that there is still enough time left in the session.
