No abstract

No abstract

There have been significant changes in the racial/ethnic and linguistic background of students attending public schools in the United States. The number of public‐school students who are English language learners (ELLs) participating in programs of language assistance has more than doubled over the past two decades. In 1993–1994, 5.1% of public‐school students in the United States were ELLs, or an estimated 2.1 million students. As of 2014–2015, 9.4% of students were ELLs, or an estimated 4.6 million students. It is estimated that by 2030, upward of 40% of school children will speak English as a second language. Meeting the needs of students who are not proficient in English is challenging for school professionals and even more so if they are identified for special services. Researchers have found that ELL students live in situations with numerous high‐risk factors, including poverty, inadequate schools, poor and violent neighborhoods, and limited access to adequate health care, mental health services, and schools. As a group, these students are more likely to underperform academically, have a lower grade point average, and drop out of school compared to non‐ELL Latino students.

This article examines state-level school laws that emerged over the last decade with regard to bully prevention. The purpose is to determine, among states that legally mandate public schools to address bullying, how extensively they have incorporated language representing the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention levels.State bully laws were coded into a classification scheme representing three levels of prevention constructs and language from OIweus' Bullying Prevention Program. Findings include discussions of both the thematic review of the qualitative data and frequencies generated from data reduction. Findings revealed that 38 states wrote school laws that required bullying policies. Among these states, half (50%) had laws that addressed both primary and tertiary prevention levels, while only 10 states (26%) included secondary prevention in its laws.The discussion includes suggestions for expanding state bully laws to incorporate secondary prevention. Also, the discussion moves beyond what states currently require their school districts to do, to draw conclusions regarding alignment ofbest practices and school bully laws and policies. Health educators can be involved in lobbying for school bully prevention policy and laws at the state level.

No abstract