Kulsoom Basharat

4/1/2015
Memo #3

It is critical that school policymakers carefully evaluate policy options that can optimally
produce short and long term impactful outcomes. The set of criterion I selected to evaluate the
bullying policy alternatives were efficient, informative, robust, effective, and sustainable. The
policy alternatives consisted of 360 degree policy, 3 strike policy, grade based tailored course,
and the option to do nothing at all.

The 3 strike policy requires perpetrators to complete a mandatory eight week summer
course that provides a combination of coursework and community service and some form of
therapy that would involve the perpetrator, victim(s) and family members. This policy is to
deter potential offenders from engaging in bullying behavior so that they will not have to
sacrifice their summer break. One of the short-term outcomes of this policy would be to equip
perpetrators (through coursework) with conflict resolution techniques to effectively channel
their emotions (frustration, anger, anxiety, etc.) and become more aware of the resources
available to them to address their issues. The long-term outcomes of this policy would be to
leave a lasting impact on the perpetrators based upon the community service work performed
at shelters for abused adults and/or children.

The tailored course policy alternative is designed based on the physical and
psychological abilities of the students within each grade. The course would touch upon
prevention, intervention, and mediation techniques. Based on each age group, the short-term
outcomes could range from basic awareness to adapting skill sets- to being stewards of
preventing bullying behavior. As students progress through the years, the long-term outcomes
would be for the student body to be more accepting of the differences among the population
1

Kulsoom Basharat
4/1/2015
Memo #3

and cultivating and participating in mediation and conflict resolution techniques to mitigate the
risk of bullying behavior from infiltrating the school halls.

The 360 degree policy consists of training teachers/school staff on how to accurately
recognize and prevent of the onset of bullying behavior and will also provide classroom
curriculum to students in order to enhance their awareness and skills in identifying,
addressing/reporting and resolving bullying behavior. The 360 degree policy requires active
engagement from key stakeholders in implementing the principles of prevention and
intervention. Through key stakeholder involvement, one of the goals of this policy would be to
hold everyone accountable for acting responsibly according to the role they have. The shortterm outcomes would be the lowered incidences of bullying behavior within the school and the
awareness on bullying behavior among the student body, school staff, and parents/guardians.
The long-term outcomes would be that all stakeholders are equipped with the tools and
knowledge to combat bullying behavior on all fronts-on and off school grounds.

Each of these policies alternatives will be evaluated conceptually meaning that they will
be assessed based upon to what level they bring more awareness on bullying behavior and/or
to what degree they involve a large group of stakeholders. The policies will also be evaluated
instrumentally in order to determine if these policies alternatives will be used in attempt to
improve existing methods/policies that address bullying behavior. The type of evaluation I have
chosen to use is Long-Term Consequences in order to assess the impact of these policies in the
long run.

Kulsoom Basharat
4/1/2015
Memo #3

Illustrated below is the Criteria/Alternatives Matrix. The policy alternatives are ranked
using an ordinal scale, 1 (low), 5 (medium), and 10 (high). Based on the criteria, each policy was
objectively evaluated and carefully assessed to determine the ranking.

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

Based on the rankings in the Criteria/Alternatives Matrix, the highest overall rankings
were given to the 360 degree policy alternative.

In order to calculate the Total Rating

Comparison for Alternatives, I weighted each criterion to 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
3

Kulsoom Basharat
4/1/2015
Memo #3

Do Nothing

.25x5+.25x5+.25x1+.25x5+.25x1=4.25

Table 2 Total Rating Comparison for Alternatives

If the holistic 360 degree policy alternative were selected and implemented based upon
the results of the Criteria/Alternatives Matrix and the Total Rating Comparison for Alternatives,
then the different aspects of the policy would be evaluated (training, involvement, curriculum,
and therapy).

In order to collect data on whether teachers are being trained effectively one could
review the training material to see if is robust, current, and relevant to the student body their
serve and survey the teachers to see how successful the training is operating on a periodic
basis.

The next aspect to evaluate is the involvement from parents/guardians. This can be
assessed through speaking with school teachers, counselors, other staff to see how often
parents/guardians are staying engaged and to what level their participation is on an incidentfree verses incident occurring situation.

Evaluating classroom curriculum can be challenging as it requires assessing students to

see how informed they become through lessons and how seriously they engage within the
course. This activity can be assessed through course grades and assessment of classroom
participation/attendance and determine the rate of bullying incidence that occur.

Kulsoom Basharat
4/1/2015
Memo #3

The forth critical piece to this policy alternative is -transformative therapy; the success
of this initiative within the policy can be evaluated based upon how satisfied participants are
with the methods used for comfort and closure and whether or not this activity truly changes
the mindset of bullies and they are able to modify their behavior and understand the impact
their behavior has on a variety of different people not just the victim(s). It is also important to
assess the outcome of how the victim(s) feel after the therapy has concluded. Evaluators can
examine if the therapy provided the victim(s) with self-worth/confidence building techniques.

Variables such as measuring how safe the school environment is, or assessing how many
or how few bullying incidences have become, or evaluating training materials/curriculum on
providing awareness on bullying behavior, or gaging between effective conflict resolution
techniques are important to evaluating the policy with the chosen criteria.

It is also important to not only evaluate what the policy consists of but what the long
term impacts will be of the initiatives within the policy. In the case of the 360 degree policyawareness of bullying behavior does not entirely address the issue,

it is important for

stakeholders to be mindful of the long term impact bullying has on society as a whole. It is
critical that stakeholders take ownership of what they can do to prevent bullying behavior and
intervene if necessary to take a stand against it.

Kulsoom Basharat
4/1/2015
Memo #3

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.