Annual Essay Contest

2011 Winning Essays

Annually, WPTLA holds a scholarship essay contest for high school seniors in the western district of Pennsylvania, excluding Allegheny County.  All secondary schools are offered the opportunity to participate.  This year, WPTLA received 24 essays, of which 3 were chosen as winners.  The three winning essays are copied in their entirety below.  

The following essay was written and submitted by Colin Gould, of Washington High School. 

It's something that everyone has done in his or her life: called someone a name, made a joke at someone's expense, even laid hands on another person in a moment of weakness and frustration. Students see such actions occur in the halls of their schools each and every day and, almost to a person, ignore them to continue about their average days. As they grow older and enter high school, students become increasingly calloused to these small transgressions, forgetting a time when they knew better and rationalizing their actions, slowly killing their consciences and capacities for empathy. Adults do it too, equal perpetrators in a crime whose consequences we see only occasionally in the news, not sensational enough to provoke lasting action nor frightening enough to cause change, a small stain that we all ignore in shame. Though the encouragement of tolerance has come a long way in recent history and bullying awareness is on a slow, but steady rise, we as a society must make provisions not to staunch this growth nor become too complacent with what has already been achieved: there is still an enormous amount of peer pressure in schools to ignore bullying which we must eradicate. It is because of this that I believe Sunny Valley High School, and indeed all schools, must change their anti-bullying policies to encompass acts that occur outside the classroom and thereby set an important precedent for our students.

Pennsylvania Statute 24 § 13-1303.1-A Policy Relating to Bullying states that "a school entity shall not be prohibited from defining bullying in such a way as to encompass acts that occur outside a school setting if those acts meet the requirements contained in subsection (e)(1), (3), and (4)." ,The first of these requirements, that the act be directed at another student, is one easily fulfilled in the case of Brad L.'s bullying- it was blatant that Jay R.'s comments were directed at him and spoken with malicious intent. Though many may argue that such comments should be ignored in instances such as Brad's, this sets a dangerous precedence of tolerance for bullying. As Barbara Coloroso, a bullying expert, nationally recognized speaker and author of five books states, "We fail to see the difference between conflict and bullying. Two kids fighting, that's a conflict. That's normal. We must teach our youngsters that they will have conflict in their lives. Bullying is consciously getting pleasure from another person's pain" (Kass). So where does the line between conflict and bullying lie and how do we stop bullying while simultaneously allowing kids to grow and experience the healthy kinds of conflict they will encounter in their adult lives? The solution lies in creating a tactful anti-bullying policy that will instill caring and good moral values while not being overzealous. It must be extensive, with the ability to intervene in severe incidents regardless of their location, but discriminatory enough to ignore situations that do not require intervention. It is vital that such a policy be inclusive of both incidents inside and outside of school- if it is not, it will not provide a unified stance against bullying and instead create a double standard, implying that it is okay to mistreat others in some places and not in others. If it is extensive, however, such a policy can send a powerful message to children, especially at young ages, about the importance of respect and tolerance.

The second requirement stipulated in Pennsylvania Statute 24 § 13-1303.1-A Policy Relating to Bullying is that the act be severe, persistent, or pervasive. As with the first requirement, this is not difficult to establish in the case of Brad L. ' s bullying. Jay R.' s comments to Brad, which included warning Brad to quit the basketball team and telling him that he would "pay for it" if he did not, were neither harmless nor playful, clearly meeting the stipulation of a severe nature. This requirement, like the first, helps to distinguish a line by which bullying that requires a school's involvement can be defined, an important step in creating the aforementioned tactful yet extensive anti-bullying policy for Sunny Valley High School.

What the second stipulation ensures is that the actions of a student warrant the intervention of the school. Though one may argue that all actions that have the potential to hurt others must be closely monitored by a school, this cannot be the case in the free and democratic society in which we live. This sort of preemptive action (designed to trace bullying to its core and stop it before it starts) risks overstepping an important privacy boundary and ignoring the important differences between harmless and harmful behavior. One must constantly remember that children in schools are only that- children- and must be given room to make mistakes and express themselves, so long as this expression does not cause explicit harm to others. It is of the utmost importance to consider where the line defining bullying should be drawn and, as Barbara Coloroso describes, differentiate between bullying and kidding: "Teasing is between friends, a lighthearted thing, a bonding thing. Taunting is different than teasing. Taunting turns into bullying. And bullying is never OK. Nothing justifies mean" (Kass). We must carefully consider this differentiation when looking towards a more comprehensive approach to bullying and be sure that new policies are not so overzealous as to border on censorship or further repression of students (by restricting their ability to interact with their classmates) and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, are not erring on the side of caution and leaving children unprotected.

The third stipulation, that the incidence of bullying substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school, creates a threatening environment, or substantially interferes with a student's education can also be met in the case of Brad L. ' s bullying. Because of Jay R.’s actions, Brad felt "frightened to go to school," seeing it as a threatening environment, where he was unsafe to pursue his education. This feeling could only have been reinforced when the Sunny Valley School District refused to act because of its restrictive anti-bullying policy.

 It is because of situations such as Brad L.' s that anti-bullying policies in schools must be made more extensive. Our schools need to set a precedent for their students that it is not acceptable to threaten or otherwise mistreat each other, and in order to be able to set such an example, must be empowered to take action when it is deemed necessary. Public education is meant, as its name implies, for the public and, as long as it remains so, cannot cater to some students while ignoring others- it must provide a safe, welcoming and caring environment for all of its patrons. Part of creating this environment rests in controlling, to a reasonable level, the interactions students have with one another and stopping situations that cross the aforementioned lines from teasing to taunting and normal conflict to bullying. By giving schools the power to address these situations, wherever they occur, we are empowering one of the greatest influences on their lives and allowing it to instill in them appropriate boundaries and rules for interaction with others.

"I don't want kids to be tolerant of others," Barbara Coloroso says. "I want them to care. It is in us to care. An infant will start crying if he hears another infant crying. Toddlers will comfort each other. You have to cover that up with a lot of muck to start putting others outside your circle of care" (Kass). This precedence of caring that Coloroso is speaking about must be set for our children by our schools' administration and staff in the form of anti-bullying policies. For too long, the negligent stance on bullying in our schools has taught children to become calloused and to ignore their empathy towards others, covering up their natural compassion as they grow older because others tell them it is weak or childish. We have all seen it happen- I myself have seen how a child who cringed at the thought of forgetting please's and thank you's became a teenager who could watch impassively as someone's books were stolen. This unhealthy status quo of society must be reversed by setting an example in the form of a tactful, realistic and extensive anti-bullying policy, covering both in school and out of school behaviors, that will lead students to integrate its lessons into their very lives, a policy that will nurture children's natural compassion and teach them to respect each other, and whose lessons will continue to provide a moral precedence long after students are out of school- it is this type of policy that must be implemented at Sunny Valley High School.

Works Cited

Kass, Christy. "Bullying Expert Speaks at Chatham High." Chatham Patch 16 Mar. 2011, Web.

The following essay was written and submitted by Adam Newborn, home-educated in Franklin Regional School District.

The following essay was written and submitted by Jairaj Ranchod, of Lincoln High School. 

In our modern educational environment, there is no doubt that bullying represents a major roadblock on the path to instructing a well-rounded and confident student, and it simply cannot be allowed in any school. No student should have to live with the chronic fear of knowing or even suspecting that at any point somebody is waiting to demoralize and strip him of his confidence. In fact, it is not so much the actual taunts or actions of the bully that damage the victim, but the fear. The purpose of a school's bully control policy is to neutralize this effect by providing a recourse to protect for those who are unable to force a bully into submission, and rightly so. This well-founded protection of schools, including the Sunny Valley School District, has no good reason to be found in a non-school affiliated environment, however.

The authority of the Sunny Valley School District could, if they revise their policy as Brad's parents' desire, easily become far too broad to the point of illegally invading the private lives of multitudes of students. There is no reason for the Sunny Valley school district to intercede in the matter at hand. The incident did not occur on school property, and neither student was even traveling to or from a school function. It involved two individuals, one of whom made a threat of violence against another. The proper response would have been the request of police intervention. If an incident occurs outside of school, from where does the state derive the moral authority to allow the schools to intervene? This is where the responsibility for students falls into the hands of legal guardians, be they parents or otherwise. The prudent response of the Sunny Valley school district would not be to enact a policy that allows for the extensive intervention of a government organization into the realm of private affairs, but to kindly refer Brad's parents to the active police force in the area with a grievance of terroristic threats and emotional distress. Incidences that occur outside of a school setting are the private matters of those involved, and any school district that claims the right to intercede is acting morally reprehensible. The authority of the school, like all other authorities, must have a limitation. If the limit of the school's authority extends beyond its boundaries, it then becomes dangerously close to replacing the role of the parents, guardians, or in cases of violence or serious threats, law enforcement officials. In fact, it is the diminished role of parents that is one of the primary causes attributed to the rampant growth of the bullying problem in the first place, so clearly, parental roles should be encouraged, not diminished by school intervention. Not only is such action damaging to guardians, it is also a breach of the moral right of the school. If the authority to intercede in such matters falls into the hands of the school, then the parent or other guardian inherently loses guardianship through no fault of their own to a state institution. Essentially, with the option of including a bullying policy that extends beyond school policy, that school district is opening the doors for the right to intercede in nearly any situation in a student's life, and how can any school be permitted to do this? Nothing is free, and unfortunately the price of liberty for all is liberty for bullies free from a school intervening in private affairs against them.

Such a provision as proposed allows for the Sunny Valley school district to open the proverbial "Pandora's Box" of disciplinary issues. There are extensive multitudes of single events of bullying or even violence that could, through some vastly expansive web, be somehow linked back to something that is linked to something else that may or may not have some vague school affiliation. Does that mean that the school can impose its will on those cases as well? The designated school officials for discipline would be so overrun with issues to address, that those in true need of assistance would go unnoticed. According to the definition of bullying in Purdon's Pennsylvania Statute 24 P.S. 13-1303.1-A, nearly anything that interferes with the academic focus of a student could be considered bullying. This includes even school sponsored activities. Many of them are directed at students, occasionally severe, and in some cases interfering with school. Given this broad definition by the state, any school, including the Sunny Valley school district, could claim the right to intervene in nearly any incident between two students, even if that incident has absolutely nothing to do with the school. They could even use the excuse that the two students were acquainted through school. This idea especially stands out from the rest, because using the excuse that two students are connected by attending the same school as an excuse to interfere is a logical fallacy because students are required by law to be in school anyway, so the state is making its own excuse. Also, the amount of resources needed to monitor would be burdening for the school both in terms of manpower and finances. This would cause a dramatic rise in the cost of operation of any school, and would either cause the school to be forced to operate in deficit or cause painful increases in school taxes. Anyone who has ever dealt with a bully can say that it can be a difficult, energy consuming task, and if the school is to assume responsibility for the prevention of bullying, then it must be prepared to fully commit the necessary time and resources to do so. They would also face the extraordinarily draining and drawn out task of determining the constitutional rights of its inevitable quasi militant police arm. Not only would severe overexpansion of school authority lead to widespread civil rights violations, it would additionally place an excessively irresponsible burden on the school itself. Also, if the school can assume authority for students not during school events, does that not also make the school liable for the actions of such students during that time? Are they to be held accountable for the actions of the students whose actions they can punish? This is another consequence of such a policy being enacted, and there is no logical reason to give schools extra authority without the extra responsibility.

In Pennsylvania state law, schools can define bullying as taking place outside of school, and can therefore use that as their excuse to intercede, but not only does this law present a fundamental flaw, so does the very principle at work behind it. The school's first priority is obviously to educate its students, providing a bully-free environment is part of this. However, it is not the responsibility of the school to provide an entire world that is a bubble of perfect safety for each and every student. In the event that a student is in fear of another within the school, which would thus lead to a declined academic performance, teachers and administrators surely must utilize their legitimate right to intercede for the security of an institution free from the worst type of bullying torment; undue fear. In accordance with the duty of the school the actual school grounds themselves become an area in which students can operate without worry of being bullied. The Supreme Court case "New Jersey vs. T.L.O.", although the case did not involve bullying, showed that school officials are given special consideration in regards to discipline due to their difficult task of creating a secure learning environment. With this ruling, teachers and administrators have more rights within the school than they normally would, but even these do not extend beyond school boundaries. As the school gains more and more power in such a way, in begins to greatly over play its basic prerogative of providing a secure educational environment. Again, it is the duty of the school to provide an educational environment of security for their students, not an entire worry free world for them. The key to understanding the obvious limitation that should exist is to understand that the learning environment the state is responsible for should consist solely of the school and its grounds. Should a bully engage in such behavior as physical violence or terroristic threats, the issue becomes a legal one, not a school based one. So the school board of the Sunny Valley school district should especially not alter its policy for this case, because the appropriate recourse involves police action, not a change of bullying policy. Once the police have handled the issue, then it is appropriate to address any obviously looming threat to the student, but again, within the school.

It is easy to say that a solution to a problem is a bad one, but such a statement wields relatively little power unless a better solution is provided. The difficulty of dealing with bullies is undeniable. The answer to the solution, however, lies in a coalition of entities that is dependent on the specific situation at hand. In many cases, the first step in ending the devastating pattern of bullying is often for the victim to tell the appropriate entity, whether it be a parent, guardian, or in cases such as terroristic threats, the police. If the incident is in the school, then a teacher or administrator can usually address the issue. In the specific case of the incident at the Sunny Valley school district, the threats made have in fact very little to do with bullying as the actions of Jay could in fact merit a legal response, as such threats terroristic threats can be punishable by law. In fact, Dave should be afraid not of Jay, but he should be afraid because his parent's first reaction was to go to the school board to ask for a change in bureaucratic policy rather than to the police demanding an arrest. Part of the issue that would plague administrators if such a policy were to be enacted would be that parents and students would go to them for issues that are clearly police or guardian matters, and they would have to waste their time dealing with it, which is clearly the case here.

There is no doubt that bullying represents a challenging obstacle. However, like all great problems, it must be approached first with prudence, temperance, and fortitude, not coincidently three of the four original Aristotelian virtues. In considering this problem, one must account for the consequences of every potential solution. The idea of having school interference in non-school affiliated affairs, while effective simply comes with far too high of a sacrifice. The ability of government organizations to interfere in the lives of the citizens has long been guarded against by legal means and the opposition of the people, as well as the very men that founded our nation. It must be recognized that the first effective solution to a problem is not always the best solution, and that certain collateral damage cannot be overlooked.

The contest is open to all high schools within the 25 counties of Western Pennsylvania, excluding Allegheny County.  If you are a high school teacher, administrator, or principal and want information about the 2012 WPTLA President's Scholarship Essay Contest, call the Association office at 412-487-7644, or click admin@wptla.org.