Comparing Western Australia and South Australia public high school’s cyberbullying policies – is there a need for a legislative change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The internet provides some of the most effective means of communication. Cyberbullying occurs when the internet is used to bully another person. Along with the positive aspects of the internet, cyberbullying is certainly one of the most negative aspects, especially with regard to school students. Victims of cyberbullying may be able to obtain legal sanctions, however, this usually occurs after the harm is done. In Australia, some states such as South Australia have recognised the need for preventive strategies by requiring schools to have an anti-bullying plan in place. Other countries, like Ontario, Canada have implemented similar preventative strategies in their legislation. One way to reduce cyberbullying in schools is to create an anti-bullying culture within the school. The implementation of a cyberbullying policy that promotes a positive school culture, prevention and intervention strategies, support systems, clear definitions and reporting procedures, aid in creating this culture. An effective school cyberbullying policy will aid in the promotion of an anti-bullying school culture and thus lead to a reduction in bullying and cyberbullying behaviours. This thesis argues that Western Australia should follow South Australia and Ontario in implementing legislation to require high schools to have a cyberbullying policy. This argument will be tested by answering two research questions: First, whether the cyberbullying policy is more prevalent, robust and openly displayed in South Australian public high schools compared with Western Australian public high schools; and second, what lessons can be drawn from legislation pertaining to cyberbullying in schools in Ontario and South Australia. The research finding suggests that Western Australian public high schools do not have and do not openly promote policies pertaining to cyberbullying, whereas South Australian public high schools do. The research found that 88% of South Australian public high schools openly display their bullying policy, in comparison to only 51% of Western Australian public high schools. South Australia also has a state-wide bullying prevention program and legislation regarding the implementation of policies regarding bullying and harassment in schools. Legislation from Ontario provides a different perspective regarding the implementation of bullying and cyberbullying policies in schools. Ontario’s Education Act is more extensive than the legislation in South Australia with regards to cyberbullying in schools, as it includes definitions of bullying and cyberbullying, the rights and responsibilities of teachers, principals, and the school board to prevent and address bullying in schools, as well as encouraging a positive and inclusive school experience, and promoting strong and respectful relationships within the school and the community. Given that the existence of a cyberbullying policy in high school is an important tool in preventing and dealing efficiently with cyberbullying, these findings support the thesis argument that there is a need for similar legislation like the Education Act in Ontario, to be implemented in Western Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".