State lawmakers are weighing a one-size-fits-all definition of what constitutes bullying in public schools.

And the measure, which has passed the Senate and now awaits a final House vote, is drawing objections from at least one senator who contends it is so flawed it would allow some forms of bullying to occur without school intervention.

Arizona law already requires school districts to develop policies to prohibit students from being harassed, intimidated, or bullied on school grounds, on buses, at bus stops, and at school-sponsored events and activities. Those policies are also supposed to address bullying that occurs electronically.

SB1508 would add a requirement that those policies specifically define what bullying actually is. And Sen. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said the measure is written in such a way that it would effectively allow some minor forms of bullying — actions that could later escalate.

Epstein specifically cites language that defines bullying as activities that are “sufficiently severe, persistent and pervasive” which create “an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for a student.”

“I think that this is a good definition for when something is a big problem,” she told colleagues during floor debate.

“But bullying starts out as a little problem,” Epstein continued. “And our schools need policies that will address the little problems.”

Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the measure, was present on the Senate floor during Epstein’s comments debate, but did not address those concerns.

Instead, Bolick said only that she helped craft the bill following the 2022 suicide of Andrew Harstad — a 15-year-old freshman at Hamilton High School in Chandler.

“He was bullied so many times that he actually took his life,” Bolick told colleagues. Asked Monday for by Capitol Media Services for a response to what Epstein said, Bolick instead referred to a press release she issued last month when she defended the change, saying there is a need for “standardized policies with prevention measures and interventions to protect Arizona’s youth.”

However, Epstein was not the only one who questioned the idea of creating a state law detailing strict definitions of bullying.

Rebecca Beebe of the Arizona School Administrators Association pointed out that districts are already required to adopt bullying policies. More to the point, she said, these are crafted with local input versus legislative mandate.

Beebe also pointed out that Bolick’s legislation uses provisions in the state criminal code when defining “harassment” and “intimidation,” actions that include racketeering and stalking that have no relevance to school situations — and are not relevant to what is occurring in schools.

“The criminal code is not the right place for an educational setting to pull for those definitions,” she said.

Isela Blanc, who lobbies for the Arizona Education Association, noted that the mandate to adopt this specific version of bullying legislation applies only to traditional public schools. Left out, she said, are charter schools, which are technically public schools in Arizona, as well as private schools, many of which get state funds through the system of vouchers that parents can use to pay tuition.

At least part of that got the attention of Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, if only briefly.

Gress, who voted for the measure in the House Education Committee which he chairs, was previously a member of the Madison Elementary School District governing board. He believes bullying is an issue that extends beyond public schools, a problem that should be expanded to include charter schools.

That, however, drew concerns from Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Glendale, who is the president of Choice Academies which is made up of three charter schools.

“The charters are kind of up to here in being mandated,” she said. But Fink said the schools do have their own policies about harassment and intimidation.

In the end, Gress never offered an amendment to expand the reach of SB1508 to charter schools saying it “got lost in the legislative shuffle.”

“We can come back next year to address it,” he told Capitol Media Services.

With or without applying the measure to charter schools, some lawmakers had separate concerns about the mandates.

“We already have statutes that require policies in school districts around bullying,” said Rep. Anna Abeytia.

The Phoenix Democrat acknowledged that bullying still happens. But Abeytia said she’s not convinced what Bolick is pushing is the answer.

“We’re going to create another law on top of the law we already have to require that our districts do what they’re already doing,” she said.

“I understand that sometimes school districts are not listening or people may not feel heard even though there’s conversations and dialog occurring back and forth,” Abeytia said. “But I just don’t see the point of doing this again.”

But Rep. Lydia Hernandez, D-Phoenix, told colleagues that about 70% of her neighbors have complained of a “lack of response from the districts, not taking care, not addressing a situation.” This language, she said, would make clear the responsibilities of school boards.

Hernandez also pointed out that the Arizona School Boards Association does support the measure.

SB1508 still needs a final roll-call vote in the House.

During Senate discussion, Bolick said she originally wanted to craft something with even more teeth, making schools subject to civil liability in cases where they did not take reasonable action to prevent and stop bullying. But Bolick did not push that measure, questioning whether those policies could become law.

She cited the decision last year by Gov. Katie Hobbs to veto a similar measure, one that would have opened the door to lawsuits against school districts and other public entities if a child were sexually abused by an employee and the district had not taken reasonable action to investigate.

In that veto, the governor wrote that legislation that expands liability for public entities “needs to be carefully tailored and thoroughly executed,” saying that bill “does not meet that standard.”

SB1508, Bolick said, was a reasonable alternative.

That issue of litigation is not academic.

Jordan and Kassidy Harstad did file suit against the Chandler school district, arguing that his death could have been prevented had school administrators done more to address their concerns. But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adam Driggs said there is nothing in Arizona law permitting such a wrongful death claim.

“Arizona law does not create a duty for schools or districts to take steps to prevent suicide by individuals committed to their custody where it is unknown that there is a risk of suicide,” he wrote last year.

That ruling has been appealed to the state Court of Appeals.