Such as when it amounts to assault and battery (i.e. any school beating).
Because it has to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. That means someone (probably other students) would have to testify against the bully. (If it is just the victim's word, it becomes a he-said, she-said.) That means other students would be at risk of being beaten up for standing up.
I got the opportunity to watch the trial for battery at a school. It was far from clear-cut, even when a teacher testified about what he saw (which was only the tail end of the altercation).
Or why aren't there more civil lawsuits when people spread gossip at schools?
Cost, and probably no grounds for a suit.
Lawyers have to make money, and the only way that happens is through lawyer's fees. So either the lawyer has to charge their client, the lawyer has to take the case on contingency, or the lawyer has to do it pro bono. The first means the client has to pay, which can run to thousands of dollars. In a contingency, the lawyer only gets paid if (1) he wins, and (2) the defendant can actually pay. (It does no good to order $50,000 in damages if the defendant is what we call "judgement-proof," he has no money to pay.) Pro bono is nice for the client, but lawyers can only do so much pro bono work because we have to eat and pay our mortgages, too.
There's also the issue of there being no legal basis for a suit. Gossiping is not a tort, unless it can qualify as slander. There are strict requirements for slander, and most gossiping does not rise to that level. In addition, there have to be financial damages - something that the court can put a number on. Saying "my feelings were hurt" or "I was unhappy" are not sufficient.
An argument can be made for the tort "intentional infliction of emotional distress." But not all states recognize IIED, and even in those that do, the standard is very high. The major sticking point is that the conduct must be "outrageous," which is defined as "exceeding all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society." Telling tales on someone does not come close to that standard.
I notice so many stories about kids committing suicide over bullying, including one who did just before he was about to have a fight with a bully who had given him death threats before. Why not just press charges?
If no fight had occurred, there would be no charges to press. The fight hadn't happened, so there is no battery. Assault requires putting someone in immediate fear of imminent touching.
A specific anti-bullying statute may qualify, but then the elements of the statute must be proved.
And worse yet his family said they "did everything they could". NO, they didn't. They didn't try to press charges.
See above.
What keeps people from doing this when it comes to school? Is there some kind of weird mental block people somehow acquire where "school" turns into this "otherworld" where different rules apply that even parents somehow have stuck in their heads?
The problem is that schools are NOT another world. Schools (and students) are subject to the same laws as people outside, which means the same legal requirements must be met. (There are certain search and seizure exceptions, but those are not applicable here, so I am ignoring them.) If no crime has been committed (and without specific anti-bullying statutes, there may not have been), no charges can be brought. If no legally recognized tort has been committed, there is no grounds for a civil suit. And even if there is grounds for either a criminal or civil charge, the charge must be proven, which is easier said than done.
When I am a parent I will tell my kids about bullying and what to do about it (talk to me and I will go to police or to the civil suit lawyer as appropriate)
Nice words, but you will likely get nowhere.