EP: Bullying in Schools – Flashcards

1. What is bullying, are there different types of bullies, and how can we stop bullying in schools? 2. What factors make an individual more or less likely to become a bully? Evaluate at least two school-based interventions designed to prevent bullying. 3. How useful are current theories of bullying for informing prevention and intervention in schools?

A striking 69% of children claimed to have been a victim to bullying in 2006. According to Bullying Online, the largest ever investigation into school bullying, 56% of children said they had received abusive comments, and more than 50% of bullied children said they had been physically hurt with a third of those needing to receive medical treatment as a result. This study surveyed 8,574 individuals including children, parents, teachers and adults, with findings overwhelmingly demonstrating that bullying is a serious issue for all parties. Furthermore, the issue does not simply involve children alone: Indeed, only 40% of teachers surveyed by Bullying Online claimed that they were confident that they had the skills required to tackle bullying, and a further 82% suggested that further training is necessary for this issue.

Recent surveys have consistently identified bullying as the issue of most concern to young people (House of Commons, Education and Skills Committee, 2007) The House of Commons confirmed in 2007 that bullying is the issue of most concern to young people, following another large scale study. Considering the issue of bullying appears to be a serious issue for both students and schools alike, it is of extreme importance to underpin its origins and consider methods of prevention.

Repeated oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful person by a more powerful person or group of persons (Rigby, 1996) The experience of bullying is notoriously subjective; what one child might consider to be a severely upsetting experience might be viewed by another as only moderately negative. Indeed, a great deal of debate has surrounded the exact definition of 'bullying'. Rigby (1996) has defined it as 'repeated oppression' of both a psychological and physical nature from a powerful individual to a less powerful individual.

A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself (Olweus, 1993)

This definition includes three important components: 1. Bullying is aggressive behaviour that involves unwanted, negative actions. 2. Bullying involves a pattern of behaviour repeated over time. 3. Bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength.

Behaviour by an individual or group, usually repeated over time, that intentionally hurts another individual or group either physically or emotionally (TeacherNet, 2007). The UK Government has released its own definition highlighting 3 key elements: That bullying is an aggressive behaviour, of a repetitive nature, involving a significant imbalance of power or strength.

Key features of all models: Imbalance of power Intentional Repeated over time A 'double I' and an R However, questions have been raised about the necessity of the 'repetitive' element to bullying, and even the difficulty of establishing 'intentional harm' from one party to another. Many bullies claim that they 'didn't intend to hurt' or that they were simply 'joking' or 'having fun'. It is clear, however, that the key element of bullying is this imbalance of power, and the inability of the victim to be able to prevent this unwanted behaviour towards them.

physical - hitting, kicking, taking belongings verbal - name calling, insulting, making offensive remarks indirect - spreading nasty stories about someone, exclusion from social groups, being made the subject of malicious rumours, sending malicious emails or text messages on mobile phones (cyber bullying)

-physical - resource-holding potential -verbal - social attention-holding power -indirect/relational- affiliative relationships/sense of belonging The social rank theory, coined by Harker and Boulton (2001), has outlined the main forms of bullying as physical victimisation, verbal harassment and indirect relational victimisation. The social rank theory was original presented to explain adult psychopathology but can easily be applied to peer harassment and bullying by drawing on understanding of primitive and natural behaviours. It has been suggested that children behave in an 'agonic mode' (Gilbert, 1992) which is a style of intragroup behaviour seen in many animal groups, and involves hierarchies of dominance established through physical aggression.

In this way, physical bullying and victimisation might be viewed as a display of strength and aggression in order for the 'bully' to establish themselves as top of the hierarchy. This can also be seen in verbal abuse, such that power is held by the bully through drawing the attention of others more favourably towards the self through undermining others. Finally, exclusion of the victim from relationships and activities might be viewed as an attack to their sense of belonging from others, effectively, deliberate social exclusion in order to pick off the 'weakest' member of the group. Price et al (1994) has argued that victims allow this dominance to occur due to an 'involuntary subordinate strategy' such that they automatically submit to the aggression in order to show that the dominant individual has won the dominance struggle. Whilst these theories make evolutionary sense, it is commonly believed that humans are intensely social beings. Thus we assume there may be other factors involved in the process of bullying.

Theories and models applicable to Aggression and Bullying: Intrapersonal - attribution theories - social information processing model Interpersonal - socio-cognitive theory - attachment theory - family systems theory - social dominance theory Developmental - social interactional model - developmental pathways to violence Macro - ecological model (Orpinas and Horne, 2006)

-A toolkit of strategies -Having a consistent approach -Staff training -Auditing for bullying behaviour -Multiple reporting systems -Centralised recording system -Regular evaluation of anti-bulling work -Training providers need an approved standard Proactive strategies Peer-support strategies Reactive strategies

Intervention at organisational, group and individual levels, such as: -Staff and students develop a clear set of guidelines together on what bullying is and what they should do when they know or suspect it is going on. -Long-term curriculum work about bullying including teaching about assertive and constructive relationship management. -Peer-led approaches, such as peer counseling and buddying, to offer support to pupils who are new to the school or feeling lonely, rejected or victimised.

As Sharp (1999) has highlighted, there are a number of different levels of intervention for bullying: Staff and students can work together to develop clear guidelines for schools; the curriculum can educate about bullying in an attempt to reduce it; peer led approaches can reduce issues surrounding bullying such as anxiety and loneliness through peer counselling and support groups; finally, direct intervention can take place in situations where bullying has already occurred. Often fuelled by governmental concern and policy, a variety of different strategies have been implemented in schools, with an equally varying number of outcomes. Direct intervention strategies when bullying has occurred or is suspected of occurring. Problem solving approaches which involve all students, including those who have been indirectly involved, are most effective. Early involvement of parents is recommended. Follow-up over time is always needed to check that the bullying has not resumed.

The following individual factors must be addressed: -Mental health and learning -Awareness -Emotions -Cognitions -Character social skills The bullying prevention model was devised by Orphinus and Horne in 2006, with a particular focus on the contributions of the school and then secondarily the individual to bullying behaviours. They suggested that the school is an environment where pupils spend a significant amount of their time, and that this has an effect on both their psyche and their behaviour. Thus, in order to reduce school bullying, it is of great importance to create a positive climate in which pupils feel included and safe. Evidence has shown that schools with positive climates lead to increased performance from teachers and pupils and lead to a general feeling of belonging which reduces aggressive behaviours. Orphinus and Horne argued that a number of factors can be evaluated in this school environment to ensure prevention of bullying. These factors include excellence in teaching, such that well prepared lessons lead to motivated students and decreased aggression; school values can lead to a sense of belonging, particularly when both students and teachers are involved in the development of the school ethos. Furthermore, mutual caring and respect between students can be implemented via planned activities which increase connectedness and modelling of respect through teachers behaviour. Finally policies and accountability must be considered, such that rather than simply punishing children, they should be taught to understand the consequences of their behaviour. Indeed, Curwin and Mendler (1999) demonstrated that obedience based teaching, such as punishing children by asking them to write lines, simply teaches the child not to get caught in future repetitions of the punished behaviour, rather than not to repeat the action. An ability to assess the schools strengths and weaknesses in these domains allows for an evolution of behaviour within the school, and dramatic improvements can be seen when focus is turned to each factor.

Therefore, as Orphinus and Horne suggest, it may be necessary to integrate the school component and the student component in order to eradicate bullying. If we have a positive school environment then it is possible to focus on those individuals who still pose a problem, and interventions can be implemented to target those individuals specifically. However, this theory is not 'fool-proof', and implementing the model requires a great deal of commitment (particularly to the school component), careful and slow introduction of changes and constant assessment of progress, which can often be frustrating for staff members. Indeed, a lack of consistency is almost always likely to be seen in schools, as different teachers employ different teaching styles. In this way, we expect that inconsistencies in implementation within a school might cause confusion to pupils about appropriate boundaries and the impact of their behaviours. This might subsequently allow bullying to continue.

A support group is formed for the bullied pupil made up of those involved in the bullying, and bystanders. Responsibility for change lies with the participants in the bullying. The first aim is to get the bully to identify with the victim, and the second to help resolve the problem. There are several steps: -the facilitator chats with the victim -a support group of around 6-8 pupils is set up. As well as pupils involved in the bullying, friends of the victim can take part with the victim's agreement, their own feelings are communicated to the group -the facilitator makes clear that the purpose is to take joint responsibility and find a solution. Suggestions on how to help are sought, but the key aim is a joint commitment to take action -each group member is interviewed individually a week later to review progress and report back on their contribution to resolving the problem. The bullied pupil is also interviewed. Whilst some group members might not have kept fully to their good intentions, the main criterion for success is that the bullying has stopped.

Kidscape has a file full of complaints from parents about the 'no blame' method. The teacher using the No Blame approach: does not try to discover factual evidence about the bullying incident or incidents. And does not blame anyone and says no one is in trouble or going to be punished The 'no blame' approach was originated in Sweden by Anatol Pikas (Pikas, 2002) and called 'shared concern'. It is unlikely to work if the bullies are picking on children they don't know or care about and if the patterns of bullying are so well established that the bullying itself has become a reward for the bullies. This concern about the 'no blame' approach is shared by leading researchers. Professor Dan Olweus, considered the world expert in the field of bullying prevention, says that the 'no blame' approach does not work and "it would be very unfortunate if schools tried to use this instead of more effective methods." Kidscape does not subscribe to the 'no blame' approach.

The most controversial of these interventions is the 'no-blame' approach, addresses bullying by, as the name suggests, not blaming any of the key protagonists. Instead, it aims to use a problem solving approach which encourages students to think about the outcomes of their behaviours and how these can be harmful to others. Smith and Sharp (1994) reviewed the approach with findings that 45 out of 47 interventions in secondary, and all primary school interventions were successful. However, no real rationale on how or why this approach was successful was suggested.

The Peer Support Group Approach (Young, 1998) was introduced into the UK as a strain of the 'no-blame' theory, with intention on understanding how the approach was successful. This approach involves constructing a support group formed for the bullied pupil, which is comprised of individuals involved in the bullying and also other anonymous bystanders. It begins with an initial interview with the bullied pupil conducted by a facilitator (usually a teacher or un-involved adult), which focuses on who is involved in bullying them, who is a bystander and who is supportive of the pupil. These individuals are then introduced into a support group without any specific labelling as to their role in the selection of the group, and no mention of 'bullying' is given in this group. The victims feelings are carefully communicated to the group, with particular emphasis on a group empathy and understanding of the situation. The facilitator then encourages the group to take joint responsibility in finding a solution for the pupils unhappiness. Suggestions on how to help the individual are given by members of the group but no jobs are assigned to individuals, in fact, the key focus is on rallying a feeling of group responsibility. The bullied pupil and members of the support group are then interviewed one week later and in following weeks to assess the success of the approach.

Again, evaluation of the approach found that it was immediately successful in 80% of cases and in the remaining 20% of cases, it was still successful although only moderately so with delayed results. Indeed, reasoning behind the approach was again inconclusive, but suggestions for its success alluded to 'brief therapy' and 'group therapy'. The nature of the Peer Support Group Approach is similar to brief therapy in that it provides a direct route to counselling and overcoming problems. It is purely solution based with little or no focus on the cause of the problem, and is also significantly future based, with attention drawn away from what has happened in the past. George et al (1990) have argued that this 'cheering on change' tends to be highly successful in alleviating distress for people suffering from anxiety and bullied pupils alike. Furthermore the idea of 'group therapy' also seems to be a contributing factor to the success of the approach. Sharp (1999) has referred to social psychology and typical ways to reduce the 'bystander effect', a common phenomenon whereby individuals feel reduced responsibility to help others in need when in a large crowd of people. These factors include directly asking individuals to help, giving them individual responsibility, feedback on the outcomes of their behaviour and instilling a feeling of 'guilt' or 'shared responsibility'. All of these factors can be seen in the Peer Support Group Approach, and may explain why those individuals who are involved in the bullying show a dramatic increase in bullying behaviours after their contribution to the Peer Support Group.

However, despite such positive outcomes for this 'no-blame' approach, on the 4th January 2006, Tony Blair released a statement condemning the approach, claiming he 'profoundly disagreed' with it and that 'bullies should be punished'. Furthermore, Olweus, considered a world expert in the field has claimed that the no-blame approach does not work, and that it would be 'unfortunate' if schools used this instead of other 'more effective' interventions. Indeed, the approach is riddled with problems and issues which can often lead to a negative outcome for both the victim and the bully. Firstly, teachers have been found to struggle significantly with this strategy, as it goes against a 'natural' tendency to punish bad behaviour. The method itself demands that teachers reward 'absence of bad behaviour', which can often lead to an uncomfortable feeling of negativity towards the bullies as this is behaviour that teachers generally consider to be expected in other pupils. Furthermore, in the original 'no-blame' approach, the victim is encouraged to explain their vulnerabilities and feelings about the bullying to the support group, which, in some cases might give bullies more 'ammunition' to use if they continue to behave aggressively towards the victim. Finally, the need to enforce responsibility to 'solve' the problem might actually reinforce a feeling of 'power' in the bully over the victim, which is considered to be the main issue in bullying behaviours. When all of these issues are taken into consideration, the no-blame approach can no longer be seen in such a positive light, and is no longer regularly used by schools due to its controversial nature.

-a value-based approach to responding to wrongdoing and conflict. -it focuses on the person harmed, the person causing the harm, and the affected community (the school). -it focuses on transforming wrongdoing by healing the harm that is caused, particularly to relationships. -by working together to identify and address harm, and what can be done to repair that harm, relationships can be put right and schools can be happier and safer places. The idea behind restorative justice is that it seeks to empower victims, offenders and communities to take responsibility for themselves, and in doing so, for others. Restorative justice allows for the bully to 'undo' the harm they have caused another individual by apologising, returning any stolen goods or performing a service within the school. In this way it provides victim satisfaction to the highest degree, and also encourages offenders to take accountability for their actions.

-Power: Children who bully acquire their power through various means: physical size and strength; status within a peer group; and recruitment within the peer group so as to exclude others. -Frequency: Bullying is not a random act; it is characterized by its repetitive nature. Because it is repetitive, the children who are bullied not only have to survive the humiliation of the attack itself but live in constant fear of its re-occurrence. -Intent to harm: While not always fully conscious to the child who bullies, causing physical and emotional harm is a deliberative act. It puts the child who is bullied in a position of oppression by the child who bullies. Morrison (2005) has argued that bullying and restorative justice go hand in hand, such that bullying is the systematic abuse of power. Restorative justice aims to restore the power imbalances that affect our relationships with others. So, restorative justice can reduce bullying behaviour - but......

Zehr and Mika (1998) argue that there are 3 key ideas that support restorative justice. Firstly, it is the understanding that the victim (and surrounding community) have been affected by the action of the offender. Secondly, it suggests that the offender is 'obliged' to apologise and make amends for their actions. Thirdly, 'healing' must occur such that the victim feels satisfied and the offender feels they have taken account for their actions. The process of restorative justice is such that initially the bully and the victim must be brought together. Secondly, the bully takes steps to 'repair the damage they have caused i.e. through apology'. Next, both parties are 'reintegrated' into the school system, and finally they both participate in finding a resolution to the problem to ensure it does not re-occur. This is generally upheld as being the most effective way to prevent bullying and is used in many other systems outside of the school community.

There are still a number of factors that limit the success of bullying prevention schemes. These include the roles of both the school and the pupils. Stassen-Berger (2007) has found that 'tepid' support or lack of sustained effort from teachers is often a strongly contributing factor to failure of anti-bullying interventions. Furthermore, those children who are not bullies or victims can also play a role, such that if they do not support the schemes and understand that as bystanders, they have a certain responsibility to intervene and become 'defenders', then the schemes often fall flat. Finally, the greatest difficulty arises with the bullies themselves, and Blair et al (2006) has highlighted that children showing psychopathic tendencies in school often are more responsive to reward than punishment, which completely contradicts current beliefs that bullies should be 'punished' for their actions. Further difficulty arises because often bullies are simply replicating behaviours of aggression that they have seen from role models such as parents at home. It appears almost impossible to eradicate this type of bullying simply because schools cannot intervene with home environments under most normal circumstances, and thus cannot reach the root of the problem. In this way, we can see that bullying is a serious issue with many surrounding difficulties. Whilst it appears impossible now to entirely eradicate bullying, the evolution of intervention approaches suggests that over time, it might be possible to reach some kind of equilibrium regarding power balances in school.