Paper Example Undergraduate 9,042 words

School-based anti-bullying programs and victimization rates

Last reviewed: March 12, 2010 ~46 min read

School-Based Bullying

Prevention Programs

During the study's literature review which examines the primary research question: Does a school-based program decrease victimization?, the researcher utilizes a thematic approach. The researcher initially defines the word bully and then examines the following four school-based programs:

1. Olweus Bully Prevention Program;

2. Bully No More;

3. Dare;

4. Dare to Care-Bully Proofing Your School.

The researcher also relates history and explanation of each program and compares and contrasts them as well as discusses numerous results. Ultimately, the researcher argues, the answer to the question leading the literature review merits the answer: "Depends…."

LITERATURE REVIEW

"Efforts to curb bullying should include the peer group in the form of a whole-school approach"

(Beran, Tutty, & Steinrath, 2004, ¶ 3).

Introduction

On April 20, 1999, two "bullied outcasts," Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, repeatedly fired automatic weapons and set off explosives to kill 13 and injure 24 other students at Columbine High School as they sought revenge on jocks, who had bullied them in the past, and minorities. In the news article, "Surviving Columbine: What we got wrong," Susan Donaldson James (2009) corrects this particular myth regarding the horrific tragedy that physically and emotionally scarred students and their families. Myths like the one, introducing this literature review, which students and adults parroted, persist regarding the killers' motivations because the media reportedly reported the facts all wrong. Later, the media reported that bullying did not figure into the incident, that "Eric Harris was a psychopath - controlling, manipulative and sadistic; Dylan Klebold was a lonely depressive, full of suppressed emotional rage" (James, Columbine, 10 Years Later, ¶ 7). The media did "get right," however, the fact that bullying does harm students.

The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center (2007) reports that approximately the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center 30% of youth in the United States (U.S.); more than 5.7 million are involved in bullying each year. The youth may be a direct or indirect target of bullying, the individual instigating the bullying, or both. In one contemporary national survey of students attending grades 6-10, 13% of participants reported bullying others; "11% reported being the target of bullies, and another 6% said that they bullied others and were bullied themselves" (National Youth Violence…, Prevalence Section,, ¶ 1). To effectively counter shootings and bullying in schools, Jack Levin, Northeastern University mass murder expert, who writes about Columbine for Behavior Science Magazine, schools need to implement effective programs (James, 2009).

The problem regarding how schools may best make their environments physically and emotionally safe leads to the question: Does a school-based program decrease victimization? This leading question guiding the literature review addresses a critical concern challenging school officials and others interested in helping to ensure the safety and emotional well-being of youth. In some situations, as Levin asserts, "The law and order approach instituted in schools doesn't work very well" (Levin, as cited in James, 2009, ¶ 5). What works to confront bullying, violence and victimization, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, M.D. (1992) appears to suggest in the study, "From abuse to violence: Psycholophysiological consequences of maltreatment," are interventions that help the child become less impulsive and less irritable; that "enhance a child's sense of security, alleviate paranoid feelings, improve cognition and verbal expressiveness, and encourage recognition of one's own pain and the pain of others" (p. 389). In the journal article, "An evaluation of a bullying prevention program for elementary schools," Tanya N. Beran and Leslie Tutty, both with the University of Calgary and Greg Steinrath (2004), Calgary Family Services, Alberta, contend that the program Olweus developed, which a number of school officials base their school-wide anti-bullying programs, on depicts an excellent example of one effective approach to counter bullying, violence, and victimization.

1. Olweus Bully Prevention Program;

2. Bully No More;

3. Dare;

4. Dare to Care-Bully Proofing Your School.

The researcher also relates history and explanation of each program and compares and contrasts them as well as discusses numerous results.

Definition of Bully

Bullying, commonly defined as the continuous aggression toward a school peer, unable or willing to defend him/herself, includes a number of types of bullying; two being direct bullying and in-direct bullying. Beran, Tutty, and Steinrath (2004) state that d physical as well as verbal abuse depicts direct forms of bullying. "Actively isolating an individual from the peer group (exclusionary) and spreading rumors" (Beran, Tutty, & Steinrath, ¶ 3) mirror indirect forms of bullying. "Bullying victimizes both the children who are directly targeted and those who witness others being bullied" (Ibid). Individuals who witness victims of bullying often become extremely uncomfortable and may experience stress-related symptoms when bullying incidences occurs.

Bullying in schools does not constitute a new phenomenon; however, it did not become a significant research topic until the early 1970s. Dan Olweus (2001) explains in the article, "Bullying at school: Tackling the problem," bullying research originally merited attention in Scandinavia. "By the 1980s [, however,] bullying among schoolchildren had attracted wider attention in countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States" (Olweus, ¶ 2). According to Olweus, as research expanded, a much broader definition of bullying evolved to include a school peer repeatedly being exposed to adverse actions by one or more students. These actions may include the bully making rude faces or gestures, initiating negative physical contact or abuse and verbally abusing the individual.

Another form of bullying may entail one student spreading untruths or rumors about another student. Olweus (2001) asserts that "spreading rumors and excluding the victim from a group are also common forms [of bullying]. Bullying also entails an imbalance in strength between the bullies and the victim... [;] what experts call an asymmetric power relationship" (¶ 3). Researchers relate a myriad of misconceptions about the root causes of bullying behavior. Many of the proposed theories, nevertheless, do not have credible evidence to support their claims. One typical misconception is that bullying only occurs in large classrooms or schools. Another common misconception asserts that students bully other students to compete for grades or more attention from teachers or school workers.

One more classic misconception about bullies contends that underneath their tough exterior, bullies typically have extremely low self-esteem; that they actually feel insecure about themselves. Olweus (2001) explains that "these views are no more accurate than the stereotype that students who are fat, red-haired and wear glasses are particularly likely to become victims of bullying" (Some Myths section, ¶ 1). Certain personality traits combined with the way a student reacts in specific situations, particularly with large stature boys, that can help define or develop an individual into a bully. In addition, numerous influences in the environment may cause an individual to depict signs of bullying behavior. One of these influences may be the teachers' attitude, and the way he or she supervises their students.

In the study, "Definitions of Bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-county international comparison," Peter K. Smith et al. (2002) report that in reference to bullying:

Heinemann used the Norwegian term mobbning, referring to group violence against a deviant individual that occurs suddenly and subsides suddenly. Olweus first used the term, but subsequently extended the definition to include systematic one-on-one attacks of a stronger child against a weaker child. The emphasis of earlier work on bullying was of physical bullying and verbal taunting done directly by the bully or bullies to the victim. Olweus' earlier work did not fully recognize the extent of indirect bullying. However, the indirect aggression as a category was shown by the research of Bjorkqvist and colleagues. They distinguished direct physical aggression (such as punching) and direct verbal aggression (such as name calling), as well as indirect aggression. Indirect aggression, characterized by its somewhat covert nature and use of third parties, had principal forms of gossiping and spreading rumors, and social exclusion (deliberately not allowing a person into a group). (Smith et al., 2002, p. 1119).

Smith et al. (2002) use the cartoon methodology to compare 67 terms from 14 countries; examining the meaning attributed to the word "bullying" and associated expressions in 13 major languages (10 Indo-European, three Asiatic). They predict age and gender variations relate to bullying concerns. Of the 25 cartoons implemented in the study, two depict characters with different shades of skin color where skin color appeared to be an issue. One cartoon relating to sexual orientation was not used in several countries. Smith et al. report Olweus to assert bullying to be characterized by the following three criteria:

1. It is aggressive behavior or intentional "harmdoing"

2. which carried out repeatedly and over time

3. In an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power. (Smith et al., 2002, p. 1120)

In their study, Smith et al. (2002), participating researchers in the 14 countries to completed the following

1. Listed and selected bullying terms as well as social exclusion in the applicable language.

2. Used fundamental focus groups with participating children to confirm usage and extensive comprehensive of terms.

3. Using cartoons, sorted tasks to describe ways terms relating to bullying are used.

Figure 1 depicts four samples of the 25 cartoons Smith et al. (2002) used in their study.

Figure 1: Four Sample Study Cartoons (Smith et al., 2002, 1123).

In Figure 1, cartoons 3 and 10 depict cartoons from the boy's set. Numbers 14 and 21 reflect cartoons from the girl's set.

Findings they retrieved from their study, Smith et al. (2002) assert, depict a" historical snapshot." They conclude that no significant gender differences exist in the participants' perceptions of the types of social situations the cartoon sets depicted. This suggests that even though boys and girls may differ in the varieties of bullying they implement or acquire at a particular age, they do, albeit, allocate common perceptions as to what bullying actually means.

Even though considerable overlap exists in results, boys, according to the study by Smith et al. (2002) may directly experience more physical bullying, while girls on the other hand, may experience less direct bullying. Both boys and girls likely to observe significant bullying that involves both same-sex and opposite-sex children.

Smith et al. (2002) also report that their study results indicate that 8-year-olds possessed a less discriminating perception than the 14-year-olds. The English term "bullying," which participating school children understood, does not completely match the definitional concept many researchers ascribe to the term; the meaning researchers in the scientific community also generally accept. This, according to Smith et al., may be attributed to the fact that in England during the late 1990s, the term "bullying," did not yet wholly include social exclusion.

Historically,-word meanings frequently change. The "core concept of the term bully has changed dramatically over several centuries. More subtle changes have taken place in the past 5 years with the incorporation of more indirect and relational forms of bullying into current definitions" (Smith et al., 2002). Additionally, the term "bullying" currently commonly arises in the adult workplace, where in the past it was exclusively confined to the school context. Ultimately, Smith et al. purport, their findings confirmed their expectations; confirming that concerning the greater discrimination of criteria at 14 years than 8 years, and the lack of gender the students' differences in understanding and applications of bullying terms; despite differences in gender and variations in bullying behaviors, over time and in different countries may be of significant generalizability.

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP)

The Olweus' Bullying Prevention Program (2010) entails four basic strategies to deal with and deter bullying in the classroom. The four strategies include:

1. Developing a discipline program,

2. informing parents of behavior,

3. teaching prosocial values and

4. training school staff members (Olweus' Bullying Prevention Program, 2010, Abstract section, ¶ 8).

Beran, Tutty, and Steinrath (2004) note that anti-violence prevention programs like the Olweus' Bullying Prevention Program that do more than merely teach children specific skills are rare. Programs needed to focus "on changing the school system's response by including staff and parents in examining policies and procedures are relatively rare, yet more likely to achieve lasting change" (Beran, Tutty, & Steinrath, Abstract section, ¶ 8). The Olweus program comprises a universal intervention program effectively aims not only to reduce but to also prevent bullying incidents in school.

The Olweus program targets bullying in elementary, middle and junior high schools throughout the country. The article, "Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP)" (2010), explains that "all students within a school participate in most aspects of the program. Additional individual interventions are targeted at students who are identified as bullies or victims of bullying" (Olweus Bullying Prevention…, 2010, ¶ 2). Facilitators in this program implement a number of key components of this program at each school and at each level. These components include:

Giving each student an anonymous questionnaire to access the occurrence and nature of bullying at each school. Facilitators schedule a school conference day to discuss bullying at each school and the plan for intervention. A Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee is then formed to coordinate each aspect of the school's program. Supervision of students increases at "hot spots" where bullying frequently occurs.

To further prevent bullying, school personnel establishes class rules and subsequently enforces them. Regularly scheduled meetings are held in each classroom with relevant discussions to ensure students know the rules regarding bullying.

Interventions are implemented for those students recognized/identified as bullies. The victims of the bullies also participate in discussions with parents, teachers, school counselors and school- based mental health professionals regarding bullying incidents (Olweus Bullying Prevention…, 2010).

Figure 2 depicts a number of areas in which the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has demonstrated successful results.

Figure 2: Proven Results from Olweus BPP (adapted from Olweus Bullying…, 2010, ¶ 6-9).

Bully No More

Bully No More School Prevention Program comprises an entertaining educational assembly program based on Dr. Olweus' program. The article, "Bully no more assemblies," (2006) explains that the program's design gives "students a memorable and instructive assembly program aimed to help recognize, cope with and prevent 'Bullying' by using comedy and magic to emphasize the theme" (p. 1). Dave Rojahn, magician, comedian and sociologist with a degree of Sociology for Lebanon Valley College and more than 20 years experience as a professional entertainer hosts the assembly sessions.

In 2006, the Bully No More Program, created in 2001, had been presented in over 75 schools throughout the United States. "It became an approved presentation by the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida's Prevention Center / Safe School Center" (Bully no more, 2006, p. 1). In addition to presenting this program to more than 175,000 children, Rojahn appeared on cable television programs like Nickelodeon and Fox-n TV. He also presented the program to individuals vacationing on Carnival Cruise Lines. Figure 3 depicts the four rules of the Bully No More school-based program.

Figure 3: Four Rules of Bullying Bully No More (adapted from Bully no more, 2006, p. 1).

The Bully No More presentation, designed for children in grades K-8, lasts approximately 35 minutes. The program may be easily presented at various locations in the school, for example, the gymnasium floor, the stage of an auditorium, or even a reading room in the library. The researcher considers this particular, dramatically different bullying program to portray one more way anti-bullying school prevention programs may be implemented. Even though the Bully No More Program consists of only a onetime presentation, the use of humor effectively presents a memorable message for students. This type of program, albeit, would not likely be as effective in addressing bullying as other longer-termed programs, as it does implement preventative, nor outline follow-up measures as the other three programs do.

No Bullying School Program

The No Bully® Program, reportedly designed to make schools and classrooms a place where students feel that fellow students accept and included them in school activities, for who they are personally. This accomplishment, in turn, helps students grow up as part of a world where adults are accepted and valued for the person they are. The article, "Anti-Bullying programs for schools," (2009) explains the goal for this program to be "for all students to develop the social and emotional intelligence that will give them greater success in their peer relationships, their academic performance and in their adult lives" (¶ 2). This particular program promotes powerful training and workshops for teachers and students to help nurture this particular goal.

The No Bully Program defines bullying as a form of repeated aggression from one or more students toward another student. The article, "What is bullying?"(2009), purports that bullying "tends to occur in places from which escape is difficult, including [school,] the workplace, prisons and in the family between siblings" (¶ 1). This prevention program focuses on enhancing students understanding regarding bullying. According to the No Bully Program, bullying at school typically occurs in one or more of the following four different forms:

Physical bullying: Student or Peer uses physical force to hurt another student by hitting, holding down, kicking, pinching, pushing, shoving, and/or pinching them. Physical bullying may also include breaking or taking another student's property or belongings. (What is bullying, 2009, ¶ 2).

Verbal bullying: Student or Peer uses mean or hateful words to try to hurt another student. The bully may use words to intimidate, insult, name-call, taunt and/or threaten the student. he/she may also be sarcastic when interacting with the student he/she wants to victimize. The student may draw or paint graffiti on another student's property, use racial slurs or insulting put-downs, make hateful or threatening faces, roll his/her eyes, spit in the intended victim's eyes, and/or even give the "evil eye" as well as give nasty gestures to another student (What is bullying, 2009).

Relational bullying: Occurs when a student disrupts another student's peer relationships. The bully may also gossip, whisper and spread rumors about the other student. The student may give the victim the "silent treatment," turn his/her back on the intended victim, or ostracize him/her (What is bullying, 2009).

Cyberbullying: Students or peers use their cell-phones, text messages, e-mails, instant messages, Web blogs and/or postings to bully another targeted student. Cyberbullying occurs when one student sends a threatening or insulting message to another targeted student using cell-phones, text messages, e-mails, instant messages, Web blogs and/or postings (What is bullying, 2009).

Bullying may take the form of harassment. Harassment occurs when a student becomes the victim of another student who disturbs, threatens and/or implements unwelcome behavior by on a continuous basis. "Many forms of harassment are prohibited by federal and state laws, the most well-known being harassment based upon a student's race or sex" (What is bullying, 2009, ¶ 6). Students, nevertheless, are sometimes bullied for reasons anti-harassment laws do not specifically prohibit. Students labeled as gays or lesbian comprise one of the highest groups of peers routinely bullied or harassed. Because they are perceived as different, students who are part of a lower race or class, obese or over weight as well as students less or even sometimes, perhaps more intelligent than another student are also more likely to be bullied.

The No Bully Program utilizes the Solution Team® intervention program to educate teachers regarding ways to stop a student from being victimized by bullying. The article, "Solution Team®," (2009) explains that program proves to be one of the most successful interventions currently being implemented to stop a student from being bullied. "Under the Solution Team response, an adult facilitator pulls together a group of students to solve the bullying of one of their peers (Solution Team, ¶ 1). Solution Team encourages students to participate in the team to learn to be empathetic and give empathy to their peers. Solution Team educates students and teachers to help them create a school environment where students and peers feel comfortable to break the silence and refuse to tolerate or allow bullying in their school.

Solution Team stresses that no bullying of any kind should be tolerated. Schools implementing this program enforce a "no tolerance" rule and consistently proclaim: "We always expel" bullies. "Clearly schools need to uphold their rules by giving consequences if a school rule has been violated" (Solution Team, 2009, ¶ 3). Many educators question, however, whether forceful responses to bullying actually work.

When the National Center for Education Statistics researched zero tolerance violence prevention programs; researchers did not find any evidence that particular programs like Solution Team actually reduce school violence. Ironically, schools expelled the students who needed to learn alternatives to violence. As a result, these bullying students "never learned to take responsibility for their behaviors and learn pro-social skills" (Solution Team, 2009, ¶ 4). Researchers who observed students in these programs found that disciplinary action against the bullies frequently isolated the victim, leading to the bully retaliating on the victim and consequently making the bullying worse.

Dare to Care-Bully Proofing your School

The Dare to Care-Bully Proofing Your School Program teaches a comprehensive school-wide involvement and approach to the prevention of bullying in schools. Beran, Tutty and Steinrath (2004) explain that this program represents "a modification of the 'Bully Proofing your School' program developed by Garrity and her colleagues (1997), which, in turn, was after Olweus' core intervention program (1978)" (Beran, Tutty & Steinrath, 2004, the dare to…section, ¶ 1). Calgary schools implemented the Dare to Care School Program in 1998. This particular program proves unique as it emphasizes clinical support to the victims of bullies as well as support to the bullies themselves by involving the bullies in group and individual counseling, and also involving community services and resources.

The main goals of the Dare to Care-Bully Proofing Your School Program are to reduce bullying behavior and create a safe and secure environment for students and their peers. The program includes the following three main components:

1. During a professional development workshop, program educators train and support school personnel. They also present a program to parents to explain the programs' criteria/principles and that they parents understand these components. This helps ensure the program's principals will be sustained overtime.

2. Students, parents, and school staff work together to develop a discipline policy on bullying. The policy identifies specific aggressive and caring behaviors and the consequences that may occur if/when bullying occurs. The "punishments," per se, focus on reparation rather than literal punishment for behaviors deemed to be aggressive; depending on the severity of the behaviors. The program's polices are posted over the school grounds and in classrooms so students and teachers alike will be reminded of the program's expectations.

3. Teachers implement a classroom curriculum that educates students and peers about the nature of bullying as well as present and promote strategies designed to prevent the occurrence of bullying. The curriculum may include artwork, books, discussions, role-plays, videos, and skits presented to school staff, parents, and other students. (Beran, Tutty & Steinrath, 2004, the dare to…section,).

School-Based Bullying Prevention Programs

Although youth violence and bullying has only gained political and scientific attention over the last few decades, bullying and relating issues currently claim a major focus in the area of political policy and research. Christopher J. Ferguson, Claudia San Miguel, John C. Kilburn, Jr. And Patricia Sanchez (2007), all with Texas a&M International University, Laredo, review a number of school-based anti-bullying programs in the journal publication, "The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs a meta-analytic review." Ferguson, et al. stress that: "The victimization of children by other children in school settings remains a major issue of concern. In response, a number of prevention and intervention programs have been developed to reduce the incidence of bullying and violence in schools" (p. 401). These authors also report that anti-bullying school programs, like the definitions created to understand bullying, may at times dramatically differ.

Traditional anti-bullying school programs follow the Olweus model. The Olweus program was originally implemented in Norway after a severe incident involving school yard bullying provoked National attention. Ferguson, et al. (2007) explain that the Olweus program "is designed to help identify bullies, in elementary, middle, and high schools, and to help them as well as their victims cope with the effects of this type of school violence" (Ferguson, etp. 406). The Second Step Violence Prevention Program, another classroom-based program, tends to improve social competence by reducing anti-social behavior among students and also aims to decrease aggression.

Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP), another anti-bullying program, teaches students social skills and different ways to respond to conflict between peers. Braithwaite, according to Ferguson, et al. (2007), created an anti-bullying program which focuses on a restorative justice model. This model aims to improve and restore the relationship between the bully and their victim by using re-integrative shaming techniques. In hopes of reducing bullying among peers, this model also promotes forgiveness from the victim to the bully along with encouraging reconciliation.

In regard to the study relating to the anti-bully program, Dare to Care: Bully Proofing Your School, Beran, Tutty and Steinrath (2004) recount that they chose students from grades 4-6, including 77 boys and 120 girls from Calgary elementary school as participants. The participating students "completed the Colorado School Climate Survey and the Provictim Scale. The first research component was a pretest - 3-month posttest comparison between a school that was about to implement the program and one that was not planning to do so" (Beran, Tutty & Steinrath Abstract section, ¶ 1). At the three-month program school where the researchers implemented the program, the students noticed a significant decrease in bullying. In the no program school, however, bullying remained stagnant.

One primary goal of the Dare to Care Program is to ensure a safe and caring environment for the school, allowing the student to "feel" safe. The results of this study showed a significant difference in the student's attitudes of the two test schools. Beran, Tutty and Steinrath (2004) purport that "the program school reported significant positive perceptions of their school and attitudes towards victims, and witnessed less bullying than did students in the school in which the Dare to Care program was to be implemented.…" (Mean Differences… Section, ¶ 1). The attitudes of the students at the three-month program school were noted to be much more positive and caring for victims of bullying than that of students in the school where the Dare to Care program was not implemented.

According to researchers, only a few studies have been conducted on the occurrence of bullying among different grade levels. Mona E. Solberg, Dan Olweus and Inger M. Endresen (2007), all with the Research Center for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Norway, assert in the journal article, "Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils?," that a dearth of detailed analyses exists regarding the extent to which victims are also bullies, and bullies are also victims (p. 441). In light of this concern, Solberg, Olweus and Endresen conducted study a study examining the predominance of male and female bullies and their victims across different grade levels of students of different ages. They also related aspects of the study to all victims, all bullies and all involved students to investigate the extent of overlap or relative size of the bully-victim group. Study one contained 5,171 students in grades 5-9 from 37 different schools. Study 2 contained 12,983 students in grades 4-10 from 66 different schools.

Solberg, Olweus and Endresen (2007) administered the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire to each of the participants in their normal school classrooms. They explain that "the prevalence of bully-victims was low and mainly declined across grades. There were more boys than girls in the bully-victim group. Bully-victims resembled victims only in terms of age-trends and bullies only in terms of sex composition" (p. 441). The primary grades, contained 30-50% of bully-victim in the total bully group. In the higher grades, however, this percentage was much lower.

Solberg, Olweus and Endresen (2007) assert that their analysis, along with previous research, suggests that the bully-victim group is small. They conclude that "the large variations across studies are mainly due to differences in choice of cutoff point. Bully-victims should generally be seen and treated statistically as a distinct subgroup. The relatively larger proportion of bully-victims in lower grades should be explored further" (p. 441). Most of the previous research on bullying at school, according to Solberg, Olweus at Endresen, only includes two wide categories, students and victims and bullies. At the end of 1990, however, the percentage of students who fill the roles of both bullies and victims increased.

In regard to federal No Child Left Behind, state officials in Oklahoma required each school district to address the problem of bullying. From this effort, schools in Oklahoma began to implement a number of ongoing anti-bullying programs. Abby Hallford, Tulsa Public Schools, Cameo Borntrager and Joanne L. Davis (2006), University of Tulsa, report in the journal article, "Evaluation of a bullying prevention program," that their evaluative study "included tracking the frequency of observed bullying and attitudes toward bullying from pre-program to 5 months post-program" (¶ 1). Not many of anti-bullying programs have been evaluated to determine their effectiveness, however, Hallford, Borntrager and Davis (2006) evaluated the anti-bullying program "Bullyproof" and how effective it has proved to be in school systems. In this study, the researchers also evaluated each of the participants and assessed whether they were satisfied with the program.

Hallford, Borntrager and Davis (2006) conducted their study at a mid-sized public elementary school urban city in the southwestern United States. These authors explain that "at the time of the study, the school had a population of 367 students, partitioned into 32 classes ranging from pre-kindergarten to 5th grade" (Methods section, ¶ 1). Hallford, Borntrager and Davis determined their study's findings to be consistent with those from similar past studies which reported high rates of bullying behaviors in school age children. This finding, Hallford, Borntrager and Davis stress, confirm that it is imperative to invest continual attention to the growing bullying problem in school. They conclude that "despite limitations of the current study, one positive finding was that anti-bullying attitudes and attitudes regarding students' perceived power to effect change in bullying behaviors increased significantly (Hallford, Borntrager & Davis, Conclusion section, ¶ 1). Five months after program facilitators implemented the anti-bullying programs, these researcher found, little change in the frequency of bullying behaviors among the schoolchildren was evident. On a positive note, the students attitudes toward bullying behaviors and intervening with these behaviors changed dramatically for better.

Hallford, Borntrager and Davis (2006) found that overall the students who participated in this study rated this experience as being positive for them and their school. The 5th grade classes were the only age group that did not rate this experience as a positive experience. The researchers note that this particular anti-bullying program, however, may not be the best for that particular age group. Hallford, Borntrager and Davis contend that future research needs to focus on the amount of time the student's attitudes remain positive.

Discussion

Bullying can comprise an extremely painful experience for children, with effects from this common, contemporary malady potentially lasting the child's entire life. Alisha D. Chaffin (2008), New York University, asserts in the article, "Bullying and Gender: A Literary Review," that "gender differences determine the response of children to interpersonal violence and their adaptation of social behaviors. These behaviors commonly link gender-specific traits to social choices, including bullying and gang participation" (p. 1). Although some studies have pondered the nature of the participation of gangs of bullying for both boys and girls, Chaffin felt it significant to focus on the psychology of gender to better understand what roles may lead to bullying and violence to, in turn, better address the problem of bullying.

Childhood bullying continues to depict a growing problem for schools all throughout the U.S. Teachers and school counselors alike stress that an urgent need exists to strengthen students so that they can convey to other students that no bullying of any type will t be tolerated on school grounds. In the journal article, "Empowering students: Using data to transform a bullying prevention and intervention program," Dr. Anita Young, secondary school counseling specialist in Fairfax County, Virginia, Valerie Hardy, lead counselor of a middle school, Christina Hamilton, middle school director of school counseling, Kristen Biernesser, Li-Lin Sun and Susan Niebergall (2009), all middle school counselors in Fairfax County, contend that "children who bully are more likely to get into fights, vandalize property, drop out of school, and engage in criminal activities as young adults" (Literature Review Section, ¶ 1). Students victimized by bullies frequently convey symptoms of psychological stress, tend to not socialize with their peers, and in turn are unable to learn.

To prevent bullying, school counselors, and teachers, with parents and community leaders should increase awareness of this growing problem. Together, these adults need to teach all students and children how to best respond if they are victimized by a bully. Young, Hardy, Hamilton, Biernesser, Sun and Niebergall (2009) explain that "schoolwide anti-bullying models can detail the harmful effects and reduce incidents of school bullying" (Literature Review Section, ¶ 1). When school officials post these models on school grounds and in classrooms and then strictly implement the rules on school campus, the incidents of bullying will most likely decrease, particularly when the children realize their school enforces a zero tolerance for bullying.

Children from various social ranks joined together on one school campus to create a bullying committee for their school. The students first facilitated a discussion on harassment and bullying with a group of students. Jill Packman, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the School Counseling Program at the University of Nevada, Reno, William J. Lepkowski, University of Nevada, Reno, Christian Overton, University of North Texas, Marlowe Smaby (2005), Department Chair and Professor of Counseling & Educational Psychology Department at the University of Nevada, Reno, explained this occurrence in the journal article, "We're not gonna take it: A student driven anti-bullying approach." Prior to the students' efforts,

The students described bullying and harassment as rampant; extremely harmful in their school. In response to what they learned in the anti-bullying program, the students identified when and where bullying incidents occurred. They also identified various types of bullying that routinely took place at particular places.

Learning that their input could help counter bullying and was in fact essential to effectively address bullying in their school energized numerous students. As a result, a number of students separated into subgroups and developed presentations and ideas to generate and enhance awareness and action against bullying among the student body. The students based their presentations on what individual students needed to learn about bullying and harassment and how they could best learn the information. The students' ideas ranged from performing skits, to producing video tapes depicting what bullying consists of and how to best deal with the problems. To facilitate more awareness, the students even developed a number of games relevant to countering bullying and facilitating awareness. When the students completed their awareness preparations, each group visited two classrooms each day for three weeks (Packman, Lepkowski, Overton, & Smaby, 2005).

Packman, Lepkowski, Overton, and Smaby (2005) explain:

The first argument for a student-driven program is that bullying is primarily a student-experienced problem. It is the students who are the perpetrators, victims, and the bystanders. Even the most determined school faculty may not be able to stop bullying alone as research indicates that bullying is more likely to occur when there is minimal to no adult supervision. Indeed, one study found incidents of bullying more common on the playground, where less supervision is common, than incidents in the school building. Atlas and Pepler (1998) also point out that school classrooms are not immune either. These authors concluded that, "(a) bullying is pervasive in the classroom, (b) teachers are generally unaware of bullying, and (c) the peer group is reluctant to intervene to stop bullying (Atlas & Pepler, 1998)." (a Rationale for… Section, ¶ 1)

Packman, Lepkowski, Overton, and Smaby (2005) conclude their study by confirming that bullying in school comprises a significant school problem with serious consequences that extend beyond the school grounds. The energy and effort the students deciding: "We're not gonna take it" exerted indicates the positive, potent potential students possess to fill key roles in addressing bullying. Packman, Lepkowski, Overton, and Smaby stress: "Anti-bullying efforts would benefit from getting the full involvement of students and, indeed many research-supported arguments exist for involving student leadership in developing anti-bullying programs," (Conclusion section, ¶ 1). These authors also contend that awareness, avenues, and assimilation depict three components that provide framework to help involve students in taking a stand against victimization and better ensure they succeed in dealing with bullying.

Dr. Lynne Edmondson, associate professor at Alabama a & M. University in the department of health and Dr. John H. Hoover (2008), associate dean of the College of Education at St. Cloud State University, present a process evaluation of a school-based, violence intervention program. In the journal article, "Process Evaluation of a Bullying Prevention Program: Public School-County Health Partnership," these authors present that the program they assess was modeled after bullying prevention programs Daniel Olweus described.

To complete their study, Edmondson and Hoover (2008) employ the process evaluation instrument a rural Midwestern county health department developed and utilized to evaluate a bullying prevention program. "The tool elicited teacher response regarding three topics: perception of student behavior, reported implementation of curricular lessons, and resulting changes to the school atmosphere following program implementation" (Edmondson & Hoover, ¶ 1). During the second year of this study, participants included 32 teachers who taught anti-bullying lessons and participated in numerous other facets of their school-wide bullying program, which involved 631 students attending four schools. During the third year, 20 teachers and 752 students participated. By year three, over 65% percent of responding teachers and social workers reported witnessing positive change in individual student behavior.

Edmondson and Hoover (2008) find these data from their study relating to the bullying prevention program engenders numerous examples of changes.

By year three, teachers became acutely aware of the consequences of negative student behaviors, so infractions were more routinely referred to the principal and social worker. The first year of the program, trainers taught many of the lessons. In year two, classroom teachers taught most of them. In year three, teachers and newly hired school social workers taught many of the lessons school wide; this may account for the decreased number of respondents in year three. The results regarding low parent participation in year two were noted and training and volunteer/participation opportunities were offered to parents early in year three. Teachers indicated that many anti-bullying lessons were provided by the health department, so a variety of resources and activity materials were purchased and a lending library was put into place for the four schools (Edmondson & Hoover 2008, Conclusion Section, ¶ 1).

Jean Sunde Peterson and Karen E. Ray (2006) contend that during recent year, the U.S. media has helped to stimulate concerns about bullying. In the article, "Bullying and the Gifted: Victims, Perpetrators, Prevalence, and Effects," Peterson and Ray point out that the relationship of bullying to violent incidents; particularly school violence has contributed to at least 22 states passing anti-bullying legislation since 1999. Peterson and Ray (2006) report that one of eight findings evolving from a U.S. Secret Service investigation of 37 incidents of targeted violence in schools determined that bullying comprised a significant role in those particular attacks. Spivak and Prothrow-Stith (2001) also argue that a link clearly connects bullying to later violence. Some news analysts and other media have suggested that students perpetrating a number of contemporary tragedies were reportedly highly intelligent; with some identified as being "gifted."

The study by Peterson and Ray (2006) addresses the gap in the literature regarding the phenomenon of bullying among gifted children and early adolescents; investing attention to both victims and perpetrators. Participants included 432 gifted eighth graders with the study focus on this grade level for the following reasons.

You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime