This research proposal examines the problem of peer bullying at a tuition-free, open-enrollment charter middle school in Albany, New York, and proposes a moral education intervention as a sustainable solution. Drawing on a review of existing literature, the paper identifies the academic, social, behavioral, and emotional consequences of bullying for both victims and perpetrators. It analyzes classroom and playground environments as key contexts where bullying occurs, critiques punitive "zero tolerance" approaches, and argues that positive school climates supported by moral education components offer a more effective alternative. The proposal outlines research hypotheses, a qualitative-quantitative methodology using incident report data, and specific recommendations for curriculum integration and ongoing program evaluation.
Established in 2005, the school discussed in this proposal is a tuition-free, open-enrollment college-preparatory charter middle school serving grades five through seven, located in Albany, New York. The school seeks to provide its students with the education they will need to achieve outstanding academic outcomes and to prepare them for the transition to comparable results in college and beyond. In its short four-year history, the school accomplished its fundamental mission of delivering high-quality educational services to approximately 200 students who consistently scored above national averages on high-stakes assessments such as Terra Nova.
These academic outcomes are all the more significant given the lower socioeconomic and minority demographic profile of the student population, since these students have historically performed at lower levels than their more affluent white counterparts attending suburban middle schools (Adelabu, 2007). In spite of these laudable accomplishments, the school is not free of many of the same problems that plague other middle schools throughout the country. Staff members and faculty have identified a problem with peer bullying on campus in recent months. Because it is the school's responsibility to provide students with a learning environment free of violence and intimidation, this issue has assumed new relevance and importance — and it is also the focus of the study proposed herein.
Peer bullying has a number of adverse consequences for both victims and perpetrators alike. Leff, Power, Costigan, and Manz (2003) report that "bullies and victims experience a wide range of academic, social, behavioral, and emotional difficulties as they get older" (p. 418). In addition, the growing number of high-profile episodes of school violence and shootings has been closely related to problems of peer bullying (Brendtro, Mitchell, & Mccall, 2007).
The primary objective of the proposed study is to identify best practices for reducing the incidence of peer bullying at the school in sustainable ways.
By any measure, peer bullying and other types of aggression in the nation's schools are of increasing concern for students, educators, and parents alike. Almost 30% of young people are estimated to experience frequent involvement in bullying behaviors (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001). According to Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O'Brennan, "Bullying is broadly defined as a class of intentional and repeated acts that occur through physical, verbal, and relational forms in situations where a power difference is present" (p. 361). From a strictly pragmatic perspective, the potential for peer bullying based on racial and socioeconomic differences is particularly acute at a school where 87% of students are African American and 78% qualify for free or reduced meals.
For the purposes of this study, school classrooms represent a valuable context for developing insights into how and why peer bullying occurs, because most of these activities take place among classmates (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). Two aspects of classroom environments are especially relevant to developing such insights:
An examination of how classroom characteristics relate to peer bullying will also provide the context in which to develop initiatives targeted at reducing such behaviors — initiatives that can be integrated into classroom routines and practices (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). Students who bully or who are victimized are presumed to have the potential to interact effectively with peers given the proper social context. Creating classroom environments that discourage all aggression can reduce both the frequency and the severity of bullying interactions (Espelage & Swearer, 2004).
While much of the peer bullying that takes place in middle school occurs in the classroom, there are perhaps more opportunities for students to engage in these behaviors in less restrictive environments such as playgrounds and school cafeterias, where they may be unobserved by adult staff and faculty. Leff and his associates note that "in many schools across the nation, teachers do not supervise children during the lunch-recess period. Instead, paraprofessionals, who are typically community members and/or parents of children in the school, are hired as playground/lunchroom assistants to supervise children" (p. 418). Despite numerous studies supporting the recess period as conducive to learning and socialization, Leff and his associates (2003) emphasize that several arguments exist for eliminating recess altogether. As they note, "Arguments against recess include that it takes valuable time away from academics and interrupts children's focus on academic work" (p. 419).
Although these arguments lack strong empirical support, a growing body of evidence suggests that recess periods are prime time for peer bullying, and many students report feeling unsafe and afraid during this part of the school day (Leff et al., 2003). Leff and his associates point out that "the majority of aggressive actions, bullying, and/or school injuries occur on the playground during the recess or lunch-recess period" (p. 419). As a result, while the school playground is an important element in helping young people develop social competence and engage in physical activity, playgrounds also represent a setting in which students may experience peer bullying and victimization (Leff et al., 2003).
Wherever it takes place, research has shown that bullies are frequently confrontational, aggressive, oppositional, and routinely hostile toward their peers; these students also tend to experience high levels of academic difficulty and represent challenges for their teachers (Leff, 2007). According to Leff (2007), "Research examining victimization profiles suggest that youth who are frequently victimized by their peers are often more sad, anxious, and withdrawn, and have lower self-esteem than their peers, and they experience increasing school maladjustment and avoidance over time" (p. 406).
Students who engage in peer bullying may themselves be suffering from a wide range of psychological or emotional problems resulting from underachievement at school or from stressors at home. Peterson (2003) reports that it is common for students to react negatively in school as a result of the following stressors:
Taken together, the foregoing suggests that students who engage in peer bullying may themselves be victims of abusive behaviors either at home or at school, and may suffer from a wide range of negative stressors that cause them to lash out at others. Based on their analysis of peer bullying research, Hyman and Snook (2001) note that an increasing number of students across the country have reported being victims of ongoing ridicule and rejection by peers and even by adult educators. Not surprisingly, victims of bullying frequently become alienated and antagonistic toward their school.
Koehler and Seger (2005) emphasize that because resources are by definition scarce, peer bullying represents a threat to the entire learning process, since teachers and administrators must spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to control problematic behavior rather than delivering high-quality educational services. Some of the most common responses to peer bullying in recent years have been to punish offenders or to treat them with powerful psychotropic medications in an effort to modify their behavior (Koehler & Seger, 2005). When these approaches fail to achieve the desired results — which is frequently the case — an escalation in negativity occurs in which schools resort to even more punitive disciplinary and medication interventions. This escalation also produces a concomitant "us-versus-them" mentality between students and faculty that has been shown repeatedly to be counterproductive to the learning process. Koehler and Seger emphasize, "Unfortunately, adversarial climates develop when adults rely on power and coercion to maintain control" (p. 122).
Even very young children have a finely tuned sense of justice, and students routinely exposed to a negative school climate tend to react negatively in other ways. Hyman and Snook make this point clearly: "These traumatic experiences are more common in schools with a negative climate. Negative climates can create a 'student alienation syndrome.' Powerful solutions to school violence require creating positive school climates while punitive responses only intensify school alienation" (p. 133).
When students attend a school with a positive climate, they naturally feel an increased sense of belonging and believe they are being treated fairly and respected by teachers and peers. While students in all types of schools understand the need for rules and regulations, those attending schools characterized by positive climates tend to regard the enforcement of these rules as both fair and beneficial (Hyman & Snook, 2001). According to Hyman and Snook, "While cliques are inevitable among adolescents, in schools with positive climates, staff make active attempts to minimize their effects and offer solace to outcasts. Bullying and scapegoating from both staff and peers are discouraged. Students in these schools often eagerly anticipate daily attendance despite the rigors of academic expectations" (2001, p. 134).
"Climate-based and moral education intervention strategies"
"Research questions, hypotheses, and data collection plan"
"Study limitations and actionable school recommendations"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.