The Persistence of Bullying At School and Public Policy

Responses: What Ails?

A Capstone Project by Rajeet Guha

The Construct of Research

Bullying in Schools:

Definition: Longstanding violence, physical or psychological, conducted by an individual (student) or group (collection of students) against a defenseless individual (student)

Introduction

Breakdown of Definition of Bullying

Three elements:1.Physical or psychological

violence2.Repetitive nature3.Asymmetry of Power

Introduction

A Related Construct: Corporal Punishment of

Children

Definition: Intentional application of physical and psychological pain but not injury as a method of changing behavior.

Introduction

Characteristics of Corporal Punishment at School

• Universal Phenomenon: In all countries, in all states of America

• Southern states have higher incidents: worst states: Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas

• CP at school has gone down sharply over the last three decades

• Corporal punishment at home has not gone down so much: most parents support CP at home

Literature Review

Characteristics of Bullying at School

• Universal phenomenon: All countries, all states of North America

• No strong evidence of north-south divide: Worst states: Illinois, Alaska, California, Pennsylvania, New York

• Bullying at school in US shows rising trend: data from 2000 through 2009

• New forms of bullying coming up: cyber bullying, bullying on social media.

Literature Review

Correlation between implementation of anti-CP policy in school and decline

• Laws/Policies against CP at school 100 plus years old: New Jersey passed law in 1867

• 31 states have banned CP in schools• CP in schools has almost been

eliminated in these 31 states• Strong positive correlation between

laws/policies against CP in school implemented & its decrease in schoolsLiterature Review

Policy making to check bullying in schools

• Policy/legislation against bullying in schools of recent origin: started with Georgia in 1999 and then bulk of states followed in 2000s

• Policy framework of Dan Olweus: policies to embrace school level, class level and individual level

Literature Review

Correlation between policies and bullying in school

• Usual explanation of southern culture not applicable and no North-South divide

• Anti bullying policies in schools are pervasive in US and universal: yet rising trend witnessed

• Is poor implementation of anti-bullying legislation and policies the reason?

• Builds the case for primary research to test this hypothesis

Literature Review

Hypothesis for Primary Research

• The hypothesis of this project is that what is being faced is more a problem of implementation and therefore the analysis needs to move from the big and middle worlds that the introduction and literature review sections have covered so far to the small world in which policies are implemented: i.e. school level

Methodology

Broad Research Questions

• What has been the impact of measures to address bullying in schools?

• Which strategies have worked and which haven’t?

• What should be the next steps in this effort?

Methodology

Research design and participants

• Participants: Counselors/Principals/ Deputy Principals of six schools from New Jersey and New York City who were willing to respond to the survey administered anonymously through Survey Monkey

• Questionnaire designed using policy framework suggested by Dan Olweus’s Bullying Prevention Program

Methodology

Survey questions

• Total of 25 questions• Question 1-18: Each policy element of

Olweus’s policy framework is converted to a question : Example: If the existence of a clear definition is a policy element then question asked is “Is there a clear definition on bullying?”

• Question 19-25 relate to the respondents’ perceptions of the problem and its incidence Methodology

Survey questions…continued

• Some questions derive from policies, which lay down procedures to react to incidents of bullying (i.e. reactive elements of policy)

• Other questions derive from policies which lay down proactive steps to prevent bullying (proactive elements of policy)

• All except two questions require choosing from a multiple choice answer formatMethodology

Survey Means

• A multiple choice questionnaire was sent using a Survey Monkey to a total of nine schools, who had agreed to participate in the survey when contacted

• The link to the survey monkey was sent mostly to the deputy principals and principals as advised by the schools

• A total of six schools responded to the survey• The survey findings were generated by the

Survey Monkey and summarized as given in the following slide Methodology

Findings

• Except two questions, all responses were in terms of ticking off from a set of multiple choice options

• The responses to the multiple choice options helped understand how much importance was paid to each policy element in the school

• The findings showed the number and percentage of respondents, who considered each policy element relevant, i.e. interpreted to mean being applied/implemented in their schools

• Since the total number of responses was six, the possible percentages generated against each question were: 100, 83.33, 66.67, 50, 33.33, 16.63 and 0. Findings

Analysis of Findings

Policy elements in which 83.33% or more respondent schools report compliance are considered being well implemented

Policies in which 66.67% respondent schools report compliance are considered as ones where implementation could still be improved Policies in which 50% or less respondent schools report compliance are considered being poorly implemented

Analysis of Findings

Analysis of Findings

Lack of Clarity and Understanding • Schools surveyed don’t have a clear

definition of bullying that includes all three elements: (physical/psychological violence, repetitive nature and asymmetry of power).

• Most definitions/polices lack any effort to ascertain the power asymmetry aspect thus confusing between bullying and what one school describes as “two sided” conflicts

Analysis of Findings

Analysis of Findings

Schools’ approach are reactive, not pro-active• Schools are well implementing provisions that

relate to procedures to react when bullying is reported

• Schools are not well implementing provisions that call for a proactive and preventative approach: thus no school carried out a baseline survey involving students to understand what or how much bullying goes on

• No awareness creation campaigns in schools• Weak Accountability: With only one staff member:

the counselor and with few resources Analysis of Findings

Conclusions

• Unclear definition & misunderstanding of bullying• Approach is reactive, not proactive: Thus, many

suspected cases of bullying not detected or reported. Many cases go under “two sided conflicts” as power asymmetry is not understood

• Defensiveness and denial by school authorities• No external grading or auditing done by outside

agency: hence poor accountability on staff• Students, parents and all staff are not engaged

towards preventionConclusion

Next Steps/Recommendations

• To strengthen systems of accountability through regular external grading/auditing of policy implementation

• Regular training and orientation of all staff• Schools need more resources as part of

incentives towards a proactive approachAfter all, Even One Child Bullied is One Too Many.

Conclusion