Misdirection in Bullying Prevention

First posted August 12, 2019 for the International Bullying Prevention Association

A new school year brings the opportunity to renew and strengthen bullying prevention efforts. Before implementation, however, it is important to identify what is already in place and reflect on how effective these programs and strategies have been. This is especially important, as some of the traditional ways of approaching bullying prevention result in more damage to the school culture and to students themselves.

In 2016 the National Academies of Sciences released the report Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice that included “Nonrecommended Approaches” to bullying prevention. Despite no evidence of their positive effects and compelling reasons why they should be avoided, some of these bullying prevention approaches are still commonly found in schools and communities. Some of this misdirection in bullying prevention include zero tolerance, giving advice only, expecting bystanders to solve the problem, implementing piecemeal efforts, and implementing peer-only resolution.

First, zero tolerance policies and other harsh, punitive consequences are ineffective. Zero tolerance became a term to describe how states were responding to drug-related crimes in the United States in the 1980s (Skiba, 2000). Conventional wisdom at the time mistakenly argued that showing no tolerance for drug-related crimes, meaning no leniency and no second chances, would reduce drug use.

Educational policymakers began adopting a zero-tolerance stance for aggressive behavior in schools, and many schools adopted policies where students were expelled for involvement in any type of fighting. While zero-tolerance policies are ineffective and disproportionally affect students of color in general (ACLU, 2008), these types of harsh and punitive consequences are also ineffective in preventing bullying behavior. First, students who are expelled are denied the school experience altogether. This non-restorative approach ignores the need for belonging, damages the school community, and more. Furthermore, with this harsh approach, school staff might be reluctant to report students who need intervention, not exclusion and punishment. Students might also be reluctant to report bullying behavior, because of the fear of retaliation. Finally, no research supports “suspension and other exclusionary tactics” in preventing bullying; instead, evidence points to these responses as bringing “increased academic and behavioral problems” for young people engaging in bullying behavior (National Association of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016, p. 221).

Giving advice only, another misdirection in bullying prevention, may be more harmful than doing nothing at all. Adults are the first line of response; and so, bullying must be addressed by adults first. They establish and enforce policies that address bullying behavior and should be the ones to intervene in a bullying situation.

Stan Davis and Charisse Nixon (2013) surveyed 13,000 American students and asked them the most effective ways to confront bullying behavior. Students reported that traditional advice from adults, such as demanding the behavior to stop or sharing with the aggressor how it makes the targeted young person feels, is perceived as making an already-bad situation worse. Teaching canned response statements makes the assumption that social-emotional skills and strategies are adequate in both the person engaging in bullying behavior and the person being targeted.

One particular ineffective piece of advice, fighting back, gives the mixed message that physical aggression is a viable response. It must be avoided. That advice translated into action may “escalate the level of violence,” bringing more harm to those involved (NAS, 2016).

Third, expecting bystanders to solve the problem is problematic and irresponsible. As Barbara Coloroso (2016) has suggested, the bystander role is complex, holding varying degrees of complicity in bullying. Again, adults must be the first line of response in a bullying situation. The power imbalance that separates bullying from other acts of aggression needs adult intervention. Children and young adults can learn to identify power structures and understand social injustice, and they will need guidance for this learning. One way to engage the bystanders is with a proven intervention approach implemented, guided and monitored by trained adults (NAS, 2016). When the school has implemented a proven intervention approach, not only is bullying reduced, but peer rejection is lessened (Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2012). Bystanders alone cannot solve the bullying problem.

The fourth misdirection involves implementing piecemeal efforts. Motivational speakers, special assemblies, PTA meetings, and other simple, short-term solutions are often used in schools as bullying prevention strategies. Students, staff, and parents may report being entertained, inspired, even moved by these events. Unfortunately, little evidence exists that they affect bullying behavior in schools (NAS, 2016). Motivational speakers, awareness raising assemblies, focus days, and other piecemeal efforts should not be held as isolated events. Furthermore, because they do not take into account differing student needs in the schools, schools should avoid large group assemblies on sensitive issues presented by an outsider. Finally, without adequate staff preparation and investment in the event, students are left more vulnerable than they were before the assembly.

Finally, peer-only resolution is dangerous and should be avoided for several reasons. First, while adults wish for students to have solid social-emotional skills and strategies, that process of developing them occurs under the guidance of a trusted adult. More importantly, and as stressed previously, bullying is separated by other conflicts because of the power imbalance. Peer mediation and conflict resolution provide no benefit in resolving a bullying situation (NAS, 2016). Adult intervention is needed to erode the power struggle between students. The vulnerable and targeted youth must not be left alone to resolve a bullying situation with those engaging in the aggressive behavior. This cannot be stressed enough. Conventional wisdom such as “they will work it out” and “this is natural peer conflict” erodes any progress in preventing bullying and in protecting the most vulnerable children and young people.

It is important to note that some of these nonrecommended approaches may be critical components of a systemic and comprehensive bullying prevention effort. However, none of these implemented in isolation will be sufficient to reduce bullying problems (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2017). Other policies, such as zero tolerance, “should be immediately discontinued” (NAS, 2016, p. 295).

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

-Maya Angelou-

References

American Civil Liberties Union (2008). Dignity denied: the effect of “zero tolerance” policies of students’ human rights. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/dignitydenied_november2008.pdf.

Coloroso, B. (2016). The bully, the bullied, and the not-so-innocent bystander: From preschool to high school and beyond: Breaking the cycle of violence and creating more deeply caring communities. New York, NY: William Monroe Paperbacks.

Davis, S., & Nixon, C. L. (2013). Youth Voice Project: Student Insights Into Bullying and Peer Mistreatment. Champaign, IL: Research Press Publishers.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Doi: 10.17226/23482.

Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice Indiana Policy Research Center. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469537.pdf.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2017). Prevention at School. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/at-school/index.html.

Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection: a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics Adolescents Medicine, 166(2), 149-156.


Julie E. McDaniel-Muldoon, PhD

• Social Media Director, International Bullying Prevention Association (www.ibpaworld.org)
• Advanced Trauma Practitioner and Trainer, Starr Commonwealth (www.starr.org)
• Student Safety and Well-Being Consultant, Oakland Schools (Waterford, Michigan)
• Email: julie.mcdaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us
• Blog: https://jemmuldoon.blogspot.com/
• Twitter: @jemmuldoon

(A Sense of) Safety First

First appeared as a blog post for the International Bullying Prevention Association on July 30, 2019

Since the 1950s, American schools have been engaging in safety preparedness, beginning with fire drills, evolving into additional emergency protocols, and finally with active shooter training. Unfortunately, no evidence exists that these measures bring any improvements in the sense of safety. As Dr. Daniel Siegel (2015) explains, students need to be “seen, safe, and soothed, in order to feel secure” (p. 145), and these needs will not be met by current school safety practices alone. As collective wisdom considers the emotional and social impact of these safety measures, it is important to note that for more than a decade, US students have been reporting how many of them miss school because of safety concerns. Karyn Purvis and her colleagues remind us, there is a difference between being safe and feeling safe: “Felt safety, which has to be determined by each individual, includes emotional, physical, and relational security” (From The Connected Child).  It may be time to reconsider what is meant by school safety and to determine what our children and young people really need in order to feel the sense of safety required to thrive in school and beyond.

School Safety: A Perennial Issue for Some

Since 1999, the Center for Disease Control's Division of Adolescence and School Health (CDC/DASH) has surveyed over four million US high school students on health behaviors that contribute to physical, social, and emotional problems. One of the questions addresses students’ sense of safety: “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you would be unsafe at school or on your way to or from school?” From 2007-2017, 5-7% of US high school students have reported not going to school because of safety concerns. These troubling results have remained stable with no statistical difference across a decade.

Looking deeper into the 2017 results, females have significantly more safety concerns than males, and Black and Latino students have more safety concerns than white students. Additionally, LGBTQ+ students have significantly higher safety concerns than non-LGBTQ+ students.  In a classroom of 30, two students stay home at least one day a month because they are afraid before, during, or after school.

The Neurobiology of Feeling Safe

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is often held up as a framework for acknowledging both physiological and psychological needs in schools, especially with regard to safety. The premise is that basic human needs must be fulfilled before social, esteem, and self-actualization needs are considered. At the base of human needs are physiological needs, such as food and shelter. The next level of needs is focused on safety and security. This need for safety can be met with limits, consistencies, routines, and predictability. From there, efforts can be made to fulfill the needs for self-esteem and self-actualization. Using this model, schools might easily simplify the safety needs of their students and mobilize all adults in the schools to play pivotal roles in meeting these needs.

However, as Patricia Rutledge and others note, this understanding is too simplistic, because it fails to take into account the prerequisite for social connections at every level of the hierarchy. While it may not be included in current discussions, Maslow’s original model sets preconditions that do indeed recognize the social environment. The freedoms to speak and to defend one’s self are noted as preconditions, as are honesty, justice, and order in groups. Maslow (1943) asserts, “These conditions are defended because without them the basic satisfactions are quite impossible, or at least, very severely endangered” (p.384).  According to Maslow, then, a healthy social environment is an imperative for meeting individual needs, including safety needs.

Considering the impact of the environment on individuals, Steven Porges (2017) explains feeling safe as a neurobiology in his Polyvagal Theory.  The neurobiological responses to relationships and to the environment determine whether humans feel safe, and these instinctual responses take precedence over a cognitive determination of safety. Porges challenges the traditional structural ideas of safety that focus on physical measures as they may have no impact on the feeling of safety. In other words, the environment determines whether or not people feel safe, and feeling safe may not be based on logic or fact. Porges advocates a shift in thinking about safety that is a simple thought: it matters how people treat one another.

The Polyvagal Theory also asserts that feeling safe is the natural state of the brain. In this state, humans are connected and fully present. Because the brain perceives no risk, it is open to new learning. “Safe states are not only a prerequisite for social behavior, but also for accessing the higher brain structures that enable humans to be creative and generative” (Porges, 2017, p. 50). This theory suggests that all learning, academic and social-emotional, must happen in a perceived safe environment. As a by-product, then, in tending to the neurobiology of feeling safe, student achievement is likely to increase, as evidenced by several researchers who have seen the relationship between strong school communities that prioritize social-emotional learning with increases in student achievement (See the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2019; Hagelskamp, Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2013, among others).

A Sense of Safety First

Rather than considering security measures and drills alone, improving school safety should focus on increasing the sense of safety, which happens within a healthy school environment. While physical safety measures are an important part of all safety plans, students feeling safe at school is not the same as an adult declaration that a school is safe.  When students feel safe at school, they are more willing to engage in prosocial behaviors and their brains are ready to take in new information, be it academic content or social-emotional learning. Most importantly, when the focus is on students’ feelings of safety, it is possible to reduce the concerning numbers of students, especially Black, Hispanic, and LGBTQ+ students, who miss at least one school day every month because of safety concerns.

References

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2019). Research: SEL Impact. Retrieved from https://casel.org/impact/.

Center for Disease Control (2017). Youth Risk Behavior Survey: data and trends report 2007-2017. Retrieved from Washington, DC: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trendsreport.pdf.

Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving classroom quality with the RULER approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3-4), 530-543.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by type of bullying and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 2005 through 2015. In Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (August 2016 ed.). Washington, DC: NCES.

Porges, S. W. (2017). The Pocket Guide to the Polyvagal Theory: The Transformative
Power of Feeling Safe. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Purvis, K. B., Cross, D. R. & Sunshine, W. L. (2007). The Connected Child: Bring hope and healing to your adoptive family. In. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Rutledge, P. (2011). Social Networks: What Maslow Missed. Retrieved from http://mprcenter.org/blog/2011/11/social-networks-what-maslow-misses/

Siegel, D. J. (2015). Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

Julie E. McDaniel-Muldoon, PhD

·        Social Media Director, International Bullying Prevention Association (www.ibpaworld.org)

·        Student Safety and Well-Being Consultant, Oakland Schools (Waterford, Michigan)

·        Advanced Trauma Practitioner and Trainer, Starr Commonwealth (www.starr.org)

·        More information:

o Email: jemmuldoon@gmail.com

o Blog: https://jemmuldoon.blogspot.com/

o Twitter: @jemmuldoon