A New Lens for Bullying Prevention

First appeared July 30, 2019 at https://ibpaworld.org/blog/a-new-lens-for-bullying-prevention/.

Bullying behavior remains prevalent in American schools and a persistent problem for students. The results of two surveys given every two years help to explain this prevalence. First, results from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2007-2017) show the rate of bullying as stable over the past decade for high school students, with about 20% of students reporting being bullied on school property (Center for Disease Control, 2017). The second survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (2005-2015), includes all secondary students and allows for a break down of bullying data by grade level. According to the results of this survey, students in grades 6-8 report higher incidents of bullying when compared to high school students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). The following chart shows bullying frequency by grade levels 6-12:

Why does bullying remain a stable and unacceptable issue for young people, especially for middle school students, despite our best efforts, proven practice, solid research and more?  Perhaps the barrier to reducing bullying is the type of lens through which we view bullying behavior and our prevention efforts. To explain, the most effective research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs are comprehensive and systemic approaches. While building strong and supportive school cultures is essential in bullying prevention, bullying is a complex social issue. Considering adolescent neurological and social development may bring a wider lens for understanding bullying and might provide new insight into this pernicious issue for young people.

Neurological Development and Social Dominance

In his 2015 book “Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain,” Dr. Daniel Siegel explains four qualities of the adolescent brain: novelty seeking, increased emotional intensity, creative exploration, and social engagement. The social engagement feature inspires young people at a psychophysiological level to strengthen their peer connections and to develop new peer relationships. As Siegel explains, there are positive and negative results from this intense social feature. The positive results are strong social connections that will lead to greater well-being and happiness. However, the disadvantages to enhanced peer connectedness is adolescents isolating themselves from adults, rejecting adult knowledge, and engaging in behaviors that pose greater risk to them. Siegel explains this separation from adults during adolescence as a process “vital for our survival” (p. 27). However, while the new relationships are taking precedence in adolescents’ lives, the continued adult attachment will ensure healthy social development as adolescents create their own communities.

If looking at bullying behavior from an adolescent neurological development lens, we understand that bullying might emerge in adolescent communities without healthy adult attachments. Trusted adults provide continued guidance for healthy individual and social behaviors for adolescents. Using this lens, adults make concerted efforts to model and teach children and young people that bullying is an unacceptable and harmful behavior while also supporting their efforts to create strong peer communities. As we know, bullying cannot flourish in strong and supportive communities.

In addition to considering neurological development in bullying prevention efforts, it is also important to include a framework for social structure and power. Adolescents learn who they are in context of their environment. They learn not just self-awareness and self-management, but have a growing understanding of who they are in their peer groups, schools, families, and society. Every social group has power, and a power imbalance is at the root of bullying behavior.

Dr. Patricia Hawley, an evolutionary developmental psychologist, explains how children learn social dominance, which may lead to a better understanding of why bullying behavior occurs and how it emerges from social structures (Hawley, 2015). Because humans think in hierarchies, it is natural for them to organize socially in hierarchical fashion. Hawley’s research with children 4-5 years old shows how children organize as a group, documenting how those who assumed dominant positions were those who were also able to control resources. Those children who exhibit a more coercive type of dominance engage in aggressive control. Interestingly, these children engaging in more aggressive control want peer approval, yet they also avoid close relationships. Even in early childhood, strong and healthy leadership engages in prosocial behavior that serves both the individual and the community. She summarizes what children learn about social power this way: “You can get what you want in a social group while being nice to others. As a consequence, they will accept you, support you when you are in need, and help you achieve your goals” (Hawley, 2015, p. 835).

The imbalance of power manifested in bullying behavior stems from the belief that resources are finite, that people are not equal, and that shared power will never result in individual satisfaction. Hawley offers a different way to look at social dominance. By modeling and teaching prosocial behavior as a way for children and adolescents to achieve both individual and community goals, bullying might be viewed as an ineffective method of meeting individual needs and a behavior that weakens the strength of the community. Hawley also suggests that adults play the pivotal role in instilling prosocial behaviors and helping children understand the power of community. These ideas can become a part of the foundation of the K-12 experience; students are empowered through prosocial behavior and a community mindset.

An Alternative Way to Approach Bullying Prevention

By using a lens that takes into account the complex social nature of adolescents as well as their unique neurodevelopmental stage, bullying prevention can be viewed in a new way. Adults act on this new understanding, providing continued guidance in helping adolescents develop those strong and healthy relationships needed to thrive. By modeling, instilling and strengthening prosocial leadership qualities, educators are helping students create their own communities which brings them a stronger sense of belonging. When school leaders approach bullying behavior with this same mindset, all prevention efforts begin with cultivating and strengthening safe and supportive school environments.

Bullying prevention efforts should meet young people where they are. It is in this place where the social and emotional harm of bullying is healed and the sense of community is restored. It is also in this place where the solid research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs become more impactful, and schools are finally able to reduce the unacceptable and persistent rates of bullying, especially at the middle school level.

References

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.

Hawley, P. H. (2015). Social Dominance in Childhood and its evolutionary underpinnings: why it matters and what we can do. Pediatrics, 135.

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.

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.

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

Bullying Prevention as a Trauma-Informed Approach

Article #4 of the IBPA Trauma Series

First posted July 12, 2019

In using the lens of trauma, the effects of bullying are better understood for their widespread impact on all involved in a bullying situation. This lens then allows for a systems-level approach to bullying prevention through trauma-informed practices.

The foundation of trauma-informed practices is a safe and supportive school community where students have a strong sense of belonging. Dr. Caelan Soma and Derrick Allen of Starr Commonwealth have developed 10 steps for creating trauma-informed schools. 

1. Provide school-wide childhood trauma awareness and understanding of how trauma impacts children’s learning and behavior. Any person can help students thrive when they understand the impact of stress and trauma on learning.
2. View trauma as an experience rather than an incident or a diagnostic category. When bullying or any traumatic event occurs, it marks the beginning of an experience that may last for months or even years.
3. Believe the link between private logic and behavior. Private logic is described as the way individuals view themselves, others, and the world around them. Based on this logic, they act according to that perception.
4. Establish the experience of physical and emotional safety. We must ensure that students experience hope, empowerment, choice, security, structure, and consistency to build resilience.
5. Foster connections. Students who feel connected to their school are more likely to stay in school, have strong attendance, and achieve at higher levels.
6. Prioritize social and emotional skills. Among the most important of these skills is self-regulation: it provides the foundation for self-development, relationships, and learning.
7. Promote play. Research confirms that unstructured play improves concentration, problem-solving capabilities, and more.
8. Collaborate with families and community. Bullying, like all traumatic experiences, tends to isolate the individuals who need connection more than most. Family and community partnerships are essential components of safe, supportive, and effective schools.
9. Support staff. Whether it is a bullying situation or another type of trauma, school professionals hearing details about or witnessing a traumatic event are susceptible to vicarious trauma. Self-care is an essential practice for trauma-informed practitioners.
10. Collect and share outcome data. By collecting baseline and outcome data on culture, behavior, attendance, and more, schools are able to show the impact of trauma-informed practices.

A traumatic experience such as bullying is experienced at the most instinctual and sensory part of the brain. Trauma interventions, then, happen at both the systems level and with the individual. While trauma interventions must be conducted by trained professionals, there are activities and strategies that any adult can do with children and young adults to help heal trauma effects while also building resilience. Sensory-based, mind-body activities have proven their effectiveness, like those found here: https://www.weareteachers.com/mind-body-skills/.

The Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) reminds us that all trauma-informed practices must adhere to the following principles, rather than to a prescribed program:

• Safety
• Trustworthiness and transparency
• Peer support
• Collaboration and mutuality
• Empowerment, voice, and choice
• Cultural, historical, and gender issues

Julie E. McDaniel-Muldoon, PhD

Social Media Director, International Bullying Prevention Association (IBPA)

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

Advanced Trauma Practitioner and Trainer, Starr Commonweath

Email: julie.mcdaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us

Twitter: @jemmuldoon

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

For more information:

The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN)

https://www.nctsn.org/resources/what-trauma-informed-child-and-family-service-system

The Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative’s (TLPI) 

https://traumasensitiveschools.org/about-tlpi/

Starr Commonwealth

www.starr.org

The Effects of Childhood Bullying into Adulthood

When the Center for Disease Control named bullying an "Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE)" in 2017, it validated the 30-year effort examining the long-lasting effects of childhood bullying into adulthood. The research efforts have suggested these principles: bullying is prevalent, being a target of bullying has a multi-symptom, negative impact, and the impact of being a target is long-lasting. Professors Patricia McDougall and Tracy Vaillancourt reviewed the literature in order to determine how far the negative impact can reach and which effects have the deepest impact.

The researchers selected 17 prospective studies to review. Prospective studies take a population and look at effects of over a long period of time, and so these studies looked at the effects of painful childhood experiences, including bullying, into adulthood.  The following are some of the findings:

• Mental Health. McDougall and Vaillancourt found a "direct" pathway between childhood bullying and mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, that extend into early adulthood, with one study showing effects into mid life. The researchers also found "indirect" pathways, youth who had experienced bullying and who had described themselves as depressed or having low self-esteem were likely to be much more depressed in late adolescence and early adulthood.
• Peer Support. Children who have a strong network of friends are less likely to feel the long-lasting effects of bullying. For children who had few friends during the bullying but more friends later, the impact of the bullying was shorter lived. 
• Adult Support. When children were bullied and also reported high support from parents, they were less likely to report depression, behavior problems, and emotional problems later. The support of the teacher is critical, especially when children report low parental support. When children who are being bullied also report high levels of emotional support from teachers, the potential for emotional and behavioral problems is reduced later on.
• Self-Evaluation. When children perceive themselves as victims and report high levels of threat, they are likely to experience more bullying victimization and increasing depression into adolescence. Several studies have shown that poor self-worth in children who experience bullying leads to self-blaming that can last into adulthood, opening the door to adult victimization.

The researchers concluded that "the strongest candidate" to interrupt the pathway between childhood bullying and long-lasting effects into adulthood was a strong support network of peers and adults. Parental support may have a bigger impact on younger children, and older children need a strong network of peers and a trusted teacher at school. They also suggest adults can buffer the effects of bullying by helping children and adolescents build coping skills and by supporting them in developing positive self-worth and healthy peer relationships. 

Bullying is not a rite of passage and does not have to be a life sentence. Parents and teachers have the ability to stop an undesirable pathway for children and adolescence.

"Every child deserves a champion 

- an adult who will never give up on them, who understands the power of connection 

and insists that they become the best that they can possibly be." 

~Rita Pierson

Integrating Restorative Practices and Bullying Prevention

We have reached an understanding that effective schools have one common and critical characteristic: a safe and supportive school community. We also know that a safe and supportive school community is the heart of restorative practices and that bullying cannot flourish in these environments. Despite this common understanding, we remain unsure how to integrate restorative practices and bullying prevention within a comprehensive school-wide initiative.

Restorative practitioners, bullying prevention experts, mental health practioners, and policymakers came together to provide this direction. The result of their two-year effort is the white paper entitled Integrating Bullying Prevention and Restorative Practices in Schools: Considerations for Practitioners and Policymakers. With the goal of connecting research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs with restorative practices, the workgroup first described the problem of bullying, shared best practices in bullying prevention, and laid the foundation for restorative practices. The remainder of this white paper provides opportunities and cautions in integrating bullying prevention and restorative practices.

Some Examples of Appropriate Integration

• School staff work with trained professionals to identify specific research- and evidence-based bullying prevention and restorative practices initiatives.
• The implementation process includes wide-spread training of school personnel and a systematic plan, among other considerations, to ensure fidelity of the process.
• The bullying prevention and restorative practices integrated efforts are preventative efforts, leading to changes in the overall school culture.
• Parents are engaged in solutions to bullying incidents.
• Data is collected and analyzed throughout the process to monitor and adjust implementation for greatest impact.

Some Examples of Inappropriate Integration

• Schools do not choose high quality and proven bullying prevention programs.
• The implementation process does not provide adequate training for staff and does not tend to the fidelity of the implementation process.
• Restorative practices are used in bullying situations, rather than in day-to-day activities.
• Inadequate time and resources for staff prevent the success of the integration.
• Adults do not play a prominent facilitator role in mediating bullying situations and instead use coercion and other unhealthy strategies to engage students.
• No systematic evaluation of the integration prevents reflection and improvement.

Integrating restorative practices and bullying prevention should be part of a systemic and comprehensive plan to build and strengthen the school community. This white paper provides clear guidance on how to proceed. However, the impact of this integration remains unknown, and research in this area is still needed.

Restorative Practices as a Promising Approach to Bullying Prevention

In October 2016 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released Preventing Bullying through Science, Policy, and Practice, the results of a study commissioned by the NAS to determine what we know and what more we need to know about bullying behavior and its impact. Restorative practices is mentioned in the chapter focusing on the research on preventative interventions. In short, despite the growing interest in implementing restorative practices as a way to prevent bullying, little research supports its effectiveness. The panel calls for research in this area in order to support this claim.

That call is being answered. RAND, in partnership with the National Institutes of Health, is currently engaged in the first randomized control study of the effectiveness of restorative practices on improving school culture and in addressing behavioral issues. The study will also examine changes in suspension rates, staff and student attendance, student achievement, and more. The study goes beyond the existing and smaller scale studies on restorative practices and looks more broadly at effectiveness at the system level, the peer group level and the individual student level.

The results of this study hold great promise in informing the bullying prevention community for several reasons:

1. The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) is providing the training for the control schools at first, and then once comparison data has been collected, will also train the comparison schools. IIRP has trained over 75,000 people from over 80 countries in their research-based approach to restorative practices. The IIRP Graduate School is the first "world's first graduate school wholly devoted to restorative practices." Highly trained facilitators are inside the schools, training staff and students.
2. This study is also evaluating the fidelity of implementation of restorative practices at each of the control schools. The implementation of research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs is very difficult to track, probably contributing to the varying degrees of effectiveness shown in fully implemented bullying prevention programs. 
3. By tracking high-risk behaviors, including bullying, this study aims to show that problem behaviors will be reduced as restorative practices becomes a part of the school. Prior research has suggested effective bullying prevention efforts are comprehensive and school-wide initiatives. 
4. IIRP has previously shown how restorative practices and bullying prevention programs such as Olweus Bullying Prevention and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) work together.
5. Most importantly, this study is focused on middle schools, where bullying behavior peaks. 

Some preliminary results of this study will be presented later in October at the 2018 IIRP World Conference, held this year in Detroit, Michigan. 

"The fundamental premise of restorative practices is that people are happier, more cooperative, more productive and more likely to make positive changes when those in authority do things with them, rather than to them or for them.” 

~Ted Wachtel, International Institute for Restorative Practices

The State of the Science of Bullying

The mission of StopBullying.gov, a website created through a partnership of the United States Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Education, is to provide "information from various government agencies on what bullying is, what cyberbullying is, who is at risk, and how you can prevent and respond to bullying."  The website is the most comprehensive online resource for bullying. The "Facts about Bullying" page reflects the most current knowledge about bullying, including definition, statistics, bullying and suicide, and laws and policies. Also on this page is the section "The State of the Science."

While bullying research remains a growing field of inquiry, studies have shown the impact of bullying during childhood and adolescence into adulthood and have confirmed the complex nature of bullying. Even though unanswered questions remain, studies have provided conclusive evidence about bullying. Common understanding includes the prevalence of bullying (between 20% to 28%), the peak of bullying (middle school), and the most common types of bullying (verbal and social).

The following is less commonly known, yet confirmed by research:

• The growing awareness of the impact of bullying has led some to believe that bullying behavior is more frequent. There is no evidence to support this; however, the prevalence of bullying is still unacceptable and a public health issue.
• No single profile has emerged those for who engage in bullying behavior. One reason for this is that many who bully others have been bullied themselves; the roles are often changing. Another consideration is the imbalance of power present in a bullying situation. Power is contextual and reflects the norms of the environment. 
• Adults play a critical role in bullying prevention, in simple but powerful ways. Examples include modeling prosocial behavior, providing consistent emotional support, and engaging in open communication. With regard to communication, it is important to note that students are encouraged to tell an adult when bullying occurs; however, adults often do not know how to respond.

One research conclusion receives very little attention: bullying is a group phenomenon. The traditional image of a two-person interaction, with one person engaging in bullying behavior and another being targeted, is not supported by research. Identifying and holding accountable one or two does not eradicate bullying behavior, nor does it heal the harm that bullying brings to all within the environment. Bullying is social in nature and emerges from peer groups. For this reason, all effective bullying prevention efforts are system-wide and include every community member. Aggressive and unhealthy peer groups, like bullying behavior, cannot flourish in safe and supportive school environments.

As the research community continues this important work and shares its growing knowledge of bullying, educators must commit to put into practice only that which has been confirmed by the research. Additionally, educators must stay aware of the state of the science of bullying so that they are considering only research- and evidence-based initiatives. 

No research is ever quite complete. It is the glory of a good bit of work that it opens the way for something still better, and this repeatedly leads to its own eclipse. ~Mervin Gordon

Middle School Bullying Prevalence and the Importance of Social Frameworks

All forms of bullying behavior peak during middle school, with the highest percentage of students reporting being bullied in the 6th grade. Several structural or logistical reasons help to explain this, such as the transition between elementary and middle schools, the introduction of passing time with less adult supervision, increased class sizes, and multiple teachers during a school day. Bullying happens, though, on a social level. Bullying behavior might be better understood by also using these frameworks: social engagement theory, social development theory, and social structure.

Social engagement theory. Our nervous system's most important function is to ensure our safety, but as humans, we need more than safety; we need connection. When we are safe, we "spontaneously interact" with one another, using facial expression, eye contact, and tone of voice; in other words, we use our social engagement system. At the moment the brain perceives danger, it seeks reassurance. We look to another in this moment in order to resolve things, gauging expression and tone. Without finding that reassurance, our own facial expression, eye contact, and tone of voice change. All of this occurs because the brain perceives a possible threat. Our connections with one another, a key to our happiness, is not just reliant on a strong sense of safety. The brain seeks to resolve a threat to safety through social connections as well in a perfect feedback loop.

In early years, this autonomic and complex interaction happens between a child and a trusted adult.  As children mature into adolescence and adulthood, they look more to their peers and then to themselves for approval and for this reassurance of safety. This is where social development theory comes in.

Social development theory. Erik Erickson's Theory of Psychosocial Development has eight stages. At age 12, children are moving into adolescence, from "Stage 4: Identity vs Inferiority" to "Stage 5: Identity vs Role Confusion." Stage 4 is a time where children move from finding self-esteem in a trusted adult to finding it in a peer group. Stage 5 marks the phase where the adolescent feels a great need to belong and to fit into the community. This is a time for exploration of identity, values, beliefs. The transition from Stage 4 to Stage 5 happens during middle school. Adolescents move from reliance of adults to seeking approval from peers. Belonging and the need to fit into those peer groups seem to take precedence.

Even though this transition is normal, adolescents still require adult attachment for healthy social development. If extensive peer contact increases as a loss of attachment with a trusted adult occurs, it can lead to abnormal social development, including a delayed development of prosocial behavior, the adoption of health-risk behaviors, and an inability to self-regulate.  In other words, even though adolescents are focused on the peer groups, the relationship with trusted adults continues to ensure normal social development.

Social structure. Researchers have found that infants as early as 10 months old understand social dominance and hierarchy, suggesting that social structure is something recognized at an early age. Simple aggressive behavior is seen in small children as a strategy to get what they want. As children mature, they pick up on the norms of the social group and try to belong. Early research suggested that the home and the school communities provide the social structure for children. In adolescence peer groups create their own social structures, developing group norms and identities.

Middle school is a time when social engagement, social development, and social structure interplay at a critical time. Social engagement theory helps us understand that our sense of safety is reliant on our connections to each other in complex, autonomic ways. Social development theory helps us recognize that middle school, especially 6th grade, is time of great transition, from looking to adults for self-esteem to looking to a peer group for the same. The need for belonging and for fitting in intensifies during this time. Understanding social structure helps us frame this period as a time for creating social groups with norms, values and identities established by the group members. The social structure is also where we learn more about power.

Bullying happens at a social level and peaks at a time when the mammalian need for social connection is met with an intense need for peer approval and the creation of social structures within those groups. All of this is happening to children transitioning to adolescence with newly developed and still developing social skills. During the entire middle school experience, the need for connection with a trusted adult remains essential to normal social development; it is a consistent need until reaching adulthood. By approaching bulling prevention work from these frameworks, we start to understand why some of our previous bullying prevention efforts are ineffective at the middle school level and begin to envision how we might create preventative measures that connect to the social development process of our adolescents.

“Middle school is kind of like Middle-earth. It’s a magical journey filled with elves, dwarves, hobbits, queens, kings, and a few corrupt wizards. Word to the wise: pick your traveling companions well."

-~Kimberly Dana, "Lucy and CeCee's How to Survive (and Thrive) in Middle School”

The Puzzling Persistence of Bullying Behavior

Since 1990, the Center for Disease Control's Division of Adolescence and School Health (DASH) has surveyed over four million US students on health behaviors that contribute to physical, social, and emotional problems in adolescence and adulthood using the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). The survey has evolved over the years, reflecting growth in our understanding about youth behavior and technology use. For example, the YRBSS now includes questions about and adverse childhood experiences. The YRBSS included questions about bullying behavior in schools beginning in 2009 and about cyberbullying (electronic bullying) in 2011.

In June 2018 DASH released "YRBSS Data Summary and Trends Report: 2007-2017," presenting  trends of bullying and cyberbullying since each was added to the survey. The following are a few highlights:

• Overall, the rate of bullying on school property has remained stable since 2009. About 20% of US students report being bullied.
• The number of males reporting being bullied significantly decreased from 19% in 2009 to 16% in 2017.
• No significant changes were found in females reporting bullying, and the number reporting being bullied remains stable, around 22%.
• Overall, the rate of cyberbullying remained stable since 2011. About 15% of US students report being cyberbullied.
• No significant changes were found in cyberbullying for either males or females.

These highlights are limited to overall trends and gender focus; even so, they bring the impact of our  bullying prevention efforts into question. The rates of students being bullied and cyberbullied remain stable. Since 2015 every state in the US has anti-bullying school policies. In 2016 the National Academies of Science declared bullying a serious public health issue. By 2017 the CDC categorized bullying as an Adverse Childhood Experience. We have research- and evidence-based programs proven to reduce bullying, some with 40 years of proven effectiveness. We know that bullying cannot flourish in safe and supportive environments, and that developing social-emotional core competencies within those safe schools is the best line of defense.

Are we really putting into practice what we know? If so, then why do one in five of our young people continue to report being bullied on school property?

Maya Angelou told us that when we know better, we do better. Why aren't we doing better?

More Misdirection in Bullying Prevention

In addition to zero tolerance and advice-only support, other misdirection in bullying prevention is important to discuss.

Expecting bystanders to solve the problem is problematic and irresponsible. As Barbara Coloroso has suggested, the bystander role is complex, holding varying degrees of complicity in bullying. The following cannot be overstated: adults are the first line of defense in a bullying situation. The power imbalance that separates bullying from other acts of aggression needs adult intervention. Children/young adults need to identify power structures and understand social injustice, and they will need guidance for this process. Bystanders alone cannot solve the bullying problem.

Implementing piecemeal efforts can bring more harm to the school culture and to the most vulnerable in a school population. Motivational speakers and special assemblies are often used in schools as bullying prevention strategies. While students and staff may report being entertained, inspired, even moved by these events, unfortunately, no evidence exists that they reduce bullying behavior in schools. 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. Effective bullying prevention needs a whole-school, carefully- planned initative; piecemeal efforts should be avoided.

Finally, peer-only conflict resolution can leave our targeted children more vulnerable. We must continuously remind ourselves several things. First, while we wish for our students to have solid social-emotional skills and strategies, the process of developing them occurs under the guidance of a trusted adult. More importantly, bullying is different from other forms of conflicts because of the power imbalance. Peer mediation and conflict resolution provide no benefit in resolving a bullying situation. Adult intervention is needed to erode the power struggle between students. We must not leave our vulnerable and targeted youth alone to resolve a bullying situation with the person 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 we have made as a society in preventing bullying behavior.

History will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of children. 

~Nelson Mandela

Misdirection in Bullying Prevention

Before embarking on a bullying prevention path, schools should take stock of what is already in place and reflect on how effective these efforts 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.

For example, zero tolerance, the rigid and inflexible approach to enforcing school policy, was listed in 2016 by the National Academies of Science as a non-approach to bullying prevention. Zero tolerance damages a school culture with its emphasis on control and an absence of growth and support. It also becomes interconnected with disproportionality, as students of color are suspended and/or expelled at higher rates than white students. Reports of bullying incidents decrease, not only because of the harsh penalties imposed, but also because of the fear of retaliation. The stakes are just too high.

Some adults believe that bullying is best resolved by the children and young adults and engage in another misdirection: giving advice only.  Giving advice without any other assistance and support may be more harmful than doing nothing at all. Adults are the first line of defense, as they are responsible for providing the safe and supportive environments that deter bullying behavior. Because they are also the ones who establish and enforce policy that address bullying behavior, adults should be the ones to intervene in a bullying situation. In a study from Stan Davis and Charisse Nixon, 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 feel, is perceived as making an already bad situation worse. The NAS Panel concluded that one particular ineffective piece of advice, fighting back, translated into action may “escalate the level of violence” and bring more harm to those involved. 

The most effective bullying prevention efforts are a part of a systemic and comprehensive school culture initiative. When we engage in practices such as zero tolerance and giving advice only, we are doing more harm than good.

As Maya Angelou has taught us, "Do the best you can until you know better. 

Then, when you know better, do better.