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.

In Support of the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) Model

 The most effective bullying prevention initiatives are always a part of a systemic and comprehensive school reform effort.  Successful educational reform expands a school-only focus to include the greater community. The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) Model provides the template for successful school reform efforts.

The WSCC Model was developed through the powerful partnership of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). It joins health and well-being with education and learning.

For 30 years, the CDC's Coordinated School Health Model has provided the blueprint for health education policies and practices across the United States at district, regional, state, and national levels. The WSCC Model reflects an expanded and updated Coordinated School Health Model.

The ASCD's Whole Child Initiative was launched in 2007 as a way to shift from focusing on academic achievement as a measure of student success to promoting the "long-term development and success of all children." The five tenets of the Whole Child Initiative is the core of the WSCC model, ensuring that each student is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

The alignment of school, health, and community efforts around the health and learning of every child was the focus in an issue of School Health in November 2015.  This issue explores community partnerships and the educational attainment and health development of students.

Because of the comprehensive scope of the WSCC Model, funding for implementation can be found in grants for coordinated school health, safe and supportive environments, and even school climate transformation.

Despite our best efforts using research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs, 20-30% of US students continue to report being bullied on school property.  A combined health and education approach within a coordinated home-school-community template shows promise in reducing bullying in our schools and in our communities.

"Health and education affect individuals, society, and the economy and, as such, must work together whenever possible. Schools are a perfect setting for this collaboration." ~WSCC

Bullying 101

October is National Bullying Prevention Month. It is a time to unite us in our efforts across the United States in keeping our children and young people safe, happy, and healthy. As we begin this month-long bullying prevention focus, it is also a good time to bring forward some essential understandings.

1. What is bullying? Bullying is an act of aggression with three specific characteristics: it is intended to do harm, it is repeated or has a high likelihood of being repeated, and it involves an imbalance of power. All three characteristics must be present in order for a behavior to be considered bullying.

2. What are the types of bullying? Bullying can be physical, verbal (oral and written), social (or relational), or cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is bullying through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. 

3. Is bullying a rite of passage? In 2016 the National Academies of Science concluded that bullying is not a rite of passage. Furthermore, because of the negative short- and long-term effects on anyone involved in a bullying situation, they declared bullying to be a national public health issue.

4. How prevalent is bullying? Bullying is reported from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. It peaks in 6th grade at 39%. One in five US students report being bullied on school property, a fairly stable statistic. This does not include bullying that occurs in neighborhoods, the home, or other places.

5. Who is most at risk for being bullied? While there is no single factor that puts a child at risk for bullying, some groups are most at risk of being bullied: LGBTQ youth, youth with disabilities, and socially isolated youth. Because bullying is rooted in power, a person engaging in bullying behavior perceives him/herself to be in a superior position to someone who is perceived as different or "less than."

Awareness is only the first step in bullying prevention. Knowing what to do and then taking action are the next steps. As Goethe said, "Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do."

Zero Tolerance is a Nonapproach in Bullying Prevention Policy

Despite no evidence of positive effects and compelling evidence of negative impact, some ineffective bullying prevention policies are still found in schools and communities.  Examples of this misdirection include zero tolerance, giving advice only, expecting bystanders to solve the problem, implementing piecemeal efforts, and peer-only resolution. 

Zero tolerance policies and harsh, punitive consequences are ineffective approaches to bullying prevention. Zero tolerance became a term to describe how states were responding to drug-related crimes in the United States in the 1980s (Skiba and Knesting, 2000). Conventional wisdom at the time said that by showing no tolerance for crimes, meaning no leniency, no second chances, with drug-related charges that we would reduce drug use in the United States. This did not work.  

In an effort to reduce aggression in schools, educational policymakers took a similar approach and began adopting a zero-tolerance stance for aggressive behavior.  Many schools and some states adopted policies where students were expelled for involvement in any type of fighting. Adopting this rigid stance may seem a viable solution, but it should be avoided.

Zero tolerance and other harsh/punitive consequences for bullying behavior in schools are not effective; in fact, they may exacerbate the situation. One characteristic of bullying is the imbalance of power. Young people who engage in bullying behavior already perceive themselves to be superior over those whom they target. They are already disconnected and will be further isolated under a zero tolerance policy. Any chance for redirection is gone. Furthermore, students who are expelled or suspended are denied the school experience altogether. In schools where harsh, punitive consequences are involved, teachers might be reluctant to report students whom they know need intervention as well as sanctions. With the stakes that high, students might be fearful to tell teachers about a bullying situation; the possibility of retaliation is great. 

Most importantly, zero tolerance policies perpetuate the disproportionality of students of color being suspended or expelled (The Vera Institute of Justice, 2013). Students who are suspended and expelled are at greater risk for drop out, have lower scores on standardized assessments, and are less engaged at school, among other negative effects. Furthermore, students who are suspended or expelled are more likely to have criminal records, continuing the school-to-prison pipeline, especially for our children/young people of color who are already at greater risk of being incarcerated in their lifetimes.

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 Academies of Science, 2016). Because of the evidence of its ineffectiveness and its potential to do additional harm, the 2016 recommendation from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine on bullying prevention policies and practices is clear: Zero Tolerance is a nonapproach in bullying prevention.

Certain facts are clear: zero tolerance does not make schools more orderly or safe—in fact the opposite may be true. And policies that push students out of school can have life-long negative effects, perhaps severely limiting a young person’s future potential. ~The Vera Institute of Justice 

The Role of State and Local Policies in Bullying Prevention

State laws and policies around bullying prevention became a focus for the US Department of Education in early 2010. In its analysis of existing state anti-bullying policies, the US DOE examined aspects of the existing state laws. The department found that while the majority of states had passed anti-bullying legislation, inconsistencies remained, including the definition of bullying. This analysis also brought to light the omission in many laws of a mental health component, the identification of groups most targeted by bullying, and mandatory documentation of identified bullying behavior.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in Preventing Bullying through Science, Policy, and Practice, examined the federal and state laws and policies around bullying. By 2015, every state in the US had passed anti-bullying legislation. At the federal level, no laws exist specifically focused on bullying; however, civil rights laws, anti-discrimination polices, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) do provide protection for students from being bullied on the basis of gender, race, color, disability, religion, and national origin.

Additionally, the NAS reviewed the research on the impact of state prevention laws and the implementation of these laws. While progress has been made, especially with regard to a national focus on bullying, the impact and the implementation remain inconsistent and inadequate.

The following are some of the findings of the panel:

1. Federal laws do provide protection for vulnerable groups that can support state anti-bullying laws; however, the protection is limited to those groups specifically identified.
2. While all states have anti-bullying legislation, there remain inconsistencies in the way that bullying is defined and in the authority states have to respond to bullying behavior.
3. No evidence exists to support zero-tolerance policies as a means to ensure school safety; in fact, these rigid policies have potential to make schools less safe.
4. Additional research is needed in environments beyond the school, including residential programs and juvenile justice facilities.

We need to dig deeper into those places where bullying prevention is working, where students are safer, and vulnerable groups are being protected. In this way we might understand the interaction between the place, the policy, the program, and the people.

"Schools should be a safe place for students to be and to study, rather than be worried about being bullied or injured.” ~Kaz Sato (Cincinnati Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League)

The Relationship between Bullying and Trauma

Research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs have addressed bullying in a systemic and comprehensive way. We now have access to proven methods of preventing bullying and to intervene in bullying situations. While we have made great strides in designing and implementing systems that prevent bullying, there remains a need for intervening at the individual level in order to help children/young people heal from bullying situations. Using the lens of trauma in a bullying situation will fill this need.

We know that a bullying situation affects all involved in many ways, from social and emotional impact to physical and mental effects. Those who are targeted often fall into a learned helplessness that can continue throughout life. The National Institute for Trauma and Loss in Children (TLC) defines trauma as any real or perceived experience that leaves a person feeling hopeless, helpless, and fearing for their life/survival, their safety. Furthermore, the effects of bullying have been linked to signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Bullying is a traumatic experience.

When our brains perceive threat, whether that threat is real or imagined, the most instinctual and primitive part of our brains, called the reptilian brain, goes into survival mode. This powerful response is often flight, fight or freeze. In dangerous situations we do not have the time to weigh options or rationalize the threat. The reptilian brain's takeover reduces cognitive and emotional capacity and our senses become the driving forces of our actions.

A child/young person targeted in a bullying situation will be in this survival mode, a state of hyper-arousal. By using a lens of trauma to approach bullying, we deal with its effects on a sensory level and help the targeted child to de-escalate and begin to regulate emotions. No amount of behavioral intervention will be affective until the reptilian brain is assured the threat is no more.

The effects of bullying are felt in every aspect of our being, including emotionally, physically, and psychologically.  Those who are targeted, especially over a period of time, will manifest the same symptoms of those diagnosed with PTSD.  When we look at the impact of a bullying situation on this level, we can begin to heal those who have been harmed by the situation. 

"We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear." ~Nelson Mandela