Bullying Prevention
Bullying is a global epidemic. As Currie and colleagues (2004) concluded, in a crossnational study with 35 participating countries, 35% of young people reported that they had bullied others and 34% reported that they had been bullied at least once in the past 2 months.
Every 2 years, the Centers for Disease Control summarizes data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which is required of all students in Grades 9 to 12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The results for 2009 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010) indicated that nationwide 19.9% of students had been bullied on school property during the 12 months before the survey administration.Considering these data, it is understandable that bullying prevention is the most prioritized conflict education program in the United States (Whitted & Dupper, 2005) and that most global regions have initiatives to address this problem. Bullying prevention programs are being used in countries as diverse as Turkey (Alikasifoglu, Erginoz, Ercan, Uysal, & Albayrak-Kaymak, 2007), Bangladesh (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2006), Korea (Jong-Un, 2006), Finland (Poyhonen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2010), and Hong Kong (Chi-hung & Hing-kwan, 2009). Bullying prevention initiatives are mandated and comprehensive in Norway, the United Kingdom, and Australia; with 47 U.S. states having legislation mandating bullying prevention programs (Bradshaw & Waasdorp, 2009).
The phenomenon of bullying is integrally linked to issues of prejudice and bias. Members of nondominant or marginalized groups are more likely to be targets of bullying. One of the most targeted groups is LGBT2Q (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, and questioning) students. In a recent national survey of 5,487 LGBT2Q students conducted by GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), 73.6% of LGBT2Q secondary students reported hearing homophobic remarks at school, 86.2% reported being verbally harassed, and 44.1% reported being physically harassed at school for their sexual orientation.
These data correspond to other research that LGBT2Q students are much more likely to be victimized and bullied at school than other students (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005) and that teachers and school staff are unlikely to intervene when they witness this harassment (Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008). This dynamic is not only in the United States (Bekaert, 2010) and the harm done can be long-lasting. One U.K. survey (Rivers, 2004) found that LGBT2Q adults who had been bullied at school are likely to have depression and anxiety and to consider and/or attempt self-harm or suicide.Students with social skills deficits or high- functioning autism (like Asperger syndrome) are often targets of bullying (M. J. G. Biggs, Simpson, & Gaus, 2010). Sadly, these children are more likely to be social isolates, less likely to have defenders willing to stand up to the bullies, and more likely to be blamed by peers and teachers for “causing” the bullying (Allen, 2010). Alarmingly, when bullying targets disadvantaged students, there is a greater tendency for the bullying to be done by groups of students against a single target (Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vaderzee, Sink, & Birchmeier, 2009), where other students are actively urging the bullies to continue or increase the behavior.
Bullying prevention can be focused on religious, racial, or ethnic harassment. One example is the Columbia University curriculum that helped Muslim students in New York City following the attacks on September 11, 2001 (Kenan, 2005), when there was a strong antiMuslim backlash. Teachers College designed a special curriculum called (Re)embracing Diversity in New York City Public Schools: Educational Outreach for Muslim Sensitivity and obtained the endorsement of the New York City Board of Education. The program was learner centered, so students could engage in activities that foster problem solving, critical reflection, and collaborative learning to overcome religious bias.
A shortcoming of many antibullying programs is framing bullying as an incident between students rather than as an offense against the larger community. Jones (2006) argued that bullying prevention efforts should be seen as human rights issues and as the responsibility of the entire school community. Too often, teachers and administrators give little tangible protection to targets of bullying, especially if those targets are from nondominant groups; teachers are more likely to discount bullying behavior than students. Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007) conducted a survey of student (n = 15,185) and staff (n = 1.547) perceptions of and experiences with bullying in 75 elementary, 20 middle, and 14 high schools. The results indicated that staff at all school levels (elementary, middle, and high) underestimated the number of students involved in frequent bullying. Several studies document that teacher attitudes about bullying prevention efforts and teacher support for those programs have significant impact on whether students embrace and enact lessons in bullying prevention (B. K. Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, & Dill, 2008).
There is considerable research about bullying behaviors and consequences (Espelage & Swearer, 2003), but too few studies in the United States examine the efficacy of bullying prevention programs. Some programs use more general conflict resolution training to reduce bullying. Orpinas, Horne, and Staniszewski (2003) studied the application of the Peaceable Place program developed by the Mendez Foundation to teach K-5 students conflict resolution skills, anger management, respect for self and others, and effective communication as a bullying prevention effort. There was a 40% reduction among younger children (K-2) in self-reported aggression and a 19% reduction in self-reported victimization. Among third to fifth graders, there was a 23% reduction in mean reported victimization but no significant differences in self-reported aggression.
The majority of bullying programming and research in the United States concerns the Olweus program. Olweus is a whole-school bullying program with core components implemented at the individual, classroom, and school levels. The whole-school approach is predicated on the assumption that bullying and peer victimization are systemic problems, and intervention programs must be directed at the entire school rather than individual bullies or victims.
Studies of the efficacy of the Olweus Bullying Prevention program in Canada (Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, & Charach, 1994) and England (Whitney, Rivers, Smith, & Sharp, 1994) provide positive support. However, some have argued that the Olweus program is too labor-intensive and complex to be effectively implemented in poorly resourced schools (Hong, 2009).
Some bullying prevention programs are more streamlined and have proven benefits. Evers, Prochaska, VanMarter, Johnson, and Prochaska (2007) developed a transtheoreti- cal model bullying prevention program that used three half-hour computer sessions during the school year for the students and a 10-page manual each for staff and parents that included optional activities. Research was conducted in 12 middle schools and 13 high schools in the United States with a diverse sample of 1,237 middle and 1,215 high school students. There were significant treatment effects for intervention groups when compared with control groups for both the middle and high school programs.