Psychology Homework help

Jrs13_

Bauman-RoleElementarySchool-2008.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Psychology Homework help

The Role of Elementary School Counselors in Reducing School Bullying

Author(s): Sheri Bauman

Source: The Elementary School Journal , Vol. 108, No. 5 (May 2008), pp. 362-375

Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589467

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Elementary School Journal

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589467

The Role of Elementary School Counselors in Reducing School Bullying

Sheri Bauman University of Arizona

Abstract

In this article, I review the literature on school bullying with an emphasis on elementary schools. Bullying is defined and described, 3 types of bullying are discussed, and the importance of relational bullying is emphasized. I review ex- isting programs to reduce bullying with atten- tion to empirical studies. Barriers to implemen- tation of effective programs are acknowledged. Given the expertise and role of elementary school counselors, they are in a unique position to be leaders in reducing school bullying, a view that is consistent with the American School Counseling Association national model for pro- fessional school counseling. I suggest ways in which school counselors can have a significant influence on school bullying, outline implica- tions of research for best practice, and discuss the need for future research.

Although scholarly interest in school bully- ing in the United States has lagged behind that of other countries such as Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, public concern and research attention have in- creased in recent years, in part due to highly publicized incidents of school vio- lence. Investigations by the Secret Service revealed that in two-thirds of the high- profile cases of school shootings, the perpe- trators had been chronic victims of bullying, and revenge was a prominent motivation (Dedman, 2000). Dan Olweus’s seminal re- search on school bullying in Norway in the early 1980s was prompted by several suicides that were attributed to despair caused by chronic victimization by bullies.

Such incidents may be rare, but bullying is not. The largest national study in the United States to date found that that 29.9% of students in grades 6 through 10 reported

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

“moderate or frequent” involvement in bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). The number of victims in elementary grades has been estimated at twice that of secondary stu- dents (Ross, 1996), which means that bully- ing affects a very large number of students in U.S. elementary schools. Bullying “may be the most prevalent form of violence in the schools and the form that is likely to affect the greatest number of students” (Batsche, 2002, p. 171). Most bullying oc- curs in school rather than on the journey to and from school and is particularly preva- lent in areas with minimal adult supervision. Playgrounds, hallways, and restrooms are common locations for incidents of bullying, although classrooms are not immune (Payne & Gottfredson, 2004).

Defining Bullying The generally accepted definition describes bullying as a subset of aggression with three components: (a) intent to harm, (b) repetition, and (c) a power imbalance be- tween the bully and the target or victim. Bullying is distinguished from conflict by unequal power between the persons in- volved. Although this definition, originally proposed by Olweus (1993), provides a common basis for communicating about the topic, it is not without limitations for schools. First, intent is difficult to detect, and the perpetrator can dismiss the charge of bullying by claiming, “It was an acci- dent. I didn’t mean it.” The repetitive na- ture of bullying is undoubtedly a contribu- tor to the harmful effects, but an action toward a victim cannot be dismissed be- cause it is a single (or initial) occurrence. The key component of the definition is the power imbalance. The bully uses his or her power (which may be due to physical at- tributes or social standing) against a weaker student who is unable to defend him/herself. Thus, Smith and Sharp (1994) suggested a more concise definition: “a sys- tematic abuse of power” (p. 2).

This common definition also creates the

impression that bullying is a dyadic en- counter, involving two parties. However, recognizing the important role played by bystanders, Twemlow, Fonagy, and Sacco (2004) proposed an alternate definition: “bullying is the repeated exposure of an individual to negative interactions directly or indirectly inflicted by one or more dom- inant persons. The harm may be caused through direct physical or psychological means and/or indirectly through encour- agement of the process or avoidance by the bystander” (p. 221).

Types of Bullying In addition to a common definition, it is now widely accepted that there are several different types of bullying. Overt bullying includes both physical and verbal bullying. Examples are pushing, hitting, shoving, name-calling, threatening, and malicious teasing. Indirect bullying involves rela- tional aggression, in which the harm is in- flicted by damaging the target’s relation- ships. For example, relational bullying involves social exclusion, spreading ru- mors, and demanding compliance as a con- dition of friendship.

Relational bullying has been perceived erroneously as less harmful than overt forms of bullying and may be discounted as normative female behavior (Harachi, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999). Relational bul- lying is more strongly related to emotional distress than is physical bullying (Hawker, 1998) and has been found to be uniquely predictive of current (Casey-Cannon, Hay- ward, & Gowen, 2001; Crick, 1996; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) and future (Crick, 1996; Espelage, Mebane, & Swearer, 2004) social and psychological maladjustment, as well as depression in adulthood (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Olweus, 1993). Victims of bullying indicated that so- cial exclusion was the worst form of bully- ing (Sharp, 1995), although teachers tend to treat this as the least serious (Birkinshaw & Eslea, 1998).

BULLYING 363

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Although physical bullying tends to de- crease with age, relational bullying does not (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002). Moreover, relational bullying has been found to increase in schools when direct bullying decreases (Woods & Wolke, 2003). Vail (2002) concluded that schools focus on physical aggression and lack policies to deal with relational aggression. For both males and females, relational bullying has a stronger link to depression than does direct bullying; relational bullying and indirect forms of bullying likely “cause the greatest amount of suffering, while they have a greater chance of going unnoticed by teach- ers” (van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003, p. 1312). Elementary school counselors have a particular interest in enhancing stu- dents’ interpersonal skills and helping stu- dents develop positive friendship skills. Counselors can apply their knowledge and skills to reduce relational bullying and as- sist victims.

My research has confirmed the relation between victimization by relational bully- ing and depressive symptoms in elemen- tary students in a small Southwestern com- munity. In a study of 116 Mexican American students in grades 3 through 5, the only sig- nificant predictor of depression was victim- ization by relational bullying. Gender, grade level, overt bullying, and acculturation status had no effect (Bauman, 2006). I obtained sim- ilar outcomes with middle school students in an ethnically diverse school in a midsized Southwestern city (Bauman, in press).

Yoon and Kerber (2003) found that 94 elementary teachers rated vignettes of physical bullying as the most serious type of bullying event, followed by scenarios of verbal and relational bullying, in that or- der. Participants rated each of six vignettes (two each of physical, verbal, and relational bullying) on a five-point scale for serious- ness (not at all serious to very serious), the degree of empathy for the victim (not at all sympathetic to very sympathetic), and the likelihood of intervening in the situation (not at all likely to very likely). Note that

the authors used the term “empathy” for this subscale, although the wording of the item uses the term “sympathy.” Teachers also had the least empathy for victims of relational bullying and were least likely to intervene in relational bullying incidents. Jacobsen and Bauman (2007) used the same questionnaire with a sample of 183 school counselors in one state, with similar results. School counselors rated the relational bul- lying incidents as less serious than physical or verbal bullying and had the least empa- thy for victims of relational bullying. They were more likely to intervene in verbal bul- lying than in relational bullying and pro- posed less serious consequences for bullies using this tactic. However, counselors with antibullying training rated relational bully- ing as more serious than those without such training, and female counselors rated relational bullying as more serious than did male counselors. Counselors who worked in schools with antibullying programs in place were more likely to intervene in ver- bal and relational bullying incidents than those who worked in schools without such programs. When the results were com- pared to those of the teachers in the Yoon and Kerber sample, counselors obtained higher scores on all variables (seriousness, empathy for victim, willingness to inter- vene) than teachers. School counselors are likely to have training and skills to inter- vene in incidents of school bullying.

Consequences of Bullying The literature has consistently reported negative consequences associated with bul- lying. Both bullies and victims are more likely to evidence social, emotional, behav- ioral, and academic problems (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005) than their uninvolved peers. Victims exhibit higher rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and low self-esteem, and these effects persist into adulthood (Leff, Power, & Goldstein, 2004). Peer rejection, delinquent behavior, criminality, violence, and suicidal ideation

364 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

have also been identified as outcomes of bullying involvement (Marsh, Parada, Cra- ven, & Finger, 2004). There is no question that the problem is serious and worthy of attention.

Cyberbullying The proliferation of technology has pro- vided students with new methods of bul- lying. The term cyberbullying (coined by Ca- nadian Bill Belsey) refers to this recent development. “Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging, de- famatory personal Web sites, and defama- tory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others” (Belsey, n.d.). The scant research on this form of bullying suggests that it is at least as prevalent as more established methods. Kowalski et al. (2005) reported that 25% of middle school girls and 11% of boys had been cyberbul- lied within the previous 2 months, and 13% of girls and 9% of boys admitted cyberbul- lying someone else. Of the bullied students, 63% were bullied by a schoolmate.

Dealing with Bullying There is considerable evidence that schools are not effective at combating bullying. For example, Craig and Pepler (1997) found that playground supervisors intervened in only 4% of bullying incidents. Doll, Song, and Siemers (2004) reported that students do not tell teachers about bullying inci- dents because they perceive teachers as “in- ept, uncaring, or unable to protect them” (p. 169). Atlas and Pepler (1998) observed that teachers intervened in only 18% of bul- lying incidents that occurred in their ele- mentary and middle school classes, and 40% of elementary students and 60% of jun- ior high students reported that teachers do nothing when victims tell them about bul- lying incidents (Hoover & Hazler, 1991).

Furthermore, 70% of teachers in one study (Charach, Pepler, & Ziegler, 1995) believed that teachers intervene “almost always” in bullying situations, whereas only 25% of the students agreed with their assessment.

Of interest is a current study (Bauman & Rigby, 2006) in which both teachers and school counselors were surveyed using the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ; Rigby, 2006) about their methods for han- dling an incident of school bullying. The HBQ contains 22 items in which respon- dents indicate the likelihood of taking a given action in response to the scenario provided on a five-point scale (from “I def- initely would” to “I definitely would not”). Five subscales were identified using princi- pal components analysis. The sample con- sisted of 601 educators, 66% of whom were school counselors. Of the 385 counselors, 48% worked in elementary or K–8 schools. Statistically significant differences between teachers and school counselors were de- tected on four of the five subscales. Coun- selors were more likely to say they would work with the victim and would enlist other adults (including parents) in the so- lution. They were less likely than teachers to ignore or dismiss the incident and less likely to use punitive disciplinary strate- gies. The only subscale on which there was no difference was the Work with Bully sub- scale. Teachers and counselors both indi- cated they would work with (as opposed to punish) the bully in order to resolve the problem. These results point to the elemen- tary school counselor as the logical person in the school to take a leadership role in efforts to reduce bullying.

Teachers and other school personnel tend to overestimate their effectiveness in bullying intervention (Holt & Keyes, 2004). One noted U.S. researcher commented, “Unfortunately, adults within the school environment dramatically overestimate their effectiveness in identifying and inter- vening in bullying situations” (Susan Lim- ber, quoted in Crawford, 2002, p. 65). Teachers’ lack of intervention “plays a crit-

BULLYING 365

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ical role in sanctioning the bullying behav- ior that occurs in schools, either intention- ally or unintentionally” (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004, p. 260).

Effectiveness of Antibullying Programs Smith and Ananiadou (2003) reviewed the evaluation research on antibullying pro- grams. Olweus conducted the largest project in Bergen, Norway, in the early 1980s. His comprehensive school-wide pro- gram addressed bullying at multiple lev- els—the entire school, the classroom, and the individual. At the school level, the Ol- weus program called for a questionnaire to be administered to students to determine the prevalence of bullying, a school confer- ence day on bullying, increased supervi- sion on playgrounds, meetings with staff and parents, and the formation of teachers’ groups to focus on improving overall school climate (Olweus, 1993). At the class- room level, student involvement in devel- oping classroom rules against bullying was followed by regular classroom meetings to discuss bullying problems, role-playing ac- tivities and the use of literature related to bullying, and the use of cooperative learn- ing strategies. When bullying did occur, Ol- weus’s model called for “serious talks” (p. 64) with involved students and their par- ents, help from “neutral” students, help and support for parents, and, if none of those actions was successful, changing the class or school of involved students. In fact, the program was part of a national antibul- lying campaign, which may have also af- fected outcomes. Results of the program revealed a 50% decrease in student self- reported bullying.

However, shortly thereafter, another Norwegian researcher (Roland, 1989) eval- uated a similar program in another part of the country, with very different outcomes. He found increased bullying among boys during the years of program implementa- tion. One explanation of the marked differ-

ence in results is that Olweus and his team were directly involved in the program, whereas Roland provided materials but no other support. A large-scale study con- ducted in Sheffield, England, with many similarities to the Olweus program, had positive results: an average of 17% more students reported not being bullied, and 7% fewer students reported bullying others after the 2-year program. One finding from this research is particularly noteworthy: the best outcomes were obtained in schools with the strongest commitment to the pro- gram, which typically had a designated staff member coordinating the program, and strong administrative support. Ele- mentary school counselors are ideally suited to be that designated staff member and to enlist administrative support.

Other programs, in England, Canada, Germany, and Belgium reported mixed re- sults, with only modest effects after the ini- tial successful intervention in Bergen. One large-scale study was conducted in the United States in rural South Carolina schools. The Olweus model was used, with additional materials and community in- volvement. Again, results were mixed; 25% fewer students in the experimental schools reported bullying other children after the 2-year intervention, whereas those in con- trol schools reported increased bullying. However, there was no significant differ- ence between experimental and control schools in the number of students being bullied, measured by student self-report (Smith & Ananiadou, 2003).

Twemlow and his colleagues tested a violence-prevention program directed at reducing bullying and other forms of vio- lence in two inner-city elementary schools in the Midwest (Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, Evans, et al., 2001). The program is based on a model of bullying as a triadic interaction of bully, victim, and bystander. School staff is usually in the bystander role in this model. The intervention included four elements: zero tolerance for bullying and other violence, a specific discipline

366 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

plan based on modeling of appropriate be- haviors, a specialized physical education curriculum to teach self-regulation, and a mentoring program using older children and adults. Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, Evans, et al. (2001) proclaimed a “dramatic reduction in disciplinary referrals” in the experimental school, with no change in the control school. Suspension rates in the ex- perimental school also declined signifi- cantly in contrast to the control school, where no change was detected. It is impor- tant to note that there was a significant increase in academic performance in the experimental school, as measured by scores on an achievement test, whereas scores in the control school did not change. School counselors who are seeking a rationale for implementing an antibullying program might note that academic performance im- proved when bullying decreased.

The Expect Respect program was devel- oped with support from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia (Mer- aviglia, Becker, Rosenbluth, Sanchez, & Robertson, 2003). The project was based on Olweus’s model and included classroom curriculum, staff training, policy develop- ment, parent education, and support ser- vices. School counselors received addi- tional training in order to provide responsive services to students involved in bullying. Initial evaluation, based on sur- veys of students and staff, yielded disap- pointing results. Only 19% of students in the intervention group were able to identify bullying behaviors at posttest. An increase in student reports of bullying behaviors was attributed to heightened awareness as a result of the program. Despite these lim- ited results, researchers learned that stu- dents expected the adults at school to tell them to ignore bullying behaviors, and the proportion of students who endorsed that response increased postintervention. Only 7% of staff indicated that they would re- spond by telling students to ignore the in- cident. School counselors must remember this finding: one element of a successful

program is convincing students that the adults are committed to action and trained to help.

A more recently developed program, Steps to Respect, reported more encourag- ing results. In the second year of implemen- tation, data revealed reductions in bullying, victimization, and destructive bystander behaviors (Frey, Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005). This program is another school-wide intervention that focuses on clear antibul- lying policies and procedures, training for adults, and the support of socially respon- sible behavior. The program includes class- room curricula and coaching for children involved in bullying.

Vreeman and Carroll (2007) reviewed research on school-based interventions to reduce bullying and found 26 studies that used control and intervention groups and an evaluation of measured outcomes that had been published in English. Of 10 stud- ies evaluating curricular interventions, six showed no decline in bullying. The other four, although finding a decrease in bully- ing overall, detected increased bullying in certain populations or when using specific measures. The only study that showed clear improvement did not measure inci- dents of bullying; children’s responses to a hypothetical bullying situation was the out- come measure. Of the 10 studies evaluating whole-school or systemic interventions, seven reported positive outcomes. The dis- crepant results of Olweus and Roland de- scribed above were included in this group of studies. Four studies examined the ef- fects of interventions with targeted groups of children (two for aggressive children and two for victims of bullying). Only one study of third-grade children showed pos- itive outcomes. Participants in the other studies were older (sixth through eighth grade). Finally, a study of a single program placing social workers in high-risk schools in England found decreased bullying at the elementary level only, and an intervention using mentors with 28 fourth-grade stu- dents reported less bullying and aggression

BULLYING 367

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

postintervention for program students than a control group who did not have mentors. The implications for elementary school counselors from this review are that curric- ulum alone is unlikely to reduce bullying, that whole-school approaches addressing the problem at a systemic level are most likely to have positive outcomes when the staff is committed and involved, and that interventions targeted at specific groups of children are most likely to reduce bullying with younger children.

An excellent summary of research on school-based bullying prevention pro- grams can be found in Samples (2004). I encourage elementary counselors to be in- formed about research results, because schools often select a program based on name recognition, cost, or other factors without regard for effectiveness research. As Juvonen and Graham (2004) observed, prevention programs are frequently cre- ated by professional curriculum developers rather than by experts in bullying preven- tion and intervention research. A school counselor can assist decision makers in tak- ing into account all relevant variables, in- cluding research results and the local com- munity context, to make an informed selection of a program with a high likeli- hood of success.

Barriers to Effective Antibullying Interventions By 2005, 18 states had adopted formal bul- lying legislation (Greene & Ross, 2005). Al- though 13 of those include a definition of bullying, none includes all three elements I discussed (intent, repetition, and power im- balance). In fact, none of the laws mentions the power imbalance, considered by ex- perts to be a defining characteristic of bul- lying. Only eight states require school em- ployees to report acts of bullying. Most states require or recommend that school employees receive training about district bullying policies, or bullying prevention, but only Georgia penalizes schools for non-

compliance with its antibullying law. The most common component of state legisla- tion is that districts are to establish antibul- lying policies. Thus, state legislation is not likely to produce major changes in schools’ efforts to reduce bullying, but it does per- haps raise awareness and signal educators that expectations exist for increased atten- tion to bullying in schools.

Despite public proclamations by most constituencies (e.g., community and na- tional leaders, administrators, teachers, parents, school counselors, and students) that bullying is not acceptable and that chil- dren have the right to be safe (both physi- cally and psychologically) at school, there are many ways in which cultural practices contradict that belief. As one anonymous teacher responding to the Bauman and Rigby (2006) survey stated, “we are not ad- dressing the whole problem. Children re- flect the values and behavior they see in their homes, on television, in video games, and in the behaviors of famous personali- ties and world leaders.” Social learning is a powerful process, and when children see role models (e.g., parents and other adults, including teachers) use bullying and intim- idation tactics, they use these approaches to getting their own needs met and solving problems. Another respondent to the ques- tionnaire observed, “As long as teachers model bullying and encourage bullying as an accepted mode of discipline through peer pressure, it will continue.”

Racism and discrimination toward many oppressed groups (sexual minorities, homeless, etc.) are other pervasive exam- ples that model elements of bullying. There are also attitudes that are still widely (al- though perhaps more privately) held that bullying is a normative experience and that victims somehow deserve the treatment they receive (Vernberg & Gamm, 2003). Within schools and school districts, there may be a lack of administrative support for antibullying measures. Some comments from participants in the survey of teachers

368 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and counselors (Bauman & Rigby, 2006) are illustrative:

• I have found administrators who are responsible for working with bullies feel the behavior is “not that bad” or a “right [sic] of passage” and therefore they do not take reports of bullying seriously.

• Our school refuses to participate in [state’s] Safe2Tell program. I think the principal is afraid of the number of calls that will be made. The problem is that the administration only believes that the target needs to write a state- ment about the incident. This robs the target of his or her confidentiality.

• I do the best I can, but I have no ad- ministration support. Bullies are left to roam free, as are their parents. The principal is afraid of bullies and can- not stand up to them.

• I took [program] training. My district did not pay for me to attend, nor do they support my actions in trying to stop bullying. It’s very frustrating.

As schools take steps to address the problem of bullying, disagreements about appropriate strategies to take are likely. In addition, teachers and other staff (includ- ing lunchroom and playground monitors) may lack training. Time and money must be devoted to antibullying efforts if they are to succeed, but those are in short sup- ply. And, in an educational environment so heavily influenced by the No Child Left Behind Act, educators may view antibully- ing efforts as distractions from academic pursuits. In the next section, I discuss the critical role of school counselors in over- coming these obstacles.

Implications for Practice Many experts advise that antibullying pro- grams are more likely to show positive ef- fects when there is an identified person in the school to take a leadership role. Clarke and Kiselica (1997) urged “school counsel- ors to become effective catalysts and advo- cates for systemic change” (p. 322). The counselor becomes a change agent in anti-

violence and antibullying programs (Twem- low, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, & Hess, 2001). Her- nández and Seem (2004) also commented on the leadership role in advocacy and imple- mentation efforts. School counselors have unique skills that make them particularly well suited to a leadership role. Contempo- rary school counselors already are school leaders, consultants to other staff and to the larger community, classroom educators, par- ent educators, and individual and group counselors. They can collect and use data and are instrumental in establishing and main- taining a positive school climate. They are consensus builders and facilitators of task groups. Who better to assume responsibility and leadership in bullying reduction?

As a catalyst for change, the school counselor must obtain administrative sup- port for antibullying efforts. Hopefully, the principal or superintendent will already be aware of the need to take action, and the counselor can provide the leadership nec- essary for designing and implementing in- terventions at the school or district level. School counselors must be armed with per- suasive information, noting that bullying at school decreases academic success by dis- tracting students and/or increasing school absenteeism and dropout rates (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997). A sizable majority of stu- dents who Hazler, Hoover, and Oliver (1992) surveyed experienced academic dif- ficulties as a result of bullying. Buhs, Ladd, and Herald (2006) found that children who are victimized by social exclusion have re- duced academic achievement. Such evi- dence is important when academic perfor- mance of students is the yardstick for accountability. School counselors also must be familiar with the literature on antibully- ing programs in order to assemble an effec- tive case for their choices. For example, Smith and Ananiadou (2003) cited persua- sive evidence that the optimal age for in- tervention is between 5 to 6 and 8 to 9, which suggests that kindergarten and the early elementary grades are logical places to focus. Elementary school counselors’

BULLYING 369

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

knowledge of child development allows them to tailor interventions to these grades.

An important initial step in establishing an effective program is the formation of a steering committee that works as a team to develop the program. The school counselor is familiar with all constituencies (students, teachers, other staff, parents, administra- tors, and community members) and has es- tablished relationships with key individu- als in those groups. Facilitating and coordinating the work of such a group uses the school counselor’s expertise. Many school counselors already have formed ad- visory committees and thus have experi- ence assembling and leading a team dedi- cated to program improvement.

Counselors are able to provide training for staff, students, and parents about bul- lying. O’Moore (2000) proposed the essen- tial content of teacher training: an under- standing of what constitutes bullying, the extent of bullying, signs of victimization and bullying, the effects of bullying, causes of bullying behavior, and preventive strat- egies as well as strategies to deal with bul- lying incidents. She also described the neces- sary components of an effective antibullying policy. School counselors who can give teach- ers and other staff specific suggestions will establish credibility and earn respect from these colleagues.

Another key training need is for adult monitors/supervisors of unstructured time, such as lunch and recess. These personnel must have training in order to implement programs and policies, although it is some- times assumed that their mere presence de- ters bullying. Data clearly show otherwise, and the school counselor can empower these individuals with not just antibullying train- ing but skills to provide organized activities (such as noncompetitive games) for children to engage in, reducing the time and opportu- nities for bullying.

As noted above, teachers often lack in- formation and hold attitudes and beliefs that are contrary to those of antibullying programs. With their excellent communica-

tion skills, counselors can design teacher training to address faculty concerns, and counselors know which staff members may need additional encouragement to partici- pate. They can also work with teachers who need additional assistance. Many models include a classroom meeting component, and some teachers might feel uncomfort- able or unequipped to manage open discus- sions of bullying. If the school counselor cofacilitates these meetings with the teacher until the teacher feels confident about conducting the meetings alone, the teacher has the support and modeling to become effective in this role.

The elementary school counselor needs to help others understand that some widely used strategies are not recommended for bullying situations. For example, peer me- diation and other conflict-resolution pro- grams are intended to assist peers in con- flict to resolve a dispute. Because of the power imbalance in bullying, this can be terrifying and/or harmful to the victim, who is unlikely to have the confidence to confront the bully with his or her concerns and may fear retaliation. Although peer mediation programs are useful in resolving conflicts, bullying is different from conflict between peers, and the school counselor must emphasize this. Another approach that is often suggested but that is ill- advised is to form self-esteem-building groups for bullies. First, the evidence is strong that most bullies do not lack self- esteem, so the efforts are misplaced. More important, bringing together like-minded students who bully others can have the un- intended effect of reinforcing their negative behaviors (see Dishion, McCord, and Pou- lin [1999] and Poulin, Dishion, and Burras- ton [2001] for research on the iatrogenic effects of group counseling with youth with negative behaviors).

School counselors also should be knowledgeable about the types of bullying and insist that policies, programs, and in- terventions target more than physical bul- lying. Because verbal and relational bully-

370 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ing are often more difficult to detect, counselors must develop a reputation for both trustworthiness and effectiveness so that students will report incidents of such bullying to them. Research has been un- equivocal in finding low rates of reporting to adults at school (e.g., Doll et al., 2004), and the counselor should be one person in the school to whom students can report safely. The increase in cyberbullying neces- sitates that the school counselor educate everyone, including students and parents, about how to deal with this form of bully- ing, which is unlikely to diminish without strong intervention.

School counselors have training in as- sessment and know how to use data to make decisions. It is imperative that data regarding prevalence, types, and location of bullying are collected prior to implemen- tation to guide program design. Then, sim- ilar data can be collected and analyzed after implementation to monitor effectiveness of interventions. This evaluation step cannot be overemphasized, because schools can use the data both to demonstrate program effectiveness (if the data warrant) or to make programmatic adjustments to align the program more closely to school circum- stances. Skeptical staff and administrators who see data that demonstrate how the program is making a difference, and for whom, are more likely to support the pro- gram.

In addition, elementary school counsel- ors are already delivering guidance curric- ulum in classrooms, and working with stu- dents to teach skills and behaviors to combat bullying is a natural extension of this role. Addressing the role of the by- stander and promoting altruism among students who witness bullying should be a part of classroom lessons. Most incidents of bullying are witnessed by others, whose behavior can encourage or discourage the bully. Hopefully, teachers will work with the counselor to reinforce skills and maxi- mize teachable moments. The counselor might also wish to assemble a library of

children’s books dealing with bullying. These can be provided to teachers who are seeking stories to read to classes and to individual children for whom identifying with characters in books can be helpful.

Most antibullying programs include components of individual and/or group counseling for bullies and victims. The school counselor already provides these services. Counselors may wish to investi- gate strategies, such as the No Blame ap- proach (Robinson & Maines, 1997) and the Method of Shared Concern (Pikas, 2002), to engage students in generating and imple- menting solutions (Cowie, 2004). The work of Evelyn Field in Australia provides a model for working with victims to develop necessary social skills (Field, 2003). Young (2002) described a program of bullying pre- vention and intervention using the brief solution-focused counseling model, which many school counselors use. This approach is another that counselors can employ in their work with individuals and groups.

Working to reduce bullying is consis- tent with the American School Counselor Association national model (2003), which promotes classroom guidance, individual planning, responsive services, and system support. Classroom guidance is an impor- tant component of antibullying efforts, and working with children individually and in small groups is a responsive service. Edu- cating staff, collecting data, and consulting with teachers and parents are all services that fall under system support. By leading school antibullying efforts, counselors will not only use their leadership and skills to reduce this serious problem, but they will enhance their professional status by em- ploying a nationally recognized model of school counseling services.

To summarize, the school counselor is ideally suited for a central role in a school’s antibullying efforts. To ensure that counsel- ors are prepared for such roles, Fernandez (2000) urges counselor education programs to provide more than generic training in program development and planning and to

BULLYING 371

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

offer training that prepares counselors to address the pervasive and damaging prob- lem of school bullying.

Suggestions for Future Research Data on effectiveness of antibullying pro- grams are mixed and difficult to interpret. There is a need for standard measures of prevalence rates, common definitions, and rigorous research designs. Leff et al. (2004) provide an excellent review of outcome measures that will assist researchers in se- lecting appropriate instruments. School counselors can collaborate with university scholars to design their evaluations to in- clude a comparison or control group and valid and reliable measures. Particularly in the United States, where bullying research is relatively recent, many more studies are needed to determine what works and for whom and under what conditions.

In addition to program evaluation stud- ies, the next step in research will be to de- termine which program elements are re- sponsible for positive outcomes. With overall program evaluation, it is impossible to know which components are effective and which are not. For example, the Ol- weus study in Bergen included a variety of program interventions. A single interven- tion might have produced rates similar to the whole program; although that is un- likely, the results do not show which inter- ventions are essential and which are extrane- ous. Some schools may choose to implement interventions successively and evaluate the effects of each. One clear target of a single intervention would be training playground and cafeteria monitors in what bullying is, how to detect it, and how to respond. Coun- selors can also train monitors to organize and encourage noncompetitive games to reduce the number of children who are not engaged in any structured activity. The school coun- selor can collect data before such training is provided (disciplinary incidents, suspen- sions, injuries taken to the school nurse, at- tendance, etc.) and again when the trained

monitors have been employed for a reason- able period of time to detect any significant changes.

Additional research should be con- ducted at counselor education programs that provide antibullying training as part of the curriculum. Graduates can be surveyed and/or observed to evaluate the effect of such training.

Summary School bullying is a significant and wide- spread problem with harmful conse- quences for all students. There is consensus on the definition of bullying and the vari- ous types of bullying, and many programs have been developed to prevent and reduce its occurrence in schools. The evidence of program effectiveness is far from conclu- sive, and is even disappointing, although whole-school approaches seem to have the best prognosis. School counselors are the staff members who are best equipped to advocate for concerted efforts to address the problem and to be leaders in program design, implementation, delivery, and eval- uation. In short, counselors can contribute to the academic success of all students by taking a central role in school and district antibullying efforts.

Note

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to the author at the De- partment of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0069; phone: 520-626-7308; e-mail: [email protected].

References

American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (2d ed.). Alexan- dria, VA: Author.

Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. American Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99.

372 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Batsche, G. M. (2002). Bullying. In G. G. Bear, K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems, and alterna- tives (pp. 171–180). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Bauman, S. (2006). Victimization and depression in Mexican American middle school students: Ef- fects of gender, age, and acculturation. Manu- script under review.

Bauman, S. (in press). Effects of gender, grade, and acculturation on overt and relational victimization and depression in Mexican American elementary school students. Jour- nal of Early Adolescence, 28.

Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2006, July 6). Educator responses to student bullying. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the Interna- tional Society for Social and Behavioral De- velopment, Melbourne, Australia.

Belsey, B. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from http://www.cyberbullying.ca

Birkinshaw, S., & Eslea, M. (1998, September). Teachers’ attitudes and actions toward boy v. girl and girl v. boy bullying. Paper presented at the annual conference of the developmental section of the British Psychological Society, Lancaster University [On-line]. Available: http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psy- chol/bully/files/birkin.htm

Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom en- gagement and achievement? Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 98, 1–13.

Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, C. (2001). Middle-school girls’ reports of peer victimization: Concerns, consequences, and implications. Professional School Counseling, 5, 138–148.

Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995). Bullying at school: A Canadian perspective. Education Canada, 35(1), 12–18.

Clarke, E. A., & Kiselica, M. (1997). A systemic counseling approach to the problem of bul- lying. Elementary School Guidance and Coun- seling, 31, 310–326.

Cowie, H. (2004). Peer influences. In C. E. Sand- ers & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 137–158). London: Elsevier.

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observa- tions of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psy- chology, 13, 14–59.

Crawford, N. (2002). New ways to stop bullying. APA Monitor on Psychology, 33(9), 64–67.

Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behav- ior in the prediction of children’s future so- cial adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317– 2327.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consult- ing and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopa- thology, 8, 367–380.

Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggres- sive children’s intent attributions and feel- ings of distress for relational and instrumen- tal peer provocations. Child Development, 73, 1134–1142.

Dedman, B. (2000, October 15). School shooters: Secret service findings. Chicago Sun Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.secretser- vice.gov/ntac/chicago_sun/find15.htm

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.

Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Class- room ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on prevention and inter- vention (pp. 161–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- baum.

Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Mov- ing beyond mean level differences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fernandez, M. S. (2000). School violence: Impli- cations for school counselor training pro- grams. In D. S. Sandhu & C. B. Aspy (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A practical guide for counselors (pp. 371–392). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Field, E. M. (2003). Bully busting: How to help children deal with teasing and bullying. Lane Cove, NSW, Australia: Finch.

Frey, K., Edstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M. (2005). The Steps to Respect program uses a multilevel approach to reduce playground bullying and destructive bystander behav- iors. In D. L. White, M. K. Faber, & B. C. Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of persistently safe schools 2005 (pp. 47–56). Washington, DC:

BULLYING 373

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

George Washington University, Hamilton Fish Institute.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.

Greene, M. B., & Ross, R. (2005, September). The nature, scope, and utility of formal laws and regulations that prohibit school-based bully- ing and harassment. In D. L. White, M. K. Faber, & B. C. Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of persistently safe schools 2005 (pp. 91–100). Washington, DC: George Washington Uni- versity, Hamilton Fish Institute.

Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999). United States. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Cata- lano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 279– 295). London: Routledge.

Hawker, D. (1998, September). Bullying and vic- tims’ distress: Psychological bullying hurts most. Paper presented at the annual confer- ence of the Developmental Section of the British Psychological Society, University of Lancaster, England [On-line]. Available: http://www.eclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psy- chol/bully/files/hawker.htm

Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1992). What do kids say about bullying? Executive Educator, 14, 20–22.

Hernández, T. J., & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe school climate: A systemic approach and the school counselor. Professional School Counsel- ing, 7, 256–262.

Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on pre- vention and intervention (pp. 121–140). Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoover, J., & Hazler, R. J. (1991). Bullies and victims. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25, 212–220.

Jacobsen, K., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses to three types of bullying incidents. Professional School Counseling, 11, 1–9.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2004). Research-based interventions on bullying. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 229–255). London: Elsevier.

Kowalski, R., Limber, S., Keith, M., Kerr, S., Singer, L., Spearman, J., Tripp, L., & Vernon, L. (2005, August). Electronic bullying among school-aged children and youth. Poster pre- sented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-

can Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., & Goldstein, A. B. (2004). Outcome measures to assess the effective- ness of bullying-prevention programs in the schools. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on prevention and inter- vention (pp. 269–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- baum.

Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A re- ciprocal effect model elucidating the com- plex nature of bullying, psychological deter- minants, and the central role of self-concept. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bully- ing: Implications for the classroom (pp. 63–109). London: Elsevier.

Meraviglia, M. G., Becker, H., Rosenbluth, B., Sanchez, E., & Robertson, T. (2003). The Ex- pect Respect project: Creating a positive el- ementary school climate. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence, 18, 1347–1360.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth. Journal of the American Medical Associ- ation, 285, 2094–2100.

Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. (2004). Bully Busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling and De- velopment, 82, 259–267.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teaching training to counter bullying and victimisa- tion in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 99– 111.

Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2004). Schools and bullying: School factors related to bullying and school-based bullying inter- ventions. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 159–176). London: Elsevier.

Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the shared concern method. School Psychology In- ternational, 23, 307–326.

Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Burraston, B. (2001). 3-year iatrogenic effects associated with ag- gregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive- behavioral prevention interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 214–224.

Rigby, K. (2006). Educators’ response to bullying scale. Unpublished questionnaire. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

374 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Crying for help: The No Blame approach to bullying. Bris- tol: Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.

Roland, E. (1989). A system-oriented strategy against bullying. In E. Roland & E. Munthe (Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective (pp. 143–151). London: Professional Devel- opment Foundation.

Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: What school personnel, other professionals, and parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Samples, F. L. (2004). Evaluating curriculum- based intervention programs: An examina- tion of preschool, primary, and elementary school intervention programs. In C. E. Sand- ers & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 203–227). London: Elsevier.

Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal well- being and educational progress of secondary school students. Educational and Child Psy- chology, 12(2), 81–88.

Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of school-based interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189–209.

Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1036, 215–232.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., Evans, R., & Ewbank, R. (2001). Cre-

ating a peaceful school learning environ- ment: A controlled study of an elementary school intervention to reduce violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 808 – 810.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., & Hess, D. (2001). Improving the so- cial and intellectual climate in elementary schools by addressing bully-victim-bystander power struggles. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Caring class- rooms, intelligent schools: The social emotional ed- ucation of young children (pp. 162–181). New York: Teachers College Press.

Vail, K. (2002). How girls hurt. American School Board Journal, 189, 14–18.

Van der Wal, M. F., de Wit, C. A. M., & Hirasing, R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312–1317.

Vernberg, E. M., & Gamm, B. K. (2003). Resis- tance to violence prevention interventions in schools: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Ap- plied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 125–138.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A sys- tematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us about the prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools? Educational Psychology, 23, 381–401.

Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Ele- mentary teachers’ attitudes and intervention strategies. Research in Education, 69, 27–34.

Young, S. (2002). Solutions to bullying. Stoke-on- Kent: Nasen.

BULLYING 375

This content downloaded from ��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms