Reducing Bullying

Introduction

Bullying in schools is a frequent and serious problem that is often a precursor of aggressive and violent behavior. Schools, in concert with parents and community members, can significantly reduce bullying behavior.

Brief Historical Perspective

The first major anti-bullying intervention program in schools was conducted in Bergen, Norway in 1983 by Dan Olweus. This program was introduced following three suicide deaths of boys ages 10 to 14 year-old, who had each been severely bullied by their peers.

In the initial Olweus intervention program there was a reduction of up to 50% in bullying behavior. This change was maintained after two years of the intervention. There was no displacement from bullying at school to bullying on the way to and from the school. Moreover, the results revealed more positive pupil relationships and a significant drop in rates of vandalism, theft and truancy.

Since 1983, bullying prevention programs have been implemented in 11 countries and on three continents.
We can now ask:

• What are the lessons that have been learned from these many anti-bullying interventions?
  How can my school can benefit from these lessons?

• What are the core elements of a bullying prevention program, and how can we implement and evaluate such interventions?

Lessons Learned From Previous Efforts to Implement Bullying Prevention Programs

Lesson 1. While there is considerable evidence of success in the actions of schools against bullying, the level of success varies greatly between schools. Those schools that did the most, achieved the most.

Lesson 2. The leadership by the principal or head teacher and administrative commitment are critical to the success of a bully reduction program. Consider the following observations offered by leading researchers in anti-bullying:

• “A principal can influence the staff’s attitudes and behavior by putting anti-bullying work in the school’s
  official agenda, initiating plenary meetings with staff and parents, and providing clear guidelines
  about the organization of the supervisory system during break periods. It is important that the
  principal allocate time and financial resources to such activities”
  
  (Dan Olweus, 2004, p. 32.)
• "We believe that without the commitment of the leadership and staff,
  the anti-bullying program would not get off the ground"
  
  (Pepler, 2004, p. 126 - leading Canadian researcher on bullying.)

• “A necessary prerequisite to the effective implementation of a Bullying Prevention Program
  is the commitment of the school administrator (principal) and a majority of school staff to
  addressing problems associated with bullying"
  
  (Limber et al, 2004, p. 66 researcher who brought Olweus’ anti-bullying program to the U.S.)
• “Administrative commitment to the classroom meeting concept proved particularly crucial
  in our middle schools, as the principal needed to approve changes to the students’ schedules
  and creatively encourage teachers to hold such meetings”
  
  (Limber et al, 2004, p. 69.)
• “As would be expected, the principal’s involvement was pivotal to the success of the
  project’s implementation, particularly the whole-school activities. The promising gains in policy
  implementation initiatives were made in intervention schools where the principals attended the
  training and were actively involved in their whole-school committee”
  
  (Cross et al, 2004, p 199 – researcher who created the Friendly Schools project in Australia.)
• In short, bullying prevention programs are unlikely to be effective without the commitment and investment of the principal.

Lesson 3. "Successful school-based interventions for bullying depend on teachers and principals to create a climate that discourages bullying and encourages peer processes that support and include vulnerable children. Teachers should label bullying behavior, not the person. Identify the problem as bullying behavior and avoid labeling children and youth as "bullies and victims." These labels limit how they think about themselves and how others think of them." (Pepler et al, 2004, p.311.)