Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by The British Psychological Society

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    —  More sensitive definitions of bullying may be needed to ensure that indirect aggression or relational bullying are reported, particularly in the light of an increase in cyber-bullying.

    —  Schools should be encouraged to use systematic assessment procedures, including peer and self reports, to collect more accurate figures for the incidence of bullying.

    —  Being a victim of bullying is associated with poor physical and mental health and many adults report long term effects. Children who bully are also at an increased risk of depression and may be at a high risk of later criminal convictions.

    —  Research evidence suggests that children from ethnic minority groups and young people attracted to others of the same sex are at higher risk of bullying than others.

    —  Procedures to tackle bullying need to be implemented thoroughly and consistently throughout the school community. Parents should be involved in policy formulation and review and should be given information about the school's anti-bullying policy.

    —  Schools need to have clearly defined and articulated procedures and policies for dealing with racism and homophobia embedded within bullying policies.

    —  Where there are unresolved issues relating to bullying, we would support the development of a personalised anti-bullying plans with clear review procedures.

    —  Educational psychologists are well placed to provide an understanding of the impact of bullying and lead developments in local authorities.

SUBMISSION

  1.1  The British Psychological Society welcomes the opportunity to submit information to the Committee's inquiry into Bullying. The British Psychological Society is the learned and professional body, incorporated by Royal Charter, for psychologists in the United Kingdom. The Society has a total membership of over 42,000 and is a registered charity.

  1.2  The key Charter object of the Society is "to promote the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of psychology pure and applied and especially to promote the efficiency and usefulness of members by setting up a high standard of professional education and knowledge".

  1.3  The Society is authorised under its Royal Charter to maintain the Register of Chartered Psychologists. It has a code of conduct and investigatory and disciplinary systems in place to consider complaints of professional misconduct relating to its members. The Society is an examining body granting certificates and diplomas in specialist areas of professional applied psychology. It also has in place quality assurance programmes for accrediting both undergraduate and postgraduate university degree courses.

  1.4  This submission is based upon evidence provided by the Division of Educational and Child Psychology (DECP). Educational and child psychologists work with children from 0-19 across all areas of disability. They are concerned with the application of psychological research and theory to the enhancement of children's learning, psychological well-being and development. They have skills in psychological and educational assessment, intervention techniques and methods for helping children and young people who are experiencing difficulties in learning or social adjustment.

  1.5  Educational psychologists collaborate with other key professionals in the early identification of difficulties a child or young person may be experiencing and through psychological assessment and intervention. In particular, Educational Psychologists work closely with other colleagues in education (for example educational welfare officers and behaviour support and pupil development staff), as well as other professionals in agencies like social services and the health service.

  1.6  Uniquely, educational psychologists are trained and have responsibilities and involvement in every phase of education, including early years work, thus allowing them to see the long-term impact of government decisions relating to bullying. Educational psychologists also inform social and educational policy within local authorities in relation to children's well-being, learning and development and centre their work around multi-agency assessments and interventions. Their professional knowledge base is founded upon day-to-day practices, a clearly articulated working knowledge of psychological theory and research, and a strategic perspective which illuminates both strengths and weakness of the past and current policies and practices relating to children's social and emotional development and responses to bullying.

  1.7  Bullying has been an issue of widespread concern worldwide for many decades. A vast number of studies contribute towards outlining the nature of bullying and the problems it causes (Rigby, 2002; Thompson et al., 2002; Smith, 2004). Bullying is a social phenomenon which results in a person being psychologically harmed. Usually, the act of harming is deliberate and results in a person's personal identity being eroded and diminished. Unfortunately, the psychological impact of bullying is often underestimated.

EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

How bullying should be defined

  2.1  Many studies outline the nature of bullying, yet there is no universal agreed definition of bullying or methods to assess it (see Arora, 1996; Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002 for a review). Thus, the rate of prevalence reported in studies of victimization and bullying behaviour is in part dependent on the type of definition used. Early work on bullying focused on physical bullying referring to group violence or direct verbal taunting (Olweus, 1978). Subsequent studies have distinguished between direct and indirect aggression. For example, a study done in Finland by Bjrkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen (1992) distinguished between direct physical aggression (such as punching), direct verbal aggression (including name calling), and indirect aggression. Indirect aggression is of a covert nature where there may be use of third parties in order, for example, to spread nasty rumours to socially exclude individuals. This has also been termed relational bullying where the bully deliberately targets the victim's relationships and attempts to exclude them from membership of a social group (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; 1996; Rivers & Smith, 1994). Relational bullying has been defined by Crick and Grotpeter (1995) as the hurtful manipulation of peer relationships/friendships that inflicts harm on others through behaviours such as "social exclusion" and "malicious rumour spreading". If not specifically prompted to consider other types of bullying children are more likely to restrict their interpretations to incidences of direct bullying (Naylor, Cowie, and Cossin, 2006).

  2.2  Nevertheless the most widely used definition of bullying is that developed by Olweus (1989, 1993, 1999) and slightly extended by Whitney and Smith (1993, p 7).

    "We say a child or young person is being bullied, or picked on when another child or young person, or a group of children or young people, say nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a child or a young person is hit, kicked, threatened, locked inside a room, sent nasty notes, when no-one ever talks to them and things like that. These things can happen frequently and it is difficult for the child or the young person being bullied to defend himself or herself. It is also bullying when a child or young person is teased repeatedly in a nasty way. But it is not bullying when two children or young people of about the same strength have the odd fight or quarrel".

  2.3  Definitions such as that used by Olweus (1999) strongly emphasise direct bullying and aggressive actions. Research reports looking at interactions between gender and forms of bullying suggest that more sensitive definitions maybe required for children to reports on female forms of bullying or more indirect forms of bullying (Owen, Slee, & Shute, 2001). This may be of particular importance in the light of an increase in cyber-bullying eg using emails and mobile phones to socially isolate children (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho & Tippett, 2006). For instance, Charlton (2002) found that nearly half of her sample of 351 primary school children had mobile phones and of those 11% admitted to receiving either a rude message or a threat. Oliver and Canappa (2002) report that 4% of Year 8 pupils received nasty text messages and 2% nasty e-mail messages.

The extent and nature of the problem of bullying in schools

  3.1  Prevalence rates vary according to the method used to assess bullying and victimisation. Five methods are commonly used: 1) children's self-reports (or adult retrospective reports), 2) teacher reports, 3) observational studies, 4) parental interviews/reports, and 5) peer nominations. The most commonly used method of assessing victimisation is from self-report (eg, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). These are most frequently based on questionnaires but may involve interviews. Self-report measures ask youngsters themselves to report whether they have been victimized or bully others. Using self report measures the prevalence of both physical and verbal victimization combined, in primary schools has been estimated to range from 8% to 46% (Smith & Shu, 2000; Wolke & Stanford, 1999; Wolke, Woods, Stanford & Schulz, 2001). In the UK, Whitney, Rivers, Smith and Sharp (1994) found that lower proportions of pupils were self-reporting victimization in secondary schools than in primary schools (20% as opposed to 46%). Slightly lower rates of self reported victimization and bullying were also found in Norway at secondary school level (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Recent research indicates that a proportion of victims are also bullies at other times, ranging from 1% to 19% in primary and secondary schools (see Eslea, Menesini, Morita, O'Moore, Mora-Merchan, Pereira & Smith, 2003 for a review).

  3.2  Self-reports tend to result in higher estimates of victimization than peer ratings (eg, see Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Osterman et al., 1994) and there is a suggestion that self-report maybe overestimated due to "paranoid' reports of victimization (Graham & Junoven, 1998). More recent studies have used peer nomination procedures where children name classmates who fit behavioural descriptions of victimization (eg, Alsaker & Valkanover, 2001; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Egan & Perry, 1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Perry et al., 1988; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). Peer assessments can be administered quickly to a whole class group, increasing reliability through the increased number of opinions received on any one child, even when a single item-scale is used (Naylor, Cowie & Del Rey, 2001; Salmivalli, 1998). The advantages associated with peer reports have meant that they have become an increasingly commonly used method of investigation in research studies.

  3.3  When spontaneous self reporting of bullying, as opposed to self report through use of assessment instruments other factors may influence whether a student reports being bullied. For example, Unnever & Connell (2004) report when surveying 2, 437 students in USA middle schools that 25% of victims said that they had not told anyone that they were being bullied and 40% had not told an adult. The chances of reporting were increased as chronicity of victimization increased, if the child was female and if they were younger. Reporting was less likely when the child perceived the school climate as tolerant of bullying and the home environment as using coercive discipline.

  3.4  When surveys distinguish between bullying that has been short term (for a few months) and long-term (more than one year), it is found that the incidence of the latter in secondary schools is between 4-8%; in large schools this adds up to a large number of children (Thompson et al, 2002). It is likely that relying on figures from schools on the number of pupils who seek help for bullying from staff members, or on teacher estimates of bullying are likely to underestimate prevalence. Schools should be encouraged to use systematic assessment procedures, particularly those involving peers as well as self report, on a whole school basis annually. Pellegrini and Bartini (2000) recommend that ideally multiple informants should be used so that peer, self and teacher are involved and parent views sought.

  3.5  The main problem in asking pupils whether they have been bullied is that their definition of bullying may vary, so accurate figures are difficult to obtain. In order to address this, Arora (1999) devised a Bullying Index based on pupils' definitions, which has been widely used in British schools and abroad. The prime use of the "Life in School" checklist is self-monitoring by schools over successive years of the effectiveness of their anti-bullying policies. One Junior school has consistently used this method for their annual survey of bullying over a period of 12 years and has managed to reduce bullying in their school as a result of this monitoring.

The Extent of homophobic and racist bullying

  4.1  Globally there has been very little research looking at ethnic variables in the context of bullying or victimization risks. There is evidence that children from ethnic minority groups are at a much higher risk of being bullied than others. Testimonies from 7,066 teenagers who had taken part in media-based surveys suggested that 12 to 13% had experienced severe bullying, but this rose to 25% for children from ethnic minority groups (Katz et al, 2001). Racial bullying generally takes the form of placing an individual in a category and then insulting them. The insult then is not only directed at them, but at all those with whom they share similar characteristics, which generally includes their family and friends. Most incidents of racial bullying take place within an institution for example a school, hospital, or a place of work. The context is important, because in many respects it becomes the barrier to identifying and addressing the problem. In part, difficulties arise because of the reluctance of many institutions to accept that this behaviour is occurring within their portals. Thus many institutions fail to recognise that there is a clear relationship between individualised racial bullying and institutional racial bullying. Small-scale studies undertaken by teachers in the central region in the mid 1990's highlighted that racial bullying began at quite an early stage and in Primary Schools a "Them and us" culture had already been established (Gillborn, 1995).

  4.2  Similarly, very little research has been conducted into homophobic bullying in schools. Homophobic bullying is often not what it appears to be, in schools at least. The word "gay" is often used as a general epithet meaning "weak" and not confirming to the usual "macho" standards of behaviour expected from adolescent boys. Used like this, it does not suggest that the victim has any homosexual tendencies in the real sense (Duncan, 1999). However there is evidence that young people who see themselves as "gay" suffer from bullying more frequently than those who identify themselves with the heterosexual majority (Rivers, 2000c). A review by Warwick et al (2004) found estimates of 30 to 50% of young people attracted to others of the same sex in secondary schools having experienced homophobic bullying; 82% of teachers were aware of verbal homophobic bullying and 26% of physical homophobic incidents. Ellis and High (2004) reported that about 31% of respondents indicated teasing, 37% had been verbally abused and 15% had been physically assaulted. The results of studies in the UK, focusing on the experiences of a sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people who were victimized by their peers at school because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation has identified some of the long lasting problems associated with bullying (Rivers 1995a, b; 1996; 2000a,b; 2001). The results suggested that participants' experiences of victimization at school were both long-term (mean duration of five years), and systematic, and were perpetrated by groups of peers rather than by individuals. Significant gender differences were also found with lesbian and bisexual women reporting far more incidents of indirect and relational aggression when compared to gay and bisexual men. Data would suggest that in the intervening twenty years, homophobic bullying has increased rather than decreased.

  4.3  A UK study by Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter (2004) interviewed gay parents on children's experiences of bullying. A particularly prominent concern of parents was a fear of reporting bullying to schools or authorities due to raising issues of bad parenting or accountability.

Why some people become bullies and why some people are bullied

  5.1  There is considerable debate about the reasons why some people are more likely to be bullied or at greater risk of victimization than others. It has been found in some studies that victims have significantly greater social skills problems compared to non-victims, whether rated by peers or by teachers (Fox & Boulton, 2005). Egan and Perry (1998) investigated poor social skills as a mediator for reduced self-concept in victims at primary school age and found a child's self-perceived social competence was significantly linked to self-regard both of which mediated a greater risk of victimization in these children (Egan & Perry, 1998).

  5.2  Higher levels of bullying and victimization of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are increasingly being reported. This is the case whether victimization is assessed through pupil self report, peer report or teacher report (Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993; Whitney, Smith, & Thompson, 1994). Whitney et al. (1994) found that the proportions of pupils with SEN that self-reported victimization were similar for both primary and secondary school age (59% in secondary and 63% in primary). In contrast, non-SEN children showed a decline in victimization with age. Furthermore De Monchy et al. (2004) report data from peers and teachers which suggest that primary school teachers substantially underestimate the extent to which pupils with SEN are victimized in school. Thompson, Whitney, and Smith (1994) identified two possible reasons for the higher incidence of victimization among pupils who have SEN: these pupils are different from others in noticeable ways that may provide a focus for teasing and bullying and/or they have fewer friends and so are less well integrated and protected.

  5.3  Friendship and social status have been another area where evidence suggests both a protective factor and a risk factor. Victims are often at greater "social risk" as they lack supportive friends at school and tend to be more rejected by their peers (Hodges, Malone & Perry, 1997; Ladd, Kochenderfer & Coleman, 1997). However, profiling of secondary pupils has shown that children that continue to be victimized, irrespective of gender, also became more likely to be involved in bullying others (Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor, & Chauhan, 2004). It has also been traditionally argued that bullies are socially unskilled (Hazler, 1996; Randall, 1997). However, more recent studies challenge this assumption. Kaukiainen et al., (2002) found that 11-12-year-old bullies tended to fall into two groups; socially skilled and socially unskilled. Similar findings had also been reported some years previously in 7-10-year-old children (Sutton, Smith & Swettenham, 1999).

  5.4  Bullies may also share certain personality characteristics such as being generally more aggressive. They may come from home backgrounds with generally less affection, more violence and low parental monitoring and where they are exposed to models of parenting that generally encourage aggression and bullying as a means to achieving power (Olweus, 1999). The literature suggests that there are various individual characteristics commonly found in bullies such as a tendency to perceive behavior as provocative (when non-bullies would place a neutral interpretation on it), a need to appear tough in the peer group, a fear of being bullied, little awareness of other's feelings (Boulton & Underwood, 1992) and possibly low levels of anxiety or guilt (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Smith & Sharp, 1994).

SHORT AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS

The effect of bullying on academic achievement, physical and mental health, and social and emotional wellbeing

  6.1 Links between poor attainment outcomes at school and persistent self-reported victimization by peers have been found in western countries at primary school age (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), and secondary school age level (Sharp,1995). Rigby (1999) examined the relationship between peer victimisation and physical and mental health levels in children at secondary school using a longitudinal study. It was found that the degree of reported victimisation in early years of secondary schooling predicted poor physical health of children (both boys and girls) 2 years later, and poor mental health for girls.

  6.2  Being bullied has been linked with low self-esteem, anxiety, impaired concentration, truancy, depression and suicidal thoughts. Hawker and Boulton (2000) carried out a meta-analysis of all cross-sectional studies published between 1987 and 1997 and found that victims of bullying experience more negative feelings, and thoughts about themselves than their non-bullied peers. This was the case for both sexes, in all age groups and from diverse population.

  6.3  Reid (1989) investigated reasons for truancy and found that 15% of persistent truants said they had stayed away from school initially because of being bullied and 19% continued to stay away from school because of this.

Whether and how the effects of being bullied persist into adult life

  7.1  Hugh-Jones & Smith (1999) used retrospective studies from adults that suffered stuttering at school age to determine long-term effects. The majority of these adults reported being victimized as children. The majority reported immediate negative effects from being victimised with also 46% reporting long-term effects of being bullied. More detailed analysis showed that long term effects were predicted by severity of bullying and the protective effects of factors such as friendship making.

The effect of bullying on those who bully

  8.1  Not many studies have appeared on the effects of bullying on those who bully. A large study in Finland of more than 16,000 teenagers found that children who bully are at an increased risk of depression, to the same extent as victims of bullying. Suicidal thoughts, moreover, occurred more amongst those who bully (Kaltiala-Heino et al. 1999). Children who bully may be at a high risk of criminal convictions in later life: 25% of adults identified by peers at age 8 as "bullies" had criminal records, as opposed to 5% who hade not been identified as such (Olweus, 1993).

TACKLING THE PROBLEM

How schools deal with bullying

  9.1  Studies may target the victimized child (eg by trying to improve aspects such as assertiveness), attempt to change in the bullies behaviour or work with the peer group to reduce bystander and supporter behaviour that create a permissive attitude towards bullying (Cowie & Sharp, 1994; Pepler et al., 1994; Salmivalli, 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Stevens, Van Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2000; Sutton & Smith, 1999). Other studies have focused on school policy issues. For example, Adams, Cox & Dunstan (2004) reported that out of 19 schools surveyed in the UK none of them specifically mentioned sexual orientation in the anti-bullying policies. Adams et al., suggest that raising awareness of homophobic bullying and informing whole-school development on such issues is needed.

  9.2  School based bullying intervention programmes have been carried out in various countries worldwide, with mixed findings. The first large-scale Norwegian intervention project, in Bergen (Olweus, 1991), was the most successful with reductions in victimization and bullying rates of 50% or more and in other measures of antisocial behaviour, and an increase in children reporting feeling more satisfied at school. Despite the success of the original Norwegian study only one intervention programme (Ortega & Lera, 2000), carried out in Seville, Spain, has reported comparable declines in bulling behaviour (a change of 57%). Most studies that have used the school based approach have reported more moderate effects. For instance, Whitney et al., (1994) reported that victimization decreased by 14% in primary schools with a 7% reduction in secondary schools. In addition to these more modest intervention effects there are some studies that report few positive outcomes (eg, Pepler et al., 1994) and others that report possible negative effects (eg Munthe, 1989; Whitaker, Rosenbluth, Valle & Sanchez, 2004). More longitudinal designs with follow-up evaluation are required to further identify long-term as well as short-term effects of such programmes (Pepler, Smith, Rigby, 2004).

  9.3  Successful programmes in schools are characterised by high involvement by both staff and pupils, by an emphasis on addressing the problem at an individual, group and whole school level, by a system of sanctions as well as encouragement of prosocial behaviour and by an emphasis on trusting and respectful relationships both between pupils and between pupils and staff (Olweus 1993, Arora, 1994). One difficulty for schools is that having an anti-bullying policy is just one of a continuous series of initiatives that need their involvement and attention. Even when a school has put an anti-bullying policy in place, regular reviews soon cease to be a priority and often disappear altogether (Thompson, 2004).

  9.4  One type of initiative that has had positive impact is when LAs (now Children's Services) have been the prime movers in trying to reduce bullying in their schools. An example of this is Derbyshire's ABC Scheme, which involves more than 200 schools who work towards a series of indicators leading to awards. An evaluation of this suggested that the scheme helped to create a safe environment in which pupils would "tell" and that bullying had been reduced in a large number of schools (Gibson, 2003).

How parents can help if their children are being bullied or are bullying others

  10.1  Parents can help their own children to develop social skills and confidence, by encouraging their children to express their own needs appropriately without hurting others with whom they come into contact. Social learning such as this, is just as relevant at home as it is at school (Randall 1996). Many children don't tell their parents that they are being bullied, so parents need to take the possibility of their child being bullied into account if there are signs such as regular loss of pocket money or dinner money, torn clothes, unexplained upset, truancy, reluctance to go to school or other, sudden, negative changes in behaviour (Besag, 1989).

  10.2  Parents have key role to play in protecting not just their own children but other children who they might hear are the victims of bullying. It is important for schools to create a facility where parents can have immediate access to a highly trained professional who understands the signs and symptoms of bullying, the nature of psychological harm and what action should be undertaken. As well as skilled school staff, parents should be made aware of the availability of an educational psychologist, an education welfare officer or Parent Partnership services. Parents should be given information about the school's anti-bullying policy, and kept informed about how their child is being helped as well as agreeing dates to review the situation. If they hear that the bullying continues or commences again after a period of time, they should be encouraged to contact the school immediately (Thompson et al, 2002). This will avoid a scenario in which the school staff assume that the bullying has stopped, when it is still happening.

  10.3  As part of an anti-bullying strategy (across all age groups, educational settings and Children's Services) it is critical that parents are provided with accurate up-dated information about bullying, its signs and symptoms and what they can do to help their child (or another person's child). In building confidence for parents to approach an educational setting, information and support should be provided to enable parents to remain calm, whilst keeping a record of events and actions to inform and facilitate intervention.

  10.4  It would be appropriate to have a specific "anti-bullying" personalised learning plan for students where there appears to be an unresolved issue relating to bullying. The British Psychological Society would support the development of a targeted process where the parents and child would participate fully in the construction of the anti-bullying plan with clear review procedure. Parent Partnership organisations can go a long way in coordinating strategic responses to patterns of bullying across a local authority, and by working collaboratively with educational settings and other services ensure that the experiences of parents contribute to the overall policy.

What support and guidance the DfES provides to schools and to those affect by bullying, and how effective they are.

  11.1  For more than a decade, the Government has taken serious steps to try to reduce bullying. The initial DfEE publication called Don't Suffer in Silence (DfEE 1994) was sent to all schools alongside the expectation that all schools would have an anti-bullying policy, which should be reviewed at regular intervals. The pack was updated in 2000 and revised in 2002. This time schools had to request the pack, so fewer schools (5,000) received it. A few years later, questionnaires completed by a quarter of a 10% sample suggested that in half of these schools bullying had reduced and none of the schools reported that it had increased (Smith and Samara, 2003). This relatively successful outcome is likely to be because this was a highly motivated group of schools which used many of the suggestions in the pack. In 2003, more emphasis by the Government on anti-bullying policies in Ofsted inspections helped to alert all schools to the need to have these in place. An Ofsted report described good practice in tackling bullying in Secondary schools (Ofsted, 2003). The British Psychological Society supports these strategies, as well as more recent initiatives such as Promoting Emotional Health and Well being (Healthy Schools, 2004), Developing Emotional Health and Well being: a whole school approach to improving behaviour and attendance (2005). The distribution of the SEAL materials to schools is another good DfES initiative. There are plenty of materials in the package on anti-bullying approaches which could form a very helpful base for staff training and further developments in the school.

  11.2  Given that bullying causes psychological harm, anti-bullying policies and initiatives need to be constantly up-dated and remain as a standing priority within any educational setting. Organisational psychology highlights the need for constant monitoring and formative evaluation in order for the anti bullying strategies to be effective. The use of highly trained experts, such as educational psychologists, to support schools' anti bullying policies would go a long way towards ensuring that school environments were attuned (DfES, 2002). Procedures need to be implemented thoroughly and consistently throughout the school community. It is this widespread community involvement in the process, backed up by specific procedures at class and individual level, which appear to be the critical factor in achieving significant shifts in levels of bullying behaviour. (Thompson, Arora and Sharp, 2002)

The role of other organisations, such as non-governmental

  12.1 The Anti-Bullying Alliance was founded by NSPCC and NCB in 2002, and brings together over 50 national organisations from the voluntary and private sectors, local authorities, professional associations and the research community. It aims to reduce bullying and create safer environments in which children and young people can live, grow, play and learn. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development held a conference in Stavanger in 2004 on school bullying and violence and there is international co-operation in researching bullying (Smith et al, 2004).

To what extent schools can be responsible for bullying that takes place off their premises and how they can deal with it

  13.1  Schools are part of the community in which they are located and from which they receive their pupils. By attending the school, pupils bring the community into the school. Legally schools may not have a duty to stop bullying by and against their pupils outside their premises, but it makes moral and practical sense to try and influence interactions within the community in a positive way (Randall, 1996). Often, bullying incidents in school may have been triggered by events outside the school, and carry on outside school hours, so it is very difficult to draw the line as to when staff should not try to exert a positive influence. With community support actively encouraged and written into the school's anti-bullying policy, it will be easier for the school to reduce bullying amongst its pupils.

Whether particular strategies need to be used to tackle homophobic and racist bullying

  14.1  Homophobic bullying in teenagehood attacks a person who is already vulnerable in trying to establish a sexual identity for themself which is not shared by the majority of others of their age. In both cases, self-esteem may suffer even more than in other cases of bullying. Hence, sensitive support for the victim is necessary. It is also necessary for schools to strive to discuss matters of sexual orientation in an open and positive manner, so that a more accepting climate can be established. Local authority support service staff need to ensure that they are fully aware of issues related to psychosexual development in childhood and adolescents and that they have appropriate policies and codes of conduct and practice in place. Ryan (2001) points out that, with few exceptions, most support staff working with schools lack knowledge about LGB people, are usually ambivalent about the needs of LGB people, and may hold stereotyped attitudes and beliefs.

  14.2  Educational psychologists are well placed to provide an understanding of the psychological impact of bullying and lead developments in local authorities through:

    —  raising the issue of homophobic behaviour and its implications;

    —  Providing advice and guidance, consultation, individual, group and family based work and training in order to raise awareness among school staff, school governors and parents/care-givers of the needs of LGBT students;

    —  Supporting the development of comprehensive equal opportunities and pastoral care policies;

    —  Advising on materials and resources that lead to a greater understanding of discrimination against LGBT pupils;

    —  Setting up and running group support programmes such as that described by Monsen and Bailey (in press—2007) for those young people who are finding it particularly difficult to develop a positive sense of themselves;

    —  Encouraging schools to work with appropriate and relevant LGBT community support groups.

  14.3  Racist bullying and harassment constitutes an attack on the person's identity as part of a group and therefore can also be very hurtful. Good community relationships are vital for influencing the pupils in the school to respect each other's culture and religious practices. The Hampton report (1998) enquired of young people the strategies they felt which might be employed to usefully address racial bullying. 72% of the 12-20-year-olds were of the opinion that teachers and pupils needed to begin to tackle this at pre school level. In addition there needs to be:

    —  Training for staff to raise their awareness.

    —  Clearly defined and articulated procedures in place to challenge racism.

    —  Support for those who face racism.

  In addition to the above recommendations, we would suggest the following strategies as important in tackling homophobic and racist bullying:

    —  Having a standing agenda item on the school council.

    —  Eliciting the views of parents.

    —  Responding to individual incidents in a rigorous way to assess and address any trends that may be developing.

October 2006



REFERENCES

Adams, N, T Cox, and L Dunstan (2004). "I Am the Hate that Dare Not Speak its Name: Dealing with homophobia in secondary schools." Educational Psychology in Practice, 20, 3, 259-69.

Alsaker, F D and Valkanover S (2001). Early Diagnosis and Prevention of Victimization in Kindergarten. Eds J & Graham S Juvonen. Chapter 7, 175-95.

Arora, C M J (1996). Defining Bullying. Towards a Clearer General Understanding and More Effective Intervention Strategies. School Psychology International, 17, 4, 317-29.

Arora, T (1994). Is there any point in trying to reduce bullying in secondary schools? Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 3.

Arora, T (1999). Levels of Bullying Measured by British Schools Using the Life in School Checklist: A Case for Benchmarking? Pastoral Care in Education, 17, 1, 17-22

Austin, S and S Joseph (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-56.

Besag, V (1989). Bullies and Victims in Schools. Milton Keynes: OUP

Bjrkqvist, K, Lagerspetz, K M J and Osterman, K. (1992). Direct and indirect aggression scale (DIAS).

Boulton, M J and P K Smith (1994). Bully/Victim Problems in Middle School Children: Stability, Self-perceived competence, Peer Perceptions and Peer Acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 3, 315-29.

Buhs, E S and G Ladd (2001). Peer Rejection as an Antecedent of Young Children's School Adjustment: An Examination of Mediating Processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 4, 550-60.

Cernkovich, S A and P C Giordano (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 2, 261-91.

Charlton, C (2002) Mobile telephone ownership and usage among 10-and 11-year-olds: participation and exclusion. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 7, 3, 152-163.

Clarke, V, C Kitzinger, and J Potter (2004). Kids are just cruel anyway': Lesbian and gay parents' talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 3, 531-50.

Cowie, H & Sharp, S (1994). Tackling bullying through the curriculum. In P K Smith and S Sharp (eds). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London Routledge, 84-107.

Crick, N R, J F Casas, and M Mosher (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 4, 579-88.

Crick, N R, & Grotpeter, J K (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

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

de Monchy M, S J Pijl, and T Zandberg (2004). Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 3, 317-30.

Department for Education and Employment (1994). "Don't suffer in silence". DfEE, London

Department for Education and Employment (2000). "Don't suffer in silence" (second edition). DfEE, London.

Department for Education and Employment (2001). Promoting Children's Mental Health within Early Years and School Settings. DfES 0121/2001

Department for Education and Skills (2005). Developing emotional health and well being: a whole-school approach to improving behaviour and attendance: behaviour and attendance training materials—Core Day 4. DfES 0182—2005 G.

Duncan, N (1999) Sexual Bullying: Gender conflict and Pupil Culture in Secondary schools. London: Routledge.

Egan, S and D G Perry (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 2, 299-309.

Eslea, M, Menesini, E, O'Moore, M, Mora-Merchan, P, Pereira, P and Smith, P (2003) Friendship and Loneliness Among Bullies and Victims: Data From Seven Countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 1, 71-83.

Fox, C L and M J Boulton (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 313-28.

Gibson, C (2003). An Evaluative Study of Derbyshire's Anti-Bullying Commitment (ABC) Quality Assurance Scheme. Unpublished MSc Dissertation. Sheffield University.

Gillborn, D. (1995). Racism and Anti-racism in Real schools. Open University Press.

Graham, J and J Juvonen (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 3, 587-99.

Hazler, R J (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence: Interventions for bullying and victimization. Washington, DC: Accelerated Development.

Hampton, K (1998) Youth and Racism: Perception and Experiences of Young People in Glasgow. Scottish Ethnic Minorities Research Unit: Glasgow Caledonian University.

Hawker, D S J & Boulton, M J (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 4, 441-455.

Healthy Schools (2004) Promoting emotional health and wellbeing through the National Healthy School Standard. Crown Copyright: DoH and DfES.

Hodges, E V E, M J Malone, and D G Perry (1997). Individual Risk and Social Risk as Interacting Determinants of Victimization in the Peer Group. Developmental Psychology, 33, 6, 1032-39.

Hugh-Jones, S and P. K Smith (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 2, 141-58.

Juvonen, J, Nishina, A, & Graham, S (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349-359.

Katz, A Buchanan, A & Bream, V (2001). Bullying in Britain: Testimonies from Teenagers. East Molesey: Young Voice.

Kaukiainen, A, Salmivalli, C, Largerspetz, K, Taminen, M, Vaura, H, & Poskiparta, E (2002). Learning Difficulties, Social Intelligence, and Self-Concept: Connections to Bully-Victim Problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269-278,

Kaltiala-Heino, R, Rimpela, M, Marttunen, M, Rimpela, A and Rantanen (1999). Bullying Depression and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: school survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348-351.

Kochenderfer, B J, & Ladd, G W (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.

Ladd, G W, B J Kochenderfer, and C C Coleman (1997). Classroom Peer Acceptance, Friendship, and Victimization: Distinct Relational Systems That Contribute Uniquely to Children's School Adjustment? Child Development, 68, 6, 1181-97.

Ladd, G W and B Kochenderfer-Ladd (2002). Identifying Victims of Peer Aggression From Early to Middle Childhood: Analysis of Cross-Informant Data for Concordance, Estimation of Relational Adjustment, Prevalence of Victimization, and Characteristics of Identified Victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 1, 74-96.

Monks, C P, P K Smith, and J Swettenham (2003). Aggressors, Victims, and Defenders in Preschool: Peer, Self-, and Teacher Reports. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 4, 453-69.

Munthe, E (1989). Bullying in Scandinavia. In E Roland & E Munthe (Eds), Bullying: An international perspective. London: David Fulton. 66-78.

Mynard, H, & Joseph, S (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck's personality dimensions in 8- to 13-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 51-54.

Nabuzoka, D and P K Smith (1993). Sociometric Status and Social Behaviour of Children with and without Learning Difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 8, 1435-48.

Naylor, A, H Cowie, and F Cossin (2006). Bullying still too narrowly defined by some teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 553-76.

Naylor, P, H Cowie, and R del Rey (2001). Coping Strategies of Secondary School Children in Response to Being Bullied. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6, 3, 114-20.

Nguy, L and C Hunt (2004). Ethnicity and bullying: A study of Australian high-school students. Educational and Child Psychology, 21, 4, 78-94.

Ofsted (2003) Bullying: Effective Action in Secondary Schools. London: Ofsted.

Olweus, D (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere (Wiley).

Olweus, D (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: definitions and measurements. In: Klein M W, (Eds), Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

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

Olweus, D (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D Pepler and K Rubin (eds), The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 411-448.

Olweus, D (1999). Sweden. In P K Smith, Y Morita, J Junger-Tas, D Olweus, R Catalano, & P Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. 7-27. New York: Routledge.

Ortega, R and M J Lera (2000). The Seville anti-bullying in school project. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 113-23.

O­sterman, K, Bjorkqvist, K, Lagerspetz, K, Kaukiainen, A, Juesmann, R, & Fraczek, A (1994). Peer and self-estimated aggression and victimization in 8-year-old children from five ethnic groups. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 411-428.

Owen, L, Slee., P & Shute, R (2001). Victimization among teenage girls. What can be done about indirect harassment? In J Juvonen and S Graham. (eds). Peer harassment in schools. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York, Guilford Press.

Pellegrini, A, & Bartini, M (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37,3, 699-725.

Pepler, D J, W M Craig, and A Charach (1994). An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 2, 95-110.

Pepler, D J, J D Smith, and K Rigby (2004). Looking Back and Looking Forward: Implications for Making Interventions Work Effectively. In P K Smith, D Pepler, and K Rigby (Eds). UK: Cambridge University Press, 307-24.

Perren, S and F D Alsaker (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 47, 1, 45-57.

Perry, D G, S J Kusel, and L C Perry (1988). Victims of Peer Aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 6, 807-14.

Randall, P (1996). A Community Approach to Bullying. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Randall, P (1997). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge.

Reid, K (1989). Bullying and Persistent Absenteeism. In D Tattum and D Lane (eds) Bullying in Schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books

Rigby, K (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 95-104.

Rivers, I (1995a). The victimization of gay teenagers in school. Pastoral Care in Education, 13, 1, 35-41.

Rivers, I (1995b). Mental health issues among young lesbians and gay men bullied at school. Health and Social Care in the Community, 3,6, 380-383.

Rivers, I (1996) Young, gay and bullied. Young People Now, 81 (January), 18-19.

Rivers, I (2000a). School exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning: British Journal of Learning Support, 15, 1, 13-18.

Rivers, I (2000b). The long term consequences of bullying. In C Neal and D Davies (Eds), Issues in Therapy with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Clients: Pink Therapy Volume III. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp 146-159.

Rivers, I (2000c) Retrospective reports of bullying at school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 20-27

Rivers, I (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term correlates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 33-46.

Rivers, I, & Smith, P K (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive Behaviour, 20, 359-368.

Robinson, J A (1998). The Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Children's Peer Relations. In P T Slee and K Rigby (eds). London, New York: Routledge, 76-88.

Salmivalli, C (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: implications for interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 4, 453-59.

Salmivalli, C, Lagerspetz, K, Bjorkqvist, K, Osterman, K, & Kaukiainen, A (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.

Salmivalli, C, Lagerspetz, K, & Lagerspetz, K M J (1998). Stability and change of behaviour in connection with bullying in schools: a two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behaviour, 24, 205-218.

Salmivalli, C and E Nieminen. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30-44.

Schuster, B (1996). Rejection, exclusion, and harassment at work and in schools. Eur Psychologist, 1, 293-317.

Sharp, S (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal wellbeing and educational progress of secondary aged students. Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 81-88.

Smith, P, Mahdavi, J, Carvalho, M, & Tippett (2006). An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. A report for the Anti-Bullying Alliance.

http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk

Smith, P K, Pepler, D K and Rigby, K (eds.) (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P K and Samara, M (2003). Research Brief: Evaluation of the DfES anti-bullying pack. London: Goldsmith's College.

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

Smith, P K and S Shu (2000). What good schools can do about bullying. Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 2, 193-212.

Smith, P K, Talamelli, L, Cowie, H, Naylor, P, & Chauhan, P (2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565-81.

Smith, P K (2004). Bullying: Recent Developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 3, 98-103.

Smith, P K, Cowie, H, Olafsson, F R, and Liefooghe, A P D (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender difference, in a Fourteen-Country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 4, 1119-33.

Solberg, M E and D Olweus. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behaviour, 29, 239-68.

Stevens, V, I De Bourdeaudhuij, and P Van Oost. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195-210.

Sutton, J and P K Smith. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach. Aggressive Behaviour. 25, 97-111.

Sutton, J, Smith, P K and Swettenham, J (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435-50.

Thompson, D, I Whitney, and P K Smith. (1994). Bullying of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 9, 9, 103-06.

Thompson, D Arora, T and Sharp, S (2002) Bullying. Effective Strategies for long-term improvement. London: Routledge Falmer.

Thompson, D (2004). Anti-bullying policies: Worth the paper they are written on? ACCP Occasional Papers no 23. Bullying in Schools: 27-34.

Unnever, J D and D G Cornell. (2004). Middle School Victims of Bullying: Who Reports Being Bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 5, 373-88.

Whitaker, D J, Rosenbluth, B, Valle, L A, & Sanchez, E (2004). Expect Respect: A School-Based Intervention to Promote Awareness and Effective Responses to Bullying and Sexual Harassment. In D L Espelage and S M Swearer (eds). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 327-50.

Whitaker, P (2004). Fostering communication and shared play between mainstream peers and children with autism: approaches, outcomes and experiences. British Journal of Special Education, 31, 4, 215-22.

Whitney, I, Rivers, I, Smith, P K, & Sharp, S (1994). The Sheffield Project: Methodology and Findings. In P K Smith and S Sharp (eds). London; New York: Routledge, 1994. 20-56.

Wolke, D, Woods, S, Bloomfield, L & Karstadt, L (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 84, 3, 197-201.

Wolke, D and K Stanford. (1999). Bullying in School Children. In D Messer and S Millar (eds). London, Sydney, Auckland: Oxford University Press Inc, 1999. 342-60.

Wolke, D, Woods, S, Bloomfield, L & Karstadt, L (2000). The Association between Direct and Relational Bullying and Behaviour Problems among Primary School Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 8, 989-1002.

Wolke, D, Woods, S, Stanford, K Schulz, H (2001). Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 673-696.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 27 March 2007