ERIC EJ853630: Efforts to Address Bullying in U.S. Schools

7 Pages·2003·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

Efforts to Address Bullying in U.S. Schools
Susan P. Limber
ABSTRACT
Bullying among children and youth has received considerable recent attention by educators, policy makers, health
and mental health professionals, the media, and the general public. Recent legislation pertaining to bullying is
reviewed, and current school-based bullying prevention and intervention strategies are described and critiqued. A
number of common misdirections in efforts to address bullying are presented. Research to date suggests that com-
prehensive bullying prevention efforts, which involve the entire school community, hold the most promise for chang-
ing the norms for behavior and ultimately the prevalence of bullying in schools.
Although bullying among children and ing been bullied “sometimes” or more fre- friendships (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1992).
youth is hardly a new phenomenon, it has quently during the school term, and 19% Research examining the health effects of bul-
received increased attention in recent years reported bullying others “sometimes” or lying reveals that victims report poorer gen-
by educators, policy makers, health and more often. Six percent of the students re- eral health (Rigby, 1996), experience more
mental health professionals, the media, and ported both bullying and having been bul- migraine headaches , and report more sui-
the general public. The recent legislation lied by peers with some regularity. Similar cidal ideation (Rigby & Slee, 1999) than their
pertaining to bullying is likely attributable rates of bullying were found by Melton et non-bullied peers. Clearly, the educational,
to both a stronger research base regarding al. (1998) in their study of 6,500 students emotional, and physical costs of bullying on
bullying (e.g., its prevalence and effects) and in grades four through six in rural South victims can be great.
highly publicized reports from the media Carolina. In this sample, 23% of students Not only may bullying significantly affect
and the U.S. Secret Service (Vossekuil, Fein, reported having been bullied “several times” children who are direct victims, but bully-
Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002) sug- or more often in the preceding three ing that is persistent and pervasive may seri-
gesting that many perpetrators of school months, and nine percent reported being ously erode the entire climate of a school if
shootings had felt persecuted, bullied, or the victim of frequent bullying (once per unchecked (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon,
threatened by their peers. week or more often). One student in five 2000; Hoover & Hazler, 1991). Bystanders to
reported bulling others “several times” or bullying may feel distress in witnessing the
THE NATURE AND PREVALENCE OF more over a three month period. torment of peers and may exhibit anxiety at
BULLYING AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN Effects of bullying. Not only have recent the prospect of being a future target for bul-
There is general agreement among re- studies documented that bullying is preva- lies. Moreover, if adults or students do not
searchers in defining bullying as aggressive lent among children and youth, but research intervene to address bullying, students who
behavior that (a) is intended to cause harm, findings also have revealed that bullying may are bystanders may perceive that adults ei-
(b) exists in a relationship in which there is seriously affect the academic work, the psy- ther are unconcerned about the behaviors or
an imbalance of power, and (c) occurs re- chosocial functioning, and the physical are powerless to change students’ behaviors.
peatedly, over time . The most common health of children who are targeted by their Research focused on children who bully
forms of bullying include the use of words peers. Children who are bullied by their peers also raises significant concerns. Research-
(taunting, teasing) (Olweus, 1993; Melton are more likely than non-bullied children to ers have observed that children and youth
et al., 1998; Unnever, 2001), but bullying report wanting to avoid attending school and who bully are more likely than their peers
also includes physical actions (e.g., hitting, have been found to have higher rates of to be engaged in other antisocial behaviors
kicking, shoving, or other forms of vio- school absenteeism . Bully victimization also such as theft, vandalism (Olweus, 1993),
lence), and more subtle behaviors, such as has been found to be linked to lower self- alcohol consumption (Nansel et al., 2001),
social exclusion or the manipulation of esteem , higher rates of depression, loneli- truancy , fighting (Nansel, Overpeck,
friendships (Olweus, 1993). ness (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Nansel et Haynie, Ruan, & Scheidt, 2003; Olweus,
Recent research indicates that bullying al., 2001), and anxiety (Craig, 1998; Hodges 1993) and drop-out from school (Byrne,
is a fairly common experience among & Perry, 1996; Olweus, 1978; Rigby & Slee,
American school children. In a nationally 1993). Adolescents who have been bullied Susan P. Limber, PhD, is with the Institute on
representative sample of 15,600 students in have reported that the victimization caused Family & Neighborhood Life, 158 Poole Agri-
grades six through 10, Nansel et al. (2001) significant problems for them, including feel- cultural Center, Clemson University, Clemson,
found that 17% of the youth reported hav- ings of isolation, hopelessness, and a loss of SC 29634. E-mail: [email protected].
American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5 S—23
Susan P. Limber
1994). Children who bully their peers are physical strength (for boys) (Olweus, 1993). several other states have considered such
more likely to have carried weapons (Nansel Familial predictors of bullying include a bills (Limber & Small, in press). Several state
et al., 2003) and report high-risk gun own- lack of positive adult role models (Espelage statutes (e.g., New Hampshire, Vermont,
ership (Cunningham, Henggeler, Limber, et al., 2000), little adult supervision West Virginia) include pointed language
Melton & Nation, 2000). In a study of fifth, (Espelage et al., 2000; Olweus, 1993), a lack about the harms caused by bullying and the
sixth, and seventh grade students in the ru- of parental warmth (Olweus, 1993), a lack need to make bullying prevention a prior-
ral south, Cunningham et al. (2000) found of clear rules to guide children’s behavior ity. The language in the West Virginia stat-
that high-risk gun owners (those who (Olweus, 1993), and the use of corporal ute is noteworthy:
owned guns to gain respect or frighten oth- punishment (Espelage, 2000; Olweus, “The Legislature finds that harassment,
ers) reported higher rates of bullying than 1993). Baldy and Farrington (1998) ob- intimidation or bullying…is conduct that
did low-risk gun owners (those who owned served that children who were bully/victims disrupts both a student’s ability to learn
guns to feel safe or to use for hunting or were more likely than other peers (includ- and a school’s ability to educate its stu-
target-shooting) or those who did not own ing children who were only bullies or only dents in a safe, nonthreatening environ-
guns. Finally, at least one study suggests that victims) to have authoritarian parents. ment” (West Virginia Code Ann., 2001).
boys who take part in frequent bullying are Children who bully also are more likely Similarly, legislators in New Hampshire
at increased risk for engaging criminal be- than their non-bullying peers to report be- state that:
havior as adults. In a longitudinal study of ing exposed to negative peer influences
“All pupils have the right to attend public
boys in Norway, Olweus (1993) found that (Espelage, 2000; Olweus, 1993) (e.g., have
schools that are safe, secure, and peaceful.
individuals who were identified as bullies peers who have damaged or destroyed prop-
One of the legislature’s highest priorities
in middle school were four times as likely erty, are involved in gang activities, or bully
must be to protect our children from vio-
as their peers to have three or more crimi- others). Perhaps not surprisingly, risk fac-
lence by dealing with harassment, includ-
nal convictions by the age of 24. tors for bullying also exist within the school
ing ‘bullying’ in our public schools” (New
Research suggests that there is particu- and surrounding community. School-level
Hampshire Review of Statutes Ann., 2000).
lar reason to be concerned about children risk factors include a lack of adult supervi-
Although legislative findings such as these
who both bully and also are bullied (re- sion and indifferent attitudes of students
do not carry the weight of law (e.g., they nei-
ferred to as bully-victims, aggressive vic- and school staff toward bullying (Olweus,
ther prohibit behavior nor proscribe specific
tims, or provocative victims) (Anderson et 1993; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999).
action), they nonetheless are important in
al., 2001; Kumpulainen & Räsänen, 2000; Espelage and colleagues (2000) found that
reflecting current societal concerns and in
Limber, 2002; Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini, students who expressed concerns about the
providing a rationale for a legislature’s ac-
1998). These children appear more vulner- safety of their neighborhood reported en-
tions (Limber & Small, in press).
able to negative outcomes than either pas- gaging in more bullying behavior.
sive victims of bullying or children who In light of recent public attention to bul- DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL POLICIES,
bully (Pellegrini, 1998). They tend to dis- lying and research findings that highlight SAFETY PLANS, AND PROGRAMS TO
play the socio-emotional problems of vic- its prevalence, negative effects, and risk fac- ADDRESS BULLYING.
timized children as well as the behavior tors, many educators, policy makers, and Most statutes either require or encourage
problems of bullies (Nansel et al., 2001). practitioners have focused their attention development of model policies, safety plans,
Risk factors for bullying peers. A substan- on development of policies and programs and/or programs that address bullying
tial body of research supports the conclu- to address bullying among school children. among school children. For example, Colo-
sion that antisocial behavior among chil- This article will briefly review recent efforts rado law (Colorado Review of Statutes, 2001)
dren results from an interaction between by legislators to stimulate effective re- requires that “on and after August 8, 2001,
the individual and his or her social ecol- sponses to bullying and will describe and [the conduct and discipline code at each
ogy—the family, peer group, school, and evaluate several common approaches to school shall include] a specific policy con-
community (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, bullying prevention and intervention in cerning bullying prevention and education.”
1999). Similarly, research focused specifi- American schools. Finally, several implica- Each school must submit a yearly written
cally on bullying indicates that there are tions for health educators will be discussed. report to his or her local board of education
individual, familial, peer, school, and com- detailing the schools’ policy concerning bul-
munity factors that place a youth at risk for STATUTORY RESPONSES TO BULLYING lying, “including information related to the
bullying his or her peers. Individual risk In a recent review of legislation in all 50 development and implementation of any
factors for bullying include an impulsive, states, at least 14 states have passed laws bullying prevention programs.”
dominant personality and lack of empathy, that addressed bullying behaviors among Requirements to report and track bullying.
positive attitudes toward violence, and school children, and legislative bodies in Several state laws include provisions that ei-
S—24 American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5
Susan P. Limber
ther mandate or encourage individuals to consistent with each other and with com- For these schools, “business as usual” con-
report school bullying incidents to authori- monly-accepted definitions of bullying sists of individual staff members dealing
ties (e.g., Connecticut, New Hampshire, New from the research community (Limber & with bullying as they encounter it, but with-
Jersey, New York, Washington, and West Vir- Small, in press). Moreover, most statutes out administrators developing an organized
ginia) (Limber & Small, in press). One of the provide little or no direction as to the types approach to bullying prevention (Limber,
most detailed laws pertaining to bullying pre- of programs and policies that may be most in press). A lack of attention to bullying
vention and intervention was enacted re- effective in addressing bullying. Schools problems may occur for any of several rea-
cently in Connecticut (An Act Concerning currently implement a wide variety of in- sons. Some staff members believe that bul-
Bullying Behavior in Schools and Concern- terventions intended to address bullying. lying is a rare occurrence in their schools.
ing the Pledge of Allegiance, 2002). This stat- Although some are based on programs with Others minimize the effects of bullying on
ute requires all local and regional boards of proven effectiveness, other strategies and children or believe that it is important for
education to develop policies to address bul- programs lack any research base. Still oth- children to learn to take care of themselves
lying, which will: (a) encourage reporting of ers are premised on common mispercep- and cope with bullying on their own (Chase,
bullying by students and parents, (b) require tions about bullying. 2001; Horne & Orpinas, 2003). Still others
all school staff who witness bullying to re- recognize the problems associated with bul-
port it to administrators, (c) require admin- WHAT ARE SCHOOLS DOING TO lying but are uncertain how to best address
istrators to investigate reports of bullying, ADDRESS BULLYING? them. Efforts to educate school staff about
(d) “include an intervention strategy for Although many schools implemented the prevalence of bullying and its effects on
school staff to deal with bullying,” (e) include anti-bullying policies and programs prior children are critical first steps if common
language related to bullying in codes govern- to the passage of state mandates, the influ- misperceptions are to be corrected.
ing student conduct, (f) require that all par- ence of anti-bullying legislation undoubt- Finally, many school personnel do not
ents of affected students (bullies and victims) edly has spurred many other administrators address bullying problems explicitly but feel
be notified, and (g) require that each school to take action. Before describing some of that they do so implicitly through existing
keep a public list of the verified acts of bul- the more common approaches to bullying violence prevention programs. Unfortu-
lying committed. prevention and intervention in public nately, as will be described in more detail
The state of Georgia has passed the most schools, it is important to note several is- below, not all violence prevention and inter-
punitive anti-bullying law. According to sues that may influence what schools do. vention strategies are appropriate for cases
Georgia law (Georgia Code Ann., 2001), each First, there is very little information avail- of bullying. Interventions must take into
local board of education must detail a pro- able that documents and evaluates school account that: (a) most cases of bullying do
cedure by which any student in grades six policies and practices related to bullying. not involve physical violence, (b) bullying
through 12 who has committed an offense One recent survey from the Centers for Dis- exists in a relationship in which there is a
of physical bullying for the third time in a ease Control and Prevention School Health power imbalance, and (c) bullying is repeated
school year be assigned to an alternative Policies and Program Study (Small, Jones, over time.
school. As will be discussed in more detail Barrios et al., 2001) found that 63% of all Awareness-raising efforts. Increasingly,
below, such laws may have negative unin- elementary and middle/junior high schools administrators are recognizing that bullying
tended consequences, such as discouraging participate in a program to prevent bully- not only exists but that it has harmful effects
students and staff from reporting known or ing. Most schools surveyed (93.5%) pro- on victims, bystanders, and the entire school
suspected bullying, and isolating children hibit harassment of students by other stu- (Limber, 2002). In response, many adminis-
who exhibit antisocial behavior from the dents. We do not know with much precision trators have sought to raise awareness of staff
positive influences of pro-social peers (Lim- the extent to which all schools are adopting and students to bullying issues through
ber, 2002; Limber & Small, in press). and enforcing bullying strategies. Second, teacher in-services, student assemblies, and
Although laudable in their intent, many consistent with research findings that bully parent meetings. Such efforts represent im-
statutes provide little guidance for educa- victimization may be more common among portant initial steps in increasing knowledge
tors seeking to comply with them. For elementary and middle school children than and understanding of the problem among
example, many statutes fail to define bully- high school students , most school-based staff, students, and parents. These efforts also
ing, leaving it unclear whether their provi- efforts (particularly bullying prevention may be important elements of more com-
sions pertain only to physical bullying or programs) have been targeted at elementary prehensive bullying prevention efforts within
to other more subtle forms of bullying as and middle school grades. a school. However, such activities cannot be
well (e.g., verbal bullying or non-verbal Third, staff in many schools may be do- expected to have significant impact by them-
threats, and social exclusion). Those laws ing little or nothing to address bullying, or selves (Chase, 2001).
that do define bullying frequently are in- are likely to be ignoring policy development. Reporting and tracking. Many schools
American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5 S—25
Susan P. Limber
attempt to report and track bullying inci- is not an effective mode of preventing bully- been bullied (Cohen, 2002; Limber, 2002,
dents accurately when they occur. As noted ing (see also Conolly, Hindmand, Jacobs, & Limber, in press) because of the imbalance
above, several state legislatures encourage Gagnon, 1997). of power that exists between the two parties.
or mandate reporting and tracking bully- Therapeutic treatment for bullies. Other Curricular approaches. In recent years, a
ing behaviors but provide little or no guid- common bullying interventions include number of curricular and psycho-educa-
ance in how best to do so. The Centers for therapeutic treatment for children who tional approaches to bullying prevention
Disease Control and Prevention recently has bully. Although individual and/or family and intervention have been developed (e.g.,
encouraged school injury reporting guide- counseling with children who bully may be Bully Busters [Newman, Horne, &
lines that would include bullying informa- an important component of a school’s bul- Bartolomucci, 2000]; Bully Free Classroom
tion (Barrios, Sleet, & Mercy, 2003; Centers lying prevention/intervention approach [Beane, 1999]; Bullyproof [Stein & Sjostrom,
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001). (Oliver, Oaks, & Hoover, 1994; Olweus, 1996], No Putdowns [Contact Community
Currently there is no consistency among 2001), some therapeutic interventions (e.g., Services, 1991]; and Quit It! [Froschl,
schools (even among schools within a single anger management classes and self-esteem Spring, Mullin-Rindler, Stien, & Sjostrom,
school district) in their reporting proce- enhancement sessions) are premised on 1998]). Such curricula share a number of
dures. Moreover, there is little agreement misconceptions about characteristics and common themes and/or strategies, includ-
about the reporting threshold for bullying, motivations of children who bully, and ing: (a) increasing students’ and adults’ un-
either in terms of frequency or seriousness. these are likely to be ineffective. Contrary derstanding of bullying, (b) exploring the
For example, some schools might report a to the assumptions of many, anger is likely effects of bullying on its victims, (c) teach-
bullying incident only if it involves physi- not a primary motivating factor for most ing strategies for victims to avoid/address
cal violence. Reporting of bullying incidents children who bully . Similarly, most research bullying, (d) increasing students’ under-
is an important element of a broader school indicates that children who bully have av- standing of children who bully, (e) increas-
and community-based prevention and in- erage or above average self-esteem . Thus, ing motivation for (and skills of) bystand-
tervention effort. However, reporting alone using anger management and/or self-es- ers to intervene in bullying, and (f) building
does little to reduce the frequency and na- teem enhancement training for children a sense of cohesion among students within
ture of bullying. As Spicer, Young, Sheppard who bully may not work to prevent bully- a class. Several provide detailed manuals for
et al. (2003) report, data must be used to ing. When such interventions involve group teachers (e.g., Bully Busters, Bully Free Class-
make a convincing argument for school treatment with children who bully, there is room). For example, the Bully Busters
policies and practices. particular cause for concern. Even with manual provides detailed background in-
School exclusion. In some communities, skilled adult facilitators, students’ behavior formation for teachers on such topics as
tracking of bullying incidents may lead to ex- may, in fact, further deteriorate as group “assisting victims” and “increasing aware-
clusion of a student from public school. “Zero members frequently serve as role models ness of bullying” and also includes class-
tolerance” or “three strikes” policies for physi- and reinforcers for each others’ bullying room activities on all topics which are de-
cal bullying are mandated in Georgia and in a behavior (Limber, 2002, Limber, in press). signed to engage students in bullying
number of other local communities. Although Mediation and conflict resolution. Media- prevention and to strengthen the teacher
the motivation for such policies is understand- tion and conflict resolutions techniques are and student relationship (Newman, Horne,
able, they raise a number of serious concerns also common strategies used by school per- & Bartolomucci, 2000). The Bully Busters
(Limber, 2002; Limber, in press). First, they sonnel to address aggressive behavior program also offers two days of staff devel-
may cast a very large net, as numerous chil- among school children (Webster, 1993), but opment training and encourages staff to
dren within any given school bully their peers. their use to address bullying problems is ill- take part in support team meetings. It rep-
Second, they may discourage reporting of sus- advised, for several reasons (Cohen, 2002; resents one of the most comprehensive of
pected bullying by children and adults who Limber, 2002, Limber, in press). Although the available curricular models.
are reluctant to see students receive harsh such approaches may be appropriate to re- Research on the effectiveness of curricu-
punishment for their behavior (Mulvey & solve conflicts between peers of relatively lar approaches to bullying prevention cur-
Cauffman, 2001). Finally, they may negatively equal power, they are inappropriate when rently is scant, although two recent evalua-
affect the educational opportunities of stu- used to try to resolve situations that involve tions of Bully Busters produced promising
dents who are suspended, expelled, or sent to victimization, such as bullying. Not only results (Newman & Horne, in press; Howard,
alternative settings and seriously limit their may conflict resolution and mediation Horne, & Jolliff, 2001). In two small-scale
exposure to peers who may model more strategies send inappropriate messages to studies involving 41 middle school teachers,
prosocial behavior. In rare cases, public safety victims and bullies (e.g., “We need to work the program appeared effective in increas-
may demand that a student be excluded from out this conflict between you.”), but they ing teachers’ knowledge of and use of bully-
a public school. However, student exclusion also may further victimize a child who has ing intervention skills, teachers’ sense of
S—26 American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5
Susan P. Limber
self-efficacy in working with students, and ing the broader school environment, the (Black, 2003), have produced promising
reducing the rate of bullying incidents (as best researched is the Olweus Bullying Pre- results. After one year of implementation,
measured by teachers’ disciplinary referrals) vention Program. The Olweus program in- Melton et al. (1998) observed significant
several months after the program had been cludes school-wide interventions, interven- reductions in students’ self-reports of bul-
initiated. Although these findings are prom- tions within the classroom, and individual lying behavior and significant reductions in
ising, additional large-scale studies are interventions with children who bully and self-reported delinquency, vandalism,
needed to test the efficacy of this and other who are bullied. Important school-wide school misbehavior, and punishment for
curricular strategies over time. interventions include conducting an anony- school-related misbehavior among inter-
Comprehensive approaches. Several mous survey of students regarding the na- vention versus comparison schools. Most
school-wide, comprehensive, bullying pre- ture and prevalence of bullying at their recently, Black (2003) observed significant
vention programs have been developed, school, establishing a team at the school to reductions in self-reported bullying and vic-
which include curriculum or classroom-level examine findings from the survey and co- timization and in adult observation of bul-
interventions but also include interventions ordinate bullying prevention efforts with lying among those elementary schools in
targeted at the broader school environment other violence prevention and/or safety- Philadelphia that implemented the Olweus
(e.g., Bully-Proofing Your Elementary School promotion efforts within the school, engag- Bullying Prevention Program with fidelity.
[Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sager, & Short-Camilli, ing all staff in training and ongoing edu- To date, the only other comprehensive
1994], Bully-Proofing Your Middle School cation regarding bullying prevention, in- bullying to be systematically evaluated is
[Bonds & Stoker, 2000]; The Olweus Bully- creasing adult supervision in locations that Bully-Proofing Your School (Garrity, Jens,
ing Prevention Program [Olweus, 1993; students indicate are “hot spots” for bully- Porter, Sager, and Short-Camilli, 1994),
Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999]; Respect ing, establishing and reinforcing school which is based on principles of the Olweus
and Protect [Remboldt & Zimman, 1996]; rules against bullying, establishing systems program and contains many of the same pro-
and Steps to Respect [Committee for Chil- for reporting and tracking bullying inci- gram elements. The program includes three
dren, 2001]). A number of common themes dents, and actively engaging parents in bul- major components: (a) increasing awareness
emerge from a review of these comprehen- lying prevention activities (Olweus, Lim- about bullying, (b) teaching protective skills
sive programs. Although not explicitly stated ber, & Mihalic, 1999). Within the classroom, and techniques to help students learn strat-
in all programs, the following themes are at children participate in regular classroom egies to deal with and resist bullying, and (c)
least implicit components of most compre- meetings during which they engage in dis- creation of a positive school climate through
hensive programs: (a) approaches should cussion and participate in role-play and promotion of a “caring majority” in the
focus on prevention of bullying and inter- other activities related to topics of bullying school (Epstein, Plog, & Porter, unpublished
vention in specific bullying incidents; and peer relations. Finally, school staff in- manuscript). Results of a four-year interven-
(b) effective bullying prevention requires tervenes individually with children who tion in a suburban elementary school in
changing the norms and climate of the bully, children who are victimized by their Colorado revealed significant decreases in
school; (c) prevention of bullying requires peers, and the parents of all affected chil- physical, verbal, and exclusionary bullying
that the school work together as a commu- dren (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999). behavior, as well as increases in students’
nity and should include administrators, The Olweus program, which has been sense of safety on the playground, in the
teachers, non-teaching staff, students, and implemented in a number of foreign coun- cafeteria, and going to school (Epstein, Plog,
parents; (d) adults within the school must tries including Canada, Norway, Sweden, & Porter, unpublished manuscript).
take the lead in efforts to change the climate Great Britain, and Germany, has been found Additional large-scale evaluations of
and norms of the school with regard to to result in significant reductions in elemen- these and other comprehensive bullying
bullying, but students also play important tary and middle school students’ self-re- prevention programs in a variety of com-
roles as bystanders in this process; (e) bully- ported bullying, victimization (e.g., Olweus, munities within the United States will help
ing prevention requires a long-term commit- 1993, 1997a, 1997b; Whitney et al., 1994), to advise educators further about their
ment of a school community; and (f) al- and antisocial behavior (Olweus, 1993, effectiveness with different age groups and
though bullying prevention efforts require 1997a, 1997b). It also has resulted in sig- populations. To date, however, compre-
approaches that are distinct from other vio- nificant improvements in the perceived cli- hensive bullying prevention programs
lence prevention efforts (e.g., conflict reso- mate of school (Olweus, 1993). Although provide the best promise for significantly
lution), bullying prevention activities should not evaluated extensively in the United reducing bullying behaviors among school
be coordinated with other prevention and States, evaluations of the program in eth- children. Studies examining the relative
intervention programs within the school. nically diverse, non-metropolitan schools in effects of curricular versus comprehensive
Among those comprehensive bullying the southeastern United States (Melton et violence prevention programs (as opposed
prevention programs that focus on affect- al., 1998) and in urban Philadelphia schools to bullying prevention programs) also
American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5 S—27
Susan P. Limber
may be instructive. Research suggests that campaigns to schools, children, parents, and unintentional injuries and violence. Morbidity and
those schools that focused on the broader fellow educators. Mortality Weekly Report, 50, (RR-22), Dec. 7, 1-73.
school environment, as opposed to more Chase, B. (March, 25, 2001). Bullyproofing
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
narrow curricular strategies, have been our schools: To eliminate bullying, first we must
This article is based in part on research
more successful in altering students’ agree not to tolerate it. Editorial. www.nea.org/
conducted for the Health Resources and Ser-
violent behavior. publiced/chase/bc010325.html.
vices Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Cohen, R. (2002). Stop mediating these con-
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Child Health Bureau (MCHB) as part of de- flicts now! The School Mediator: Peer Mediation
FOR HEALTH EDUCATORS velopment of a bullying prevention cam- Insights from the Desk of Richard Cohen.
The recent national and international paign. The opinions expressed do not nec- Committee for Children. (2001). Steps to re-
attention to bullying presents an important essarily represent the views of Health spect. Seattle.
opportunity for health educators within Resources and Services Administration, Contact Community Services, Inc. (1991).
schools and communities to help to imple- Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the Cen- No putdowns. Syracuse, NY.
ment sound policies and strategies to reduce ters for Disease Control and Prevention or Colorado Review of Statutes (2001). Section
the prevalence of bullying among children any agencies of the Federal Government. The 22-32-109.1.
and youth. Specifically, health educators can author would like to express appreciation to Conolly, J.C., Hindmand, R., Jacobs, Y., &
assist other members of the school staff, Rebecca Alley for her assistance with legal Gagnon, W.A. (1997). How schools promote
parents, and students to recognize the sig- research and to several anonymous review- violence. Family Futures, 1(1), 8-11.
nificant negative effects that bullying may ers for their feedback and suggestions. Craig, W.M. (1998). The relationship among
have on the well-being of children who are bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and
REFERENCES
victims of and bystanders to bullying. They aggression in elementary school children. Per-
An Act Concerning Bullying Behavior in sonality Individual Differences, 24(1), 123-130.
also may help to highlight bullying as a
Schools and Concerning the Pledge of Alle- Cunningham, P.B., Henggeler, S.W., Limber,
potential precursor to other antisocial
giance. Colorado Public Act No. 02-119, (2002). S.P., Melton, G.B., & Nation, M.A. (2000). Patterns
behaviors among children and youth.
Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., and correlates of gun ownership among non-met-
Health educators can encourage fellow edu-
Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., Hammond, ropolitan and rural middle school students. Jour-
cators, policy makers, and other health and
R., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Potter, L., & the nal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 432-442.
mental health professionals to avoid com-
School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group Duncan, R.D. (1999). Peer and sibling ag-
mon misdirected efforts in bullying preven-
(2001). School-associated violent deaths in the gression: An investigation of intra-and extra-
tion and advocate for the implementation
United States, 1994-1999. Journal of the Ameri- familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
and funding of research-based school pro-
can Medical Association, 286, 2695-2702. lence, 14, 871-886.
grams and policies that promote long-term
Baldy, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Espelage, D. L, Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R.
efforts to change the climate of schools and
Parenting influences on bullying and victimiza- (2000). Examining the social context of bully-
norms for behavior related to bullying. Fi-
tion. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 3, 237-254. ing behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of
nally, health educators can play important
Barrios, L.C., Sleet, D., & Mercy, J. (2003). CDC Counseling and Development, 78, 326-333.
roles in assisting efforts to develop public
school health guidelines to prevent unintentional Froschl, M., Spring, B., Mullin-Rindler, N.
information campaigns on bullying preven-
injuries and violence. American Journal of Health Stein, N., & Sjostrum, N. (1998). Quit it! A
tion. One such effort is the National Bully-
Education (Supplement), 34(5), S18–S22. teacher’s guide on teasing and bullying for use
ing Prevention Campaign conducted by the
Beane, A. L. (1999). Bully-free classroom. with students in grades K-3. New York: Educa-
Health Resources and Services Administra-
Minneapolis: Free Spirit Press. tional Equity Concepts, Inc.
tion, Bureau of Maternal and Child Health),
Bonds, M., & Stoker, S. (2000). Bully-proofing Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., &
part of the U.S. Department of Health and
your middle school. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Short-Camilli, C. (1994). Bully-proofing your el-
Human Services. The multi-year campaign
Black, S. (2003). An Ongoing evolution of ementary school. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
begins in September, 2003 and will actively
the bullying prevention program in Philadelphia Georgia Code Ann. (2001). Section 20-2-751.4.
engage youth and the community to change
schools: Student survey and student observa- Hazler, R. Hoover, J., & Oliver, R. (1992).
the environment in which bullying occurs. tion data. Paper presented at Safety in Numbers What kids say about bullying. Executive Educa-
Another effort involves Erika Harold, Miss Conference, Atlanta, GA. tor, 14, 20-22.
America 2003, whose reign will focus on Byrne, B. J. (1994). Bullies and victims in Hoover, J. H., & Hazler, R. J. (1991). Bullies
preventing youth violence and bullying. school settings with reference to some Dublin and victims. Elementary School Guidance and
Health educators can support such pro- schools. Irish Journal of Psychology, 15, 574-586. Counseling, 25, 212-219.
grams and help disseminate practical infor- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hodges, E.V.E., & Perry, D.G. (1996). Vic-
mation from research and public education (2001). School health guidelines to prevent tims of peer abuse: An overview. Journal of
S—28 American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5
Susan P. Limber
Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5, 23-28. lence and Association With Psychosocial Adjust- Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E.L., &
Horne, A., & Orpinas, P. (2003). Bullying, ment. Journal of the American Medical Associa- Javaloyes, M.A. (2000). Bullying-a review: Pre-
childhood. In T.P. Gullotta and M. Bloom (Eds.). tion, 285, 2094-2100. sentations to an adolescent psychiatric service
Childhood section of the Encyclopedia of pri- New Hampshire Review Statutes Annual, and within a school for emotionally and
mary prevention and health promotion (pp. 233- (2000). Sec. 193-F: 2. behaviourally disturbed children. Clinical Child
240). New York: Kluwer. Newman, D.A., Horne, A.M., & Bartolo- Psychology and Psychiatry, 5, 563-579.
Howard, K., Flora, J., & Griffin, M. (1999). Vio- mucci, C.L. (2000). Bully busters: A teacher’s Slee, P.T. (1995). Peer victimization and its
lence prevention programs in schools: State of the manual. Champaign, IL: Research Press. relationship to depression among Australian
science and implications for future research. Ap- Newman, D., & Horne, A. (in press). Bully primary school students. Personality & Indi-
plied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 197-215. Busters: A psychoeducational intervention for vidual Differences, 18, 57-62.
Howard, N. M., Horne, A. M., & Jolliff, D. reducing bullying behavior in middle school stu- Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship
(2001). Self-efficacy in a new training model for dents. Journal of Counseling and Development. of Eysenck’s personality factors and self-esteem to
the prevention of bullying in schools. Journal of Oliver, R., Gales, I., & Hoover, J. (1994). Fam- bully-victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys.
Emotional Abuse, 2, 181-191. ily issues and interventions in bully and victim Personality & Individual Differences, 14, 371-373.
Kochenderfer, B.J., & Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer relationships. School Counselor, 41(3), 199-202. Small, M.L., Jones, S.E., Barrious, L.C.,
victimization: Cause or consequence of school Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Crossett, L.S., Dahlberg, L.L., Albuquerque, M.S.,
maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317. Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Wiley.
Sleet, D.A., Greene, B.Z., & Schmidt, E.R. (2001).
Kumpulainen, K., & Räsänen, E. (2000). Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What
School policy and environment: Results from the
Children involved in bullying at elementary we know and what we can do. NY: Blackwell.
School Health Policies and Program Study 2000.
school age: Their psychiatric symptoms and Olweus, D. (1997a). Bully/victim problems
Journal of School Health, 71(7), 325-334.
deviance in adolescence. An epidemiological in school: Facts and intervention. European Jour-
Spicer, R.S., Young, X., Sheppard, M.A.,
sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1567-1577. nal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495-510.
Olson, L.M., & Miller, T.R. (2003). Preventing
Limber, S.P. (2002). Bullying among children and Olweus, D. (1997b). Bully/victim problems
unintentional injuries in schools: How to use
youth. Chicago: American Medical Association. in school: Knowledge base and an effective in-
data to build partnerships and develop pro-
Limber, S.P. (in press). Implementation of tervention program. Irish Journal of Psychology,
grams. American Journal of Health Education
the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in 18(2), 170-190.
(Supplement), 34(5), S13-S17.
American schools: Lessons learned from the Olweus, D. (2001). Olweus’ core program
Stein, N., & Sjostrom, L. (1996). Bullyproof.
field. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer. (Eds.). Bully- against bullying and antisocial behavior: A
Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for
ing in American Schools: A social-ecological teacher handbook. Bergen, Norway.
Research on Women.
perspective on prevention and intervention. Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1999).
Unnever, J. (2001). Roanoke city project on
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. The Bullying Prevention Program: Blueprints for
bullying. Final report of the Roanoke school-
Limber, S.P., & Small, M.A. (in press). Laws violence prevention. Boulder, CO.
based partnership bullying study.
and policies to address bullying in U.S. schools, Pellegrini, A.D. (1998). Bullies and victims in
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R.A., Reddy, M., Borum,
School Psychology Review. school: A review and call for research. Journal of
R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and
Melton, G.B., Limber, S.P., Cunningham, P., Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 165-176.
findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications
Osgood, D.W., Chambers, J., Flerx, V., et al. (1998). Remboldt, C., & Zimman, R. (1996). Respect
for the prevention of school attacks in the United
Violence among rural youth. Final report to the Of- and protect. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in Schools: And what to
Education, Office of Elementary and Second-
Metsahonkala, L., Sillanpaa, M., & Tuominen, do about it. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
ary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Pro-
J. (1997). Social environment and headache in Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying
gram and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat
8- to 9-year-old children: A follow-up study. among Australian school children: Reported
Assessment Center.
Headache, 38, 222-228. behavior and attitudes toward victims. Journal
Webster, D.W. (1993). The unconvincing
Mulvey, E.P., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The of Social Psychology, 615-627.
case for school-based conflict resolution pro-
inherent limits of predicting school violence. Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions
grams for adolescents, Health Affairs, 12, 126-
American Psychologist, 56, 797-802. of interpersonal relations among Australian
141.
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M.D., Haynie, D.L., Ruan, school children and their implications for psy-
West Virginia Code Ann., sec. 18-2C-1. (2001).
W.J., & Scheidt, P.C. (2003). Relationships between chological well-being. Journal of Social Psychol-
Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P., & Sharp, S.
bullying and violence among U.S. youth. Archives of ogy, 133, 33-42.
(1994). The Sheffield project: Methodology and
Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 157, 348-353. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1999). Suicidal ideation
findings. In P. Smith & S. Sharp. (Eds.). School
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, among adolescent school children, involvement in
bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20-56).
J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). bully-victim problems, and perceived social support.
Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Preva- Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 29, 119-130. London: Routledge.
American Journal of Health Education — September/October Supplement 2003, Volume 34, No. 5 S—29