ERIC EJ963736: Countering School Bullying: An Analysis of Policy Content in Ontario and Saskatchewan

2011·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 6(5), August 29, 2011. Volume 6, Number 5. 1

Countering School Bullying: An Analysis of Policy Content in Ontario
and Saskatchewan
GINETTE DIANE ROBERGE
École des sciences de l'éducation
French School of Education
Laurentian University
ABSTRACT: The incidence of extreme school violence as a direct consequence of bullying among peers, exacerbated by vast media atten-
tion, has caused educational institutions worldwide to put bullying intervention and prevention strategies into operation. This study fo-
cused on an overview of two provincewide antibullying incentives in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan, and an analysis
of the quality of their respective antibullying policies. An itemized list of beneficial practices for bullying intervention and prevention origi-
nated from Smith, Smith, Osborn and Samara (2008)’s scoring scheme. The scoring scheme was adapted to the current study by linking
research-based program elements that have been found to be effective in reducing school bullying to a content analysis of both provincial
frameworks. The final scoring scheme comprised a total of 39 criterions, divided into five categories: Defining Bullying Behaviors, Establish-
ing a Positive School Climate, Disseminating, Monitoring and Reviewing Policy, Reporting and Responding to Bullying, and Involving the
Broader Community. Results showed that policies contained a total average of 60% of the criterions in Ontario, and 59% in Saskatchewan.
The conclusion of this study observes from policy lenses key essentials of bullying intervention and prevention initiatives in elementary and
secondary educational settings. Recommendations are proposed to bridge the gap between areas that have received extensive attention
and areas that have received less treatment in bullying intervention and prevention endeavors, using the content of Ontario and Sas-
katchewan policies as a basis for discussion.
Roberge, G. D. (2011). Countering school bullying: An analysis of policy content in Ontario and Saskatchewan. International Journal of Edu-
cation Policy and Leadership 6(5).
Bullying has been discovered, to varying extents, in 2004; Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004; Swearer & Doll,
every school in which related studies have been con- 2001). Extant research has confirmed, nevertheless,
ducted (Beaty & Alexeyev, 2008; Hamarus & that many programs and policies with aims to reduce
Kaikkonen, 2008; Rigby, 2008). In light of public bullying in schools have achieved marginal levels of
awareness of the potentially long-term affects of pro- success (Craig & Harel, 2004; Pepler, Craig,
longed exposure to negative childhood peer relation- O’Connell, Atlas, & Charach, 2004; Rigby, 2002).
ships, numerous bullying intervention and preven- Researchers attribute the common barriers to the
tion policies have been developed in educational success of antibullying policies to numerous poten-
settings around the globe. There is general consensus tial causes. First, it is believed that bullying may be
in the midst of varied professional opinions on the underreported due to pupil fears of further reprisal
bullying phenomenon that intervention should occur by their peers or by authority (O’Moore & Minton,
beyond individual incidents of discord between 2005; Rigby, 2008). Other researchers believe that
peers to include parents, staff, administrators, com- the judiciary structure of zero tolerance policies may
munity supporters, as well as policymakers (Olweus, actually hinder success rates because they neglect to
2 Countering School Bullying
take into consideration individual circumstances, Saskatchewan, the provincial governments have
environmental factors, and personality dynamics, mandated antibullying action through the elabora-
opting rather for homogenous resolutions to bullying tion of a model framework for the development of
(Bloom, 2008; Coloroso, 2002; Daniel & Bondy, antibullying policies by their respective school
2008). Another common supposition is that bullying boards or divisions. The provincial bullying interven-
is not often readily observed by adults supervising tion and prevention strategies in Ontario and Sas-
the classroom and the school grounds, which makes katchewan are briefly described below.
intervention problematic (Espelage & Asidao, 2001;
Swearer & Doll, 2001). The Ontario Bullying Policy/Program
Most Canadian provinces, as well as the territory Memorandum (PPM 144)
of Yukon, have developed safe schools frameworks
that focus on addressing issues of bullying in schools. The Ontario Ministry of Education is the governing
Many of these frameworks include extensive educa- body of publicly funded elementary and secondary
tional resources for parents, students, and educators. schools in Ontario. The Ontario Ministry of Training,
Ontario and Saskatchewan are two Canadian prov- Colleges, and Universities, oversees postsecondary
inces whose governments have mandated antibully- education. The province of Ontario currently oper-
ing action through a framework for policy imple- ates four school systems: French- and English-
mentation. This mandate created an ideal context for language catholic (or separate) school systems, as
the study of the quality of the ensuing antibullying well as French- and English-language public school
policies in both provinces, which was the reason for systems. School boards must adhere to the guidelines
the selection of these provincial policies in the cur- set forth by the provincial government concerning
rent study. matters such as curriculum and instruction, regula-
The purpose of this study was twofold. One ob- tions concerning grading standards and student
jective was to analyze the content of school board achievement, as well as funding for educational pro-
and division antibullying policies in both provinces gramming and specific allocations. Ontario currently
in order to establish the extent of effective bullying has 72 district school boards and 33 school authori-
intervention and prevention practices contained ties that represent geographically isolated schools
within the documents. An extension of the first ob- with a small number of students or hospitals with an
jective was to initiate discussion on ways to bridge educational focus (Ontario Ministry of Education,
the gap between policy content and effective antibul- n.d.).
lying practices, using Ontario and Saskatchewan an- Policy/Program Memoranda in Ontario consists
tibullying policy content as a starting point for future of numbered instructions presented to district school
research. boards and school authorities to summarize the Min-
istry of Education's expectations for implementation
Contextual Framework of ministry policies and programs (Ontario Ministry
of Education, n.d.). On October 4, 2007, the Ontario
Jurisdiction for Canadian education is overseen by Ministry of Education introduced a PPM, named
the provincial government. Matters of curriculum PPM 144, which provided a framework for school
and instruction are therefore governed by provinces boards and authorities to either develop antibullying
or territories. Canada has two official languages: policies or to modify their existing policies to respect
French and English. The term school board refers to the structure of the communication. PPM 144 was
educational offices in Ontario who represent the ad- the result of a report created by a Safe Schools Action
ministrative authority over geographical locations in Team appointed by the Minister of Education. The
the province. Similarly, the term school division refers recommendations were based on the panel’s per-
to the equivalent educational authority in Saskatche- sonal and professional experiences with bullying, as
wan. All provinces and territories in Canada have well as on extensive consultations with stakeholders
distinct procedures on educational matters. These across Ontario. The initial PPM required all school
procedures are fundamentally linked to their indi- boards in Ontario to have bullying intervention and
vidual provincial preoccupations. In Ontario and
Ginette Diane Roberge 3
prevention policies in place by February 1, 2008. which includes guidelines for the elaboration and
The PPM was later amended in 2009, with all school implementation of antibullying policy by school divi-
boards required to have revised policies and proce- sions. The SABS requires all school divisions to have
dures in place by February 1, 2010. The revised PPM an antibullying policy with specific endeavors to re-
further requires school boards to draw upon re- spond to bullying: a statement that bullying will not
search-based practices to improve their existing poli- be tolerated, a definition of bullying, a statement de-
cies. The framework is meant to provide direction in scribing the necessity of a positive learning environ-
the development of these policies. Under the guid- ment, a delineation of responsibilities for all adults
ance of the PPM, school boards are required to carry who interact with students in the schools, and pa-
out a number of bullying intervention and preven- rameters to review bullying action plans. The SABS
tion actions, such as: creating a positive school cli- also endeavors to provide funding for bullying inter-
mate, using a prescribed definition of bullying, en- vention and mandates the creation of school teams to
suring the respect of student diversity, incorporating address issues of student safety. Finally, on a higher
intervention and prevention strategies, training administrative echelon, the SABS outlines specific
members of the school community, establishing per- measures to be undertaken at the legislative level to
formance indicators for monitoring and reviewing of ensure that community partners provide support to
bullying policies, and creating safe school teams to schools in their bullying intervention and prevention
address issues of student safety. actions (Saskatchewan Learning, 2005).
The Saskatchewan Antibullying Strategy Policy Content and the Prevalence of School
(SABS) Bullying
The Saskatchewan Ministry of Education has the Research has uncovered varying correlations between
same authority over elementary and secondary edu- the worth and content of school bullying policies
cational issues in the province as the Ontario Minis- and the frequency of bullying in schools. Woods and
try of Education. In contrast to Ontario’s provincial Wolke (2003) studied the quality of bullying inter-
government, which operates four school systems, vention and prevention policies and their association
three sectors of the Ministry of Education in Sas- to bullying frequency. Their research findings imply
katchewan oversee English-language education, little correlation between the rate of recurrence of
French-language education, as well as Métis and First manifestation of bullying behaviors among students
Nations education. This province is more sparsely and the content of policies. The outcome of their
populated than Ontario. As such, in Saskatchewan, study revealed that while schools with more detailed
there are currently 29 public or catholic school divi- policies had slightly lower rates of bullying, these
sions that oversee specific geographical districts. The schools also reported higher rates of social-relational
Education Act of 1995 stipulates that the daily opera- bullying. Conversely, this occurrence could be at-
tions of schools, including student behavioral issues, tributed to a pre-test, post-test effect identified by
are the responsibility of boards of education. some researchers (Pepler et al., 2004; Rigby et al.,
Saskatchewan Learning is the administration that 2004) in which students who are exposed to bullying
sets legislative and policy direction for the provincial education sometimes self-identify as being victims of
educational system. The SABS was developed in bullying as a result of a new awareness that is created
2005, and the accompanying model policy pub- through this learning experience. This awareness has
lished in 2006 (Saskatchewan Learning, 2005; caused research results to show higher rates of bully-
2006). This strategy refers to the Education Act ing in subsequent school climate assessments,
(1995), core curriculum related to interpersonal and whereas researchers stipulated that victims of bulling
personal development, and incorporates the subse- may have simply not ascribed to their experience the
quent development of a Caring and Respectful label of bullying during the initial assessment phase.
Schools Policy (Saskatchewan Learning, 2006). The For their part, Soutter & McKenzie (2000) affirm
Caring and Respectful Schools document is a model that implementing effective antibullying policies
4 Countering School Bullying
promotes change. Swearer, Limber, & Alley (2009) al. (2009) delineate ten best practices to include in
share this belief in their indication that a well- bullying policy, namely: changing the school climate,
founded and developed antibullying policy not only training staff, assessing bullying behaviors, including
sets the groundwork for communicating expectations staff, parents and students in antibullying action, cre-
of behavior, but also underlines the seriousness of ating safe school teams, establishing clear rules and
bullying for the school community. consequences, increasing supervision, providing in-
On the other hand, the complexities of observ- dividual support, including classroom time for so-
able behaviors in bullying situations can render in- cial-emotional learning, and finally, monitoring and
tervention measures difficult to carry out when de- continuing antibullying efforts. The DfES (2002)
veloping and implementing policy. One common Don’t suffer in silence publication stipulates that anti-
challenge exemplified by research is that bullying bullying policy should establish prevention and in-
often occurs in areas on school property where there tervention measures, as well as the documentation of
is little or no adult supervision. This challenge could bullying incidents by a member of the school com-
complicate school yard interventions and impinge on munity. The publication further suggests the impor-
the effectiveness of policies meant to reduce bullying tance of disseminating policy, of consulting with
(Swearer & Doll, 2001). Another finding from members of the larger community for policy devel-
Glover, Cartwright, Gough, and Johnson (1998) re- opment and implementation, as well as regularly
veals that policy creation affects the school experi- monitoring and revising the policy. The PPM and
ence for pupils. They advise that the nature of the SABS propose similar policy content, but further sug-
fundamental school culture in practice is more influ- gest the creation of groups responsible for student
ential than existing policy. Furthermore, Smith et al. safety within the schools.
(2008) state that while school antibullying policies Smith et al. (2008) further indicate that policies
are a compulsory legal requirement in England, their should explicitly define bullying because it can be
sample of policies neglected treatment in a number confounded on a continuum of other violent behav-
of key areas. In addition, the personal nature of in- iors, such as harassment and aggression. Bullying is
terpretation of policy can cause a disparity in indi- distinguished from aggression and harassment in the
vidual implementation of the frameworks by school literature as being an unprovoked behavior that is
boards and divisions (Glover et al., 1998). persistent and that includes an imbalance of power
As well, numerous bullying intervention pro- between the individual responsible for bullying and
grams of comparable structure have been attempted the victim (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999; On-
and have yielded dissimilar results when undertaken tario Ministry of Education, 2009; Swearer et al.,
in different settings (Rigby et al., 2004). In this study, 2009). The Ontario Ministry of Education (2009)
it is noteworthy to mention that despite the presence further states in the PPM that bullying includes a
of provincial frameworks, school boards and divi- willful action that should be reasonably known to
sions still had flexibility for regional adaptation of the harm. Different forms of bullying are also recog-
PPM and SABS by tailoring their policies according nized, as noted in the scoring scheme: physical bul-
to factors such as regional needs and state of affairs, lying, verbal bullying, cyberbullying, relational bully-
cultural needs, demographics, as well as the avail- ing, as well as bullying of a sexual nature or bullying
ability of community and board resources to support that is based on race, gender, sexual orientation, re-
bullying intervention and prevention actions (On- ligious beliefs, or physical or intellectual disabilities.
tario Ministry of Education, 2009; Saskatchewan Research has shown that bullying behaviors hit
Learning, 2006). their highest point during middle school years
(Swearer et al., 2009). The individuals typically in-
Effective Research and Evidence-Based An- volved in bullying incidents are the perpetrator of
tibullying Practices bullying, the recipient of the act of bullying, as well
as the impartial bystander. The PPM and the Smith et
Researchers have reported important considerations al. (2008) frameworks require specific interventions
of antibullying policy development. First, Swearer et to assist all three groups. Furthermore, these frame-
Ginette Diane Roberge 5
works both require sanctions that are adapted to the harassment were determined to be equivocal by the
age of the perpetrator, to the internal and environ- researcher, as is described below, only the antibully-
mental circumstances of the perpetrator, as well as to ing policies were considered. This constitutes a re-
the nature and severity of the bullying incident. sponse rate of 52%, with 27% viable policies for the
Finally, Caruso (2009) cautions that policies purposes of this study.
should avoid referring to specific groups as being
potential victims of bullying to avoid an unwitting Elaboration and Validation of Instrument
omission, and that policy language should be general
and broad to cover different possibilities. In contrast, An itemized list of criterions was designed by the
the Report of the House of Commons Education and researcher to analyze policy content. The original list
Skills Committee on Bullying (House of Commons, of criterions was adapted from the content analysis of
2007) states that while flexibility for individual adap- Smith et al. (2008) but required modification. For
tation of antibullying policies is beneficial (as af- example, their content analysis was developed in
forded by both the PPM and SABS), this should be England and inspired by the DfES (2002) Don’t Suf-
undertaken in conjunction with clear guidance on fer in Silence publication. The policies analyzed in
the development of effective policies as well as the Smith et al. (2008) study were also not necessar-
minimal standards of expectations of policy content. ily limited to policies that had the words “bullying”
The implications are that establishing clearly deline- or “intimidation” in the title, since other documents
ated best practices for bullying intervention when were considered if provided by schools and identi-
developing policy remains a complex and multifac- fied as documents of guiding principles for bullying.
eted process. Smith et al. also analyzed individual school policies
whereas this study focused on board and division
Method policies that oversee governance of groupings of nu-
merous schools. The criterion list was consequently
modified to include elements from both the PPM and
Sample
SABS, which are the Canadian equivalents of the
School boards and divisions in Ontario and Sas- Don’t Suffer in Silence publication, as well as re-
katchewan generally publish policy manuals for dis- search findings of beneficial antibullying practices as
semination to the public, parents, stakeholders, and reported in the literature.
members of the community. Canada’s two official In order to develop the initial scoring scheme,
languages are French and English, thus some boards the researcher analyzed the content of the Smith et
and divisions operate in English while others operate al. (2008), PPM, and SABS policy development
in French. Policy documents were obtained in both frameworks using Skerrett’s (2009) documentary
languages. An initial search was conducted of all analysis strategy. This involved a thorough and re-
board and division policy manuals in order to locate peated individual reading of the documents, which
antibullying policies. Documents were considered were then coded and analyzed. A list of themes rep-
only if the words “bullying” or “intimidation” (the resenting main categories in all three documents was
French equivalent in the case of French policy elaborated separately, and sections of text were as-
documents) were found in the policy title. Adminis- signed to the main categories for the development of
trators of boards or divisions that did not have a sub-categories. Once category lists and sub-sections
publicized antibullying policy were contacted di- were developed for all three documents, the three
rectly. Of 72 school boards in Ontario, 56 antibully- resulting criterion lists and theme lists were com-
ing policies were obtained, which constitutes a re- bined and redundant categories were removed. A
sponse rate of 79%. Of 29 school divisions in Sas- new analysis of the PPM was conducted upon its re-
katchewan, fifteen policies were obtained, but only 8 vision (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009), and
antibullying policies were considered because 7 the scoring scheme remained unaffected. Extant re-
policies described variations of harassment rather search was also considered to complete the scoring
than bullying. In light of the fact that bullying and scheme when conflicting statements arose.
6 Countering School Bullying
The researcher first discussed the scoring scheme revealed, however, that many policies simply enu-
with the group of coders, who provided input and merated different types of bullying with examples,
suggestions to strengthen the content analysis. An and this was found to be sufficient due to the generic
initial pilot test of the scoring scheme was under- nature of policy language as reported in the literature
taken by analyzing 7 antibullying policies from a (Caruso, 2009).
province not considered in this study in order to es- As a final point, a search of policy manuals in
tablish scoring standards and to improve the crite- Ontario and Saskatchewan revealed that bullying be-
rion list. Subsequent modifications to the content tween an adult and student as well as bullying be-
analysis were then made. For example, Smith et al. tween two adults are often considered in policies that
(2008) seemed to attribute the same meaning to the are separate from antibullying policies (ex. work-
terms “bullying” and “harassment”. A review of the place harassment policies, workplace bullying poli-
literature revealed a distinction between bullying and cies, or sexual harassment policies). In most cases,
other aggressive behaviors, being that bullying in- the nature of the intervention measures and media-
cludes an imbalance of power and involves willful tion processes is different than those that are utilized
intent to harm (Soutter & McKenzie, 2000; Swearer to deal with bullying between peers. Consequently,
et al., 2009). Student-to-student harassment policies only student-to-student bullying policies were con-
were consequently excluded from the study due to sidered in the study. A criterion from the Smith et al.
the possible divergence in nomenclature surrounding (2008) framework that required policies to define
the two terms. The term “harassment” was also re- bullying by teachers was removed from the scoring
moved from the criterion list. scheme because there was the possibility of this con-
Smith et al. also considered bullying outside of tingency being considered in alternate school board
school grounds. The PPM mentioned activities oc- or division policies.
curring outside of school property, and SABS omitted
mention of this form of bullying. A review of the lit- Data Analysis
erature revealed that bullying most often occurs on
the way to and from school or in areas with little or To verify inter-rater reliability of the scoring scheme,
no adult supervision (Espelage & Asidao, 2001; two additional coders participated in the content
Swearer & Doll, 2001) therefore a criterion was in- analysis. One coder was given a random sample of
cluded to consider the possibility. 10 policies before the analysis. A second coder ana-
Smith et al., PPM, and SABS also noted preventa- lyzed the same sample of policies after the analysis of
tive bullying measures, though the SABS document all policies by the researcher. Percentage of agree-
itself did not clarify nor provide examples. A further ment was calculated and reflected 100% agreement
review of the literature was carried out in order to in 26 categories, 90% agreement in eight categories,
identify bullying prevention measures that should be 80% agreement in four categories, and 70% agree-
included in policy, such as establishing a collabora- ment in one category. Cohen’s Kappa (1960) was
tive school climate and promoting positive behav- calculated where criterions were found to have less
iors, leadership, and healthy relationships (Swearer than 100% agreement in order to allow for the con-
et al., 2009). Nonetheless, where Smith et al. attrib- sideration of the percentage of agreement expected
uted a category to bullying prevention, preventative by chance. This formula allowed the researcher to
measures were placed in the category of “Reporting calculate Cohen’s Kappa: k=(Po-Pc) / (1-Pc). Kappa
and Responding to Bullying Behaviors” in the scoring was 0.9 in eight categories, 0.6 in four categories,
scheme, as the PPM and SABS did include some of and 0.2 in one category. The lowest scoring category
the preventative measures discovered in the literature has been identified (ª) on the scoring scheme.
without necessarily attributing them the title of bully- Final scoring of policies was effected in accor-
ing prevention. dance to the policy mentioning the criterions, and
Next, the original list of criterions necessitated the extent to which schools could potentially adapt
the definition of related bullying behaviors such as the criterions. Where a criterion was mentioned
verbal bullying and physical bullying. The pilot test within a policy, the researcher ascribed a score of
Ginette Diane Roberge 7
one (1) on the scoring scheme for that criterion. the PPM and SABS in antibullying policies founded
Where an item was omitted from a policy, the school the presumption that scoring high in one category
board policy received a score of zero (0) for that cri- would reflect the board’s individual regional adapta-
terion. In order to analyze the content of French tion of framework principles rather than the likeli-
policies the researcher elaborated a direct translation hood of scoring high on a criterion from the same
of the itemized list of criterions in French. Results category. Table 1 (below) summarizes the level of
were later conjointly tabulated in order to obtain criterion content in Ontario and Saskatchewan poli-
total scores that comprised all provincial policies. cies. The five main categories and accompanying cri-
terions developed as a result of the analysis of the
Results Smith et al. framework, the PPM, and the SABS are
represented. Mean scores and standard deviations for
The itemized list of criterions had face validity (Smith every category are presented in bold. The number of
et al. 2008). There was no pre-determined expecta- school boards and divisions that included specific
tion of strong internal reliability within the five cate- antibullying criterions is also represented within the
gories and the individual criterions. The flexibility table. Results are represented for both Ontario and
offered to school boards and divisions by their pro- Saskatchewan, respectively.
vincial governments in the individual adaptation of

Table 1: Antibullying Content (mean in bold, standard deviation in brackets) in Ontario and Saskatchewan
School Board and Division Policies
Criterion Ontario (n=56) Saskatchewan (n=8)

# of items Mean # of items Mean
Definition of Bullying Behaviors 33 0.59 4.5 0.56
(12 criterions) (11.09) (0.20) (2.02) (0.25)
1. The policy includes an overall definition of bullying. 51 0.91 7 0.88
2. The policy distinguishes bullying from other aggressive be- 49 0.88 7 0.88
haviors.
3. The policy mentions verbal bullying (threats, insults, taunt- 33 0.59 6 0.75
ing).
4. The policy mentions social or relational bullying (rumors, 31 0.55 6 0.75
social exclusion).
5. The policy mentions physical bullying (hitting, kicking). 33 0.59 6 0.75
6. The policy mentions cyberbullying (e-mails, text messages, 34 0.61 4 0.50
and social networking sites).
7. The policy mentions bullying because of sexual orientation 29 0.52 2 0.25
(homophobic behavior).
8. The policy mentions gender-based bullying. 28 0.50 3 0.38
9. The policy mentions bullying of a sexual nature (nasty sex- 9 0.16 2 0.25
ual innuendoes, inappropriate touching).
10. The policy mentions bullying due to disabilities. 28 0.50 2 0.25
11. The policy mentions religion-based bullying (diminishing 28 0.50 3 0.38
someone’s faith or religious belief).
12. The policy contains a statement that bullying behavior will 43 0.77 6 0.75
not be tolerated.

Continued next page
8 Countering School Bullying
Table 1: Antibullying Content (mean in bold, standard deviation in brackets) in Ontario and Saskatchewan
School Board and Division Policies (continued)
Criterion Ontario (n=56) Saskatchewan (n=8)

# of items Mean # of items Mean
Establishing a positive school climate (9 criterions) 32 0.57 3.7 0.47
(12.12) (0.22) (2.33) (0.29)
1. All schools in the board or division are required to develop 41 0.73 6 0.75
and implement antibullying plans.
2. The policy requires schools to take specific measures to cre- 42 0.75 5 0.63
ate a collaborative school climate.
3. Schools are required to incorporate positive conflict resolu- 40 0.71 4 0.50
tion strategies, bullying education, or the preservation of
healthy relationships in classroom instruction.
4. The policy requires schools to present opportunities for stu- 37 0.66 4 0.50
dents to participate in bystander intervention training or in
leadership initiatives.
5. The policy requires schools to provide opportunities for 44 0.79 3 0.38
teachers, administrators, and other adults involved with the
students in the school setting to participate in bullying inter-
vention and prevention training.
6. The policy mentions any of encouraging co-operative be- 54 0.96 8 1.0
havior, rewarding good behavior, improving school climate, or
creating a safe environment.
7. The policy shows sensitivity to racial or ethnic minorities, 26 0.46 1 0.13
cultural groups, or other special education needs.
8. The policy mentions training for parents on bullying. 13 0.23 2 0.25
9. The policy requires schools to assess the school climate 27 0.48 1 0.13
through anonymous surveys of staff, students, and parents.
Dissemination, Monitoring and Review of Policy (4 45 0.81 5.8 0.72
criterions) (6.06) (0.11) (1.50) (0.19)
1. The policy is readily available to parents, students, or mem-
bers of the broader community. 51 0.91 8 1.0
2. A plan is mentioned for the monitoring and review of the 44 0.79 5 0.63
antibullying policy.
3. The policy mentions performance indicators, or mentions 37 0.66 5 0.63
how survey data will be used to verify the effectiveness of the
policy.
4. The policy mentions the necessity of periodic review and 48 0.86 5 0.63
updating of the antibullying policy.

Continued next page
Ginette Diane Roberge 9

Table 1: Antibullying Content (mean in bold, standard deviation in brackets) in Ontario and Saskatchewan
School Board and Division Policies (continued)
Criterion Ontario (n=56) Saskatchewan (n=8)
# of items Mean # of items Mean
Reporting and Responding to Bullying (10 criteri- 27.6 0.49 5.1 0.64
ons) (10.86) (0.19) (2.18) (0.27)
1. The policy mentions the creation of a safe schools team or 41 0.73 2 0.25
crisis response team to address bullying behavior.
2. The policy requires schools to establish measures to help 27 0.48 4 0.50
students who have been victims of bullying, who have victim-
ized another students, and for bystanders who have witnessed
bullying.
3. The policy requires schools to develop safe reporting proto- 39 0.70 2 0.25
cols for bullying behavior.
4. The policy requires the assignment of responsibility to a 20 0.36 7 0.88
member of the school community for the recording and moni-
toring of bullying behavior.
ª5. The policy requires a response to bullying behavior that 46 0.82 7 0.88
takes into consideration the nature and severity of incidents.
6. The policy states what victims of bullying should do (tell a
teacher; more specific that just ‘deal promptly’). 16 0.29 6 0.75
7. The policy mentions follow-up to see if sanctions applied 15 0.27 4 0.50
for bullying behavior were effective.
8. The policy mentions actions to be taken in cases of persis- 26 0.46 7 0.88
tent bullying.
9. The policy mentions actions that teachers and staff (lunch-
room supervisors, custodians) should take in response to bul- 26 0.46 8 1.0
lying (more specific than “all staff”).
10. The policy mentions actions that bystanders should take if 20 0.36 4 0.50
they witness bullying.
Involving the Broader Community 31.8 0.57 5.3 0.66
(4 criterions) (15.17) (0.27) (3.10) (0.39)
1. The policy mentions the issue of bullying happening on the 13 0.23 1 0.13
way to and from school.
2. The policy discusses when and how parents will be in- 37 0.66 8 1.0
formed of bullying.
3. The policy is systemic and involves members of the broader 49 0.88 7 0.88
community.
4. The specific role of community members (youth, family,
service providers) in bullying intervention and prevention is 28 0.50 5 0.63
clearly described (more specific than “all community members
will be involved”).
Total: 39 criterions 33.4 0.60 4.7 0.59
ªThis criterion had a Kappa value of 0.2.
10 Countering School Bullying
Saskatchewan mention of these potential bullying
Policy Development Frameworks
causes was low. In both provinces, mention was low
and Extent of Policy Content
of bullying of a sexual nature, and moderate in the
inclusion of a statement that bullying will not be ac-
Before presenting the extent of policy application
cepted on school property.
in the frameworks, mention should be made of the
In the second category, which presented the es-
small sample of policies obtained from Saskatche-
tablishing of a positive school climate, overall crite-
wan. The low response rate in this province raises
rion satisfaction was moderate in Ontario and low in
questions about the validity of the ensuing results.
Saskatchewan. Nonetheless, both provinces scored
The small number of policies that focus uniquely on
high on policies mentioning the promotion of posi-
bullying in Saskatchewan, despite the presence of the
tive and collaborative behaviors and improving the
SABS, suggests a quandary in the interpretation of the
school climate. On the other hand, both provinces
framework by school division officials. In light of the
scored moderately on requiring schools to establish
fact that a number of school divisions had student-to
bullying intervention and prevention programs, tak-
student harassment policies, this seems to imply that
ing specific measures to create a positive school cli-
bullying and harassment are perceived as unequivo-
mate, and incorporating bullying education and
cal and that harassment policies are deemed suffi-
leadership initiatives to the curriculum. Ontario also
cient to address both issues. Nonetheless, the overall
scored moderately on providing education opportu-
percentage of proficient policy practices contained in
nities for teachers, staff, and others involved with the
Saskatchewan antibullying policies (59%) is still suf-
students, where Saskatchewan scored low in this re-
ficiently elevated to consider these documents in the
gard. Both provinces scored low in mentioning sensi-
analysis of results (Smith et al. 2008, reported 40%
tivity to diversity, providing training opportunities for
of overall policy content). The author also deemed it
parents in regards to bullying, and requiring the as-
beneficial to verify the extent of application of guide-
sessment of the school climate through anonymous
lines for developing antibullying policy by compar-
surveys.
ing two levels of resulting policy implementation, as
The third category, dissemination, monitoring
little research has been conducted in this regard. For
and review of policy, had the most elevated criterion
this reason, an analysis of Saskatchewan antibullying
content in Ontario and Saskatchewan. Criterion satis-
policies was undertaken despite the low response
faction was 100% in Saskatchewan for making the
rate in this province.
policy readily available to parents and the broader
The analysis of policies reflected particular trends
community, and was moderate in Ontario. Nonethe-
in terms of antibullying content. To follow the Smith
less, criterion satisfaction was moderate in both
et al. (2008) interpretation, a criterion was consid-
provinces for all other criterions, namely the estab-
ered highly satisfied if 95% of more of the school
lishment of monitoring, review, and periodic updat-
boards or divisions included the criterion, moder-
ing of the policy as well as a specific course of action
ately satisfied in policy content if it was found in
to proceed in the review.
50%-94% of policies, and marginally satisfied if less
In the fourth category, reporting and responding
than 49% of school boards and divisions included
to bullying, overall criterion satisfaction was low in
the criterion.
Ontario and moderate in Saskatchewan. In Ontario, a
Almost all categories had overall moderate crite-
moderate response was obtained for the creation of
rion satisfaction in Ontario and Saskatchewan. For
safe school teams, the development of safe reporting
the first category on the definition of bullying behav-
protocols, and a progressive response to bullying. All
iors, both provinces had moderate scores in present-
other criterions had low satisfaction. In Saskatche-
ing an overall definition of bullying, in distinguishing
wan, a high criterion satisfaction was found for the
bullying from other aggressive behaviors, and in
explication of the roles of teachers and staff in re-
mentioning verbal, physical, social-relational, and
sponse to bullying, and moderate criterion satisfac-
cyberbullying. In Ontario, however, the mention of
tion was found for requiring schools to help bullies,
bullying due to sexual orientation, gender, special
victims, and bystanders, assigning responsibility for
needs or religious beliefs was moderate, where in