Abstract
Bullying has become an epidemic in schools all over the United States. There are several definitions of what bullying actually is. In general the definition is one person or group picking on or hurting a person with less power. There are numerous programs available to schools to detect and help prevent bullying. These programs help adults to identify bullies and put policies and procedures in place to prevent this kind of violence. The programs also help victims to cope with the emotional traumas they endure. Three prominent programs are the Olweus program, the Don’t Laugh and me program, and the LIFT program, Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers. Each of these programs discusses the definition of bullying and ways to help prevent it. They are widely used in the United States. The question to answer at the end of the day is, do these programs stop bullying and are they effective in any way?
This paper provides information about bullying with insight into the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs. Three different programs will be discussed giving; 1) definitions to the term bullying, 2) skills included in each program to defeat bullying, and 3) research to determine the effectiveness of each program. The three program discussed are; 1) The Olweus program, 2) The Don’t Laugh at me program, and 3) The LIFT program, Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers. Bullying in schools is a serious problem in America. Many programs used to date have been insignificantly effective. Programs which yield the best results have been systematically monitored yielding far better results (Smith, 2004, p.547). This paper will conclude with whether or not anti-bullying programs are truly effective or not.
The Journal of American Medical Association’s (JAMA) current definition of bullying has three distinct parts: 1) it is aggressive behavior or purposeful injury inflicted on a person by a group or single person, 2) it is something done over and over for a period of time, and 3) the victim is always someone less formidable than the bully. Bullying can be something that is said, like a threat, it can be psychological meaning it inflicts distress on a person by making them feel left out, or it can be physical, when a person is purposefully injured or hurt (Nansel, 2001). Bullying is different from other types of aggression in that it involves one person or group being more powerful than another. These acts of aggression take place within a structure that involves the perpetrators, victims, and those watching (Bear, 2008). The incidents can and do occur anywhere. Several factors increase the opportunity for perpetrators to inflict bullying.
There are three major factors that are likely to increase the risk of bullying; 1) who the individual perpetrator is, 2) School life, and 3) Home life. Risk considerations for the potential perpetrators often include children that show; antagonistic or confrontational behavior, are impulsive, have meager academic success, and display a lack of social or emotional maturity. Bullies do not always lack social aptitudes and can often be quite popular with other students. School and education elements contributing to bullying can include: an absence of adult guidance, vague social expectations, a lack of encouraging teachers, poor inter-student relationships, and no or unclear guidelines on bullying. Issues that contribute to bullying from home may include: severe or lenient parenting, rejection from parents, hostility in the home, lack of parental participation, and pathetic examples from adults on how to live appropriately (Bear, 2008). These factors increase the risk of bullying. Schools and communities are taking an active role in preventing bullying. There are many programs set up to reduce this crime. One successful program is the LIFT program, Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers.
The LIFT program defines bullying as childhood antisocial behavior ending in violence. The reason for “this elevated risk appears to be strongly related to a cascading set of negative circumstances that seem to originate in rather simple and seemingly innocuous coercive social interactions that take place between certain children, their parents, and their peers” (Reid, 1999, p.485). The LIFT program determined that the best way to work with antisocial children would be to work within an existing service that covered a large number of people already in existence, to begin working with children at the youngest age possible, and target issues that would become bigger problems later in life (Reid, 1999, p.489). The program works with children in first and fifth grade in 12 different schools.
The 12 schools had both control groups and participating groups. The participating schools took part in a 10 week program using the following interventions: parent education, classroom-based social skills programs, a playground behavioral program, and systematic communication between teachers and parents. A multi-leveled valuation plan was used to appraise member approval and involvement, reliability of application, and the direct influences of the program on participating parties (Reid, 1999, p.483).
Children that show hostile behavior at school are far more likely to be rejected by the normative peer group. This rejection can increase the chances of a child becoming part of an aberrant group of students. Participation in this new group often leads to additional behavioral problems and delinquency. The LIFT school program is set up to decrease this decline in behavior and improve peer relationships. The program at school consists of four parts: 1) classroom teachings on communal and problem-solving aptitudes, 2) working on the acquisition of certain proficiencies in big and small groups, 3) collaborative games, and 4) appraisal and distribution of daily prizes. The home program targets parents enabling them to create a calm atmosphere at home and assist their students in problem-solving and how to get along with others. Parents were encouraged to network with other parents to improve their skills (Reid, 1999, p.492-495). After three years of work with different groups the results were positive.
The LIFT program showed significant results in three different areas. First there was a decrease of aggression between students on the playground. Second, participating mothers showed a greater ability to intervene in situations which provided an instant influence on the socialization of their children. This alone will greatly affect the children’s futures. Third, teachers in the program agreed that behavior in the classroom was greatly improved. Overall the LIFT program showed positive results (Reid, 1999, p.514). Another program is the “Don’t Laugh at me,” program.
The Don’t Laugh at me program is directed towards 2nd to 8th graders (Deas, 2009, p.1). This program has been implemented at many schools. The Bruce-Grey Catholic School implemented the curriculum for the Don’t Laugh at me program. Curriculum for this program includes: teaching children skills such as respect, proper verbal interaction, paying attention to what another person says, understanding others views, imaginative conflict resolution, appreciation for the differences of others, and expressing one’s feelings in a beneficial manner. Lessons are taught in the classroom around four major themes: “Expressing and Managing Feelings, Building Community, Resolving Conflict Creatively, and Celebrating Diversity” (How to Use). The themes are reiterated through songs and lessons. Bullying is viewed as any aggressive or hurtful behavior towards another person. After implementing this program, Bruce-Grey Catholic School showed positive results.
The amount of bullying and fighting incidents decreased greatly during the initial part of the program. Teachers and administrators noticed a positive movement in the demeanor of the students. Teachers reported that the children were more respectful and students felt they had a say through class meetings. Students improved their problem solving abilities. Data was not available due to a lack of survey responses, but the overall feeling was that the program was effective (Deas, 2009, p.3). The third program reviewed in this paper is the Olweus program.
The Olweus program defines bullying as continual negative actions over a period of time by one or more students. These negative actions include inflicting damage or distress on others. The damage can be physical, verbal, or even embarrassing gestures (Ferguson, 2007, p.402). The Olweus anti-bullying program is an older more traditional program that was started in Norway after a rather harsh incident of bullying. This program is set up to assist in the identification of bullies in 1st through 12th grades. It is designed to help the victims deal with the effects of this crime (Ferguson, 2007, p. 403). The Olweus program is intended to train Bullying Prevention Committee members who will then train teachers, staff, parents, and other adults working with children such as bus drivers. The training will teach each adult how to recognize and understand bullying. Staff and teachers will also learn how to set up school policies and procedures to deal with bullies. They will be trained in how to work with the victims of bullies and help them cope with the after effects (A Foundation). The Olweus program has been around for many years and is a relatively costly program. Most schools using this program have found similar positive results as the other two prior mentioned programs. Many schools have participated in this program, but is this program as well as others really making a change in the overall amount of bullying going on in schools today?
According to (Ferguson, 2007, p.410), “School-based anti-bullying programs are not practically effective in reducing bullying or violent behaviors in the schools.” This may be disheartening to parents, staff, administrators and teachers. Schools have invested large sums of money to implement programs to reduce bullying. Why are the programs not working? Bullying is a profitable business for bullies. Many studies depict bullies as students lacking self-esteem, but in reality most bullies are quite confident in themselves. By taking from the “poor” and giving to “the rich,” themselves, bullying is profitable. The only ones that really benefit from anti-bullying programs are the victims. These programs are designed to help victims cope with the emotions they encounter. The programs really provide no incentive for bullies to stop. Another reason these programs may not be effective is that violence may be partially genetic and a learned behavior from home. Unless these conditions change, the end results remain the same (Ferguson, 2007, p. 411-412). Anti-bullying programs help victims and make administrators, parents, teachers, and other staff aware of the problems. Schools may not be able to stop all bullying, but supporting the victims is winning half of the battle.
References
Bear, George, G., Blank, Jessica., (2008). Fact Sheet #2: Bullying Preventioin. Consortium to Prevent School Violence. Retrieved from http://k12engagement.unl.edu/CPSV FactSheet2BullyingPrevention-March-13-2008.pdf
Deas, Ann-Marie., & Scott, Kim. (2009). Bruce-Grrey Catholic D.S.B., Holy Family School Bullying and Violence Prevention Project. Retrieved from http://www.oesc-cseo.org/english/BVPfinalReports/bruceGreyFinalReport.pdf
Fergurson, Christopher, J., San Miguel, Claudia., Kilburn Jr., John, C., & Sanchez, Patricia. (2007). The Effectiveness of School-Based Anti-Bullying Programs. Criminal Justice Review, 32(4), 401-414. Retrieved from http://www.christopherjferguson.com/bully.pdf
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.
Operation Respect. How to use this curriculum. Retrieved from http://operationrespect.org/get-started/how-to-use-this-curriculum/
Reid, John, B., Eddy, Mark, Fetrow, Rbecca, Ann., & Stoolmiller, Mike. (1999). Description and Immediate Impacts of a Preventive Intervention for Conduct Problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(4), 483-517. Retrieved from http://www.ebppc.hawaii.edu/Resources/LIFT_RCT.pdf
Smith, J.D., Schneider, Barry, H., Smith, Peter, K., & Ananiadou, Katerina. (n.d.) The Effectiveness of Whole-School Anti-bullying Programs: A Synthesis of Evaluation Research. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 547-560. Retrieved from http://njbullying.org/documents/smith04B.pdf
Violence Prevention Works. A Foundation for Successful Program Implementation. Retrieved from http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/bullying_prevention_ training_info.page
(2010). Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Research Precis, 12(4), 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.designedinstruction.com/learningleads/linking-families-teachers.pdf
