Case Study 14C

Building a Bullying Prevention Program from the Ground Up: Students as the Key

Michelle McPherson

History of Bullying Prevention

School District 2 is located in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. It is the largest school district in the province, providing services to over sixteen thousand students in thirty-eight schools. I began working as a school social worker in 1996 and transferred to School District 2 in 2004. The purpose of this case study is to provide an overview of how this district has been able to address bullying through the development of a prevention program beginning in 2009, which is not only schoolwide but districtwide. A key to what we have achieved is how we have been able to use our most valuable resources within the schools, our students. Research continues to tell us that the answer to bullying is the bystanders (Pepler & Craig, 2000), and our experience has underscored that by changing their own attitudes and behaviors, students are the ones who have the power to change the lives of their fellow classmates. Much of the work referred to has been done in collaboration with an Anti-Bullying District Committee that has been established in School District 2.

When I first started working with students, teachers, administrators, and senior district personnel in 1996 as a social worker, I was responsible for serving fifty-six schools. I soon realized that I needed to focus my attention on what issues were of most concern to schools rather than working with a fixed agenda. When I surveyed the schools, almost all schools reported bullying as a significant issue. In an attempt to meet the demands of the schools in regard to bullying, I began offering classroom-based presentations. I was under the assumption that if I just told the students how horrible it was to bully and how much the victims suffered, then they would simply stop. To my surprise, my entreaties did not lead to the desired outcome. I was discouraged but quickly realized I needed to change my strategy to a more effective approach. First and foremost, I came to the conclusion that support from the administration was mandatory. Without this support, a program cannot be viable within a school. I then offered staff directed workshops, with the expectation that they would be given the necessary tools to educate their own students and would be able to implement a schoolwide bullying prevention program. In addition to this, by presenting to all the staff in the school, it ensured the consistency among the staff, which was also a vital component to the program’s success. Although a much better approach than classroom presentations, there were still many obstacles. The main one was that I could not possibly train all of the schools in one school year and keep ahead of the changes in administration and staff that took place on a yearly basis.

In 2009, through careful consideration, thought, and experience, I concluded that in order for a program to be successful within the school system, it required the following: the ability to reach all staff with limited resources, consistency among schools with regard to policies and interventions, a district supervisor who was well versed in the program, the ability to share updated resources among the various schools, and the ability to provide ongoing training to all of the schools. In order to meet these expectations, I met with the director of education, Gregg Ingersoll, and proposed a model of intervention. I received his full support in the development of a District-Wide Anti-Bullying Prevention Program. At the core of this program was the establishment of a District Committee, an Adult Committee, and a Student Committee. This program would not have been possible if it had not been for the leaders in School District 2, who were very knowledgeable regarding the issue of bullying. They understood the need for students to feel safe in their schools in order to reach their maximum academic potential.

Structure and Organization of Bullying Prevention Services

The District Committee was made up of a district supervisor (Anne Bernard-Bourgeois), two administrators (Heather Welling and Christoph Becker), one guidance counsellor (Julie Campbell), two computer technicians (Mario Chiasson and Richard Daley), and myself. Most of these committee members were chosen because I had partnered with them in the past and had assisted them in implementing successful pilot antibullying programs within each of their schools. The first step of this committee was to develop a common knowledge base so that we shared a common understanding. Two books by Stan Davis were of particular value: Schools Where Everyone Belongs: Practical Solutions for Dealing with Bullying (2005) and Empowering Bystanders in Bullying Prevention (2007). Having worked at that time for thirteen years in the area of bullying in schools and having run pilot programs for a number of years, I also had a great deal of practical experience for making recommendations regarding program interventions. Although I felt confident in what I wanted to do, I felt it necessary to have the support of the District Committee. They were able to provide me with a more diverse knowledge base; they were able to turn some of my ideal approaches into more manageable, realistic school-based interventions; they were able to provide the long- and short-term goals of the anti-bullying program; and I in turn provided most of the research and practical-based tools and interventions. The committee prepared a training workbook for each school containing policy, interventions, and resources that they were expected to endorse. The District Committee had many roles and objectives, which continued to evolve and expand each school year. Their main role however was to provide ongoing training for district staff and to continually update resources, which were disseminated to each of the schools in the district.

Each school was required to set up an Adult Committee. A lead teacher was chosen from each Adult Committee and was expected to attend the ongoing training sessions conducted by the District Committee, with the expectation that they would in turn train their Adult Committee and the remaining school staff. The main objective of this committee was to assist the school in implementing the districtwide antibullying program as laid out in the training workbook.

Each school was also required to set up a Student Committee. The members of the committee were chosen for their reputation as very responsible, trustworthy, and mature citizens of the school community. It was paramount that the students selected would have the skills and respect necessary to be able to address the student body with confidence. The main objective of the Student Committee was to provide bullying prevention programs to the younger grades. They were also responsible for helping to increase bullying awareness within their schools.

Once the schools had established their Adult and Student Committees, the priority was to look at how the schools were going to implement the district program and respond to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying behaviors. We anticipated that as our education efforts ramped up and awareness of the problem grew, we would see an increased number of referrals for bullying incidents. This was not because the incidents of bullying would have increased but because students would now feel that it was safe to report, as they would be encouraged by the experience that the school would do something about it when they did. This is the most important part of the program. The school must respond appropriately and consistently when a bullying incident is reported. If not, then not only will the students stop reporting, but so will the teachers.

How the Bullying Prevention Program Works

Our District Committee noted over the past few years that some staff members were getting caught up with trying to differentiate whether the behavior in question was an act of bullying or not. Consequently, this often led to adults not responding as they should have. As a result of this, the District Committee decided to call our program “If It Hurts, It’s Wrong: Preventing and Addressing Hurtful Behaviours in Our Schools” (Becker et al., 2009). We emphasized that it did not matter whether the behavior could be described as bullying or not; if what the student did hurt someone else, then we responded. Many kids get away with minor forms of inappropriate behaviors in our schools. As a teacher in the classroom, if a student rolls her eyes at another student or makes a negative comment, then the teacher is left with a dilemma. Was the incident severe enough that the teacher should stop the class and deal with her, or does the teacher simply ignore it or tell the student to stop? Now, in isolation, this may not be considered a serious incident, but how do we know that this is not the fifth time today that this girl said something mean? Just as damaging, what if this was the fifth time today that someone said something mean to the victim? Seemingly minor offenses could add up to very serious implications for the victim. The kids who bully know what they are doing. They are not going to bully in front of the same teacher over and over, and for that reason they often get way with their behavior. Due to this, our District Committee looked at a way that we could respond to these seemingly minor offenses (whether bullying or not) and a way to track them. Ann Bernard-Bourgeois, of the District Committee, suggested we review and modify a resource titled “On the Spot Intervention” (www.stopbullying.gov). The intervention works as follows: If a teacher sees a student roll her eyes in the classroom at another student, the teacher simply states, “At this school we do not treat people like that; you will be tracked.” The teacher does not give the student who was misbehaving an opportunity to excuse or explain her behavior. The bottom line is that what the student did was not appropriate. This intervention is used in all K–12 classrooms and works quite well because it gives teachers something specific and immediate to do, it reinforces the school’s ethos and behavior standards, and it puts the student on notice. Next, the teacher fills out a behavior tracking form. Behavior tracking forms can be completed by both staff and students. The forms are not called “bullying forms,” as it does not matter whether or not the behavior fits the definition of bullying. If someone engages in hurtful behaviors, then they are tracked. The purpose of the tracking forms is to identify patterns of behavior. Once a child is tracked, then a range of consequences are available based on the district’s policy and depending on whether the behavior continues. I recommended to the District Committee that we categorize the interventions and consequences as either direct or indirect. It is my experience that the most effective intervention is dependent on certain particulars of the bullying incident.

Direct Interventions/Consequences

The direct interventions are primarily used and most effective when the behavior was witnessed (tracked) by a staff member or student, there is little doubt that a bullying incident has transpired, there is little worry of retaliation, and a more indirect intervention was not successful.

These interventions would entail what many schools already have in place with their code of student conduct or pyramid of interventions. This would also be part of a more rubric-based discipline system as best described by Stan Davis (2007). This is a system of consequences organized by level of severity of the infraction. Consequences might include the following (not necessarily in this order):

1.	Discussion with an administrator.
2.	Reflection hall: a designated place and time within the school where a student is expected to fill out a reflection form if he or she has been tracked
	for a hurtful behavior. This form requires the student to provide an account of the behavior in question, why this behavior was not acceptable, what the student will do in the future to prevent this behavior, and how the student is going to repair the situation.
3.	Parental contact: Stan Davis (2007) recommends that the perpetrating student call his or her parent in the presence of the administrator. The caution here is that you need to be relatively certain that the parent will respond appropriately and that there are unlikely to be negative repercussions due to poor parenting.
4.	Intervention with the Adult Committee: when a student is tracked for more minor hurtful behaviors, he or she meets with members of the Adult Committee rather than having to meet with the administrator. This committee is responsible for determining the appropriate consequences. If the behavior continues, the student would then meet with the administrator. For chronic or more difficult cases, it is recommended that the administrator consult with the members of the Adult Committee.
5.	Separating the child who bullied from the other students (e.g., loss of recess/lunch, detention).
6.	Formative consequences (Pepler & Craig, 2000): through formative consequences, students who bully can learn to turn their negative power and dominance into positive leadership skills and acquire the insights and empathy that they are lacking. Some examples we have used successfully include the following:
	a.	If this student has a particular talent (e.g., artistic, soccer), have the student deliver lessons to younger grades, with teacher supervision, during the student’s unstructured time. It is very powerful when staff see the student in a more positive light, just as it is important that the student receive positive attention from others at school. To some students, negative attention is better than no attention. This is a particularly useful strategy for those students who come from homes where they receive very little attention and for those who do not have a sense of belonging to their school.
	b.	The student accompanies a teacher during unstructured time with younger children and assists in resolving peer-to-peer conflicts, focusing more on the needs of the victim.
	c.	Have the student do community service at a local charity or a senior citizen’s home.
7.	Referral to guidance: the child who engages in chronic bullying behavior may require individual counseling. There may be underlying issues that need to be addressed in order to assist the student in changing his behavior. Once a trusting relationship is formed, the student may disclose that he has been a victim of bullying in the past and is reacting as a result of this, or that he is experiencing difficulties within his own home.
8.	Parental meeting: it is vital when the parents are called in that there be sufficient documentation regarding the bullying incidents, as some parents can be quite defensive. It is also important not to use the word bullying; this often incites further hostility, as the word has such a negative connotation. Instead, it is much more beneficial simply to describe the behaviors in question. When meeting with the parents, it is necessary that the administrator and any other
	staff member that is privy to the situation in question be in attendance, keeping in mind that only necessary staff members need to attend so as not to intimidate or overwhelm the parents. It is important that the parents see this as a whole-school initiative and not just the administrator’s.
9.	Individual behavioral plan: this is a plan that is typically developed by the Adult Committee in consultation with the administrator. This would be used in cases of chronic bullying in which the traditional school consequences have not been successful. Some examples would be that the student receives constant supervision during unstructured time or that the student’s dismissal and arrival times are altered, thus ensuring that the victim feels safe walking to and from school.
10.	Suspension: the particulars of the suspension (length, in school or out of school) would be dependent on the severity of the incident.

The severity of the consequences would depend on how severe, frequent, and chronic the behavior in question is. Tracking helps to determine this.

Indirect Interventions/Consequences

Indirect interventions are primarily used and most effective when the victim fears retaliation, there were no witnesses to the bullying incident, there has been more than one student engaging in the bullying behavior and there is an obvious leader, the bullying has been relational in nature, the students engaged in the bullying had been friends or continue to be friends, and the children engaged in the bullying behavior are very young in age.

Indirect interventions are most often the first mode of intervention used when I am asked to assist in a bullying situation. In the vast majority of cases, the following kinds of interventions have proven to be most effective. When they have not been, then more direct interventions are warranted. In indirect interventions, school staff do not necessarily work directly with the perpetrator, nor do they necessarily work directly with the particulars of the bullying incident. Instead of focusing simply on the child who acted like a bully and the victim, you look beyond this, and you instill a sense of empowerment and responsibility in the bystanders. These are the students who actually have the power not only to alter the behavior of the child who has acted like a bully, but also to assist the victim in feeling a sense of belonging within the school at a time when he or she needs it most. My philosophy has always been that we have great kids in our schools, and my experience is that when students are asked to help their fellow students and are given a structured way to do it, they are more than willing. The more we create opportunities for students to participate in these support groups (led by trained Student Committee members), the more they inadvertently learn how they can intervene and help their fellow students.

Historically, however, we have not provided clear, meaningful advice about how students can and should intervene. For years we have been telling students, “Don’t stand by; stand up when you see someone being bullied.” However, to my dismay, students did not take the appropriate action, even though they knew and could verbally describe the expected behavior when they saw someone being bullied. The main reasons students have given for their inaction are that they do not want to be the next victim, they do not want to go against their friends, they do not know what to do in specific circumstances, and they do not want to be a tattletale. As a result, victims are left feeling that nobody cares for them, and the students who bully are left believing that everyone supports them. As I continued to hear this same story over and over, I began to realize that I needed to find a new approach to working with victims and empowering bystanders. The work of Stan Davis (2007) on social norms helped me to formalize my ideas and develop a peer support group intervention model. In essence, Davis found in talking to many young people that “they often have misperceptions about normative values and behavior. Both the youth who bully and those who are bullied commonly misperceive their school environment and see the majority of peers in support of the bully” (Davis, 2007, p. 102). He added that “social norms interventions are common and successful tools to change undesired behaviors” (Davis, 2007, p. 101).

The main objective of the bullying prevention peer support group is to make certain that the victim is left with an actual account of what the bystanders are thinking rather than their own misperceptions of the incident, as their misperceptions often leave them believing that no one cares about them, when in reality this is not the case. They need to have a clear understanding as to why the bystanders were unable to stand up for them. The victims do not want to hear from the adults that their friends are still supporting them; they need to hear it directly from their peers.

This peer support group is an indirect intervention for the victim and can be used in conjunction with the direct interventions for the student perpetrators. The District Committee recommended a developmentally tiered approach for indirect interventions with the students who have bullied others. For kindergarten to grade 3, we recommend the no blame approach by George Robinson and Barbara Maines (1997), authors of the book Crying for Help: The No Blame Approach. Several years ago when I first started to implement the no blame approach in schools, I added an additional last but important step, which serves as a positive incentive to be a bystander. The administrator thanks the peer group support members individually for helping the victimized student. This is an especially important intervention for the child who acted like a bully. We do not endorse this program for older children, as we feel that the child who bullied has far too much power to be included in a group as recommended by this approach.

For grades 4 to 12, in cases where the bullying incident is relational in nature, where there is more than one student who is acting like a bully, and where there is an obvious leader, such as a “Queen Bee,” the District Committee recommends the method of shared concern by Ken Rigby (2005). His article, “The Method of Shared Concern as an Intervention Technique to Address Bullying in Schools: An Overview and Appraisal,” is particularly useful, but with one significant modification. We do not include the leader of the students acting like bullies in the last step of the intervention, where it is recommended that the whole group be brought together with the victim. It has been our experience that the leader has far too much power and influence over the group. If the leader is included in the group discussion, then the rest of the group will not feel that they can openly express how they feel.

These indirect interventions often rely on building positive relationships and providing positive messages to all of the students, including the bystanders, the victims, and the children who acted like a bully. Through the support group structure, we have been able to teach the bystanders how they can intervene effectively and support their fellow classmates. The most important interventions that we have continued to teach the bystanders are “Tell an adult” if you see someone being hurt (ensure their confidentiality) and “Take It Away”—when you see someone hurt someone else with their words or actions, when this person walks away, go to the victim and take the hurt away. Take away the negative by saying something positive so that the victim is not left assuming that you support the one being mean.

In some cases, when the student who acted like a bully realizes how much the victim was actually suffering, the student did feel some empathy and consequently altered his or her behavior. Most importantly, it is through these indirect support group interventions that we are assisting the victims. This step is often missed if the focus is solely on punitive consequences for the child who acted like a bully.

Case Example

Scenario: Sam was a grade 7 student in a school of about five hundred students. Sam and his parents met with me and were all visibly upset while they were recounting the story of how Sam had been treated at school. Sam had been bullied over the course of several months by two other boys in his class. Many of his friends had since stopped hanging around with him. Sam had not been in school for the past two weeks and was asking his parents if he could transfer schools. Sam felt that at this point he did not have any friends, as no one was supporting him. He stopped reporting the incidents to the school, as the bullying was continuing and he was left with the impression that the school could do nothing to stop it. (It is very unfortunate when this happens, as the school cannot help if they do not know what is going on. Oftentimes when the student stops reporting, the school is left with the wrong assumption that the bullying has stopped.)

Plan of Action: (This plan was set up in collaboration with the school team.)

1. We set up a tracking system for Sam. He was asked to keep a running log in the back of his binder where he was to document any hurtful behaviors that were directed at him. He was to check in with the administrator each day to report how things were going. This was a very important intervention. Many students report that they stop telling the school because they told in the past and the bullying continued, so they were left with the impression that no one could help them. When this happens, the students start to feel trapped, knowing that they have to attend school each day and face the bullying and that there is nothing that anyone can do to help them. When a student has been bullied, it is important to acknowledge up front that the planned intervention may help for the first few weeks, but then the bullying may start again. If this happens, the student is encouraged not to give up on the school and to make sure to report it. Students like Sam need to know that the intervention and support from the school will continue. Sam was asked to check in with the administrator over the next two weeks. (In most cases, this role would have been given to the guidance counselor, but in this case the student was more comfortable with the administrator.) Following the first two weeks, the administrator was asked to transition this student to the guidance counselor. The guidance counselor was then expected to meet with this student on a regular basis. This relationship was paramount, as we wanted the student to build a trusting relationship with the guidance counselor. We needed to ensure that this student had an adult in the school that he could turn to in the event that the bullying continued.
2. The administrator updated all of Sam’s teachers regarding the situation and asked that they be vigilant in tracking the bullying behaviors of the two mentioned students, keeping in mind that seemingly smaller incidents could add up, as was the case in this situation.
3. The administrator met with the boys individually and conducted the first step only in the method of shared concern. (This is often a very effective strategy when an administrator has a positive connection with the student who bullied, as was the case in this situation.) She felt that she could appeal to their positive attributes. Their behaviors would be monitored closely. If their behavior continued, there would be further consequences, per the direct interventions, and parents would be notified.
4. The team ensured that Sam had something positive to do during recess break. Far too often we pull the victim from recess in order to keep him or her safe; it should really be the other way around. It is not always easy to remove the privilege of recess from the child who has acted like a bully, as the parents often question and refuse to accept this consequence. The tracking forms become very useful documentation. In this case, Sam was feeling quite isolated from his peers and did not want to go out at recess. Sam enjoyed helping out with a special needs student during recess, so this was arranged. Our goal was to slowly integrate Sam with his friends, with the help of a peer support group.
5. A peer support group for Sam was set up. We were able to enlist two boys in eighth grade to assist with this group. After we met as a group, we invited Sam to join us. As soon as Sam entered the room and he noticed his friends, he became quite emotional; his lip began to quiver and his eyes welled with tears. There was a long pause and silence. It was at that moment that the students seemed to understand the seriousness of the situation. The two older boys were able to take the lead and engage the younger boys in joining the discussion. As the support group progressed, you could slowly see Sam start to relax and some of his confidence return. They explained to Sam why it was difficult for them to stand up to the boys who had bullied him. He received the message from his friends that they did care about him and that they would support him in the future.

A week later I followed up with Sam to inquire how things were going at school. Sam stated that another boy had been teasing him, but when he told me this he did not seem upset. On the contrary, he seemed quite pleased. He went on to explain that when this happened, he went to one of the older boys who had been in the support group and enlisted his help. The older boy spoke to the student who was picking on Sam (he was able to do this, as he was quite popular and had status among his peers). Shortly thereafter, the perpetrator came over to Sam and apologized for harassing him; he went on to explain that he did not know that Sam had been having a hard time at school. Sam also said that the other older boy who was in the support group went out of his way to say hi to him whenever he saw him. I was elated when I was speaking with Sam. Sam did not seem to be bothered by the fact that he had been bullied again; the positive behavior of the other peers overshadowed the one incident.

1. The victim’s parents were continually updated. Sam was able to successfully return to school, and no major incidents of further bullying were reported. This can be attributed to the fact that the administrator had a very good understanding of the interventions available through the bullying program and was able to choose the most effective interventions for the particulars of this situation.

Throughout my fifteen years of working in the area of bullying in schools, my use of interventions has continued to evolve. However, my one belief that has not wavered and that has continued to direct all that I have done in the schools is that there are wonderful children in our schools, children who are willing to help; we just need to ask them to become effective upstanders. In a school where there are hundreds of students, there is no reason that a child should be left alone. Educators often complain that there are not enough resources within the school to address the issue of bullying. I feel that we have an abundance of resources, our students; we just need to learn how to tap into this resource more effectively to successfully work on reducing bullying in our schools. I believe that through the use of student committees and peer support groups, as well as the procedures outlined above, we have started to do just that.

References

Becker, C., Bernard-Bourgeois, A., Campbell, J., Chiasson, M., Daley, R., MacPherson, M., et al. (2009). If it hurts, it’s wrong: Preventing and addressing hurtful behaviours in our schools. Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada: School District 2.

Davis, S. (2005). Schools where everyone belongs: Practical solutions for dealing with bullying. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Research Press.

Davis, S. (2007). Empowering bystanders in bullying prevention. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Research Press.

Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. (2000). Making a difference in bullying (LaMarsh Report No. 60). Toronto, Canada: LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, York University.

Rigby, K. (2005). The method of shared concern as an intervention technique to address bullying in schools: An overview and appraisal. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 15(1), 27–34.

Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Crying for help: The no blame approach. Bristol, UK: Lucky Duck Publishing.