Bullying in Schools - Essay Example

Bullying in Schools While it is often played off as just school yard antics or sometimes recognized as a problem a child must learn to overcome on their own, bullying behavior among children and adolescents can have long term effects on both the bully and the victim. According to David Farrington (1993), bullying “is surprisingly common; there is evidence that over half of children have been victimized and over half have been bullies. It causes immediate harm and distress to the victim and has negative long-term consequences for the victim’s mental health. It also has negative consequences for the bully” (382). There are many reasons why a child’s involvement with bullying behavior, whether as perpetrator or recipient, should be taken more seriously. For example, there is increasing evidence provided in numerous studies that indicates bullying behavior manifested in school can indicate an individual’s increased risk of participation in criminal behavior as an adult. Victims of bullying in school have been shown to manifest a higher risk of social maladjustment (Schwartz, Dodge & Cole, 1993: 1755). The good news is that because bullying behavior typically occurs on a recurrent basis between two individuals who know each other, it is one of the few conditions that can also often be identified and prevented, perhaps with the result of a reduction in criminal behavior among adults. However, before teachers and administrators can reduce the long-term effects caused by bullying schools, they must first be informed as to the prevalence, development and identification of the problem to instill in them an appreciation of the seriousness of the problem and then be provided with knowledge of those approaches that have proven to reduce these behaviors among schoolchildren. Literature review The term ‘bullying’ is used to denote a specific behavior pattern statistically occurring most often among boys but that can occur among girls as well. “Bullying is characterized by bigger and stronger youngsters ‘victimizing’ their peers through the repeated use of negative actions, such as physical, verbal or relational aggression” (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000: 700). The noted gender difference regarding those individuals involved in bullying behavior is generally believed to be the result of a stronger male association with physical aggression as an appropriate means of establishing and maintaining peer status or dominance as opposed to the roles typically ascribed to girls (Maccoby, 1998). Recent years have seen an upswing in the number of girls participating in this behavior, however, and studies must be conducted to determine the cause for this behavior pattern. For many of these children, whether victims or bullies, their role in the practice can be seen to have had its beginnings within the home. This concept is suggested in a study conducted by Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit and Bates (1997). According to their research, children who grew up to be aggressive victims in primary school had most often experienced excessively hostile and punitive family relationships during earlier formative years while those who perpetrated aggressive acts had themselves been witnesses to greater incidences of adult aggression. An important distinction between these two groups was that while the victims were recipients of violence, the aggressors had merely been witnesses and had little or no direct experience of the pain or humiliation they were inflicting. It is also interesting to note that those children who emerged as passive victims of bullying behavior in school had home lives that were statistically indistinguishable from those children who were not victims. The prevalence of bullying can be seen by taking a more historical look at its progress. Earlier research that investigated what was then termed ‘undesirable behavior’, which included acts of bullying, determined that behavior problems such as bullying increased with age, reaching a peak between the ages of 9 and 13, making it of prime importance to the middle school teacher (Hurlock and McDonald, 1934). The levels of bullying seemed to reach its peak at the middle school ages and then gradually decreased into young adulthood, tapering off around the end of high school for those students who were not to progress into a life of crime in their adult years. In addition, the studies conducted by Hurlock and McDonald (1934) indicated that participation in behavior such as bullying seemed to differ depending primarily upon age and IQ levels. In more recent years, a questionnaire sent out to six different countries, including Denmark, France, West Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Belgium, revealed that of the five responding countries (Denmark did not respond), four of them indicated ‘bullying’ was among their top concerns in attempting to reduce disruptive behavior in their schools (Lawrence, Steed & Young, 1984: 15). This same study also determined that violence, particularly bullying, in schools was occurring within increasingly younger age groups throughout Europe as part of a trend towards increasing incidents of violent behavior in schools since the 1970s. By 1991, researchers Coie, Dodge, Terry & Wright were examining the types of bullying that was occurring in schools. They found that the patterns of bullying differed among elementary school children based on grade levels. “In the first grade, aggressive boys were more often the target of bullying acts than nonaggressive boys, whereas the reverse was true among third graders. This fact suggests that first-grade bullying is not so much bullying in the sense that individuals are being targeted for humiliation and abuse” (Coie, Dodge, Terry & Wright, 1991: 821). Despite noted differences in bullying behavior noted among grade levels, other research determined that the patterns of bullying and the social rejection that results from this type of behavior are established early. A study conducted by Dodge et al (1990) suggested that boys often come into play situations with a specific set of behavioral characteristics that are quickly recognized and categorized by other boys. A child with overly aggressive tendencies will quickly become labeled as a bully and will be socially rejected from the group, contributing to further disruptive behavior. This seemed to confirm an earlier study conducted in 1977 on adolescent and pre-adolescent boys. Olweus (1977) concluded aggressive behavior patterns, once established, tend to stick for the long-term and become difficult for instructors to modify. There have been many theories proposed to explain why some individuals choose to behave in more aggressive or bullying ways. Here, a progression of research illustrates a general consensus that the issue of bullying is a behavioral rather than biological manifestation. An early study (Durea, 1937) was conducted that attempted to distinguish the differences between the way in which a ‘delinquent’ boy thinks as opposed to the mental processes of a ‘normal’ boy. Durea concluded that delinquents have decidedly different value systems than the control group. “It is clear that juvenile offenders differ from non-offenders rather generally in characteristics, such as things considered wrong; worries, fears, and anxieties; likes and interests; and kinds of people liked or admired” (Durea, 1937: 127). More than fifty years later, a biological cause for bullying behavior has still not been discovered. Herbert Needleman of the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine published a study in 1996 suggesting increases in aggressive and bullying behavior among school children between the ages of 7 and 11 could be caused by high levels of lead in the children’s bones (cited in “Lead and Delinquency”, 1996). As this relative dearth of published studies would suggest, it is most probable based upon studies into the issues involved, that the problem of bullying begins primarily within the realm of behavioral theories. Dominance theory suggests that each group of individuals defines status through the relationships established between them. These groups are organized from most to least dominant to determine access to valued resources (Hinde, 1980). The necessity of using physically aversive strategies and alliances to enforce this hierarchy is especially important in the early stages of group formation (Dunbar, 1988; Hartup, 1983). Teachers of pre-adolescents can expect greater incidents of bullying than is exhibited in other age groups where the social order has already been established or is established through less violent means. “When younger and smaller individuals enter a group of older and physically larger individuals, we expect their status to decline. Further, when individuals enter a new group, status within this group must be established. They typically use deliberate agonistic strategies, such as hitting, threatening, or social ostracism, or more general forms of bullying to achieve dominance” (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000: 701). The research has thus well established the idea that bullying is a behavioral issue, but there remains the issue of how teachers can play a role in changing this behavior within the school setting. The following discussion will investigate what the research offers teachers in how to cope with bullying within the classroom. Discussion Studies conducted looking into the naturalistic behavior of children on the playground indicate that those children who experience low acceptance levels among their peers tend to “engage in more aggression and disruptive behavior and/or more solitary behavior, whereas high accepted children to participate in more prosocial activities and group games” (Boulton, 1999: 944). This suggests the importance of teachers remaining aware of social structures developing within their classrooms. It may be possible for observant teachers to head off potentially dangerous behavior before it escalates to actual violence if the teacher is aware of these social tendencies. Intervention strategies can then be used to assist at-risk children in learning how best to handle difficult social situations. Studies conducted in the field can provide further social elements that might have increased tendencies to engage in bullying behavior either as the aggressor or as the victim. Knowledge of these social groups can help teachers determine when and what type of intervention technique might be most appropriate. Because boys tend to be involved in bullying behavior more often than girls, it is important to recognize the unique issues facing children of this gender group. Studies consistently indicate that boys who are able to achieve some sort of academic success typically become associated with the feminine among the other boys, leading to them more often becoming the victims of bullying because of a perceived lack of masculinity (Mac an Ghaill, 1994). A study looking into the various ways in which boys perceive school support the conclusion that most boys consider studious behavior to be feminizing, or at the very least, risky for social acceptance. Activities identified as risky include being quiet, being seen in settled study and visibly working hard at a given academic task. Other activities that threaten a young boy’s sense of masculinity within the school setting include reading, being seriously concerned with reported grades and/or publicly acknowledging school is cool. “By engaging or perceived to be engaging in any of these activities/body postures, boys potentially leave themselves open to verbal abuse and ridicule, and are positioned daily as ‘swots’, ‘geeks’, ‘nerds’ and ‘squares’. Two-thirds of the boys went to great lengths to avoid studious behaviors, particularly boys who were deemed high achievers” (Renold, 2001: 373). Common methods these boys used to try to deflect attention from their academic prowess included initiating bullying behaviors such as teasing and ridiculing others as well as participating or initiating disruptive, rule-breaking behaviors. Teachers who bring attention to a boy’s studious methods, thinking they are handing them praise, could actually be inflicting more harm than good upon this student and encouraging further disruptive behavior. Children living in impoverished conditions have also been identified as being at a particularly higher risk of aggressive behavior over their peers (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Costello, 1989). While it is true that certain populations demonstrate an increased level of bullying behavior when placed in impoverished conditions, it is important that teachers not be too quick to associate a student as a possible bully or victim based solely on their economic status. A study (Barbarin, 1999) working to demonstrate the detrimental effects of poverty on specific populations compared behavior of African American children with the behavior of South African children to determine whether the effects of poverty were consistent across major cultural groups. Because the study found that South Africans rated much higher in those behaviors that resulted in bullying, including breaking rules, destroying property, not being liked by other students and demanding attention at all times, as compared to African American students who tended to internalize many of their issues, this study is important in pointing out the dangers inherent in judging too quickly. Despite these obstacles, teachers working to help prevent bullying behavior must understand it is important to trust his or her instincts regarding a child’s intentions for aggression. According to Dodge and Cole (1987), most teachers can reliably and validly distinguish between proactive (bullying) aggression and reactive aggression (intended to protect). Many teachers, though, especially in the upper grade levels, tend to expect students to solve their own interpersonal problems with classmates (Newman, 2003). This reluctance on the part of teachers to interfere in the development of children serves to reinforce the reported reluctance students feel regarding approaching adults for help when they are unsure of how to handle peer conflicts (Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997). This is significant because many children who are harassed by their peers will react in either passive behaviors, which serve to escalate the violence as it perceived they will not defend themselves, or in other ways that only serve to heighten the danger presented (Olweus, 1978; Pellegrini, 1998; Perry, Kusel & Perry, 1988; Schwartz, Dodge & Coie, 1993). Advice issued as early as 1928 (James) indicate that the best way to deal with bullying behavior is to first give the offending student an oral reproof upon their first offense followed by removal of privileges if the behavior continues. However, few studies are available today that offer real-life workable strategies for intervention of the bullying cycle, whether the student is the aggressor, the victim or both. Because of this teachers are left with an enormous burden in terms of seeking a proper course of action. That some action needs to be taken, however, is evident in the numerous studies that have linked juvenile ‘deviant behavior’ with future criminal activity (Olweus, 1980, 1991; Eron et al, 1987; Lane, 1989). Conclusion By reviewing the available literature, it can be determined that bullying is a growing issue in schools throughout the developed world, with teachers, parents and other officials reporting the problem as among the highest detrimental issues they have to deal with. In addition to the physical danger this places individual children in when they are merely attempting to learn what they need to know for a future career or at least to fulfill state mandates, the problem of bullying has long-term consequences for the bully, the victim and society at large. In many cases, it has even been shown that students can experience the detrimental effects of being both bully and victim, becoming socially ostracized and entering an unending cycle of detrimental self-image. While some of these issues are started at home, in the form of abusive family relationships or impoverished conditions, they are continued and exacerbated in the classroom and on the playground, gradually increasing as children grow older and enter pre-adolescence. It is when children enter one of their most vulnerable periods, when they are attempting to establish a sense of self as they also learn to cope with changing bodies, changing hormones and changing social configurations that bullying emerges at its most virulent. This is consistent with the findings of studies conducted to test the validity of Dominance Theory, which indicates it is necessary for children entering this stage in their lives to establish a new social hierarchy that is typically based upon physical aggression, particularly as it applies to boys. While certain physical health conditions may exist that escalate this problem, such as lead poisoning or behavioral patterns established by altered definitions regarding what is right and just, behavioral theories such as Dominance theory are more likely to improve understanding of why children turn to bullying as a means of enforcing their social positioning. Efforts to reduce the amount of bullying behavior taking place on the playground have several characteristic behaviors and conditions to flag potential problems, but few solutions or real intervention techniques have been proposed. Students with low acceptance levels among their peers are known to be at greater risk of being a participant in bullying behavior, as the aggressor, victim or both. These social patterns have been shown to be established relatively quickly and consistently among playgroups and can possibly provide a means of identifying those children requiring greater attention or instruction in appropriate social integration techniques. Children living in impoverished conditions also demonstrate a stronger tendency to experience behavior problems, but the way in which these issues manifest themselves depends in large part upon their cultural base, making this characteristic difficult to use as an indicator. Because boys tend to be involved in bullying behavior more than girls, this gender group necessarily requires greater study and attention regarding how these behaviors emerge and progress, including real-life strategies on how to intervene and redirect. It is apparent that teachers can play a significant role in this process as they are frequently accurate in identifying those students most involved in disruptive bullying behaviors as well as those most at risk. Yet a demonstrated reluctance on the part of teachers to interfere with a vital growth process equipped with poor information and few proven techniques is exacerbated by a strong tendency among students to resist requesting assistance, even when it could be potentially dangerous not to do so. There remains much to be learned and many studies to be conducted before the complex relationships and effects of bullying behavior can be understood and appropriately addressed in the classroom setting. References Barbarin, Oscar A. (November-December 1999). “Social Risks and Psychological Adjustment: A Comparison of African American and South African Children.” Child Development. Vol. 70, N. 6, pp. 1348-1359. Boulton, Michael J. (July/August 1999). “Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations between Children’s Playground Behavior and Social Preference, Victimization and Bullying.” Child Development. Vol. 70, N. 4, pp. 944-954. Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. (1997). “The Effects of Poverty on Children.” The Future of Children: Children and Poverty. Vol. 7, pp. 55-71. Coie, John D; Dodge, Kenneth A.; Terry, Robert & Wright, Virginia. (August 1991). “The Role of Aggression in Peer Relations: An Analysis of Aggression Episodes in Boys’ Play Groups.” Child Development. Vol. 62, N. 4, pp. 812-826. Costello, E.J. (1989). “Child Psychiatric Disorders and their Correlates: A Primary care Pediatric Sample.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Vol. 28, pp. 851-855. Dodge, Kenneth A. & Coie, John D. (1987). “Social-information Processing Factors in Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children’s Peer Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 53, pp. 1146-1158. Dodge, Kenneth A.; Coie, John D.; Pettit, Gregory; & Price, Joseph M. (October 1990). “Peer Status and Aggression in Boys’ Groups: Developmental and Contextual Analyses.” Child Development. Vol. 61, N. 5, pp. 1289-1309. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1988). Primate Social Systems. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Durea, Marvin A. (June 1937). “Personality Characteristics of Juvenile Delinquents: I.A. Method for the Selection of Differentiating Traits.” Child Development. Vol. 8, N. 2, pp. 115-128. Eron, L.; Huesmann, L.; Dubow, E.; Romanoff, R. & Yarmel, P. (1987). “Aggression and its Correlates Over 22 Years. Childhood Aggression and Violence. D. Crowell, L. Evans & C. O’Donnell (Eds.). New York: Putnam Press. Farrington, David P. (1993). “Understanding and Preventing Bullying.” Crime and Justice. Vol. 17, pp. 381-458. Hartup, W. (1983). “Peer Relations.” Handbook of Child Psychology. E.M. Hetherington (Ed.). Vol. 4. New York: Wiley, pp. 103-196. Hinde, R.A. (1980). Ethology. London: Fontana. Hopmeyer, A. & Asher, S.R. (1997). “Children’s Responses to Peer Conflicts Involving a Rights Infraction.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Vol. 43, pp. 235-254. Hurlock, E.B. & McDonald, L.C. (September 1934). “Undesirable Behavior Traits in Junior High School Students.” Child Development. Vol. 5, N. 3, pp. 278-290. James, H.W. (October 1928). “Punishments Recommended for School Offenses.” The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 29, N. 2, pp. 129-131. Lane, D. (1989). “Violent Histories: Bullying and Criminality.” Bullying in School. D. Tattum & D. Lane (Eds.). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Lawrence, Jean; Steed, D.M.; & Young, P. (February 1984). “European Voices on Disruptive Behaviour in Schools: Definitions, Concern, and Types of Behaviour.” British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 32, N. 1, pp. 4-17. “Lead and Delinquency.” (June 1996). Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 104, N. 6, pp. 600-601. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. Maccoby, E.E. (1998). The Two Sexes: Growing up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Newman, Richard S. (March 2003). “When Elementary School Students are Harassed by Peers: A Self-Regulative Perspective on Help Seeking.” The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 103, N. 4, Special Issue: New Directions in Motivation Research: Implications for Practice, pp. 339-355. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington D.C.: Hemisphere. Olweus, Dan. (December 1977). “Aggression and Peer Acceptance in Adolescent Boys: Two Short-Term Longitudinal Studies of Ratings.” Child Development. Vol. 48, N. 4, pp. 1301-1313. Olweus, Dan. (1980). “The consistency Issue in Personality Psychology Revisited with Special Reference to Aggression.” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 19, pp. 377-390. Olweus, Dan. (1991). “Bully/Victim Problems Among School Children.” The Development of Childhood Aggression. D. Pepler & K.H. Rubin. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pellegrini, A.D. (1998). “Bullies and Victims in School: A Review of and call for Research.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Vol. 19, pp. 165-176. Pellegrini, A.D. & Bartini, Maria. (Autumn, 2000). “A Longitudinal Study of Bullying, Victimization and Peer Affiliation during the Transition from Primary School to Middle School.” American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 37, N. 3, pp. 699-725. Perry, D.G.; Kusel, S.J. & Perry, L.C. (1988). “Victims of Peer Aggression.” Developmental Psychology. Vol. 24, pp. 807-814. Renold, Emma. (September 2001). “Learning the ‘Hard’ Way: Boys, Hegemonic Masculinity and the Negotiation of Learner Identities in the Primary School.” British Journal of Sociological Education. Vol. 22, N. 3, pp. 369-385. Schwartz, David; Dodge, Kenneth A.; & Cole, John D. (December 1993). “The Emergence of Chronic Peer Victimization in Boys’ Play Groups.” Child Development. Vol. 64, N. 6, pp. 1755-1772. Schwartz, David; Dodge, Kenneth; Pettit, Gregory S. & Bates, John E. (August 1997). “The Early Socialization of Aggressive Victims of Bullying.” Child Development. Vol. 68, N. 4, pp. 665-675. Read More