Program Proposal Preventing Bullying - Case Study Example

Program proposal preventing bullying General statistics compiled by various researchers allude to bullying being an endemic problem in schools in the United States. Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) in 2013 revealed that approximately 27.8% (1 in 3 students) of students report being victims of bullying episodes while in school that year whereas data from the Center for Disease Control in 2014 indicated that 19.6% of students in high school report being victims of bulling. In addition, data from the CDC also reports that 14.8% of high school students have experienced cyber bullying (CDC, 2014). It is important to note that a high percentage of victims fail to report bullying incidents. Petrosina et al. (2010) infer that only 36% of children bullied by their peers report these incidents to the relevant authorities. Various factors contribute to this trend; however, the most significant factor is the embarrassment resulting from reporting the bullying incident, which in turn attracts severe retaliation from peers who perceive the victim as a “snitch” or turtle tell. The focus of this proposal it to explore issues pertaining to bullying among students in High schools in the US. In addition, the proposal also analyzes the viability of an anti-bullying program by exploring the rationale for offering the program, most suitable setting for the program, selection and recruiting of participants for the program and the themes and strategies used in the program. Regardless of the variation or form, bullying has adverse effects on the psychological, physical and social welfare of the victim. Among the psychological problems include a heightened predisposition to developing anxiety related disorders, depression, disrupted sleep patterns (CDC, 2012). Victim’s negative self-concept contributes directly to their low self-esteem, which in turn affects their ability to engage in adaptive social interactions within and without the school setting; for example, deterioration of academic performance. In extreme cases, victims of bullying become preoccupied with suicidal thoughts, which they might eventually prove fatal. Suicides resulting from bullying are referred to as “bullycide”. More often than not, the focus of most research studies has been on adverse effects of bullying on victims with very little research studies focusing on the adverse effects on perpetrators bio-psycho-social welfare. A study done by the CDC in 2012 indicates that perpetrators of bullying incidents have a higher probability of having academic problems, developing substance abuse problems, and violent outbursts that lead to deviant social behaviors. In situations where students engage in both bullying and are victims of bullying, the likelihood of them experiencing severe adverse social, psychological and physiological distress increases twice as much (CDC, 2012). It is incumbent upon school administrators to implement anti-bullying programs, which help to curb bullying within and without the school setting. McCallion and Feder (2013) infer that such programs are effective, as they help to minimize bullying by an estimated 25%. The heightened maturity level of students in High school makes the implementation of an anti-bullying program that targets both perpetrators and victims of bullying easier. In my opinion, mental health practitioners with a background in guidance and counseling are the most suitable candidates for running school based anti-bullying programs. Bullying predominantly stems from psychological maladaptation; therefore, having extensive knowledge in psychology equips one with the skills required to customize the program based on the needs of the beneficiaries. For example, anti-bullying programs targeting perpetrators or bullies often focus on creating self-awareness about dispositional maladjustments and situational experiences that predispose their need to inflict physical or psychological harm on others. Conversely, anti-bullying programs targeting victims of bullying often focus on reversing the adverse effects of bullying. As such, the program focuses on reinforcing these students’ resilience by helping them develop a positive self-concept, which in turn elevates their self-esteem enabling them to stand up against bullies. A psychologist will also be aware of the importance of psycho-education in sensitizing all students about bullying, which in turn helps to minimize its occurrence. Hawkins et al. (2001) report that 57% of bullying situations end when peers intervene on behalf of the victim. The most appropriate setting for the program is within the High school grounds. The school is a central place where both parents, teachers, students and school administrators are able to congregate. It is crucial for the anti-bullying program to involve all relevant stakeholders, as doing the reverse is likely to undermine the effectiveness of the program. In its entirety, the program’s main goal is to sensitize all parties about bullying, for example, adverse effects of bullying, signs that a student is a victim of bullying and prevention and mitigation strategies aimed at curbing bullying. Seminars dedicated to psycho-education with regard to bullying should be held occasionally within the school premises. By making these seminars mandatory to all students, facilitators of the anti-bullying program are able to avoid labeling, which is likely to exacerbate bullying in the school. Both perpetrators and victims participate in the seminar on an equal footing; therefore, maintaining confidentiality. Recruiting participants eligible to receive more personalized intervention from the psychologist can occur during the seminars held on a regular basis. Facilitators of the anti-bullying program should communicate to interested parties the registration process. It is important to stress that their personal information will remain confidential, and that any future communication regarding the schedule and venue for meetings shall occur in a discrete manner. More often than not, adolescents shy away from seeking help because they are acutely aware of their peers’ negative reactions. The choice of screening tool used before the commencement of personalized sessions is predetermined by whether the student seeking help is a victim or perpetrator of bullying. Existing screening tools are either Victim-Only scales, Bully-Only scales or Victim and Bully scales. Rigby (2010) highlights six intervention strategies one can incorporate in schools to help curb bullying. They include strengthening the victim/bully, retroactive practice, traditional disciplinary approach, mediation, support group method and method of shared concern. Of significance to this study is the support group method whereby, participants congregate to share their experiences while learning well-adjusted behaviors. Results from the screening tools will predetermine, which group each student shall be placed. Randomly assigning students without prior consideration of whether they are victims, bullies or both undermines the effectiveness of the group sessions, as the needs of these students contradict each other. Approximately eight to twelve sessions held once a week is appropriate to help both victims and bullies to develop well-adjusted behaviors. For the victim, the content of the sessions will focus on equipping them with assertive skills, which will help them stand steadfast against those bullying them. Davis and Nixon (2010) inferred that race accounted for 16%, body shape 37% and looks 55% of the reasons students are bullied. In light of this, sessions for victims should also focus on helping them develop a favorable self-concept, which in turn heightens their self-esteem. On the other hand, sessions designed for bullies will focus on deterring them from engaging in malicious acts. In addition, the sessions should help highlight personal issues or experiences in their lives that contribute to their maladjusted behaviors. Part of the activities carried out during these sessions help to sensitize participants about diversity, which is the most predominant factor that instigates bullying. Role-play is also useful in enlightening perpetrators about the adverse consequences of their behaviors. Throughout the sessions, it is important to encourage participants to share their experiences in order to establish an appropriate group dynamic. In conclusion, bullying centers on maladjusted behaviors; therefore, adopting a model that focuses on the modification of behaviors is crucial. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is an appropriate model. CBT encompasses restructuring of negative thought patterns, beliefs by replacing them with more positive and realistic thoughts and beliefs respectively. In addition, one can also use Interpersonal Therapy to help victims of bullying that have developed psychological problems especially depression. Developed in the 1980s by Gerald Klerman, M.D., and Myrna Weismann, M.D., this is a time-limited treatment for major depression that addresses the connection between interpersonal problems and mood. IPT helps the patient identify troubling emotions and their triggers. The therapist helps the patient learn to express appropriate emotions in a healthy way. The patient may also examine relationships in his or her past that may have been affected by distorted mood and behavior. The interpersonal problem areas focused on include role transition, grief, interpersonal deficits, and role dispute. References Center for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2012). Understanding bullying. Center for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2014). Understanding bullying. Davis, S., & Nixon, C. (2010). The youth voice research project: Victimization and strategies. McCallion, G., & Feder, J. (2013). Student bullying: Overview of research, federal initiatives, and legal issues. Congressional Research Service. Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J., & Hanson, T. Institute of Education Sciences, (2010). What characteristics of bullying, bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bullying to school officials?  Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Rigby, K. (2010). Bullying Interventions: Six Basic Methods. New York: Camberwell, ACER. U.S. Department of Education , National Center for Educational Statistics (2013). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying: Results from the 2011 school crime supplement to the national crime victimization survey. Read More