Bullying in Schools: An Overview


Published on

Published in: Education
1 Comment
  • I hope that school authorities strengthen ties with students as well as parents in making sure that bullying issues are lessened and eventually be gone. I am a parent and I'm worried and I don't want anyone to experience threatening cases like this especially my kids. As a way of helping everyone especially the parents, who still find it quite hard to manage issues like this, I found this great application which featured safety app which gets me connected to a Safety Network or escalate my call to the nearest 911 when needed, it has other cool features that are helpful for your kids with just a press of a Panic Button. Check it here: http://www.SafeKidZone.com/
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bullying in Schools: An Overview

  1. 1. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention December 2011 Jeff Slowikowski, Acting AdministratorBullying in Schools Bullying in Schools: An OverviewThe Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention (OJJDP) is commit- By Ken Seeley, Martin L. Tombari, Laurie J. Bennett, and Jason B. Dunkleted to preventing juvenile delinquencyand child victimization. This bulletin ispart of OJJDP’s Bullying in Schools series,which summarizes findings from OJJDP-funded research on peer victimization. Highlights Researchers from the National Center for School Engagement conducted aResearchers from the National Center forSchool Engagement conducted a quantita- series of studies to explore the connections between bullying in schools, schooltive study to examine the impact of bully- attendance and engagement, and academic achievement. This bulletin pro­ing on student engagement, attendance, vides an overview of the OJJDP-funded studies, a summary of the researchers’and achievement and two qualitative findings, and recommendations for policy and practice.studies to explore instructional, interper-sonal, and structural factors at school that Following are some of the authors’ key findings:affect the connection between bullyingand school attendance. The researchers • Bullying is a complex social and emotional phenomenon that plays found that a caring school community, in out differently on an individual level.which students are challenged academi-cally and supported by the adults, canserve as a powerful antidote to the process • Bullying does not directly cause truancy. by which victimization distances studentsfrom learning and contributes to myriad • School engagement protects victims from truancy and low academic other problems, including truancy and achievement.academic failure.The bulletins in the series provide an • When schools provide a safe learning environment in which adults overview of the research project, a critical model positive behavior, they can mitigate the negative effects ofanalysis of the literature, and an indepth bullying.look at the methodology and findings ofeach study. • Any interventions to address bullying or victimization should be intentional, student-focused engagement strategies that fit the context of the school where they are used. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov
  2. 2. DECEMBER 2011Bullying in Schools: An OverviewBy Ken Seeley, Martin L. Tombari, Laurie J. Bennett, and Jason B. Dunk leIntroduction their experiences to gain insight into how bullying in school affects attendance. The third study was a qualitativeThe harmful effects of bullying cannot be overstated. Re­ analysis of teachers’ experiences in working to ameliorateports of bullying in the 1990s show that, in extreme cases, the impact of bullying in schools.victims may face shooting or severe beatings and may eventurn to suicide (Rigby and Slee, 1999). These reports have In this bulletin, the authors compare the results of thesetriggered public action, such that more than 20 states cur­ studies with the results of the Swedish National Councilrently have laws that require schools to provide education for Crime Prevention report (Ttofi, Farrington, andand services directed toward the prevention and cessation Baldry, 2008), which is currently viewed as one of theof bullying. most comprehensive studies on antibullying programs worldwide. Ttofi and her colleagues conducted a meta­A well-known meta-analysis of school-based antibullying analysis—Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce Schoolprograms, conducted by the Swedish National Council for Bullying: A Systematic Review—that reviewed evalua­Crime Prevention, found that these programs result in a tions of 59 school-based antibullying programs in vari­17- to 23-percent reduction in bullying (Ttofi, Farrington, ous countries, including the United States. In additionand Baldry, 2008). Ttofi and colleagues report that anti- to their comparisons with the Swedish study, the authorsbullying programs are less effective in the United States recommend strategies and programs to combat bullying inthan in Europe in reducing the incidence and prevalence schools that are based on the findings from the three stud­of bullying in schools that operate the bullying reduction ies described here and a literature review.programs. In response, the current study investigates howAmerican schools can support victimized children andencourage them to graduate and thrive. Study Overview and Main FindingsTo determine the causes of bullying in schools and to in­ Following is an overview of each study and findings fromform the development of effective intervention strategies, the overall research project.the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven­tion funded a series of studies in 2007 at the National Quantitative Study: School EngagementCenter for School Engagement. The research focused on Is a Protective Factor for Victimsthe connection between different types and frequencies of This study examined how different types of peer victim­bullying, truancy, and student achievement, and whether ization (i.e., bullying) impact school attendance. Thestudents’ engagement in school mediates these factors. underlying premise of this study was that truancy servesThe researchers completed three studies. The first was a as a gateway to numerous negative outcomes for today’squantitative analysis of students that would support the youth—dropping out of school, using drugs, engaging indevelopment of a predictive model to explain the relation­ criminal activity, and more.ships among bullying (referred to in the study as peer The authors conducted a short-term longitudinal studyvictimization), school attendance, school engagement, in which they surveyed 1,000 students in the fall and theand academic achievement. The second study was a quali­ spring of their sixth-grade year. The survey participants an­tative study in which researchers interviewed victims about swered two sets of questions: one set pertained to whether2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
  3. 3. the students were behaviorally, cognitively, and emotion­ First Qualitative Study: Schools Canally engaged in school; a second set pertained to whether Mitigate the Ill Effects of Bullyingstudents experienced specific kinds of bullying by their Researchers conducted two qualitative studies to deter­peers. The authors used structural equation modeling (a mine what factors cause some bullied students to remainstatistical technique to estimate cause-and-effect relation­ in school and cause others to drop out or becomeships between various factors) to determine the connec­ delinquent.tions between being victimized, being engaged in school,school attendance, and school achievement (measured by The first qualitative study examined what keeps bulliedgrade point average). students engaged in school and away from negative be­ haviors such as truancy and criminal activity. The authorsAlthough prior research suggests that student victimiza­ employed a retrospective study that randomly surveyedtion has a significant impact on attendance (Banks, 1997; two groups of youth about their experiences with bullyingFried and Fried, 1996; Hoover and Oliver, 1996), the in grade school. The survey sample consisted of:findings from this study suggest that these relationshipsare weak, at least for the sixth-grade student sample used • A group of 35 high-achieving, advanced placement for data analysis. The study, however, is limited because students in a suburban high school.it is a quantitative analysis that examined only sixth-gradestudents in a suburban Denver school district. In this • A group of 65 young men incarcerated for a variety of study, although bullying does not directly relate to truancy crimes.or to school achievement, the authors observed a statisti­cally significant relationship between bullying and school Researchers interviewed participants from both groupsattendance when mediated by the factor of school engage­ with the highest cumulative scores on the bullying scalement. In other words, if bullying results in the victim about their victimization, their general experiences withbecoming less engaged in school, that victim is more likely school, and what they perceived as having brought themto cease attending and achieving. If the victim can remain to this point in their lives. The researchers then analyzedor become engaged in school, his or her attendance and the transcripts.achievement will be less affected. The PervaSIveneSS OF BullyIng: DInner WITh DIgnITarIeS A “Stop Bullying Summit” was convened in Denver, CO, o Physical victimization (contact or mean gestures). in June 2006. The night before the summit, the sponsor­ o Verbal victimization (name-calling or taunts). ing organizations (The Colorado Trust, Creating Caring Communities, and The Partnership for Families & Children) o Indirect victimization (such as intentional exclusion from a group). hosted a dinner that brought together 40 academicians and practitioners (teachers, school administrators, law o Cyberbullying. enforcement, and bullying-prevention specialists) for a • Carried out repeatedly over time. discussion about issues of note. The moderator asked the • Within an interpersonal relationship characterized attendees a series of questions to kick off the discussion. by an imbalance of power. The first question asked how many of the attendees had The moderator then asked how many attendees bullied gone to grade school. All attendees raised their hands. The others or faced bullying when they were in grade school. next query asked how many went to college—again, the response was overwhelming. When asked about graduate Out of this well-educated, highly accomplished group of degrees, all but a handful responded in the affirmative. adults, nearly everyone raised his or her hand. Bullying is a common experience for all people and not simply for Then, the moderator proffered a definition of bullying that “high-risk” populations typically identified among low- many researchers accept (Smith et al., 2002): income disenfranchised groups. • Intentional harm-doing, which can take a number of forms, including: Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3
  4. 4. The data describe how schools help and hurt victims and to connect with adults and other students in the kinds ofwhat schools should do to support victimized students. social interactions that would foster opportunities for themSchools help bullying victims by engaging them in aca­ to discuss their victimization experiences.demics and/or in extracurricular activities and by provid­ing them with caring adults who support them and model The interview data also highlighted what victims needpositive behavior. Schools hurt bullied students when they from their schools—change the school structure—from more engaging learn­ • A place of refuge where they can feel safe, appreciated, ing environments at the elementary level to less engaging and challenged in a constructive way.environments at the middle and high school levels. Thesechanges tend to distance the students from caring adults, • Responsible adults who can support and sustain them dilute effective behavioral supervision, and change instruc­ and provide them examples of appropriate behavior.tion from a differentiated, interactive pedagogy focusedon individual student needs to a mass instructional pattern • A sense of future possibility to persuade them that of 50-minute periods with 6 different teachers who teach staying in school, despite the bullying, promises better150 students per day. things to come.A changing school structure often results in a failure to in­ These factors allow bullied students to overcome the ef­tervene in bullying (or to assist or support victims) when it fects of bullying. In contrast, the study participants agreedfirst occurs. These changes may also make victims feel even that superficial antibullying programs, grafted onto exist­more isolated from the rest of the school community. This ing curriculums to fulfill a school district’s responsibilityhappens because the large numbers of students in second­ to address bullying concerns, are an ineffective way toary schools can create an impersonal climate of anonymity combat bullying.that provides no time in the daily schedule for studentsOTher BulleTInS In The SerIeSThe Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven­ young adults—some successful, high-achieving stu­tion’s (OJJDP’s) Bullying in Schools series provides a dents and some incarcerated—who were bullied in gradesummary of research conducted by the National school. The researchers conducted this study to gainCenter for School Engagement. Other bulletins in the insight into instructional, interpersonal, and structuralseries are as follows: factors that affect the bullying-attendance connection.Bullying, Victimization, and School Engagement: A What Teachers Have To Say About Bullying inStructural Model. This bulletin is a quantitative study of Schools. This bulletin provides an overview of the au­more than 1,000 sixth-grade students in 8 middle schools thors’ qualitative study of the observations of 11 teach­in an economically and ethnically diverse school district. ers, based on papers they authored for a graduate-levelThe purpose of the study was to develop a predictive seminar, about efforts to ameliorate the impact of bullyingmodel that would explain the relationships among bully­ in schools.ing, school attendance, school engagement, and schoolachievement. The authors’ full report, Peer Victimization in Schools: A Set of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of the Con­Bullying in Schools: A Critical Analysis of the Litera­ nections Among Peer Victimization, School Engagement,ture. In addition to designing and conducting three inter­ Truancy, School Achievement, and Other Outcomes,related studies to explore the effects of bullying in schools, provides greater detail about the studies and how thethe authors conducted an extensive literature review to authors developed their recommendations. The reportaddress some of the limitations of existing research on the includes an extensive literature review that providestopic, the results of which are presented in this bulletin. timely and extensive information about current research on bullying.Experiences of Young Adults Bullied in School. Thisbulletin provides an overview of the authors’ qualitative The bulletins can be accessed from OJJDP’s Web site,retrospective study of the school experiences of eight ojjdp.gov. The full report can be accessed from the NCJRS Web site (see “For More Information” on page 9).4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
  5. 5. Second Qualitative Study: What TeachersSay About Bullying in Their SchoolsThe third study involved the adults to whom bullyingvictims look to support and sustain them in the schoolsetting—the teachers. In this study, 11 teachers of kinder­garten through 12th-grade students shared their observa­tions about bullying in the school setting and describedtheir opinions on what schools do to mitigate or exacer­bate its effects.As part of their graduate-level coursework, the teach­ers submitted papers proposing an intervention plan or aresearch design to address bullying within their schools.They presented these plans in focus groups and throughstructured interviews with a researcher who worked to bullies and victims to see themselves and their classmatescapture the essence of their ideas. According to the teach­ in a new light.1ers, most students observe power differences and negative, The teachers also described two ways in which caringdomineering behaviors in the outside world, in the media, and community building are hindered. The first involvedor at home. Students emulate these behaviors in the school school administrators who “sweep bullying under the rug”setting and use their power to intimidate others by physical (i.e., ignoring it or downplaying its significance). Theor verbal means. This abuse of power can be exploited on second involved school districts’ attempts to address bully­victims in the form of bullying. The sense of isolation that ing issues by requiring educators to teach a prefabricatedmany students feel at school only increases their vulnerabil­ curriculum. The teachers viewed these approaches as ineffec­ity to being bullied by their more powerful peers. tive substitutes for much-needed district and administrationA music teacher explained how power differences between support and professional development.students in school can lead to bullying, suggesting thatstudents feel the need to “find something in their life at Study Implicationswhich they feel superior.” She said, “When students donot have something in their lives that makes them feel The implications of the studies outlined above can best begood, I think they turn to more negative ways to feel that understood when contrasted with the Swedish Nationalsense of power, like bullying, drugs, and/or gangs.” Stu­ Council for Crime Prevention’s report. The report, titleddents observe how people misuse their power to dominate Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce School Bullying: Asituations in the outside world, so they use bullying to Systematic Review, can be considered noteworthy becauseseek a personal sense of power in their own lives. of the sample size and the rigorous study-selection proce­ dures employed.The teachers suggested that the antidote to these prob­lems is to foster a sense of community in school. To create Swedish researchers Ttofi and colleagues conducted acommunity, teachers recommended that students should systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evaluationsbe taught how to care. First, students should be engaged of antibullying programs. The study included only evalu­in schoolwork, extracurricular activities, and planning for ations that compared experimental and control groupstheir futures as a means to teach them how to care for and relied on student self-reports for data; the researchersthemselves. Second, students should be taught how to excluded evaluations that did not meet these criteria.care for others. Teachers should model caring behavior,and schools should offer opportunities for students to Ttofi and colleagues reported that the programs reducedmentor other students. Finally, students should be taught bullying overall and were most effective for older children.how to care for their community. Community service They recommend that the programs target children age 11projects are an excellent way to teach students how to and older. They suggest that the following actions encour­care for the world around them. An added benefit of such aged program success: educating parents, communicatingprojects is that they often remove students from existing with parents, improving playground supervision, showingclassroom-based power relationships and place them in educational videos, and providing effective disciplinaryunfamiliar environments where all students feel vulner­ methods, classroom rules, and classroom management.able. These mutually supportive collaborations may allow Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5
  6. 6. victims, using methods catered to the community’s specialized needs, not just programs that conform to a measurable standard.Although the authors of this bulletin generally agree withTtofi and colleagues’ findings, the Swedish researchers recommendationsoperate from the assumption—one that many in the fieldsof bullying prevention and the social sciences share—that The authors make the following recommendations fora problem can be most effectively addressed when its antibullying programs in the United States. These recom­parameters can be cleanly measured and when experimen­ mendations are based on their findings and an extensivetal and control comparisons are clear. The “important” literature review:2design elements of the programs covered in the Swedish • Increase student engagement. report focused on variables, including management, rules,supervision, parent training, conferences, showing videos, • Model caring behavior for students. and self-reports from older children—all factors that canbe measured scientifically. • Offer mentoring programs. The authors of this bulletin provide a more complex pic­ • Provide students with opportunities for service learning ture of bullying and its correlates. Bullying is a complicat­ as a means of improving school engagement.ed issue that is neither consistently defined in schools nor • Address the difficult transition between elementary and easily quantified. Therefore, although researchers can learn middle school (from a single classroom teacher to teamsmuch from the scientific meta-analyses (like the Swedish of teachers with periods and class changes in a largestudy), they can also learn from qualitative research and school) (Lohaus et al., 2004).case studies that do not lend themselves to traditionalexperimental design research. For example, interest in • Start prevention programs early. antibullying efforts grew out of school shootings (such asColumbine) and suicides. Events of this sort would not be • Resist the temptation to use prefabricated curriculums statistically significant in any quantitative study of school that are not aligned to local conditions.bullying. If statistical studies cannot accurately account forserious events, identify the needs of young children who Increase Student Engagementmay not recognize certain events as bullying, or report Bullied children who remain engaged in school attendthe effects of programs with elements that are not easily class more frequently and achieve more. Challenging aca­quantifiable, they need to be supplemented with qualita­ demics, extracurricular activities, understanding teacherstive studies that can add important context to the more and coaches, and a focus on the future help keep victim­optimal ways to reduce victimization in schools. ized children engaged in their education (Bausell, 2011). Schools, administrations, and districts that wish to staveFor antibullying programs to provide long-term outcomes off the negative effects of bullying must redouble their—not simply decrease victim numbers but help victims efforts to engage each student in school. Typical schoolremain crime free as adults—researchers must look beyond engagement strategies include (Karcher, 2005):narrow programs that produce statistically significantnumbers, toward broader (and possibly less measurable) • Providing a caring adult for every student through an efforts that make a difference in the lives of the victims. advisory program or similar arrangement.Likewise, schools must continue to reach out to all bullying6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
  7. 7. “Bullied children who remain engaged in school attend class more frequently and achieve more.”• Carefully monitoring attendance, calling home each Model Caring Behavior time a student is absent, and allowing students the Human relationships populate students’ lives outside the ability to make up missed work with support from a school setting: in their parents’ workplaces, in families, in teacher. video games, on TV, and in the movies. In contrast, school• Adopting and implementing the National School provides a controlled environment where children can Climate Standards from the National School Climate experience caring adults who can exercise power in a non- Council (2010). abusive, mentoring way. These adults can demonstrate that leadership, not abuse, is the appropriate way to use their• Promoting and fostering parent and community en­ positions of authority constructively. Schools should offer gagement, including afterschool and summer programs. training programs on how to model appropriate caring and leadership behavior for teachers and administrators.• Providing school-based mentorship options for This training should be consistent with the school engage­ students. ment strategies mentioned above and incorporated into licensure programs and continuing professional develop­ ment activities. lIFe BeyOnD vIcTIMIzaTIOn: anna* The SurvIvOr The following account illustrates the concepts discussed in directly asked them to address it. Even then, they care­ this bulletin. lessly made her private travails public, which only made matters worse. Her mother tried to help, but the school The authors attended a brown-bag luncheon that was staff would not listen to her. sponsored by a nonprofit foundation, where a high school girl, Anna, was one of the speakers. Family life had been Even so, Anna told us, she was able to turn her life around. difficult for Anna; she had faced abuse and endured the She confided in a Girl Scout leader, who began to take death of loved ones. She grew up with a single parent. a continuing interest in her. Her mother supported her at home. She found two friends—a disabled girl, who was Anna told the attendees the tale of the demeaning bullying also a victim of bullying, and a popular girl, who saw Anna that she suffered at the hands of her peers throughout mid­ for the valuable person she was. Anna also pushed herself dle and high school. She was ostracized, restricted to only to get involved in school activities such as the student certain bathroom stalls to avoid “contaminating” the oth­ council, the prom committee, and grassroots bullying- ers, slurred and degraded in hallway graffiti, and pushed prevention efforts. She began to stand up for herself and or shoved on her way to school. The bullying was constant for others, and as she gained confidence, the victimization and unrelenting. She recounted that she felt driven, on subsided. occasion, to demonstrate that she was not entirely power­ less, so she bullied those weaker than herself—hoping she Today, Anna is a survivor who is doing quite well for would thereby escape her own victimization. She pondered herself. She has become confident and assertive and has suicide and wanted to harm her tormentors. engaged in school more. She is on track for graduation. Anna found little help from the adults in her school. Teach­ *Name has been changed to protect the minor’s identity. ers and counselors ignored her situation unless Anna Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7
  8. 8. Offer Mentoring Programs their single classroom teacher, their class sizes ballooned, the instruction became more lecture and test based andOf the students interviewed for this study, those who felt less interactive, and they spent more time in hallways andthat they had one or more adults to turn to tended to do other unsupervised places. The opportunities for isolation,well, even during the worst bullying. When those individu­ alienation, and disengagement increased, and any school-als did not exist or disappeared, the lives of the victimized based havens from being bullied disappeared. The authorschildren took a downward turn. Some looked elsewhere recommend that schools explore the possibility of facilitat­for support and, in certain cases, gangs became the most ing this difficult transition, for example, by creating K–8viable option. The authors recommend that schools make schools or other transition programs to better acclimatementoring part of the job description of every adult in the students to the new educational environment.school. (A sole school counselor with an excessive studentload cannot provide effective mentorship.) Each studentshould know the specific adult in school to whom he or Start Prevention Programs Earlyshe can go for support, regardless of the issue, and that The Swedish National Council for Crime Preventionadult should be open and available. Substantial literature report demonstrates that current programs targeting olderand research support for school-based mentoring exists students provide a larger decrease in bullying than pro­(Cavell and Smith, 2005; Herrera et al., 2007; King et al., grams for younger children. However, the authors of this2002; Tierney, Grossman, and Resch, 1995). bulletin caution schools not to interpret those findings as evidence to limit antibullying efforts to older students.Students should also be given opportunities to mentor and The youth interviewed in the OJJDP-funded studies re­lead other students to help them understand power-based ported here all experienced traumatic, victimizing behav­relationships between students, faculty, or others. This ior in school when they were very young. They reportedallows them to practice being in a position of strength thinking that they were weak, worthless, somehow at fault,and to learn to use that authority in caring, productive, and always at risk. One study participant confessed that heand enriching ways. Such opportunities can occur in the started bringing weapons to school and joined a gang atclassroom, in cooperative learning situations, or as part of the age of 8 in an effort to protect himself. An antibullyingcommunity service programs. program aimed at older children would have completely missed this student. Another young study participant pledKarcher (2005) comments on the effect of peer mentor­ for early intervention:ing for students in summarizing the research on cross-agementoring, suggesting that “small single-site randomized When they see [bullying] happening in first, second,studies have revealed consistently positive findings.” He third, fourth grade, even in fifth grade, they need toreports that the outcomes of these studies are consistent stop it; otherwise, it will just keep going and evolvewith adult-to-youth mentoring programs in school, sug­ into something more dangerous. They need to catchgesting that peer mentoring may improve youth’s school it [early] and try to stop it or they’re going to, like,connectedness, attitudes toward peers, self-efficacy, aca­ ruin someone’s life.demic achievement, social skills, and behavior problems. The teachers who took part in the second qualitative studyProvide Opportunities for Community agreed with this sentiment. Participating early elementaryService teachers described the effectiveness of mentoring activities between regular students and special education studentsCommunity service provides an optimum venue for and discussed how these activities increase collaborationmentoring to occur. It allows students to break out of the and reduce abuse among classmates. The authors recom­hierarchical student relationships within the classroom, mend that schools provide teachers and administratorsdemonstrate new strengths, collaborate, mentor others, with the training to recognize bullying and handle inci­and show leadership in ways that the classroom does not dents, especially in the early grades. Schools may wish toafford. Teachers report that such service helps commu­ begin by adopting and implementing the National Schoolnity building and counteracts the isolation and pain of Climate Standards (National School Climate Council,bullying. 2010). Specific ideas for handling bullying incidents can be found in resource books for school staff, such as the BullyAddress the Difficult Transition Between Proofing Your School series (Bonds and Stoker, 2000; Gar­Elementary and Middle School rity et al., 1994) and the Handbook of Bullying in SchoolsFor many youth, the transition from elementary to middle (Jimerson, Swearer, and Espelage, 2010).school is rough. Youth report that they lost a bond with8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
  9. 9. Resist the Temptation to UsePrefabricated CurriculumsToo many teachers in the second qualitative study relatedstories of how busy administrators, hoping to eradicatebullying with minimal effort, handed canned antibullyingmaterials to teachers and provided no training on how toimplement antibullying programs. Antibullying programsshould combine skill-building approaches with consistentschoolwide policies and practices that involve students,parents, and the community in setting social norms. As aresult of their studies, the authors suggest that engagingstudents in schoolwork, using the engagement strategiessuggested above, will help avoid and reduce victimizationand bullying. 2. For more background information on these recommen­ dations, see Bullying in Schools: A Critical Analysis of the Literature, in this series.conclusion 3. See pages 6–7 for specific strategies for increasingResearch has shown that bullying is a complex social and student engagement.emotional phenomenon that affects victims in many differ­ent ways. The authors began this study with the hypothesisthat bullying and truancy were directly related. However, referencesevidence showed that bullying is not simply a matter of Banks, R. 1997. Bullying in Schools. Champaign, IL:correlates among variables. Complex problems cannot be ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Child­solved with simple, formulaic solutions. Rather, results hood Education, ED407154. Available online atshowed that victimization can distance students from www.ericdigests.org/1997-4/bullying.htm.learning. Schools can overcome this negative effect if theyadopt strategies that engage students in their work, creat­ Bausell, R.B. 2011. Too Simple to Fail. Oxford, England:ing positive learning environments that produce academic Oxford University Press.achievement.3 Bonds, M., and Stoker, S. 2000. Bully Proofing Your School: A Comprehensive Approach for Middle Schools.For More Information Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.The authors’ full report, Peer Victimization in Schools: A Cavell, T., and Smith, A.M. 2005. Mentoring children. InSet of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of the Con­ Handbook of Youth Mentoring, edited by D.L. DuBois andnections Among Peer Victimization, School Engagement, M.J. Karcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.Truancy, School Achievement, and Other Outcomes, pro­ 160–176.vides greater detail about the studies and how the authorsdeveloped their recommendations. The report includes an Fried, S., and Fried, P. 1996. Bullies and Victims: Helpingextensive literature review that provides timely and exten­ Your Child Survive the Schoolyard Battlefield. New York,sive information on current research on bullying. To read NY: Evans.the report, visit www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract. Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., and Short-aspx?ID=256074. Camilli, C. 1994. Bully Proofing Your School: A Compre­ hensive Approach for Elementary Schools. Longmont, CO:endnotes Sopris West Educational Services.1. For more information about community service and Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J., Feldman, A.F.,other afterschool programs that may help prevent bully­ and McMaken, J., with Jucovy, L.Z. 2007. Big Brothersing, visit www.stopbullying.gov/community/tip_sheets/ Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. Philadel­youth_programs.pdf. phia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Hoover, J., and Oliver, R. 1996. The Bullying Prevention Handbook: A Guide for Principals, Teachers, and Counsel­ ors. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9
  10. 10. Jimerson, S.R., Swearer, S.M., and Espelage, D.L., eds. Rigby, K. and Slee, P. 1999. Suicidal ideation among2010. Handbook of Bullying in Schools. New York, NY: adolescent school children, involvement in bully-victimRoutledge. problems and perceived social support. Suicide Life Threat Behavior 29(2):119–130.Karcher, M.J. 2005. The effects of school-based develop­mental mentoring and mentors’ attendance on mentees’ Smith, P.K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R.F., and Liefooghe,self-esteem, behavior, and connectedness. Psychology in the A.P.D. 2002. Definitions of bullying: A comparison ofSchools 42:65–77. terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen- country international comparison. Child DevelopmentKing, K., Vidourek, R., Davis, B., and McClellan, W. 73(4):1119–1133.2002. Increasing self-esteem and school connectednessthrough a multidimensional mentoring program. Journal Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., and Resch, N.L. 1995.of School Health 72:294–299. Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.Lohaus, A., Elben, C.E., Ball, J., and Klien-Hessling, J.2004. School transition from elementary to secondary Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., and Baldry, A.C. 2008.school: Changes in psychological adjustment. Educational Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce School Bullying: APsychology 24(2):161–173. Systematic Review. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.National School Climate Council. 2010. National SchoolClimate Standards. New York, NY: Center for Social andEmotional Education.10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
  11. 11. U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID *NCJ~234205* Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DOJ/OJJDP PERmIT NO. G–91 Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Acknowledgments This bulletin was prepared under grant number Ken Seeley, Ed.D., and Martin L. Tombari, Ph.D., are the co-principal inves- 2005–AH–FX–K005 from the Office of Juvenile tigators of the study and work at the National Center for School Engagement. Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Laurie J. Bennett, J.D., Ph.D., is a senior research and policy analyst at the U.S. Department of Justice. National Center for School Engagement. Jason B. Dunkle is a research associ- Points of view or opinions expressed in this docu­ ate at the University of Denver, College of Education. ment are those of the authors and do not neces­ sarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.Share With Your Colleagues Please direct comments The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications and/or questions to: quency Prevention is a component of theare not copyright protected. We encourage you Office of Justice Programs, which also in­to reproduce this document, share it with your cludes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the National Criminal Justicecolleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Reference Serviceor journal. However, if you reprint, please cite Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims P Box 6000 .O.OJJDP and the authors of this bulletin. We are of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Rockville, MD 20849–6000also interested in your feedback, such as how Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 800–851–3420you received a copy, how you intend to use the Registering, and Tracking. 301–519–5600 (fax)information, and how OJJDP materials meet Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.govyour individual or agency needs. ncJ 234205