11093 public school florida antibullying

An Examination of a Florida School District’s Antibullying Policy and
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Antibullying Interventions
By
Marie J. Louis
An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the
Abraham S. Fischler School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University
2014

ii
Approval Page
This applied dissertation was submitted by Marie J. Louis under the direction of the persons
listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education and approved in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Nova
Southeastern University.
________________________________________ ___________________________
Gina Peyton, EdD Date
Committee Chair
________________________________________ ___________________________
Sheila Halpin, EdD Date
Committee Member
Ronald J. Chenail, PhD Date
Interim Dean

iii
Statement of Original Work
I declare the following:
I have read the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Responsibility as described in the
Student Handbook of Nova Southeastern University. This applied dissertation represents my
original work, except where I have acknowledged the ideas, words, or material of other authors.
Where another author’s ideas have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have
acknowledged the author’s ideas by citing them in the required style.
Where another author’s words have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have
acknowledged the author’s words by using appropriate quotation devices and citations in the
required style.
I have obtained permission from the author or publisher—in accordance with the required
guidelines—to include any copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, survey instruments, large
portions of text) in this applied dissertation manuscript.
___________________________
Signature
Marie J. Louis
___________________________
Name
December 1, 2014
___________________________
Date

iv
Acknowledgments
To God be the glory, for great things He has done! I thank God for my family and friends
who supported me through this process. I also say a special thank you to my “inner circle” for
their prayers, words of encouragement, and especially, the tough love. You are appreciated. God
bless you.

v
Abstract
An Examination of a Florida School District’s Antibullying Policy and Teachers’ Perceptions of
the Effectiveness of Antibullying Interventions. Marie J. Louis, 2014: Applied Dissertation,
Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler School of Education. ERIC Descriptors:
Action Research, Bullying, School Policy, School Safety, Teacher Attitudes
Peer harassment/victimization is an international issue with negative influences on the mental
health and academic performance of children. In order to address this serious problem, school
districts in the United States, have developed antibullying policies according to state mandated
legislation. However, the task of implementing policy falls on the shoulders of those who daily
encounter students. The attitudes and perceptions of teachers regarding an antibullying policy are
important and must be taken into consideration if the policy is to be effectively implemented.
The purpose of this action research study was to examine the State of Florida’s antibullying
legislation and The District’s (school district located in southeast Florida) antibullying policy to
determine their comprehensiveness by using the Content Analysis for School Antibullying
Policies (CASABP). This study also surveyed prevention liaisons regarding their perceptions of
the effectiveness of antibullying strategies implemented at their schools, using the Current
Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools (CBPIPAS). Prevention liaisons
are school based staff members (i.e., teachers, guidance/peer counselors, etc.) who serve as
conduits between The District and schools. They are responsible for the dissemination of
prevention curriculum related to The District’s antibullying policy.
The results from the content analysis showed that the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation
had a medium level of comprehensiveness and The District’s antibullying policy had a high level
of comprehensiveness. Additionally, a cross-section of data from the survey explained
prevention liaisons’ perceptions of the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying
strategies as mandated by The District’s policy. Findings indicated that having a written
antibullying policy was implemented at over 94% of schools in The District and considered
effective by over 60% of prevention liaisons. In addition, embedded within the policy were 75%
of the strategies currently being implemented. However, ineffective and inconsistent
implementation due to obstacles associated with teacher training, resources, and/or
administrative issues, only served to reduce the value and significance of having the policy.
In order for an antibullying policy to be effective, it must be implemented with fidelity.
This practical action research study made recommendations as to how stakeholders can
collaborate in bullying prevention and effectively implement interventions, thus creating safer
learning environments for students.

vi
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................1
Definition of Terms .............................................................................................................6
Statement of Purpose ..........................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................10
Historical Background and Significance of Bullying .......................................................10
Theoretical Framework .....................................................................................................14
Antibullying Legislation and Policy .................................................................................16
Transformational Leadership ............................................................................................18
Programs/Interventions/Strategies ....................................................................................20
Implementation and Effectiveness Issues .........................................................................22
Action Research ................................................................................................................24
Rationale ...........................................................................................................................25
Purpose Statement and Research Questions .....................................................................26
Summary ...........................................................................................................................27
Chapter 3: Methodology ...............................................................................................................29
Introduction........................................................................................................................29
Research Design.................................................................................................................29
Participants ........................................................................................................................32
Instruments ........................................................................................................................33
Procedures..........................................................................................................................41
Limitations ........................................................................................................................48
Summary ...........................................................................................................................48
Chapter 4: Results .........................................................................................................................51
Introduction........................................................................................................................51
Content Analysis Results ..................................................................................................52
Survey Results ..................................................................................................................54
Results by Research Question ...........................................................................................72
Summary ...........................................................................................................................74
Chapter 5: Discussion ...................................................................................................................76
Overview............................................................................................................................76
Summary and Interpretation of Findings – Content Analysis ..........................................78
Summary and Interpretation of Findings – Survey ...........................................................84
Context and Implications of Findings ...............................................................................90
Limitations ........................................................................................................................93
Recommendations .............................................................................................................94
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................96
References .....................................................................................................................................97

vii
Appendices
A CASABP (content analysis rubric) .....................................................................107
B CBPIPAS (survey instrument) ............................................................................110
C Correspondence From Workshop Facilitator ......................................................116
Tables
1 Research Question 3 and Survey Measures ..........................................................40
2 Operational Definitions .........................................................................................43
3 Steps for Establishing Interrater Reliability and Content Analysis ......................44
4 Procedures for Administration of CBPIPAS (Survey) .........................................46
5 Summary State of Florida’s Antibullying Legislation ..........................................53
6 Summary The District’s Antibullying Policy .......................................................54
7 Part I Demographics—Q.4 ....................................................................................56
8 Part I Demographics—Q.5 and Q.6 ......................................................................57
9 Summary Part I Demographics .............................................................................58
10 Bullying Prevention Strategies at Prevention Liaisons’ Schools ..........................59
11 Data Analysis Part II—School Environment Subsection .....................................60
12 Data Analysis Part II—Staff Involvement Subsection .........................................61
13 Data Analysis Part II—Working With Bullies and Victims Subsection ..............62
14 Data Analysis Part II—Parent Involvement Subsection .......................................63
15 Data Analysis Part II—Educating Students Subsection .......................................64
16 Data Analysis Part II—Peer Involvement Subsection ..........................................65
17 Frequency of Responses for Bullying Prevention Strategies ................................66
18 Summary Part II Bullying Prevention and Intervention Activities .......................67
19 Data Analysis Part III—Q.4 ..................................................................................68
23 Summary Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers ..........................................71
24 Survey Response Totals ........................................................................................72
25 Survey Results Research Question 3–(Implementation) ......................................73
Figures
1 Action Research Steps ...........................................................................................30
2 Action Research Data Collection Techniques .......................................................31
3 Collaborative Efforts Through a Socioecological Framework ..............................91

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Building a positive school environment is an important contributor to academic success.
The development of a school culture that “encompasses values, communication and management
styles, rules and regulations, ethical practices, reinforcement of caring behaviors, [and] support
for academic excellence” (Orpinas & Horne, 2010, p. 49) fosters a creative attitude in students
and adults. However, because of aggressive student interactions that frequently permeate a
school’s culture and create a hostile learning environment, school safety is a major concern. This
atmosphere of violence serves to suppress student creativity and academic success (Schellenberg,
Parks-Savage, & Rehfuss, 2007).
According to Orpinas and Horne (2010) policies regulating school safety, are “essential
for maintaining a positive school climate” (p. 51). The authors further posited that teacher input
is invaluable in creating safe and nurturing environments for students to learn. While there are
many concerns linked to school safety and the promotion of a positive school culture, peer
victimization is a topic that dominates the current conversation on policy development.
The topic. Peer victimization (bullying) is “unprovoked aggressive behavior repeatedly
carried out on victims unable to defend themselves” (Good, McIntosh, & Geitz, 2011, p. 48).
This antisocial behavior damages a school’s culture, is often deliberate, and occurs in a variety of
formats such as taunting, teasing, ostracizing, physical violence, and cyberbullying. Bullying
reflects an unequal balance of power between the bully and victim and can be classified as direct
(overt) or indirect (covert). Increasingly recognized as a threat to society, research on this
aggressive behavior reveals that “approximately a third of youth in elementary and middle
school experience bullying in any given academic year, which translates into more than 1.6
million youth being victimized annually” (Christie-Mizell, Keil, Laske, & Stewart, 2011, p.

2
1571). For victims perceived as vulnerable, submissive, or different, bullying is a traumatic
experience. Bullying happens across gender, age, socio-economic status, race, and ethnicity. It
occurs in the workplace, at home, in prisons, in the armed forces, on the playground, school bus,
and in schools. No matter the format or venue, one thing is common; bullying is about
dominating or controlling someone else and its effects are dangerous.
Copeland (2009) asserted that antibullying policies, interventions, and programs could
substantially reduce bullying incidents and according to Sherer and Nickerson (2010), “a school-
wide antibullying policy can provide the framework to direct the school’s actions in addressing
the problem of bullying” (p. 218). Bullying is such a prevalent factor in American schools that
school districts across the country have not only developed antibullying policies but have also
introduced programs that address peer intimidation at a growing rate. Extensive research on this
topic supports the negative influences bullying has on the mental health and academic
performance of children (Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Duong, 2011) and justifies the need for
effective antibullying programs to better assist students and schools.
The research problem. The problem investigated in this study was the effectiveness of
antibullying interventions as perceived by prevention liaisons in accordance with the State of
Florida’s antibullying legislation and a local school district’s antibullying policy. Prevention
liaisons are school based staff members (i.e., teachers, guidance/peer counselors, etc.) who serve
as conduits between The District (a school district located in southeast Florida) and schools.
They are responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to The District’s
antibullying policy.
Background and justification. Good, McIntosh, and Geitz (2011) reported that a survey
conducted by the World Health Organization ranked the United States 15th out of 35 countries in

3
terms of reported prevalence of bullying behavior. Although not a new concern, research
indicates that the problem of bullying is consistently getting worse (Gibbone & Manson, 2010).
Bullying characteristics are harmful intentions, repeated occurrences, and an imbalance of power
between the bully and the victim. This aggressive behavior can be physical (e.g., hitting, kicking)
or verbal (e.g., teasing, taunting) and when conducted using technology such as cellular
telephones, cameras, and/or the Internet, is referred to as cyberbullying. Authors, Good et al.
(2011) made mention of a Limber (2002) study that described how approximately one in five
students are victims of bullying, and depending upon whether the student is the bully, victim, or
bully-victim the numbers could actually be closer to one in three students. Furthermore, victims
of bullying often experience “low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, insecurity, oversensitivity,
introversion, and withdrawal from social activities” (Good et al., 2011, p. 48). Clearly, bullying
is a widespread problem that can result in harmful outcomes. It can have damaging effects on the
psychological, physical, and social adjustment of students who are involved as either bullies,
victims, or bystanders (Gubler & Croxall, 2005). Bullying affects everyone.
Stakeholders such as schools, communities, and parents play important roles in the
reduction and elimination of this terrible problem. All parties must continue to be attentive to and
supportive of strong antibullying policies and interventions. Antibullying regulations endorse the
development of awareness and the reporting of bullying incidents in schools (Gibbone &
Manson, 2010). Children that believe they need to resort to physical or emotional abuse to be
respected, to show dominance or control over other individuals, need effective antibullying
interventions that can facilitate transforming this negative mind-set into a more positive and
productive one. Research and evidenced based antibullying interventions should not only
highlight character education but also promote the development and modeling of a culture of

4
kindness and mutual respect among students, faculty, and staff in order to help foster a safer
learning environment for all.
Setting. The setting for this study is a school district in south Florida (referred to as The
District). According to 2014 data, The District provides for the educational needs of over
260,000 students in 235 schools (137-elementary, 6-combination (K-8), 40-middle, 33-high, and
19-centers).The District also has virtual schools and over 100 charter schools. Boasting a diverse
student population, The District serves students from more than 204 countries speaking 135
different languages. It employs over 32,000 people that includes instructional staff,
administration, clerical, support staff, etc. (permanent employees) numbering more than 25,600
and an additional 6,900 employees who are temporary, or substitutes (Broward County Public
Schools, n.d., District Profile). The researcher is a licensed classroom instructor with
certification in educational leadership and aspirations of becoming an effective administrator
within The District.
Designed by the Office of Prevention Programs and Student Support Services, under the
Safe Schools Healthy Students Grant initiative, The District’s antibullying policy was adopted in
July 2008 (Broward County Public Schools, n.d., Antibullying Policy). The office of Diversity,
Cultural Outreach and Prevention (DCOP), (a department within The District) provides services,
resources, strategies, and support for teachers, parents, and students that assist with health and
wellness, instructional strategies, substance abuse prevention, and violence prevention
(Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention, 2007, About).
According to The District’s antibullying policy, by 2011, each school was supposed to
have a prevention liaison (PL), (school based staff member assigned by the principal), to serve as
a conduit between The District and the school. The DCOP collaborates with local schools and

5
trains PLs how to effectively implement The District’s antibullying policy at their schools. This
is accomplished by distributing prevention information through emails, school visits, and
providing prevention workshops throughout the school year (Diversity, Cultural Outreach &
Prevention, 2007, Prevention Liaison Training). There is no stipend or funding for this position
so staff members functioning as PLs are doing so in addition to their regular school duties.
Deficiencies in the evidence. Deficiencies in the literature regarding the effectiveness of
antibullying policies generally point to a lack of fidelity in intervention implementation. Much of
the extant literature shows that many students do not report bullying incidents because they do
not believe that anything will be done about it (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). However, if students do
not report bullying behaviors, what can schools do to help them? Furthermore, having a policy in
place does not necessarily mean that it is being effectively implemented. School staff buy-in is
vital and necessary. Measures must be taken to ensure that all staff and faculty are aware of the
policy, its requirements, and what is in place (at their school) to properly enforce it. However,
confusion still exists as to who is responsible and what exactly should be done when it comes to
bullying – its reduction and prevention. This study addressed this gap and added to the
knowledge base regarding effective antibullying policy implementation.
Audience. The audience for this study was all stakeholders in The District. According to
the United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2011), stakeholders include “parents or
guardians, students, volunteers, school personnel, community representatives, and members of
local law enforcement” (p. 31). A collaborative effort on the part of all stakeholders is necessary
when it comes to policy development. This promotes unity in purpose, specifically regarding
acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for a school community.

6
Additionally, prevention liaisons (PLs), school staff (i.e., teachers, guidance counselors,
etc.) assigned by the principal, are spokespersons for The District regarding the antibullying
policy and its implementation at their respective schools. Therefore, PLs represent
schools/teachers within The District. Their opinions regarding the effectiveness and
implementation practices of antibullying interventions were considered an integral part of this
study and assisted in promoting policy awareness that when effectively implemented contributed
to safer learning conditions.
Definition of Terms
Action research. As used in this study, refers to “any systematic inquiry conducted by
teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning
environment to gather information about how their particular schools operate, how they teach,
and how well their students learn” (Mills, 2014, p. 8).
Antibullying. As used in this study, is any method, intervention, or strategy utilized to
prevent or stop bullying behavior (Toso, 2012).
Antibullying policy. As used in this study, is a school district’s statement of how
bullying is defined and addressed.
Bully. As used in this study, is someone who engages in bullying behavior, and may be
used synonymously with perpetrator or aggressor.
Bullying. As used in this study, is aggressive behavior repeated over time, intentional,
and includes imbalance of power between the victim and bully (Olweus, 1993). The term may be
used synonymously with peer victimization, peer intimidation, peer harassment, and/or relational
aggression.

7
Bully-victim. As used in this study, is someone who is sometimes the aggressor and at
other times is the victim.
Bystander. As used in this study, is someone that is present during a bullying incident
but does not necessarily participate, a witness of bullying behavior.
Character education. As used in this study, “A national movement creating schools that
foster caring young people by modeling and teaching good character through emphasis on
universal values that we all share” (Character Education Partnership, n.d., About Us).
Cyberbully. As used in this study, is someone who uses technology to bully another
person.
Cyberbullying. As used in this study, is using the Internet or technology such as cellular
telephones, computers, tablets, social media sites to bully someone. It is sometimes referred to as
relational aggression/bullying (Long & Alexander, 2010).
Interventions. As used in this study, the programs, practices, strategies, and/or methods
utilized to prevent and/or reduce bullying.
Peer victimization/intimidation/harassment. As used in this study, may be used
synonymously with bullying, and is when someone is “repeatedly exposed to negative actions
from one or more peers” (Raskauskas, 2010, p. 523).
Practical action research. As used in this study, is a type of action research that
involves a specific school/central phenomenon with a view toward improving practice (Creswell,
2012).
Prevention liaison (PL). As used in this study, refers to school based staff members who
serve as the connection between The District and their local schools. “Prevention Liaisons are
responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to four strands of prevention:

8
violence prevention, substance abuse prevention, instructional strategies, as well as health and
wellness” (Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention, 2007, Prevention Liaison Training).
Relational aggression. As used in this study, is “nonphysical aggression in which one
manipulates or harms another’s social standing or reputation” (Leff, Waasdorp, & Crick, 2010, p.
509). This term may be used synonymously with bullying and/or cyberbullying.
School district. As used in this study, public school systems “that provide regular,
special, and/or vocational education services for children in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.
Public school systems in the United States are locally administrated and their geographic
structure varies by state and region” (United States Department of Commerce, 2012, School
Districts).
Victim. As used in this study, is someone who is the receiver of the intentions and
actions of a bully and/or cyberbully.
Zero Tolerance Policy. As used in this study, “A school policy which states bullying
will not be allowed at any point in time by any person, on school grounds, field trips, or any
school related event” (Ramsey, 2010, p. 15).
Statement of Purpose
The changing demographics in schools demand district policies that promote equality and
reduce discrimination, bullying, and violence. Research that promoted, “zero-tolerance
policies… and antibullying programs that tell victims to walk away from bullies ignore the
realities that come with increased diversity, popular culture, and evolving technology” and are
ineffective and counterproductive (Shariff, 2004, p. 223). Information regarding the perceived
effectiveness of antibullying interventions implemented in schools, the need for improvement,
and the possible obstacles to doing so will assist in the understanding, development, and

9
implementation of antibullying policies. The task of achieving school climates that are inclusive,
safe, and caring is and should be of the utmost importance for all stakeholders.
The purpose of this practical action research study was to conduct a content analysis of
the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying policy to determine
their comprehensiveness. Additionally, this study surveyed prevention liaisons (PLs) regarding
their perceptions of antibullying strategies currently implemented, in order to make specific
recommendations to stakeholders regarding intervention effectiveness. The information collected
in this study was utilized to inform practice regarding implementation of The District’s
antibullying policy.

10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Historical Background and Significance of Bullying
Considered by many researchers as the father of modern research on bullying, Dan
Olweus started his work in Norway in the 1970s. His research helped shape antibullying
initiatives around the world and his program, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, serves as
a prototype for many bullying prevention programs and continues to exert “great influence on
contemporary intervention models” (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008, p. 27).
The definitions of bullying are various. According to Olweus (2003) “a student is being
bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on
the part of one or more other students” and “also entails an imbalance in strength” (p. 12). Also
characterized as antisocial behavior, bullying affects others physically and/or emotionally, and is
considered the intimidation/harassment/aggression of peers (Accordino & Accordino, 2011;
Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012; Long & Alexander, 2010). While there is no universally agreed
upon definition of bullying, one common thread is that bullying is an aggressive behavior
defined by an imbalance of power between the bully and victim, meant to cause harm, takes
different forms, and is repetitive in nature.
Bullying occurs in a variety of formats. Direct (overt) methods of bullying are those that
happen directly to the victim. Physical aspects of this type of bullying would include hitting,
kicking, slapping, punching, pushing, spitting, and/or stealing. Additionally verbal abuse, also
considered a direct form of bullying, includes teasing, taunting, name-calling, and/or making
racial/ethnic slurs. Direct bullying methods are easily observable. Conversely, indirect (covert)
bullying incorporates tactics that for the most part are unobservable, including activities that
intentionally exclude others, influence others to behave in certain ways, and/or spread rumors

11
about others (Long & Alexander, 2010). This type of bullying is difficult to prove, and
oftentimes goes unreported.
Cyberbullying, using the Internet or technology to hurt someone is an example of indirect
bullying and sometimes referred to as relational bullying (Long & Alexander, 2010). Slonje and
Smith (2008) described the use of devices like cellular phones, laptops, and tablets by
cyberbullies and further explained, “With cyberbullying the victim may continue to receive text
messages or emails wherever they are” (p. 148). The victim cannot leave the situation because
technology allows the bullying to continue, thus underscoring the seriousness of cyberbullying.
Researchers from around the world have studied and addressed the problem of bullying
for decades. Bullying is not just an American phenomenon but also has a significant presence
internationally. According to Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, and Isava (2008) when it comes to
antibullying research, “American educators and mental health professionals have been relatively
recent players at the international table” (p. 27). Jimerson, Swearer, and Espelage (2010) also
remarked that research on school bullying is “decidedly international, with seminal scholarship
originating in Sweden, Norway, England, Japan, and Australia” (p. 1). Dixon (2011) further
posited that bullying has been of international concern for the past 10 - 20 years and studies on
this subject have occurred in many European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan,
and South Korea. Additionally, Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) explained that bullying is a
reality for children across the world on a regular basis, with percentages “ranging from 9% in
Sweden, around 12% in England, to 25% in the U.S., and even more than 50% in Lithuania” (p.
104).
The beginning of the 21st
century saw an increase of studies on bullying in schools and
antibullying interventions worldwide (Rigby & Smith, 2011). Hazler and Carney (2010) posited

12
that bullying has proven to be of such international concern that “no culture is immune” (p. 417)
and according to Smith (2012) several European countries have developed legal requirements
regarding school bullying. The pervasiveness and harmful effects of bullying have spurred
countries all over the world to develop initiatives addressing this issue (Jimerson, Swearer, &
Espelage, 2010). The ramifications of international research and data on bullying give proof to
the universality and gravity of this problem.
Statistically speaking, data confirm the prevalence of bullying. One national survey
indicated that approximately 28% of adolescents in the United States reported victimization
within the past school year (Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder, 2012). In another national study,
one fifth of the youth surveyed admitted being bullied and one fourth claimed they were teased
and/or harassed (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). Yerger and Gehret (2011) also reported that 23% of
elementary students indicated being bullied at least one to three times in the last month. The
authors further stated that one-half of all bullying incidents go unreported with cyberbullying
incidents being less than that.
Lerman (2010) reported that an estimated 160,000 children stay home from school to
avoid peer intimidation. Bullying has made schools hostile and fearful settings and the social and
emotional suffering experienced by victims of bullying keep some students from coming to
school altogether (Long & Alexander, 2010; Good et al., 2011). The consequences of bullying
are numerous. There is no mistaking the seriousness of bullying and its deleterious effects on
students.
Recognized as a persistent problem in schools around the world, the effects of bullying
have taken a toll on all students even if they are not victims. For example, Frey, Edstrom, and
Hirschstein (2010) explained bystanders are also affected by the distress of bullying and

13
experience “moral confusion” (p. 403) and therefore end up not understanding how to cope with
their emotional trauma. Aggressive and disruptive behaviors that invariably affect the learning
environment, bullying has negative implications for everyone involved including the
communities in which they live (Christie-Mizell et al., 2011). Bullying is stressful, chronic, and
contributory to “avoidant behavior and social withdrawal” (Cornell, Gregory, Huang, & Fan,
2013, p. 139). Bullying denies young people basic educational opportunities because they either
dropout or become truants (Frey, Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2010).
Designated as a serious health concern by the American Medical Association, the long-
term consequences of childhood bullying, could manifest as child abuse, domestic violence and
other criminal activities in adulthood (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). Demanet and Van Houtte (2012)
posited that bully-victims are the most likely to suffer with “depression, problem behavior, poor
school-functioning, poor social and emotional adjustment, even psychological and psychiatric
disturbances” (p. 105). Gubler and Croxall (2005) felt that bullies are “seven times more likely to
become delinquents or criminals than their non-bully peers” (p. 65). Additionally, Ttofi,
Farrington, Lösel, and Loeber (2011) in their review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies
on the effects of bullying, cited considerable evidence on the detrimental effects that bullying has
on its individual victims, schools, and the community as a whole.
Earning national attention, the consequences of bullying and its link to suicide are in the
news more and more. Twemlow and Sacco (2008) commented that “social aggression can be
lethal leading to suicide and/or homicide” (p. 298). One headline touted “Bullied girl’s suicide
has ongoing impact” (Haas, 2012). This article discussed the ramifications of 15-year-old Phoebe
Prince, an Irish immigrant, who took her life in desperation after months of harassment by male
and female students. Another headline read “Rachel Ehmke, 13-year-old Minnesota Student,

14
Commits Suicide After Months of Bullying” (Huffington Post Education Blog, 2012). This blog
explained how Rachel was a victim of peer abuse and cyberbullying for months until she finally
hung herself. Rachel’s community held a prayer vigil after her death, to show support for her
family and to prompt awareness of the seriousness of bullying. News stories such as these have
generated public outcry for something to be done about bullying.
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical foundations are an important consideration in order to understand why
children engage in antisocial behavior. The contributions of different psychological approaches
assist in the understanding of bullying and in the development of effective interventions. Monks
et al. (2009) discussed several theories that may be applicable to the field of bullying.
The evolutionary approach views bullying as having its roots in “reciprocity and fairness”
(Monks et al., 2009, p. 153) but contended that it does not defend the concept of bullying. The
attachment theory shows how the quality of parental attachment influences the development of
relationships in children and influences how individuals relate to, and develop, relationships with
others. When individuals are insecure in their relationships there will be higher levels of hostility
and aggression.
Hymel, Schonert-Reichi, Bonanno, Vaillancourt, and Rocke Henderson (2010) described
the sociocognitive theory of moral agency as a possible explanation of how children adopt their
moral standards and that these standards internalize and guide their conduct. Obermann (2011)
posited that the social cognitive theory of moral disengagement might explain how individuals
can engage in harmful behaviors that are inconsistent with their moral principles. Several studies
have shown a link between moral disengagement and children’s use of different kinds of
aggression (Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Carmak & Blatney, 1995; Paciello et al., 2008; Pelton et

15
al., 2004 as cited in Obermann, 2011). However, while Obermann felt that the relationship
between moral disengagement and school bullying needed further investigation, Hymel et al.
(2010) felt that results of some studies demonstrated significant links between bullying behavior
and moral disengagement.
The sociocultural theory suggested that the culture of an organization, such as a school is
important. When seen from this perspective the focus would be on changing the organizational
culture as opposed to the individuals within it. Monks et al. (2009) posited that members of a
school are sometimes seen as supporting bullying behaviors either directly or through their
attitudes towards it and that is why many schools have developed a whole school approach to
defeat bullying. According to Elsaesser, Gorman-Smith, and Henry (2013) the social learning
theory proposed that individuals learn from observing the behavior of others. Monks et al. (2009)
also felt that there was evidence of the impact parents and teachers have on children’s behavior
and cited research by Farrington (1993) and Twemlow and Fonagy (2005) concerning this
theory. However, it is the socioecological perspective that considers not only those involved but
also the environment that influences bullying behavior.
Authors, Espelage and Swearer (2010) contended that the socioecological framework,
developed by Kurt Lewin in 1936 “illustrates that behavior is the function of the individual’s
interactions with his or her environment” (p. 61).This model has often been used to study school
violence, was extended to include bullying and serves as the theoretical framework for this study.
The socialecological model supports the idea that bullying is a learned behavior and is a product
of environmental factors such as parents, peers, families, communities, and society. Swearer et
al. (2012) agreed and stated, “Involvement in bullying and peer victimization is the result of the
complex interplay between individuals and their broader social environment” (p. 333). Olweus

16
(2003) also reported that the “attitudes, behavior, and routines of relevant adults – in particular,
teachers and principals” (p. 14) are essential in understanding how and why bullying problems
manifest. Therefore, understanding the theoretical framework of bullying with a socioecological
model will assist in the development of antibullying policy, interventions, and reduction of
bullying behaviors in schools.
Antibullying Legislation and Policy
According to the United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2011), bullying is a
concern for society and a crucial topic when discussing school legislation and policy. Since
1999, there has been increased emphasis on school violence and bullying, primarily due to the
Columbine High School shooting (Temkin, 2008; USDOE, 2011). During the past few years, an
alarming component of school shootings in the United States has been that “some of these
youthful shooters were repeat victims of bullying and peer harassment, were unpopular, and they
ultimately went on a shooting spree as a way of exacting revenge” (Merrell et al., 2008, p. 27).
The shooting at Columbine High School was the first high-profile incident of violent behavior
where bullying seemed to be the underlying cause. This terrible event spurred a flurry of
“legislative action within state legislatures to curtail bullying behavior on school campuses or to
mitigate its effects” (USDOE, 2011, p. 1). Swearer, Limber, and Alley (2009) commented
“historically, in this country, antidiscrimination, harassment, and gun laws have laid the
foundation for communication that these are serious societal concerns, the same trend appears to
be happening for bullying” (p. 39).
Since not all forms of bullying, fall under federal jurisdiction, the federal government has
chosen not get too involved in this issue (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2011), so following
the shootings at Columbine, policy makers responded by developing antibullying regulations at

17
state and school levels (Temkin, 2008). Limber and Small’s (2003) examination of state adopted
antibullying policies gave a glimpse into how lawmakers viewed bullying. The authors
explained, “State laws have been the primary legislative vehicle for announcing new initiatives
designed to reduce bullying behavior” (p. 446). Policy makers set the tone for a school district’s
priorities and level of activity concerning antibullying efforts. They also play a significant role in
promoting “positive awareness and sustained effort needed to reduce bullying and create
peaceful school learning environments” (Twemlow & Sacco, 2008, p. 297).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 identified school safety as specific data collection
and reporting criteria (Merrell et al., 2008) and therefore, required states to pass laws that
mandated local school districts write safety plans and stipulate consequences for violation of
proper school behavior. While the word bullying does not appear in this legislation, it does
however require that each school district have a policy on maintaining a safe school environment
(Edmondson & Zeman, 2011). Therefore, states must have antibullying legislation that requires
school districts to develop and implement antibullying policies. School districts are expected by
state law to develop policies that encompass “a range of required components, such as reporting
and investigation procedures, consequences for prohibited conduct, school personnel training
provisions, or support services for victims” (USDOE, 2011, p. 30). State laws, however, differ in
how they instruct school districts to incorporate new bullying requirements into current school-
based policy documents.
Swearer et al. (2009) posited that legislation is necessary in order to “force school
districts to develop an antibullying policy” (p. 49). Regardless of whether all states have
legislated antibullying laws, all school districts should develop, implement, and follow
antibullying policies. Policies must address the unique environment of each particular school and

18
community. A well-written policy must clearly define as well as explain bullying and the
school’s expectations regarding appropriate behaviors and consequences for inappropriate
behaviors. Swearer et al. (2009) wrote “parents, local school boards, and school administrators
should be supportive and lead the efforts in developing and implementing antibullying policies”
(p. 41). Staff and administrative support for antibullying initiatives must be strong for effective
implementation to occur.
On June 10, 2008, the Florida Legislature passed The Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All
Students Act. This Act required that all Florida school districts adopt a policy prohibiting
bullying and harassment of students and staff on school grounds, at school-sponsored events, and
through computer networks. This legislation also required that the Department of Education
distribute a model policy by October 1, 2008 (Florida Department of Education, n.d., Safe
Schools Related). In order to assist Florida school districts, the Florida Department of Education
(FDOE) created a template for a model district policy to serve as a guideline in developing their
antibullying policies.
Transformational Leadership
The speed with which policies are introduced and/or changed from state legislatures,
mandate that “school leaders must be prepared to guide districts, schools, and teachers through
the often difficult task of changing to meet new expectations” (Fowler, 2013, p. 241). State
legislation dictates district policy and local schools have the obligation of carrying out district
policy. However, every school has its own distinct culture and its “leaders help determine the
cultural tone of a school through the beliefs they hold, the words they speak, and the actions they
take” (Sparks, 2007, p. 110). While effective schools (and school leadership) may be legislated
by policies and regulations, the onus of implementation of said policies and regulations fall on

19
the shoulders of those who are physically present at the schools. Therefore, leadership styles and
approaches play a vital role in the reduction of school violence (Long & Alexander, 2010;
Sparks, 2007).
The theory of transformational leadership posits that if given support, “organizational
members become highly engaged and motivated by goals that are inspirational because those
goals are associated with values in which they strongly believe” (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p.
388). In essence, leadership practices that have a positive influence on others are considered
transformational. Transformational leaders are concerned “with improving the performance of
followers and developing followers to their fullest potential” (Northouse, 2007, p. 181).The
ability to shape the views of others to produce desired outcomes is a necessary attribute for
successful organizational leaders. Effective school administrators, teachers, and staff should
therefore be transformational as well as instructional leaders (Leithwood & Sun, 2012) because
academic achievement has been linked to school safety (Barton, 2009; Long & Alexander,
2010).
Limber and Small (2003) communicated that while state legislation regarding reducing
school violence is necessary, whether or not it is has been effective is entirely another question.
The district communicates state mandates to its schools through policy, but schools have the
responsibility of following through with policy implementation. Any law or policy written to
address bullying must take into account not only current research but “how effectively the law
influences school policies and programs” (Limber & Small, 2003, p. 446).
Swearer et al. (2009) reported that school administrators perceived state policies as
additional work and found it difficult to change staff behaviors. However, buy-in from all
stakeholders (i.e., staff, parents, community, etc.) is necessary for any implementation of policy

20
and/or interventions. Administrators who recognize and acknowledge the importance of bullying
prevention will make every attempt to garner staff buy-in. Administrators must set the
foundation and standard of moral and ethical behavior for their schools regarding the
implementation of the district’s antibullying policy with fidelity. Long and Alexander (2010)
concurred and stated, “The principal’s leadership style and level of commitment, coupled with
the attitudes and beliefs of teachers and parents, are significant in the reduction of bullying” (p.
33). Administrators must realize that cooperation is required among everyone involved and
effectively model the appropriate behaviors to produce the desired outcome in order to create a
safe and secure school.
Programs/Interventions/Strategies
State antibullying laws typically mandate zero tolerance policies in schools (Jones, 2013).
A zero tolerance policy is one where the bully is punished by either suspension or expulsion. An
exclusionary method at best, zero tolerance policies have been shown to be ineffective in
reducing school bullying (Frey et al., 2010; Jones, 2013). Antibullying policies generally set
forth recommendations regarding the prevention of peer harassment and require that some form
of school-wide intervention be in place. Research conducted over the past 20 years has shown
that bullying prevention programs must include multilevel strategies that “target bullies, victims,
bystanders, families, and communities” to be considered effective (Bowllan, 2011, p. 168). Yoon
(2004) also explained that interventions that presume a socioecological stance would
successfully target bullying behaviors by improving the school climate. Therefore, developing a
positive school climate will facilitate the reduction of risks associated with bullying.
Researchers have found many strategies to help reduce and/or prevent bullying. One
important first step is to make sure that policies are clearly stated and in alignment with the

21
district’s (school’s) vision, mission, and goals (Long & Alexander, 2010). Barton (2009)
explained that taking a proactive response to bullying would benefit students and their overall
academic and social growth. Unfortunately, it seems that most schools tend to take a reactive
approach by “installing metal detectors, surveillance equipment, and hiring additional guards”
which does not help with aspects of bullying that occur “out of sight of the video cameras and
without the use of metal weapons” (Barton, 2009, p. 3). Rather, the author recommended that
resources would be better allocated in the incorporation of violence prevention techniques,
curriculum integration of school safety procedures, peer mediation programs, character
education, and the development of conflict resolution skills as these initiatives would “teach
students how to avoid dangerous situations, places, and people” (Barton, 2009, p. 3).
Sherer and Nickerson (2010) explained that antibullying initiatives should “alter the
broader school environment” (p. 218) and expounded on several research based strategies to
combat bullying. For example, in addition to having a school-wide policy on bullying, methods
of data collection and reporting are crucial for providing not only an informational reference
point but also helps in raising awareness of the problem and provides schools with a system of
tracking bullying incidents. Strategies involving improved supervision of students in common
areas where bullying takes place and utilizing a variety of approaches that include and promote
parental awareness must be developed and implemented. Providing for continuous staff
development (inclusive of bus drivers, cafeteria workers, office staff, and custodial staff) needs
to be communicated and received as an integral part of any antibullying intervention.
Educational approaches that facilitate student awareness, understanding of bullying, and involve
them in the prevention process (e.g., peer remediation and/or counseling) should also be
employed. Interventions must also include that bullying behavior needs to be addressed

22
immediately after an incident, follow-up meetings conducted, and counseling provided for the
bully and the victim (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
Implementation and Effectiveness Issues
Clemons and McBeth (2008) define implementation as “organizational activities directed
toward the carrying out of adopted policy by administrative bureaucracies at the national, state,
and local levels” (p. 79). In order to have successful policy implementation individuals and
agencies, (e.g., stakeholders) must be willing participants in the process. “Successful
implementation depends on developing and maintaining both the will and the capacity of the
intermediaries” (Fowler, 2013, p. 242). A school-wide policy on bullying as well as
acknowledgement that bullying is taking place is necessary for any antibullying initiative to be
implemented with fidelity. Long and Alexander (2010) posited that antibullying programs should
be established cooperatively with all stakeholders so that their (stakeholders’) needs are
appropriately addressed and for the program to be operative.
Effective implementation of antibullying strategies is critical in the reduction and
prevention of school bullying. A plethora of research concerning antibullying interventions, what
schools do and should do to prevent bullying abounds; however, there are gaps in extant
literature as to the effectiveness of antibullying programs (Rigby & Bauman, 2010). Sherer and
Nickerson (2010) pointed out “little is known regarding American schools’ current status
pertaining to bullying prevention/intervention efforts” (p. 217). References to outcomes of some
antibullying programs have varied; for example, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program,
developed and evaluated by Olweus in Norway, showed that there was between a 30% - 50%
reduction in bullying (Rigby & Bauman, 2010). However, the program’s effectiveness outside of
Norway has been minimal and according to Rigby and Bauman (2010) only a 15% reduction in

23
bullying can be attributed to antibullying programs and that is more than likely “due to a lack of
thorough implementation” (p. 455).
Moreover, few studies have addressed attitudes of faculty and staff regarding the
effectiveness of antibullying interventions (Holt & Keyes, 2004). Most research on school
bullying and interventions have utilized student information and while the perspective of
students are important and valid, information from adult stakeholders may provide more
assistance in bullying prevention (Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, & Dill, 2008). Teachers
are the ones who must carry out school policy and implement the strategies, interventions, and/or
programs within their schools. If there are implementation or effectiveness issues, then teachers,
their attitudes, and beliefs should be examined; because they are the ones who are exposed to
students on a regular basis and the ones expected to implement the necessary strategies to
reduce/prevent bullying (Rigby & Bauman, 2010; Yoon, 2004).
Existing research has shown that “inconsistencies in program implementation have
diminished treatment effects” (Biggs et al., 2008, p. 534). If teachers do not buy-in to a specific
program or intervention, they will not promote it. Teachers must believe in what they are doing
in order to model it effectively for their students. They are the ones who would know or see if
bullying is occurring, they are the ones students will come to when there is a problem, and they
are the ones who must report it. There are many possible reasons that influence whether teachers
do or do not implement interventions and one might be a “teacher’s perception of the
intervention’s effectiveness” (Biggs et al., 2008, p. 536). Considering research showed that lack
of implementation can be directly correlated to lack of effectiveness in antibullying programs,
Biggs et al. (2008) admonished that there is still a need in extant literature regarding the “careful
attention to fidelity issues” (p. 536).

24
Action Research
First developed in the 1930s by social psychologist Kurt Lewin as a group process to
meet the needs of the time, action research is a process that includes four steps, planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting. It spread from the social sector to academia with a focus on relating
research to practice. Action research is a series of steps that “organizational or community
members have taken, are taking, or wish to take to address a particular problematic situation. The
idea is that changes occur either within the setting and/or within the researchers themselves”
(Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 4). According to Ghazala (2008) “there is a dual commitment in
action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in
changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction” (para. 3). Described as an
organized investigation that is collective, collaborative, and self-reflective, action research is
conducted by stakeholders in order to improve educational practices.
A gap between research and practice exists in the field of education (Mills, 2014), and
action research addresses this gap by embedding learning into practice, enacting change and
improving issues while “formulating public knowledge and contributing to theories of action”
(McGrath & O’Toole, 2011, p. 509). Creswell (2012) advanced that action research
Encourages change in schools; Fosters a democratic (i.e., involvement of many
individuals) approach to education; Empowers individuals through collaboration on
projects; Positions teachers and other educators as learners who seek to narrow the gap
between practice and their vision of education; Encourages educators to reflect on their
practices; Promotes a process of testing new ideas. (p. 578)
Two styles of action research are participatory and practical. Creswell (2012) wrote, “The
purpose of participatory action research is to improve the quality of people’s organizations,
communities, and family lives” (p. 583). Participatory action researchers study issues that
address social problems that suppress the lives of students and educators. However, in practical

25
action research, an educational stakeholder is the researcher. Its primary focus is on how to fix a
problem as opposed to theoretical principles. According to Mills (2014), this research model
assumes that researchers are committed to professional development, school improvement, and
continually reflect on their practices. The practical action researcher is empowered in the
decision making process because they choose the “area of focus, determine their data collection
techniques, analyze and interpret their data, and develop action plans based on their findings” (p.
12).
Rationale
According to Toso (2012) “the first line of defense in bullying prevention is state
antibullying legislation and the ensuing establishment of antibullying policies at the district
level” (p. 4). Toso conducted a content analysis of state antibullying policies of the northeast
region of the United States. This study was a replication of one done by Smith, Smith, Osborn,
and Samara (2008) in the United Kingdom, utilizing the Content Analysis for School
Antibullying Policies (CASABP) (see Appendix A). Smith et al. (2008) felt that a school’s
antibullying policy should be a reflection of a school’s commitment to reducing bullying. Since
antibullying policies may vary from state to state and between school districts within the state
“there has been some [skepticism] about their effectiveness in impacting upon levels of bullying”
(Smith, Smith, Osborn, & Samara, 2008, p. 2). The authors further posited that the analyses of
antibullying policies would more than likely increase to ensure that the standards set forth by
state and/or district mandates are being realized. Their content analysis was conducted to “give
important insights into the strengths and limitations of many school antibullying policies” (p.
10). Toso (2012) concurred and explained that her study “revealed the comprehensiveness of
state antibullying legislation and policies in school districts” (p. 4).

26
Yoon and Kerber (2003) hypothesized that since teachers are generally the ones who
have to deal with bullying behaviors, their perceptions and attitudes should be given the utmost
attention when it comes to establishing a safe learning environment. The way a teacher responds
to bullying can have an impact on future bullying behaviors for both victim and bully. The
Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools (CBPIPAS) survey
instrument (see Appendix B) was designed by Sherer and Nickerson in 2006 to determine what
antibullying strategies schools implemented and the perceived effectiveness of those
interventions (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
In view of the fact that very little research existed regarding antibullying interventions in
American schools, Sherer and Nickerson developed the CBPIPAS to address this gap in
literature. The authors posited that more information was necessary in order to understand the
how American schools handle bullying. Originally administered to school psychologists because
of their active roles in violence and bullying prevention, this survey addressed antibullying
interventions that should encompass all aspects of bullying. The emphasis of this study centered
on the implementation and perceived effectiveness of antibullying strategies, in five categories:
“(a) systems-level interventions, (b) school staff and parent involvement, (c) educational
approaches with students, (d) student involvement, and (e) interventions with bullies and
victims” (p. 217).
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Schools in The District have their own culture and consequently employ a variety of
antibullying interventions reflecting their diversity, uniqueness, and personal needs. Given the
various antibullying interventions that exist within The District, concerns regarding the fidelity
of implementation and/or the effectiveness of antibullying initiatives need to be addressed. This

27
practical action research study examined Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s
antibullying policy, utilizing the CASABP measuring rubric. Additionally, a survey of the
perceptions of The District’s prevention liaisons regarding the implementation and effectiveness
of antibullying interventions at their schools was conducted using the CBPIPAS. The results of
this study added to the body of knowledge, informed practice regarding antibullying policy, and
enabled the researcher to make specific recommendations to stakeholders within The District
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions. The following
research questions formed the foundation of this study.
1. How comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation?
2. How comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy?
3. What are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools?
Summary
The insidious and rampant problem of bullying is of great concern internationally. It
affects every aspect of society regardless of an individual’s socio-economic status, race,
ethnicity, religious background, sexual preference, and geographic location. It is especially
pervasive in the school system and therefore, schools are legally as well as ethically responsible
for the prevention of peer harassment (Schoen & Schoen, 2010). State legislation and school
district policy dictate rules and regulations regarding discipline, suspension, and expulsion
(Limber & Small, 2003). According to Swearer et al. (2009) steps such as referring to the
district’s model policy, defining bullying behaviors, clearly outlining and specifying
investigative and disciplinary actions, and training stakeholders on prevention procedures must
be included in the development of effective policies.

28
Additionally, much of the research in the U.S. has been from the student’s perspective
and while that may be important, it is necessary to look at how teachers perceive the
effectiveness of bullying interventions (Holt & Keyes, 2004) because they are the ones who must
implement it. Therefore, a practical action research model that analyzes The District’s
antibullying policy and determines the effectiveness of its application in local schools, according
to its teachers’ perceptions, will give insight into how communities can collaborate and unite in
the reduction and prevention of bullying and effectively implement antibullying interventions,
thus creating safer learning environments for students (Schoen & Schoen, 2010).

29
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
According to Nansel et al. (2001), bullying among young people has increasingly become
an important problem that not only affects a child’s well-being but the way they socialize. While
relationships typically have a certain amount of conflict, “bullying presents a potentially more
serious threat to healthy youth development” (p. 2). The adverse effects of bullying have caused
the nation, state, and local communities to set regulations and introduce antibullying prevention
programs. The establishment of an antibullying policy on state and local levels is necessary for
recognizing, addressing, and reducing bullying behaviors; however, a well-written policy is futile
if antibullying interventions are not effectively implemented in schools.
This practical action research study analyzed the comprehensiveness of Florida’s
antibullying legislation, The District’s antibullying policy, and surveyed prevention liaisons’
attitudes regarding the effectiveness of antibullying interventions implemented at their schools.
A cross-section of data collected from the survey also explained the relationship between
bullying prevention practices and The District’s antibullying policy.
Research Design
The design used for this study was practical action research. According to Creswell
(2012) action research designs are ways that “educators aim to improve the practice of education
by studying issues or problems they face” and “reflect about these problems, collect and analyze
data, and implement changes based on their findings” (p. 577). This type of research seeks to
foster collaboration among stakeholders and utilizes either quantitative, qualitative, or a mixed
methods design. Riel (2010) asserted that the results of an action research study are “practical,
relevant, and can inform theory” (para. 6). This design places value on the significance of the

30
findings to the researcher and stakeholders, as well as provides an effective strategy for
improving an organization’s climate and culture.
At its core, action research focuses on problem solving, utilizes methodologies that are
dependent on the requirements of the research/researcher, and has a unique cyclical approach
(Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014; Riel, 2010). The steps in the action research process, repeat as
needed (see Figure 1). McGrath and O’Toole (2011) posited that this research design “relies on
an action-reflection cycle to achieve its learning outcomes” (p. 508).
Figure 1. Action Research Steps. Adapted from “Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher”, by G. E.
Mills, 2014, p. 20, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Copyright 2014 by Pearson Education Inc.
An element of action research, practical action research focuses more on an applicable
approach than a theoretical one (Mills, 2014). Additionally, in practical action research, the
investigator is committed to school improvement and has the capability to “choose their own
area of focus, determine their data collection techniques, analyze and interpret their data and
develop action plans based on their findings” (Mills, 2014, p.12).
Identify an Area
of Focus
Collect Data
Analyze and
Interpret Data
Develop an
Action Plan

31
The content analysis and survey conducted as part of this study are integral components
of this practical action research design. Data collection techniques for action research studies can
be organized into three categories known as the Three Es: Experiencing, Enquiring, and
Examining (Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). These techniques
enable the researcher to determine the most appropriate means of gathering information (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2. Action Research Data Collection Techniques. Adapted from “Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher
Researcher”, by G. E. Mills, 2014, p. 99, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Copyright 2014 by Pearson Education
Inc.
This study only utilized the Enquiring and Examining techniques. The role of the
researcher in Enquiring is to ask questions, this form of data collection may include interviews,
questionnaires, and/or attitude scales. During the Examining technique, the researcher’s role
involves the examination of documents, journals, field notes, and/or audio/videotapes (Creswell,
2012; Mills, 2014; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). Data collected through Enquiring and
Examining techniques were analyzed and the results reported in chapter four.
The use of the CASABP rubric to determine the comprehensiveness of the State of
Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying policy was one aspect of this
practical action research study. Additionally, by evaluating prevention liaisons’ perceptions of
The Three Es
Experiencing Researcher observes
Enquiring
Researcher asks
questions
Examining
Researcher analyzes
documents

32
antibullying initiatives this study sought to determine the effectiveness of antibullying
interventions being implemented (within The District), as measured by the CBPIPAS survey
instrument. The use of a practical action research design facilitated planning efforts, the
implementation, and evaluation of intervention strategies as outlined in Florida legislation and
The District’s policy.
Participants
A purposeful sampling was done for both aspects of this practical action research study.
According to Creswell (2003) in purposeful sampling, the investigator selects the documents
and/or participants that would effectively answer the research questions. For example,
documents that contain the main topic or theme being studied or participants that have specific
experiences with the “central phenomenon” in the study would be sufficient to warrant selection
by the investigator (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 112).
The content analysis portion of this study required the use of documents (Florida
Antibullying Law – §1006.147 FS and The District – Statute 5.9: Anti Bullying) that are
publically available and easily obtained online through the Internet. The participants for the
survey were prevention liaisons (PLs). PLs were chosen because they have specific knowledge
of and/or exposure to antibullying interventions in their schools. Mandated by The District’s
antibullying policy, each school in The District must have a PL, making each PL a representative
of the total school/teacher population in The District. PLs are school based personnel (i.e.,
teachers, guidance counselors, and/or peer counselors, etc.) that are trained by The District in
prevention matters and they in turn, take that information back to their local schools for
dissemination. The CBPIPAS survey instrument was administered at the end of a PL
professional development workshop hosted by The District after permissions from the

33
Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of Nova Southeastern University and The District, as well as
the director of the Diversity, Cultural Outreach and Prevention (DCOP) (department within The
District) were obtained (Creswell, 2008).
Instruments
Content Analysis for Schools Antibullying Policies (CASABP). Neuendorf (2002)
stated:
Content analysis is a summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages that relies on the
scientific method … and is not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured
or the context in which the messages are created or presented. (p. 10)
A content analysis can therefore be used to summarize the comprehensiveness of a document
and seeks to apply general conclusions regarding the document.
According to Smith et al. (2008), antibullying policies are an indication of how
committed schools are to preventing bullying. The authors further suggested that in order to be
judged effective by stakeholders, a policy must first be clear as well as comprehensive. Toso
(2012) concurred and further explained that any study of bullying and its prevention should also
include an “analysis of antibullying legislation and ensuing district policies” (p. 47).
A review of literature on bullying revealed an investigation conducted by Toso in 2012,
regarding antibullying legislation and policies. Toso studied antibullying legislation and district
policies of the northeast region of the United States. Using a mixed methods research design,
Toso utilized the CASABP rubric to determine the comprehensiveness of antibullying legislation
in nine states and antibullying policies of 351 randomly sampled school districts and found the
CASABP to be a valid and reliable instrument (Toso, 2012).
According to Smith et al. (2008), the research conducted so far in England suggested that
school antibullying policies might be deficient in important areas. Therefore, the authors

34
developed the CASABP, to examine antibullying policies of schools in the United Kingdom
(Smith et al., 2008; Toso, 2012). The CASABP, originally designed with 31 questions in four
subgroups, analyzed 142 school antibullying policies and found that “schools had about 40% of
the items in their policies” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 1). Additionally the CASABP rubric had face
validity and “the internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the total antibullying policy content
scale was reasonably high (.76)” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 9).
The CASABP has since been updated and modified and now contains 34 items divided
into the same four sections. Each section measured whether the policy addressed a specific issue
regarding bullying and is a representation of a “composite score based on the authors’ definitions
and information” (Toso, 2012, p. 53). Section A addressed the definition of bullying in a policy
and has 13 items. Section B addressed whether a policy included reporting and responding
criteria for bullying incidents and has 11 items. Section C addressed whether a policy made
provision for the recording, communication, and evaluation of the policy and has four items.
Lastly, section D addressed whether a policy discussed strategies for the prevention of bullying
and has six items (Toso, 2012).
A valid and reliable instrument to examine antibullying policies, the CASABP rubric was
used in this study. The researcher was granted permission to use this instrument from the
authors. A copy of the 34-item CASABP rubric was included in Toso’s research report and
replicated for use in this study. The CASABP rubric was used to answer Research Questions 1
and 2.
This study used the same instrument (CASABP), as Smith et al. (2008) and Toso (2012)
did in their studies; however, some differences should be noted. The investigation conducted by
Smith et al. reviewed and compared 142 individual school antibullying policies. Toso’s study

35
reviewed and compared the antibullying legislation of nine states and 351 school districts’
antibullying policies. This study analyzed the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation (one
state) and The District’s antibullying policy (one school district) to determine their respective
comprehensiveness (see Research Questions 1 and 2).
The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) developed a template as a guideline for
school districts to follow regarding the development of a model antibullying policy. The FDOE’s
Model Policy Against Bullying and Harassment (Florida Department of Education, 2014, DOE’s
Revised Model) outlined what Florida’s 67 school districts should have in their policies;
however, the basic requirements are generic in nature. A model policy is one that surpasses that
reflected in the FDOE’s model. Districts are required to have a policy that incorporates what is
stated in the model policy, however, they are also encouraged to include other aspects as dictated
by the individual and personal needs of their district. The CASABP is a comprehensive, valid,
and reliable measurement tool that analyzed the specific components of other policies and
assisted in determining the extensiveness of The District’s antibullying policy. If The District’s
antibullying policy meets model policy status according to the FDOE standards, then the use of
the CASABP rubric could be used to measure and validate whether The District’s antibullying
policy is truly a model policy or not.
Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools
(CBPIPAS). This study also examined prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the
implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions. The use of a cross-sectional
survey instrument allowed inferences to be made about the sample population’s attitudes or
beliefs and then applied it to the general population (Creswell, 2003). Fink (2003) likewise
explained that a survey is an organized way of collecting data regarding the attitudes of people.

36
Additionally, surveys are generally easy to administer and issues with confidentiality can easily
be maintained (Creswell, 2003).
An investigation using a variety of search engines looking for existing surveys that were
appropriate for this study did not yield any that addressed teacher perceptions on bullying
prevention. Many of the surveys found were primarily for use by students or part of a specific
bullying program and did not address effective implementation of antibullying interventions or
strategies in general. A literature review through numerous databases (e.g., ERIC, ProQuest,
Sage Publications, etc.) for articles on bullying, bullying prevention, antibullying, and/or teacher
attitudes finally yielded two studies with surveys that addressed teacher perceptions.
The first study was the Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS) conducted
by Cross et al. in 2007 (Cross et al., 2011). Cross et al. administered the ACBPS at the request of
the Australian government in order to “benchmark the nature and extent of covert and other
bullying behaviors in schools” (p. 398). The National Safe Schools’ Framework (NSSF) is a
national policy that outlines 23 whole-school practices as a guide for Australian schools to assist
them in the reduction of bullying behaviors. The authors posited that the primary goal of the
ACBPS was to enhance knowledge about covert bullying in Australian schools and to inform
policy and practice regarding this serious problem (Cross et al., 2011).
Two instruments were developed and used in the ACBPS: a student survey and a teacher
survey. Teachers were surveyed regarding their school’s implementation of the NSSF’s 23
“strategies to reduce covert bullying using one of six response options, ranging from strategy not
adopted to strategy adopted” (p. 399). The survey also allowed for teachers to rate the level of
the staff’s proficiency in addressing bullying problems. Cross et al. (2011) contended that the
goal of the staff survey was to understand staff perceptions regarding bullying issues. The

37
ACBPS was a very thorough examination of covert bullying in Australian schools, and while
many of the components it assessed are similar to those needing evaluation in this study, the
ACBPS instrument would have required extensive modifications and would have been difficult
to administer because of its overall length.
The second study was located in the article entitled, “Antibullying Practices in American
Schools: Perspectives of School Psychologists” (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010). Sherer and
Nickerson conducted this study using the Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in
American Schools (CBPIPAS) survey instrument. The authors administered the survey in 2006
to address a gap in research literature regarding antibullying interventions in American schools.
They felt that much of the research on bullying prevention practices received a lot of
international attention; however, little was still known regarding bullying prevention in the
United States.
The purpose of the Sherer and Nickerson study was to address the need for more
information on antibullying practices in American schools by looking at five categories: “(a)
systems-level interventions, (b) school staff and parent involvement, (c) educational approaches
with students, (d) student involvement, and (e) interventions with bullies and victims” (p. 217).
The following is an analysis of each category.
In systems level interventions, a variety of bullying prevention strategies that studies
have shown positively impact the school environment are addressed. For example, having an
antibullying policy, establishing a bullying committee that facilitates and coordinates bullying
prevention activities, providing a means to collect, disseminate and/or track data on bullying
incidents, and implementing research based antibullying programs (i.e., Olweus Bullying

38
Prevention Program) are some key considerations in this category (Meraviglia, Becker,
Rosenbluth, Sanchez, & Robertson, 2003; Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
The next category, school staff and parent involvement, included procedures for
involving school staff in bullying prevention activities; providing professional development,
staff training, and increasing adult supervision in places where bullying may occur. In addition,
strategies for including parents would be distribution of newsletters on bullying and its
prevention, inviting parents out to antibullying assemblies, and conferencing with parents of
victims and bullies when incidents occur (Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
Educational approaches with students, the third category, included activities that raise the
awareness of the whole school regarding bullying problems. An example of this would be the use
of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program which promotes the establishing of “classroom rules
against bullying, having consequences for violations of rules, and holding regular classroom
meetings to facilitate the discussion of bullying problems and peer relations” (Sherer &
Nickerson, 2010, p. 218). Additionally, the incorporation of antibullying curriculum, character
education, and conflict resolution skills in the classroom are strategies that positively influence
students (Barton, 2009; Meraviglia et al., 2003; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
Student involvement in prevention and intervention efforts is another category that Sherer
and Nickerson (2010) felt needed to be addressed in order to reduce bullying. The development
of support processes such as peer mediation, peer counseling, and allowing students input in
decision-making processes regarding bullying are considered important components of
antibullying interventions (Long & Alexander, 2010).
Lastly, interventions with bullies and victims are also key components necessary to
address bullying prevention. This category involved addressing bullying incidents immediately

39
as well as consistently following-up with both the victim and bully. Individual and/or group
counseling with the bully, victim, and even bystanders may be warranted and should be provided
(Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
Participants of the Sherer and Nickerson study were a random sample of school
psychologists. School psychologists were selected because they play a major role in violence
prevention and are privy to school-wide policies regarding bullying. Diamanduros, Downs, and
Jenkins (2008) also addressed the role of school psychologists on the topic of bullying and
concurred they (school psychologists) are important because they are often involved in
promoting awareness on bullying and its psychological impact on children.
Sherer and Nickerson’s four-page survey was organized into three sections. The first
section addressed general demographic questions; the second section addressed bullying
prevention and intervention activities implemented in respondents’ schools; and the last section
asked respondents for their opinions regarding the most effective, least effective antibullying
strategies, and areas in need of improvement. To establish content validity, the authors sent a
draft of the questionnaire to a convenience sample of 10 school psychologists and the only
feedback received were minor wording issues on a few items to improve clarity (Sherer &
Nickerson, 2010).
The CBPIPAS survey was mailed to 500 school psychologists, however only 213
responses were received and evaluated as part of the study. The results showed that school
psychologists had mixed feelings about the effectiveness and implementation of antibullying
policies. This may be because some school psychologists are assigned to multiple schools and
“schools can vary in the way they develop and implement their antibullying policies, resulting in
different perceptions of its effectiveness” (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010, p. 226).

40
For the purpose of this study, the CBPIPAS instrument was a self-administered survey
given to teachers participating in a professional development workshop on prevention conducted
by The District. The teachers that took this survey were prevention liaisons (PLs). An important
aspect of The District’s antibullying policy is that every school should have a PL. The PL is
“responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to the four strands of
prevention – violence prevention (the bullying policy, etc.), substance abuse prevention,
instructional strategies, as well as health and wellness” (Diversity, Cultural Outreach &
Prevention, 2007, Prevention Liaison Training). The District provides resources to help PLs train
their school staff, students, and parents on prevention strategies. Prevention liaisons are a sample
representation of the population of schools/teachers within The District. The CBPIPAS was used
to determine these teachers’ perception of implementation and effectiveness of antibullying
interventions. Variables embedded within Research Question 3 and addressed by the survey are
outlined in Table 1. Permission to modify and use the CBPIPAS was obtained from its author.
Table 1
Research Question 3 and Survey Measures
Variables Research question Items on survey
1. Implementation of antibullying
interventions, strategies, and/or
programs
RQ 3
What are prevention liaisons’
perceptions regarding the
implementation and effectiveness
of antibullying interventions?
Part II Bullying Prevention and
Intervention Activities –
Questions 1 and 2.
2. Perceived effectiveness of
antibullying interventions,
strategies, and/or programs
RQ 3
What are prevention liaisons’
perceptions regarding the
implementation and effectiveness
of antibullying interventions?
Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and
Barriers – Questions 4-7.

41
Procedures
According to Mills (2014) the steps in action research include, “identifying an area of
focus, collecting data, analyzing and interpreting the data, and developing an action plan” (p.
19). The area of focus, the effectiveness of antibullying interventions as perceived by prevention
liaisons in accordance with Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying
policy have been established. The next step was data collection.
Action research data collection techniques, known as the Three Es: Experiencing,
Enquiring, and Examining (Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008) enable
the researcher to determine the most appropriate means of gathering information. This study only
utilized the Enquiring and Examining techniques. During the Enquiring phase, the researcher
asks questions of participants to better understand the central phenomenon being studied and
may use a survey instrument (such as the CBPIPAS) to collect data. Additionally, a content
analysis of documents (such as the CASABP) would constitute using and/or recording
information, which would be Examining. Further steps in the action research process, analyzing,
and interpreting data, and developing an action plan are reported and discussed in chapters four
and five.
The content analysis portion of this study utilized the CASABP rubric as a measuring
tool because of its proven reliability and validity by its developer Smith et al. (2008) and in
subsequent research by Toso (2012). A good instrument is one that is reliable, meaning that a
researcher can get the same results every time it is used. In content analysis, achieving reliability
is extremely important because “without acceptable levels of reliability, content analysis
measures are meaningless” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 12). The use of human coders or raters relies on
establishing interrater reliability, “a level of agreement among two or more coders” (p. 12). Both

42
Smith et al. and Toso incorporated the use of raters and participated as raters in their studies. In
this study, the researcher was rater 1 and rater 2 was chosen based upon their qualifications and
background in educational research.
Neuendorf (2002) posited that the development of a codebook (operational definitions)
and a score sheet serve as “protocol for content analyzing messages” (p. 132). For example,
raters will look throughout the text that they have coded and “using a predetermined coding
scheme, identify whether they assigned the same or different codes to the text” (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2007, p. 135). The operational definitions (see Table 2) assisted in eliminating
ambiguity as well as individual differences among raters and is an example of the one used in the
Toso study (2012). The scoring sheet was a copy of the CASABP with a space provided to
answer either yes or no.
Rater 2 was instructed in the scoring process as well as given directions and explanations
on the use of the scoring sheet and operational definitions. In the scoring process, each category
in the policy was scored either a one for meeting the criteria outlined or a zero for not meeting it.
Each section was then subtotaled and a total score was given ranging from 0 - 34 (Smith et al.,
2008; Toso, 2012).
A pre-trial was conducted; rater 1 and rater 2 independently scored a Florida school
district’s antibullying policy (District X), using the CASABP rubric, and then determined
interrater reliability. When interrater reliability had been established, the actual study began.
Both raters independently scored the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation, confirmed
interrater reliability, then independently scored The District’s antibullying policy, and confirmed
interrater reliability. Finally, both raters conducted a post trial by independently scoring another
Florida school district’s antibullying policy (District Y). This was to re-establish and re-confirm

43
interrater reliability (see Table 3). This study included a pre- and post trial with testing for
interrater reliability occurring four times. Data collected from the content analysis were reported
in the results section (see Chapter 4).
Table 2
Operational Definitions
Section A – Definition of bullying behavior (contains 13 items):
How the policy defines bullying, differentiates it from other types of aggressive behavior,
describes the difference between physical and verbal bullying, mentions relational, material,
cyber, homophobic, racial, and sexual bullying. It also discusses the issue of pupil-pupil
bullying as well as adult/teacher – pupil bullying or vice versa.
Section B – Reporting and responding to bullying incidents (contains 11 items):
Explains what victims should do after a bullying incident, how teachers should respond,
mentions the responsibility of other school staff, parents, pupil bystanders and states
whether sanctions for bullying depend upon the type or severity of the episode. It also
addresses whether follow up sanctions were effective, discusses what actions will be
taken if bullying persists, how to help the student who is victimized as well as the one
who bullies and discusses how parents will be informed.
Section C – Recording bullying, communicating and evaluating the policy (contains 4
items):
Explains how bullying incidents will be reported, who is responsible for coordinating the
recording system, shows how the information will be used and mentions periodic review of the
policy.
Section D – Strategies for preventing bullying (contains 6 items):
Mentions positive behaviors exhibited in averting bullying, peer support, advice for parents, and
preventative role of playground activities or lunchtime supervisors and discusses issues in
inclusiveness for everyone including non-English speakers and students with learning
disabilities.
Note. Adapted from “Attacking bullying: An examination of antibullying legislation and policies,” by T. M. Toso,
(2012) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3505717)

44
Table 3
Steps for Establishing Interrater Reliability and Content Analysis
1.
Pre-trial
Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score a Florida school district’s
antibullying policy (District X)
Interrater reliability established
2.
Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score the State of Florida’s
antibullying legislation
Confirm interrater reliability
3.
Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score The District’s antibullying
policy
Confirm interrater reliability
4.
Post trial
Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score another Florida school
district’s antibullying policy (District Y)
Interrater reliability re-confirmed
Note. Adapted from “Attacking bullying: An examination of antibullying legislation and policies,” by T. M. Toso,
(2012) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3505717)
The CBPIPAS survey instrument developed by Sherer and Nickerson (2010) was used in
this study to determine PLs’ perceptions on the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying
interventions in The District. According to Creswell, (2012) researchers use surveys to describe
attitudes or characteristics of a population. A cross-sectional survey design was used because the
researcher can collect data at one time and this helps in measuring “current attitudes or practices”
(p. 377). Sherer and Nickerson also used a cross-sectional survey design in their study.
The CBPIPAS instrument utilized in this study was 3-pages (back-to-back), and a self-
administered survey. It asked respondents questions about 43 antibullying strategies. The first

45
section of the survey has eight demographic items. The second section has three items and the
scoring procedures are as follows:
For 39 strategies, respondents provided frequency of use of each strategy on a 5-point
rating scale (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = always, 5 = don’t know). On the
remaining four strategies (antibullying policy, antibullying committee, school-wide
positive behavior support plan, and reporting procedures), respondents indicated whether
their schools used each strategy by circling yes, no, or don’t know because these
strategies are either in place or not and rating the frequency of usage does not apply to
them. (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010, p. 221)
Finally, the last section of the survey had four items and asked for opinions about the most
effective and ineffective antibullying strategies, areas in need of improvement, and barriers to
improvement by choosing from a list of 20 bullying prevention strategies (the last question had
nine options).
After receiving permissions from the IRBs of Nova Southeastern University and The
District to conduct this study, a request was made to administer the CBPIPAS survey instrument
at one of the prevention liaison professional development workshops, which generally occurs
during the spring of each school year. Once approved, the facilitator of the workshop and the
writer agreed on the most appropriate time (during the workshop), to administer the CBPIPAS,
which would take approximately 15 - 30 minutes. The prevention liaison workshops were held
on three different days (2-days for elementary PLs and 1-day for secondary PLs). The survey
was administered just before lunchtime at the elementary PL workshops. For the secondary PLs,
the survey was administered at the conclusion of their session.
After sufficient copies of the CBPIPAS survey instrument and participation letter were
made and distributed, a brief introduction and explanation regarding the purpose of the survey
was given. The writer read the participation letter aloud and reiterated that participation in the
survey was voluntary and that all information collected would be held in strict confidence. The

11093 public school florida antibullying

11093 public school florida antibullying

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to 11093 public school florida antibullying

Similar to 11093 public school florida antibullying (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

11093 public school florida antibullying