Methods of Reducing Bullying in Schools Essay Free Paper Sample on SunnyPapers.com

Bullying and its associated behaviors has been historically overlooked as a cause for lower school attendance and graduation rates, drugs and alcohol abuse, crime, suicide and mental health. Government and schools are beginning to understand the implications but have not agreed on appropriate language or laws to date. This capstone answers the question of “What is the best evidence-based and culturally-responsive intervention to reduce bullying in Cleveland, Ohio?” by looking at the community, the problem, programs and presenting the best culturally responsive program for Cleveland, Ohio to reduce bullying. The BP-PBS program incorporates all school personnel and key stakeholders and has shown a 70% reduction in bullying when applied appropriately.

Based on statistics for Cleveland, Ohio, bullying is a current social issue that needs to be addressed in a better way. The information provided in this capstone intends to provide program planning, decision making, and community education. The analysis will also strive to report bullying prevention data at the state, county and community levels.

The community chosen for this proposal is Cuyahoga County, Ohio with a focus on the city of Cleveland. Cuyahoga County has a declining population of 1.2 million people. The median age is 40 and the median household income is $47,000 with property values at $127,000. The poverty rate is 18% (Data USA, 2018). Depending on where in the county one resides, the income and property values can be drastically different. The largest city is Cleveland with a population of 385,810 people and a median age of 36. The median household income is almost half that of the county’s at $27,551 and a median property value at $66,800 along with a poverty rate that doubles the county’s at 35% and is also substantially higher than the national average of 14% with females making up the largest demographic segment (U S Census Bureau, 2017).

The ethnic composition of the population of Cleveland is composed of 189,307 Black residents (49.1%), 133,189 White residents (34.5%), 42,395 Hispanic residents (11%), 10,794 Two+ residents (2.8%), and 8,047 Asian residents (2.09%)(Data USA, 2018). Interestingly, there are 113 Primary Care Physicians for every 100,000 people while there are 251 Mental Health Professionals for every 100,000 people.

Providing a culturally appropriate evidence-based practice like inclusion and teaching anti-bullying behavior from age 3 through adulthood helps meet Standard 10 and 11of the NOHS Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals (HSP) which calls for non-discriminatory services and the embracing and being knowledgeable of all cultures, races, language, and abilities within the community (Barrett, 2018). Additionally, NOHS Standard 13 and 14 which calls for HSP to be informed about current social issues that affect the community in differing manners and Standard 15 which states the HSP should identify needs and assist in advocating for those needs. Lastly, Standard 18 states that HSP should describe the effectiveness of treatment programs, interventions and treatments, and/or techniques accurately, supported by data whenever possible (Barrett, 2018).

Bullying is defined as one person doing something to harm another. While there are not specific rates of bullying listed by community, one needs only look at the rates of associated bullying behaviors. Cleveland’s crime rate is 141% higher than the Ohio average and is 145% higher than the national average. Looking at violent crime specifically, Cleveland has a violent crime rate that is 443% higher than the Ohio average and 322% higher than the national average (Areavibes, 2018). Other identified outcomes of bullying are graduation rates, drug and alcohol addiction. The graduation rate in Cuyahoga County is 88% with Cleveland’s at 78% (Open Data Network, 2018). Ohio has the second highest rate of overdose deaths with Cleveland being the second highest in Ohio. A high rate of drug addiction affects society as a whole. Healthcare costs, lost productivity, disease transmission, and drug-related crimes have an impact even on people who do not use drugs. (Ohio Mental Health Addiction Services, 2018).

As there is not a report that shows individual community’s bullying rate there are state statistics and community factors that can be looked at that indicate the rate of bullying. Ohio is ranked twenty-fifth in the nation for bullying while being ninth in the Country for laws against bullying. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study found that bullying in school or online contributed to more violent behavior in children. The study stated that about 20 percent of students had been bullied on school property. The study also found that about 15 percent of students had been bullied electronically. In addition, over 17% of the students studied gave serious consideration to suicide and over 8% attempted suicide at least once (CDC, 2018).

Research shows that being bullied is not a harmless rite of passage but affects people’s lives through adulthood. Long term health and social costs can be reduced through childhood interventions (Wolke, 2013) along with alcohol and drug abuse, crime rate, and increasing school attendance and graduation. These are all things every community wants.

Formal resources may include public agencies such as Cuyahoga County Action Program Agency which oversees the Head Start Program. Head Start is designed to provide child development for low income families; develop and implement programs that will increase the chance of success for a child moving into future educational and social experiences; helps parents identify and achieve goals to promote healthy children, economic self-sufficiency, and correct use of community resources and services (Office of Head Start,2018).

Another program is Not on Our Watch (NOW) for Pre-k through high school in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. This program is a student-centered anti-bullying program. The goal of the bullying prevention is to decrease prevalence of bullying and promote a safe, warm environment. This can be accomplished at the elementary, middle and high school levels through the use of a prevention model. They integrate tools that promote social skill building, self-control, critical thinking, decision making and the acceptance of differences (Cleveland Metropolitan School District, 2018).

Both programs use formal and informal resources since bullying begins at home with learned behaviors and thought processes at a very young age. Paula Countouris stated for anti-bullying programs to be effective, schools, parents and the business community (formal and informal) should join forces to set the expectation that bullying is not welcome in a community (McCauley, 2018).

Bullying has become a larger and larger problem in our community, state, and nation due to online bullying. Ohio is currently ranked twenty-fifth in the nation for bullying while being ninth in the United States for laws against bullying. Children are committing suicide more and more due to bullying and adults are finally talking about how they are bullied at work and how this affects them and their careers. “Besides the physical, emotional and psychological tolls it takes on victims, bullying produces adverse socio-economic outcomes” (Bernardo, 2016). The Association for Psychological Science recently found that those who are bullies, victims or both are more likely to experience poverty, academic failure and job termination as adults than those who were neither. In addition, the “affected individuals are more likely to commit crime and to abuse drugs and alcohol.” (Bernardo, 2016).

Research suggests that being bullied is not a harmless rite of passage but affects people’s lives through adulthood. Interventions in childhood are likely to reduce long term health and social costs (Wolke,2013) which affects all taxpayers and communities. Childhood bullying has serious effects on health, resulting in substantial costs for individuals, their families and society at large. In the USA, it has been estimated that preventing high school bullying results in lifetime cost benefits of over $1.4 million per individual (Masiello, 2012)(Wolke, 2015).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has long agreed that bullying is a problem and the HHS.org website has a considerable dearth of information regarding bullying however, they start with adolescents and not earlier ages which is where it is critical to model and mold appropriate behavior and thought processes.

Currently, the United States has anti-bullying legislation in all 50 states and 34 have laws specifically regarding cyberbullying (Cyberbullying Solutions,n.d.). School districts are trying to develop policies but since most of the cyberbullying is not on school property it makes it difficult. Unless the incident happens while using a school computer and the aggressor is easy to identify school policy becomes essentially useless.

The Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) has experienced challenges in its schools as well, but has taken steps to improve teaching and support for students to improve their social competence, behavior, and academic growth. The CMSD experience as well as this paper’s findings demonstrate that policymakers and school leaders should look beyond “quick fixes” for school safety issues, such as zero tolerance policies, armed police in schools, and metal detectors to improve the well-being of students as it relates to bullying.

Key Stakeholders include individuals in various disciplines as well as all members of a community, business and school district. The Association for Psychological Science in 2016 stated that those who are bullies, victims or both are more likely to see poverty, academic failure and job termination as adults. In addition, these people are more likely to perpetrate crimes and abuse drugs and alcohol (Knapchuck, 2016). Even our schools are affected financially (Knapchuck, 2016). According to a National Association of Secondary School Principals, the average public school can incur more than $2.3 million in lost funding and expenses as a result of lower attendance and disciplinary actions (Knapchuck, 2016). Therefore, this social issue affects everyone both school age and through working age and key stakeholders should also.

A brief systematic literature review was completed for this Capstone project. This method of research was selected due to the constraints of an 8-week term and the need to utilize existing data for this project. First, a search of Internet websites was conducted using search terms: what is the prevalence of bullying in Cleveland Ohio, history of bullying, laws against bullying, what is the rate of bullying in Cleveland Ohio, bullying Cleveland Ohio, Cleveland Ohio facts, Cleveland Ohio graduation rates, Cleveland Ohio socioeconomics, community programs bullying Cleveland Ohio, bullying, bullying programs, research based bullying, evidence based bullying.

Second, a search of Shapiro Library Database, Summon Multi-search using searching disciplines of public health, social sciences, social welfare and social work, sociology, and bullying, using publications which include but is not limited to The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, American Psychological Association, International Journal of Stress Management, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Applied Research on Children, Journal of Adolescent Health. The search was conducted using search terms bullying, Cleveland Ohio bullying, combating bullying, history of bullying, social cause of bullying, socioeconomics bullying, ethics and bullying.

Fourth, once all articles and reports were collected, the key facts and statements relating to the research question were highlighted in each article and organized under the following categories: prevalence of the national issue, state issue, and local issue, evaluation of information collected regarding the availability and accessibility of bullying programs with best practices programs and interventions addressed. The findings from this analysis have been utilized to develop a human services program proposal to address the need in the community.

Bullying is an important social issue to address due to the prevalence rate of bullying in Cleveland, Ohio which is garnered through looking at the rates of poverty (35%)(U S Census Bureau, 2017),graduation (78%)(Open Data Network, 2018),and crime (322% higher than the national average)(Areavibes,2018). The cultural make-up of those impacted by bullying in Cleveland, Ohio is 34% Caucasian, 49% African American, 11% Hispanic, 2% Asian (Data USA, 2018). These statistics illustrate the importance of finding a new intervention that is both evidence-based (EBP) and culturally responsive. This focus on best practice that appreciate cultural differences aligns with NOHS Ethical Standard 10 that calls for human services practitioners to be aware of cultures in their communities of practice (Barrett,2018). In addition to the utilization of an EBP, community resources and organizations need to be engaged.

In Cleveland, one formal resource that will be accessed is Headstart which provides comprehensive and culturally responsive services to children and their families. Moreover, the informal resource Not on Our Watch will be used as a source of support for those who have experienced bullying. In addition, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be asked to join these efforts to address bullying since children with disabilities are often targets (Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 2018). The best way to advance the program through community governance is to hold the program at School Board meeting at 1111 Superior Ave E, Suite 1800,Cleveland, Ohio on December 11at 6:30pm. The School Board is ADA compliant in appreciation of those who may be differently abled.

Bullying is a prevalent issue in almost every community in the United States. It impacts everyone from age 0 through adulthood in direct bullying, victimization, long term mental health issues, suicide rates, drug and alcoholic rates, and cost to a community for care. It affects everyone regardless of ethnicity; however, mixed race communities have reported increased bullying and victimization. As a society we are growing globally and a growing amount of immigrants and refugees increase the diversity which can increase the insensitivities of others to create an atmosphere for bullying (Lim & Hoot, 2015) due to cultural beliefs, biases or fears of the unknown. Cleveland, Ohio is a mixed community, predominately black and has a 100% free/reduced lunch program emphasizing the poor socio-economic conditions (Ohio School Report Cards, 2018). There are numerous identified factors involving bullying including the social roles of children.

Children can be bullied due to their race, ethnicity and/or immigration status based on the social beliefs of others. In Cleveland, there is mixed ethnicity of black (50%), white (35%), asian (3%), latino (11%) and non-resident (3%) (Data USA, 2018) which allows for bullying. According to Stan Davis, a school guidance counselor and bullying prevention expert, “Kids are very vulnerable to what adults model.” Adult modeling is a very powerful force in shaping youth behavior” (Colorosa, n.d). In the same way that parents can inadvertently teach children to bully a person or group, the same can be said about communities. When a community is predominately one ethnicity there is a greater chance that their beliefs about another group of people will be taught. Adult modeling will be a key component of the recommended social intervention.

Education policy makers are finally becoming more concerned about bullying (Nansel, 2004). Bullying is a methodical abuse of power, and can be identified by three key traits: repetition, intention to harm, and unequal power between the bully and their victim (Woods, 2004). The prevalence of bullying has been shown to vary considerably in differing countries (Craig, 2009). However, in every country, bullying has harmful effects on students, families and the school community. Previous studies suggest that low socio-economic status is associated with a higher likelihood that children will be involved in bullying, either as a bully, a victim, or both (Tippett, 2014).

It has also been shown that a bully in childhood is a bully throughout life and commits more crimes as adults (Marano, 2016). Currently, there are no specific rates of bullying by school district or community, however, it is estimated that 28% of students nationwide in grades 6-12 have experienced bullying; 30% of young people admit to bullying others; 71% of young people admit to have seen bullying in their schools. The most important statistic is that when bystanders intervene, bullying behavior stops within 10 seconds 57% of the time (Facts about Bullying, 2013).

Another factor in bullying is income inequality. Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level stated that concern regarding this causation has been seen recently: “We saw this first with the occupy movement in the USA and now also among global leaders”. Previously, Pope Francis said that “inequality is the root of social ills.” [November 24, 2013] and President Obama suggested in a speech that income inequality is the “defining challenge of our time” [December 4, 2013] (Green, 2014). Wilkinson goes on to say that when the income gap widens, society becomes more hierarchical and that when status differences increase people judge each other more by status. Wilkerson also feels that inequality creates relationships of dominance and subordination instead of reciprocity and cooperation with the dominance hierarchies being the bullies (Green, 2014).

The most predominant reason bully-prevention efforts have a difficult time trying to achieve their goal and objective is due to the difficulty of conceptualizing and measuring bullying (Griffin, 2004). Decreasing the frequency of bullying requires a working definition and identification of causal variables over which parents, educators, and professionals have control. These are also the people involved in formal and informal networks and are crucial to our success. Research suggests that bullying is frequently reinforced by peer attention (Salmivalli, 2002), so the program we have chosen is designed to address these specific consequences, is culturally responsive and evidence based and I believe is best for Cleveland Ohio.

The nationwide effort to reduce bullying in U.S. schools can be regarded as part of larger civil and human rights movements that have provided children with many of the rights afforded to adult citizens, including protection from harm in the workplace. Many bullied children find that their schools are hostile environments, but civil rights protections against harassment apply only to children who fall into protected classes, such as racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, and victims of gender harassment or religious discrimination (Cornell, 2015).

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) published the report card for Cleveland, Ohio school district. They received an “F” in achievement on standardized tests; an “F” in Progress which is the component that looks at the growth of all students based on their past performance; “F” on graduation rate; “D” for Improving At-Risk K-3 Readers; and an “F” for Prepared for Success.

Research indicates children from low socio-economic backgrounds are prone to these types of underachievement. Social acceptance by and aggression with peers were included as measures of social adjustment. Academic outcomes included math and reading GPA, classroom behavior, academic self-esteem, and absenteeism (Derosier, 2011). Cleveland has a 35% poverty rate which is twice the national average. This becomes a case management situation where home environment needs to be addressed at the same time as community and school modeling of behavior.

Schools have requirements to meet or school educators could be liable for bullying under the Equal Protection Clause of the Civil Rights Act. A violation is considered to have occurred when an educator is deliberately indifferent to a claim of bullying or harassment.

There are no policies or laws that will impact the implementation of a program addressing bullying. HIPPA does not see a school as a HIPPA covered entity (HSS, 2015). In fact, since 2009, when the Supreme Court finally made decisions regarding bullying and a school’s responsibility, schools are working diligently on trying to create models to combat bullying without any real laws.

Ohio is currently ranked twenty-fifth in the nation for bullying while being ninth in the United States for laws against bullying. According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Education, there were over one hundred bills passed by state legislatures nationally between 1999 and 2010 that introduced or amended education and/or criminal statutes addressing bullying (Russo, 2013). In 2010, twenty-one new bills were passed, and another either bills were signed into law through April 30, 2011. Forty-two states have laws that clearly prohibit bullying, but three of the laws fail to define bullying (USDOE 2011a), which leaves it up to local school boards to write their own definitions. State laws typically use the terms bullying, bullying and harassment, or bullying, harassment, or intimidation, interchangeably (Russo, 2013). Getting terminology succinct and the same across the U.S. would be an important improvement.

Currently, the most complete meta-analysis of anti-bullying programs was conducted by Ttofi and Farrington (2011) and found that anti-bullying programs are effective at reducing bullying behavior by an average of 20-23%. Evans, Fraser and Cotter (2014) found that 50% of anti-bullying programs they assessed had significant effects on reducing bullying behaviors.

The meta-analysis by Ttofi and Farrington (2011) found that anti-bullying programs that included the whole school were more successful at decreasing bullying than those that did not. They believe it is necessary to take a whole-school and whole-community approach. The approach believes that a positive school environment that emphasizes student wellbeing and reinforces a culture of inclusiveness and diversity is crucial in preventing bullying.

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) programs can help prevent bullying by helping students develop skills in empathy, emotion management, social problem-solving and social competence, which guide children toward more pro-social peer interactions and interpersonal problem solving, while providing students with strategies to cope with peer challenges (Smith, 2013, p. 284).

One of the main promoters of SEL in the United States is Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), which promotes the use of SEL programs in US schools and produces a guide that identifies and rates evidence-based programs. In the United Kingdom an important example is SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning), a whole-school approach to promoting social and emotional skills that is used in around ninety percent of primary schools and seventy per cent of high schools in the UK (Humphrey, 2010). Some examples of SEL programs in Australia include KidsMatter and MindMatters, which are both whole-school programs.

Another prominent program is OBPP (Olweus Bullying Prevention Program). Created by Dan Olweus, a Norwegian psychologist, OBPP goal is to reduce and prevent bullying in schools by focusing on the whole-school, classroom, individual and community levels (Limber, 2012). The program shows schools how to restructure their environment to reduce bullying opportunities and offers rewards for appropriate behavior along with building a sense of community among the students and adults in the school community (Olweus, 1993).

In Australia, Positive Behavior for Learning (PBL), also known as School- Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS), is being used. PBL does not specifically address bullying but encourages positive behavior in general, which has been shown to have a positive effect on reducing bullying. PBL research in the US does show evidence of reduced bullying (Good, 2011). A small program evaluation found a seventy-two per cent decrease in reported incidents of bullying (Ross, 2014), while a larger study in Maryland found that students in PBL schools displayed significantly less teacher-reported bullying behavior (Waasdorp, 2012).

Key stakeholders include School Administrators / Teachers / Students, Parents/Caregivers and Community Leaders. The goal for school administrators and teachers is to show the effectiveness and cost savings to a school to garner their support in trying the program. Since this is a whole school, family, and community approach we will also display the program to the parents and community leaders. Educating all three sectors on the issue is key along with showing how it affects home and community and cost savings to families and communities through bullying reduction is paramount. This can be done through Town Hall meetings and PTA meetings.

The identification of bullying as a social issue affecting mental health, school attendance and readiness for graduation has finally come to the forefront of lawmakers and strives are being made to address the problem and find solutions.

Whole-school, family, and community is paramount for modeling and creating a culture of inclusiveness and appropriate rewarded behaviors. There are many programs that have parts of the whole but few that encompass all three segments. All three segments must work together on one program with a long term commitment expecting a change in culture to be effective.

Cleveland, Ohio is a multi-ethnic city, has a crime rate 145% higher than the national average (Areavibes, 2018), a 78% graduation rate (Open Data Network, 2018), and the second highest rate of overdose deaths in Ohio which is ranked as the second highest state in overdose deaths (Ohio Mental Health Addiction Services, 2018).

The program I have chosen for Cleveland, Ohio is Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support (BP-BPS) which uses a 3 step response to bullying and problem behavior. The program is divided into 6 lessons including curriculum for students and school teachers along with all adults in the school and can extended to all adults in a community.

There are goals set for the student curriculum and for the supervisors and clarifies how supervision should be conducted in the gym, hallways, playground and bus areas. The practice revolves around reviewing how to respond to reports of problem behavior, how to reinforce appropriate signals (stop, walk, talk or other age-level agreed signals), and how to check on chronic targets and instigators. This is a critical part of BP-PBS because supervisors play an extremely important role in the application of lessons learned in the classroom by students. Specifically, BP-PBS is designed to define and teach the concept of “being respectful” to all students in a school, to teach all students a three-step response (stop, walk, talk) that curtails potential social reinforcement when they encounter disrespectful behavior, to pre-correct the three-step response prior to engaging in activities likely to lead to problematic behavior, to teach an appropriate reply when the three-step response is used, and to train staff on a universal strategy for responding when students report incidents of problem behavior. The program removes the negative words and actions and focuses on the positive (Ross, 2009).

To implement this program there needs to be commitment from all adults involved in the school at all age levels to not only the training but in teaching and supervising and finally self-check lists to ensure compliance. The sustainability of program implementation is the most difficult aspect and causes the failure of most programs (Ross, 2009).

Once the entire school from Pre-K through high school has been taught and assuming all tiers of the program are implemented consistently, there should be a trickle effect to parents and community. This can be further enforced through direct teaching of the supervisory section to both parents and community leaders especially those that have after-school care programs and youth groups.

When adults respond quickly and consistently to bullying behavior they send the message that it is not acceptable. Research shows this can stop bullying behavior over time. Parents, school staff, and other adults in the community can help kids prevent bullying by talking about it, building a safe school environment, and creating a community-wide bullying prevention strategy. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018)

The blending of school-wide positive behavior support, explicit instruction regarding a 3-step response to problem behavior, and a re-conceptualization of the bullying construct, BP-PBS gives students the necessary tools to remove the social rewards for maintaining inappropriate behavior, thereby decreasing the likelihood of problem behavior occurring in the future. BP-PBS not only decreases incidents of bullying behavior, but also increases appropriate recipient responses to bullying behavior and appropriate bystander responses to bullying behavior. In addition, because the program is designed to fit within a larger system of positive behavior support, it is far less resource intensive and far more likely to be implemented over consecutive years (Ross, 2009). Independent results of this program indicate 55-69% reduction in bullying incidents. With a significant decrease in bullying and problem behavior Cleveland should see a rise in school attendance, school graduation, lower suicide rates, lower drug usage, and lower crime rates.

Schools have requirements to meet when it comes to bullying or school educators could be liable for bullying under the Equal Protection Clause of the Civil Rights Act. A violation is considered to have occurred when an educator is deliberately indifferent to a claim of bullying or harassment.

The overall goal and objective of the BP-BPS program is to see a significant decrease in bullying behavior and reported incidents. The goal being a 70% decrease in these behaviors after full implementation of the program. There are many ways to measure the decrease but we will focus on checklists, observed behaviors, and reported behaviors. Prior to implementation, the entire schools personnel need to be willing to commit to the program, undergo teaching of how to manage their role, and how to respond and report their role. After that has been accomplished then it is time to implement the student curriculum and reward appropriate behavior. (See Appendix A).

The following are steps to full implementation:

Students and school employees complete a survey to find out how much bullying and where it happens is perceived. This allows the program implementation to focus on current perceptions and get a base-line reading for the school.
Teach the curriculum section for school personnel prior to bringing to beginning talking with students. This way, teachers and staff know their responsibilities towards supervising and awarding positive behavior.
Teach curriculum to students for the beginning of implementation of BP-PBS. We will evaluate student knowledge of the curriculum approximately every 2 weeks during full implementation of BP-PBS.
Have evaluators at the school to evaluate student knowledge of the curriculum and staff adherence. Supervisors can turn in a daily checklist. We will evaluate staff adherence using a checklist filled out by each playground supervisor daily and turned in to supervisors weekly. Items on the checklist include the daily amount of times staff checked in with chronic targets and instigators of problem behavior; used verbal praise for a student’s use of stop, walk, talk; received reports of problem behavior; practiced stop, walk, talk with students; and gave out office discipline referrals for continued problem behavior.
See a decrease in bullying behavior and reports of bullying by 70%. This accomplished through the mean level of incidents per day and a decreasing trend.

Experiencing bullying has long been an expected part of the school experience but attitudes started to change when bullying became linked to graduation rates, crime rates, suicide rates, and mental health issues. In 2009, the Supreme Court finally made decisions regarding bullying terminology and a school’s responsibility which has caused schools to work diligently on trying to create models to combat bullying without any real laws.

Due to research on the negative outcomes of bullying and problem behavior, the focus has turned to prevention and early intervention of bullying and problem behavior. Data from longitudinal studies show that early childhood-onset problems are linked to chronic and escalating behaviors with worse outcomes in adulthood (Ross, 2009)

The most common response to bullying by school is to have a standalone anti-bullying program implemented such as a school-wide assembly where a speaker came in to discuss the harmful effects of bullying and to teach students to identify bullies. Punitive measures were introduced if bullying behaviors were observed (Ross, 2009). These have had mixed results in the short term but no real results for the long term.

PBS research in the US does show evidence of reduced bullying (Good, 2011). Results prove that the BP-PBS intervention is effective in reducing bullying behavior through peer and adult attention and increasing active response to bullying. The intervention also increases positive perceptions and attitudes of school safety by students who have been bullied and the bullies themselves. The BP-PBS program also allows for flexibility based on the school and its students which would be culturally responsive (Ross, 2009).

Listed interventions (Appendix A) for the BP-BPS program is divided into three main goals with the end result of a significant decrease in bullying behavior and reported incidents. The first intervention is to translate survey data to get a mean bullying incident report. With that information we will be able to understand the students and school personnel’s experiences and perceptions toward current bullying. The second intervention is to teach specific instructions and pre-correction to prevent bullying behavior from being rewarded by victims and bystanders. This is accomplished through training of all school staff. The third intervention is to monitor and acknowledge students for engaging in appropriate behaviors outside the classroom. The fourth intervention is to use empirically-tested instructional principles to teach expected behavior outside the classroom.

BP-BPS program is designed to fit within a larger system of positive behavior support, it is far less resource intensive and far more likely to be implemented over consecutive years (Ross, 2009). While each goal requires resources (see Appendix A) there is very little financial resources involved.

To obtain base-line readings prior to implementation requires the use of a program administrator, school administrator, educators and all school staff. Assessment instruments will be needed and assessments are designed to be culturally appropriate. For the second goal of teaching staff curriculum the program administrator would need program materials and self-checklists for staff to use so that the records of implementation and incidents of bullying and where they occurred can be maintained. The third goal is teaching student curriculum. This would be done by educators and would require visual program materials to aid and support the curriculum. The final goal of bullying reduction would require all school personnel and students to assess their experience with bullying incidents since inception of the program.

Data collection is important to achieving the listed goals (See Appendix A). Prior to implementation of the program an assessment of all student and school personnel needs to done so that a mean bullying score can be applied. Following this, school personnel needs to be trained and tested for their understanding and ability along with information about student behavior to evaluate and guide further decision making. When this is accomplished and personnel are ready, teaching the student curriculum commences. Students will be evaluated on knowledge of the curriculum and use approximately every two weeks during implementation. And finally, after a team that develops, implements and manages the program is established assessment instruments will be employed to establish the new rate of bullying.

“A network represents formal and informal connections among individuals and agencies in the social service arena” (Woodside, 2011 p.238). Formal networks may include schools, public agencies, established groups, and other non-profit entities. Informal networks may be composed of students, family members, and other professionals from outside the formal network. The proposed program will integrate with both formal and informal networks to accomplish the success of bully behavior reduction.

To introduce a new school wide program we will need to get the School Superintendent’s approval first. (See Appendix B) This process for approval may take many meetings but ultimately will be accomplished by offering a power point display showing the program and evidence of bully behavior reduction along with the positives for the factors associated with bullying behaviors. After obtaining the Superintendent’s approval we will need to be placed on the Board of Education’s meeting agenda. At the meeting we will again present the power point and evidence. We will also plan to answer any parent and teacher questions or concerns. Again, the goal will be to communicate not only the reduction or bullying behaviors but also the reduction of social and mental health issues stemming from the bullying behaviors. Once this has happened, the next step is to train a team that develops, implements, and manages the BP-PBS program within the school and will be responsible for observing and evaluating the school personnel and students regarding knowledge and bullying incidents to garner a new bullying mean score for the school.

When adults respond quickly and consistently to bullying behavior they send the message that it is not acceptable. Research shows this can stop bullying behavior over time. Parents, school staff, and other adults in the community can help kids prevent bullying by talking about it, building a safe school environment, and creating a community-wide bullying prevention strategy (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018).

References

Areavibes. (2018). Cleveland, OH Crime Rates & Crime Map. Retrieved from https://www.areavibes.com/cleveland-oh/crime/
Ansary, N. (2015). ‘Guidance for schools selecting antibullying approaches: translating evidence-based strategies to contemporary implementation realities’, Educational Researcher, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 27-36.
Barrett, S. (2018). Ethical Standards for HS Professionals. Retrieved from https://www.nationalhumanservices.org/ethical-standards-for-hs-professionals
Bernardo, R. (2016, August 16). When it comes to school bullying, Ohio has work to do. Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2016/09/02/when-it-comes-to- school-bullying-ohio-has-work-to.html
Cantone, E. (2015). Interventions on bullying and cyberbullying in schools: a systematic review. Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH, 11(Suppl 1 M4), 58- 76. doi:10.2174/1745017901511010058
CDC. (2018, July 16). Featured Topic: Bullying Research|Youth Violence|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/bullyingresearch/index.html
Cleveland Metropolitan School District. (2018). Humanware / Bullying Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.clevelandmetroschools.org/Page/402
Colorosa, B. (n.d.). Parental causes of bullying; how parents & family contribute to bullying. Retrieved from http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/parents-of-bullies.html
Cornell, D. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of bullying at school. American Psychologist, 70(4), 333-343
Craig, Wendy M. (1998). The Relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personal and Individual Differences.24(1):123–130.
Cyberbullying Solutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://community-matters.org/programs-and services/cyberbullying-solutions
Data USA. (2018). Cuyahoga County, OH. Retrieved from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/cuyahoga-county-oh/
Derosier ME, Lloyd SW. (2011). The Impact of children’s social adjustment on academic outcomes. Read Writ Q. 2011;27(1):25-47.
Evans, C, Fraser, M & Cotter, K. (2014). ‘The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review’, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 532-544.
Facts about Bullying. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/media/facts/index.html#stats
Good, C. (2011). ‘Integrating bullying prevention into schoolwide positive behaviour support’, Teaching Exceptional Children, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 48-56.
Green, D. (2014). Is income inequality the real cause of student bullying? | No Bully. Retrieved from https://www.nobully.org/news/2014-09-24-000000/income-inequality-real-cause-student-bullying
Griffin R. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2004;9(4):379–400.
HHS. (2015). 513-Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule apply to an elementary or secondary school. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/513/does-hipaa-apply-to-an-elementary-school/index.html
Humphrey, N. (2010). Social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL) program in secondary schools: National evaluation, research report, UK Department for Education.
James, B. (2009). 2009 Laws that Affect Safe Schools and Students. Retrieved from https://nasro.org
Knapchuck, A. (2016, August 16). 2016’s States with the Biggest Bullying Problems. Retrieved from https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-at-controlling-bullying/9920/
Landhuis, E. (2017). Bullying hurts? But peer support really helps. Retrieved from https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/bullying-hurts-peer-support-really-helps
Lim, S. J., & Hoot, J. L. (2015). Bullying in an increasingly diverse school population: A socio- ecological model analysis. School Psychology International, 36(3), 268-282. doi:10.1177/0143034315571158
Limber, S. (2012). ‘The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: An overview of its implementation and research basis’, in S Jimers

Methods of Reducing Bullying in Schools Essay

References

More essays on Methods of Reducing Bullying in Schools Essay

Related essay Topics