The OECD conference Taking Fear out of Schools was held in Stavanger, Norway, 5-8 September 2004 and

focused on School Bullying and Violence. About 100 invited policy makers and researchers from OECD member states as well as some other countries were present. The conference was a joint effort by the OECD, the Norwegian Ministry of Education, The Norwegian Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education, and the University of Stavanger. This report presents opening addresses, keynote lectures and presentations ranging from research results to national policy and local as well as international initiatives within the field of School Bullying and Violence.

TAKI NG FEAR OUT OF SCHOOLS University of Stavanger Centre for Behavioural Research

A report from the conference

TAKING FEAR OUT OF SCHOOLS

Organized by the OECD, the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education, and the University of Stavanger

Stavanger, Norway, 5-8 September 2004

Edited by Elaine Munthe, Elin Solli, Elin Ytre-Arne & Erling Roland

University of Stavanger Centre for Behavioural Research

Centre for Behavioural Research University of Stavanger 4036 Stavanger, Norway ISBN: 82-7578-028-4 Print og innbinding: Invivo kopisenteret, Stavanger 2

Preface
The OECD-conference Taking Fear out of Schools was held in Stavanger, Norway, 5-8 September 2004 and focused on School Bullying and Violence. About 100 invited policy makers and researchers from OECD member states as well as some other countries were present. The conference was a joint effort by the OECD, the Norwegian Ministry of Education, The Norwegian Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education, and the University of Stavanger. This report presents opening addresses, keynote lectures and a personal view of the discussions and presentations at the conference. The conference was opened by Deputy Minister, Mr. Helge Ole Bergesen, Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research. The Prime Minister of Norway, Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik, followed with a Welcome address in which he emphasised the fundamental importance of respect for life and human dignity, and that he sees it as his governments task to do everything they can to prevent bullying and violence in schools and in other sectors of society. One of the steps they have taken is represented by the Norwegian Manifesto against Bullying, which was initiated in 2002 by the Prime Minister and major organisations in Norway. The need to focus on this issue and not least the international relevance of the conference and obligation to learn more about how we can best understand and intervene on an international level was highlighted by Mr. Barry McGaw, Director of the Directorate for Education in the OECD. This obligation and concern was further accentuated at the end of day one by the Norwegian Minister of Education & Research, Ms. Kristin Clemet. She referred to the Norwegian Education Act that states that schools are obliged to offer pupils a safe learning environment both physically and psychosocially. Bullying, she maintained, constitutes a breach of this obligation. The efforts to counter bullying and violence in schools that are being made in Norway focus on four areas: Legislation, programmes and counselling services, local involvement and efforts, and finally research, reporting and follow-up. The first day of the conference was devoted to two major issues: prevalence, definitions, causes and consequences plus national policy approaches to school bullying and violence. Peter K. Smith demonstrated how School Bullying and Violence (SBV) is far from a coherent concept, and how it has been more difficult for researchers to agree on a definition of School Violence, while there is somewhat more consensus about the concept of bullying. Smith maintains that issues of definition are crucial if we want to assemble statistics on a worthwhile comparative and longitudinal basis, and he shows in his presentation how at present, there is a lack of reliable statistics in many countries. In Erling Rolands presentation of causes of bullying, he emphasizes a contextual understanding of bullying and how some contexts or situations are more conducive to bullying than others. He proposes that two dimensions, the provocative passive dimension, and the secure insecure one, are significant to understand bullying as repeated abuse of power, on the part of the bullies at different ages, but refers to studies that indicate that teachers and school ethos play a significant role in whether bullying actually will take place. 3

Christina Salmivalli points out how longitudinal studies indicate that many of the concurrent correlates of victimization are both antecedents and consequences of it, suggesting a vicious cycle by which children get trapped in a role of continued victimization. She presents results from two longitudinal studies carried out in Finland, findings that indicate that victimization contributes to an increasingly negative generalized view of peers over time. In the long term, victimization in grade eight predicts depression and a negative view of other persons in young adulthood. The session on national policies started with an overview of a guiding framework for policy approaches, a lecture given by Mona OMoore. In this presentation, OMoore refers to the recommendations of the World Health Organisation in their World Report on Violence and Health (2002) and suggests 10 specific areas that national policies on bullying and violence should address. The presentations that followed represented national policy in Australia (presented by William Thorn), in Germany (presented by Heinz-Werner Poelchau), in Slovenia (presented by Mojca Pusnik), Spain (presented by Isabel Fernandez) and in the USA (presented by Deborah Price). Most of these presentations are included in the conference report, and can demonstrate both similarities and differences in how nations approach the problem of bullying and violence. They all demonstrate the importance of having national approaches and policies. The second day of the conference was devoted to local initiatives on school bullying and violence and to international cooperation and networking. Dan Olweus started the day with a presentation on the importance of monitoring and evaluating programme implementation. He pointed out that some of the suggestions and approaches used to prevent or reduce bullying and violence in schools seem ill-conceived or maybe even counterproductive, and that most of them have either failed to document positive results or have never been subjected to systematic research evaluation. This is an issue that we need to take seriously, and in his presentation he demonstrates how the Olweus program has been monitored and evaluated over time and place. Rosario Ortega Ruiz (Spain) presented an intervention to prevent school violence based on the idea of convivencia. Ortega explains that convivencia is a polysemic word that has a high level of social prestige. In Spain, the term convivencia includes both legal and psychological connotations. In the legal meaning, convivencia signifies respect for the rights of others. In the psychological meaning, convivencia signifies feelings of empathy and happiness to be with others. There is also a pro-social dimension which relates to wanting to be useful to others. A case study of a high school in New Zealand and how it worked to prevent and deal with bullying and violence, was presented by Keith Sullivan. In this presentation, Sullivan presents the organisation of the project, the development of it, and the content with a description of the curriculum involved. Three specific themes are identified as having major importance in this project, and these can also serve as themes to discuss in other projects. A Canadian approach to preventing and reducing bullying and school violence is Together We Light the Way, developed and presented by Sandra Dean. This model for intervention and prevention is based on four principles, has four pillars, and has seven 4

specific programs that all incorporate eight cultural components. All of these are described in the presentation. The final session was, as mentioned, on international cooperation and networking. The whole conference was an international one, and we had listened to and discussed issues that were both mutual and specific for the various countries. It was, however, apparent from the first minute that the issues and concerns of school bullying and violence are international and we need to deal with these in a more concerted manner as well. There is a need to disseminate the research that has been carried out to policymakers and to practitioners. And there is a need for policy makers, practitioners and researchers to meet and share concerns that are in common. Four networks that have already been established were presented as examples of current international cooperation: The VISTA-project, presented by Johan Deklerck The Core-Net research group, presented by Donna Cross The Germanophone Network, presented by Dagmar Strohmeier VISIONARY, presented by Thomas Jaeger David Galloway presented his personal summary of the conference and raised some questions for future discussions. One of the points he made, is the need for policy and research on bullying to build on, or develop from, what has already been achieved. If this is done, Galloway maintains, it could have a profound influence on the quality of childrens lives at school by improving not only how schools affect childrens social development, but also how schools affect their intellectual development. The conference has had a very specific outcome which is described in the final paper in this conference report. Before we leave you to read the presentations, we wish to thank all of the contributors to this conference those mentioned by name above and those who chaired the sessions; Debra Pepler, Gunnar Mandt, Toshio Ohsako, and Barry McGaw. We also wish to thank all of the participants at the conference who took an active part in all of the discussions and contributed immensely to the outcome of this conference. We wish to thank all of you who presented your research and projects in the Poster Display area what a multitude of work and experience we can share and learn from! The conference also included a social and cultural programme and we would like to express our sincere thanks to the Mayor of Stavanger for hosting a reception at the Norwegian Petroleum Museum and hereby also thank employees at the Museum for a fantastic tour. We would like to thank Liv Runesdatter and her band, Stig Roar Wigestrand, and the wonderful jazz improvisation group that contributed during a lunch break. And finally, a huge thank you to pupils from Jtten School, and to the three schools that opened their doors for visitors who were interested in finding out how the schools worked to prevent and reduce bullying; Haga School, Godeset School, and ygard School. Stavanger, May 2005 Elaine Munthe, Elin Solli, Elin Ytre-Arne, Erling Roland

Contents
PREFACE.......................................................................................................................... 3 PROGRAMME: Taking Fear out of Schools ........................................................... 7 WELCOME ADDRESS BY PRIME MINISTER KJELL MAGNE BONDEVIK ...9 SESSION ONE: MAIN ISSUES IN SCHOOL BULLYING AND VIOLENCE...... 13 PETER K. SMITH: Definition, types and prevalence of school bullying and violence ..................................................................................................................... 14 ERLING ROLAND: Causes of School Bullying .................................................... 22 CHRISTINA SALMIVALLI: Consequences of School Bullying and violence ...... 29 SESSION TWO: NATIONAL POLICY APPROACHES TO SCHOOL BULLYING AND VIOLENCE............................................................................................................ 37 MONA OMOORE: Guiding framework for national policy .................................. 38 AUSTRALIA : National Approaches to School Bullying and Violence ................. 52 GERMANY: Findings, background and approaches in the Federal Republic of Germany.................................................................................................................... 53 SLOVENIA: Guidelines for analysing, preventing and dealing with violence in a school environment the Slovenian approach ......................................................... 60 SPAIN: National Approaches to School Bullying and Violence.............................. 69 Isabel Fernndez Garca, Ministry of Education ...................................................... 70 USA: National Approaches to School Bullying and Violence ................................. 72 SPEECH BY THE NORWEGIAN MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH .................................................................................................................... 73 SESSION THREE: LOCAL INITIATIVES ON SCHOOL BULLYING AND VIOLENCE ..................................................................................................................... 81 Comments by TOSHIO OHSAKO ......................................................................... 82 DAN OLWEUS: An evidence-based anti-bullying program and a new national initiative in norway .................................................................................................. 85 ROSARIO ORTEGA RUIZ: SAVE: An educational model to prevent violence in schools...................................................................................................................... 95 KEITH SULLIVAN: Local Initiatives in New Zealand........................................ 104 SANDRA DEAN: Together We Light the Way.................................................... 116 SESSION FOUR: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND NETWORKING 123 The VISTA-project ................................................................................................ 124 The CORE-NET Research Group.......................................................................... 124 The Germanophone Network................................................................................. 125 VISIONARY.......................................................................................................... 126 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AS PERCEIVED BY DAVID GALLOWAY....... 127 CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CONFERENCE ......................................................... 132

PROGRAMME: Taking Fear out of Schools Host: Elaine Munthe, Stavanger University College Sunday, September 5 17:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 Registration Reception hosted by the Mayor of Stavanger, Norwegian Petroleum Museum Guided tour of the museum is possible

Monday, September 6 09:00 10:00 Opening Session 09:00 09:15 Cultural Opening: Stavanger 2008 introductory film Pupils from Jtten School, Stavanger perform 09:15 09:20 Welcome to the conference by Deputy Minister, Mr. Helge Ole Bergesen, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research 09:25 09:45 Welcome Address by the Prime Minister of Norway, Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik 09:45 10:00 Welcome Address by Mr. Barry McGaw, Director, Directorate for Education, OECD 10:00 12:30 Session One: Main Issues in School Bullying and Violence Chair: Debra Pepler Scope, Types, and Prevalence of School Bullying and Violence, Peter Smith, Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK (25 min) Causes of School Bullying, Erling Roland, Centre for Behavioural Research, Stavanger University College, Norway (25 min) 10:50 11:20 Coffee break and Poster Display Consequences of School Bullying and Violence, Christina Salmivalli, University of Turku, Finland (25 min) 11:45 12:30 Panel and Floor Discussion 12:30 13:30 Lunch 13:30 13:45 Liv Runesdatter sings Norwegian Folk Songs 13:45 17:00 Session Two: National Policy Approaches to School Bullying and Chair: Gunnar Mandt Violence: Country Cases Guiding Framework for Policy Approaches to School Bullying and Violence, Mona OMoore, Education Department, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland (30 min) Australia: William Thorn, Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (20 min) Germany: Heinz-Werner Poelchau, Ministry for School, Youth and Children Coffee Break (20 min) 15:00 15:20 Coffee break Slovenia: Mojca Pusnik, National Education Institute (20 min) Spain: Isabel Fernandez, Ministry of Education (20 min) USA: Deborah Price, U.S. Department of Education (20 min) 16:30 17:00 Panel and Floor Discussion Continued next page

Monday, September 6, continued 17:00 17:30 Speech by the Norwegian Minister of Education and Research, Ms. Kristin Clemet 18:45 24:00 Evening Progamme: Boat Trip on the fjord and Dinner at Flor & Fjre given by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. SENIT performs Norwegian Folk Songs - Liv Runesdatter: Vocal, Roar Skjelbred: Bass, Vidar Schanke: Guitar Tuesday, September 7 09:00 09:15 09:15 12:30 Chair: Toshio Ohsako

Opening performance: jazz violinist Stig Roar Wigestrand: Northern Waves Session Three: Local Initiatives on School Bullying and Violence Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in Programme Implementation, Dan Olweus, Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Norway (30 min) SAVE: An educational model to prevent violence in schools, Rosario Ortega Ruiz, University of Cordoba, Spain (15 min) Local Initiatives in New Zealand, Keith Sullivan, Head of Education Department, University of Ireland, Galway (15 min) Together We Light the Way, Sandra Dean, Executive Director, Ontario, Canada (15 min) Coffee break & Poster Display Panel and Floor Discussion Information about Wednesdays school visits Lunch Jazz Lunch Session Four: International Cooperation and networking: current activities and future opportunities Five-minute presentations by; Johan Deklerck, VISTA-project Donna Cross, Core-Net Dagmar Strohmaier, the Germanophone Network Thomas Jaeger, VISIONARY David Galloway: Conference summary and implications for international collaboration (10 min) Panel and Floor Discussion Summary of Discussion as perceived by David Galloway (15 min) Closing Comments by Barry McGaw, Director, Directorate for Education, OECD Coffee

10:45 11:30 11:30 12:15 12:15 12:30 12:30 14:00 14:00 15:45 chair: Barry McGaw

14:30 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:00 16:30

Wednesday, September 8 09:30 12:30 School visits. An opportunity to visit one of three schools to observe their work. The schools have implemented different anti-bullying approaches: Haga School : the Olweus programme (grades 1-7) Godeset School: Zero (grades 1-7) ygard Junior High School: the Sandnes programme (grades 8-10) 8

WELCOME ADDRESS by Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik

OECD-Conference on Bullying in School Stavanger, 6 September 2004 Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in the fundamental importance of respect for life and human dignity. Each and every one of us has the right to experience himself or herself as a unique and valuable individual, and to feel secure and included in a community, whether at a day-care centre, at school, at work, or at play. No one should have to wake up every day with a feeling of dread, or with the fear of yet another day of humiliation and ill-treatment. As a nation with a Christian heritage, Norways commitment to peace is one of the foundations on which we have built for centuries. This has become perhaps our most significant trademark. And we intend to continue our commitment to promoting peace. Peace between nations, peace between people. But peace cannot be achieved without respect and consideration for others, without a deep-seated awareness of the intrinsic worth of every man, woman and child. Therefore I find it deeply disturbing that Norwegian children are subject to bullying at school. I am not talking about everyday disagreements or quarrels, or about pushing and shoving in the playground, but about brutal harassment that can damage a person for life. Many children have reported that adults are passive onlookers while children are being tormented. This is tolerance of the falsest kind. Adults must not stand by when they see someone being bullied they must intervene. As prime minister, it is my duty to give direction to the whole of Norwegian society, not just to individuals. My government is doing, and will continue to do, everything it can to prevent bullying and violence in schools and in other sectors of society. But why are schools so crucial in this respect? And why are schools such an appropriate arena for our joint efforts? There are several answers to these questions.

Schools are the environment where the effects of bullying and violence are first seen. Schools are the places where our children spend a great deal of their time. Schools are an arena for sharing and discussing values both in a general way and as part of the curriculum. Schools are central for three important groups: teachers, parents and pupils. Schoolchildren are only 20 per cent of our population but they represent 100 per cent of our future!

Preventing bullying is first and foremost the job of us adults. It is our duty to bring these matters into the open to talk about them in public and in private to identify the various types and faces of bullying, and to act on cases of bullying in every kind of environment. It is our responsibility as adults to impress on the next generation the need to expose bullying and to fight against it in all its various forms and shapes.

The Government has taken a number of initiatives to mobilise adults to take responsibility and lead the way in putting a stop to the bullying of children all over Norway. On behalf of the Government, and together with the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, the National Parents Committee for Primary and Lower Secondary Education, the Union of Education and the Commissioner for Children, I signed a Manifesto against Bullying in 2002. Although this was nearly two years ago, I recall saying something in my speech that remains just as valid today: Todays taboos are no longer death or sexuality. The strongest taboo today is against having clear ideas of right and wrong. Or even worse, against saying what is right and wrong clearly to other people, and stopping those who cross the line. The fear of being moralistic has become a fear of morals themselves, and as a result many people in our country feel that they have lost their way. The way forward will be difficult to find unless we can agree on basic values and where to set limits. By signing the Manifesto against Bullying we committed ourselves to actively ensuring that bullying does not occur among children and young people. We, the parties to the Manifesto, have joined together in pursuit of a common goal zero tolerance for bullying. We have placed leadership at the top of the agenda: classroom leadership, school leadership and pre-school leadership. The Manifesto has particularly addresses the responsibility of adults in pre-schools, schools, homes and leisure activities. One of the main elements of the work under the Manifesto is a new amendment to the Norwegian Education Act regarding schoolchildrens working environment. Pupils and their parents now have the right to participate more extensively and there is a better system for lodging complaints, while the tasks of the schools have been much more clearly set out. Another important element of the Manifesto is to actively include children and young people, parents, employees, school leaders and school owners to ensure that this commitment is translated into a long-term framework for combating bullying at the local level. Thirdly, schools are offered the opportunity to participate in various programmes that address bullying, programmes with documented effects, which really do make a difference. In addition to countermeasures, we need more knowledge about what is actually happening, and we need more research. The Minister of Education and Research will discuss this in more detail in her remarks later today. But schools are not the only places where bullying occurs. It happens before children even start school, in fact it happens wherever children and young people gather together. It is therefore vital that other sectors of society also take part in these joint efforts. Bullying is unacceptable no matter where it is practised. Research shows that bullying exists even among small children. We therefore need to teach them, at a very young age, that kindness and respect are important values. 10

To achieve this, information material for kindergartens staff has been developed. Hopefully, this will also draw the parents attention to the problem of bullying. The situation for the young disabled are given resources to unit youth clubs to speak about challenges that young disabled persons face. We hope this will prevent bullying and help integration. Also within the sports movement there has been taken initiatives to promote fair play and the respect for each individual child and youth. A campaign was launched with the video United against bullying at the last national soccer match in Norway. But the problem is not confined to school pupils and children. The Confederation of Trade Unions and the National Association against Bullying in the Workplace estimate that some 200 000 adults experience bullying at their place of work, half of them every day. According to the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, suicide in connection with bullying occurs more frequently than accidental death at Norwegian workplaces. This must be stopped. Harassment at the workplace reflects a contempt for human dignity and equal worth. In my latest New Year address to the nation, I called for a campaign against bullying at the workplace, and invited representatives of employers and employees organisations, the Labour Inspection Authority and the government to cooperate on concrete measures to combat bullying and harassment in the workplace. I am very pleased to report that the social partners have decided to make special efforts to combat bullying in the working environment. Our work with schools has shown us that it really does help to make a concerted effort to prevent people from being ostracised and harassed. In the course of a single year, many of the schools that have used programmes to systematically combat bullying have reduced its occurrence among their pupils by 50 per cent. There is every reason to hope that such efforts will be just as effective for adults in working life. Statistics on the causes of sickness absence and disability indicate that psychological problems are being cited more and more often as a reason for absenteeism. We must heed this warning, and do what we can to reduce the incidence of bullying. I believe that bullying at school or at the workplace is a question of values. It indicates a lack of empathy, which, in the final analysis, comes down to a lack of tolerance and respect for other people. Bullying is about how we treat each other on a day-to-day basis. At its deepest, most profound level, it is about human dignity. This is why we have not only focused on measures to combat bullying, but also on initiating a broader effort to raise awareness of values. In 2002 the Government initiated a national project called Values in Schools to encourage and strengthen activities relating to values and value awareness in schools. About 120 schools have so far been given support for their work on values. Some of the projects cover entire municipalities, while others encompass several schools. We need to mobilise this kind of focus on values if we are to establish a basis for combating bullying. Authorities, education and labour organisations or the public at large will never have the power to ensure that bullying is completely eradicated. We could never create such an environment. But we can create an attitude of zero tolerance. We can help to generate 11

greater openness on this sensitive subject. We can give schools and workplaces the knowledge they need, and offer them tools for preventing and coping with bullying. Countermeasures will need to be entrenched in the individual institution, rooted in an understanding of what bullying is and fuelled by the motivation to be active to prevent it from happening. Those of you attending this conference represent a number of different countries. The topics you will be discussing come under three categories:

to identify the factors that cause school bullying and violence and document their consequences; to review policies designed to combat these problems and evaluate their effectiveness; to foster the creation of a network of researchers and centres of expertise on school bullying and violence.

This conference gives us an opportunity to share our knowledge and experience, to find out how others researchers, policymakers and practitioners have dealt with this problem, so that we can learn from each others successes and mistakes. I feel that Norway has had a good deal of success with its strategy. I do not believe that we have yet found a way to put a stop to all bullying, but we are achieving agreement between the most important actors in the school sector on a common goal of zero tolerance for bullying. This is an international as well as a national problem, and we have much to learn from each other. Our national efforts must be used to create a set of global norms and principles, and this is our purpose in gathering here today. I hope and believe that this conference will lead to broad and enduring international co-operation in this field not only between researchers, but also between policymakers and practitioners. I wish you all the best of luck with your discussions and with the follow-up activities to come. I hope your efforts here today and in the future will help to ensure that the children and young people of tomorrow will wake up every morning looking forward to, instead of dreading, a new day.

12

Session One: Main Issues in School Bullying and Violence

This session was chaired by Debra Pepler, York University, Toronto, Canada

13

PETER K. SMITH: Definition, types and prevalence of school bullying and violence

Peter K Smith, Goldsmiths College, University of London, England

Introduction
There are good reasons to be concerned about the issue of violence and bullying in schools. Firstly, it is immediately damaging - to those persons who suffer the violence, or to the school environment in cases of vandalism. Secondly, it can create insecurity and fear that works against the purpose of the school; a climate of violence in school is the opposite of the education for citizenship that we broadly aim for, and it goes against the rights of children and young people (UN Convention on the rights of the Child) to live free from fear and intimidation. Schools can take positive steps to reduce violence, and the likelihood of violence. However it is worth saying that it is not just a problem for schools even if we are only discussing violence in school. Those in school are affected by the media and by attitudes to violence in the wider society, and even by international events. The media present many violent acts, sometimes in ways that make it seem attractive and successful. Actual violence also often takes place in society outside schools, and it is sometimes approved of. Violence of parents against children (i.e. physical smacking) is quite legal and quite common in many European countries (not in others). Violence in the sense of retaliatory action taken against criminals (retributional violence), or groups perceived as engaging in terrorist activities, is often approved by a majority. The perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of school actions against violence may well be affected by these wider issues. All citizens bear some shared responsibility, in a democratic country. Obviously the definition of what we mean by violence is raised by this discussion. I will start by considering issues of definition. I will mention different types of violence and bullying. Then I will summarise some of the main ways of assessing violence and bullying; and give some examples of the kinds of statistics obtained.

Definitional Issues
What is violence? The English word violence has linguistic cognates in the Latin languages: Spanish violencia, Portuguese violncia, Italian violenza, French violence, for example; but other terms in European languages have quite different linguistic origin, as in German gewalt, Greek or Icelandic ofbeldi. And even any one term such as English violence is open to different interpretations. Children themselves define school violence in different ways depending on their age, their language and their culture (Smith, Cowie, Liefooghe & Olafsson, 2002). Lets look at three adult definitions: 14

The Encarta dictionary (1999) definition of violence is: 1 the use of physical force to injure somebody or damage something; 2 the illegal use of unjustified force, or the effect created by the threat of this. The definition used by Olweus (1999, p.12) is that violence or violent behaviour is: Aggressive behaviour where the actor or perpetrator uses his or her own body or an object (including a weapon) to inflict (relatively serious) injury or discomfort upon another individual. The World Health Organisation defines violence as: The intentional use of physical and psychological force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation (see fi-006: www.health.fi/connect).

These and other definitions share some features but differ on others. Shared features are normally that violence is (a) harmful or damaging, or at least threatens such harm or damage, and (b) is intended (accidental damage or hurt done by someone is not usually thought of as violent). But lets look at the dimensions of variation or disagreement. In my view there are at least five dimensions. 1. Is violence necessarily physical? It is, according to Encarta (1) and Olweus, but not according to Encarta (2) or WHO. This is probably the most crucial issue. Restricting violence to physical acts makes it more restricted in focus, and perhaps easier to measure (in that physical acts of violence are probably easier to monitor than verbal or relational violence). It makes violence different from aggression. However, while some researchers and writers are happy with this definition, others are not. It clearly excludes other intentional harmful behaviours such as verbal abuse, social exclusion, nasty rumour spreading (Underwood, 2002). 2. Is violence necessarily against a person? Not according to Encarta, but this is so according to Olweus, and possibly WHO. In other words, is vandalism (the malicious or deliberate defacement or destruction of somebody elses property: Encarta 1999) included as violence? Does graffitti on the school walls, or intentional damage to school books or equipment, count as violence? 3. Does violence actually have to be manifested as behaviour that damages someone or something, or is just the threat of this sufficient (as stated in Encarta (2) and WHO)? An emphasis on threatened as well as actual violence can justify the inclusion of measures such as feelings of insecurity. 4. Is violence still violence if it is legal (cf. Encarta (2)? If so, a parent smacking a child is certainly violent. Maybe too a teacher disciplining a pupil, a policeman restraining a criminal, a judge sentencing an offender. But if not, then are we assuming an acceptance of societal-defined legality? Might this be challenged? 5. Does violence have to be done by somebody (Olweus), or can it be done more impersonally by a social group or an institution? The term institutional violence suggests the latter; and allows us to consider the possibility of a school inflicting violence on its pupils, because of certain actions or policies. Finally, when actually using a definition whether for recording purposes, or instituting a responsive process we need to decide at what level something becomes 15

violence. How serious does the harm have to be? Every day most of us experience minor hurts. So, should violence be limited to quite serious blows, or insults or social provocations? Or can it include what French researchers have called micro-violence or incivilities, relatively minor impolitenesses and infringements of rules (Debarbieux, Blaya & Vidal, 2003)? These might not count as violence by most definitions, but they may still be vital in understanding the origins of more serious school violence, and tackling it. My own experience to date is that these differences cannot be resolved in any large, international professional group. There are too many personal, disciplinary, cultural and linguistic differences. However, we can each be clear about what we mean, in any particular school; or if we are carrying out some piece of research; and that is important for clarity. It is feasible within a school, or a local area, to reach an agreed definition. It may be helpful also to bear in mind a concept opposite to violence the Spanish term convivencia, or living together in harmony. Let us try to improve convivencia in schools; and discuss what kinds of violence act against convivencia. What about the term bullying? The English word bullying lacks linguistic cognates (although Italian researchers have recently adopted the term il bullismo, e.g. Fonzi (2001). Yet, almost paradoxically, the definition of bullying has more consensus than that of violence. Everyone agrees that bullying need not be physical, but can be verbal or indirect in nature. It is necessarily against a person. It is also usually agreed that bullying is a form of aggression characterised by two particular aspects: imbalance of power, and repetition. The imbalance of power criterion means that a fight between equals (although aggressive) is not bullying. In bullying, it is difficult for the victim to defend him- or herself (either through physical or psychological weakness, or being outnumbered, for example). The repetition criterion implies that it happens more than just once or twice (and thus implicitly, is an intentional picking on or harassing of someone). These two criteria are not without critics. An imbalance of power is not always easy to define. Also, some commentators have argued that even one threat or nasty stare can imply a long-term bullying attitude and should be construed as bullying (Guerin & Hennessy, 2002). Nevertheless, these criteria are accepted as part of a good working definition by most researchers in the area (Olweus, 1999; Ross, 2002; Smith & Brain, 2000). An example of this definition is Farrington (1993): Bullying is repeated oppression of a less powerful person, physical or psychological, by a more powerful person. A broader definition but encompassing the same two criteria is Smith and Sharp (1994): The systematic abuse of power. A fuller definition comes from Rigby (2002): Bullying involves a desire to hurt + a harmful action + a power imbalance + (typically) repetition + an unjust use of power + evident enjoyment by the aggressor and generally a sense of being oppressed on the part of the victim.

16

Types of Violence and Bullying

The most obvious type of violence and of bullying is direct physical attack; hitting, kicking, punching. Indirect physical attack, such as damage to clothing or belongings may also be included. Direct verbal attack is usually found to be the most frequent type of violence (if included in the definition) or bullying experienced; this might be direct (orally face-to-face, or by letter, text, or email). Indirect verbal attacks (such as spreading rumours) are also often considered. Social exclusion from normal group activities is often recognized as another form of aggression or bullying (this, and spreading rumours, often being considered as relational aggression as they target someones relations and reputation with others). Finally, aggression can occur institutionally, for example by setting someone totally unrealistic goals and thus undermining their confidence and work satisfaction. Violence and bullying can vary in terms of the number of aggressors. It can be one-toone; by a small group or gang (against one, or against another group or gang); by a whole class or school (this is called wang-ta and jun-ta in Korean schools; Koo and Smith, submitted); and (beyond the school setting, however) by a large group (crowd, mob, village). It can (if included in the definition) be by organizations; and it can be by a state or nation or alliance of nations. Regarding gender differences, males relatively do more physical kinds of attacks; and it is often found that females relatively do more relational kinds of attacks. Regarding age differences, the frequency tends to increase then decrease with age, but dependent on the type and mode of aggression; physical aggression peaks earlier than verbal, relational, and institutional aggression (Underwood, 2002).

Ways of assessing violence and bullying

Obviously, how we define violence and bullying will have an effect on how we gather data about it. An important point is to make clear what ones definition is; but there are other important issues to consider, when gathering data. The most usual statistics on school violence are based on reports by adults or pupils. Adult (teacher and parent) reports have limited value for pupil-pupil violence, as adults are usually only aware of a fraction of what is going on in the peer group. Self-reports by pupils have been widely used, for example the anonymous bullying questionnaire devised by Olweus. Peer nominations (by pupils of classmates) may be the most reliable method for class based work, as multiple informants are used. Direct observations avoid reporting bias but are difficult and time-consuming. Other methods include in-depth interviews, focus groups, incident reports, etc Although some relevant statistics can be found in most, perhaps all, European countries (Smith, 2003), many are indirect or incomplete. Rather than using pupil or adult assessments as mentioned above, they may resort to official statistics on accidents caused by violence; criminal statistics based on legal definitions such as antisocial behaviour, juvenile delinquency, and vandalism; and data on school exclusions. There is a general lack of systematic data gathered on a large scale over time.

17

Many available statistics focus on pupil to pupil violence. Other dyads are more rarely reported. This probably reflects common perceptions of the problem, and possibly resistance on the part of some schools or teachers to opening up issues regarding teacher violence. Clearly, even disregarding violence to property, and disregarding institutional violence, violent acts could occur between any persons with a school community. Besides pupil to pupil, this could especially include pupil to teacher, teacher to pupil, and teacher to teacher. Besides the assessment method used, and the nature of the sample, we need to consider issues of intensity [e.g. how frequent, in self-report data; what proportion of peer nominations]; duration of reporting period [e.g. ever, last year, last month ]; and translation of terms, for non-English data.

Examples of incidence figures from OECD countries

Example 1 - TURKEY Falikasifoglu et al. (2004) report a survey of over 4,000 Turkish students in grades 9 to 11. The table below shows the incidence of various experiences of school violence, based on a self-report questionnaire. Fighting in last 12 months Injured in physical fight in last 12 months Being bullied at school last term Bullied others at school last term Carrying weapon on school grounds last term 42% 7% 30% 19% 8%

Example 2 KOREA Kim, Koh and Leventhal (2004) report a survey of over 1,700 middle school students in Korean schools, grades 7 and 8. They used a Korean Peer Nomination Inventory for bullies and victims. The table below shows those nominated in Perpetrator or Victim roles, or both, by more than one classmate. Perpetrator Victim Victim-Perpetrator Not involved Boys 17.4% Boys 16.2% Boys 10.1% Boys 56.3% Girls 16.0% Girls 12.0% Girls 7.8% Girls 64.2%

Example 3 USA Nansel et al. (2001) report a survey of over 15,000 students in US schools, in grades 6 to 10. Their figures in the table below are based on a self-report questionnaire, and show frequency of being bullied/ bullying others, in the last term. % Being bullied Bullying others None 58.9 55.7 1 or 2 times 24.2 25.0 Sometimes 8.5 10.6 Weekly 8.4 8.8

18

Example 4 a cross-national study Morita (2001) provided a report to Monbusho (Ministry of education in Japan) on a cross-national study of bullying (or ijime). This used the same self-report questionnaire with 10 to 14 year old school pupils in Japan, England, the Netherlands and Norway. There were samples of several thousand in each country. The table below shows percentages of pupils who reported being bullied (victim) more than just once or twice in the last six months, based on an Olweus-type self-report questionnaire. Differences by sex and age are also shown. VICTIM England Netherlands Norway Japan Total 12.2 13.9 10.0 9.6 Girls 11.8 13.1 9.1 9.0 Boys 12.7 14.8 11.1 9.9 10 18.7 14.7 12.4 13.4 11 13.1 16.6 11.9 9.9 12 12.1 14.2 9.5 9.5 13 10.5 10.3 10.0 8.2 7.1 6.5 14 7.6

Summary
Issues of definition are crucial if we want to assemble statistics on a worthwhile comparative and longitudinal basis. At present, there is a lack of reliable statistics in many countries. A number of related issues are discussed. The definition of violence, perhaps paradoxically, seems more problematic than the definition of bullying. There are many different types of violence and bullying. There are also many ways of assessing violence and bullying, some preferable to others. Some examples of incidence figures are given. Despite variations in methodology, it is clear that issues of violence and bullying affect a significant minority of pupils in OECD countries. Interventions to reduce school bullying and violence (Smith, Pepler & Rigby, 2004) should be pursued vigorously. Such interventions must be assessed and evaluated, and issues of definition and measurement are a vital part of this larger endeavour.

19

References Debarbieux, E., Blaya, C. & Vidal, D. (2003). Tackling violence in schools: A reportfrom France. In P.K. Smith (ed.), Violence in schools: The response in Europe (pp.17-32). London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Encarta World English Dictionary (1999). London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Falikasifoglu, M., Erginoz, E., Ercan, O., Uysal, O., Kaymak, D.A. & Iiter, O. (2004). Violent behaviour among Turkish high school students and correlates of physical fighting. European Journal of Public Health, 14. Farrington, D. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A review of research, vol. 17 (pp.381-458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fonzi, A. (ed) (1997). Il Bullismo in Italia. Florence: Giunti. Guerin, S. & Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils definitions of bullying. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 249-261. Kim, Y.S., Koh, Y-J. & Leventhal, B.L. (2004). Prevalence of school bullying in Korean middle school students. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med., 158, 737-741. Koo, H. & Smith, P.K. (submitted). Distinctive features of victimization in Korean schools. Morita, Y. (2001). Ijime no kokusai hikaku kenkyu [Cross-national comparative study of bullying]. Japan: Kaneko Shobo. Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M.D., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P.C. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 20942100. Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective, London & New York, Routledge, pp. 2-27. Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley. Ross, D.M. (2002). Childhood bullying and teasing: what school personnel, other professionals and parents can do, 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: American Counselling Association. Smith, P.K. (ed.) (2003). Violence in schools: The response in Europe, London & New York, RoutledgeFalmer. Smith, P.K. & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1-9.

20

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. & Liefooghe, A. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and sex differences, in a 14-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-1133. Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. and Rigby, K. (eds.) (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (eds.) (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. Underwood, M. K. (2002). Sticks and stones and social exclusion: Aggression among girls and boys. In P.K. Smith and C.H. Hart (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development. Oxford, Blackwell. World Health Organisation. See fi-006: www.health.fi/connect

21

ERLING ROLAND: Causes of School Bullying

Centre for Behavioural Research University of Stavanger, Norway

Aggressiveness, context and bullying others

Pupils level of aggressiveness is a strong predictor of bullying others (Olweus, 1993; Roland & Idse, 2001), and this aggressiveness appears to be quite stable over time (Olweus, 1979). Pupils high on aggressiveness can therefore be potential bullies. Whether potential bullies actually bully others at school, however, can depend on the school context (Roland & Galloway, 2002, 2004a). This paper concerns pupils aggressiveness and central contextual issues at school in relation to bullying others.

Aggressiveness
Aggressiveness on the part of the pupils seems to be one important key to understanding central dynamics of bullying. Aggressiveness can be defined as a motif system within a person, which makes up a rather stable potential for behavioural problems (Patterson, Dishion, & Bank, 1984; Olweus, 1980). Figure 1 (below) illustrates an important background of aggressiveness and its relation to actual behaviour.

Figure 1. Antecedents of aggressiveness and its relation to behavioural problems

Negative Home Conditions

Aggressiveness

Behavioural Problems

Negative home conditions such as aggressive parents, and weak support and monitoring by parents, which are often combined, are a significant background of the aggressive motif system. This aggressiveness predicts behavioural problems in general (Patterson, Dishion, & Bank, 1984; Olweus, 1980). There are two main forms of this aggressiveness, however, and it is important to separate them to understand how these two types of aggressiveness influences one particular form of behavioural problems, namely bullying. These two forms are reactive and proactive aggressiveness. Figure 2 illustrates the former type.

22

Figure 2. The structure of reactive aggressiveness.

Frustration Humiliation

Anger

Reactive Aggression

Those high on reactive aggressiveness are easily frustrated and/or humiliated. This means that their threshold for tolerating obstacles to a planned route of behaviour is low and/or these persons are vulnerable to social signs of critique, mistrust etc. Such events fuel more intense anger and subsequently more aggressive behaviour than what is common (Dodge, 1991; Roland & Idse, 2001). The other main form is proactive aggressiveness, which means that the person behaves aggressively without being angry (Dodge, 1991; Roland & Idse, 2001). There may be many reasons why a person demonstrates aggression without being angry. One obvious reason is that the aggression is instrumental for achieving some object that the person wants, for example money. Another reason, that is highly relevant with bullying, is relational rewards. Figure 3 illustrates this.
Figure 3. Proactive aggressiveness related to bullying

B1

ProAff
B2 B3

ProPow

Victim

The circle to the left shows three bullies, B1, B2, and B3, who cooperate in bullying a victim, located to the right. Those high on proactive aggressiveness are more than others attracted by two kinds of relational stimulation: 1. negative power over another person (ProPow) 2. affiliation with co-aggressors (created by common negative attitudes towards the victim) (ProAff). 23

The figure shows that this particular reward of affiliation (ProAff) is evident within the group of bullies, while the reward of negative power is located within the relationship between each bully and the victim (Roland and Idse, 2001). Figures 4 and 5 (below) show how reactive and proactive aggressiveness predicts bullying others at grades 5 and 8, respectively.
Figure 4. Fifth grade pupils: Relations between different kinds of aggressiveness and bullying others.

ProPow ProAff ReAgg Variance explained: about 34% (Roland & Idse, 2001) The figure shows that ProPow, ProAff, and ReAgg predict bullying others at about the same strength at grade 5. This means that the proactive aggressiveness, the sum of ProPow and ProAff has stronger predictive power on bullying others than reactive aggressiveness. The variance explained on bullying others by all three variables is about 34%, which is substantial. The next figure concerns grade 8 pupils.
Figure 5. Eighth grade pupils: Relations between different kinds of aggressiveness and bullying others.

Bullying

ProPow ProAff ReAgg Variance explained : about 52% (Roland & Idse, 2001) It can be seen that the predictive power of ReAgg is very limited at grade 8, while that of both ProPow and ProAff is strong. In addition, the explained variance is about 52%, which is much. Bullying

24

The results, then, indicate that aggressiveness is a powerful predictor of bullying others, and the figures show two interesting differences between fifth and eighth grade pupils. First, the variance explained demonstrates that aggressiveness is a better predictor of bullying others at grade eight than at grade five. Second, the figures show that the relative strength of reactive and proactive aggressiveness changes from fifth to eighth grade. At grade five, the total effect from ProPow and ProAff (proactive aggressiveness) is stronger than that from ReAgg (reactive aggressiveness). At grade eight, the effect from ReAgg is minor, while that from proactive aggressiveness is very strong. To interpret these results, information about the victims is significant. A minority of pupils who are victims of bullying tend to be portrayed as provocative and aggressive towards peers. This does not mean, however, that such victims are secure, confident and able to defend themselves when bullied. The majority of the victims appear to be not provocative, but rather passive. In general, they are also insecure and afraid (Olweus, 1993; Roland, 1999). These two dimensions, the provocative passive dimension, and the secure insecure one, are significant to understand bullying as repeated abuse of power, on the part of the bullies at different ages. This could imply that the provocative element may be stronger at grade five, which would mean that more victims may be perceived as being irritating and frustrating (Roland & Idse, 2001). This can explain the substantial influence of ReAgg on bullying others among younger children, although proactive aggression is the most powerful predictor also at that age. At grade eight, the majority of the victims may, partly due to longstanding bullying, have developed a more passive and insecure behaviour, which can explain why the impact of ReAgg is minimal, while the influence of proactive aggressiveness is strong. From a theoretical point of view, it is an insecure and submissive behaviour that is rewarding to those high on ProPow. This submissiveness may also provide a special stimulus for ProAff (Roland, 1999).

Context
The next question can be what conditions at school stimulate certain pupils to bully peers? This question is theoretically interesting, but it also has an important practical aspect. If one can locate contextual issues at school that are important for whether potential bullies in fact bully others, this can provide information on how bullying could be prevented. Figure 7 (below) focuses on one very central contextual element at school, namely the classroom.

25

Figure 7. Key contextual factors Group climate Negative norms Weak routines Weak relations

Weak classroom leadership

Bullying

The model shows relations between classroom leadership by the teacher, the social climate of the pupils group and bullying others. Roland & Galloway (2002) demonstrated that weak support and weak control by teacher was directly related to bullying others, and indirectly via a negative influence on the class climate. These relations do not prove, however, that weak classroom management causes bullying others. There are obviously other possible explanations to the relations. One such could be that a high prevalence of bullying means many potential bullies in class, who can also be difficult to handle in general for a teacher. Consequently, the teacher could be portrayed as weak without this necessarily being the case. To investigate such causal possibilities, first grade teachers were trained to improve their classroom management. This was found to reduce bullying significantly, as well as other behavioural problems. In addition, it increased pupils motivation for learning (Roland & Galloway, 2004b). Classroom management and classroom climate are powerful aspects of social context, which to a considerable degree regulate whether aggressiveness, both reactive and proactive, is converted into bullying others (Roland, 1999). Improved classroom leadership has also other important payoffs, for instance improved behaviour in general and better motivation for learning. The important quality of leadership in the classes is linked to cooperation among staff and good management of school, and this school level context also influences bullying (Roland, 1999; Roland & Galloway, 2004a, 2004b). In other words: When all staff and the school management cooperate in creating a climate of both strong support and control, the prevalence of bullying will probably decrease.

26

Research and Practical Implications

We know that schools, and classes within the same school, are considerably different on prevalence on bullying also when the background of the pupils, the schools catchment area, the size of school and classes are controlled for (Roland, 1999). This indicates a potential for improvements of the social context within school and classes. Also, as briefly outlined above, we know a lot of what this context is and that it can be improved. However, there often seems to be a long way between research results and practical consequences in schools. We know for example little about why some schools adopt a research based program to reduce bullying and others do not. Further, we do not know much about why some schools that adopt such programs succeed and others do not. Internationally, these questions are of great importance, since such a large number of pupils are bullied regularly. Is there something about the culture of a school that influence whether it is informed about and adopts research-based approaches to bullying? Further, what are the processes of implementation? How do individual or collective belief systems, stress, burn out etc. play a role? Feedback from pupils and parents as the teacher eventually changes style of management may also influence whether teachers withhold new approaches. However, there may also be powerful management, and cultural issues operating at school level, which filter the impact of the approach on each teacher. Finally, why schools ignore research based approaches, and how they handle implementation can be dependent on the macro culture and be different from country to country. It seems, then, that one interesting issue for further research is how research knowledge is transformed into practice. International cooperation, for instance among OECD member states, would be of great importance.

References Dodge, K. A. 1991. The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (eds.). The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Olweus, D. 1979. Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: a review. Psychol Bull 84: 852-875. Olweus, D. 1980. Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental Psychology. 16: 644-660. Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Backwell.

27

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., Bank, L. 1984. Family interaction: a process model of deviant training. Aggressive Behavior. 10: 253-267. Roland, E. 1999. School influences on bullying. Stavanger. Rebel Forlag. Roland, E., Idse, T. 2001. Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior. 27: 446-462. Roland, E., Galloway, D. 2002. Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Research. 44: 299-312. Roland, E., Galloway, D. 2004, a. Professional cultures in schools with high and low rates of bullying. School Effectiveness and Improvement. 15: 241-260. Roland, E., Galloway, D. 2004, b. Can we reduce bullying by improving classroom management? ACPP Ocational Papers. 23: 35-40.

28

CHRISTINA SALMIVALLI: Consequences of School Bullying and violence

Christina Salmivalli, University of Turku, Finland.

It is evident that children exposed to systematic victimization by their peers suffer from adjustment problems. The review by Hawker & Boulton (2000), based on studies conducted during two decades, showed that victimization is concurrently associated with depression, loneliness, both generalized and social anxiety, and low global as well as social self-worth. The strongest effect sizes were observed for depression. Also Card, in his meta-analysis (2003), found victimization to be related to internalizing (but also externalising) problems, school avoidance, low academic achievement, and lack of school enjoyment. Furthermore, victimization had several interpersonal correlates such as rejection, having few friends, and low friendship quality. Also suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior were associated with victimization in the peer group. Some studies have found elevated levels of psychosomatic symptoms among victimized children (e.g., Kumpulainen et al., 1998). There are somewhat differing views about the adjustment of school bullies. Some studies seem to suggest that aggressive children and/or adolescents are neither insecure nor anxious under their tough surface (e.g., Olweus, 1994), and might actually have a relatively positive view of themselves (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi and Lagerspetz, 1999; Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanp and Peets, 2005) whereas others indicate that anxiety and depression are equally common among bullies and victims (e.g., Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpel, Rantanen, & Rimpel, 2000). Future studies might lead to a more accurate distinction between different types of bullies, and thus enable to explain the current controversies. What seems to be widely agreed on, however, is that bullyvictims, i.e. children who are both aggressive and targets of systematic harassment, are highly maladjusted - more so than children who are only victimized (e.g., Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000; Kumpulainen, Rsnen, & Puura, 2001; OMoore and Kirkham, 2001; Schwartz, 2001). So far, most studies looking at the consequences of victimization have overlooked the interaction effects of victimization and other child characteristics (such as aggression) in predicting outcome variables of interest. For aggressive children, the consequences of victimization may be different than for the passive, nonaggressive victims.

Longitudinal evidence of negative influences

Overall, studies investigating the consequences of victimization while controlling for initial levels in the variables of interest are still surprisingly rare. In the meta-analysis by Card (2003), concurrent correlates of victimization were separated from the antecedents and consequences found in longitudinal studies. Card showed that consistently across longitudinal studies, victimization has been found to lead to both internalising and externalizing problems, decreases in prosocial behavior, and lowered social self-concept.

29

For global self-esteem, the case is less clear: it seems that there is more evidence of a low global self-esteem being an antecedent of victimization, than its consequence. Rigby (2001) reported, in an Australian sample of adolescents, that victimization was related to problems with physical health (such as headaches, stomachaches, cough, sore throats, etc.) three years later, controlling for initial health status. It has been suggested that elevated stress levels might mediate the association between victimization and health problems. A recent Finnish study (Salmivalli & Isaacs, in press), investigated prospective links between three types of peer relationship problems: victimization, rejection, and friendlessness, and children's perception of themselves and of their age-mates (i.e., whether peers were viewed as hostile, untrustful, and unsupportive, vs. kind, trustful, and supportive). Data was collected at three time points, the second assessment taking place four months and the third assessment 12 months after the first one. At time of the first assessment, the participants were fifth- and sixth-graders, i.e. with 11-12 and 12-13 years of age. The results indicated that both rejection and victimization were associated with an increasingly negative view of peers over time. The more a child was victimized or rejected, the more he/she started to perceive age-mates as hostile, untrustful, as having bad intentions, etc. Victimization had no influence on self-perception, however, but a negative self-perception was clearly an antecedent of victimization (as well as other peer problems such as rejection and lack of reciprocal friendships).

Long-term effects of victimization

Follow-up studies examining the long-term consequences of victimization are, to date, almost nonexistent. As an exception, Olweus (1994) followed up 87 men who had been assessed in grade 9 (and, most of them, also in grade 6) up to 23 years of age. The former victims were relatively well-adjusted in many respects. However, they had a lower selfesteem and they suffered from depression more often than their non-victimized agemates. In the University of Turku, Finland, a long-term follow-up of the consequences of victimization is just being conducted (Isaacs, Hodges, and Salmivalli, unpublished data). The sample consisted of 274 young adults (145 male and 129 female), who had been involved in a research on school bullying in grade 8 (1996), and were approached by mailed questionnaires eight years later, in 2004. The outcome measures included questionnaires regarding depression, self-perception, and generalized perception of other people. 52.4 % of men and 78.3 % of women who received the questionnaires responded: the overall response rate was thus 64.6 %. The results indicate that victimization in adolescence, i.e. in grade eight (latent variable with self-reports, same-sex nominations and opposite-sex nominations as indicators of victimization) is associated with depression and a negative view of self and of other people eight years later, even after controlling for levels of depression and self-esteem in grade eight. Unlike victimization, neither perceived popularity among peers (e.g., I am not very popular; I have many friends) nor perceived family support (e.g., Nobody cares for me at home; My parents like me) in grade eight predicted any of the variance in the

30

outcome variables. However, perceived family support moderates the negative influences of victimization: only for those having unsupportive families in grade eight, victimization resulted in elevated levels of depression, low self-esteem, and negative perceptions of other people. Overall, many of the concurrent correlates of victimization seem to be both antecedents and consequences of it, suggesting a vicious cycle by which children get trapped in the role of continued victimization (Card, 2003). However, internalizing problems, such as depression, seem to increase as a function of victimization rather than precede it. Low global self-esteem, on the other hand, is clearly an antecedent of victimization, whereas evidence of longitudinal changes in self-esteem resulting from victimization is more mixed. Victimization clearly seems to influence children's view of other people, however, and there is evidence of a generalized negative peer-perception a risk for social maladjustment A negative view of peers predicts lack of communal goals and consequently, shy/withdrawn behaviors (Salmivalli et al., 2005). Negative peer-beliefs have also been found to be associated with feelings of loneliness (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003) and depression (Rudolph & Clark, 2001). All children are not equally affected by victimization. More studies are needed about the mechanisms and possible moderators of influences - both in the short and in the long term.

Possible moderating factors

When victimized by peers, a child may attribute the cause of the maltreatment as being internal or external, stable or varying over time, controllable or outside his/her volitional influence. When it comes to psychosocial consequences of victimization, especially the internal/external dimension can be thought to be relevant. A child who tends to attribute the causes of negative social events to internal factors, blaming him- or herself for victimization (e.g., "I am harassed because I am deviant", or "I am harassed because I can not behave as I should"), may suffer from different -probably more severe consequences than a child who makes external attributions in negative situations and, for instance, blames those who bully (e.g., "the other kids pick on me because they are so mean"). Characterological self-blame (see Graham & Juvonen, 2001; Janoff-Bulman, 1979) refers to attributing the causes of victimization to stable, internal and uncontrollable factors. Graham and Juvonen (2001) argue that this is the kind of attributions for victimization are the most maladaptive ones. Even behavioral self-blame (attributing the causes to unstable and controllable, while also internal factors) is more adaptive: a child believes that he or she might be able to do something to change his/her situation. Not only intraindividual factors (such as causal attributions), but also interpersonal and social contextual factors might moderate the relationship between victimization experiences and adjustment problems. According to Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, and Bukowski (1999), friendship can be a powerful buffer against the adjustment problems caused by victimization. Supportive relationships within the family may also protect against the negative influences of peer adversities. Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, and Sippola (1996) found that changes in children's friendship status (such as losing or 31

gaining a friend) were related to concomitant changes in adjustment for children from low-adaptive families only. Certain family conditions may also moderate the influences of victimization: this is something the researchers have not so far paid very much attention to. As pointed out above, in our follow-up data from grade eight to young adulthood (Isaacs, Hodges, & Salmivalli, unpublished data) we have found that supportive family relations attenuate the negative effects of victimization. When it comes to group-level moderators, there may be protective social contexts as well. For instance, in school classes where the victim gets support from other group members, or where the bullying is generally disapproved of, the negative influences might be minimized.

Influences of bully-victim problems on the group

Bukowski and Sippola (2001): "Victimization not only damages the individual, but damages the group itself as well as the individuals who constitute the group It has been suggested that bullying and victimization have negative influences not only on individual children, but also on the group (for instance, students in a classroom). It is known, that when bullying is going on, most students in a classroom are aware of it, and many are present in actual bullying situations. Despite their anti-bullying attitudes, many students take on roles which encourage rather than discourage the bullys behavior (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjrkqvist, sterman, & Kaukiainen 1996; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). So far, methodologically sound empirical investigations of the influences of bullying at the classroom level are rare, if not nonexistent. The few studies that exist are either based on concurrent data, or they neglect the hierarchical nature of school data (students nested within classrooms, nested within schools). Our examination of observed and experienced victimization and school satisfaction (Salmivalli, 2004, unpublished data) has the former limitation, but avoids the latter by looking at the relations between variables both at the student and classroom level. With multilevel modeling, it is possible to disentangle the variance in school satisfaction between individual students, from variance between different school classes. Our data with 1220 students from 48 school classes (grades 4, 5, and 6) shows, that there are between-classroom differences in observed victimization: intraclass correlation of .12 indicates that 12 % of the total variance in observed victimization is between different classrooms. Experienced victimization, on the other hand, varies between individual children but not between classrooms (96% of the variance is between individual children, only 4% between classrooms). For school satisfaction, again, there is a significant classroom effect. Predicting variation in school satisfaction both at the individual and at the classroom level, it was found that at the individual level, experienced victimization was associated with lowered level of school satisfaction (standardized path=.14, t=3.07). The more a student was victimized, the greater the dissatisfaction. At the individual level, also child gender was a significant predictor of dissatisfaction: girls tended to be more satisfied with school life than boys. At the classroom level, overall level of victimization

32

(latent variable constituted of observed and experienced victimization at the classroom level) was related to lowered level of school satisfaction (standardized path=.31, t=1.85). In other words, in school classes where a lot of victimization was taking place, school satisfaction was low.

Future challenges
It is quite clear that victimization has negative consequences for the individual children who are targets of it. Victimization seems to lead to internalising problems such as depression, but also to a negative view of other people. Victimization explains variance in these outcomes even many years after the schooldays, in young adulthood. In the short term, victimization is associated with increases in internalising and externalising problems, anxiety, school avoidance, and even problems with physical health. More longitudinal studies are needed, however, in order to more carefully disentangle the antecedents of victimization from its consequences. Also, not much is known about the consequences of victimization for the aggressive victims. The risk trajectories for different subtypes of victims need to be illuminated. A big challenge for bullying research is the study of both antecedents and consequences of victimization at the level of classrooms. Also, interaction of individual and classsroom level factors in causing bully-victim problems is a challenge for future research. For instance, does the relationship between risk factors (i.e., low self-esteem, peer rejection) and victimization vary from one classroom to another? The same idea can be applied to studying the consequences of victimization: are they also dependent on group-level factors such as immediate social support received from peer bystanders?

References Bukowski, W., & Sippola, L. (2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, pp. 355-377. New York: Guilford Press. Card, N. (2003). Victims of peer aggression: A meta-analytic review. In N.Card & A. Nishina: Whipping boys and other victims of peer aggression: Twenty-five years of research, now where do we go? Innovative poster symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the society for research on child development, Tampa, FL, April 24-27, 2003. Gauze, C., Bukowski, W., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L. (1996). Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during adolescence. Child Development, 67, 2201-2216. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2001). An attributional approach to peer victimization. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, pp. 49-72. New York: Guilford Press. Hawker, D., & Boulton, M. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41, 441-455. 33

Hodges, E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological and behavioural self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-1809. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpel, M., Rantanen, P., Rimpel, A. (2000). Bullying at school an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661674. Kumpulainen, K., Rsnen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S., Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Puura, K., & Tamminen, T. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptoms among elementary school-age children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 705-717. Kumpulainen, K., Rsnen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric disorders and the use of mental health services among children involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 102-110. Ladd, G., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties in the development of children's psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74, 1344-1367. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long term outcomes for the victims and an effective school-based intervention program. In R. Huesmann (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. Plenum series in social/clinical psychology. New York: Plenum Press. OMoore, M. & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269-283. Rigby, K. (2001). Health conseuqnecs of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, pp. 310-331. New York: Guilford Press. Rudolph, K., & Clark, A. (2001). Conceptions of relationships in children with depressive and aggressive symptoms: Social-cognitive distortion or reality? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 41-56. Salmivalli, C., & Isaacs, J. (In press). Prospective relations between victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and childrens self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L. & Lagerspetz, K. (1999). Self-Evaluated Self-Esteem, Peer-Evaluated Self-Esteem, and Defensive Egotism as Predictors of Adolescents' Participation in Bullying Situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268-1278. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjrkqvist, K., Kaukiainen, A., & sterman, K. (1996). Bullying as a Group Process: Participant Roles and Their Relations to Social Status within the Group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15. 34

Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanp, J., & Peets, K. (2005). "I'm O.K. but you're not" and other peer-relational schemas. Explaining individual differences in children's social goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363-375. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviors associated with bullying in schools. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246-258. Schwartz, D. Proctor, L., & Chien, D. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioural dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, pp. 147-174. New York: Guilford Press.

35

36

Session Two: National Policy Approaches to School Bullying and Violence

This session was chaired by Gunnar Mandt, Norwegian Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education.

37

MONA OMOORE: Guiding Framework for National Policy A Guiding Framework for Policy Approaches to School Bullying & Violence
Mona OMoore, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Since the first European Seminar on School Bullying which was held in Stavanger, Norway in August 1997 (OMoore, 1989), a wealth of statistics have emerged from many countries within and outside of Europe (Smith et al, 1999, Smith, 2003) and more recently from Northern Ireland [McGuckin, 2004]. These statistics confirm that school bullying and violence is an international problem. In view of the complex and multi-facet nature of bullying and violence it is evident that individual efforts from schools alone will not be sufficient to counteract these negative forces. Instead a commitment will be required of Government and stake holders at all levels of decision making, local, national and international. This view is also recognised by the World Health Organisation. Their report on Violence and Health (2002) states that upstream investment brings downstream results. Norway is a good example of this. In the early eighties, Norway invested in a national intervention campaign against school bullying (Olweus & Roland, 1983). The positive results that emanated from the intervention programme and the subsequent efforts of Roland & Munthe (1997) have been a source of considerable influence and inspiration for the development of prevention and intervention activities worldwide (Smith and Brain, 2000). To curb the school bullying and violence that is evident worldwide, a global response is necessary that is both unified and co-ordinated. To achieve this requires a national strategy on the part of all member states to prevent the ill-effects of school bullying and violence. In developing a guiding framework for policy approaches to school bullying and violence, I have been influenced by the recommendations of the World Health Organisation in their World report on Violence and Health (2002). The steps proposed to form the guiding framework for policy approaches to prevent school bullying and violence are as follows: 1) Draw up, implement and monitor a national plan of action to prevent school bullying and violence. To adopt the recommendations of the WHO a national action plan needs to be based on a consensus developed by a wide range of governmental and nongovernmental representation. This should include representation from agencies and organisations working to tackle school bullying and violence. 38

According to WHO a national plan should include the following elements: Review and reform of existing legislation and policy. Build data collection and capacity building Strengthen services for victims Develop and evaluate prevention responses Set a timetable Develop a mechanism for evaluation Establish an organisation to monitor and report on progress

The monitoring authority should feature co-ordinating mechanisms at local, national and international levels. This should enable collaboration between the sectors that have the potential to contribute to the prevention of school bullying and violence. e.g. education labour health social welfare criminal justice

Each countrys national plan will naturally have to take into account the human and financial resources available to them. However, it is critical that the human resources that are available are harnessed. To ignore, block or to not nurture/expertise that is available is to reflect that the problem of bullying subject has not yet gained a significant political standing in that country.

2) Enhance the capacity to collect data on school bullying and violence. Comprehensive and reliable data on school bullying and violence is critical to influencing policy making. It will, as has been pointed out by the WHO (2002) facilitate the process of setting priorities, guiding programme design and monitoring progress. Already all but six member states of the OECD have taken initiatives to deal with bullying and violence in schools. [Smith, 2003; Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano & Slee, 1999]. The country reports however, also illustrate the difficulties that exist in comparing and interpreting data on SBV across communities and nations, Contributing to the difficulty are the varying measurement techniques that have been employed. Another, complicating factor, not to be underestimated is the lack of a universal definition of bullying and violence in schools. A key question that first and foremost needs to be addressed and which was raised by Devine and Lawson (2003) is whether school bullying and violence is to be treated as two distinct phenomena or a conflation of the two terms.

39

While this may not be the most appropriate platform to discuss the issue of definitions it is difficult to see how progress can be made in relation to prevention and intervention of school bullying and violence until there is a consensus among researchers and stake holders. A clear precise and unambiguous definition of school bullying and violence is needed in order to facilitate on an international scale the collection of meaningful data and the design of preventative strategies. Common to and at the heart of all school bullying and violence is abusive behaviour. Abusive behaviour as we know, can be verbal, physical, psychological, sexual and racial. To conceptualise school bullying and violence in this way would in my opinion capture the range of behaviours that need to be challenged in prevention and intervention programmes. To use the construct of abuse would also help to: Overcome the theoretical and cultural diversities that currently exist Target more effectively the problem behaviour, i.e, the process as well as the product. Avoid unnecessary policies and programmes, e.g, racial and sexual. I would therefore like to propose a definition that is not dissimilar to that adopted by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Condition in relation to bullying and violence in the workplace. [Di Martino, Hoel & Cooper, 2003] Namely, school bullying and violence can be defined as incidents where an individual or a group are abused, threatened or assaulted. The abusive behaviour involves an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well being and health. (Wynne et al. 1997)

3) Define priorities for, and support research on, the causes, consequences, costs and prevention of school bullying and violence. Few will deny the importance of research for policy-making and planning of initiatives. The country reports on school bullying (Smith et al, 1999) and violence (Smith, 2003) together with the commentaries from Israel, American and Australia (Smith, 2003,) and the Nordic Council (2003) have pointed to many potential areas of research. If these were to be followed up within each country the results would undoubtedly advance our understanding of school bullying and violence to the extent that more effective prevention and intervention strategies could be developed.

Research Priorities
Benbenishty and Astor (2003), for example, point to the need for a greater understanding of contextual characteristics that impact on school bullying and violence with each country, e.g. the role of religion and religious schools, the socio-economic status of the school neighbourhood and of the students parents and the relative roles, professional authority and power position of staff, pupils and parents vis--vis each other.

40

The size of schools and its impact on school violence is also according to Devine and Lawson (2003) ripe for an international research programme. A greater understanding is also needed of the elements that are most desirable for inclusion in programmes of prevention and intervention. There is also a need to fill the disturbing gap in our knowledge of bullying and violence by teaches. It is absolutely essential, as has been pointed out by Beneishty and Astor (2003) to think about teacherteacher and teacher-pupil bullying in the context of the socialising effect that an educational experience has on young people. To further guide policy making and programme design there needs to be systematic and rigorous evaluations of initiatives to prevent and reduce school bullying and violence. Much valuable information has been lost due to the lack of evaluation of initiatives to curb school bullying and violence (Atria & Spiel, 2003, Schafer & Korn, 2003, Sevenson, 2003). The relationship between sports and violence is another area that merits urgent attention. (Gulbenkian Foundation Commission on Children & Violence, 1995).

Who undertakes the research?

To advance the much needed research that is to help guide policy making and planning to prevent and counter school bullying and violence a range of researchers need to be involved these should include Government departments Academic institutions Individual researchers Network of individual researchers at local, national and international levels

4) Develop a national strategy to assist schools to prevent and reduce school bullying and violence. Many examples exist of schools worldwide that have, either on their own, or with the help of researchers or other stake holders taken initiatives to tackle school bullying and violence. However, there is also evidence of an ostrich mentality among schools, where little or no action is taken to curb problems of SBV (OMoore, 1995, OMoore & Minton, 2004). To overcome the reluctance that schools may have to implement prevention and intervention programmes it would seem reasonable to introduce on a global scale a statutory requirement on the part of all schools to implement a school policy/intervention programme. A programme that is underpinned by a political commitment will carry more weight. As a result it should contribute to its effectiveness. However, that is not to underestimate the importance of the commitment of a school, its staff and its parents to determine the success of a programme (Roland & Munthe, 1997).

41

While it may seem of benefit to introduce a standard formalised intervention programme on an international scale, one must not lose sight of the benefits of a programme that is tailored to meet a schools unique characteristics. This was clearly illustrated by an intervention programme at Gran Skole, Norway (OMoore & Minton, 2002). It probably goes without saying that the design of a national school programme should be guided by the international evidence that is available on the effectiveness of individual programmes. The most promising method to prevent bullying and violence occurring in schools has so far been the whole school approach (Olweus, 1993, Roland & Munthe, 1997, Smith & Sharp, 1994, Ortega & Lora, 2000, OMoore & Minton, 2004). It has been shown from a meta evaluation of methods and approaches to reduce bullying that the earlier an intervention programme is introduced to children, the greater its effectiveness (Rigby, 2002). It is not unexpected therefore to learn that Norways recent Manifesto against Bullying has, as one of its guiding principles that of introducing preschool children to anti-bullying programmes. The elements to be incorporated into a whole school approach will require careful consideration in view of the uncertainty that prevails as to which are the most effective. The most preferable for inclusion would be those that that are evidence based. A good illustration of evidence based elements are those that are incorporated into the National Guidelines to counter Bullying in Schools in Ireland. Underpinning their school policy is the promotion of a co-operative school ethos where interactions between teachers, pupils and parents are characterised by respect, trust, caring, consideration and support. In addition it is expected that schools will take every opportunity to promote the confidence and self esteem of their pupils and staff. Furthermore, advantage should be taken of the curricula to foster respect, tolerance and celebration of diversity. Moreover, schools need to develop interventions that are primary, secondary and tertiary i.e. Primary reducing the risk of bullying and violence. Survey, prepare policies or code of discipline reduce risk factors, establish student council, peer support, mediation, counselling, school home liaison Secondary responding to incidents of bullying and violence Method of shared concern, No Blame approach, Restorative Practice, Denial of Privileges, Suspension, Expulsion Tertiary treatment and rehabilitation for those involved in incidents Monitoring incidents, Counselling, referral to specialists Child focused Teacher focused Family focused Community focused

To provide the necessary therapeutic services that schools would require would involve the assistance of multi-disciplinary teams, e.g. Heath, Education, Juvenile Justice, School Psychological Service, Social Welfare and Probation Services.

42

To ensure that a whole school approach is a continuous process it is also essential to incorporate a regular audit and evaluation. To assist schools to achieve these goals an expert advisory organization needs to be established. To design a program or guidelines for national use it is imperative that representatives from the various critical stakeholders are invited to contribute to its development. In Ireland, for example, the National Guidelines to counter school bullying that were introduced by the Department of Education and Science in 1993 did not get the blessing that they deserved. This was because there was no representation from the Teacher Unions on the Ministerial Working Group that drew up the Guidelines. The bitterness that resulted from this omission left the Guidelines without the support of a major critical focus group. The Design Team should therefore include representation from as many interested professional sectors as is possible. See figure below

The Design Team

National Curriculum Development Unit

Student Council Education Teacher Unions Parent Councils

Ombudsman Police Juvenile Justice Probation The Design Team

Voluntary Sector
Victim Support Groups Crime Prevention Community Safety

Corporate Researchers Health Mass Media

Social Welfare
Training Institutions & Services for Children

School Psychological Service

43

5) Promote a media campaign to promote non-violent values, attitudes and behaviour. To work towards a non-violent society requires efforts that that go far beyond the school gates. The values and attitudes that are promoted in schools need to be supported by the same values, attitudes and behaviour outside of school. Too often children are exposed in their homes and in the neighbourhood to violent ways of behaving and to resolving conflicts. Indeed there are children, as has been pointed out by Remboldt (1998) whose experience tells them that violence is the most expedient and respect worthy means to achieve their ends. There is a need therefore to challenge the social attitudes that condone violence. As Remboldt (1998) remarks, the first order of business is a revolutionary adjustment in adult beliefs, attitudes and behaviour toward violence. One way to achieve this would be to introduce a government led and funded media campaign. This view finds support in the recommendations of the Commission on Children and Violence convened by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1995. The media campaign should, as was recommended by the Commission on Children and Violence: Address fully the gender issue Challenge macho male images Highlight groups at risk of violence, i.e, infants, young people, people with a disability and minority ethnic groups.

To guide the media campaign there should be an Inter-Departmental Ministerial Working Group that reports to a Cabinet Committee on School Bullying and Violence. Evaluations of earlier high profile campaigns could guide the programme planning that would be required to promote the pro-social and non-violent attitudes. It should be further recommended that a national media campaign should be reinforced by efforts to build values that make for a non-violent society into services that work with and for children. 6) Integrate School Bullying and Violence Prevention into Teacher Education at both Pre-Service and In-Service Levels. One of the conclusions to be drawn from a review of the individual country reports on school bullying and violence (Smith, 2003) is the lack of systematic training for teachers on a national scale during their initial teacher education. Teachers, as we are all aware, are in the forefront of intervention of school bullying and violence. Indeed, research has indicated that the commitment of teachers is critical to the effectiveness of intervention programmes (Roland, 2000). From my own experience of working with teachers at initial and in-service education levels, the lack of commitment tends to be associated with inaccurate perceptions of school bullying and their inability to deal effectively with incidents as they arise. 44

Initial Teacher Education

To ensure a greater level of competence of teachers to apply prevention and intervention strategies a module on school bullying and violence should be introduced as part of their initial teacher education. Initial teacher training on the subject of School Bullying and Violence would also provide an invaluable means to sensitise teachers to the critical role that their own behaviour and that of their colleagues have in shaping pupil behaviour. For as long as teachers and head teachers engage in behaviour that can be defined as bullying or violence with their colleagues or pupils they are unlikely to be able to deliver anti-bullying programmes effectively and convincingly. (Minton & OMoore, 2004). Key elements to be incorporated in to a teacher training module on school bullying and violence have been presented by OMoore (2000), Nicolaides et al (2002).& OMoore and Minton(2004b).

In Service Education
In-Service training is now recognised as a critical component in the professional development of teachers. Evidence of the value of in-service training in reducing school bullying and violence can be gained from an Irish intervention study (OMoore & Minton, 2004a). This study also demonstrated the value of creating a teacher group that can be a resource for intervention programmes in their region as well as providing local support. To strengthen the motivation of qualified teachers to participate in in-service programmes, it is to be recommended that a national strategy should make provision for accrediting teachers for their participation. A post-graduate Diploma in Aggression Studies with the potential to advance to Masters and Doctorate level has for example been developed in Trinity College, Dublin to serve this purpose. 7) To Establish An Advisory Body for Partners in Education. During the course of my involvement in research into school bullying it became apparent that schools were in need of evidence based advice and guidance on how to develop and implement school policies and programmes to counter problems of school bullying. Indeed it was the frequent request from school personnel and members serving on parentteacher associations and boards of management for guidance on how to deal with problematic incidents relating to both school and workplace bullying that prompted the establishment of the Anti-Bullying Research & Resource Centre in Trinity College Dublin [www.abc.tcd.ie]. Since its establishment it provides a comprehensive service, these services include: Advice and guidance [website, helpline, drop in centre] Professional Counselling Mediation 45

Resource Materials for parents, schools and organisations In-service and staff development for schools and organisations Day conferences and workshops for pupils, parents, teachers and adults in the workplace Investigations Expert Witness Legal Advice Reference library Conducts research

From the demand to date on the Centre for its services to schools and other statutory and voluntary sectors it is clear that each country should establish a Centre(s) of expertise as part of a global strategy to combat school bullying and violence. It is recommended that such centres be given governmental funding and an official status as is the case in certain countries, e.g. Scotland and Norway. This sends out a strong message that bullying and violence is recognised as a serious issue. National Centres of expertise would also be in a position to deliver on the recommendation of the WHO (2002). They recognise that better working relations are needed between international agencies, governments, research networks and non-governmental agencies, governments, research networks and non-governmental organisations engaged in violence prevention. This is in order to share knowledge more efficiently, agree on prevention goals and coordinate action. A further role for a National Advisory Centre of Expertise would be to form an alliance with other advocacy groups that work to prevent school bullying and violence. An alliance of this nature has been established in the UK (www.ncb.org.uk/aba, 2004). An alliance would avoid un-necessary duplication, providing instead opportunities for the development, monitoring and evaluation of new preventative and intervention strategies. 8) To Contribute to an International Research Network The establishment of an international network of researchers would enable important issues to be identified and examined in a rigorous and effective manner. The good scientific evidence that would emanate from such a collaborative effort would facilitate the further development of effective global preventative approaches that can be applied in a variety of contexts. The first step in establishing an international research network is for each member state of the OECD to develop a strong research focus on the subject of school bullying and violence. Many countries have already achieved a reputable track record of research notably, Norway, Scotland, England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France and Spain. There are many potential areas of research in which an international network of research centres could play a critical role in the global prevention of school bullying and violence. Projects of major importance would be:

46

National baseline investigations where the same definition and tools of measurement are used. To analyse results according to defined standards To conduct indepth case studies of national policies To monitor and evaluate prevention and intervention approaches To assist OECD and National Authorities in raising awareness and national research.

An international research network will require leadership if it is to operate effectively. While any of the current Centres may have the capacity and indeed the willingness to provide the co-ordinating function it would seem not only prudent but expedient if the coordinating centre were to be located in a country that has demonstrated political commitment at the highest level to tackle school bullying and violence. The aims and objectives of the Network would then most certainly be given the necessary support that is critical for optimal progress to be made. 9) Promote Legislation to Deal Effectively with School Bullying and Violence. Article 19 of the U.N convention on the Rights of Children makes it clear that children have a fundamental right to feel safe in school and to be spared as Olweus (1999) has pointed out, the oppression and repeated intentional humiliation implied in bullying. Ananiadou and Smith (2002), have pointed out that only a few European countries have specific legal requirements against bullying, although more have requirements on the more general problem of violence at school. It would seem reasonable therefore to introduce on a global scale a legal reform that is designed to take heed of the recommendations of the Commission on Children and Violence [Gulbenkian Foundation, 1995]. They recommend essentially that i) legal tolerance should be removed from any level of violence to children and ii) responses to violent behaviour should contribute to the solution rather than the problem. Appropriate legislation should help to create as pointed out by Ananiadou and Smith (2002), a climate of opinion that reinforces the message that bullying is not acceptable behaviour in schools. Furthermore, it will require all schools to follow certain procedures, e.g., developing and keeping active a school policy. It is to be expected that an introduction of legal guidelines may cause considerable resistance and nervousness among school personnel and their employers in view of the shift towards a compensation culture (Binchy, 2004). However, such anxieties can be overcome by clear guidelines to schools as to new litigation can be avoided by engaging in good practice.

47

From my own understanding of school bullying and violence, I believe the appointment globally of an Ombudsman for Children and Ombudsman for Labour Relations (to deal with teacher victimisation) would hold considerable promise. Cases that cannot be resolved at school level can be referred to the Ombudsmans Office. On their own or with the help of an official advisory body of excellence, as referred to earlier, investigations can be carried out and hurt parties can be referred for remedial help. The establishment of such a facility on a global scale would undoubtedly alleviate the stress of unresolved conflicts, not to mention the prevention of unnecessary litigations. Most importantly the office would also have the statutory powers to improve the welfare of children so as to meet the requirements set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Children.

Conclusion
Two decades of major research or more has unquestionably indicated that school bullying and violence is a problem for society worldwide. It is clear, therefore that interventions are needed at local, national and international levels. To have the required impact on a global scale, each member state should develop a national strategy to prevent and counter school bullying and violence. A guiding framework for such a strategy has been outlined in this paper. However, the extent to which preventative strategies can be implemented will undoubtedly depend on the resources available to the individual member states. Additional challenges will most probably be experienced by countries that have a climate of poverty and political violence. However, a strong global response that is comprehensive, unified and concerted in its efforts to promote a non-violent society should contribute to making schools worldwide safer and healthier places. In our future efforts to make a difference we would do well to remember the lines, as I remember them, said by Yves Beernaert [International Conference on School Violence Prevention, Lisbon, 2001]. When planning for a year plant corn When planning for a decade plant trees When planning for life, train and educate people.

References Ananiadou, K & Smith, P.K. (2002) Legal requirements and nationally circulated materials against school bullying in European countries. Criminal Justice, 2, 471 491. Atria, M. & Spiel, C. (2003) The Austrian situation: many initiatives against violence, few evaluations. In Smith, P.K. (Ed). Violence in Schools, the response in Europe, London. Routledge-Falmer.

48

Benebinshty, R. & Astor, R.A. (2003) Violence In Schools: The view from Israel, in Smith, P.K (2003) Violence in Schools, the response in Europe, London. RoutledgeFalmer. Binchy, W. (2004) The Primary Schools Duty of Care to its pupils: Recent developments in the Law. Litigation Against Primary Schools A 2004 Update on strategies for mangers and principals to reduce exposure to liability Sat 28th, February 2004, T.C.D School of Law Lectures. Department of Education and Science (1993) Guidelines on Countering Bullying Behaviour in Primary and Post Primary Schools. Dublin. The Stationery Office. Devine, J. & Lawson, H.A. (2003) The complexity of school violence: commentary from the U.S. in Smith, P.K (Ed) Violence in Schools, the response in Europe, London. Routledge-Falmer. Di Martino, V.; Hoel, H. & Cooper, C.L. (2003) Preventing violence and harassment in the workplace. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Gulbenkian Foundation Commission (1995) Children & Violence. Report of the Commission on Children and Violence convened by the Gulbenkian Foundation, London Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. McGuckin, C. (2004) School Bullying in Northern Ireland: Prevalence Measurement and Association with Individual Difference Variables, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Ulster. Minton, S.J. & OMoore, M. (2004) Teachers A Critical focus group in both schools based and workplace anti-bullying research: Perspectives from Ireland. Paper presented to the 4th International Conference on Bullying Harassment in the Workplace. Bergen, Norway, June 28 29th. Proceedings. Nicolaides, S., Toda, Y., & Smith, P.K (2002) Knowledge and Attitudes about school bullying in trainee teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 105 118. Nordic Council: Research Conference, Stockholm, 2003. Olweus, D and Rolande, E. (1983) Mobbing, bakgrunn og tiltak. Oslo: Kirke og Undervisningsdepartementet. Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at School. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1997) Bully/victim problems in school, knowledge base and an effective intervention programme. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 170-190. Olweus, D. (1999) Sweden in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y, Junger-Tas,J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. & Slee, P. The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross National Perspective., London & New York, Routledge. 49

OMoore, M (1989) Bullying in Britain & Ireland: An overview in Roland, E., Munthe,E. (Eds) Bullying: An International Perspective, London, David Fulton. OMoore, M (1995) Bullying Behaviour in Children & Adolescents in Ireland. Children & Society, 9, 2, 54 72. OMoore, M. (2000) Critical Issues for teacher training to counter bullying and victimisation in Ireland. Aggressive Behaviour, 26, 99 111. OMoore, A.M & Minton, S.J. (2002) Tackling Violence in Schools in Norway: An Evaluation of the Broad Approach. Available on the World Web: http://www.gold.ac.uk/connect. OMoore, M. & Minton, S.J. (2004a) Ireland: The Donegal Primary Schools AntiBullying Project, In Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. & Rigby, K. (Eds) Bullying in Schools: How successful can Interventions be? Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. OMoore,M & Minton,S.J (2004b) Dealing with Bullying in Schools. A Training Manual for Teachers,Parents and Other Professionals, London ,Paul Chapman Ortega,R. & Lora, M.J. (2000) The Seville Anti-Bullying in School project. Aggressive Behaviour, 26, 113-23. Remboldt, C. (1998) Making Violence Unacceptable, Educational Leadership, 56, 32 38. Rigby,K. (2002) A Meta-Evaluation of Methods and Approaches to Reducing Bullying in Pre-Schools and Early Primary School in Australia. Commonwealth Attorney Generals Department. Roland, E. & Munthe, E. (1997). The 1996 Norwegian programme for preventing and managing bullying in schools. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 233 47. Roland, E. (2000) Bullying in School: Three National Innovations in Norwegian Schools in 15 years. Aggressive Behaviour, 26, 135 43. Schaver, M. & Korn,S (2003) Germany: numerous programmes no scientific proof In Smith, P.K. (Ed). Violence in Schools, the response in Europe, London. RoutledgeFalmer. Smith, P.K. & Ananiadou, K. (2002) The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of school based interventions to reduce school bullying. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytical Studies, 5, 189 209. Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (eds) 1994. School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. Smith, P.K., Morita, Y, Junger-Tas,J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. & Slee, P. (eds) (1999) The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross National Perspective., London & New York, Routledge. 50

Smith, P.K., & Brain, P. (2000) Bullying in Schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive Behavoiur, 26, 1 9. Smith, P.K., (2003) Violence in Schools: The response in Europe. London, Routledge Falmer. Svenson, R. (2003) Tackling Violence in Schools: A report from Sweden In Smith, P.K. (Ed). Violence in Schools, the response in Europe, London. Routledge-Falmer. World Health Organisation (2002) World report on violence and health, Geneva, World Health Organisation. Wynee, R.N., Clarkin, N., Cox,T & Griffiths, A., (1997) Guidance on the prevention of violence at work, European Commission, DG-V. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1997.

51

AUSTRALIA : National Approaches to School Bullying and Violence

William Thorn, Australian Department of Education, Science and Training1.

The Australian Government is committed to helping enhance the safety of its schools and is exercising leadership in establishing and implementing a new national approach to achieving safer, more supportive school environments. This session provides an overview of Australias approach to bullying and violence in schools. The focus will be on the National Safe Schools Framework, an Australian Government led initiative which has been endorsed by all government and nongovernment education authorities. The Framework provides a national approach to dealing with peer victimisation and child protection issues in schools, guided by the vision that all Australian schools are safe and supportive environments. The session also looks at the background research on bullying in schools. While bullying at school has long been recognised as existing in Australian literature, the empirical study of the problem did not really begin until 1989. There is now clear evidence of the nature, extent and effects of bullying in Australian schools. Results from a large scale national survey of more than 38,000 schoolchildren between 7 and 17 years established that approximately one child in six was bullied by peers each week in Australian schools.

This is an abstract of the presentation given at the conference.

52

Germany: Findings, Background and Approaches in the Federal Republic of Germany

Heinz-Werner Poelchau Head of Division, Ministry for Schools, Children and Youth of the Land NorthrineWestfalia, Dsseldorf, Germany.

Juvenile deviance seems to be an anthropological topic: The unruliness of young persons is deplored on Babylonian potsherds more than 2000 years b.C., in the works of antique authors, repeated by Shakespeare and actually published by the mass media. But: Each young generation has to be different from their parents and grandparents. It has to question old values, it has to adapt its behaviour to new situations and challenges. And it is part of the development of personality to "test the limits". On the other hand: One has to deal with actual statistics on growing violence of young persons, being always younger and where the girls' portion is increasing. Since the beginning of the nineties there has been a broader discussion in Germany about growing violence of young people in educational contexts. 1. General findings on juvenile deviance As one can see in figure 1 the number of - before all - boys that were suspected having committed a crime grew remarkably at the beginning of that decade, and in all categories of age: The number of suspected persons at the end of the decade was about twice as high as at the beginning.
s u s p e c t e d p e r 1 0 0 .0 0 0 p e e r s
9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 >14 1993 1994 1 4 -1 8 1995 1996 1 8 -2 1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

It is interesting to note that in the last three years the steady incline has come to a halt and the numbers seem to level off at least for the children and the teens. And: Most of the 'punishable acts' are petty thefts in department stores (e.g. lipsticks) or dodging the fare.

53

The next figure shows that the number of condemned young people has fluctuated quite a bit over the last 50 years. So one can hope to be in a more declining situation.
Condemned per 100.000 peers in NRW
4000

3500

3000

2500

18 - 21

2000

14 - 18
1500

1000

500

>21

0 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 Year 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

As we do not have actual objective figures about accidents in schools caused by violence or bullying, one has to look at the figures reported by the insurance companies: rising figures are also to be found during the last decade. But there is a more differentiated picture: While the youngest and oldest pupils remained nearly on the same level, the numbers rose for the 12/13 16 years old boys (and girls). And, as there are different schools for pupils of this age in Germany, one can see different developments in the different school-types. In those schools having more pupils with difficult living situations and less perspectives for the future, the number of accidents rose remarkably between 1986 and 1997.

54

accidents caused by bullying (insurance report)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Special schools 1993 1994 Junior high 1995 Senior high 1996 1997

Primary schools

Secondary schools

One has to draw more attention to the next figure: the development of the number of fractures caused by bullying. Fractures occur rather seldom but there is a strong increase.
fra c tu re s c a u s e d b y b u lly in g p e r 1 0 0 0 p e e rs (in s u ra n c e re p o rt)
6

0 1986 1987 1988 P rim a ry s c h o o ls 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 J u n io r h ig h 1995 1996 S e n io r h ig h 1997

S e c o n d a ry s c h o o ls

S p e c ia l s c h o o ls

On the other hand one has to state that young pupils, asked for their major personal values in a recent study, answered to a very high degree (nearly 90%) that fairness is very important for them (with about 93 % getting and doing a good job and 80% thriftiness).

55

To summarize up to this point: During the last decade deviant behaviour increased considerably in the German society. And because schools are part of the society and do not stand apart from societal trends the number of violent acts of young persons and in schools rose too. Also, due to media reports and stories, pupils feel more often insecure or threatened by their peers - especially those having a foreign background. At the same time one can state a declining tolerance for violent acts - especially of juvenile violence - in society. There is an increasing number of reports made to the police and to the insurance companies. This declining tolerance for violence nowadays includes not only physical assaults but also verbal aggressiveness, verbal racism, verbal degradation, bashing in the classroom or in the schoolyard, etc. During the last three years the number of juvenile aggressions declined - probably as a result of several prevention activities inside and outside schools and increased awareness of the problem in society.

2. Reasons for deviant behaviour Asked for the reasons of juvenile deviant behaviour one regularly finds the same answersi: Violent or difficult situations in families are frequently reported as one of the most important factors and quarrelling and bullying parents have a great influence on the child's and teen's behaviour. Neglect not only physically but also emotionally is an additional factor. Between 1991 and 2000 the number of needs for in-house assistances in education ("ambulante Hilfen zur Erziehung") has increased by more than 50%. These figures indicate that inadequate parental behaviour and uncertainty in educational values are of great relevance. These factors are very often reported by teachers dealing with problems of children and teens in schools. Especially in families with migration background there are irritations about the male and female role in our society so that inadequate behaviour occurs. Not to neglect are the rising figures of children (and family) poverty. In those contexts violent behaviour is found more often as well as in families where strains of being unemployed exist. Changes in society that have an impact on deviant behaviour are e.g. overemphasising economic aims so that solidarity and empathy are endangered less chances for young people in the future (unemployment) uncertain norms and values (multi-option-societies) media influence. The school itself can give reasons for inadequate behaviour: fear of underachievement boredom for those with very high intelligence bad or mistrustful school or classroom climate mobbing of classmates debasing behaviour of teachers. 56

But one has to bear in mind that juvenile deviant behaviour is in most cases a transitional phenomenon. It is in most cases part of the process of personal development and disappears without any intervention. Thus, all reactions of teachers or parents should include offers of understanding and help.

3. Conclusions for actions in Germany Bearing these facts in mind the German approach to deal with the problem was twofold from the very beginning: to improve the situation in the schools as well as to better the environment and occupational perspectives of pupils. For more than 10 years various anti-bullying activities have been implemented in German schools. One of the most important goals in the beginning was to encourage headmasters to talk freely about the problems in their schools. They often feared to put their schools in a bad light or to diminish the reputation of their school. They even doubted their own educational capabilities.
-

Schools and their neighbourhoods

The aim was to realize a systemic approach because of the advantage of combined measures and activities. So the local authorities (not only school authorities!) were encouraged to form local networks and to establish district conferences against violence in schools. These networks should bring together everyone responsible for children and teenagers and develop combined actions against violence. It sometimes turned out that the different parties had unequal expectations for the juvenile behaviour and demanded therefore different exertions of influence on the youth. Thus, these networks had firstly to develop confidence in the aptitude to cooperate with each other. Partners in these networks were schools, local school authorities, the police, the youth welfare system and the school counsellors. Other partners joined these partnerships: e.g. the churches, social authorities, sport clubs, parental organizations, sometimes the chamber of commerce or public transport organizations. In these local partnerships several measures could be realized to diminish the acts of violence, e.g. by coordinating the times of beginning of activities in the afternoon, by giving assistance in guarding playgrounds, by reporting new insights to each other, by advertising sports activities to special target groups. In some cities young persons are working as 'bus sheriffs' in public busses or there are people who paint over graffities or tags on walls. Even members of the urban management and city planning joined these partnerships to reduce places of fear (pedestrian tunnels, narrow and dark walkways, etc). Networking with partners out of schools can also enhance the chances of young persons to get a job and to prevent them from unemployment. Several activities especially for disadvantaged pupils have been developed. E.g.: In cooperation with the chambers of commerce a program was launched where young persons who are bored with school are two or three days per week on a specific job and for the rest of the week they learn at schools. (Occupation and school). So on the one hand teenagers can build up new selfesteem and learn responsibility and reliableness and on the other hand the potential employer can get to know the abilities of the young person. 57

Value education inside and outside schools had been fostered during the last decade. Living peacefully together is a popular topic in mosques or churches and in 'houses of open doors' for young people.
-

Activities in schools

As for the schools, the central approach is to strengthen the self esteem of young persons so that they do not need to tackle or bully. The aim is to improve the general education and to install a stable value concept in the children and young persons. The intent is to convince pupils to refrain from aggressiveness because they do not need to behave in that way. Since most of the bullies are victims at the same time it is important to establish more ability for empathy in the pupils. On the other hand the school has to make clear that rules are inevitable to ensure fruitful learning and to live peacefully together. Classroom behaviour rules are established by the pupils themselves at the end of a serious discussion about feelings of fear or disturbance, of politeness, of friendliness or of security. After about a decade of experience one can say that every single measure can be used fruitfully. The selection of the "really adequate" measure depends on the specific needs and the situation of the school. It is important to stress the pupil's and teacher's responsibility for good learning outcomes. But more than anything it is the change in the school climate that has really had an effect on pupil's behaviour. Therefore the schools are obliged to develop a school program pointing out their educational goals, their extracurricular programs, their guidelines for learning, their aims of achievement etc. The central task is to point out the general educational aims and their underlying values. The concrete measures implemented in schools are for example: self-assertion trainings for girls and boys (one has to bear in mind gender differences) mediation analysing speech acts for hidden or unconscious debasing meanings Olweus-program, program "Strong parents Strong children" which clarifies the important role of parental behaviour and encourages them to say "no" when it is necessary, Lions Quest-program and special programs in primary schools.

The cooperation between schools and parents is of outstanding relevance. Therefore schools and parents were encouraged to enlarge their cooperation in different ways. Despite the mentioned 'multi-option-society' it is important that school and parents agree in the same educational aims and mutual understanding can be developed. For about two years, educational contracts are propagated to show and foster the common responsibility of pupils, parents and teachers for the learning and educational outcomes. Trilateral educational contracts can show to parents what teachers want them to contribute to pupils behaviour and learning and how to collaborate with teachers, parents can point out to teachers what their expectations about schooling and attitudes are and the pupils can set out in which way they are willing to behave and what to achieve. These 'three-party-commitments' are not predetermined by the school or authorities but stand at the end of open discussions on mutual expectations of teachers, parents and pupils. They can establish a new form of clarity and real partnership (Alliances for education). 58

4. Activities of the educational authorities The educational authorities in Germany established and supported these projects in different ways: They founded department spanning working groups so that the initiatives could and can be coordinated. They fostered the cooperation of school, police and the youth welfare system so that young people (bullies and victims alike) can get help from different agencies and persons. In some states (Lnder) so called Prevention-councils (Prventionsrte) were established. Their task is to give independent and scientific advice to the authorities. Criminological, psychological and sociological findings are used more and more and can give a deeper insight into the development and can give ideas for better activities. The educational boards offered teacher training in different ways, used the internet to broaden the knowledge about the problem, organized conferences and disseminated best practice. Schools can use more and more social workers either installed as regular staff or as cooperating partners from the youth welfare system. In some regions crisisintervention-teams were established after the Erfurt incident of May 2002. Developing media competence of pupils is an important task. But it is also important to develop media competence of teachers and to develop media competence of parents. And it is not enough to restrain the use of computers for boys or to shorten the time of watching television. It is a task for teachers and parents to know what children play and what they see - and to develop a differentiated critical meaning of using the media!

5. Conclusion Taking fear out of school is a predominant task for all partners of school life and it should be sustained by different societal, political and scientific forces. As there is a bundle of reasons for inadequate juvenile behaviour there should be different and probably combined approaches to work against bullying. First of all teachers, pupils and parents should follow congruent education values. At the same time it is of great importance that the adults take over their responsibility for living peacefully together. Always quarrelling, screaming, debasing or fighting grownups or media heroes are bad role models for young developing persons. Schools should be encouraged to continue their efforts and to cooperate with different partners from outside. Thus teachers or headmasters are not overstrained and do not have to feel helpless. Further information can be found: http://www.polizei.propk.de/vorbeugung/jugend/index.xhtml http://www.learn-line.nrw.de/angebote/rechtsextremismus/medio/index.html http://www.tolerantschools.org/ http://www.step21.de/home2002/index.php http://www.gewalt-in-der-schule.info/

59

SLOVENIA: Guidelines for analysing, preventing and dealing with violence in a school environment the Slovenian approach

Mojca Pusnik, National Education Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Slovenia.

Introduction
In the summer of 2003 the Minister of Education, Science and Sport appointed the Commission for Analysing the Problem of Violence in Slovenian Schools. Its tasks include: laying the professional groundwork for dealing with violence in schools; formulating professional premises for incorporating issues related to violence prevention into curricula; preparing proposals for research and scientific work dealing with violence; and drawing up proposals for the continuous professional training of teachers and preparing technical materials The Commission worked intensively for a year, examining the literature, searching for and collecting examples of good practices abroad and in Slovenia, establishing the principles of combating violence in schools and adopting an action strategy. Consequently, a document titled Guidelines for Analysing, Preventing and Dealing with/Controlling Violence in a School Environment came into existence in May 2004. The document has five chapters: Introduction, International Comparisons, Examples of Good Practice, Principles of Combating Violence in a School Environment and Proposed Measures a Development Strategy. The Commission's position is that this work in terms of both enhancing the guidelines and seeking specific solutions really has to be developed further: new information and the results and evaluations of projects and studies would certainly call for more thinking about the proposed measures. Namely, the proposed measures are intended as relatively general guiding principles or possible solutions, which should the Minister and the Ministry decide on carrying out individual tasks would have to be elaborated at greater length, while working out operative steps, which should some sooner, some later produce results or possible solutions.

60

An overview of individual chapters

The Introduction to the document presents very briefly: - the definitions of violence in general, - the definitions of bullying, - the forms of bullying, and - information about the extent of bullying from Slovenian and foreign studies. The chapter International Comparisons sums up the findings of various studies and projects conducted abroad. Through these findings we wanted to show how problems related to bullying are being tackled elsewhere, what difficulties are being encountered and what results are being arrived at. Reference is made to the following: - the key findings of the six projects from the European Union's Fifth Framework programme from 1998 until 2002, published in Peter Smith's book, Violence in Schools (2003); - the policies of the former French Minister of Youth, Education and Science, Luc Ferry; and - an international study: Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children HBSC. If we examine these studies, we can see that they employ different definitions of bullying as well as different frequency criteria, which is bound to result in varying data on the extent of this phenomenon. Approaches also differ in the use of instruments and sources of data. Nearly all of the approaches are saddled with a lack of structure in monitoring events and evaluating measures. Most of them place emphasis on the importance of prevention and improving school climate. These findings have helped us compare the activities we are carrying out in Slovenia to activities in other countries. In this way we can compare our starting points, difficulties and measures and receive suggestions for our further work. The chapter Examples of Good Practices presents projects and activities which have become established and which have been going on for a number of years, involving a large number of schools. the Prevention Programme for Reducing Violence in Primary Schools run and coordinated by the National Education Institute of the RS (it will be described in greater detail at the end of this paper) Project objectives: (targeting pupils, parents and teachers) - raising the awareness of the phenomenon of violence; - recognising different forms; - learning to respond; - improving interpersonal relations; - encouraging participation; - introducing/expanding active approaches. Healthy Schools a project run and coordinated by the Institute of Public Health The project places significant emphasis on training teachers in promoting the mental health of children and adolescents, particularly through elements such as boosting self-esteem, taking the needs and opinions of young people into consideration, effective listening and responding, successful communication and

61

assertiveness, getting to know each other, coping with change at school, coping with stress at school, participatory approaches, conflict resolution and the prevention of bullying. "Hooray, It's Free Time" a project run and coordinated by the Sports Institute Programme objectives: - increasing the number of active participants in special interest sports programmes for children and youth in their free time (especially during weekends and holidays); - increasing the number of open public sports areas when pupils are not in class; - increasing the participation of institutions active in the programmes for children and youth (schools, societies, associations, various local groups) and providing adequate funding; - upgrading outdoor and indoor sports facilities and areas. The Telephone for Children and Adolescents (TCA) a project run and coordinated by the Association of Friends of Youth of Slovenia Main programme objective: offering information, encouragement, counselling and assistance to children and adolescents in distress in the form of a telephone crisis line. Children's Parliament at school level, the project is being carried out by elementary schools, and from the municipal to the national levels it is being run and coordinated by the Association of Friends of Youth of Slovenia Children's Parliament is an example of good practice, with the Government and an NGO working together to promote and ensure conditions for the participation of boys and girls in making decisions on matters relevant to their school, the local community and society at large. The "Man Project" society This is an independent prevention programme aimed at stopping and reducing drug abuse and drug-related violence in Slovenian schools The Society for Non-violent Communication in cooperation with the Office for Youth of the Republic of Slovenia Goals pledged: training and sensitizing female and male volunteers for work involving violence-related issues, training school staff, and educating children's parents.

The most important parts of the document are Chapters 4 and 5 Principles of Combating Violence in a School Environment and Proposed Measures as a Development Strategy. The latter classifies in greater detail the approaches to and methods for putting the principles into practice. The starting point in formulating the principles was that the existence of violence should be taken seriously and addressed in a planned and professional manner, regardless of differences as to how much violence there is in schools (while taking into consideration

62

the different methods for establishing this), whether there is more violence, less violence or as much violence today as ten or more years ago. All the principles can be briefly summed up as follows: be active (as a pupil, teacher, head teacher or parent) in shaping positive interpersonal relations in the community or in school. In this way you will help to make everyone feel better, to reduce violence and to make your school safer. Let us examine each principle separately and explain it by way of proposals for its implementation. Supplementing curricular documents with content and competences important for life in the community and care for their implementation In syllabi, in the concepts of class sections and in the concepts of school counselling services ... must be commensurate with the goals and activities with cognitive content such as self-understanding, understanding others, respecting and understanding differences, knowledge and social competences (e.g. expressing one's feelings, recognising and understanding differences, negotiating and decision-making skills). Different forms and methods of instruction have to be developed, offering pupils/students more options for taking part in their school's activities. Ways should be sought to provide different forms of individual and/or group assistance to pupils/students whose behaviour frequently disrupts class. The implementation of curricular documents (syllabi and other documents) from the perspective of achieving goals and carrying out activities should be monitored regularly. Creating and preserving a positive school climate facilitating open and highquality communication This has to do with creating an atmosphere conducive to non-violent conflict resolution, an environment dominated by respect for and the acceptance of differences, a positive attitude towards teachers and pupils or students, the feeling of belonging to the school and a strengthening of interpersonal relations. Teachers' counselling role should be made stronger (and teachers trained for this role), as this facilitates more frequent communication with pupils. Peer help at school should be bolstered, and pupils/students given a chance to recognise their strong points and possibilities of cooperating with each other. In particular, efforts should be made to develop solidarity, as when, for instance, the school, as part of its voluntary activities, encourages and aids the provision of assistance to fellow pupils, senior citizens and other people in distress (e.g. refugees and foreigners). Establishing and ensuring the high quality of instruction and other activities carried out by schools Schools continuously monitor the quality of their work in a process of self-evaluation. In establishing and ensuring high quality the emphasis should be on atmosphere, interpersonal relations and possible violence as perceived by pupils/students, teachers 63

and parents, but also on links with other areas of self-evaluation, such as the planning and implementation of instruction, learning achievements and conditions in schools, including school safety. Schools' consistent responding and proactive functioning at all levels Schools must have prevention programmes as well as measures for dealing with violence when it occurs. School administrators and teachers must assume responsibility and care for the safety of school space even at times when there is no instruction (e.g. through the presence of teachers in the hallways and other areas outside of the classrooms, through supervision and by responding to violence). The active role of pupils/students in formulating various school documents, particularly the school rules This concerns the active participation of pupils, teachers and other school staff. Living in a community always requires clarity, transparency and rules; hence the importance of familiarity with legal documents which take into account the dimension of rights and duties in connection with educational and disciplinary measures, the dimension of pupils' safety, the provision of adequate work conditions in schools and participation in the creation of laws and by-laws. It is imperative to get pupils involved in school bodies and children's parliament and for pupils or students to participate in shaping the life of their school. The possibility of designating a pupils' representative to the school should also be considered. The care and responsibility of school headmasters for ensuring the safety of school space and responding to acts of violence Professional staff members, particularly school administrators, are responsible for laying down clear-cut rules pertaining to school space, ensuring a safe school environment and responding to acts of violence as well as for their own professional training with respect to violence, school atmosphere and interpersonal relations. Increasing the impact of parents on shaping school life and work Getting parents involved is important for three different reasons: information exchange, supplementary training and learning about their perceptions of problems and proposals for solutions. Cooperation with parents must be based on a partnership relationship. Parents should be furnished with as many informational materials as possible, regularly updated on school situation evaluations and offered the possibility of using a Web page to convey their positions on events observed and solutions proposed. Schools may get parents involved in formulating and carrying out prevention programmes and developing pupils' or students' social competences, especially in extracurricular activities. 64

Regular professional training of school staff/care for professional development As part of continuous professional training, a high quality of training programmes offered to teachers and other professionals in schools ought to be ensured (this refers to their training in handling cases of violence and doing preventive work); different prevention programmes should be developed in specific schools (by schools themselves or with help from outside experts) for the purpose of boosting assertiveness and communication, facilitating mediation and raising the awareness among teachers in general of the importance of their own professional development.

Cooperating with local bodies (e.g. social work centres, the police, judicial bodies) and NGOs Cooperation between institutions and non-governmental organisations (e.g. the local commune, counselling and health care institutions, the police and other ministries, especially the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Interior) should be developed in the future as an operative principle.

Cooperating with the media and preparing diverse materials for teachers, pupils/students and parents Care should be taken to ensure the regular production of informational and professional documentation such as manuals, computer materials and video materials for handling violence for different target groups such as pupils/students, teachers and parents. The Ministry could, together with the media (television would be the most effective medium), conduct an information campaign in which public figures such as athletes, artists, writers and scientists would promote tolerance.

Adequate planning of school buildings, equipment and school indoor and outdoor space Space size (too many individuals in too small a space is a factor conducive to conflict) is as important as space quality or structure. Ways should be found to use school space, e.g. libraries, gyms, school playgrounds and computer classrooms more flexibly both when pupils are in class and when they have no instruction.

The Commission has added three quite important proposals to its existing development strategy proposals: 1. Establishing a special national-level council, which would include experts, teachers, head teachers, parents and pupils/students and the main purpose of which would be to implement and maintain, through local councils (with the same make-up) concepts and models of violence prevention and management tailored to concrete environments (schools). We would have to expand work at the level of local councils gradually. For a start, we suggest that local councils be established and begin their work in several municipalities. 65

2. As part of development activities, procedures should be elaborated for evaluating development and research projects and training programmes dealing with violence in schools. 3. In the coming years, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport would have to commission and financially support research and development activities in the area of violence in the broadest sense of the word: formulating methodology for the systematic monitoring of violence in Slovenian schools; analysing violence, developing and evaluating measures for combating violence in schools, and developing prevention programmes and introducing them into schools. AN EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE A PREVENTION PROGRAMME FOR REDUCING VIOLENCE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, a project conducted by the National Education Institute of the Republic of Slovenia The main principle of a whole school approach was observed in formulating the strategy. The model which favours a systematic approach requires that every single school staff member from school administrators to teachers to school counsellors to other employees take part in creating a comfortable working and learning environment and in preventing disagreeable events or disturbances. If schools bear this in mind and act towards this goals, they stand to experience positive change and better results. In other words, all participants in the education process pupils, teachers, school administrators and parents are involved in formulating and implementing the programme. The programme specifies activities for each group different in both content and form. The prevention programme has been formulated and implemented according to the following principles: a) The first operative principle is that content- and form-related work should be incorporated into schools' regular activity (instruction, homeroom classes, field trips, camps, project days, school parliaments) and thus become its integral part rather than something with an extraneous existence. Activities are planned at the level of a class section, class, school section or an entire school. b) The second operative principle is linking the activities for pupils to those for their parents. For instance, a poll conducted among the pupils helps to determine the extent and type of violence, while the parents are asked about their views either by means of a questionnaire or at a parent-teacher meeting, on which occasion all the results are presented. The findings are supplemented by teachers' observations, and solutions are then sought together. c) The third principle is that the programme both its content and the forms of its implementation is adjusted to the needs of particular schools and their specific problems detected among the pupils, parents or in the collective itself.

66

The steps within the whole school approach to formulating a school's prevention programme are as follows: 1. becoming aware of the problem: in this phase the school detects and recognises the phenomenon of violence and decides to act. 2. assessing the situation: in this phase the school draws up a plan of areas and levels at which it will assess the situation. To that end, it must establish a time frame and a schedule as it is not possible to cover everything at once. As for the objective formulating a prevention programme it is reasonable to analyse the situation in the following areas: 3. the approaches already employed by the school (e.g. ways of dealing with issues, measures, rules, homeroom class discussion topics, using different methods and techniques, cooperating with external institutions) school culture and atmosphere class atmosphere pupils' participation in their school's life and work (activities, becoming aware of problems, taking their views and proposals into consideration) cooperation with parents (methods, frequency, issues). 4. clearly defining the problem, goals and ways of proceeding: based on the analysis of the situation, the school sets priorities and decides which problems to work on in the short term, which in the long term, which problems to deal with immediately and which may be tackled next year. This is followed by the selection of the goal: what they want to improve and achieve with regard to the problem selected and how to go about it. 5. formulating the programme in cooperation with pupils and parents. The preparation of the programme is started by a selected group of teachers, headmaster and school counsellor. It is necessary to plan activities for the staff, pupils and parents. The proposal is then presented to other teachers, pupils and parents. They, in turn, complement and modify the programme with their own ideas... The programme then assumes its definite form. 6. presenting the programme to the public (the parents' council, the school council, development and annual work plans, posters, the school newspaper) this is important for the school as it sends a clear message to everyone about the school's violence reduction policy. 7. implementing the programme in the selected areas and at the selected levels, with the selected content and objectives, throughout the school year. At their regular meetings, members of the group monitor/discussion the implementation, exchange experiences, resolve possible difficulties and assess the implementation and deadline compliance. 8. evaluating the programme and, possibly, making adjustments and updates; after one year, the work completed should be evaluated in all areas and at all levels. The results should be checked against the objectives in order to establish what was done well, what should be improved, with what they are quite pleased, what new things they have learned, and what elements will be carried on into the future. This is how a new plan comes into existence.

67

The course of action: In each school, the project lasts two years. Work begins with instruction relating to school culture and climate, school stress factors, violence and bullying, communication, working with the group and presentations of the experiences of individual schools which have tackled the problem of violence on their own or as part of our project. These are the themes on which further activities (situation assessment) are based, and we develop them in the course of two years' work with respect to the problems and needs of the group or collective. After the seminar, a decision on project work, i.e. the formulation of the prevention programme, is adopted by the group which must include: the headmaster, the counselling service and most of the teachers. The implementation of all the steps within the whole school approach with this group lasts two years. In the third year, the headmaster and the leader of this group must see to it that all professional staff members and other employees get involved in the enlargement and implementation of the programme. The group's members must meet regularly. The purpose of these meetings is to evaluate performance, plan activities until the next meeting and provide brief forms of training such as workshops on themes selected by the group. These meetings should be planned, as should the training and the group's other activities. A work plan is drawn up with the group the objectives, content, people in charge of implementation, implementation deadlines. Of course, informal meetings of teachers who perceive problems are welcome. At both planned and informal meetings experiences are exchanged, support provided and views clarified, while co-workers get to know each other better... and all this gradually leads to an improvement in school atmosphere. This work should be evaluated at the end of the school year. The evaluation is conducted primarily at a level of personal experience with regard to the work done and objectives achieved. At group level, the members ask themselves the following questions: What new things have we learned by drawing up and implementing the prevention programme? What new things have the pupils learned? How did cooperation with the members of the group go? What difficulties did we encounter in implementing the programme and how did we resolve them? Which dilemmas have remained unresolved? What support and assistance will we need in the future? What elements are we going to carry on into the future (content, methods) in our work with pupils, parents and collaborators? At school level, the following questions need to be asked: What objectives for last year were achieved? Which were not and why not? How did we inform teachers who had not been involved in the first phase about programme implementation?

68

What (if any) bearing did project activities have on changing school atmosphere? What are the concrete results of our work? What elements are we going to carry on into the future (content, methods) in our work with pupils, parents and collaborators? e-mail: mojca.pusnik@zrss.si References PUNIK, M. (2003). Vloga ole pri zmanjevanju nasilja. Prironik za uitelje, svetovalne delavce in ravnatelje. Ljubljana, Zavod RS za olstvo. Nacionalna komisija (2004):Smernice za analizo, prepreevanje in obravnavo nasilja v olskem prostoru. Ljubljana, Ministrstvo za olstvo, znanost in port. PUNIK, M. (2003). The role of schools in decreasing violence. Handbook for teachers, school counsellors and headmasters. Ljubljana, The National Education Institute. Commission for Analysing the Problem of Violence in Slovenian Schools (2004). The guidelines for analysing, preventing and dealing with violence in a school environment. Ljubljana, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport

69

SPAIN: National Approaches to School Bullying and Violence

Isabel Fernndez Garca, Ministry of Education2. Bullying has been a general concern in the Spanish educational system since the beginning of the 90s. However much of the efforts when dealing with school conflict and violence have been on the developing of school convivencia or good school climate for the improvement of school life. There has been some information through different research data, mainly as part of major studies for the assessment of different areas of the school system. However in the 2000 there was a national survey on bullying and school violence sponsored by the Defensor del Pueblo, the results were similar to those from other European countries, in which recommendations were given for further implementation in the autonomous communities. By then, there had been different data collected at local basis from different communities; Andalucia, Navarra, Galicia, Pais Valencia, etc. and all the autonomous communities offered specific programmes to improve convivencia at schools, as well as universities and other organizations developed programmes to deal with bullying, conflict resolution, social skills, intolerance and violence in youth, etc. Legislation has evolved towards programmes, assessment criteria and curricular structure to cope with school failure, special needs, equality and diversity. School convivencia has been legislated through the Derechos y Deberes de los alumnos, in which norms, duties and rights are established, though the improvement of the school climate of a school demands a systemic approach rather than a legislative procedure. Good practice from Spain: Mediation and conflict resolution programme from an integrated model for the treatment of Convivencia at schools. Juan Carlos Torrego Seijo. Profesor del Departamento de Didctica Universidad de Alcal, Madrid. Director del equipo de mediacin y tratamiento de conflictos. Madrid. Espaa Isabel Fernndez Garca. Catedrtica de secundaria. Formadora del equipo de mediacin y tratamiento de conflictos. I.E.S. Pradolongo. Madrid. Espaa This programme has been running since 1998 organized by the CRIF (Centro Regional de Formacin) of the Community of Madrid, thirty one secondary schools have already participated in it. It is a two year programme, geared towards teachers, students, administration and parents, in which schools start with a mediation and conflict resolution training and practice, followed by a second year in which the normative procedures, disruption in the classroom and students participation are examined for further changes in the school culture. We understand that a model for the management of convivencia is constructed through a series of educational proposals, which facilitate the activities for the improvement of

This is an abstract of the presentation given at the conference.

70

the learning and teaching processes, when facing discipline incidents and conflicts and to prevent violence. This model requires a global and systemic approach, with a great number of organizational implications in its implementation. It demands specific training for teachers and students on educational principles based on dialogue with an active role of the students in the conflict interventions. The proposal of the integrated model assumes that schools should incorporate a broader scope of alternatives to conflict resolution such as: mediation services, peer education, negotiation, consensus and circle times together with democratic normative regulations which satisfy the needs and interest of the different sectors of the school community.

71

USA: National Approaches to School Bullying and Violence

Deborah A. Price, Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools U. S. Department of Education3.

Bullying is a problem in many schools in the United States. It is a problem that impacts millions of students of all races and classes, in elementary and secondary schools in every part of the country. Bullying affects every part of education, from a reduction in the quality of teaching to an increase in behavioral problems, and reduction in grades to increase in crime and victimization including suicides and homicides. Educators and policy makers at Federal, State, and local levels of government have recognized the devastating effects bullying and bullying behaviors can have on teaching and learning and on behavior and have begun to take steps to prevent these behaviors from occurring. This presentation will: briefly outline the extent and nature of the problem of bullying in the United States; describe the affects bullying has on teaching and learning, and behavior; relate various actions and approaches being taken by Federal and State governments and local school districts to address the problem, with a focus on approaches that work or that have promise; and overview of issues that need to be addressed if we are to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend a school that is safe and free from bullying or bullying behaviors.

This is an abstract of the presentation given at the conference.

72

Speech by the Norwegian Minister of Education and Research, Kristin Clemet

International Policy and Research Conference on School Bullying and Violence, Stavanger, 5 8 September 2004

Introduction
Mr Director, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure for me to observe that so many representatives from various part of the OECD-members have been able to prioritize participation at this conference on School Bullying and Violence. The motto of this conference, Taking Fear out of Schools, is an important task. We know that bullying is a great negative factor for many children in school, and that it affects their learning ability and their well-being. Education transfers knowledge, culture and values from one generation to the next. It promotes social mobility and ensures the creation of value and welfare for all. For the individual, education is intended to contribute to cultural and moral growth, and to mastering social skills and learning self-sufficiency. It imparts knowledge and tools that allow everyone to make full use of their abilities and to realise their talents. It is meant to nurture and enlighten pupils so that they can accept responsibility for themselves and their fellows. Education must make it possible for individuals to develop so that they can make well-founded decisions and influence their own future. The Norwegian government has recently presented a White Paper of education at primary and secondary schools in Norway, Culture for learning. The White Paper states that there is no conflict between a solid academic education and education where the goal is to promote social skills, personal development and cultural awareness. The hallmark of a good school is the high quality of its academic performance, its good learning environment and its happy pupils. There is no clash of interests between enjoyment and learning yield: in fact, they are dependent on each other. Well-being and a good learning environment create a good school with high achievement and vice versa. The Norwegian Education Act states that schools are obliged to offer pupils a safe learning environment both physically and psychosocially. Bullying therefore constitutes a breach of this obligation. Surveys in the late nineties and the beginning of this century show that negative behaviour, including bullying and discrimination, has been a serious problem in schools. This can give rise to considerable negative consequences for the welfare of the pupils and the benefits they gain from the teaching. As cabinet minister for the education sector, I have seen and addressed this problem. There was and still is a great need for coordinated and long-term efforts from all those responsible as is reflected in our Manifesto against Bullying, which the Prime Minister has already mentioned. In my speech, I will later give more details about the Manifesto its objectives, target groups and our working methods.

73

Status the prevalence of bullying in schools

The extent of bullying in schools in Norway has been mapped by a number of surveys. However, the somewhat varying definition of the term bullying and differing methods and measuring instruments make it difficult to compare the results. Nonetheless, in connection with its evaluation of the Manifesto against Bullying, Rogaland Research has assessed the prevalence of bullying in seven studies. The most certain conclusion we can draw so far from the results of the various surveys is that bullying, that is being a bully or a victim, is a social problem of appreciable dimension in the school environment. Around five per cent of pupils are exposed to a form of very serious bullying, i.e. it takes place weekly or more often. In addition, more than five per cent of pupils are exposed to repeated bullying two or three times a month, and 20-40 per cent now and then. Results from the surveys included in the evaluation clearly indicate that bullying is a problem that is linked to other problems. The results also show large differences among schools further complicating the general overview of the prevalence of bullying. The general overview shows that bullying is a serious problem and a challenge for the development of the social environment and social skills, particularly in the school environment. More pupils are exposed to bullying than those who bully others. Bullying is a gender problem. Boys are more involved in bullying than girls, and the proportion of boys who bully rises with increasing age in primary and lower secondary education. Boys use more direct forms of bullying, girls more concealed forms. The proportion of victims diminishes with age. Being a victim is more likely among younger children, while being a bully is more likely among older children. In lower secondary schools, the proportion of victims is lower than at primary school level, the greatest decline being among girls. The most common form of bullying is physical harassment, exclusion and teasing in primary and lower secondary schools, and undesired joking and harassment at the upper secondary level.

Manifesto against Bullying

Objectives The vision is to achieve zero bullying in schools. Any bullying incident is one too many and cannot be accepted. A change in attitudes and behaviour with respect to bullying will contribute to improving the learning and childhood environment of children and young people. The parties to the Manifesto are united in their common goal of achieving zero tolerance for bullying, assigning leadership the highest priority. Work on the Manifesto will mainly focus on the responsibility of adults in kindergartens and schools, during leisure activities and at home. Children and young people, parents and guardians, employees, school managers and school-owners will be encouraged to make pro-active efforts to ensure local involvement and a long-term perspective for this commitment. Cooperation and equality between dults and between children, young people and adults are prerequisites for attaining this goal. 74

We hold regular meetings with the Manifesto participants: the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, the National Parents Committee for Primary and Lower Secondary Education, the Union of Education, and the Ombudsman for Children. Researchers and the Norwegian School Student Organisation also take part in the meetings. I participate on behalf of the Government, along with the Minister of Children and Family Affairs. The office of the prime minister is also represented. Target groups The parties to the Manifesto have a common goal. Both together and independently, they focus their efforts on their defined target groups. The Government will particularly work through the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs to encourage and increase competence on the prevention and handling of bullying in kindergartens and schools and during leisure activities. The Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education has an operative responsibility for the work in the education sector. The Ombudsman for Children in Norway will ensure that all student councils play an active role in preventing pupils at school from bullying or being bullied. The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities will assist in ensuring that all school-owners take leadership development seriously, so that schools become aware of their responsibility in this field and carry out leadership in a way that prevents bullying occurring in school. The Union of Education will make sure that all members employed in Norwegian schools are aware that each individual has a responsibility to prevent and deal with bullying, and that this responsibility is linked to clearly defined school and classroom leadership. The National Parents Committee for Primary and Lower Secondary Education will ensure that all parents are aware of their personal responsibility for preventing their child from bullying or being bullied, as well as for seeking help if cases of bullying arise. The Committee will make sure that all counselling bodies in primary and lower secondary schools realise that they must be the driving force that enables schools to cooperate with parents in the prevention and handling of bullying. Four main issues Four main issues are crucial in our attempts to combat bullying: Legislation Programmes and counselling services The importance of local involvement and efforts Research, reporting and follow-up 1. Amendments to the Education Act relating to the working environment for pupils Pupils right to a safe school environment has been strengthened through a new section in the Education Act Section 9a concerning pupils school environment came into force on 1 April 2003. The new provisions state that all pupils in primary, lower secondary and 75

upper secondary education are entitled to a good physical and psychosocial environment that promotes health, well-being and learning. Pupils and parents are now entitled to greater participation and have been given improved rights to lodge complaints. Schools duties have been clarified in particular with regard to the psychosocial environment. The new provisions also define the obligation of the school staff to intervene in the event of bullying, violence, racism and discrimination. An investigation into the power and influence of pupils (the Power and Democracy Report) shows that although regulations and Acts give pupils considerable opportunity to intervene and influence the running of the school, these possibilities are not fully utilised. I want pupils to exercise their rights on a larger scale, and I want to ensure more influence and real power in the school for pupils, based on provisions in the legal framework. More autonomy for local schools is regarded as a measure to achieve this. Programmes and counselling services On the basis of recommendations from an expert group that has assessed various programmes and measures to reduce problem behaviour and develop social skills, the Ministry has given priority to offering municipalities and county authorities programmes and measures that have proved effective. All of the countrys municipalities have been offered the opportunity to use the Olweus Programme against bullying and anti-social behaviour as well as the ZERO Programme from the Centre for Behavioural Research. In addition, the Ministry and the Directorate of Education support and recommend several other activities and programmes whose effects have been documented. New reports from the Directorate of Education show that 469 schools are using the Olweus Programme in the period 2002-2004, and 233 schools are participating in the ZERO Programme. Other programmes currently in use include a project on arbitration in schools (613 schools), the Lions Quest Programme that encourages pupils to make their own choices (1068 schools), and Step by Step, a programme devised by the Norwegian Health Association (1434 schools). A package of measures to combat bullying in upper secondary schools was launched in May this year under the title "Get involved!". We urge schools and school-owners to compile their own plans for establishing a good learning environment and for working against such evils as bullying. It is of course up to the individual school and school-owner to decide whether they will make use of such programmes, and if so which ones. We have also prepared and disseminated information and guidelines for example on the rights of the target groups, on what schools can do to improve their pupils social skills, and on what schools and school-owners can do about pupils with behavioural problems. The importance of local involvement and efforts The parties to the Manifesto are united in a common goal a vision of zero tolerance for bullying, assigning leadership the highest priority. Children and young people, parents, employees, school managers and school-owners have been actively encouraged to 76

participate in order to ensure local involvement and a long-term perspective. Participation and equality among adults and among children, young people and adults are prerequisites for attaining this goal. Cooperation between the parents and the school is a key factor. Parents and school staff see the pupils in different arenas and in different aspects of their daily life. The sharing of concerns and information between schools and homes is of prime importance in revealing and dealing with bullying, harassment and violence. The same aspects will be of significance in the field of leisure activities and in promoting cooperation between parents and activity-leaders. There must be close contact between adults involved in children's spare-time pursuits and parents/guardians. The Ombudsman for Children has challenged pupils and pupils councils to combat bullying through a measure referred to as The Big Assignment. This measure aims to promote the signing of local manifestos which signify a mutual binding commitment to combat bullying in all communities nationwide. Research, reporting and follow-up Conducting research and reporting what happens in schools are important to enable us to clarify our own priorities and to provide feedback to schools and school-owners. We get information about what schools and school-owners are doing in this field through the annual status reports. The last status report (2003) showed, among other things, that the involvement of parents is increasing, particularly in primary and lower secondary schools. In upper secondary education, it is chiefly the collaboration with the pupils councils and the pupils that has been strengthened. Many schools and school-owners have developed procedures for how problems are to be brought to light and handled, and common rules have been established to define the psychosocial environment at school. The schools report that in general they work systematically to monitor the pupils working environment and have implemented measures to follow up the new requirements in the Act. A total of 281 out of 414 municipalities, and 14 out of 19 county authorities, report that they have compiled systems to document aspects of the physical and psychosocial learning environment in schools. On 23 August 2004, the website skoleporten.no was launched. This aims to give a comprehensive picture of Norwegian schooling and will provide information on all schools. skoleporten.no is intended to be a tool for quality assessment and quality development. The portal provides the opportunity to evaluate the status of primary and lower secondary education by mapping learning achievement, the learning environment, throughput of pupils, resources and framework factors knowledge that will help to assess improvement measures in the school sector. The website also contains assistance and guidance on appropriate measures through easy access to relevant reports, articles and studies, thus facilitating interaction between quality assessment and quality development. There is also a net-based service where pupils can answer questions about the teaching situation. The results are used as a basis for the presentation of the learning environment 77

on skoleporten.no. The purpose of these so-called pupil inspectors is to enable pupils to influence their schooling and to give their opinions on issues that are significant for their learning and well-being. Pupil participation is compulsory in parts of the survey, as is implementation by school-owners. Pupils in the seventh and tenth year of education and those taking foundation courses in upper secondary education must answer questions on motivation, welfare, bullying, pupil participation, pupil democracy and the physical environment. An analysis of more than 68,000 pupil replies from the autumn term of the last school year showed that pupils are happy at school but that there were weaknesses in both the schools ability to motivate pupils and to achieve genuine pupil participation in the teaching situation.

Research
Rogaland Research has been commissioned to evaluate the work done in connection with the Manifesto against Bullying. The evaluation is designed to provide more knowledge about the prevalence of bullying and to form the basis for assessing the effects of implemented measures. The evaluation will be used to assess follow-up measures and further strategies to combat bullying. Rogaland Research will cooperate on the evaluation with a network of Nordic research institutions, and their final report will be completed at the end of 2004. The Government gives financial support to several research environments that are working on various programmes and methods to strengthen pupils learning environment. Preliminary results from a number of primary schools indicate a clear decline in both the number of pupils who are bullied and the number of pupils who bully others. Increased attention and effort in Norway in relation to the learning environment The best results in combating bullying is achieved by schools that has a broad approach to the learning environment. Therefore The Norwegian Board of Education has developed a strategy plan for the learning and childhood environment. The plan is an aid to achieving the objectives of the Education Act, regulations and curricula. At the same time, the plan aims to attain better co-ordinated and comprehensive efforts at all levels of the educational system in the work on the learning and childhood environment. A prerequisite for learning is an environment that inspires and motivates. Individuals must be met on their own terms and be given challenges in the form of tasks, working methods and social conventions that allow positive experiences, the development of selfconfidence and belief in ones own abilities. If this is to be achieved, those working in education must possess broad competence and an understanding of the connections between the system and personal efforts. The plan presupposes an effort that is concerned with the overall learning environment, the relations between learning achievement and the learning environment, and the significance of a secure and inspiring learning environment for the results attained in the various subjects.

78

School administration, teachers and instructors must demonstrate good management in order to develop a stimulating learning environment for pupils and apprentices. A thorough knowledge of the curriculum, practical experience and international experience must be a basis for teacher training and further training for school administration, teachers and instructors. It will be the task of the Norwegian Board of Education to collect and systematise knowledge and experience about the challenges and problems connected with the learning and childhood environment for pupils and apprentices, to support and disseminate knowledge about measures and to stimulate the development of models for schools work on the learning environment. The learning and childhood environment is a broad and complex area where national plans of action and priority areas will form the basis for work. In cooperation with other ministries and departments, institutions, organisations and specialists, the Norwegian Board of Education will take the initiative to build competence and to institute measures of development and dissemination which will benefit the individual pupil and apprentice. County governors, the Educational-Psychological Service, the Norwegian Support System for Special Education, universities and colleges, the Norwegian School Student Organisation, the Parent-Teacher Association for primary and lower secondary schools and research centres are all key parties and partners.

Some new challenges

The first challenge to be mentioned is that of silent bullying, often carried out by girls. This is a way of bullying that is sneaky, vicious, and difficult to detect, and involves exclusion, being denied access to friends or to making new friends, and being ignored, talked about behind your back and treated as if you were not present. This may often not even be considered bullying, and it may be claimed that it is difficult to include everyone all the time. Detecting this form of bullying and bringing it to public attention could well constitute an objective for the follow-up of the Manifesto. I would also like to draw attention to technological bullying through mobile phones and the Internet. Technological development in recent years has provided new means of exploitation: photos are taken and sent round for public amusement via the Internet or mobile phones, vicious SMS messages and e-mails violate the privacy of many young people. We cannot eradicate such cruelty, but we can do our best to make it unlawful and to increase the awareness of parents, teachers and other adults who come into contact with young people that such behaviour is highly unacceptable.

Final comments
The Manifesto against Bullying represents a major signal from the parties involved to the respective regional and local bodies, and to all adults in schools and at home and those involved in recreational centres for children and young people. It constitutes a joint and binding effort against bullying. 79

Once again, I want to emphasise the significance of the school administration and teachers for the school environment. Combating bullying is first and foremost a question of attitudes and leadership: as adults we must express ourselves clearly and be willing to take responsibility. One campaign or one simple measure cannot alone solve behavioural problems in school. Researchers can confirm that even if a school has achieved good results by participating in an anti-bullying programme for a two-year period, these gains quickly disappear if the school does not include such endeavours in its daily activities. The basis of the Norwegian policy is that work on the learning and childhood environment must be both comprehensive and long term. An example from everyday life can illustrate this well: efforts against bullying are like cleaning the house it is an eternal process where daily endeavours create a congenial environment. Likewise only continuous efforts can create a good school environment where bullying does not exist. Thank you for your attention!

80

Session Three: Local Initiatives on School Bullying and Violence

This session was chaired by Toshio Ohsako, Institute of International Education, Stockholm University, Sweden.

81

Comments by Toshio Ohsako

It was a session in which all - researchers, teachers and the school personnel and policymakers - watched with curiosity the specific examples of how school bullying and violence were being tackled through concrete local-based intervention and prevention programmes. This occasion also may have provided researchers with an opportunity to reflect over various theories behind bullying and violence in relation to real school settings where they were occurring. Dan Olweus (University of Bergen), who is commonly called the founding father of bullying research, was the first presenter and he spoke on The Dan Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme which is widely used in Norwegian, Icelandic and the US schools. The Olweus programme is based upon: a presentation of the combination of incompatible attitudes and skills by intervening personnel, a firm but warm/non-hostile interaction with bullies, clearly laid-down behavioural rules and limits, extensive and serious discussions and meetings with bullies, parents and teachers. A difficult but important question was raised by an audience about the theoretical backgrounds of this programme. Some participants also wondered- should anti-bullying intervention programmes be derived from a specific theory (e.g. frustration-aggression theory, social learning theory, biochemical theory), and, in this case, should it therefore be explained within the limit of the theoretical framework of a given theory? Or should an anti-bullying programme be derived from all theories relevant to different aspects of this issue (a multi-disciplinary approach)? Rosario Ortega Ruiz (University of Cordoba) presented SAVE: An Intervention to Prevent School Violence Based Upon the education of Convivencia. Convivencia is a very popular Spanish word, which means living together, sharing activities and life on a day-to-day basis, with the guarantee that nobody is attacked or intimidated. The Convivencia curriculum promotes a culturally shared sense of well-being as well as a message of non-violence and peace. It is being implemented in 26 metropolitan schools (School Convivencia) involving 4,194 students 88-18 years-old. Ortega Ruiz said that her programme had involved school counsellors, head teachers and teachers .The progamme was buit-in teachers in-service programmes and curricular development activities, both of which are designed to enhance inter-peer relations, learning together and pro-social attitudes and values. Each school can develop its own School Convivencia programme, however, it has to be approved by the Centre for Training Teachers in Service (CEP). Among other things, the unique feature of Convivencia is that this programme is designed to create social and educational situations and experiences in which pro-social attitudes and behaviours (empathy, cooperation, social skills, etc) will gradually replace bullying and violence. As a matter of facts, the results of School Convivencia revealed a significant decrease of bullying and interpersonal violence among children and students. One of the unique aspects of the Convivencia programme is the autonomy and flexibility granted to each school to develop its own programme as long as it is approved by a teacher training authority. Conviventia as a whole therefore stimulates schoolsantibullying programme development initiatives and processes. Keith Sullivan (University of Ireland) presented a local initiative Dealing with School Bullying in New Zealand Secondary Schools: the Number 8 Fencing Wire Approach There are three initiatives: Kia Kaha (NZ Police Youth Education Services); Cool 82

Schools (Peace Federation); Eliminating Violence (Group Special Education). The projects are designed to combine students learning about traditional values (respect, courtesy and excellence) with provision of a modern curriculum, quality teaching and a knowledge of new information on technology and pastoral care. The programme adapts a whole school approach and examines also the school culture/climate on promoting bullying and violence as well as developmental concerns and aspirations of adolescent students. This whole school approach involves the participation of teachers, bystanders, school counsellors and parents. Empowering bystanders with effective teacher support is a major strategy employed. This project reminds us (project planners, implementers and all others concerned) that successful projects requires, first of all, a deep understanding and knowledge of local and national cultures as well as values, communication systems, the aspirations of students and community members. Sandra Dean (from Together We Light the Way, Canada) presented A Canadian Approach to Prevent School Bullying and Violence. It is a comprehensive school-based prevention programmes (conducted by the national Crime Prevention Centre in Canada) intended to reduce anti-social behaviours including bullying and violence and to increase pro-social attitudes and behaviours among students. Its main goal is to create safe and caring learning communities. This is a common denominator goal shared by diverse partners, such as business and industry groups, community service centres and agencies, politicians and law enforcing agencies, which works closely with students, parents and the school staff. The basic values that are promoted by this project are the respect for each individuals unique existence, social contributions and responsibilities. The programme considers individuals as a growing person capable of developing self-respect and self-worth through their participation in meaningful community activities. The special features of this project are the dynamic and devoted involvement of all the people concerned and agencies, a set of clearly stated values shared by all implementers as well as the presentation of pro-social attitudes and behaviours as an attractive alternative to bullying and violence. The project also has proven that bullying/violence could cease when children and adolescents are convinced of the value of non-violent and peaceful approaches to interpersonal conflicts. Successful local anti-bullying and violence initiatives legitimize our intervention programmes. Nothing may be more convincing than witnessing what works of locally initiated anti-bulling/violence programmes. In this respect, there seem to be a set of facilitators commonly observable among different types of intervention and prevention programmes. They all stress: 1.the importance of capturing local cultural values and the changing realities of a given community where the anti-bullying/violence programmes are implemented; 2.clearly identified and agreed disciplinary rules combined with learning experiences for perpetrators to develop pro-social behaviours which are incompatible with bullying and violence; 3. a whole-school approach with participation of all pertinent out-of-school personnel (parents, youth groups, police, community centres, etc) to create a momentum of cooperation for the intervention programmes; 4. the importance of recognizing the notion of learning to be among bullies and perpetrators, in other words, the intervention programmes are based upon the optimistic assumption that bullies and aggressors can change and mature. It is essential to monitor and evaluate the local anti-bullying programmes periodically to check what is working and what is not. External evaluators can also be used for such evaluation. The programme evaluation can be attempted on the impacts as well as the 83

qualitative aspects of projects. The impact evaluation can be a short-term attempt as well as a long-term one. To pursue the long-term effects of ant-bullying/violence programmes may require a longitudinal study in order to follow up both bullies and victims over an extended period of time. A longitudinal study is expensive and requires sustained efforts to maintain it, but it often yields in very useful and convincing data, particularly about the processes of the behavioural and attitudinal changes of both bullies and victims at different stages of development. There are also several dimensions need to be considered in evaluating local projects, such as the relevance, quality, credibility of programmes, copy right restrictions and the cross-national transferability of locally-initiated projects from one setting to another, and so on. Lastly, if locally initiated anti-bulling/violence programmes are to be disseminated internationally through an international network(s), we may need to clarify several things. For example, to whom should the information be addressed (policy-makers, researchers, teachers, school administrators, etc)? In what formats should the information be communicated in an academic/scholarly format, or a popular format, or a special format for multiple audiences, etc? These two questions are surely inter-related. Another question would be how to improve the compatibility of information on local initiatives on bullying and school violence. Is it better to invent a standard format of description for all project providers to follow because such format facilitates a cross-national or an international comparison? Or is this too much to ask for some information providers, as they prefer a more flexible and individualized way to input their information. Perhaps, there maybe more questions to ask. However, one thing is clear, that is the importance of locally initiated anti-bullying/violence programmes, without which the researchers lack a credible real setting in which they experiment and validate their theories of bullying and violence. Moreover, policy/law-makers, without tangible evidences of successful local programmes, cannot easily gain the public support to legitimize anti-bullying/violence policies and legislations .

84

DAN OLWEUS: An evidence-based anti-bullying program and a new national initiative in Norway
Dan Olweus, Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Norway.

As bully/victim problems have gradually been placed on the official school agenda in many countries, a number of suggestions about their handling and prevention have been proposed. Some of these suggestions and approaches seem ill-conceived or maybe even counterproductive, such as excessive focus on changing the victims behaviour to make them less vulnerable to bullying. Others appear meaningful and potentially useful. A key problem, however, is that most of them have either failed to document positive results or have never been subjected to systematic research evaluation. Therefore it is difficult to know which programs or measures actually work and which do not. Yet it is the results with the students that count, not how adults might feel about using the program (user satisfaction). The situation is well illustrated by the following facts. Recently, a US expert committee under the leadership of a respected criminologist, professor Delbert Elliott, made a systematic evaluation of more than 500 presumably violence (or problem-behaviour) preventing programs according to certain minimum-level criteria (see Elliott, 1999). These criteria were: that the program had produced positive effects on relevant target groups (students in this case) in a relatively rigorous scientific evaluation that the effects had lasted for at least one year that the program had produced positive results in at least one site beyond the original one. Only 10 of the programs (four of which are school-based) satisfied the specified criteria. One of these so-called Blueprint or evidence-based programs was the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus & Limber, 1999). Program Principles The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) has been developed and evaluated over a period of more than 20 years (Olweus, 1978, 1993, 2001). It builds on four key principles derived chiefly from research on the development and modification of the implicated problem behaviours, especially aggressive behaviour. These principles involve creating a schooland ideally, also a homeenvironment characterised by

warmth, positive interest, and involvement from adults firm limits on unacceptable behaviour consistent application of non-punitive, non-physical sanctions for unacceptable behaviour or violations of rules adults who act as authorities and positive role models.

85

The overriding message of the program is: We don't accept bullying at our school and will see to it that it comes to an end. An important goal is to change the opportunity and reward structures in such ways that there are fewer possibilities and rewards for bullying behaviour in school and elsewhere. The listed principles have been translated into a number of specific measures to be used at the school, classroom, and individual levels (Olweus, 1993, 2001). Figure 1 shows the set of core components that our statistical analyses and experience with the program have shown to be particularly important in any implementation of the program1.

Figure 1

Research-based evaluations of the OBPP

We have now conducted six large-scale evaluations of the program in Norway comprising several hundred schools and more than 30 000 students. Here I will only give a brief summary of four of the evaluations, three of which are part of a new national initiative to be described below. The latter three projects, running from 2001 to 2003 and comprising three independent cohorts of schools, have the same structure and have given very similar results. Accordingly, to simplify presentation, the results from these projects will be combined in this context. The two evaluation projects that are omitted here, have been briefly described in another article (Olweus, 2004a). In all four projects to be described in this context, we have employed an extended variant of what is usually called a selection cohort or age cohort design the characteristics of 86

which have been discussed in more detail elsewhere (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Olweus, 2004a). We focus here in particular on students in grades 4 through 7 (with modal ages of approximately 10 to 13 years) where important components of the program were more fully implemented. In all statistical analyses, the hierarchical or nested structure of the data (with students nested within classrooms nested within schools) have been taken into account. All main conclusions are based on results that are statistically significant or, usually, highly significant. The First Bergen Project The first evaluation of the effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program involved data from approximately 2,500 students in 42 elementary and lower secondary schools in Bergen, Norway. The students were followed students for two and one-half years, from 1983 to 1985 (Olweus, 1991, 2004; Olweus & Alsaker, 1991). The main results can be summarised in the following points: Marked reductions - by 50 percent or more - in self-reported bully/victim problems for the periods studied, with 8 and 20 months of intervention, respectively. By and large, the results applied to both boys and girls and to students from all grades studied. Similar results were obtained for a kind of aggregated peer rating variables and teacher ratings. Clear reductions in general antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, fighting with the police, pilfering, drunkenness, and truancy. Marked improvement as regards various aspects of the "social climate" of the class: improved order and discipline, more positive social relationships, and a more positive attitude to schoolwork and the school. At the same time, there was an increase in student satisfaction with school life.

Detailed analyses of the quality of the data and the possibility of alternative interpretations of the findings led to the following conclusions (Olweus, 1991): It is very difficult to explain the results obtained as a consequence of (a) underreporting by the students, (b) gradual changes in the students' attitudes to bully/victim problems, (c) repeated measurement, and (d) concomitant changes in other factors, including general time trends. In addition, a clear "dosage-response" relationship (r=.51, n=80) was established in analyses at the classroom level which is the natural unit of analysis in this case: Those teachers/classrooms that obtained larger reductions in bully/victim problems had implemented three important components of the intervention program (including establishment of class rules against bullying and use of regular class meetings) to a greater extent than those with smaller changes. This finding provides corroborating evidence for the hypothesis that the changes observed were a consequence of the intervention program and not of some other irrelevant factor. We have also conducted research on factors that affect implementation of the program. Without going into detail, we have found several factors both at the teacher/classroom and the school levels to be important for adequate and effective implementation (Kallestad & Olweus, 2003). The identified factors actually accounted for a very substantial amount of variation in degree of implementation. 87

Results in connection with the New National Initiative in Norway As mentioned, the research project associated with the New National Initiative against Bullying comprised more than one hundred schools with approximately 21000 students in grades 4 7. These schools applied for participation in the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program at three different time points, the autumn of 2001, the spring of 2002 and the autumn of 2002 at which they also took the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for a base line assessment. The second measurement with the same instrument occurred one year later, when the schools had worked with the program for approximately 8 months. Figures 2 and 3 present the results, with the data from the three cohorts collapsed.

Figure 2

Figure 3 88

For boys and girls combined, the level of being bullied (2 or 3 times a month in the past couple of months) before intervention was 14.2 percent (second bar from right inFigure 2). One year later, after approximately 8 months of intervention, this figure had been reduced to 9.4 percent, a relative reduction by 34 percent. In Figure 3, the variable portrayed is bullying other students The general pattern of results was very similar to what was reported for being bullied in Figure 2 , but at a lower level, as expected. For boys and girls combined, the relative reduction amounted to 44 percent, from 5.5 percent to 3.1 percent. Basically similar results were obtained when the data were analysed separately for the two genders, the four grades, and when a stricter criterion about once a week or more often was used in classifying students as being bullied or bullying other students. Marked improvements could thus be registered also for students who had been involved in the most serious form of bully/victim problems (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). It should be remembered that in calculating the percentages of reduction reported above, we did not just follow the same subjects over time and calculated the degree of change for each participant from base line to follow-up. Such an approach would not take into account the changes that naturally occur with age. A critical aspect of the selection cohort design is that the key comparisons are being made between age-equivalent groups (Olweus, 2004a, in press). In our study, for example, the data for grade 5 students at follow-up (after 8 months of intervention) were compared with the base line data (before intervention) for the grade 5 students in the same schools. The same procedure was followed for the other grades. In more detailed analyses, we could register a number of changes in other areas or dimensions which also strongly supported the interpretation that the positive results were a consequence of the intervention. As an illustration, the students reported about more active intervention in bullying situations from both teachers and peers at follow-up as compared to base line. Also, at follow-up there were clearly more students who responded that the homeroom/main classroom teacher had made much or a good deal to counter bullying in the class in the past few months. The logic or structure of the (extended) selection cohort design indicates that a history interpretation may be a possible threat to the validity of the results (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Olweus, 2004a). This implies that the researcher must try to rule out or minimise the possibility that general time trends or some irrelevant factor concomitant to the intervention could account for the results. As explained in some detail in a different article (Olweus, in press), our results indicate that, without systematic and effective intervention, the levels of bully/victim problems characterising successive, largely comparable cohorts of schools at different time points or a cohort of schools followed over time, will be quite stable at least for a period of a couple of years. This result represents an important verification of an assumption that up to now has had a less systematic empirical underpinning. Most importantly, this verification implies that a history interpretation in terms of general time trends or special media attention, for example, cannot reasonably be invoked as an explanation of the positive changes in the level of bully/victim problems in our intervention schools in the New National Initiative Project. 89

It should also be mentioned that for approximately half of the schools from the first cohort we obtained follow-up data (32 schools with about 4000 students) two years after the first measurement occasion and approximately 6 months after the implementation phase of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program had ended. These data showed that the reductions gained after one year were maintained or even slightly increased after two years. These schools were roughly similar to the total cohort of schools in terms of problem levels at Time 1, and degree of reduction of problems between Time 1 and Time 2. These results indicate that the Time 1Time 2 reductions were not a temporary and short-lived phenomenon contingent on constant participation in the program. Although the follow-up period (so far) was relatively limited, the findings suggest that these schools may have actually changed their culture, readiness and competence to deal with and prevent bully/victim problems in a more long-term way. While systematic use of the program with students in grades 4 through 7 has consistently produced very positive results, which seem to be relatively unique in an international perspective (see Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004), it should also be mentioned that the effects have been more variable with students from lower secondary school grades. In about half of our evaluation projects, results with students in that age range have been less successful than with younger students. We think we know several of the reasons for these results which, however, will not be discussed in this context for lack of space. We are presently engaged in efforts to adapt the program, or rather its implementation, in order to achieve more consistently positive results also for these age groups. A new national initiative against bullying in Norway In 2000, the Department of Education and Research (UFD) and the Department of Children and Family Affairs (BFD) decided that the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program was to be offered on a large-scale basis to Norwegian elementary and lower secondary schools over a period of years. An important background for this initiative was certainly the fact that an evaluation similar to the Blueprint project had been made also in Norway, in this case by an officially appointed, departmental committee (Rapport, 2000). Fifty-seven programs designed to counteract and/or prevent problem behaviour and in use in Norwegian schools were evaluated. Only one program (the OBPP) was recommended for further use without reservations. It should be added that in 2003, the government-funded new national initiative was expanded to include program Zero developed by Erling Roland and his colleagues at the Centre for Behavioural Research in Stavanger (Galloway & Roland, 2004). In building up the organisation and infrastructure for the national initiative, two overriding principles guided our work: to try to ensure that the program was implemented according to the intentions of the program designer, that is, with reasonable fidelity (quality control) to try to get the program implemented in a reasonable number of schools/communities in a relatively limited period of time, say, 5 or 6 years. To accommodate both of these principles at the same time, we use a four-level strategy of dissemination, a kind of train- the-trainer model. The Olweus Group against Bullying and Antisocial Behaviour at the HEMIL-centre at the University of Bergen, trains and supervises specially selected instructor candidates who each 90

train and supervise key persons from a number of schools (ideally about five schools per instructor-candidate). These key persons are then responsible for leading recurrent staff discussion groups at each participating school. The basic structure of the model is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 The training of the instructor candidates consists of 10-11 whole-day assemblies distributed over a period of some 16 months. In between the whole-day meetings the instructor candidates receive ongoing consultation via telephone or email with members of my group. After having successfully completed the training period, they will be assigned status as certified Olweus trainers. (In implementing this train-the trainer model in some other contexts, certain minor modifications have been made to accommodate cultural differences and practical constraints. In particular, the number of whole-day assemblies have been reduced to four or five, and special Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committees at the individual schools have been accorded greater responsibility than in Norway.) An important task for the trainer candidates is to hold a two-day training with special key persons from each participating school. The trainer candidates are also involved in the administration of the Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996; Solberg & Olweus, 2003) and in interpreting and communicating the results to the individual school. The Questionnaire survey is important vehicle for creating awareness and involvement among staff, students, and parents. In addition, the key persons receive continuing supervision and assistance from their trainer candidates. Establishment of staff discussion groups at each participating school is an important tool for effective dissemination and implementation of the program. These groups with up to 15 participants meet regularly for approximately 90 minutes every other week under the leadership of the specially trained key persons. The meetings are typically organized around important components or themes of the program as described in Olweus Core Program against Bullying: A Teacher Handbooks (Olweus, 2001) and the book Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do (Olweus, 1993). The main goals of these meetings are the following: 91

to provide more detailed and comprehensive knowledge of the intervention program and its various components to provide the participants with the possibility of testing, through role playing and in other ways, ideas and practical solutions to various problem situations in a secure environment to stimulate fast(er) implementation of the various components of the program to share experiences and viewpoints with others in similar situations and to learn from others' positive and negative experiences to create and maintain motivation and commitment to stimulate cooperation and coordination of program components and activities (to develop and maintain a whole-school policy).

Although staff discussion groups may be perceived by some in the school society as rather time/resource-consuming, the informal feedback we have received so far certainly suggests that these meetings are seen as very valuable by most participants. In many ways, these meetings around the program actually serve to stimulate organisational development of the school. A distinct advantage here is that the major goal of this form of school development is directed towards the students: To create a safe and positive learning environment. Up to now, some 125 instructor candidates have finished or are in training, and more than 450 schools from all over Norway participate in the program. We perceive all of this as a breakthrough for the systematic, long-term, and research-based work against bully/victim problems in school and hope to see similar developments in other countries.

Factors of importance for good results

The practical work within this national initiative and the research associated with it in particular, the large-scale evaluations of the program that is has permitted has given us very valuable experiences. If I should try to summarise some of these experiences in a nutshell, I would use the following overview diagram.

Figure 5 92

In order to secure good results in school-based anti-bullying work, we need adults - in particular teachers and other school personnel and parents to some extent - who have at least a certain degree of engagement or involvement and a reasonable level of awareness of the nature and level of bully/victim problems in the particular school (through a careful survey, for example). But It is not enough that adults are engaged and aware of the problems. They must also have a decent knowledge of, and practical skills in, using intervention measures and efforts that research has shown to be effective. To achieve this, a systematic enhancement of the competence of the school personnel must take place. In addition, a good the implementation model is absolutely necessary. Even a good program may fail, if the implementation model does not measure up with the quality of the program. In summary, there are several important factors or dimensions that must be considered and addressed in anti-bullying work but I am very confident that systematic work along these lines will produce good and lasting outcome results. References Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNally. Elliott, D. (1999). Editors introduction. In D. Olweus, & S. Limber (1999) Blueprints for violence prevention: Bullying Prevention Program. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,.Boulder, USA. Galloway, D. & Roland, E. (2004). Is the direct approach to bullying always the best? In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby (eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be (pp.37-53)? Cambridge University Press. Kallestad, J.H. & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers and schoolsimplementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A multilevel study. Prevention and Treatment, 6, Article 21, pp. 3-21. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere (Wiley). Olweus D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.) The development and treatment of childhood aggression (p. 411- 448). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Mimeo. Bergen, Norway: Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen. Olweus, D. ( 2001) Olweus core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook. Research Centre for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center). Bergen, Norway. 93

Olweus, D. (2004a). Bullying at school: Prevalence estimation, a useful evaluation design, and a new national initiative in Norway. Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry Occasional Papers No.23, pp. 5-17. Olweus, D. (2004b). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby (eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be (pp. 1336)? Cambridge University Press. Olweus, D. (in press). A useful evaluation design and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Legal and criminological psychology. Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F.D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort longitudinal study with hierarchical data. In D. Magnusson, L.R. Bergman, G. Rudinger, and B. Trestad (Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research (pp.107-132) New. York: Cambridge University Press. Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999) Blueprints for violence prevention: Bullying Prevention Program. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,.Boulder, USA. Rapport 2000. (2000). Vurdering av program og tiltak for redusere problematferd og utvikle sosial kompetanse. (Evaluation of programs and measures to reduce problem behaviour and develop social competence.) Oslo, Norway: Kirke-, undervisnings-, og forskningsdepartementet. Smith, P.K., Pepler, D., and Rigby, K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge University Press. Solberg, M. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29. 239-268.

Footnote
1

The intervention package consists of the book Bullying at school - what we know and what we can do (Olweus, 1993, translated into 14 different languages), Olweus core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook (Olweus, 2001), the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) with accompanying PC-program, and a video cassette on bullying (Olweus & Limber, 1999). More information about the intervention program and ordering of materials can be obtained from Olweus@online.no.

94

ROSARIO ORTEGA RUIZ: SAVE: An educational model to prevent violence in schools.

Rosario Ortega Ruiz, University of Cordoba, Spain.

Convivencia as part of the Spanish School Culture

The culture in which the Spanish Education System has been based for the past twenty five years of democracy has moved away from the authoritarian and moralistic influence which prevailed during the years of dictatorship. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the treatment of social aspects of education has been removed, especially the avoidance of attention to feelings and social and moral issues. Spanish culture does not have any expression, popular or academic, which is equivalent to what is understood in other cultures, such as anglosaxon, as bullying. When researchers began studying this problem (Vieira, Fernandez and Quevedo, 1989; Ortega, 1992 and 1994a y b; Cerezo, 1997) we had to face the fact that teachers, families and society in general did not know what we were talking about. That does not mean that these problems did not exist, but certainly it has been in the last 10 years when society, and more particularly teachers and families, have become aware of the importance of tackling the problem of school violence. In this vein, research projects have included proposals of intervention, and in particular those including the active participation of teachers in their development, have been pioneered. This is the case with the Seville Anti-Violence in Schools project: SAVE (Ortega, 1997 and Ortega and col., 1998; Ortega and Lera, 2000; Ortega, Del Rey and Fernandez, 2003). SAVE was designed following the whole policy model suggested by Olweus (see Olweus, 1999) and Smith (see Smith and Sharp,1994), incorporating the concept of convivencia. Convivencia is a polysemic word that has a high level of social prestige. In Spain, the term convivencia is not only used to mean co-existing, not just living together, but it includes legal and psychological connotations. In the legal meaning, convivencia signifies respect for the rights of others. In the psychological meaning, convivencia signifies feelings of empathy and happiness to be with others. There is also a pro-social dimension which relates to wanting to be useful to others. The mass media talk about political convivencia in order to express that the members of different political and ideological parties must talk together in agreement about common causes. We talk about citizenship convivencia in order to refer to the necessity that individuals have their public rights respected and that they can exercise these rights without being attacked or reprimanded. But we talk about domestic convivencia to refer to the desire for the well-being of the members of the family. Finally, we talk about school convivencia to refer to subtle attachments, solidarity and the respect that grows between teachers and pupils and between pupils. Convivenica signifies sharing life on a day-to-day basis, sharing activities which for various reasons we carry out with others. At a cultural level, this has a positive value,

95

recognising that people look for sharing well-being. It describes a popular construct which is employed in legal, community and institutional contexts. Living together, in convivencia, it is hoped that a minimum level which guarantees that one is not violent, attacked or intimidated. SAVE was the first project to come up with a global process of intervention against bullying linked to research work and focusing on the traditional concept of convivencia. The link between investigation and intervention and its basis in the popular philosophy of convivencia are the two main defining factors of the SAVE project (Ortega, Del Rey and Mora-Merchn, 2004).

SAVE: nature, components and implementation

The schools and their selection The Local Education Authority of Seville invited schools from the most socially and economically deprived areas to a preliminary seminar held by the research team. The head-teachers, and at least three other teachers from the staff of each school, and the school counsellors were invited to this seminar. Following this meeting, 23 schools agreed to participate in the first stage of the project, which aimed to collect information about bullying through a questionnaire (Ortega, Mora-Merchan and Mora, 1995). Three more schools joined the project, because they were interested in knowing about bullying in their schools. In the end we gave the questionnaire to 4,914 students between 8 and 18 years old, in 26 schools. After this investigation phase, ten of these schools accepted the two requirements to do the phases of intervention: including a minimum of four teachers per school and having permission from the Centre for Training Teachers of the area (CEP). In summary, 26 schools took the pre-test, 10 implemented programmes, but only 5 were selected for posttest (Ortega, 1997; Ortega and Del Rey, 2001). The evaluation was carried out by comparing the results with 4 control schools where SAVE had not been implemented. Programmes based on improving convivencia SAVEs philosophy gives us a vision of the social, psychological and academic reality of the schools as real communities of convivencia where we learn not only what is planned through the curriculum, but also that what is not planned and what becomes a hidden or implicit curriculum (Ortega, 1997). The convivencia philosophy has links with the community model which tries to include everybody concerned in the project, teachers, students and families, and also social support groups such as parents associations, neighbourhood associations etc. Teachers have certain curriculum objective as part of their role within the educational system. However, both students and teachers should also attempt to construct convivencia. Teaching and learning can be done in many different ways. In the Spanish education system, teachers have some freedom to choose the contents and evaluation methods they use. In addition, teachers can decide how to manage social rules and 96

communication channels. They have to carry out specific objectives, but can reach these in different ways. SAVE proposed to the staff of each schools, enabled each school the freedom to develop their own method of tackling bullying, a whole policy model based on convivencia Special programmes for working directly with pupils involved in bullying or at risk of being involved were designed and implemented when schools requested. Teachers involved in the SAVE projects assumed to implement the follow programmes: a) Interpersonal relationships based on convivencia. Attending to the democratic management of both the class and the school includes the analysis of all the events related to daily convivencia. With this in mind, there should be an elaboration of clear and explicit rules, including the setting up of an easy and transparent model of discipline. Equally important is agreement from everyone regarding rules about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and a positive emphasis on liberty, solidarity, and equality among everybody in the school. Some proposals within this programme are: assemblies, establishment of rules by consensus, debates, conflict resolution, suggestion boxes, design of specific materials by teachers, and the encouragement of participation in school life. b) Education of feelings, attitudes and values. The SAVE project developed a line of curricular work whose concrete objectives refer to feelings, attitudes and values. It tries to work directly with interpersonal and psychological knowledge; to explore more about oneself and others in all their dimensions, but especially with those whose emotions and feelings affect social relations; to recognise that we can damage others if we dont understand them and respect them; and also to learn to appreciate our own feelings and values to avoid injuring our personal rights. Some examples of techniques from our proposal are: the use of play, stories, role-playing, analysis of communication media, case studies, design of specific materials by the teachers about solidarity, respect, self-esteem and self-concept. d) Co-operative groups in learning work. The SAVE project is based on the supposition that the prevention of violence demands that the ways of teaching and learning be changed toward a co-operative model that encourages communication and negotiation. SAVE schools developed a co-operative model of teaching and learning. Cooperation has been identified as one of the most successful ways of covering all the teaching objectives (Ortega and Fernndez, 1998), not only for those who are helped by others, but also for more able students who help the less able pupils. Co-operation is sharing ideas, activities, criticisms and evaluations in a joint task. Only in this way will students have experiences that improve the affective climate, the attitudes, and the positive values that guide their behaviour towards each other. Programmes with students involved in bullying or at risk of violence Although the SAVE project highlights prevention, it does not mean that we forget that there are children who, because of their personal, family and social conditions, are at risk of involving themselves in bullying, or are already involved. SAVE offers them specific lines of intervention through programmes that, necessarily, are outside the developed curriculum, although they can and must be implemented with a view to establishing coherence between the two. For those children we propose, among 97

others, six programmes: quality circles (Sharp, Cowie and Smith, 1994), conflict intervention (Fernandez, 1998), peer support (Cowie and Wallace, 1998), Pikas Method (Pikas, 1989), assertiveness training (Ortega, 1998) and empathy training (Ortega, 1998). The shared aim of the first three programmes is to offer the children social support, in the majority of cases from their peers, to solve situations where before they felt insecure. The last three programmes are characterised by very specific objectives and are very systematic. SAVE implemented Pikas Method in order on the destructuralisation of the social networks that support bullying, and their replacement with help systems (intervention in conflicts). Bullies need a special process to re-educate their capacity to be sensitive towards others feelings, SAVE implemented a program to training empathy, for them. Also with victims SAVE implemented direct intervention, focused on improving their assertiveness and damaged self-esteem: assertive training programmes (Ortega & other, 1998). Finally, again with convivencia concept as the basis SAVE, we included work with families when the schools can involve pupils parents in its whole policy project. Achievements and difficulties of the implementation After collecting data regarding the levels of bullying in each school, the staff from each school had to decide about their participation in the intervention, while we analysed the information. During this time (6 months) we maintained contact with the educational psychologists who worked with these schools, and also with the teaching teams if requested. To continue their participation in the project they needed to tell us or to accept an invitation to a new meeting when the reports from each school were made. During the 1996/97 academic year, researchers visited each school at least two times to establish the intervention programmes. We also held some formative seminars, in some of which we had the presence and participation of colleagues from the Sheffield Project (Smith and Sharp, 1994), who gave us the benefit of their experiences. In June 1997, at the end of an intensive period of work, we held a large meeting, in which seventy-five teachers shared their impressions, thoughts and opinions about the development of the SAVE project in their schools. These meetings provided the opportunity to share worries, initiatives and encouragement, and improved the group cohesion and the motivation to continue together. This reflection process made the majority of teachers think about their own behaviours which, although not intentionally promoting interpersonal violence, may have appeared to condone such behaviours via intolerant or ambiguous attitudes. We finished the meeting with the decision to continue the work during the next academic year, though only if the restructuring of the educational system allowed the creation of groups with at least four or five teachers in the same school. This was indeed the case and, despite changes in some teams, the work was able to continue. The groups of teachers established new challenges for their work, which caused, in some cases, a change in the intervention proposals of the school. The project maintained, during the three years of implementation (1996-1999), a dynamic of teachers in each school. Each staff school group meets once every two weeks, and the

98

chairs of these school working groups together meet with the research team at the University (director and researcher assistant, at least) once every two months. At the end of each academic session, all the staff involved in the SAVE project meet to assess the progress and design the next year.

Evaluation: tools, procedures and main results

We used a pre/post-test model to evaluate changes in the number of students involved in bullying, as well as possible changes in attitudes and other related aspects included in the concept of convivencia. For this, we used an anonymous questionnaire about bullying (Cuestionario sobre intimidacin y maltrato entre iguales; Ortega, Mora-Merchn and Mora, 1995). This instrument, administered in classrooms without the presence of teachers, was given twice: once before starting the intervention in 1996 (26 schools) and then again three years later, in 1999, in five SAVE schools (three primary and two secondary) and four no SAVE school (control): two primary and two secondary. Finally we explored the effectiveness of the different programmes developed in each school. To do this, we used a questionnaire with three questions which asked students: what the teachers have done to improve relations between peers; how long they have been doing it; and what effects have these interventions had. The assessment of the SAVE project was designed to find two main indicators: First, to know the changes in the levels of bullying in each school: students involved and their distribution into the three main bullying roles: bullies, victims, bully/victims and bystanders. The second was designed to know changes in different aspects of social life included in the concept of convivencia. Finally, we tried to find out the students perceptions of the intervention programmes implemented in their schools. Results regarding involvement in bullying and the experience of victimisation The pre- and post-test comparison of the five schools evaluated revealed a significant difference in favour of the post-test. The differences in the number of students involved in bullying problems are significant at chi-squared (p<0.001) between pre-test and posttest. The number of victims in these five schools after three years implementation more than halved (9.1%, n=83) vs. (3.9%, n=35). The bully/victim group decreased (0.7%, n=6) vs. (0.3%, n=3) and also the bullies decline a little (4.5%, n=41) vs. (3.8%, n=34). Correspondingly, the bystander or non-involved group increased (85.7%, n=780) vs. (92.1%, n=838). SAVE intervention has also shown itself to affect the experience of victimisation, in two main aspects: the duration and the act of looking for help by victims. There was a reduction of the number of long-term victims (options from the beginning of the year or forever) from 25.4% at pre-test to 15% at post-test (p<0.001). The number of pupils who decided not to say anything about their victimisation decreased (p<0.01) from 12.4% to 9.3%. The most chosen option is to tell peers (19.1%), the next family/relatives (17.8%) and the last teachers (13.5%); this did not change appreciably between pre-posttest.

99

The SAVE schools have a lower incidence of bully/victim problems than control schools over all four roles (p<0.01); this was especially marked for victims and bully/victims. Results regarding interpersonal relations, and other factors of convivencia The second indicator was a comparative analysis of several question assessed in the questionnaire, which we found relevant in order to see the preventative effect of the curricular programmes considering factors of the convivencia. The questions which were compared pre- and post-test referred to: a) the relationships between pupils in the school and the level of satisfaction that they have; b) Feelings about the victimisation: duration and help looked for; c) attitudes, ideas a causal attribution towards bullying. Regarding convivencia, the results were clearly encouraging. After the intervention period, there was increased satisfaction with school life in general (p<0.01), positive responses increasing from 61.8% at pre-test to 66.6% at post-test; and negative responses decreasing from 4.8% to 4.1%. In addition, the number of students stating that they felt alone or isolated during break-time a lot decreased from 6.6% to 3.5%, and for those who said that they felt that way occasionally, from 31.5% to 15.2%. These differences are significant (p<0.001). The pupils showed more satisfaction with the relationships with their peers (p<0.001), positive responses increasing from 66.4% at pre-test to 77.2% at post-test; and negative responses decreasing from 2.2% to 1.8% (Ortega, Del Rey & Mora-Merchn, 2004). Attitudes towards bullying, we also found significant differences between pre- and posttest (p<0.001). The number of students who judge bullies in a negative way (I do not like people who bully others) increased (6.7% vs. 7.9%). The number of pupils who justified or approved of bullying (I think bullying others is a normal thing or I think people who bully others have reasons to do it) decreased (13% vs. 8.8%). There was also a significant change among the students when asked if they would ever bully others. The number of students that said they would never bully others increased (43.4% vs. 52.2%); the number of pupils who recognised that they might bully others decreased (35.8% vs. 27.3%). Analysing the students opinions about the more common forms of bullying, we observed that physical and verbal methods maintained the same levels pre-test post-test, but indirect or social aggression increased significantly (p=0.015). In our opinion, this change reflects a greater awareness of the less visible forms of bullying. This could be because pupils identify some events as bullying that before the intervention they did not recognise as such. After the intervention, the classroom was perceived as becoming a safer place (37.8% vs. 27.6% pre-post test) (p<0.001). We consider this change to be valuable as each class had traditionally been seen as a place of risk in this and previous studies (Ortega, 1994a y b; Ortega, 1997; Ortega & Mora-Merchn, 1999 and 2000) There were also changes in relation to the perceived causes (p<0.001). Provocation or joking as causes of bullying decreased (38.9% vs. 30.4%; 28% vs. 22.5% respectively). However, intention to gain social status increased (1.2% vs. 15.5%). We attribute this change in the same way: SAVE improved accuracy on the part of students at distinguishing reasons for bullying events. 100

Students perceptions of the effectiveness of SAVE programme A short questionnaire was included in SAVE-Schools post-test asking about some aspects of the SAVE programmes in relation to their opinion about bullying and other social troubles include in the concept of convivencia. Students were invited to answer the three questions: a) what the teachers have done to improve relations between peers; b) how long they have been doing it; and c) what effects have these interventions had. Students can answer in three main ways: it didnt help, the problem has got better (with three possibilities: bullying decreased, peer relations got better and/or there were unspecified improvements) and the problem has got worse (with three possibilities: bullying increased, peer relations got worse and/or there were unspecified deteriorations (this last category was empty after coding) (see table 1; and for more details, Ortega, Del Rey and Mora-Merchn, 2004). All the aspects of the SAVE project were assessed positively by the students although not always in the same way. All the programmes had a beneficial effect on the convivencia (improved relationships and had and positive social effect, and no one made relationships worse) but in different ways and at different levels. The democratic management of social classroom relationships intervention programme was given the best evaluation in order to improve peer relationship. Education in feelings and values was also evaluated very positively, although a considerable number of students thought that it had no effect. The co-operative work in learning and curricular activities was the least effective strategy. The only appreciable gender differences were positive evaluations by girls of education of feelings and values (60.5% girls and 39.5% boys; p<0.01) and direct interventions with bullies (52.5% girls and 47.5% boys; p<0.01). (Ortega, Del Rey y Mora-Merchn, 2004). Finally, the direct programmes working were evaluated by the students as the more effective ways of decreasing bullying, especially working directly with the victims with programmes of assertive training.

Debate and conclusions

SAVE results are optimistic and we consider that this kind of whole policy model could be effective in reducing bullying in an indirect way by increasing the positive perceptions of convivencia. Certainly, bullying has not disappeared, but it has decreased, particularly with respect to the number of victims. In this sense, we think that the work designed to improve interpersonal relationships in the schools functioned as a protective factor, and the students seemed to agree. The evaluation of SAVE gives us some information regarding which elements should be promoted in the design of whole policy model intervention programmes in the future. Perhaps the best example is the success of both curricular programmes: Democratic management of social relationships in the classroom and The education of feelings, attitudes and values. We consider both to be very important factors in the main concept of convivencia, as a new deeper view of social life in the school. However, we need more work to determine with more certainty the influence of convivencia programmes on the specific problem of bullying. As far as we can go, with the evaluation made by the students of the SAVE programme schools, we have to consider the most effective way to decrease bullying is just to work directly with bullies and victims. 101

One very important characteristic of SAVE was the teachers autonomy in deciding what and how to implement the programmes. It added difficulties when comparing the relative merits of each intervention, but perhaps this is a part of our success. In our opinion, SAVE project clearly indicates that convivencia is a successful concept to introduce whole policy models. On the other hand, we consider SAVE as a good example of the need to go forward in two distinct directions, combining intervention and research together. References Cerezo, F. (ed.) (1997). Conductas agresivas en la edad escolar. Madrid: Pirmide. Cowie, H. & Wallace, H. (2000). Peer Support in Action. London: SAGE. Del Rey, R. and Ortega, R. (2001). El programa de ayuda entre iguales en el contexto del proyecto Sevilla Anti-Violencia Escolar. In Revista de Educacin, 326, 297-310. Del Rey, R. & Ortega, R. (2001). Fernndez, I. (1998). Prevencin de la Violencia escolar y resolucin de conflictos: El clima escolar como factor de calidad. Madrid: Narcea. Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano and P. Slee (eds). The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-national Perspective. London: Routledge. Pp. 28-48. Ortega, R. (1992). Violence in Schools. Bully-victims Problems in Spain. Vth. European Conference on Developmental Psychology. Sevilla. p. 27. Ortega, R. (1994a). Violencia interpersonal en los centros educativos de enseanza secundaria. Un estudio descriptivo sobre el maltrato y la intimidacin entre compaeros. Revista de Educacin, 303, 253-280. Ortega, R. (1994b). Las malas relaciones interpersonales en la escuela. Estudio sobre la violencia y el maltrato entre compaeros de Segunda Etapa de EGB. Infancia y Sociedad, 27-28, 191-216. Ortega, R. (1997). El proyecto Sevilla Antiviolencia Escolar. Un modelo de intervencin preventiva contra los malos tratos entre iguales. Revista de Educacin, 313, 143-160. Ortega, R. (1998). Trabajo con vctimas, agresores y espectadores de la violencia. In R. Ortega et al., La Convivencia Escolar: qu es y cmo abordarla. Sevilla: Consejera de Educacin y Ciencia de la Junta de Andaluca. Ortega, R. and Del Rey, R. 82001). Aciertos y desaciertos del proyecto Sevilla AntiViolencia Escolar (SAVE. In Revista de Educacin, 324, 253-272. Ortega, R. Del Rey, R. and Fernandez, I. (2003). Working together to prevent school violence: The Spanish response. In P. K. Smith (ed,). Violence in School. The response in Europe. London. RoutledgeFalmer.; pp. 135-152.

102

Ortega, R. Del Rey, R. & Mora-Merchan, J. (2004). SAVE model: and anti-bullying intervention in Spain. (in press). Ortega, R. & Lera, M.J. (2000). Seville Anti-Bullying school project. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 113-123. Ortega, R., Mora-Merchn, J., Fernadez, V., Gandul, I., Del Rey, R., Palacios, R., Rios, H., Prieto, P., Valverde, A., Ortega-Rivera, J. (1998). Convivencia Escolar. Qu es y cmo abordarla. Sevilla. Consejera de Educacin y Ciencia. Junta de Andalucia. Ortega, R. & Mora-Merchn, J.A. (1997). El Proyecto Sevilla Anti-Violencia Escolar. Un modelo ecolgico de intervencin educativa contra el maltrato entre iguales. In F. Cerezo (ed.), Conductas agresivas en la edad escolar. Madrid: Pirmide. Ortega, R. & Mora-Merchn, J.A. (1999). Spain. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (eds.): The Nature of School Bullying: A CrossNational Perspective. Londres: Routledge. Ortega, R. & Mora-Merchn, J.A. (2000). Violencia Escolar. Mito o realidad. Sevilla: Mergablum. Ortega, R.; Mora-Merchn, J.A. & Mora, J. (1995). Cuestionario sobre intimidacin y maltrato entre iguales. Universidad de Sevilla. Pikas, A. (1989). The Common Concern Method for the treatment of mobbing. In E. Munthe and E. Roland (eds): Bullying: An International Perspective. London: David Fulton. Sharp, S., Cowie, H. & Smith, P.K. (1994). Working directly with pupils involved in bullying situation. In P.K. Smith & S. Sharp (eds.): School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives. London: Routledge. Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (eds.) (1994). School Bullying. London: Routledge. Vieira, M., Fernndez, I. & Quevedo, G. (1989). Violence, bullying and counselling in the Iberican Pennsula. In E. Roland & E. Munthe (eds.): Bullying: an International Perspective. London: David Fulton.
*

Professor of Educational Psychology. Contact email: ortegaruiz@uco.es

103

KEITH SULLIVAN: Local Initiatives in New Zealand Dealing with Bullying in New Zealand Secondary Schools: The number 8 fencing wire approach
Keith Sullivan, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Introduction
School bullying has been identified as an issue of major concern that has impacted in negative ways upon the lives of a significant number of young New Zealanders. Unlike the governments of a large number of other OECD countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Norway, Germany, the United States), the New Zealand Government has not confronted the issue by developing clear anti-bullying policies. Through its Ministry of Education, it could have taken a role of leadership and responsibility and initiated a number of responses, including commissioning research, developing effective anti-bullying programmes and creating a national anti-bullying policy for schools. Instead, it has been left to concerned (but marginal) agencies and organisations to come up with solutions to this problem, and to schools to develop their own policies and responses.4 In the late 1980s, under a neo-liberal Labour Government, it was decided that schools should be self-managing and make their own decisions about what was best for them (which was complemented by a so-called policy-driven Ministry at the centre). Although supporters of this ideological position would argue that it is an empowering model, it could equally be stated that this has created a void at the centre. In relation to school bullying, it could be argued that in not developing something substantial to address bullying, the government and its Education Ministry have been negligent of the human rights of a significant number of young New Zealand citizens. Several informative research studies have identified school bullying as a major problem. For instance, in a report for the New Zealand Office of the Commissioner for Children, Lind and Maxwell (1996) found that when the secondary school students in their study described the three worst things they had ever experienced, the death of someone very close (a mother or father, brother or sister) was mentioned most often. Being bullied by other students came second. Maxwell and Linds 1997 report found that for students in their study: 49% reported having been punched, kicked, beaten, or hit by children; 70% reported having tales told, being the subject of catty gossip, or being narked on by children;
4

This is not meant to demean the work of these agencies; rather, it is a criticism of government policy which, despite lobbying and research evidence, has never confronted the issue of bullying and facilitated strategies to deal with it.

104

3% reported unwanted sexual touching; 40% reported being asked unwanted sexual things. A research team from the Education Department at Auckland University (Adair et al., 2000) surveyed 2,066 New Zealand secondary school students about their experiences of bullying. The team found that: - when they provided a list of behaviours that counted as bullying, 75% reported having been victims of bullying during the current year and 44% said that they had bullied others at some time during their schooling; - of the 81% of students who stated they had witnessed bullying, only 21% reported it to an adult. Nearly half indicated they were just as likely to ignore the bullying as to take action. A similar percentage did not believe it could be stopped and had no strategies for dealing with it. A more recent study by the Adolescent Health Research Group (2003) provides further information that bullying is an ongoing problem: 9.2% of boys and 5.2% of girls reported that they had been bullied in the last week; 27.9% of boys and 14.5% of girls reported they had been in a serious fight in the last year. 5 Besides these research findings, there has been public concern when serious incidents of bullying are reported in the media; for instance, the violent sexual attack on a boy by a group of high status male pupils from a Hawkes Bay secondary school; several incidents linking school bullying with suicide; and an ongoing stream of serious incidents of bullying at a number of New Zealands prestigious private schools.

Creating an Anti-bullying Initiative at Feilding High School: A Case Study

In their efforts to contribute towards making New Zealand a healthy and safe society, the Police have been innovators and world leaders in this area since the 1960s. Currently, their Youth Education Services (YES) provides programmes across several fronts, most notably: Keeping Ourselves Safe (anti-abuse), D.A.R.E. (anti-drug) and Kia Kaha (antibullying). Kia Kaha was introduced in 1992 and was one of the first major international anti-bullying initiatives. An evaluation of Kia Kaha (Sullivan, 1998) suggested that the programme be revised in light of recent research findings. As a result, a much-improved second edition consisting of four separate kits for the various levels within primary and secondary schools (3 primary, one secondary) has been developed.6 New Zealanders tend to be very down to earth. If a job needs doing or an issue needs attending to, they like to get on with the job and to use their ingenuity to solve the problems that arise. In describing this practical yet creative trait, number 8 fencing wire is often alluded to (that is, if you need to get the job done and arent fussed about how
5

The study took place in 2001. The sample consisted of 12,934 Year 9 to 13 students from 133 randomly selected New Zealand secondary schools. In order to gather data, a cross-sectional, anonymous, self-report survey was administered. 6 The author (Sullivan 2005) recently completed a critique and formative evaluation of the second edition.

105

pretty it looks, number 8 fencing wire can usually be relied on, at least temporarily, to fix your problem). In this chapter, I examine one schools number 8 fencing wire efforts to deal with the issue of bullying by adopting and adapting the Polices secondary school anti-bullying programme Kia Kaha: Our Place.7 Feilding High School (FAHS8) is a medium-sized (1241 pupils in 2004), multiethnic (17% Maori, 77% Pakeha/European, 6% other) co-educational (48% were female and 52% male) secondary school in the Manawatu region of the lower North Island and is representative of middle New Zealand.9 FAHS aims to honour traditional values and to have a foot in the modern world. In a philosophically consistent vein and central to its intention of providing a high quality education, the school identifies the need to establish a balance between maintaining discipline and control and meeting the pastoral needs of its adolescent population. In terms of student support, the school describes itself as offering: a strong deans network with two guidance counsellors available, providing a caring and supportive environment; high expectations of student behaviour; a vertical group and house system which fosters a sense of belonging; a strong tradition of student leadership. (Feilding High School Prospectus)

The Organisation of the Anti-bullying Initiative at FAHS

The schools anti-bullying initiative is founded on Kia Kaha: Our Place and is organisationally (and informally) structured around the work of the counsellors and supported by the management team, the Kia Kaha Action Group and the local Police Education Officer. It is organised as follows:
Figure One: The Organisation of the Anti-Bullying Initiative at FAHS

Management Team

The Counsellors

Kia Kaha Action Group

Police Education Officer

The norm for case study research is to use pseudonyms. In this case, the Principal gave his permission to name the school. 8 The school was previously called Feilding Agricultural High School because of its rural location and traditional links with farming. In shortened form, the school refers to itself as FAHS.

106

The Counsellors The FAHS counselling team consists of a male (Nick Cheer) and a female (Liz Nichols) counsellor. They have good relationships with the student population. Both are committed and active individuals who understand and can communicate well with students, having established a sense of rapport and built up trust amongst the student body. They deal with a wide range of pastoral issues, some of which are simple and some of which are very complex. In terms of the school hierarchy, they report to the principal. They have adopted a no blame type of approach and try to solve anti-bullying problems that arise in a constructive way so that hidden antagonism does not replace what they have detected on the surface. When difficult situations arise, however, they may choose to act in a disciplinary fashion or send the case in question on to the appropriate member of the management team. As is the case with large and active communities like FAHS, there can be a blurring of role boundaries, particularly when a crisis situation precipitates the need to find quick and effective solutions by whoever is close at hand. The Management Team The school management team consists of the Principal, Deputy Principal, Assistant Principal and Deans. Their concern is with the effective running of the school and their job in relation to bullying largely relates to dealing with it as a serious and disciplinary issue through consequences or punishment. This is the harder (and arguably the more transparent) discipline face of the school (particularly in terms of the Principal and Deputy Principal), but members of the team also take on pastoral roles when and where appropriate. Whereas the counsellors practice an approach that could be described as humanistic and problem-solving, the management team has the difficult job of providing order and control within a sometimes unruly adolescent population. Their acts are often symbolic and important in providing a clear indication to students of what is and is not acceptable. They need to be fair and consistent (and seen to be this way) but also to be firm and to establish the school as a healthy and safe place. The Kia Kaha Action Group The Kia Kaha Action Group consists of the counsellors, the Deputy Principal, a number of teachers and a student representative. Their job is to initiate anti-bullying meetings, to create a process with steps and timelines guided by the Kia Kaha programme, and to foster this approach within the school community (pupils, teachers, parents). Individuals are invited to contribute to the development and ongoing processes related to the antibullying initiative, but at its heart are the counsellors who are aware of the underlying philosophies, structures and content which are fundamental to the programmes success. The Police Education Officer The role of the Police Education Officer is to be the liaison person between the Police and the school and to assist in whatever way is agreed upon to implement and maintain Kia Kaha in FAHS and other local schools (at the primary and intermediate levels as well). Diana Hadley is the Police Education Officer for the Feilding community. 107

A strength she brings with her is that she has contact with a range of community agencies (relating largely to youth) and also acts as a teacher for some of the health curriculumdriven units that have been developed at the school.

How the FAHS Anti-bullying Initiative has been Developed and Organised
In line with the schools philosophical approach, organisational structure and the differing but complementary roles of the management team and the counsellors, an interesting array of ways for dealing with bullying has emerged: preventative measures, the humanistic methods of the counsellors and the Kia Kaha Action Group, and the consequence-driven approach of the management team. In effect, there are two philosophically differing approaches sitting side by side. Clearly, cooperation among staff is central to making the programme work. I will examine these two approaches separately.

Figure Two: The FAHS Anti-Bullying Programme

The Two-Pronged Approach to Bullying at Feilding High School Pastoral Individual Counselling 'No Blame' like Approach to Groups Special Needs Unit Support Kia Kaha: Our Place Kia Kaha Whole School Approach Bullying Survey In The Curriculum Disciplinary The Steps Programme Stand Downs + Exclusions

Parallel Peer Programmes Yellow Ribbon Programme - Junior Peer Support - He Ara Tika

The Pastoral Infrastructure

The pastoral infrastructure provides established processes for dealing with incidents of bullying, and the guidance counsellors, sometimes in conjunction with and support from the Kia Kaha Action Group, have also established a network of programmes to deal with bullying. The counsellors see their initiative as a whole as falling under the umbrella of Kia Kaha. This infrastructure includes the following programmes and resources.

108

i. Individual Counselling The school counsellors have worked together to create a web of trust and support and they make themselves available to students to deal with bullying as it occurs and as they are alerted to it. This can be through self-referral or upon the suggestion of other students or teachers. On an individual basis, they support individual students and to try to problem-solve. ii. Group Counselling: Using a No Blame-like Philosophy and Approach The counsellors stated that they use a No Blame type of approach (that is, they do not use the No Blame approach per se but do use its philosophy and general shape) to attempt to unravel and deal with group dynamics. They try to solve problems rather than apply consequences or punishment to those responsible wherever they are able. iii. Special Needs Unit The teacher running the special needs unit has made it a safe place for the special needs and learning support students to come to if they are feeling vulnerable in the school. She has also made it a place where other vulnerable students who are prone to bullying are made welcome. They tend to be kids who dont have social skills, which are the same as their age group and other kids are very adept at picking that up. Theyre with me because they are delayed in their academic skills and theyre often immature emotionally. We get lots of the 8 or 9 year-old behaviour you know, he said she said, that sort of thing, and they cant see the wider picture. If somebody says something to them or somebody does something, they dont see the wider picture, dont see the wider context. Theyre still very, very egocentric, that developmental thing, but other kids and particularly those who are not mature socially but are very astute know that these are good victims. You get quite a nice reaction. We get lots of tears, really upset kids which we dont normally get with 13, 14, 15 year olds. We get tears often. Thats just an example of how immature they are. iv. Kia Kahas Whole School Approach FHS adopted the new edition of Kia Kaha in order to trial it for the Police and to see at the same time if it suited their needs. Kia Kaha: Our Place provides the basis for a whole school programme and a set of processes to introduce an effective anti-bullying programme to the school. The new kit consists of three booklets. They describe a workshop, anti-bullying resources and eight lessons for use as curriculum materials; and contain two explanatory videos and two pamphlets (one a brief overview of how to develop a peer mentoring scheme, one an overview of bullying for parents and the general community). As part of the introduction of the programme, in 2001 the counsellors involved students in developing a bullying survey of the school. In critiquing and piloting the survey provided in Our Place, the students and counsellors modified it according to how the students felt it could be made appropriate for their school. The survey was then run throughout the school. This process is an example of how the school used the excellent resources provided in the Kia Kaha kit but in modifying it for their needs took ownership of it.

109

v. In the Curriculum As well as providing the basis for the school to develop anti-bullying processes, Our Place also outlines eight lessons (four for Years 9 and 10, and four for Years 11 to 13) that allow students to understand better the dynamics of bullying and also suggest mechanisms for finding solutions. Over the course of several years, these have been developed and introduced to the school. As well as being useful educational tools, they are also legitimated as components of the Health Curriculum. By using the Police curriculum resources in a way that suited their needs, the schools sense of ownership of the programme has increased. vi. The Yellow Ribbon Programme In adopting Kia Kaha, FAHS has also embraced a compatible range of programmes and philosophical perspectives as part of its anti-bullying strategy:
What were saying is that our Kia Kaha programme is an adaptation of the programme. Its adapted to meet our needs. Were keen to pick out the bits that work for us, and they do work for us. We are also putting it in the context of a whole lot of other social education programmes such as Yellow Ribbon, peer support and other things we are doing [Keeping Ourselves Safe, D.A.R.E.], not because we have problems in the school in those areas but because we want to create a safe environment. Its a very high priority in terms of the school so were putting our resources into that. (Nick)

In 2002, the school counsellors supported the introduction of Yellow Ribbon NZ. This programme is based upon a form of peer support and was intended to reflect the Kia Kaha philosophy of establishing a safe school environment and an open culture where it is deemed appropriate to report incidents of bullying (to tell). The organisation that runs Yellow Ribbon is linked to an American parent organisation (which was initiated by the parents and friends of an American teenager who committed suicide). The New Zealand chapter was started by Thelma French of Auckland, whose 17 year-old son had also taken his life.
The Yellow Ribbon Organisation encourages young people to learn help-seeking behaviour, through a school and community-based programme, which is based on a simple message, Its OK to ask for help. (Nick)

The programme trains older students as ambassadors to be helpful and supportive of other students of a similar age: Ambassadors provide peer support. They wear a badge and the kids know they can talk about any problem. There is no specific room where they talk but the ambassadors will take them somewhere private. In this context, kids can talk to other kids and the ambassadors will take it further [to an adult], with permission. Yellow Ribbon involves older students as part of the support system in the school. This is not only useful for the schools pastoral system; it also provides useful skills for the ambassadors to take out into the world:

110

vii. He Ara Tika: Maori Peer Mentoring Another parallel programme, He Ara Tika (the good path), was developed to provide peer support and mentoring for younger Maori students by older successful Maori students:
I am a mentor for He Ara Tika, which is a Maori mentoring programme. We get given a kid from 3rd and 4th form who is struggling socially and schoolwise and wed just be ears. We sit there and listen to their problems and [make suggestions for] how to improve things. My little girl shes lovely. Shes fine socially but shes not terribly academic. Shes come so far. Ive been with her a term and a half I think. Oh, but [in relation to] her confidence in herself and her reading its really nice to see that shes more confident with her reading, that she wants to get her book out to read to me and [is now] much more open and more willing to give things a try. Ive worked with her since half way through term 2. Shes doing well. Im quite proud of her!

Prospective mentors from the upper school (Years 12 and 13) who are known to be positive, supportive and pro-social are approached to train as mentors, being given microcounselling skills such as how to listen and how to help others think through issues and make their own good decisions. Similarly, teachers are asked to name students who are struggling. A training programme is organised and run over an eight-week period and is designed to provide mentors with clear understandings about their role and optimism about their abilities to make a difference:
I got paired up with Moana. I think we got paired up because we both like to talk lots and they thought that was a good starting point of our bonding. Its been really good. Everyone Ive talked to whos involved in He Ara Tika and the buddy programme, which is the same thing only not Maori, has seen their kid just come so far. Its been really good. We were told our job was just to sit there and listen, not tell them what to do, not to give them advice. Not to say you should do this. [Rather we should suggest that] this is an option. This is a road you could go down. And [its intended that we] just encourage them as people to have confidence in themselves and, you know, to hop back on the bike and give it another go.

vii. The Junior Peer Support Programme Another form of peer support is provided for new entrant Year 7 students at the start of the school year who are partnered by Year 13 (and sometimes Year 12) students. Some of the new students arrive from a small school into this much larger context, and others find moving into the hostel very difficult. The purpose of the scheme is to provide a positive introduction to the school, and to encourage the older students to act as role models and support for the younger students: Peer support happens with term 1 within each Year 9 group who dont have confidence with Year 13s. The older kids have to be willing to help integrate the younger kids into the school. Many come from small schools where there are 140 kids, and then they move in to the hostel. They may not know anyone else and need to be settled in. There would be 2 or 3 from each group. They meet on the first day of school. As part of the programme and through regular small group meetings, the counsellors use this as an opportunity to introduce the Kia Kaha message by getting the senior students to explain it to the new students. Although the impetus of Kia Kaha: Our Place leans towards pastoral methods, it does not preclude the use of more discipline orientated responses as and when appropriate. 111

The Disciplinary Approach The disciplinary approach could be described as straight-forward, clear and in effect a behavioural response to behaviour issues. Although it could be criticised for being less humane than the pastoral approach, it could equally be argued that its purpose is to handle difficult cases and to send a clear message to the school as a whole that certain behaviours will not be tolerated. It is, in effect, a justice-driven approach that focuses on providing appropriate consequences and punishment for unacceptable behaviour. It is also the case that a humane response will be used if appropriate and there is, of course, the possibility to refer some cases back to the counsellors. The basic mechanism for handling issues of discipline at FAHS, which can include cases of bullying, is the sevenstep system. The Seven-step System The seven-step system is a progressive approach to discipline whereby an infringement against the schools rules results in an appropriate consequence. The system is designed to give a short sharp shock message to students. Step one is for a relatively minor infringement and there is a gradual progression depending upon the degree of seriousness that takes into account repeat-offences. A step-seven infringement results in the ultimate punishment of exclusion (expulsion) from attending the school. During the 2002 school year, several students received step-six consequences as a result of bullying. This meant that they were stood down (suspended) for a two- or three-day period.

Major Themes
This paper has presented a brief case study of one schools approach to dealing with bullying. Schools in New Zealand are self-managing, and with certain issues (such as bullying) there is little direction from the centre. It is interesting, therefore, to examine how this school has responded to the needs of its community and to take a number 8 fencing wire approach, in other words, to be expedient and resourceful in a context of lack of direction from the centre. Theme One: Pastoral and Management Approaches: Co-existence Versus Competition Within the school, there are two philosophical stances that could in some circumstances be oppositional and in conflict. On the one hand, there is the school managements approach, which is essentially based on the idea that it is important to be firmly in control in a school with roughly 1,000 pupils where unpredictable adolescent behaviour must be handled quickly and appropriately. Running parallel with this is the pastoral approach of the guidance team. Their job is to anticipate potential problems, deal with those that eventuate and follow up any aftereffects. These responses need to be effective but not to undermine or challenge the management team. These two approaches are philosophically different, in that the first is based on a notion of cause an effect, anti-social behaviour and consequences, breaking rules and being disciplined; and the second is based on a No Blame philosophy that seeks to address the dynamics of bullying and to change social relationships. However, for the most part they

112

each have their place within the school and act in a complementary rather than an oppositional way. They are also an expression of choice within a democratic society. The school anti-bullying initiative (largely driven by the two counsellors) is eclectic and accepting and chooses to draw on a range of options. The context of any school dictates to a large extent the shape that its anti-bullying initiative will take. In a large school with a variety of everyday issues, it may be appropriate to have a range of reactions and strategies that fall along a continuum from the sensitive handling of an individual childs traumatic experience to riot control. While the style of the administration is to deal with situations of violence or potential violence with a short sharp shock approach determined often by the need for fast reactions to crises, the style of the pastoral staff is to react more holistically and within a longer time frame and arguably more humanely. Although there are bound to be occasional tensions, overall there is compliementarity and efficaciousness in this system.
Theme Two: Ownership versus Adoption

The recently completed critique and formative evaluation (Sullivan 2005) of Kia Kaha: Our Place suggests that FAHS has achieved some degree of success in its use of the programme. The Police (largely through the local Police Education Officer) have guided and supported the introduction of Kia Kaha but the school has shaped its use of the programme (such as in relation to the bullying survey modifications and in its adaptation of the curriculum materials). It has also introduced another programme (Yellow Ribbon), which is philosophically similar enough to include under the broad umbrella of its antibullying efforts. The other established approaches and programmes (counselling, junior peer support, he ara tika) work in conjunction with the schools efforts to create a safe and healthy environment. The Kia Kaha Action Group and in particular the school counsellors examined and discussed Kia Kaha and the other sub-programmes available, and firstly adopted the primary programme and then embraced other appropriate complementary programmes thereby adapting it to their needs. I would argue that a large contribution to the success of the schools use of the programme is the sense of ownership that came with this organic and adaptive response.
Theme Three: Practical versus Theoretical

In secondary schools, there are a lot of practical situations that have to be dealt with swiftly and appropriately. If a school owns its philosophy and has matched this up with practical strategies and programmes for dealing with issues like bullying, then it is likely to be a healthier place than where random and reactive approaches are used. And students will appreciate that the responses are fair and consistent. Without a good and useful Ministry of Education directive about bullying, it is necessary for schools to develop their own policies and adopt programmes that fit best, in combination or alone, with their intentions and philosophies. The FAHS approach is therefore an expedient response to getting the job done, typified by the resourcefulness of a number 8 fencing wire mentality.

113

Conclusions
Smith and Sharp (1994) have shown that the same set of anti-bullying initiatives used in different contexts can have very variable results. The major factor they identified was that positive or negative results were largely determined by the thoroughness and seriousness with which the school grasped the nettle, and by the depth of establishment of a whole school philosophy. Feilding High School is still in the process of embedding its antibullying initiative. When we examine its application of Kia Kaha: Our Place, it is clear that this provides a philosophical basis, a set of procedures and curriculum materials to establish a full anti-bullying programme that should have a long life. On closer examination, it becomes apparent that what makes it work is that it is also tied into a raft of other related initiatives that provide support to the development and which work to make it truly a whole school approach. It is laudable that schools like Feilding High School are prepared to take the opportunity presented by Polices Kia Kaha programme, to adopt and adapt it, and to create an effective response to a difficult and ongoing problem by using a creative number 8 fencing wire approach. The initiative taken by the school is demonstration of both good leadership and a caring staff; however, there are many schools that for a variety of reasons do not or are not able to rise to the challenge as FAHS has. There is clearly a policy need (at the least!) for a positive response from government, even if it is only to endorse and support the fine efforts of the New Zealand Police. Although there has been the appearance of concern, the government must be judged by their actions rather than their rhetorical responses. It could be argued either that the Government has been poorly informed by its Education Ministry or that it is negligent in not properly addressing an issue that is clearly harmful to a significant number of its young citizens. Although no direct link can be made between bullying and New Zealand having the highest suicide rate in the OECD, surely it is prudent to take measures where measures can easily be taken. References Adair, V.A., Dixon, R.S., Moore, D.W. and Sutherland, C.M. (2000) Ask your mother not to make yummy sandwiches: Bullying in New Zealand secondary schools, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 35(2): 20721. Adolescent Health Research Group (April 2003) A health profile of New Zealand youth who attend secondary school, Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 116: 1171 1-9. Codd, J.A. (1994) Managerialism, market liberalism and the move to self-managing schools in New Zealand. In J. Smyth (ed.), A Socially Critical View of the Self-managing Schools. London: Falmer Press. Cowie, H. and Sharp, S. (eds) (1996) Peer Counselling in Schools: A Time to Listen. London: David Fulton. Department for Education and Employment (2000) Bullying: Dont Suffer in Silence An Anti-bullying Pack for Schools. London: Department for Education and Employment.

114

Duncan, Y. and Stanners, M. (1996) Secondary Peer Mediation. Auckland: Foundation for Peace Studies Aotearoa/New Zealand. Fiske, E.B. and Ladd, H.F. (2000). When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Grace, G. (1990). 'The New Zealand Treasury and the commodification of education'. In Middleton et al (eds) (1990). Lauder, H. et al (1994). The Creation of Market Competition For Education in New Zealand: An Empirical Analysis of a New Zealand Secondary School Market, 1990-1993. The Smithfield Project Phase One, First Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Lind, J. and Maxwell, G. (January 1996) Children's Experience of Violence at School. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for Children. Maxwell, G. and Carroll-Lind, J. (1997). The Impact of Bullying on Children, occasional paper no. 6, Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for Children. Nairn, K. and Smith, A.B. (2002) Secondary school students experiences of bullying at school and their suggestions for dealing with it, Childrenz Issues, 6(1): 1622. Robinson, G. and Maines, B. (1997) Crying for Help: The No Blame Approach to Bullying. Bristol: Lucky Duck Publishing. Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. and Rigby, K. (forthcoming 2004) Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, P.K. and Sharp, S. (1994) School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives. London: Routledge. Sullivan, K. (2005) A Critique and Formative Evaluation of Kia Kaha: Our Place, the New Zealand Polices Anti-bullying Programme for Secondary Schools, Wellington: The New Zealand Police. Sullivan, K., Cleary, M. and Sullivan, G. (2004) Bullying in Secondary Schools: what it looks like and how to deal with it, Thousand Oaks, London, New Dehli: Sage (Corwin and Paul Chapman). Sullivan, K. (2000) The Anti-Bullying Handbook, Melbourne, Oxford, Auckland and New York: Oxford University Press. Sullivan, K. (1998) An Evaluation of Kia Kaha, the New Zealand Polices Resource Kit about Bullying for Students, Teachers and Parents, Wellington: The New Zealand Police. Youth Education Services (2002) Kia Kaha: Our Place, Wellington: New Zealand Police.

115

SANDRA DEAN: Together We Light the Way A Model for Creating Safe and Caring Learning Communities.

By Sandra Dean with David Galloway

Introduction
Together We Light The Way is a model arising from professional practice in Ontario, Canada, for creating safe and caring learning communities. This paper aims to: (a) Explain the origin and development of the model (b) Describe the model itself (c) Discuss whether the model is transferable to other schools in other situations.

Origin and development

Early in 1992, South Simcoe Public School in the Durham District School Board, Canada, came last of 89 schools on measures of student performance in reading, writing and mathematics. It was a tired, 75 year old inner city school facing the possibility of closure. The buildings were dreary; a shopping mall, at which students were frequently caught stealing, was just across the road; parents had come to believe that a letter or phone call from school promised trouble and they had enough trouble in their lives already; academic scores were falling. South Simcoe was a problem school. Less than four years later the same school won a national award for Excellence in Business and Educational partnerships from the Conference Board of Canada. Strong and enduring partnerships had been developed not only with parents, but also with members of the local community. Students treated teachers and each other with respect, and their educational progress had been transformed. Many were performing at the highest level in the subjects at which they had previously been bottom of the league. The school was now at the centre of its community, in demand from parents. Turning around a failing school is the ultimate challenge for a newly appointed principal. Yet it is never something the principal can do on her own. Leadership, certainly, is necessary, but on its own it is not enough. Turning a school round requires partnerships with teachers, office staff and caretakers, children, parents and members of the local community. Perhaps the strongest test of a communitys sense of partnership with a school is when its leaders, such as the manager of a local store, stop phoning the principal to complain about your kids and instead thinks of them as our kids. As principal of the school from 1991-1998, Dean (2000) has described the journey never smooth, often heart breaking of creating success from crisis.

116

Even in the most favourable circumstances, teaching is never an easy or predictable process. The best prepared lesson can be torpedoed in the opening minute. Successful teachers are flexible, creating opportunities for learning from the most improbable situations. Just as teaching can be messy and unpredictable, the same applies to school development. A principal never has the luxury of tackling problems sequentially, one at a time. Education involves developing students social capital as well as their educational knowledge and skills. The social and cognitive aspects of education are not separate, but inextricably inter-linked (Hargreaves, 2001). Changing the professional culture in a school may contribute to improvement in overall behaviour and to a reduction in bullying. In turn, this may be a pre-requisite for improvement in educational standards (Roland and Galloway, 2004). In practice, though, the process of school improvement is multi-pronged, not sequential. The model for Together We Light The Way grew out of Deans (2000) work at South Simcoe Public School. Drawing on this experience, she and her colleagues developed an extensive set of curriculum and audio-visual materials. The underlying philosophy was that the educational and social tasks of the school were part of the same process. Students who had a sense of self respect would be more likely to respect others, and have the confidence to make educational progress. Conversely, educational progress would give students a sense of self respect, which in turn would develop their respect for others. Together We Light The Way does not, however, see itself as a model just for school improvement. It consciously sees development of caring and responsible relationships with parents and with members of the local community as mutually beneficial.

The model
The following description of the model is adapted from the outline provided by Dean et al (2004): (a) Four Guiding Principles: Everyone is unique and has a contribution to make. Everyone has strengths which must be nurtured and supported. Everyone has the right to be respected and the responsibility to respect others. Service to others performed with caring and love makes a difference. These guiding principles create the foundation for: (b) Four Pillars: Academic: to ensure that students reach the highest level of academic achievement. Respect: to cultivate in students a strong sense of self-respect, personal responsibility and respect for others. Teamwork: to enable students to work as effective team members in the school and community. Leadership: to provide opportunities for students to be innovative and to take responsibility for themselves, their school and their community. These four pillars are constructed from:

117

(c) Seven specific programs: Respect: Teaches students how to respect themselves and others in the classroom, school, family, and local and global communities. Leading With Reading involves adults and children reading together to encourage a love of books and reading. The Choice Is Yours: demonstrates how making positive choices can have a positive impact on a persons life. Celebrating Our Stars: recognises and honours students for their accomplishments in academic life, respect, teamwork, leadership and service. Healthful Happenings: teaches students about the importance of nutritious foods and healthy living, and their relationship to learning and well being. Parenting Voices: facilitates parental engagement. Connections: Classroom and Community: shows students how learning at school is relevant to life outside school. Each of these seven programs incorporate: (d) Eight cultural components: Partnering: Individuals from businesses and communities work with students, school staff and parents. Starting from strengths: Individuals must be recognised as unique, with strengths that are valued, recognised and nurtured. Sharing leadership: Individuals should be encouraged to demonstrate initiative and to take responsibility for their own education and well being. Growing personally and professionally: Personal strengths and accomplishments make individuals unique. Honouring a person personally and professionally brings a tremendous strength and energy to the team. Respecting: All actions and interactions in the school should be based on the guiding principle that every one has the right to be respected and the responsibility to respect others. Assessing and Evaluating: Information about program implementation and student growth and achievement must be used to make informed, objective decisions. Service: Service to others must be recognised as contributing to building stronger and safer classrooms, schools and communities. Celebrating Success: Individual and school success should be recognised, honoured and celebrated. Influenced by these cultural components, the seven programs aim to: (e) Increase eight protective factors: School success Increased academic achievement A sense of self A safe, secure and nurturing environment A healthful lifestyle Positive family and school relationships Respectful and caring relationships Connection to caring adults.

118

In the design of each of the seven programs there are: (f) Two underlying strategies: Partnerships: involving parents, businesses and community partners Goal setting: establishing priorities and measuring success. These strategies enable the protective factors to produce: (g) Responsible, resilient, respectful citizens.

Resilient, Responsible, Respectful Citizen Eight Protective Factors

A C A D E M I C

R E S P E C T

T E A M W O R K

L E A D E R S H I P

Four Guiding Principles

Social Capital Social Cohesion

119

The four pillars are inter-dependent, but if any one pillar has pre-eminence for decreasing bullying and other forms of violent behaviour it is Respect. Without a strong sense of self respect, personal responsibility and respect for others, students will not fulfil their potential, either educationally or socially. Dean (2000:40) describes the origin of this program in her own childhood in Trinidad: I remembered a childhood lesson from my grandmother. She showed me a bucket of water, the surface of the water as flat and unmarred as a sheet of glass. You must always be kind and respectful, she told me, and everything you do must always be done with thought and love. Then she poked her index finger into the water. This is you, she said, indicating her finger. and this is what happens whenever you do something. She pointed with her other hand at the ripples radiating from her finger, disturbing the water. It affects other people and everything around you. Our Respect program is shown as a series of concentric circles, The Circles of Respect with respect for oneself at the centre. Radiating from this are respect for others in the classroom, others in the school, family members, others in the local community, and finally respect for the global community (Figure 1).

Is the model transferable?

The Ontario Royal Commission on Learning called South Simcoe School a success story and model for others to follow. But even if a school does inspire others, that does not necessarily 120

help them to follow its example. The early research on school effectiveness (e.g. Rutter et al, 1979) identified characteristics of successful schools, but policy makers and school principals quickly found that these characteristics could not easily be imported into other schools. School improvement proved to be a tortuous, boulder-strewn path. The success of another school can be a source of frustration and irritation to teachers in schools struggling to raise standards in difficult circumstances. The problem with a success story is simple: it can all too easily be dismissed as a one-off, dependent on the drive and personality of one person. That view underestimates the importance of team-work and the contributions that dozens of people make in creating a successful, outward looking school. So the challenge facing the Principal when South Simcoe was closed in a cost cutting exercise, was to see if the model developed there could be extended to other schools. Accepting this challenge was made possible when the Federal Department of Justice awarded $1.8m for a pilot project headed by the author to replicate the program in other schools. The project team produced an extensive set of curriculum and audio-visual materials to provide district leaders, parents, and community partners with training in implementing the model. A pilot project was carried out in four schools in Ontario and was evaluated by Leithwood and Jantzi (2003) from The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, at the University of Toronto. They concluded: The extensive evidence collected about the Together We Light The Way project through the external evaluation (1999-2002) suggests three key lessons for the attention of potential program adopters: Together We Light The Way provides a comprehensive approach to address the problems and issues in schools today. It is a creative and helpful means for creating respectful relationships among schools and between students and adults a crucial contribution to civil society. Together We Light The Way also shows considerable potential for addressing many of the factors associated with youth antisocial behaviours. It can attract the community into the school and engage parents more fully in the education of their children. Together We Light The Way has a significant number of important contributions to make to schools and communities, particularly to the children and their families. This is evident in the uniformly positive view of the models effects by those who directly experienced them in the schools and communities. It is believed that the positive outcomes, over a period of time will be extended beyond the three years of this evaluation, and will have important consequences for student achievement. As such, Together We Light The Way may provide a key to long-term sustained improvement in a schools capacity to optimize the achievement of students, especially students with special needs and those most at risk of failure. This encouraging verdict justified a second trial of the model, this time in more schools, covering two Canadian provinces. The second trial is due to finish this year, and an external evaluation is being carried out. The interim results are very promising.

121

Conclusions
We believe that Together We Light The Way provides a coherent model for school development and improvement and for creating safe and caring learning communities, where individuals feel physically and emotionally safe, cared for and respected. The evaluation of the pilot project suggested that the model is transferable to other schools and does significantly decrease bullying and other forms of violent behaviour. We believe that it has the strengths of a model developed by practitioners for practitioners. Teachers, other school staff, parents and community leaders understand it and find that the programs produce desired results. Most importantly children understand the programs, and come to take pride in supporting them. Yet Together We Light The Way also contains the limitations of a practitioner model. Apart from one short paper (Dean et al 2003), the theoretical underpinning of the model have not yet been fully described and submitted to rigorous analysis by academics. As the model gains wider acceptance and becomes well known, evidence of improvement in pilot schools, and the processes involved in adapting the model, needs to be submitted to peer review in refereed journals. One might ask why this matters: surely, what matters is that the program works. The answer is, that is what matters. The model has strong educational underpinnings, and has resulted in noticeable, sustained improvement in other schools. It may also play an important role in developing social capital, since it helps to increase the levels of civic and social participation of children and young adults. It prevents anti-social behaviours and promotes mutual respect. References Dean, S. (2000) Hearts and minds: A public school miracle. Toronto: Penguin. Dean, S., Leithwood, K. and Leonard, L. (2004) Creating safe and caring communities in Canada: Together We Light The Way. In OECD (Ed.) Lessons in danger: School safety and security. Paris: OECD. (Available at: http://www.bureauparis.net/downloads/LessonsinDangerEng.pdf) Hargreaves, D. (2001) A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 487-503. Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2003) External Evaluation Report: Together We Light The Way Project. Roland, E. and Galloway, D. (2004) Professional cultures in schools with high and low rates of bullying. School effectiveness and school improvement, 15, 241-260. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. and Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on pupils. London: Open Books.

122

SESSION FOUR: International Cooperation and Networking

This session was chaired by Barry McGaw, Director for Education, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

123

The VISTA-project Johan Deklerck

Members: Helen Cowie and Dawn Jennifer (UK), Gaute Bjornsen and Sigrun Ertesvg (Norway), Dobrinka Chankova and Tanya Poshtova (Bulgaria), Gie Deboutte and Johan Deklerck (Belgium), Mona OMoore and Stephen Minton (Ireland), Rosario Ortega and Virginia Sanchez (Spain) The VISTA project brings together a unique team of European experts in research, practice and training from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, education and criminology to produce a training programme for the promotion of non-violence in schools. The VISTA training, designed to benefit and inform not only teachers and local education authorities (LEAs) but also policy-makers Europe-wide, local communities, NGOs, parent groups, social services and children and young people themselves, focuses not simply on individual skills to address the problem but on the school as a system within a community linked to the wider society. Key issues that form the basis of the VISTA training approach are the need to understand: the context of school violence, definitional issues, Knowledge about violence, and childrens rights. For further information about the VISTA project, please contact the project co-ordinator, Helen Cowie. h.cowie@surrey.ac.uk

The CORE-NET Research Group Donna Cross

The CORE-NET research group consists of about 60 researchers in 6 different countries: Australia: Edith Cowan University, contact: Professor Donna Cross USA: University of Virginia, contact: Professor Robert C. Pianta Canada: York University, contact: Professor Debra Pepler Finland: Turku University, contact: Professor Christina Salmivalli Ireland: Trinity College, contact: Professor Mona OMoore Norway, University of Stavanger, contact: Professor Erling Roland The main goals of this group is to disseminate research based knowledge on best practices in preventing and dealing with bullying and violence in schools and to conduct collaborative and comparative research to study these issues in a relational and developmental perspective. All of the involved have a basic contextual and relational approach to understanding these complex issues and are involved in studying the development of possible means of creating improved learning environments for children and adolescents as well as studying implementation strategies employed in preschools and schools. For further information about the CORE-NET group, please contact Elaine Munthe. Elaine.munthe@uis.no

124

The Germanophone Network Dagmar Strohmaier

A network of German speaking researchers are connected via an annual meeting called Workshop Aggression. (http://www.aggressionsworkshop.de/2004/de/) The Workshop Aggression is an annual meeting which was established in 1996 and which connects about 35 researchers from Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The Austrian group has attended the workshop since the year 2000. The conjunctive element of the network lies in the shared research interests of the participants, that is aggression and violence defined in a broad and interdisciplinary sense. Thus, the main goals of the workshop are (1) the discussion of actual, current research activities which are carried out in Austria, Germany and Switzerland and (2) networking between scientists of different disciplines (e.g., psychology, criminology, medicine, etc.) or between psychologists of different subdisciplines (e.g., social psychology, educational psychology, developmental psychology, etc.). The workshop is organized annually in Austria, Germany or Switzerland by the participants. The main focus of the workshop varies depending on the research interests of the organizers. In the year 2000 it lay on delinquency, in 2002 on school bullying, in 2003 on relational aggression. The informal networks which were established in the course of the workshops lead to several joint activities between scientists, e.g. to joint research projects, to the organization of symposia at international conferences or to joint publications. Future directions of the Workshop Aggression are to foster both international and interdisciplinary cooperation. At the present time, there is no formal structure except the workshop itself which connects the participants. To get in contact with the network it is necessary to participate in one of the workshops which are announced in German language at http://www.aggressionsworkshop.de/2004/de/ or to send an email to one of the annual organizers (details see webpage). Dagmar Strohmeier is member of the scientific staff at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Universittsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien. Email: dagmar.strohmeier@univie.ac.at; Webpage: www.evaluation.ac.at

125

Visionary Thomas Jaeger

The VISIONARY project was supported by the European Commission from 2000-2003 as part of the Socrates/Minerva programme. The purpose of the project was to create an international Internet portal for violence prevention in schools in each country participating in the project: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The objective of this project was to collect and structure information available on the Internet and to facilitate the search for relevant information; not to develop new concepts or approaches on violence in schools. A book on violence and violence prevention in schools in all five participating countries was also published, with a focus on resources available on the Internet (Jger, Bradley and Rasmussen, 2003). The VISIONARY Internet portal and publication are two complementary components of a dissemination strategy. While Web sites are scanned for information and can be regularly updated and accessed by a number of users, books can provide a useful springboard for further research into relevant areas. The broad aim of the VISIONARY project is to use these two media to create an environment that enables users and readers in different countries and with different experiences to learn from one other. The Web site provides users with a comprehensive collection of information, which can serve as a starting point for their own work or further searches of information. National and international dialogue and interaction are also encouraged through discussion forums and mailing lists.

The Visionary Internet portal

The international VISIONARY portal is available at http://www.violence-in-school.info. National versions of the portal available at http://www.gewalt-in-der-schule.info (DE), http://www.mobs.dk (DK) and http://www.violence-in-school-uk.info (UK).

126

Summary of Discussion as perceived by David Galloway

Note. This summary is based on two short addresses to the conference, one before the final Panel discussion, and the second immediately after. I have tried to summarise key points arising from papers presented to the conference and the subsequent discussions. I have also tried to identify some of the questions arising from the papers and discussions. I was invited to be controversial, and hope that I havent overdone it! Inevitably, the result is a highly selective, personal view. To those who feel, justifiably, aggrieved that I have failed to represent their contribution, I apologise unreservedly.

A learning climate. Taking fear out of schools implies taking the fear out of learning. We cannot talk about removing fear from schools, nor from learning, without talking about the climate in which learning takes place. A successful conference has a climate that creates opportunities for lasting collaboration between members. It also maximises opportunities to learn from each others experience. Three things have combined to create an impressively favourable climate for learning at this conference. First, it took place in Norway, the country that has done more, for the size of its population, if not overall, than any other to put school bullying and violence (SBV) and indeed other social aspects of schooling on the international agenda. The presence of Prime Minister Kjell Bondevik, Minister of Education Kristin Clemet, and Deputy Minister Helge Ole Bergesen were testimony to the priority the national government gives to SBV. Their addresses were detailed, comprehensive and constructive and gave the conference the best possible start. Second, we had a rich academic and professional program, covering major issues in policy and research internationally, national policies and local policies. It was a demanding program, requiring and receiving intense concentration. That was made much easier by my third point: the social and cultural programs. How better to start a conference on SBV than with children presenting their work? This, together with the music and the dinner at Flor and Fjaere, created an ideal learning climate. Overall impression. Peter Smiths masterly overview showed how much has been achieved since the seminal work in Norway, starting in the 1970s and continuing today. He also identified some of the gaps in knowledge, not least the need for more reliable measures of SBV. But the gaps should not obscure what has been achieved. We now know much more about the nature and extent of SBV. As Christina Salmivalli told us, we also know much more about its long term effects, and as Erling Roland showed, we are starting to get a better picture of the characteristics of schools and classes in which there is a low level of SBV. Above all, SBV is on the agenda in many, if not all, countries of the OECD. Not all member countries have national policies but there is evidence in all countries of teachers and researchers addressing the problem. Nevertheless I believe that policy and research on bullying may be approaching a turning point. If it can build on, or develop from, what has already been achieved it could have a profound influence on the quality of childrens lives at school by improving not only how schools affect childrens social development, but also how schools affect their intellectual development. In contrast, if policy and research on SBV fail to develop from what has already been achieved, I fear that it may fade, and eventually fizzle out over the next five to ten years. There are two reasons: first, no area of educational policy and practice is static; if it does not develop, it fades. Second, as numerous delegates pointed out, teachers face innumerable pressures; if policy and research on SBV cannot incorporate some of these pressures, it will be replaced by them.

127

In the following sections I explain how the discussions in the conference led me to this view. The importance of rigorous research and evaluation. A disturbing number of anti bullying programmes have been shown to be counter-productive: they actually make the problem worse. As Dan Olweus and Debra Pepler each pointed out, nothing could better indicate the need for rigorous evaluation. But research is needed for other reasons. We know that some interventions reduce bullying, but not for how long they are sustainable once the program finishes. Nor do we know enough about how far a reduction in bullying generalises to other aspects of problem behaviour. And although we know that some programs are successful in reducing SBV, more work is needed to show why they are more successful in some schools than in others. Similarly, we know that there are significant differences between schools, and within schools between classes, but we still need to unravel the school and classroom factors responsible for these differences. In an important contribution, Minister of Education and Research Kristin Clemet argued that there is no contradiction between high academic performance and education that promotes social skills. That is surely correct. We need a better understanding of how a program to reduce SBV may also enhance educational progress. Some issues arising from discussions. An important area of discussion, and disagreement, was whether policy and research on bullying should broaden their focus. From Spain, Isabel Fernandez and Ortega Ruiz used the concept of convivencia (coexistence,) to argue that it should. From Dublin, Mona OMoore argued that the focus should move towards all forms of abusive behaviour, not just bullying. In contrast other speakers were concerned that if we broaden the focus, we may fail to address bullying. Dan Olweus argued that bullying can be a way in, with successful programs leading to improvements in other aspects of school life. To me, it seems that the arguments for broadening the focus are both theoretical and practical. At a theoretical level, SBV does not occur in isolation from other problem behaviours, from talking out of turn in the classroom to a wide range of much more serious internalising and externalising disorders. More important, the social and academic domains are not separate but inter-linked. As Sandra Dean pointed out, we need to look after the social and academic environment. The practical reasons for broadening the focus reflect the demands on teachers. Deborah Price showed us the range of social programs for which her section of the US Department of Education is responsible. As Keith Sullivan argued, schools are busy places and if we concentrate too strongly on bullying we may miss the bigger picture. Worse, schools are expected by governments and local communities to take a wide range of new initiatives on board. If they once start thinking in terms of: bullying this year, truancy next year, race awareness the year after, it may be ten years or more before they get back to bullying. A dialogue with teachers. A journalist from the Times Educational Supplement in London referred to the lack of a cogent awareness of ramifications for teachers among delegates to the conference. If valid and I think it was this was a most serious criticism, deserving more discussion than the conference was able to give it. It applies as much to policy makers as to researchers, though for different reasons. Policy makers do not always appreciate the wider implications for teachers time and priorities; at worst, producing a policy, (or worse, requiring school principals to produce one,) is a cynical way of fending off criticism. Researchers are often preoccupied with the details of their research, and are simply unaware

128

of the other pressures on teachers. Several delegates pointed out that this is aggravated by the academic and professional background of many researchers in SBV being in psychology or criminology rather than in education and teaching. To move forward, more direct communication is needed between policy makers, researchers and, most importantly, teachers. That does not mean a process of persuasion. It means a process of mutual learning in which details of intervention to reduce SBV are influenced at national level by politically determined priorities for the countrys schools and at school level by teachers professional experience. Such a process would include: School effectiveness, requiring a dialogue at national level. A nations investment in schools has to be evaluated against its own criteria for school effectiveness. The criteria will vary from country to country but there should be agreement on two things: (a) schools exist to enhance pupils social development as well as their intellectual development; (b) these are interlinked schools are social communities in which learning takes place. School improvement and educational change, requiring a dialogue at regional and/or school level. The best schools are constantly seeking to improve, but improvement requires change and change is stressful. The schools which most need to change are often those in which resistance to change is greatest. Nowhere is this more true than of bullying. Hence, we need a better understanding of the process and complexity of change. Childrens learning, requiring a dialogue at school level. In one country represented at the conference, politicians and educators seem to believe that children learn because teachers deliver the curriculum. As a way of understanding learning, the delivery metaphor is vacuous at best and destructive at worst. Certainly, children can learn from what they are taught, though as every teacher knows, teaching does not ensure learning. (And as Dan Olweus pointed out, the message against bullying should be explicit and direct.) However, they also learn from how the curriculum is taught and from how the teacher reacts to problems such as bullying. Erling Roland reminded us that that requires the teacher to be confident in her or his own authority. Pedagogy, requiring a dialogue at classroom level. Pedagogy is much more than teaching methods. It refers to the way that teachers organise the curriculum, how they create opportunities for children to learn and how they interact with children. Better than anything else it illustrates the futility of fragmentation. There is something illogical about seeking to create a social climate in which peer pressure minimises SBV, and in which children are able to seek adult help when incidents occur, without also creating opportunities for them to talk with their teachers about their other experiences at school, including the curriculum and assessment. Issues arising from final Panel discussion. Policy and political will. Papers at the conference revealed a wide range of national policies. Some countries have articulated policies on SBV at national level while others see this as a matter for individual schools or regional boards. Without a clear lead from policy makers it is hard for teachers or researchers to give priority to reducing SBV. The active involvement of policy makers is necessary but, for two reasons, in itself it is not sufficient. First, writing a

129

policy on bullying is not difficult, either for a Ministry of Education official or for a school principal. For the Ministry to implement the policy requires political will. Some countries have an impressive looking policy but lack the political will to implement it. Second, political will to reduce bullying must be consistent with political will in other areas of education, for example raising standards of literacy and numeracy. If teachers realise that failure to raise academic standards will be disastrous for their school, while failure to reduce bullying will quite likely remain undetected, it is not hard to see which will have a higher priority. A challenge for international collaborative research? I have already mentioned the concern about programs that turn out to be counter-productive. But the best programs can only be effective when: (a) teachers are able and willing to implement them, and (b) the program becomes incorporated into the teachers day to day professional practice, and thus continues after the end of formal implementation. As Heinz-Werner Poelchau said, there is a limit to how much teachers can take on board. Several speakers suggested that a new international network, probably co-ordinated from Norway, should support teachers and researchers by: Providing a forum for collection and analysis of information Exploring methodologies and procedures for more reliable and valid measurements at different age levels Identifying what works and, as important, what does not work, thus helping teachers and policy makers to avoid re-inventing the wheel Elucidating the conditions for successful implementation of a range of different programs.

A role for the OECD? The OECD has a distinguished record in international collaborative research. This work includes countries not represented at the conference, such as Japan and Korea. So far the OECDs work in education has focussed on pupils educational progress. Yet few other organisations have member countries with the expertise to produce a real advance in knowledge and understanding of the schools role in enhancing pupils social capital. Specifically, the new international network mentioned above could: Explore the links between reduction in bullying, improvements in other aspects of behaviour at school and pupils educational progress. (Minimising SBV is likely to be a pre-requisite for good educational progress, but is unlikely to be enough on its own.) Promote technical advances in program design and evaluation, including development of reliable and valid measures. Conduct international comparisons, for example trials and evaluations of different programs in different countries. Conduct meta-analyses that provide robust information for policy makers and teachers. Conclusion. I suggested at the beginning that research on SBV may be approaching a turning point. By building on the impressive achievements of the last 15-20 years it could develop in ways that affect childrens lives by improving the quality of social experience in schools and the quality of learning in schools. International organisations are crucial in providing a lead. For each of us as individuals, however, the next step may not be so clear. Six years ago I attended the ceremony at which medical and veterinary students at Edinburgh University received their degrees. The Vice Chancellor, Sir Stuart Sutherland, ended his speech of congratulations with the challenge: Graduates of Edinburgh, go out and change the world! Setting aside my insider knowledge that many of these students needed to recover from two 130

weeks of solid partying and celebration before setting out to change the world, I did wonder where they should begin. But for each of us at this conference it is much easier. If we can each take away one idea, and use it in our capacity as policy maker, teacher or researcher to help schools in their work to reduce SBV, we will have made a good start. David Galloway School of Education University of Durham Leazes Road Durham UK. Phone (home): 017683 71198 (UK) ##44 17683 71198 (international) Email: D.M.Galloway@durham.ac.uk

131

Consequences of this conference

International Network on School Bullying and Violence

A major conclusion from the conference Taking Fear out of Schools was a need for international co-operation to reduce bullying and violence in schools. We are happy to announce that an international network is now established as a part of the 2005 -6 OECD Programme of Work. A main ambition for the network of collaborating partners is to establish a high quality network for sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences and co-operation in the field. During the first year a web site comprising organised information on SBV will be developed. The ambition is that this site gains reputation as a main reference on policy, local initiatives/approaches and research for national and local authorities, schools and researchers at an international level. An invitation to participate in the network has been sent to countries co-signed by the Norwegian Minister of Education and Research Kristin Clemet and the OECD Director for Education Barry McGaw. So far these countries have joined the Network: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ireland. Austria and Norway. The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research will take responsibility for developing a policy and strategy towards the international network. The Norwegian Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education will undertake the day-to-day management of international coordination through the Directorate. The program will be led by an international co-ordinator from The Norwegian Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education. The main task of the international co-ordinator is to actively engage, sustain and develop communication among a network of national co-ordinators and to develop a website to share information among participants. The Centre for Behavioural Research (University of Stavanger) in Norway will be editor of this website. National co-ordinators in participating countries have been established. Their task is among others to provide a national point of contact with the international network and feed information about national developments to the international network. The first meeting among the National co-ordinators took place in Norway 12 15 of June. 15 countries participated. A steering group for the international network will be established. This will include the OECD Secretariat, Norway, national co-ordinators from 2-3 participant countries (elected by all participant countries), UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union.

132