This article was downloaded by: [5.12.68.

255] On: 27 October 2013, At: 04:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wamt20

A Review of the Literature on Bullying in U.S. Schools and How a ParentEducator Partnership Can Be an Effective Way to Handle Bullying
Karin Jordan & James Austin
a a a

Department of Counseling , University of Akron , Akron , Ohio , USA Published online: 10 May 2012.

To cite this article: Karin Jordan & James Austin (2012) A Review of the Literature on Bullying in U.S. Schools and How a ParentEducator Partnership Can Be an Effective Way to Handle Bullying, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21:4, 440-458, DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2012.675420 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.675420

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21:440458, 2012 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1092-6771 print/1545-083X online DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2012.675420

A Review of the Literature on Bullying in U.S. Schools and How a ParentEducator Partnership Can Be an Effective Way to Handle Bullying
KARIN JORDAN and JAMES AUSTIN
Department of Counseling, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio, USA

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Bullying has been studied for many years in the U.S. and other countries. This article is a review of the literature focusing on the laws (state and federal) pertaining to bullying and the long-term effects of being a bully. In addition, the article provides an overview of the ve different types of bullying: (a) physical bullying, (b) verbal bullying, (c) bullying through relational aggression, (d) bullying through social aggression, and (e) cyberbullying. Focus is also given to the emotional and physical behaviors of the (a) bully, (b) passive victim, (c) bully victim, and (d) bystander, as well as the short- and long-term effects of bullying on each of them. The last part of the article focuses on the importance of having a parenteducator partnership with zero tolerance for bullying. KEYWORDS bully, cyberbullying, parenteducator partnership, passive victim, physical bullying, verbal bullying, victim bully
There is bullying and taunting everywhere, which makes being an adolescent difcult and has led some bright students to commit suicide. We cant let bullying take another kids life. Its time to educate students and parents about bullying. Schools also need to set rules about responsible social networking and cyberbullying. (Anonymous high school teacher, personal communication, May 19, 2006)

Schools in the United States are intended to be places where students can learn in a safe environment. However, today, schools are places where
Submitted 14 December 2010; revised 27 April 2011, 10 July 2011; accepted 11 July 2011. Address correspondence to Karin Jordan, Department of Counseling, University of Akron, 302 Buchtel Common, Akron, OH 44325. E-mail: drkbjordan@gmail.com 440

Bullying in U.S. Schools

441

various acts of violence occur. School violence has become an important issue for all stakeholders in school districts throughout the country. The Center for Prevention of School Violence (2001) dened school violence as any behavior that violates a schools educational mission or climate of respect or jeopardizes the intent of the school to be free of aggression against persons or property, drugs, weapons, disruptions, and disorder (p. 2). Violence, aggression, and bullying are often used synonymously; however, violence and bullying involve different types of aggressive behaviors (OMoore, 2000). Currently, there is some disagreement in the literature as to what constitutes bullying and what constitutes violence. Olweus (1999) dened violence as a physical force, whereas other definitions have dened violence as an act against people causing physical or psychological harm (Hazler, 1992). These broader denitions of violence include emotional abuse (e.g., threats, verbal attacks, taunting, and shouting) in addition to physical abuse (Clark & Kiselica, 1997; Remboldt, 1994). This raises the question, If violence is to include verbal, psychological, and physical abuse, how then may violence be distinguished from bullying? (OMoore, 2000, p. 2). Olweuss denition of bullying included four criteria: (a) saying mean and unpleasant things, (b) purposefully excluding or ignoring others, (c) using aggressive behavior such as hitting and kicking as well as making threats, and (d) telling lies and sending malicious notes or e-mails. In more general terms, Olweus believed that bullying includes the following: (a) repeated behavior over time, (b) imbalance of power between the victim and bully, and (c) intentional behavior by the bully. Farrington (1993) believed that bullying behavior is not provoked, and Stephenson and Smith (1989) believed that victims are targeted by bullies. The other criteria of repetitiveness, power imbalance, and intentionality have also become a source of controversy (OMoore, 1994; Rigby, 2001). According to Costella (2011), schools need to look beyond single incidents of bullying, and they must look at the nature of the bullying for civil rights violations (i.e., the 1964 Civil Rights Act). If the bullying behavior is based on race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or disability and is creating a hostile environment, schools have a responsibility to act with civil rights in mind. More specically, schools must investigate and assess the situation and then eliminate the discriminatory and hostile environment, as well as take action to prevent future bullying behavior. The emphasis on civil rights responsibilities to protect students from discrimination and harassment through bullying is a radical shift from traditional antibullying approaches. There is a federal reach to conducting civil rights complaint investigations specic to bullying. It is expected that there will be one or two new federal antibullying laws with a civil rights theme, which will result in increased accountability for administrators, teachers, and school districts (Trump, 2010). Bullying prevention and intervention programs have been shown to be effective with bullies, who are similar to other antisocial youth, as indicated

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

442

K. Jordan and J. Austin

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

in the delinquency literature. Andershed, Kerr, and Stattin (2001) believed that bullying is often part of other violent and aggressive behavior. Other research (i.e., Farrington, 1991) has shown that there is a continuity between childhood aggression, such as bullying, and more deviant adult behavior, including violence toward spouses or cohabitants, unemployment, drunk driving, substance abuse, and other criminal offenses (including violence). Key elements of bullying are aggression with an attempt to harm. It must be repetitive, intentionally negative, and with an imbalance of power (physical, social, or other; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). Additional key elements are that bullying is unprovoked by the victim and occurs in a social group with other peers present (Grifn & Gross, 2004). Bullying is an aggressive act of a more powerful individual on a less powerful individual in front of peers. The most prevalent level in real-life bullying has been direct verbal bullying (Ross, 1996). According to Holmes and Brandenburg-Ayres (1998), early experiences as a bully were a signicant predictor of later gang membership. Spivak and Prothrow-Stith (2001) wrote the following:
Individuals with a history of bullying had a four-fold increase in criminal behavior by the time they reached their mid 20s. The majority of former bullies had at least one conviction, and more than a third had multiple convictions. Those formerly bullied have been found to have higher rates of depression and poor self-esteem. (p. 2131)

Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, and Modzeleski (2002) reported that out of the 41 school shootings between 1974 and 2000, 71% of the shooters were victims of bullying. According to the National School Safety and Security Services (2005), there were 39 school deaths during the 20042005 school year, out of which 24 were school shootings. In 2002, a report released by the U.S. Secret Service concluded that bullying played a signicant role in many school shootings, and that efforts should be made to eliminate bullying behavior (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008, p. 1). Currently, an increasing number of states have developed relevant state laws addressing bullying, including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia (Alley & Limber, 2009). The denition of what constitutes bullying varies from state to state. For example, Indiana state law (Indiana Code, 2006) denes bullying as the following:
Any intentional gesture, or any intentional written, verbal and physical act or threat by a student that: (a) A reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect of: (i) Harming a student; or (ii) Damaging a students property; or (iii) Placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his person; or (iv) Placing a student in reasonable fear of damage to his or her property; or (b) Is sufciently

Bullying in U.S. Schools

443

severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for a student. (20-33-8-0.2)

Furthermore, although many states have bullying laws, not all of the existing laws specically address cyberbullying. The Indiana Code (2006) includes cyberbullying and continues with the following:
An act of harassment, intimidation or bullying may also be committed through the use of a landline, car phone or wireless telephone or through the use of data or computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network. (20-33-8-0.2)

More recently, a new federal antibullying bill called the Safe Schools Improvement Act (2011) has been sponsored to shore up antibullying programs in schools. It is important, however, that schools not simply introduce or use antibullying programs, but assess the t of the program for the student population they are dealing with, as well as assess the programs effectiveness (Kendall-Tackett & Giacomoni, 2005). Bullying has not been limited to state and federal legislation, but has also been dealt with in the court system (Alley & Limber, 2009). In 2004, an Anchorage, Alaska school district paid more than $4 million to settle a lawsuit led by the family of a middle school student who attempted suicide after being bullied (Seper, 2005). In another case in 2005, a federal jury awarded $250, 000 to a Tonganoxie, Kansas student who had been bullied and sexually harassed for 5 years (Pellissier, 2011). Other cases publicized by the media have demonstrated that there could be civil liability for school personnel not addressing peer bullying behavior that has resulted in the death of some victims. For example, court cases such as Magwood v. French implied that schools and teachers can be held civilly liable if they display deliberate indifference (Field, Kolbert, & Crothers, 2010). Today, school personnel are responsible for protecting students in their care and could be held liable for failing to stop bullying (Willard, 2006). Based on the bullying experienced, federal laws related to sexual and gender-based harassment (e.g., Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of 1972, 2006; Alley & Limber, 2009), racial harassment (e.g., Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Alley & Limber), and disability-based harassment (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) are most often implicated in peer-to-peer bullying. Today, efforts are made in schools to ensure safety for all students, with a commitment to proactively address foreseeable harm. There might be occasions when students First Amendment rights to freedom of speech might be infringed on when students speech disrupts the rights of others, such as in cyberbullying.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

444

K. Jordan and J. Austin

LITERATURE OVERVIEW Bullying Overview

Bullying in schools is not a new phenomenon, but an issue that dates back to the 1970s (Olweus, 1978). By the 1980s, wider attention was given to bullying in the United States as well as other countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, England, Germany, Spain, Scotland, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Canada, and Australia (Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003). Bullying behavior can be seen at the elementary school level up through the high school level. According to Pellegrini (2002), transitioning to middle school requires students to reestablish a position of power in newly formed peer groups, and bullying is often used to achieve that position of power. In addition, research has shown that young adolescents, in their need to separate from their parents, tend to be more attracted to peers who present with behavior that is reective of independence, such as aggression and disobedience, over behavior that is more childlike, such as dependency and obedience (Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000). Therefore, it is not surprising that Aalsma and Brown (2008) suggested that being the victim of bullying is often part of the adolescent experience. According to Olweus (2001), the term bullying means mobbing and comes from the English version of a book by Lorenz, used to describe a collective attack by a ock of prey on a predator. Mobbing, within the context of bullying, refers to an individual or a group (small or large) of more powerful individuals singling out and picking on an individual intentionally, repeatedly, and over time. The following are ve types of bullying: (a) physical bullying, which includes hitting, pushing, kicking, punching, biting, pinching, restraining, depantsing (pulling someones pants down), destroying property, stealing, and so on (this most overt form of aggression is seen more often in boys than girls and decreases with age; Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002); (b) verbal bullying, which includes name-calling, abusive language, humiliation, mockery, picking on someone with less power, and so on (this form of overt aggression is seen equally in boys and girls; Bauman & Del Rio, 2006); (c) bullying through relational aggression, such as excluding someone from the group, deliberately ignoring, and not talking with or hanging out with someone (generally seen in girls who are friends and during middle school, but can continue into high school; Woods & Wolke, 2003); (d) bullying through social aggression, which includes gossip, social exclusion, writing notes about someone, talking about someone, stealing friends, stealing romantic partners, and so on (there is generally no preexisting relationship; the goal of these often covert strategies is to take power or status; Woods & Wolke); and (e) cyberbullying, or aggression through the use of electronic devices that includes insults, mocking, threats, intimidation, spreading rumors, forwarding private communication to others, posting

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Bullying in U.S. Schools

445

embarrassing information, stealing someones password, and so on (victims often know, but equally often do not know, the bully; Crick et al., 2002). With the rapid growth of communication technology, electronic bullying is something that has been used more recently by children and adolescents (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). It is estimated that 9% to 49% of children and adolescents experience at least one incident of cyberbullying within one school year (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Cyberbullying is unique in that it allows aggressors to be removed from their victim and the impact of their actions (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Older adolescents are more likely to use electronic bullying over other kinds of bullying. Cyberbullying occurs through text messaging, e-mails, defaming Web sites, online slam books, Facebook, instant messaging, chat rooms, and blogging (Cyberbullying, n.d.). Cell phones have been used to send compromising photos of the victim. The most common form of electronic bullying is text messaging, followed by use of the Internet and cell phones (Cyberbullying, n.d.). Traditional victims of bullying are more likely to also be cybervictims. There are different kinds of cyberbullying and cyberthreats, which have been identied by Willard (2006) as the following: (a) aming a series of insulting exchanges in a public setting, such as a chat room or discussion group, (b) harassment repeated text messages (in the hundreds or thousands) that cause substantial emotional distress to one person, (c) denigrationsending derogatory and untrue information such as digitally altered photos, (d) impersonationusing the victims password and posting negative or cruel information to other classmates while posing as the victim, (e) trickerysharing with others private or embarrassing information after having tricked a person to reveal that information, (f) outingsharing information that was never meant to be shared with others, (g) exclusionbeing excluded from a buddy list that is password protected, (h) cyberstalkingrepeated harassing and threatening communication, and (i) happy slapcapturing violence (often conducted by a group) against an individual using a camera phone and downloading it on the Web for others to see. Cyberbullying might pose a greater threat than traditional bullying, because it is often anonymous and can transcend school grounds so that children are vulnerable even in their own homes (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). With the great popularity of electronic communication for social contact among children and adolescents, electronic bullying is assumed to be occurring (Grifn & Gross, 2004; Livingstone, 2003). It was previously believed that more boys than girls bully others and are victims of bullying (DeVoe, Peter, Noonan, Snyder, & Baum, 2005; Nansel et al., 2001; Seal & Young, 2003); however, with cyberbullying, it is believed that girls are almost twice as likely as boys to be bullied and to be bullies. Research indicates that between 11% (Williams & Guerra, 2007) and 36% (Fight Crime, 2006) of children and adolescents today are affected by

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

446

K. Jordan and J. Austin

cyberbullying. Some studies have identied students classied as learningdisabled to be vulnerable to bullying (Greenham, 1999). African-American youth report signicantly less experiences of being bullied than White or Hispanic youth (Nansel et al., 2001). Research has shown that bullies often perceive their actions not as an act of inicting pain, but rather as an act of success (Perry, Willard, & Perry, 1990).

BULLIES
Despite some popular beliefs, bullies are not anxiety-ridden, nor are they children and adolescents with particularly low self-esteem. Instead, they are children and adolescents with aggressive behavior patterns who often get into ghts. More specically, they have a strong need for power and dominance, overpowering others, which seems to be enjoyable to the bully, as s/he is in a position of control, have a need to subdue others, and seem to enjoy being in control (Olweus, 1993, p. 35). They also are believed to have less empathy and impulse control, and to gain satisfaction when they inict pain on victims (Batsche & Knoff, 1994). Generally, bullies are physically bigger and stronger than their victims, often simply because they choose younger children to bully who are weaker, will not ght back, or will not show their distress. According to Fried and Fried (1996), bullies go shopping to carefully select who their next victim might be. Aluede, Adeleke, Omoike, and Afen-Akpaida (2008) stated the following:
Bullying is not just isolated behavior . . . it is part of a more generally antisocial and rule-breaking (conduct-disordered) behavior pattern . . . (particularly boys) who bully others . . . engage in other antisocial/delinquent behaviors such as vandalism, shop-lifting, truancy and frequent drug use; and these may continue into young adulthood. (p. 157)

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Nation, Vieno, Perkins, and Santinello (2008) cited research suggesting that parents who are inconsistent, permissive, or fail to control their childs early aggressive behavior could foster bullying behavior. Their research found that disempowered relationships with teachers predicted bullying behavior and bullying victimization. According to Aftab (2006), there are four types of children and adolescents who engage in cyberbullying: (a) the vengeful angel bullygenerally children and adolescents who might have been victims of bullying themselves and see their actions as seeking justice (Willard, 2006); (b) the power-hungry bullymost closely resembling the traditional schoolyard bully who desires to have power and control over others (at times because of compensation for their own inadequacies);

Bullying in U.S. Schools

447

(c) the mean girl bullybullying because they are bored and want to humiliate or embarrass someone because it is entertaining; and (d) the because I can bullybullying because no one is stopping them and they want to hurt someone, or look cool and tough. Whereas some cyberbullies might behave politely and are good students in real life, they might also be aggressive online and engage in cyberbullying (Aftab, 2006).

Bully Bystanders
Bully bystanders are those who witness the bullying. They might be fearful, feel powerless to act, feel guilty for not doing anything, and feel tempted to participate. There are three kinds of bully bystanders: (a) the ambivalent bystander, (b) the victim bystander, and (c) the bullying bystander. The ambivalent bystanders are more willing to work with adults to make the bullying stop. The victim bystanders are those children and adolescents who are too afraid to stand up to the bully and become participants through passivity and silence, often worrying that they will be next (Olweus, 1993). The bullying bystander sets the victim up to commit acts for which the bully bystander does not want to be held responsible. One example was in Pearl, Mississippi, where a 16-year-old boy who killed his mother and two students was coached in this violent act by six other boys. These six boys were later charged with conspiracy to commit murder (Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2001). In this example, the bully bystanders watched the outcome of their plan. Twemlow et al. (2011) reported that a study involving 10,000 third through ninth graders revealed that 10% to 20% of these children and adolescents experienced a vicarious thrill (p. 377) when they watched the bullying of others. In addition, bully bystanders who provide assistance or approval to bullies might improve their own social status (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2008).

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Passive Victims
Passive victims of bullies are children and adolescents who are generally passive or submissive, as well as more insecure and anxious than their peers. Being bullied leads to school difculties, anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and physiological problems (Smith & Shu, 2000). Additionally, they are often described as physically weak, negative toward violence, and therefore unwilling to defend themselves. These victims often present with undesirable behavior that can be bothersome and frustrating to others, which often results in isolation and loneliness (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992). Hoover et al. (1992) reported that male victims believed that they had been singled out because they were physically weak, short tempered, could not identify who their friends were, and didnt t in (p. 11). Girls reported

448

K. Jordan and J. Austin

that they became victims of bullying because they didnt t in, because of their facial appearance, they cried/were emotional in front of their peers, they were overweight, and because they got good grades (p. 11). There are, however, children and adolescents who present with the same external appearance and behavior, yet they do not necessarily become victims of bullying. Research has shown that in addition to the identied external appearance and behaviors, victims of bullying have three additional qualities: (a) willingness to give the bully what they want or demand; (b) expressing outward stress and distress, which often becomes an incentive for the bully to keep on bullying; and (c) unwillingness to retaliate (Fried & Fried, 1996). Chronically bullied children and adolescents tend to have problems with social competence and have difculty negotiating cooperative personal relationships with parents and teachers. The result is a belief that problems can be avoided by acquiescing (Nation et al., 2008).
Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Bully Victims
Bully victims have also been called reactive bullies or provocative victims when they are concurrently bullies as well as victims of bullying (Whitted & Dupper, 2005). Olweus (1995) described these children and adolescents as being highly anxious as well as aggressive. Their behavior includes picking on and provoking bullies, which often results in physical ghting between the bully and the bully victim (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005). This is one example of aggressive behavior observed in bully victims. Other behaviors might include carrying weapons and using alcohol (Brockenbrough, Cornell, & Loper, 2002). According to Olweus (1995), bully victims are hard to identify, as it is difcult to determine how many victims are passive victims versus bully victims. Some have hypothesized that school shooters are bully victims who could no longer take the taunting and humiliation and exploded in a burst of violence (Whitted & Dupper, 2005). Bully victims are believed to be at risk for developing psychosocial and behavioral problems (Haynie et al., 2001), and they tend to have high internalized problems as well as poor mental health (Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999). They often present with hyperactivity, attention problems, and aggression (Pellegrini, 1998), as well as low self-esteem and problem-solving difculties (Mynard & Joseph, 1997). In addition, their overall physical health is worse compared to that of their peers (Junger, Stroebe, & Van Der Laan, 2001). Bully victims tend to perceive themselves as less intelligent, less popular, less physically attractive, and more unhappy and troubled than bullies (OMoore & Kirkham, 2001). They tend to have fewer friends and are often stigmatized and not socially accepted by their peers (Anderson et al., 2001). In addition, research has shown that their behavior often elicits negative reactions from teachers (McNamara & McNamara, 1997).

Bullying in U.S. Schools

449

SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF BULLYING

Bullying has short- and long-term effects on victims (passive and bully), bystanders, and bullies. Kuppersmith and Patterson (1991) believed that all of these groups often report academic impact, depression, and self-esteem issues as a result of the bullying. Additional effects are mental and physical health issues, anxiety, and depression, although these effects might manifest differently for (passive and bully) victims, bystanders, and bullies (Campbell & Morrison, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001). Not surprisingly, victims and bystanders generally do not feel safe at school. They often have trouble sleeping, have stomach pain, feel tense, are tired, and have a poor appetite (Fekkes, Pijpers, Fredricks, Vogels, & Verloove-Van Horick, 2004). They also tend to have lower grades (Arsenault et al., 2006), have higher absenteeism rates (Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004), and are often perceived by teachers as less happy. Furthermore, victims and bystanders have often witnessed passivity by school staff and administrators after the bullying has been brought to their attention. This results in many of the passive victims and bystanders not being able to perform well in school. Additionally, passivevictims generally struggle with questions such as these: What is wrong with me that others are so mean to me? Why cant I make it stop? They often conclude that nobody can make it stop, and it will never end. They worry and wonder when and if they will become the next victim, feeling hopeless and discouraged about being able to protect themselves. Others get appropriate adult support and help, resulting in loneliness, school avoidance (missing out on school connectiveness and educational advancement), and low self-esteem (Fekkes et al., 2004; Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Other devastating effects have been linked to bully victimization, including depression (Fekkes et al., 2004) and recurring thoughts of suicide (Van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003). Some bully victims have explosive retaliation with a burst of violence, after having been bullied for a long time. With no end in sight and schools being unresponsive, bully victimization has resulted in some of the catastrophic school shootings such as in Littleton, Colorado, and Pearl, Mississippi. This raises serious concerns, as little information is currently known regarding how many victims are passive victims versus bully victims (Brockenbrough et al., 2002). Accordingly, bully victims are a particularly important group to be researched to delineate how they are different from bullies and passive victims. Bystander reactions as described earlier can vary based on the type of bystander. The ambivalent bystander might feel empowered and supported in an environment of zero bully victim bystander tolerance at school and at home, where reports of bullying are taken seriously and appropriately acted on. However, in a school that does not respond to acts and reports of bullying, the ambivalent bystander might develop feelings of indifference, helplessness, and anxiety (Olweus, 1993).

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

450

K. Jordan and J. Austin

Long-term effects have also been reported for bullies. Bullies tend to experience higher rates of psychological problems, conduct problems, delinquency, stealing, and vandalism, and they have more trouble with the police (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Bullying has also been related to involvement in future relationships that are less emotionally supportive and equitable than those of their peers. Furthermore, bullies reportedly engage in more social and physical aggression toward their dating partners than their peers (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). In addition, bullies are believed to be convicted of crimes as adults more often than their peers. For example, a study conducted by Olweus (1993) revealed that after high school graduation until their 24th birthdays, 35% to 40% of bullies reported having had three or more court convictions.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

PARENTEDUCATOR PARTNERSHIP
Bullying should be dealt with from an ecological perspective, within the childs social ecology (micro, meta, and macro levels), which includes the parents and the educators. Combined, parents and educators can address the different kinds of bullying. According to Christenson and Sheridan (2001), parenteducator partnerships have been dened as a dynamic framework that endorses a collegial, interdependent, and coequal style of working together toward a common goal of preventing and stopping bullying. Most recently, parenteducator partnerships have often focused on addressing cyberbullying (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Although it is a new arena in bullying, it is not a new phenomenon and has been receiving more attention in recent years due to well-publicized school shootings and wellpublicized cases such as that of Lori Drew (a case of cyberbullying that went to court after a Missouri mother and daughter jointly participated in bullying 13-year-old Megan Meier until she committed suicide in 2008; Megan Meier Foundation, 2007). To attend proactively to this problem, direct parental involvement and partnering with educators is crucial (Christenson & Sheridan). Previous research has shown that parenteducator partnership is benecial in affecting childrens social skills (Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000) by reducing problem behavior (Burk, Loeber, & Birmaher, 2002; Reid, Eddy, Fetrow, & Stoolmiller, 1999; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2001). To achieve this kind of collaboration, it is important that there is regular two-way communication, mutual support, and shared decision making (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). This type of parenteducator partnership should focus on the following: 1. Tracking bullying incidents to provide counseling (individual and group) for the bully (to resocialize the bully), as well as provide education, assertiveness training, and counseling (individual and group) to the bully

Bullying in U.S. Schools

451

2.

3.

4.

5.

victim. Educators work collaboratively with parents of both the bully and bully victim. In addition, statistics regarding tracking the bully incidents (mild and severe) should be gathered to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs, policies, and procedures used in the parenteducator partnership. In developing and reviewing reporting procedures and investigation, there should be a clearly established complaint process for reporting bullying posted for parents, educators, and students to see. This process should be reviewed regularly. Most important, all complaints must be taken seriously by educators, and collaboration with parents should be sought out in this process. There also should be classroom and athome discussions about bullying or cyberbullying and the importance of reporting it. Students should be taught how to support peers who are being bullied or cyberbullied through positive communication and instant e-mail. Not only should students tell an adult, but they also, in cases of cyberbullying, should print out the evidence and share it with school personnel (administrators, teachers, school counselors, nonteaching staff), parents, or both. Schools and parents must take disciplinary actions for bullying behavior. Educators and parents should not only maintain zero tolerance for bullying, but they should establish and enforce rules consistently, with appropriate sanctions that are nonhostile and nonphysical, and communicated in a rm, respectful manner to both the bully and his or her parents or guardians. Educators and parents should implement preventive interventions that address changing the normative beliefs about the acceptability of bullying and at the same time increase trust and support among peers, which might impact the incidence of bullying and act as a good buffer to bullying behavior (Smith & Shu, 2000). There are many zero-tolerance classroom curriculum programs available today (e.g., classroom guidance lessons for bystanders, such as ACTION Options for Upstanders; National School Climate Center, 2009) that address different types of bullying strategies, why people bully, as well as how bullying impacts the school climate (Hazelden Foundation, 2000). There have been controversies about zero-tolerance policies, especially in cases where schools have overreacted and suspended students for such behavior as bringing a plastic knife in their lunchbox, or enforced harsh punishments (with an overtone of vindictiveness, which might also increase the code of silence). A task force created by the American Psychological Association on zero tolerance concluded that it can cause harm rather than good (Skiba, 2008). Therefore, administrators who use zero tolerance of bullying must exercise fairness and sound judgment on a case-by-case basis.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

452

K. Jordan and J. Austin

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

6. Schools should implement school-wide (i.e., all grade levels) bully prevention curricula, embed bully prevention into all classroom curricula, and implement student-led assemblies that celebrate diversity. Conict resolution skills such as Creative Conict Resolution: More Activities for Keeping Peace in the Classroom (Kreidler, 1984) should be taught in grades K through 6, in addition to assertiveness training. 7. Students should learn about computer technology, social skill development, appropriate use of technology, online safety, and online etiquette. 8. In cases of threats, there should be collaboration between educators and parents to develop a safety plan, or other protective strategies for the student being bullied, as well as accountability for the bully. It is important that educators follow up with students who are bullied and (separately) with student(s) who bully, as well as their parents. 9. Ongoing parenteducator training and education should be provided in the form of workshops and seminars for students on topics such as early warning signs, diffusing anger, different kinds of bullying, mediation nand peer mediation, teaching emotional and social skills, and so on. In addition, the development of parent centers as well as providing parent support is important to create an antibullying home environment. There must be a parenteducator commitment to role model zero bullying, victim, and bystander tolerance by setting clear classroom guidelines against bullying while fostering praise, support, and encouragement.

SUMMARY
Bullying, including cyberbullying, is a real issue for many children and adolescents in the United States and other countries. As demonstrated in this article through a comprehensive literature review, bullying has serious short- and long-term effects on the bully, the passive victim, the bully victim, and the bystander. Parenteducator partnerships are important in responding proactively to bully incidents as well as addressing all forms of aggression and violence (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). More research is needed regarding parenteducatorcommunity collaboration, working together to address the prevention of bullying behavior in the school, as well as research related to identifying passive victims versus bully victims. The potential link between bully victims and school shootings needs to be further explored. In addition, with technology communication rapidly changing, it will be important that ongoing focus be given to cyberbullying, intervention, and prevention efforts. Parents and educators will be faced with the challenge of nding effective methods for protecting children and adolescents from being bullied and preventing others from becoming bullies by working collaboratively (Storm & Storm, 2005).

Bullying in U.S. Schools

453

REFERENCES
Aalsma, M. C., & Brown, J. R. (2008). What is bullying? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 101102. Aftab, P. (2006). Dealing with cyberbullies: What works and what doesnt . Retrieved from http://aftab.com/index.php?page=what-works-and-what-doesn-t Alley, R., & Limber, S. P. (2009). Bullying issues in schools: Legal issues for school personnel. In S. M. Sweerer & D. Espelage (Eds.), Bullying prevention and intervention: Realistic strategies for schools (pp. 5373). New York: Sage. Aluede, O., Adeleke, F., Omoike, D., & Afen-Akpaida, J. (2008). A review of the extent, nature, characteristics and effects of bullying behaviour in schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35 , 151158. Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2001). Bullying in school and violence on the streets: Are the same people involved? Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention, 2(1), 3149. Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., et al. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 19941999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286 , 26952702. Arsenault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombs, R., Capsi, A., & Moftt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118 , 130138. Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the school. School Psychology Science, 9, 2629. Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 , 213221. Brockenbrough, K., Cornell, D. G., & Loper, A. B. (2002). Aggressive attitudes among victims of violence at school. Educational Treatment of Children, 25 (3), 273287. Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L. K., & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Variations in patterns of attraction of same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), 147154. Burk, J., Loeber, R., & Birmaher, B. (2002). Oppositional deant disorder and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years. Part II. American Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(1), 12751293. Campbell, M. L. C., Morrison, A. P. (2007). The relationship between bullying, psychotic-like experiences and appraisals in 1416-year olds. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45 (7), 15791591. Center for Prevention of School Violence. (2001). A vision for safer schools. Raleigh, NC: Author. Christenson, S., & Sheridan, S. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York: Guilford. Clark, E. A., & Kiselica, M. S. (1997). A systematic counseling approach to the problem of bullying. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31, 310315. Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development , 71(5), 13951408.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

454

K. Jordan and J. Austin

Costella, M. (2011). Bullying is a civil rights issue. The Hufngton Post . Retrieved from http://www.hufngtonpost.com/maureen-costello/bullying-isa-civil-right_b_775315.html Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive childrens intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocation. Child Development , 73, 11341142. Cyberbullying. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.loveourchildrenusa.org/parent_ cyberbullying.php Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 73, 173180. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of school crime and safety (Tech. Rep. No. NCES 2006-001/NCJ 210697). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce. Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2008). Beyond the class norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36 , 12891299. Farrington, D. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and later life outcome. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 529). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Farrington, D. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 348458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., Fredricks, A. M., Vogels, T., & Verloove-Van Horick, S. P. (2004). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117 , 15681574. Field, J. E., Kolbert, J. B., & Crothers, L. M. (2010, March). Untangling the web: Prevention and intervention for school bullies. Paper presented at the American Counseling Association annual conference, Pittsburgh, PA. Fight crime: Invest in kids. (2006). Cyber bully: Teen. Retrieved from http://www.ghtcrime.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/les/reports/ cyberbullyingteen_2.pdf Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour and psychological health among school students in New South Wales, Australia: Cross-sectional survey. British Medical Journal , 319, 344348. Fried, S., & Fried, P. (1996). Bullies and victims. New York: M. Evans. Glew, G. M., Fan, Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 10261031. Greenham, S. (1999). Learning disabilities and psychosocial adjustment: A critical review. Child Neuropsychology, 5 , 171196. Grifn, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical ndings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 9(4), 379400. Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441455.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Bullying in U.S. Schools

455

Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, L., Yu, K., et al. (2001). Bullies, victims and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 2949. Hazelden Foundation (Producer). (2000). The Olweus bullying prevention program [Videos]. Retrieved from http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/ public/olweus_videos.page Hazler, R. J. (1992). What kids say about bullying. Executive Educator , 14, 2022. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Ofine consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6 (3), 89112. Holmes, S., & Brandenburg-Ayres, S. (1998). Bullying behavior in school: A predictor of later gang involvement. Journal of Gang Research, 5 (2), 16. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International , 13, 516. Indiana Code Ann. 203380.2 (2006). Junger, M., Stroebe, W., & Van Der Laan, A. M. (2001). Delinquency, health behaviour and health. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6 (2), 103120. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Giacomoni, S. M. (2005). Child victimization: Maltreatment, bullying and dating violence, prevention and intervention. Kingston, NJ: Civil Rights Institute. Kohl, G., Lengua, L., & McMahon, R. (2000). Parental involvement in school conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demography risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (6), 501523. Kreidler, W. J. (1984). Creative conict resolution: More than 200 activities for keeping peace in the classroom. Glenview, IL: Good Year Books. Kuppersmith, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peer rejection, aggression, withdrawal, and perceived competence as predictors of self-reported behavior problems in preadolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 427449. Livingstone, S. (2003). Childrens use of the Internet: Reections on the emerging research agenda. New Media & Society, 5 (2), 147166. McNamara, B., & McNamara, F. (1997). Keys to dealing with bullies. Hauppauge, NY: Barrons. Megan Meier Foundation. (2007). Megan Meiers story. Retrieved from http://www. meganmeierfoundation.org/megansStory.php Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysencks personality dimensions in 8 to 13-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (1), 5154. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simmons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 , 20942100. Nation, M., Vieno, A., Perkins, D. D., & Santinello, M. (2008). Bullying in school and adolescent sense of empowerment: An analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18 , 211232. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2008). School bullying: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12952

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

456

K. Jordan and J. Austin

National School Climate Center. (2009). Bullybust . Retrieved from http://www. schoolclimate.org/bullybust/parents/upstander_behavior National School Safety and Security Services. (2005). School crime reporting and school crime underreporting. Retrieved from http://www.schoolsecurity.org/ trends/school_crime_reporting.html Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse in school: Intervention and prevention. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 248263). Oxford, England: Walter De Gruyter. Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. 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 (pp. 727). London: Routledge. Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 125144). New York: Guilford. Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (2000). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. OMoore, M. (1994). Bullying behaviour in children and adolescents. Journal of the Irish Association for Counselling and Therapy, 1(30), 2330. OMoore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teacher training to counter bullying and victimisation in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior , 26 , 99111. OMoore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior , 27 , 269283. Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 165176. Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 37 , 151163. Pellissier, H. (2011). Kansas to try Finlands anti-bullying program. Great Schools. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/parenting/bullying/4924-Kansastrying-out-Finlands-anti-bullying-program.gs Perry, D. G., Willard, J. C., & Perry, L. C. (1990). Peers perceptions of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development , 61, 13101325. Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564575. Reid, J. B., Eddy, M. J., Fetrow, R. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 , 483517. Remboldt, C. (1994). Solving violence problems in your school: Why a systematic approach is necessary. Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute. Rigby, K. (2001). What is bullying? Dening bullying: A new look at an old concept . Retrieved from http://www.kenrigby.net/dene.html

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

Bullying in U.S. Schools

457

Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: What school personnel, other professionals, and parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2011, S. 506, 112th Congress (2011). Seal, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescents, 38 , 735747. Seper, C. (2005, February 14). School bullies can land in court. Values in Action! Retrieved from http://www.ethicsusa.com/article.cfm?ID=3565 Skiba, R. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendation. American Psychologist , 63(9), 852862. Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (2004). Bullying in the schools: How successful can interventions be. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood , 7 , 193212. Spivak, H., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (2001). The need to address bullying: An important component of violence prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (16), 21312132. Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in the junior school. In D. P. Tatham & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 4558). London: Trentham Books. Storm, P. S., & Storm, R. D. (2005). Cyberbullying by adolescents: A preliminary assessment. The Educational Forum, 70, 2132. Trump, K. (2010, August 13). Radical policy shift targets bullying as federal civil rights issue. School Security Blog. Retrieved from http://www. schoolsecurityblog.com/2010/08/radical-policy-shift-targets-bullying-as-federalcivil-rights-issue/ Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2001). An innovative psychodynamically inuenced approach to reduce school violence. Journal of the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(3), 377379. Van der Wal, M. F., de Wit, C. A. M., & Hirasing, R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 13121317. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The nal report and ndings of the Safe School Initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 7888. Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30(3), 283302. Whitted, K. S., & Dupper, D. R. (2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in schools. Children and Schools, 27 (3), 167175. Willard, N. (2006). Cyber bullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of on-liner social cruelty, threats and distress. Eugene, OR: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013

458

K. Jordan and J. Austin

Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14S21. Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying strategies inform us about the prevalence of direct and relational bullying in primary schools? Educational Psychology, 23, 381401. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with caregiverchild relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27 , 319336.

Downloaded by [5.12.68.255] at 04:57 27 October 2013