Bullying in Irish Education

By Cork University Press

School bullying is receiving increasing attention as a phenomenon which is present in all schools.Despite previous books on the topic, bullying continues to thrive, becoming more sophisticated and poses serious problems for school populations in both primary and post-primary sectors. This book is the first review of bullying in Irish education written by researchers and practitioners working in the field.The appeal of this book is twofold. Firstly, it explores bullying from different perspectives within education namely, pupils, teachers and principals. Secondly, it is research based, but the concerns, shortcomings and challenges which bullying presents in the educational environment are explored and realistic strategies and support strategies are proposed. Given the keen interest in bullying internationally this book provides a comparative text on the latest research and practice of bullying in Irish education.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Cork University Press
• Release date: Oct 18, 2013
• ISBN: 9781782050452

Book preview

setting.

Preface

James O’Higgins Norman

Bullying in schools has received attention in research since the 1970s when Olweus began to study the issue in Sweden (1978). Internationally, the late 1980s and 1990s saw an increased awareness of the negative effects associated with school bullying and consequently there was an increase in the amount of research in this area in Ireland (O’Moore and Hillery, 1989), Scotland (Mellor, 1990), the Netherlands (Mooij, 1993), England (Whitney and Smith, 1993) and Australia (Rigby, 1998). The development in 1996 of the Anti-Bullying Centre at Trinity College was a significant moment in Irish education and now that the Centre has moved to Dublin City University we will ensure that bullying in schools remains on the agenda for researchers, teachers, parents and policy makers. The recent publication of the Action Plan on Bullying in January 2013 by the Minister for Education and Skills reflects a renewed concern about bullying in schools. The young person who is repeatedly bullied at school can experience anxiety, loss of confidence, loneliness and depression. This can result in punctuality problems, deteriorating academic attainment, poor attendance, truancy, early school leaving, mental health problems and even ideas of suicide (Parker and Asher, 1987; Sharp, 1995; Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 1998; Hunt and Jensen, 2006).

Many of the earlier studies of bullying relied on definitions that were based on the work of Olweus who defined school bullying as:

… when another student, or group of students, say nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a student is hit, kicked, threatened, locked inside a room, sent nasty notes, when no one ever talks to them or things like that. These things can happen frequently and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend himself or herself. It is also bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a nasty way. But it is not bullying when two students of the same strength have the odd fight or quarrel.

Olweus, 1993, pp. 9–10

In essence, these earlier researchers understood bullying mostly in terms of repeated aggressive behaviour arising from a deliberate intent to cause physical or psychological distress to others. This has sometimes led to a tendency on the part of researchers, policy makers, teachers and parents to overly pathologise those who bully and those who are bullied (Kumpulainen, 2008; Pollastri et al., 2009). Such a focus on bullying behaviour ignores the reality that a huge amount of bullying occurs because of a lack of tolerance for diversity and as such constitutes a form of discrimination.

My own research on initiatives to address bullying in schools revealed that several schools are now rolling out innovative anti-discrimination initiatives aimed at eliminating bullying (O’Higgins Norman et al., 2010). The most successful initiatives focused on diversity education and were supported by school leadership. While leadership obviously includes school management, it also involves external agencies including government and inspectorates and internally other school leaders such as chaplains, guidance counsellors and year heads.

In summary, it is important that we understand bullying as both a sociological and a psychological problem. Such a shift in how we understand bullying involves a recognition that while certain individuals are more likely to bully, the context in which they exist can also contribute towards an environment where bullying is more acceptable. Young people are rarely bullied because they are perceived to be the same as others; rather, they are often bullied because they stand out for being different from their peers. This reality points to the need for schools to promote diversity as a ‘normal’ part of life. If young people in schools are provided with an opportunity to reflect on difference as a positive aspect of life, levels of violence and aggression and other forms of discrimination can decrease.

Given that there has been so much research on bullying in schools, it is important that any new publication on this topic moves the debate forward and enhances our knowledge and skills in this area. The chapters contained within this book reflect research by academics and practitioners in a variety of settings. As such, the book not only makes a very significant contribution to the established body of knowledge on bullying in schools but will assist teachers, parents and school managers to enhance their skills with new ways of addressing the issue. I am particularly delighted and commend the editors who have ensured that a whole-school and cross-community theme underpins the research reported on in this book. Bullying in Irish Education will help to broaden our understanding of bullying as an issue that should be treated as a psychological and sociological experience, thus expanding the discourse on bullying to include a consideration of bullying both as a form of aggression and discrimination.

REFERENCES

Hunt, R. and Jensen, J. Education for All: The School Report (London: Stonewall, 2006)

Kumpulainen, K. ‘Psychiatric Conditions Associated with Bullying’, International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 2008, pp. 121–32

Mellor, A. ‘Bullying in Scottish Secondary Schools’, Spotlights, 23 (Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1990)

Mooij, T. ‘Working towards Understanding and Prevention in the Netherlands’, in D. Tattum (ed.), Understanding and Managing Bullying (London: Heinemann, 1993)

O’Higgins Norman, J., Goldrick, M. and Harrison, K. Addressing Homophobic Bullying in Second-Level Schools (Dublin: The Equality Authority, 2010)

O’Moore, A.M. and Hillery, B. ‘Bullying in Dublin Schools’, The Irish Journal of Psychology, 10, 1989, pp. 426–41

Olweus, D. Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys (Washington DC: Hemisphere-Wiley, 1978)

Olweus, D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do About It (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)

Parker, J.G. and Asher, S.R. ‘Peer Relations and Later Personal Adjustment: Are Low-Accepted Children At Risk?’ Psychological Bulletin, 102, 1987, pp. 357–89

Pollastri, A.R., Cardemil, E.V. and O’Donnell, E.H. ‘Self-Esteem in Pure Bullies and Bully/Victims: A Longitudinal Analysis’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2009, pp. 1489–502

Rigby, K. ‘Peer Relations at School and the Health of Adolescents’, Youth Studies, 17, 1998, pp. 13–17

Sharp, S. ‘How Much Does Bullying Hurt? The Effects of Bullying on the Personal Well-Being and Educational Progress of Secondary-Aged Students’, Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 1995, pp. 81–8

Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. ‘A Survey of the Nature and Extent of Bullying in Junior/Middle and Secondary Schools’, Educational Research, 35, 1993, pp. 3–25

Introduction

Paul Stevens and Mona O’Moore

Bullying continues to occur in any context where human beings interact with each other. Despite every person’s fundamental right to feel safe, bullying is a feature of everyday life for many in their homes, schools or places of work or study. Yes, undoubtedly, awareness has been raised and the successful work to date in addressing this insidious behaviour needs to be acknowledged, but bullying still remains a critical social issue often with serious negative consequences for its victims. The education sector is where much of the research began and strategies to counteract bullying have been implemented but it is also the sector where it continues to thrive and flourish.

Those involved in education form a significant sector of Irish society. Many attending or employed in education have fallen victim of, or at least witnessed, bullying behaviour. However, there are those who do not report bullying and who have dipped under the radar because of the culture of silence around bullying which prevails in Irish society.

There are those who understand that bullying is indeed a serious negative behaviour and acknowledge that it has the capacity to seriously impair or destroy lives. Others recognise it as a feature of life but really give it little thought or serious consideration until perhaps someone close to them experiences it. There are those who, sometimes correctly, claim that the term ‘bullying’ has become overused and hackneyed to put a serious label on or exaggerate an everyday behaviour which is part of the occasional negative interactions which happen between people. While this may occur to some degree, it in no way takes away from the reality of genuine bullying behaviour which occurs. Finally, there are those who feel ‘it toughens us up’ and that ‘it is a part of the rough and tumble of life’ and should be endured as it ‘is character-forming’.

Not surprisingly, therefore, our collective response as a nation could at best be described as lukewarm. Yes, there has been a national response of concern when RTÉ screened a Prime Time programme on bullying and cyber-bullying. And yes, the news of Phoebe Prince’s suicide and subsequent teenage suicides in this country were a wake-up call to everyone that serious action needed to be taken as a matter of priority. However, it seems that people’s genuine emotional responses are quickly forgotten as some new news story takes precedence and the sense of urgency fades. Despite overwhelming evidence of bullying behaviour in Irish society, there still exists no specific legislation. While the Department of Education and Skills’ newly launched Action Plan brings new hope, like so many critical issues in education, it is left to management authorities at local level, albeit with some guidance, to devise and implement policy. The result is that where the majority take this responsibility seriously, there is great variance in the manner in which bullying is addressed.

For the majority of those employed in education, there has been dialogue, debate and a genuine effort to address the issue. A crucial part of this work has included academic research to enhance understanding, pilot innovation and an evaluation of the effectiveness of strategies. This book is part of that process and for the first time brings to the fore current research on bullying in education. Some of the chapters are based on the work of postgraduate students who undertook the MEd in Aggression Studies at Trinity College Dublin while others are based on master’s or doctoral research studies undertaken at universities elsewhere.

The book is divided into five sections. Part One (Chapters 1–5) focuses on peer bullying in education. In Chapter 1 O’Moore reports comprehensively on the incidence of bullying in Irish primary and second-level schools and explores victimisation in terms of age, gender, school location and highlights an increase in incidence between 1993 and 2006. In addition, she looks at cyber-bullying and its overlap with traditional bullying and advocates a whole-school community approach, as outlined later in Chapter 12. In the second chapter McGuckin examines similar themes for schools in Northern Ireland, a landscape with a unique ethno-political history. Interesting comparisons between Ireland and the UK are drawn, while the chapter also reviews the responses of government and non-governmental agencies in terms of curriculum and legislation and includes some practical steps to address the phenomenon. Minton, in the third chapter, outlines the background to society’s prevailing attitude to non-heterosexual orientation. Through a survey of homophobic bullying he reveals the impact on the Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender (LBGT) school-going population, again with specific recommendations to reduce the incidence and consequences of bullying. Chapter 4 addresses the issue of non-reporting and O’Dowd explores the factors which inhibit victims from telling. The final chapter in Part One is concerned with bullying among the third-level population and McGuire details attitudes, experiences and differing manifestations of bullying among the biggest single educational grouping in Irish society.

Part Two (Chapters 6–7) contains two chapters reflecting on bullying in less traditional educational settings. Firstly, Healy has undertaken a study examining bullying among out-of-school children. Her findings suggest a complex population with levels of bullying which are sometimes disturbing and for whom the implementation of anti-bullying strategies can prove challenging. She concludes that the issue of bullying among this particularly vulnerable population merits further investigation. McGrath, Black and Sutton present the results of a two-phase research project with adults with intellectual disabilities in educational settings, revealing factors associated with incidence and interesting implications for state and voluntary bodies providing such education.

The third part of the book (Chapters 8–11) addresses the issue of workplace bullying in the education sector. In Chapter 8, Fahie presents critical factors associated with the workplace bullying of primary school teachers and argues that the concept of new managerialism has negatively altered the work environment and thus has contributed to an increase in bullying among teachers. In contrast, Stevens explores the concept of managers themselves being victims of bullying in Chapter 9. His nationwide study of primary school principals reveals the who, why and where of bullying of primary school principals and articulates their concerns in terms of consequences and existing policy for the resolution of incidents. In the next chapter, G. Murray provides an international overview of bullying in the education sector together with three vignettes from three second-level teachers who have been subjected to bullying. Finally, Monahan’s challenging research regarding teacher/student relationships poses key questions which require further dialogue and research.

Part Four deals with strategies for addressing bullying and contains six chapters. O’Moore opens this section with a chapter describing a successful whole-school community approach which was piloted in Donegal and, if implementation of such an approach was fully supported on a nationwide basis, could bring enormous benefits in terms of reducing levels of bullying in schools. Sullivan introduces Action Against Cyber-bullying (AAC), a programme with four related components which he has designed to assist schools to understand the nature of school-related cyber-bullying and to develop processes to counteract it effectively. Kent and Fallon provide details of a second-level anti-bullying campagin which offers schools online support and resources.

The three remaining chapters in this section describe small-scale research projects which may offer greater possibilities: the use of massage in schools by O. Murray; the concept of ‘mindfulness’ among children by Young; and the benefits of ‘teaching thinking’ using Edward de Bono’s ‘Six Thinking Hats’ by Kent. These three alternative approaches could certainly play a role in reducing aggressiveness and therefore bullying behaviour and should be considered for further development.

In the final part of the book, Smith offers a comprehensive overview of aspects of the law which relate to bullying. The first section provides definitions of bullying and cyber-bullying. This is followed by a detailed analysis of legal and quasi-legal documents including constitutional, criminal and civil legislation together with Department of Education circulars. These are examined in terms of content and their implications for individuals and schools. Finally, he presents previous case law in eight areas pertinent to children, parents and schools. While all cases may not deal specifically with bullying, all have possible application to bullying scenarios.

It is hoped that this book will stimulate interest, initiate dialogue, increase public awareness and encourage further research. There is general agreement that a cohesive national strategy addressing bullying is the only way forward. Firstly, a cultural shift is required where the primary objective on a national basis is to reduce risk. Effective parenting and successful pre-school and primary education intervention are all vital where the establishment of bully and victim behaviour patterns can be prevented or at least reduced. Support must be provided to address the issue at second and third level together with a commitment to preserve dignity in the workplace. Secondly, despite a preventative approach at all levels, bullying will occur and therefore a clear strategy for responding to incidents must be in place. Thirdly, and critically, there needs to be adequate and effective support services for victims, perpetrators and their families.

Minister Fitzgerald of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and Minister Ruairi Quinn of the Department of Education and Skills convened an Anti-Bullying Forum on 17 May 2012 to explore ways to prevent and counter bullying in schools. A Working Group was subsequently tasked by the ministers to develop an action plan on bullying and this was launched on 30 January 2013. It reflects great promise with many excellent recommendations for best practice for school communities. Together with the knowledge and insights to be gained from this book, it is hoped that the new Anti-Bullying Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary Schools launched by the Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairi Quinn will witness the creation of circumstances that will protect an individual’s right to a safer learning and working environment. Although we are in a financial and economic quagmire, if those working in education become ever more vigilant and strive to tackle bullying, we should see, as stated by Minister Ruairi Quinn in the Anti-Bullying Action Plan, ‘a culture that encourages respect, values, opinions, celebrates differences and promotes positive relationships’. For society, what can be of greater value?

CHAPTER ONE

The Prevalence of Bullying and Cyber-

Bullying in Irish Schools

Mona O’Moore

INTRODUCTION

To be bullied can have serious implications for an individual’s physical and mental health, not to mention the demand for professional services. Maria Lawlor (2006), child and adolescent psychiatrist with the North-Eastern Health Board has demonstrated with the help of two case studies just how costly bullying can be. Quite apart from the professional staff time – educational, clinical and psychiatric – that is usually required, there is also the hidden personal costs to the individual and their family. For example, Dr Lawlor reported on a clever, attractive 14-year-old who was bullied physically and psychologically during her second year at post-primary school. The victimisation resulted in her becoming depressed and suicidal and as a result she was referred to psychiatric services. The psychiatric assessment found the girl ‘to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, depression, suicide ideation, low self-esteem, and severe anxiety symptoms. She attended for treatment for over eighteen months and was treated with psychotherapy, family therapy, parental counselling, medication and liaison meetings with the school and health board personnel.’ The other case which Dr Lawlor referred to was that of a 9-year-old who required eighty-one hours of outpatient therapy and a three-month admission to a paediatric unit. The total cost of treatment using 2004 rates was €101,000.

These case studies and others (Holmquist, 2010; O’Moore, 2010) are supported by a growing number of empirical studies. For example, Hawker and Boulton (2000) were able to draw the conclusion from their meta-analytic review of peer victimisation and psychosocial maladjustment that victimisation is associated with a pattern of distress that can no longer be ignored.

While most of the research literature on the consequences of victimisation relates to traditional bullying, referred to sometimes as face-to-face bullying, there is a growing literature to show that to be cyber-bullied may indeed accelerate and amplify the hurt associated with being targeted (Shariff, 2008; Kowalski and Limber, 2007; Kowalski et al., 2008; Hinduja and Patchin, 2009). Flanagan (2010) found that 33% of teenagers surveyed believed cyber-bullying to have a worse effect on victims than that of traditional bullying. The teens who have come to the attention of the media as having taken their lives as a result of suffering cyber-bullying provide strong support for this view (Irish Times, Weekend Review, 18 September 2010).

Research is also growing which links children who bully with externalising and internalising problems. Cook et al. (2010), the authors of a recent meta-analytic investigation of the predictors of bullying and victimisation in childhood and adolescence, describe the typical bully as one who ‘exhibits significant externalising behaviour, has internalising symptoms, has both social competence and academic challenges, possesses negative attitudes and beliefs about others, has negative self-regulated cognitions, has trouble resolving problems with others, comes from a family environment characterized by conflict and poor parental monitoring, is more likely to perceive his or her school as having a negative atmosphere, is influenced by negative community factors, and tends to be negatively influenced by his or her peers’ (pp. 75–6). This study gives support to a Finnish longitudinal study (Sourander et al., 2007) which found that frequent bullying predicted most types of crime, including violent crime. This was the case even after controlling for the parents’ education level. Indeed Kumpulainen (2008) concluded that ‘rarely does any single behaviour predict future problems as clearly as bullying does’. Worrying as these results are, the picture is even worse when account is taken of the distinct group of children and teenagers who both bully and are bullied (bully-victims). The Finnish researchers confirmed findings from earlier studies, such as those of Olweus (1993), O’Moore and Hillery (1991) and O’Moore and Kirkham (2001), showing bully-victims to be more prone to antisocial personality disorders and to suffer more psychiatric symptoms in later years. They found that 30% of the bully-victims suffered from some kind of adult psychiatric disorder. The disorders included anxiety, depression, psychosis and substance abuse. The boys who had been both frequent bullies and frequent victims suffered the worst outcomes (Sourander et al., 2007). In a subsequent study of cyber-bullying Sourander et al. (2010) were able to show that cyber-bullying and cyber victimisation are associated also with psychiatric and psychosomatic problems. The most troubled were once again those who were both cyber-bullies and cyber-victims.

With findings such as the aforementioned there is a clear case for urgent action to prevent the serious and persistent nature of bullying and cyber-bullying. However to implement effective prevention and intervention strategies an accurate picture of the nature and extent of bullying and victimisation is necessary. This chapter aims to examine, therefore, the prevalence of bullying and cyber-bullying in Irish schools.

It should be noted that the prevalence rates that are presented in this chapter are based on the concept of bullying as being defined as a form of aggression which is intentional and unprovoked as well as being repeated over time. There is also some form of imbalance of power, whether it be physical or psychological, between aggressor(s) and victim(s). This means that once-off or isolated acts of aggression are not regarded as bullying behaviour, which supports the definition of bullying by the Department of Education and Skills (see Chapter 18 for further details on definition of bullying). However, it is my personal opinion that consideration should be given to encapsulating into a definition of bullying isolated acts of anti-social aggression which are unjustified and serve to intimidate on an ongoing basis (see O’Moore, 2010 for further discussion of this viewpoint).

In presenting the overview of cyber-bullying in this chapter, the practice is seen as an extension of traditional bullying where computers, mobile phones and other electronic devices are used to send insulting, threatening and abusive comments or images. Again, as with traditional bullying, there is no universally accepted definition of cyber-bullying. However, it is generally accepted that the aggressive behaviour is deliberate, repeated and that the target(s) have difficulty defending themselves due to a power imbalance. However, insisting that a cyber attack has to be repeated over time to be defined as cyber-bullying is still open for debate by academics and practitioners in view of the fact that a single abusive message or image can stay online indefinitely and can be seen by multiple viewers (Kirwan and Power, 2012).

BULLYING OTHERS

In 2004, the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that over one third of young people (35%) were involved in bullying others at least once during the previous couple of months. A further 11% bullied others frequently (i.e. two or three times or more during the previous couple of months). The rates varied substantially across countries and regions. The mean percentage for the three age groups of 11,13 and 15 years in respect of occasional bullying were: 30%, 38% and 36% respectively. For frequent bullying the rates for the three age groups were: 9%, 12% and 13% respectively. The difference between girls and boys was discernible, especially for frequent bullying, and this was true for three quarters of the countries and regions which the WHO surveyed.

From Table 1.1 below it can be seen that the boys in Irish schools who participated in the WHO study are close to the international average rate. Like most of their transnational counterparts, they showed a higher rate of bullying than the girls. However, overall at both levels of frequency Ireland was in the lowest quartile across all age groups.

Table 1.1: Percentage of young people in Ireland who bullied others occasionally and frequently in the previous couple of months (WHO, 2004).

VICTIMISATION

The World Health Organisation reported that over one third (34%) of all young people in the thirty-five participating countries admitted to being bullied at least once during the previous couple of months. The mean proportions for occasional victimisation for the three age groups studied were: 38% in 11-year-olds; 36% in 13-year-olds and 27% in 15-year-olds. For frequent victimisation 11% of young people reported being bullied this often, the rates being 15%, 14% and 10% for ages 11,13 and 15. Once again the rates varied significantly by country and region.

From Table 1.2, which shows the WHO rates for Ireland for young people of eleven, thirteen and fifteen years of age it can be seen that the level of victimisation is lower than the international average. Of note, although Ireland is no exception, is the decrease in the level of victimisation with age at both levels of frequency.

Table 1.2: Percentage of Irish young people who have been bullied occasionally and frequently in the previous couple of months (WHO, 2004).

BULLY-VICTIMS

Reference has been made earlier to the fact that there are children who are both bullied and who bully others (bully-victims). As the WHO study did not make the distinction between the children who were only bullied (‘pure victims’) and those who only bullied others (the ‘pure bullies’), I have unfortunately no means of comparing the proportion of bully-victims in their study with previous or subsequent studies conducted in Ireland.

WHY DO COUNTRIES DIFFER IN THE EXTENT OF BULLYING?

Comparing prevalence rates for being bullied and bullying others within or across countries can be difficult. There are several reasons for this, the most common being differences of age, of reporting periods and definitions of bullying. However, the comparisons which I have made between our nationwide study and the later WHO study are, in my opinion, realistic as both studies used the same definition of bullying (which was that of Olweus, 1993), the same reporting periods (that of a couple of months preceding the study) and the same response options with regard to the level of involvement (i.e. occasional and frequent victimisation and bullying). However, there is no knowing whether the substantially lower rate of involvement in bullying either as victims or bullies that was found in the nationwide study is an underestimate. It is possible that the greater awareness of bullying that has taken place in schools in the intervening years has made it easier to report victim/bully problems. In any event the levels reported by either study reflect an unacceptable level of bullying among the Irish school-going population.

HAS THE INCIDENCE OF BULLYING IN IRELAND INCREASED OVER TIME?

This is a question that I am frequently asked. If we look to the WHO rates for Ireland and compare them with the nationwide study which I conducted some eight years earlier (O’Moore et al., 1997), there is evidence of a substantial increase among both girls and boys in both the rate of being bullied and of bullying others.

Victimisation

We found that approximately one in ten pupils (10.6%) from age 11 to 15 reported that they were bullied occasionally. In the intervening years this has been shown by the WHO to have risen to at least one in four (26%). For moderate victimisation and frequent victimisation we reported 2.8% and 1.9% respectively. This contrasts to the WHO rate of 8.2% for frequent victimisation. It should be noted that the WHO did not distinguish as I did between moderate (being bullied sometimes) and frequent victimisation (being bullied once a week or several times a week). Instead they combined the two levels of involvement, which may explain why their reported level of frequent bullying is so high. However, if we combine the moderate and frequent levels found in our nationwide study, we obtain a rate of 4.7%. This still indicates that the rate of frequent bullying has risen substantially over an eight-year period.

Bullying others

A rise in the involvement in bullying can be seen also when we compare the rates for bullying others. Our nationwide study found that among the 11–15-year-olds, 11.7% bullied others occasionally, 2.7% sometimes and 1.0% frequently. The WHO study showed the rates to have risen to 22.4% for occasional bullying of others and 4.8% for frequent bullying of others. This suggests a considerable increase in both occasional and frequent bullying.

If we now look beyond the WHO study which was conducted in 2001/2 to our most recent national study, named the ABC study, which I conducted together with Stephen James Minton in 2005 (Minton, 2007,2010) we can make a comparison over time in respect of pure victims, pure bullies and bully-victims. See Table 1.3 on next page.

Table 1.3: Comparison of percentages of pupils reporting involvement in bullying during the last three months in the 2004–2005 ‘ABC’ survey and in the 1993–1994 nationwide survey.

Primary school pupils

The results, as can be seen from Table 1.3 above, are very encouraging with regard to children attending primary schools. Overall there was a lower incidence of general involvement in bullying behaviour in the recent ‘ABC’ survey when we compare it with the 1993–1994 nationwide survey (35.3% versus 43.5% respectively). There were, in particular, lowered instances in the ‘involvement as a bully only’ (6.8% in the ‘ABC’ survey, versus 12.3% in the 1993 nationwide survey) and ‘involvement as both a bully and a victim’ category (7.3% in the ‘ABC’ survey, versus 14.1% in 1993 nationwide survey). However, the higher incidence of involvement as a ‘victim only’ (21.2%) in the ‘ABC’ survey when compared with the 1993 nationwide survey (17.1%) does present a cause for concern. The reasons are not obvious but one possibility may be that not enough attention was paid to the promotion of cultural diversity at the time when Ireland was becoming more multi-cultural and multi-denominational. O’Higgins Norman (2012), for example, is very much of the view that more needs to be done in schools to promote diversity as a ‘normal’ part of life. He believes that if young people are provided with an opportunity to reflect on difference as a positive aspect of life, levels of violence and aggression and other forms of discrimination can decrease.

Post-primary pupils

Pupils of post-primary in contrast to primary school pupils have shown a marked increase in their total involvement in bullying over ten years since the first study was conducted. In 1993/4 the level stood at 26.4% while in 2004/5 it had risen to 36.4%. Table 1.3 shows the percentage increase for victims, bullies and bully-victims over the ten-year period.

To conclude from the data that we have collected over the years on the prevalence of bullying in Ireland it would seem that there has been a decrease in the total involvement of bullying among children of primary school age, with the exception of pure victims. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case for post-primary school pupils. An increase was evident for all types of involvement, namely that of ‘pure bully’, ‘pure victim’ and ‘bully-victim’. This trend may reflect that more work has been done at primary than at post-primary level to counteract the bullying. While the greater level of reporting among victims may seem to contradict this, it could be argued that the increased awareness of bullying over the years has enabled victims to more readily admit to being victims, thereby giving us a more accurate account of the level of victimisation. This may also explain the increase found among the post-primary pupils. Of course it is also possible that the heightened awareness may have the result of making ‘bullies’ feel somewhat more ashamed of their behaviour, prompting as a result a greater reluctance to admit to bullying. Were this the case, it may explain the decrease in ‘bullying others’ that we found among the primary school children. But it does not explain the increase found among the post-primary pupils. However, the questions which the findings raise point to the need to study changes in the extent and frequency of bullying from early school age to adulthood.

AGE DIFFERENCES IN VICTIMISATION AND BULLYING

As children grow older, victimisation tends to decrease. This is a universal phenomenon and Ireland is no exception. Using the data from O’Moore et al. (1997), Figure 1.1 presents the year differences (mean percentage rates) of those who are bullied only (pure victims), those who bully only (pure bullies) and those who both bully and are bullied (bully-victims) from third class in Irish primary schools through to sixth year in post-primary schools. For a detailed breakdown of the differences of girls and boys with age, see O’Moore (2010).

Unfortunately, it was not possible to sample children younger than eight as the questionnaires were not suitable for children younger than this. However, some children did report experiences that they had when they were even younger. A sixth-class pupil for example stated: ‘when I was in baby infants I was bullied by two or three boys in sixth class.’ However, where younger children have been represented in studies it has been found that they tend to be bullied more often than children in higher grades.

Figure 1.1: Percentage of victims, bullies and bully-victims from third class in primary school to sixth year in post-primary school.

WHY IS THERE AN AGE DECLINE IN VICTIMISATION?

It has been shown that the age decline may be due to several factors (Smith, Madsen and Moody, 1999). These are as follows:

• young children are faced with more older children who can bully them.

• young children have not yet acquired the social skills and assertiveness skills to cope effectively with bullying incidents.

• young children have a different definition of what bullying is, which changes as they get older. Essentially ‘their understanding of the term bullying may broadly encompass something someone does that is nasty and hurts me without any of the qualifications about repetition, inequality of power, or intent, which usually come into adult definitions or research questionnaires’ (Smith and Levan, 1995). Guerin (2001) found also that children (aged 10–13 years) focus more on the effect on the victim and victim’s interpretation of the incident. She found that less than 10% of the children surveyed found that aggressive behaviour needed to occur regularly in order for it to be defined as bullying.

While our results showed an overall decline from age 8 to 18 for pure victims it increased for boys in second year of post-primary school (approximate age being 13/14 years of age). This trend was also evident ten years later as reflected in the ABC study (Minton, 2007,2010). As bullying that is experienced in early adolescence may be the worst and the most memorable to victims (Eslea and Rees, 2000), extra care needs therefore to be taken to minimise the risks of victimisation during early adolescence.

In contrast to the age decline in victimisation, there is a steady increase in pure bullies as they advance through primary school. However, by first year in post-primary school the incidence is almost halved but it increases again in second year and third year. Fortunately the number of bully-victims declines steadily from primary right through to sixth year in post-primary school although there is a considerable increase in second year, in particular among the boys.

The increase in the bullying of others which we found among the early adolescents in Ireland over a period of a decade is a worldwide phenomenon. The WHO (2004) found, for example, that bullying peaked at 13 years of age in twenty of the thirty-five countries in their survey. The reasons for this trend are not fully understood. Quite apart from blaming it on the surge of hormones that characterise adolescence at this age, it is thought that when they reach the higher grades they have more scope to target those younger than themselves. Evidence of this view can be gained from a third-year pupil in our nationwide study who reported that ‘I bully first years because they are defenceless and I can take my anger out on them as well as their money.’

We found one third of Irish victims reported that they were bullied by pupils in higher classes. It is also not unimaginable that, for Ireland at least, the extra supervision and attention that is afforded pupils in first year of senior school may play a part in keeping the level of bullying down. Many first-year pupils tend not to know each other, as they come in from different primary schools, and in which case they may need some time before they can get a measure of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Lacking friends is a risk factor, Wang, Iannotti and Nansel (2009) having shown that having friends is associated with less victimisation. ‘Bullies’ will focus on the classmates for whom significant others do not care. Because children who bully are in pursuit of status and affection, they will therefore choose their potential victims so as to minimise loss of affection among their peers (Veenstra et al., 2010). Clearly it will take some time to work out the social status of each member of their class or year. It goes to show that bullying is very much a process and that much of peer interaction is about posturing and testing each other out to see who the easy targets may be.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN VICTIMISATION AND BULLYING

The WHO study found that most countries ‘show more similarity between the genders than the contrary and some show slightly more girls reporting victimisation’. However, both our large-scale studies carried out in Ireland (O’Moore et al., 1997; O’Moore and Minton, 2005; Minton, 2007,2010) found as did Belgium (French) and Israel that significantly more boys than girls were bullied.

Figure 1.2: The level of victimisation among boys and girls from primary (class 3–6) to post-primary school (year 1–6).

The differences in the level of victimisation between Irish boys and girls from third class in primary to sixth year in post-primary which were found in the nationwide study (O’Moore et al., 1997) can be seen in Figure 1.2 on previous page. The reasons for this trend are unclear. However, contributing to it may be society’s attitude to aggression and any inequality of the sexes that may still prevail in Ireland. It is to be expected that there would be more male bullying in macho societies and that girls might under-report in cultures which conform to the more traditional gender stereotype. That inequality has powerful psychosocial effects has been demonstrated in a most convincing manner by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their recent book The Spirit Level (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). They found that in the more unequal societies children experience more bullying, fights and conflicts.

Figure 1.3 below shows the gender differences in respect of bullying others from the age of 8/9 to 17/18 years of age. The frequency of the bullying of others is reported on in O’Moore et al. (1997). The higher proportion of male ‘bullies’ in each year group finds support in the WHO study referred to earlier. Essentially it found that ‘in all countries and regions and for all age groups boys report bullying others more than girls’.

Figure 1.3: The level of bullying of others among boys and girls from primary (class 3–6) to post-primary school (year 1–6)

There are few prevalence studies with which to compare the level of bully-victims found in our nationwide study. However, Figure 1.4 shows that boys at all ages are more prone than are girls to being bully-victims. As bully-victims experience the worst of both worlds, it is good to see that there is a decline in both sexes with age, although second year is associated with an increase, especially among the boys. Ten years on has shown the same pattern of results as above, although overall there is evidence of fewer bully-victims at primary but more at post-primary school (Minton, 2007,2010).

Figure 1.4: The level of bully-victims among boys and girls from primary (class 3–6) to post-primary school (year 1–6)

WHO CARRIES OUT THE BULLYING?

In Irish primary and post-primary schools we found that boys are bullied almost entirely by other boys, whereas girls are bullied by both boys and girls, although to a somewhat lesser extent to being bullied by other girls (O’Moore et al., 1997). When girls were bullied by boys, the bullying was predominantly dyadic (one boy against one girl). Over half the pupils (59%) were bullied by one individual in contrast to being bullied by a group of fellow pupils.

Table 1.4 below shows that the victims in both primary and post-primary were predominantly bullied by pupils from their own class. It can also be seen that pupils can be bullied by those younger than themselves, i.e. almost one in ten primary school children and almost one in twenty post-primary pupils. It is to be expected that to be bullied by someone younger may be more threatening to a child or teenager’s self-esteem than it is to be faced down by a classmate of one’s own age or older.

Table 1.4: Percentage of victims reporting in which class/year were the pupils by whom they were bullied.

It is critical in our efforts to ascertain the amount of bullying in Irish schools that we do not overlook the fact that children can also be bullied by teachers and members of their family. A third-year pupil in our nationwide study, for example, had this to say: ‘We have been bullied by a certain teacher. Since the first day of her class, I’ve been sitting on my own and she picks on me and others.’ The few studies that have been undertaken on the victimisation of pupils by school staff indicate that the negative impact may be greater than that for peer victimisations (Khoury-Kassabri, Astor and Benbenishty, 2008). This was certainly evident in respect of some of the pupil response in our study. One pupil, for instance, who, while not herself bullied, nonetheless commented that ‘Some teachers can be quite nasty and the person who is picked on is usually quite upset.’ This sentiment was confirmed by the pupil, who wrote: ‘One particular teacher picks on me regularly and she often has me in tears. She’s a great teacher and I try my hardest but she has a very bad temper and she’s impatient.’ Because bullying by teachers tends to be a public degradation, it generates much publicity and for this reason it can become more humiliating than peer-on-peer bullying. Sadly it can also promote peer-on-peer bullying, as was pointed out by one second-year pupil who remarked: ‘I think sometimes because a teacher bullies someone they think it is right and so they do it to someone else.’

In recognising that teachers can be guilty of bullying (see Chapter 11 in this book) it is equally important to not underestimate that teachers can also be bullied by pupils. They can be ridiculed, threatened or otherwise abused both online and face to face. The consequences of pupil-on-teacher bullying can be every bit as damaging to mental and physical health as teacher-on-pupil bullying.

WHERE BULLYING TAKES PLACE IN SCHOOL

In primary schools, we showed that the majority of children (74%) reported that they were bullied in the playground (O’Moore et al., 1997). The classroom was reported by the children (31%) as the next most likely place to be bullied. More primary school pupils (16%) reported that they were bullied ‘in other places in the school’ than they were in the corridors (7%).

In second-level schools, the most common place to be bullied is in the classrooms (47% of pupils). The next most likely place to be bullied was in the corridors (37%). Then there were 27% of post-primary pupils who said they were bullied in the playground and 15% who reported that they were bullied somewhere else in the school. The other places included: the toilets, changing rooms, locker areas, and dormitories in boarding schools. These findings are not unique to Ireland. Many other countries worldwide share a similar trend (Sullivan, 2000).

GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL

Some 8% of primary school pupils and 2.8% of post-primary pupils reported that they were bullied ‘sometimes or more often’ on the way to and from school. An additional 11% of primary pupils and 6% of post-primary pupils stated that they had been bullied ‘once or twice’ on their way to or from school. The types of bullying involved a lot of physical attacks, such as being tripped, kicked and pushed to the ground and having one’s money or personal belongings taken. The following are some examples:

‘I would be walking down the road and some lads would hop on me and beat me up and sometimes they rob my money’ (Post-primary second-year pupil).

‘After school I’ve been bullied. I was thrown over a wall’ (Primary fourth-class boy).

‘Every time on my way home a bloke of 16 will hit me or kick me’ (Post-primary first-year pupil).

There were also threats of violence. For example one girl reported the following:

‘Two girls took me and my friend down to the field and said if we did not fight each other they would kill us and they tried to take our money. We managed to run away.’ (Primary fourth-class girl).

Another girl had this to say: ‘Outside school a girl chased me all the way home. She told me if she got me she was going to kill me. Since then every day that girl is at me.’ (Primary fourth-class girl).

On occasions, belongings were set on fire. Thus books, schoolbags and overcoats were sometimes destroyed. One child even reported he was thrown in a river, others told that they were prevented from catching their buses or trains home. Some pupils even mentioned that they were sexually abused.

In relation to the extent of bullying others, 8% of primary school pupils and 4% of post-primary pupils admitted that they bullied others ‘once or twice’ on their way to and from school. Another 3% of primary and 1.3% of post-primary pupils said they bullied others ‘sometimes or more often’. It is noteworthy that 33% of primary pupils and 26% of post-primary pupils who bullied in school reported that they also bullied on their way to and from school. Of those who bullied frequently in school, i.e. once a week or more, 64% of primary pupils and 59% of post-primary also bullied outside of school.

SCHOOL SPORTS

Taking part in sports offers children and adolescents great opportunities to develop new skills, to be part of a group, have fun, learn to win and lose and gain in confidence. Yet sadly much bullying occurs within the organised school sports environment causing children much distress and to quit their chosen sport. In our nationwide study, it was not uncommon to come across statements such as the following:

‘I was punched and pushed and called all kinds of names and told by the person I’m going to get you and that you are dead. I am pushed to the ground at all games of football and have been kicked and my hair pulled.’ (Primary fifth-class pupil)

‘At football training I am better than a much older boy and he bullies me.’ (Primary sixth-class pupil)

‘At hurling training a boy would try to hit me with the ball when we are lining up to take shots.’ (Post-primary first-year pupil)

‘When I play rugby with the third years some of the players bully me after the match.’ (Post-primary first-year pupil)

‘I get called names about my weight but I like to take part in sports. They say that I have no right to do sport with my weight and size. I hate being slagged.’ (Post-primary third-year pupil)

DO SCHOOLS DIFFER IN THE EXTENT OF BULLYING?

From the major Irish studies and the individual commissioned studies which our Trinity College’s Anti-bullying Centre have conducted, the evidence points to considerable differences between schools in the level of bullying and victimisation. Possible reasons for this have been explored and these are reported on in some detail in O’Moore et al. (1997). The determinants which we examined were the following:

• school size

• class size

• ability grouping

• single-sex and co-educational

• advantaged/disadvantaged status

• location: rural/urban

• social composition of schools

Many other factors in addition to the above can be at play in determining school differences in the level of bullying, such as curricular activities, disciplinary measures and the values and attitudes of the school community. For further information on these factors, see Gittins (2006).

HOW MANY IRISH PUPILS ARE AFFECTED BY CYBERBULLYING?

As cyber-bullying is a relatively new phenomenon, studies are only beginning to emerge. However, there is considerable urgency in finding effective preventative and intervention measures in view of the anonymous, instant and far-reaching communication capabilities of this form of bullying. The threat which it poses to schools in Ireland has already been noted (Irish Times, 18 May 2012).

Researchers have not yet reached a consensus on the definiton of cyber-bullying, this being one of the aims of the COST (European Coperation in Science and Technology) Action (IS0801) on Cyber-bullying which had 28 countries sharing experiences on cyber-bullying in educational settings. However, it has been defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones and other electronic devices (Hinduja and Patchin, 2009).

The studies which have been conducted in Irish schools to date (Corcoran, Connolly and O’Moore, 2012; Flanagan, 2010; O’Moore and Minton, 2009; O’Moore, 2012; O’Neill, Grehan and Olafson, 2011) indicate that there are fortunately far fewer children and adolescents who are involved in cyber-bullying than in traditional bullying.

Building on the preliminary findings of O’Moore and Minton (2009) the complete data set on the 3,004 12–17-year-old pupils (1,009 girls and 1,995 boys), which formed part of a study commissioned by RTÉ’s Prime Time programme (broadcast on 19 May 2008), showed that there were 18.3% of Irish pupils, almost one in five, who admitted to being involved in cyber-bullying either as pure victim (9.3%), pure bully (4.4%) or bully-victim (4.1%). Pure victims were those who reported that they were victims only and had therefore never bullied others. Pure bullies were those who bullied only and had therefore never been victimised. Bully-victims were the pupils who admitted to both bullying others as well as being bullied.

The rate for traditional bullying in comparison to cyber-bullying was nearly one in two (41.8% with 17.5% pure victims, 12.1% pure bullies and 12.3% bully-victims). There were 33.1% (39% girls and 29.9% boys) who were witness to and had knowledge of those who were traditionally bullied as compared to 28.4% of pupils (29.4% girls and 27.7% boys) who admitted to having knowledge of those who cyber-bullied. For details of the sampling and methodology see O’Moore (2012).

There are not many studies on cyber-bullying worldwide that have used the bullying classification of pure victims, pure bullies and cyber-bullies, which makes for limited cross-cultural comparisons with our Irish data. However, looking to Table 1.5, which lists those studies that have employed the same typology, we see that Canada and the USA report higher rates than Ireland. However, care needs to be taken when comparing these incident rates as differing definitions would have been used, as well as differing methodologies, reporting periods, age and sub-categories of cyber-bullying. Wang et al. (2009) have reported for example, how even within the USA the prevalence rates for cyber-bullying have ranged from 6% to 42%.

Table 1.5: Transnational percentage rates of cyber-bullying

Of interest is to compare Ireland with Finland as both studies were carried out at around the same time in 2008. It is of note that while total involvement in cyber-bullying is almost identical for both countries (Finland: 17.6% and Ireland 18.3%) Ireland reports more cyber-victims than Finland with the situation reversed for the cyber-bullies. The reasons for this are not obvious. With the reporting periods being different (six months for Finland and a couple of months for Ireland) the expectation would be that Finland would report higher rates. As this was not the case it is, therefore, tempting to speculate whether Finnish adolescents may be more adept at dealing with cyber-bullying than their Irish counterparts or are there cultural differences in how they perceive and readily admit to victimisation and bullying?

Of great value for comparative purposes is the recent EU Kids Online report (Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig and Ólafsson, 2011). Applying the same methodology and measurements in each of the twenty-five European Union countries surveyed, they found a wide variation in the prevalence of cyber-bullying across Europe with a range of 2% to 14%. O’Neill et al. (2011), reporting on Irish children aged 9–16 years, found only a small proportion (4%) were bullied online, or by mobile phone calls, texts or image/video texts. They reported, however, a sharp increase with age with 1% of 9–10-year-olds having been bullied on the internet as compared with 9% of 15–16-year-olds. Similarly they found 1% of 9–10-year-olds as compared to 10% of 15–16-year-olds having been subjected to hurtful or nasty behaviour by mobile phone calls, texts or image/video texts.

GENDER AND AGE DIFFERENCES IN CYBER-BULLYING Gender

Gender

In contrast to traditional bullying where boys tend to be more involved in bullying than girls, the opposite, as can be seen from Table 1.6, was found to be true for cyber-bullying (O’Moore, 2012). In this we support the literature on cyber-bullying and it reinforces the view that cyber-bullying is especially attractive to girls as it tends towards the more indirect, non-physical and relational forms of bullying. Shariff (2008) is also of the opinion that cyberspace allows girls to break away from cultural and social non-feminist expectations and stereotypes.

Table 1.6: Percentage of pupils in Ireland reporting involvement in cyber-bullying behaviour

If you look again to Table 1.6 you will see that while there were almost three times as many girls than boys who were cyber-victims, there were fewer Irish girls than boys who admitted to being cyber-bullies. It should be noted that girls have been known to under-report the extent to which they conventionally bully and in which case this may also be true of their cyber-bully status in our study. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) report that in their review of cyber-bullying studies there was only one study, by Ybarra and Mitchell (2007), which found boys to be more likely to be the online perpetrators. Yet Wang et al. (2009) and Guarini, Brighiand and Genta (2010) have since shown that boys were more likely to be cyber-bullies. Thus it would appear that the relationship between gender and bullying is still open for debate.

Looking to the different forms of cyber-abuse that boys and girls use we found that girls were the primary targets of all forms of cyber-abuse with the exception of being subjected to mobile camera and video clips. There were 11% boys as compared with 8% girls who reported having been subjected to this form of cyber-bullying. While boys perpetrated all forms of cyber-bullying more than girls, it seemed that they relied more on the camera than on any of the other methods of electronic bullying. For example, 25.6% of boys had either taken or sent camera or video clips as compared to 15.7% who had sent text messages. Being noted for being less verbal in their behaviour than girls