RUNNING HEAD: COMPARING ANTI-BULLYING INTERVENTIONS A Tale of Two Schools: Comparing Anti-Bullying Interventions for Grade 6 s in South London

Your Name Your Uni, Your Campus, Year There has been much public concern lately regarding bullying within schools, the safety of students and their learning development (Rigby, 2003). Solutions for school-based bullying are not easy to identify or to explain (Smith & Brain, 2000). Practical implications for this vein of research include, the psychological welfare of the students, teachers and parents, as well as the wider community. Hence there is a growing emphasis to rectify the limited research into evaluation of anti-bullying interventions in schools (Smith & Sharp, 1994; Rigby, 2003). Power relationships are characteristic of human interactions, although they do not have to, and usually do not, include an abuse of that power. No universal definition of bullying exists (Smith & Brain, 2000), yet it is agreed that bullying can be either direct (physical, verbal) or indirect (social exclusion, rumor mongering). A review of the last two decades of research into bullying in schools accounted for data across 16 European countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the USA and Canada. It was concluded that the bullying relationships cross-culturally, had a similarity of structure (Smith & Brain, 2000). The consensus being that bullying is not solely a bully-victim relationship. Rather, bullying is seen as a violent group process, where participants reinforce each other's behavior. The collective nature of bullying means that social relationships within the group greatly influence the bullying process. As a social problem, it has been established that school bullying is a systematic abuse of power, involving three dominant factors: a bully, a victim, and by-standers (Smith & Sharp, 1994). Undesirable consequences of bullying include the victim's fear of reporting being bullied, and the increased risk of depression and low self-esteem, that negatively impact on a student's ability to learn and problem-solve (Salmon, James & Smith, 1997; Smith & Sharpe 1994). Male students tend to be bullies (3:1), using direct bullying methods. Whereas female students tend to use indirect bullying styles, that are more difficult to pin down, or affect with intervention. It is noted that gender differences in bullying behavior may aid in the focus of anti-bullying programs and accurate measurement of bullying behavior. Roberts (2005) contends that current availability of research makes it difficult for policy makers to determine the best choices of intervention. There is a vast amount of information, theories, models and results to sort through. Programs such as Quality Circles, the No Blame approach, Pikas, befriending and peer support, or peer mentoring and mediation, adult counseling and or mediation, playground changes as such as more sport and games, and gardens, or trained monitors (Smith & Brain, 2000; Roberts, 2005). Hence, it is difficult to evaluate which intervention/s are best for a school. Roberts suggests systematic reviews of anti-bullying interventions to filter information, and to provide consensus on where research stands to date. Smith and Sharpe's (1994) School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives, propose that anti-bullying policies of schools are not as effective as they could be. However, Salmon et al.'s (1997) research found completely the opposite. The two English schools compared found only 4.2% of respondents had experienced bullying. Victims tended to be the younger high school students. A review of two decades of bullying research in schools has revealed that bullying remains an international issue (Smith & Brain 2000). Through the evaluation of school-based anti-bullying interventions more of the nature and effects of bullying can be understood. Using surveys, Whitney & Smith (1994) evaluated an anti-bullying school program that used Olweus's (1992) self-report bullying survey, the first of its kind (cited by Smith & Brain, 1997). An "information pack" was then developed and distributed nationally. In Scotland, the Edinburgh Council introduced two similar information packs during the 1990s. Anti-bullying videos were produced, and an Anti-Bully Center built in 1993 in Wales. Also at this time, the Ministry of Education in the UK set national guidelines to reduce bullying within schools. In 2000, the Department for Education also in the UK, distributed the Don't Suffer in Silence Pack throughout English and Welsh schools. All of these programs are considered effective. However, few evaluations exist, and so the effects of their policies on the well-being and education of the student remain unknown. There has been some headway into evaluation of anti-bullying programs. O'Morre (2000) reviewed the whole school policy that uses an ecological paradigm, and found it to be quite successful. As well, Ortega Ruiz and Lera (2000) evaluated the ecological approach of Seville schools that focused policies on interpersonal relationships of the school. It was concluded that analyses of students, teachers, parents and the wider community, as well as incorporating curriculum change, manifests in a successful anti-bullying intervention. It appears that research evaluating current anti-bullying programs is critical, although limited. This present research study will compare levels of bullying behaviour and awareness of anti-bullying interventions, of two London schools. The different school policies and intervention methods will be described and evaluated. Students, teachers and parents will be surveyed, and selected in-depth interviews will take place. It is expected that levels of bullying activity, and awareness of anti-bullying intervention/s, will differ with respect to student inclusion in the development of anti-bulling programs. Method Participants All co-ed primary schools across the 33 regions of Greater London are eligible to take part in this study (http://www.schoolsnet.com/). Two schools will be chosen using a random numbers table. Parent-and-community committees, as well as school principles, will receive a letter explaining the aim of the study and asking permission to evaluate their anti-bullying programs. For this exploratory study, only Grade 6 students will be asked to participate. A parental consent form will be issued to all students, and those who return their forms will be able to take part. The consent form will provide contact details of the primary researcher. Also, the form will outline participant rights, such as voluntary participation, withdrawal without penalty, and anonymity through the use of participant numbers. Participants will be assured of secure storage of all data relevant to this study, and that after 5 years the data will be shredded. These ethical precautions are necessary because some student demographics need to be collected as control variables, including, socio-economic status, ethnicity, gender and age. No incentives were provided for participation in this study. All results will be shared with the students, their parents and the schools, to contribute to their policy reviews. Materials Students will complete The Olweus Revised Bully/Victim Questionnaire (2001) using a computer. The 40 item multiple choice survey consists of bully/victim questions about experiences of direct and indirect bullying, where incidents of bullying have taken place, bullying attitudes of the respondents, and perceptions of the extent to which others such as peers, parents and teachers are aware of bullying, and their levels of intervention. The instrument has very high reliability, content and construct validity.