Excluding a generation

Simon Knight September 1999

In the last ten years bullying has moved from being a side-issue, explored and talked about by specialists, to assuming major status, central to the national educational agenda. Today, on a recent visit to Waterstones I discovered over seventeen pages of printout of books on the subject. The Education Department fund studies and flood school in trays with memos on bullying, schools have parents evenings dedicated to anti-bullying, politicians pronounce on it and newspapers are full of stories about it.

"Why, in this liberal age, do children face a bullying epidemic?" The Daily Mail, January, 1998.

"Exclusive: Liddell launches new agency to tackle playground thugs." Scottish Daily Mail, January, 1998.

"Two of these girls are dead. The third tried to kill herself. Bullying: the wholly preventable tragedy." The Scotsman, October, 1998.

"Bully boys defy class distinction." The Sunday Times, July, 1999.

"Bullied pupils win right to lessons at home." The Mail on Sunday, August, 1999.

"At war in the playground." The Herald Magazine, August, 1999.

The currency and profile of the issue is unquestionable. So too is the amount of effort going in to combating bullying in schools. Today, schools that don't have an anti-bullying programme have become the exception and are likely to be considered irresponsible if not negligent.

I feel that it is about time to reflect on bullying and how it has developed into the issue of the 'nineties. Some of the underlying suppositions need to be examined and the responses, in the form of anti-bullying policies, ought to be critically evaluated in terms of their benefits to young people. In the haste to make children 'safe' at school, could we be making things worse and storing up problems for the future?

Having recognised the high level of concern attached to the issue of bullying, it is now worth examining the issue more closely.

If survey findings and newspaper headlines were to be believed then it would be surprising that any children manage to survive school in one piece. While it would be foolish to deny that on occasion some children do systematically persecute others and that this can be violent and can lead to serious short term side effects, there is clearly an inflation of the problem occurring.

What is all this worry based on? How are figures arrived at? First of all figures depend on what is counted as a case of bullying.

Here are some definitions and key aspects of bullying offered by experts:

"Bullying is happening in any form of interaction where it is clear one participant is incapable of defending himself"- Train, 1995.

"Bullying happens when one person tries to upset another"- SCRE

"A person is bullied when he or she is exposed regularly and over time to negative actions on the part one or more persons"- Olweus, 1987.

"Bullying is the use of aggression with the intention of hurting another person, and which results in pain and distress to the victim"- Kidscape.

"Bullying is behaviour which can be defined as repeated attack, physical, psychological, social or verbal, by those in a position of power, which is formally or situationally defined, on those who are powerless to resist, with the intention of causing distress for their own gain or gratification."- Besag, 1989.

I think that most of us would agree that these ideas can describe a lot of what we as professionals witness as bullying. Common themes include: the use and abuse of power, intent, repeated actions and not just the physical aspect. However, most of these definitions also cover actions by young people that are not necessarily harmful, serious or even problematic for the recipient. While Kidscape do take account of outcome, "...and which results in pain and distress to the victim", they include as examples, sarcasm, teasing and spreading rumours. Such actions, while potentially unpleasant, can hardly be considered as generally problematic to the majority of pupils.

When dealing with bullying we must be careful not to define problems for children where none existed before. Terms such as 'negative actions' or 'use of aggression' don't necessarily result in problems for the recipient, let alone serious ones. What they do is widen the net to encompass many more peer group interactions than would have been considered bullying in the past. This has the effect of inflating the incidence of bullying and presenting it as more widespread than it actually is. This can only lead to unnecessary anxiety in pupils and parents, and heighten their sensitivity to bullying.

When all encompassing or lower threshold definitions are then combined with self-reporting by children, the method used by most research to record the incidence of bullying then, extremely alarming figures are obtained. When children's experiences are confirmed as being damaging by adults, they cannot help but feel vulnerable and afraid of other children.

"Research suggests that about half the pupils in our schools are bullied at some point during their school careers"- SSABI

"68% bullied at least once. 38% bullied more than once. 5% severely bullied."- Kidscape.

"10% of primary and 4% of secondary pupils bullied once per week."- Sheffield University.

If the figures for the amount of bullying happening are out of proportion to the problem then the inflation of the seriousness of bullying incidents is also problematic and leads to unnecessary worry. Unfortunately there is nothing like a good story to make the media lose all sense of scale. 'School Girl Called Name' or 'Clever Boy Loses Dinner Money', may be momentary unpleasant for the particular child concerned, though hardly the end of the world, but they don't sell newspapers or attract viewers. Stories about tragedies and endemic violence and fear, on the other hand do.

When exaggerated incidence figures are conflated with the serious high profile cases the only possible outcome is a massive inflation of the issue and the further generation of insecurity for pupils and fear in parents.

Going to school does place children at risk of being bullied, but only in the same way that buying a lottery ticket places you 'at risk' of becoming a millionaire. The level of needless fear surrounding the bullying panic can only leave children with one possible conclusion, "it could be me".

Do we need a definition of bullying? We can see what definitions are around (previous overhead). I have described what I experience at work as bullying between children, "…on occasion some children do systematically persecute others and that this can be violent and lead to serious short term side effects...". But why would we need a definition of bullying? Surely any teacher or youth worker worth their professional salt would immediately intervene if they witnessed serious misconduct by pupils. And should be trusted to do so, shouldn't they?

It appears many people think not. Today there is a decline of confidence in teacher's reliability to act. School discipline and in particular bullying are cases in point. Bearing in mind the fear and worry that bullying generates, no one trusts schools to deal with their own problems in a way that they see fit. When serious incidents are perceived to be the norm, the question asked of teachers is, "how could they let this happen?" Today teachers must be seen to be doing the right thing, schools must be transparent. Schools are expected to have prominent anti-bullying policies that state not only how they will react to incidents of bullying but also be prescribe how to be proactive in its prevention. But these procedures are a symptom of a lack of faith in the teaching profession and can only exacerbate that lack of trust. Parents and commentators reason what is in effect a 'catch 22' as follows, "If bullying is a problem, they should have a policy. If they have a policy then bullying is probably a problem."

Having procedures to combat bullying also undermines the confidence that teachers have in their own judgement and their flexibility to interpret situations in terms of common sense and experience. By prescribing how to react, these policies pressurise teachers to defer to the external authority of independent monitors or schools inspectors. Not wanting to get caught out, should a bullying incident occur, a teacher will not resolve pupil conflict in their own spontaneous style but yield to the corporate strategy, so as to be able to justify themselves at a later date. Of course, no one would consider themselves a problem so, the weaknesses must lay elsewhere.

The threat of being caught out, together with the increasing considerations demanded by the possibility of litigation, leaves teachers looking weak and ponderous in the eyes of children. This is hardly an environment conducive to the education of the next generation, nor is it the image of adulthood we want to present to them.

The danger of litigation redefines the established adult standard of 'reasonable precautions' along childish lines by acceding to children's' views. One of the mainstays of anti-bullying policies is that of self-reporting by children. The surveys use it as a standard and the policies encourage it as a stimulus to action. "Tell, Tell, Tell", is the advice that ChildLine give. But what do children tell teachers about? That seems to be up to the children themselves. But this only further widens of what is understood to be bullying to encompass the subjective and emotive feelings of children when they feel that they have a grievance. Feelings led intervention criteria mean that teachers must act on pupils partial and consequently, disproportionate experiences instead of their own professional judgement.

In schools today, bullying, which should be different and out of the ordinary, has been redefined as an everyday occurrence. Consequently, the mundane becomes special and the extraordinary can be overlooked. Ironically, anti-bullying policies in schools may lead to serious problems getting lost in the queue and prolong the suffering of real victims. In addition the all encompassing nature of the issue can lead to more children seeing themselves as victims which in the long run can be far more problematic for the current generation of young people as they grow up.

".....risks must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing,
the person who risks nothing does nothing, has nothing, is nothing.
They may avoid suffering and sorrow,
but they cannot learn, feel, change, grow, love or live.
Chained by their certainties they are slaves,
they have forfeited their freedom.
Only a person who risks is free."

unknown author quoted by Peter Barns in 'Theory Into Practice'

As teachers, adults working with tomorrow's adults, we should be able to stress that life does and should contain risks. We should know when to intervene in children's lives and when not to interfere, without fear of litigation. Interfering isn't just a problem when it is in response to perceived incidents of bullying though, the preventive aspects of anti-bullying policies can also create problems for children.

In his book, 'The Bullying Problem- how to deal with difficult children', Alan Train, when discussing preventive strategies, states that,

"In essence, there should be no free time in school, whether in class or out of it.", Train, 1995

Many other anti-bullying experts in their advice to policy makers also advocate increasing supervision of children in and out of class as a way of thwarting bullies. This increased supervision takes many forms and ranges from decreasing break times and eliminating blind spots in the playground to placing a constant staff presence in all areas of the school. And, as we have seen, it involves encouraging children to 'tell' or self involve teachers in every aspect pupil affairs.

Children need time and space away from adults. Developing independence is an essential component of growing up. Exploring, experimenting, taking decisions and making mistakes not just in the curriculum but also in the realm of peer relations all contribute to developing maturity. Peer relations act as a practice arena for young people where they can rehearse interpersonal relations prior to taking full adult responsibility.

"...peer relations are the source from which critical characteristics of the mature personality come. These include a sense of equality, interpersonal sensitivity, the need for intimacy, and mutual understanding." Younis, 1980.

Younis doesn't argue that adults have no role in child development, in fact he stresses that without adult input, "...there is no possibility for learning culturally established patterns of co-operation and mutual concern.". What he does say is that certain learning opportunities only occur in peer relations and cannot happen anywhere else. By placing children under constant scrutiny, anti-bullying procedures deny children the chance to develop in certain essential ways.

Firstly children need 'private space'. The idea that playtime and playgrounds are dangerous and problematic needs to be challenged.

Research carried out by the Institute of Education has shown that break time is a,

"...significant and generally enjoyable time (and that) the great majority of pupils throughout their school careers expressed a positive view of break time." Blatchford,1998.

The playground is a place where many experimental social interactions are tried out. Life in the playground can help in the development of many social skills that are essential in later life. Even when in conflict, a normal experience for children, important strategies for the management of difficulties are acquired. If denied the opportunity to experience real mistakes, with real consequences, children miss out on the important role of error in learning. I am reminded of Margaret Donaldson, the Edinburgh child psychologist, and her points about the fundamental urge of children to be independent, to manage by themselves. Not allowing children the freedom to make mistakes deprives them of the freedom to flourish. We should ask ourselves whether intervention, even helpful intervention, is necessarily a good thing.

The second implication for children when their peer relations are controlled by adults is that they never act as social agents themselves. Anti-bullying programmes that use, No Blame, bully courts, peer counselling, senior pupil mentoring or the like, while resembling child led interactions are in fact quite different.

Younis quotes Piaget and Sullivan at length to illustrate the point,

"In all spheres, two types of relations must be distinguished: constraint and co-operation. The first implies an element of unilateral respect, of authority and prestige; the second is simply the intercourse between individuals on an equal footing." Piaget.

"If you will look closely at one of your children when he finally finds a chum.......you will discover something very different in the relationship, namely, that your child begins to develop a real sensitivity of what matters to another person..... ..not....."what should I do to get what I want" but instead "what should I do to contribute to the happiness or to support the prestige and feelings of worthwhileness of my chum.", Sullivan.

Anti-bullying programmes remove the experience of unfettered conflict and kindness. Children may well act in a more civilised fashion towards one another but 'acting' is precisely what they are doing. If children only give through a sense of duty then they are not really giving. There can be no mutuality while an adult is standing on guard.