Policy Options Brief
To: Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, Carmen Fariña
From: Annette Goodman, Isabella Cardona, Diana Yeung, Camille McIntosh and Ysmeli Rosa
Re: Bullying in Schools
Date: March 10th, 2015
Bullying in schools is a widespread problem across New York City. While some school districts
have instituted programs to address bullying, the problem is far from eradicated and continues
to affect the daily lives of students of all ages. This memorandum will examine both the
academic and psychological effects bullying in schools has on victims, perpetrators and
bystanders and will provide practical policies to address this issue. It is imperative that bullying
in schools be given utmost priority in educational agendas to prevent any further
consequences. According to a 2003 study published in School Psychology Review, 30% of
school-aged children are affected by bullying in a single semester, 19% of which are as
perpetrators (Limber & Small, 2003).
Bullying is defined as repeated harmful acts meant to dominate others and can include namecalling and public humiliation as well as physical violence. It has traumatic short and long-term
effects on the victims, perpetrators and bystanders. Many studies have demonstrated that
victims of bullying perform poorly academically, have lower achievement and lower school
attendance. Test scores, which dominate discussions on education policy, are especially
affected by bullying in schools:
Our findings show that children experiencing bullying at school score substantially lower than
their non-victim peers at both the fourth and eighth grade levels. At grade four, results from ATT
suggest that children being bullied achieve between 9.5 and 12.7 points less in reading
comprehension, about 9 points less in mathematics score and even 11 points less in science
score (with respect to students that do not experience any event of bullying). The adverse
effect of bullying on educational performance persists, as pupils grow older. (Ponzo 2013)
Bullying causes lasting emotional and psychological damage in children and contributes to their
mental health problems as adults (Vanderbilt and Augustyn, 2010). In fact, a study published by
Theory Into Practice found that the brain experiences verbal bullying the same way it
experiences physical pain “and the experiences of peer victimization become biologically
embedded in the physiology of the developing person” (Vaillancourt, Hymel and McDougall,
2013).
Similarly, bullies are negatively impacted by their own bullying actions. As a consequence of
their aggression, bullies generally have more social problems and anxiety disorders and are
more likely to suffer from addictions and problems with interpersonal relationships both at
home and the workplace. Bullies have a more difficult time maintaining stable long-term
relationships and frequently engage in anti-social behavior that can result in incarceration
(Vanderbilt & Augustyn, 2010).
A recent study followed 1273 students to young adulthood in order to explore the negative
impacts of bullying for both the victims and the perpetrators. The results were alarming.
Children who were bullied were found to be at a higher risk for anxiety disorders as adults, and
both bullying victims and perpetrators had higher rates of depression and panic disorders in
adulthood. Female victims and perpetrators had increased rates of agoraphobia, while the
males were at higher risks for suicide (Copeland, Wolke, Angola and Costello, 2013).
A separate study found that bystanders of bullying are also affected. Pervasive bullying in
schools creates a culture of intimidation and, as a result students feel less safe and disengage
from school activities (Mehta, Cornell, Fan and Gregory 2013). The authors concluded that
tests, grades and high school completion are all impacted when bystanders witness school
bullying.
Three Policy Options
Students are taught academic subjects in schools but not the skills necessary to become
emotionally intelligent, which is defined as the ability to perceive, understand and regulate
emotions and use them to facilitate thought (Mayer, 2001). Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is
not a required part of the academic curriculum for grades 1-12 in in NYC public schools and the
lack thereof is a key cause of bullying. A universal policy to address this deficiency would help
decrease the bullying rate because it would teach educators how to properly prevent, assess
and handle emotional crises in their schools and would teach students how to understand and
manage their emotions and effective peer- mediation techniques to deter them from becoming
victims and/or perpetrators.
Secondly, parents are perhaps the most influential role models in children’s lives and as such, a
policy to implement parental educational workshops for parents is essential to combat bullying.
Lastly, not all cases of bullying in schools are reported and therefore, the data collected during
scientific research may not reflect the entire scope of the problem. A policy to mandate
bullying reporting would not only help aggregate data, but would also allow parents and
educators to know when necessary steps should be taken to safeguard victims.
Failure to implement any policy, the ones provided or otherwise, will further perpetuate the
problem. These policies may not eradicate bullying completely, but they will be a significant
step towards solving the problem.
Social Emotional Learning Curriculum
The state of Illinois has addressed bullying in schools with a statewide policy that mandates
Social Emotional Learning curriculum in schools for all students in grades K-12. Currently New
York City only mandates SEL curriculum for students in Pre-Kindergarten and that is not
sufficient, as is evidenced by the ubiquitous behavioral problems in all NYC public schools. This
policy option suggests that an SEL curriculum be mandated for all students in NYC public
schools through grade 12.
Students are taught reading, writing and math in schools to prepare them for the professional
world. When schools are successful, they graduate students who are well prepared for college,
which prepares them for their chosen field. Schools do not, however, teach students even the
rudimentary basics of understanding, managing and controlling their emotions, which can lead
to bullying behavior and other social problems which are prevalent in schools today.
In their paper, Causes of School Bullying: Empirical Test of a General Theory of Crime,
Differential Association Theory, and General Strain Theory, Moon, Hwang and McCluskey (2011)
conclude that low self-control is the primary cause of bullying behavior: “Individuals with low
self-control are more likely to seek immediate gratification, to be physically active, [and] to be
insensitive to others. . . Overall, these findings indicate that bullies are more likely to be
impulsive, to lack empathy for others, and to be easily provoked.”
Children who have difficulty coping with negative emotions may have problematic behaviors
that they direct towards themselves or others, leading them to become victims and/or
perpetrators of bullying. The fundamental problem is difficulty in dealing with negative
emotions and this can be addressed with appropriate SEL self-regulation training.
SEL curriculum teaches students several important components of emotional intelligence: selfawareness, self-management, social awareness and social skills. From this curriculum, students
will learn to:



Recognize and label their emotions
Understand the behaviors they exhibit as a result of various emotions
Understand the impact their behavior has on others




Understand others’ emotions
Regulate their behavior
Resolve conflicts peacefully
Maintain healthy relationships with others.
There are many well-researched SEL programs available in the U.S. today. Lewis, Schure,
Bavarian, DuBois, Day, Ji, Silverthorn, Acock, Vuchinich, and Flay (2013) evaluated the effects of
The Positive Action Social Emotional Learning curriculum introduced in many Chicago public
schools. The group evaluated the effects of this school-based intervention in urban areas as
children from these neighborhoods are particularly at risk for engaging in aggressive behaviors.
They found that students who had participated in the program throughout the six years of the
study were less likely to report normative beliefs supporting hostile behaviors and engage in
bullying activities.
A meta-analysis of 213 school-based social emotional learning interventions found that these
interventions improved students’ social-emotional skills (with enhanced pro-social behavior
noted), attitudes about self and other, connection to school, and reduced conduct problems
and social distress. The meta-analysis also found the programs improved participating students’
academic performance on achievement tests and grades. (Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg,
and Schellinger, 2011).
Although SEL programs have shown to be of significant benefit, implementing these programs
in schools does present some challenges. The cost of any new program is certainly a factor, and
aside from the budgetary concerns, an in-depth analysis would need to be done to determine
which program that is currently available on the market would be most cost effective. A
secondary challenge would be determining how to adjust the current curriculum to allow time
for this new content area. Lastly, for the program to have its intended outcome, teachers would
need to be fully involved and committed to the program, as well as trained in the methodology,
and that would require time and effort as well.
Parental Involvement
The multi-pronged policy approach to bullying in schools that this memo puts forth also focuses
on parental involvement. For the purpose of this memo, the words “parent” and “parental” will
refer to a student’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s).
Increased parental involvement as a preventative measure to bullying has been well researched
and documented, as published in a Journal of Adolescent Health article, “Higher Parental
Support was Associated with Less Involvement Across all Forms and Classifications of Bullying.”
The authors use their findings to conclude that parental support is a key instrument in
protecting adolescents from being victims and perpetrators of bullying (Iannotti, Nansel &
Wang, 2009).
Even though parents are not physically present when their children are bullied in school,
children often look to them for guidance and advice. It is therefore imperative for parents to be
equipped with tools that can help them identify and react to signs of bullying. An article from
the Children and Youth Services Review entitled The Missing Voice: Parents’ Perspectives of
Bullying reinforces this point by stating that “Parents' understanding of bullying may affect
whether they respond effectively and appropriately to their child who has disclosed
victimization and whether they are attuned to signs indicating their child might be experiencing
bullying even if their child does not disclose” (Mishna, Pepler, Sawyer & Wiener, 2011).
This policy option posits that a way in which parental involvement can be operationalized
through policy is by way of mandated parent workshops centered on bullying prevention and
intervention in schools. These workshops would involve important members within the school
community – school counselors, school psychologists, teachers, principals – who could work
with parents to combat the pervasive issue of bullying in schools.
Bullying Prevention and the Parent Involvement Model, an article featured in a 2014 issue of the
Journal of School Counseling, discusses specific ways in which parent education workshops can
provide parents with guidance on how to help their children analyze bullying situations. The
authors lay out the following suggestive practices that can be incorporated into parent
workshops:
Parent education workshops can include a discussion of developmentally appropriate forms of
parental discipline and nurturance. School counselors can help parents explore how they may
more effectively promote their child’s social development by providing their child with
appropriate opportunities for social interaction, and help their child process such peer
interactions. (Crothers, L., Kolbert, J., Schultz, D., 2014)
Some of the topics the parent workshops can include are listed below:
1. How to detect signs of bullying in children (victims and perpetrators)
2. Best practices to use when handling emotional outbursts
3. How parents can support each other in the fight against bullying
4. Tools and resources that are available to parents.
Though challenges to this approach may include limited parental availability due to varied work
schedules, as well as potential language barriers, creative programming can address these
issues, by offering workshops at a variety of day/time combinations, and providing interpreters
at each workshop to address language barriers. Parents are the primary educators of children
and would therefore be important allies in the fight against bullying in schools.
Mandated Bullying Reporting
Another possible solution to the problem of bullying in schools is mandated bullying reporting
across all schools in New York City. The serious consequences of bullying demand greater
accountability amongst school administrators, teachers, and parents. Enacting mandated
reporting laws across all schools that clearly state what types of incidents should be reported to
the justice system, as well as establishing the mechanisms for how this data must be reported
and collected, will ensure this accountability.
In 2011, a public hearing was held in Springfield, Massachusetts to review the efficacy of the
anti-bullying legislation that was signed into that state’s law in May of 2010. This hearing was
called in response to the 2010 suicide of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince of South Hadley, Mass and
the 2009 suicide of 11-year old Carl Walker Hoover, both of whom committed suicide as a
result of being bullied by classmates.
Hampden District Attorney Mark Mastroianni called for the addition of mandated reporting to
the 2010 law. This addition would require school administrators to report all incidents of
bullying to state prosecutors. The current law only asks for principals of schools to report a
bullying incident to law enforcement if a criminal charge may be pursued, but widening the
scope to allow other cases would ensure that more bullying incidents are reported (Flynn
2011). Even though reports of bullying may not necessarily lead to the prosecution of a student
for committing the act, clear and concise guidelines for bullying reporting will allow school
administrators to help protect the wellbeing of victims as well as protect them from self-harm
(Flynn 2011). Mastroianni notes that mandated reporting is required in cases of abuse or
neglect of children, elders and people with disabilities (Flynn 2011). Cases of school bullying
should fall into this same category.
Enacting mandated bullying reporting is challenging but necessary. Challenges may include the
cost of teachers and administrators’ time, however, this policy will indicate the seriousness of
bullying to school staff. Leniency towards bullying and a lack of accountability amongst parents
and students allows incidents like the deaths of Carl Walker Hoover and Phoebe Prince to
occur. Students may think twice about committing bullying if they knew their actions would be
reported to the justice system regardless of the seriousness of the act. Parents, too, would
spend more time teaching their children that any act of bullying, verbal or physical, is
unacceptable.
Conclusion
No child should ever feel unsafe in school or deprived of a valuable education due to bullying.
No child should have to die because of bulling. Teaching social-emotional skills to students,
educating parents on bullying prevention and detection, and mandated bullying reporting are
all important policy options in the fight against bullying. These policies require a united effort
by all stakeholders - government, school leadership, and parents. After all, it takes a village to
raise a child.
References
Copeland, W.E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric
outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. Jama Psychiatry,
70 (4), p. 419-426. Retrieved
From: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1654916
Crothers, L., Kolbert, J., Schultz, D. (2014). Bullying Prevention and the Parent
Involvement Model. Journal of School Counseling, 12 (7), 1-20. Retrieved From:
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1034733
Durlak, J.A., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., Weissberg, R.P., & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based
universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), p. 405-432. Retrieved From:
http://static1.squarespace.com
/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70e9673/t/52e9d8e6e4b001f5c1f6c27d/1391057126694/metaanalysis-child-development.pdf
Flynn, Jack. (2011) "Hampden District Attorney Mark G. Mastroianni Calls for Mandatory
Reporting of Bullying Cases." Mass Live. Retrieved
From: http://www.masslive.com/news/index. ssf/2011/02/hampden
_district_attorney_mark.html.
Iannotti, R., Nansel, T., Wang, J. (2009). School Bullying Among Adolescents in the
United States: Physical, Verbal, Relational, and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368375. Retrieved From: http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2809%2900138-4/abstract
Lewis, K.M., Schure, M.B., Bavarian, N., DuBois, D.L., Day, J., Ji, P., Silverthorn, N., Acock,
A., Vuchinich, S., & Flay, B.R. (2013). Problem behavior and urban, low-income youth: A
randomized controlled trial of Positive Action in Chicago. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 44 (6), p. 622-630. Retrieved From: doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.030.
Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying in
schools. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), p. 445-455. Retrieved
From: http://web.a.ebscohost.com. remote.baruch .cuny.edu
/ehost/detail/detail?sid=c0df7f05-23fa-4476-bb59 c8f4abd16292%40sessionmgr4004
&vid=0&hid=42 14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 QtbGl2ZQ %3d%3d#db=f6h&AN=11213486
Mayer, J.D. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1 (3), p.
232-242. Retrieved
From: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=73180c357694-4eb6-9946-179b969d9c06%40sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid= 4214&bdata=JnN
pdGU9ZWhvc 3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pdh&AN=2001-10055-002
Mehta, S.B., Cornell, D., Fan, X., & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying climate and school
engagement in ninth-grade students. Journal of School Health, 83 (1), p. 45-52. Retrieved
From: http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.201
2.007 46.x/full
Mishna, F., Pepler, D., Sawyer, J., & Wiener, J. (2011). The missing voice: Parents'
perspectives of bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (10), 1795 –1803. Retrieved
From:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227413885_The_missing_voice_Parents%27_p
erspectives_of_bullying
Moon, B., Hwang, H., & McCluskey, J.D. (2011). Causes of school bullying: empirical test
of a general theory of crime, differential association theory, and general strain theory. Crimes
& Delinquency, 57 (6) p. 849-877. Retrieved From: http://cad.sagepub.com. remote.baruch
.cuny.edu /content/57/6/849.full.pdf+html
Ponzo, M. (2013). Does bullying reduce educational achievement? An evaluation using
matching estimators. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35 (6), p. 1057-1078. Retrieved From:
doi:10.1016/j. jpolmod.2013.06 .002
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2013). The biological underpinnings of peer
victimization: Understanding why and how the effects of bulling can last a lifetime. Theory Into
Practice, 52 (4), p. 241-248. Retrieved From: http://www.tandfonline.com.remo
te.baruch.cuny.edu /doi/abs /10.1080/00405841.2013.829726#.VNeryVPF9WU
Vanderbilt, D., & Augustyn, M. (2010). The effects of bullying. Pediatrics and Child
Health, 20 (7), p. 315-320. Retrieved From: http://www.sciencedirect.com.
remote.baruch.cuny.edu /science /article/pii/S17517 22210000715