C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Management of bullying in Northern Ireland schools: a pre-legislative
survey
Conor Mc Guckina* and Christopher Alan Lewisb
a
Department of Psychology, Dublin Business School of Arts, Dublin, Republic
of Ireland; b School of Psychology, University of Ulster at Magee College,
Londonderry, Northern Ireland.
Abstract
Background
Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has only recently (2003)
implemented legislation regarding the requirement for anti-bullying policies in the
Provinces school system.
Purpose
To ascertain the nature of the management of bully/victim problems across Northern
Irelands schools prior to the enactment of legislation.
Sample
From an exhaustive sampling frame of all 1,329 schools in Northern Ireland (96
nursery, 910 primary, 167 secondary, 73 grammar, 54 special, 29 further education),
a total of 285 schools replied to a questionnaire (20 nursery, 181 primary, 41
secondary, 26 grammar, 13 special, 3 further education, 1 non-specified), a return
rate of 23.11%.
Design and Methods
A review of the literature and consultation with educational experts in Northern
Ireland resulted in the development of an ‘audit’ questionnaire designed to examine
i) dissemination and implementation (or not) of Department of Education, or
*
Corresponding author. Email: conor.mcguckin@dbs.edu
1
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
bespoke, discipline and anti-bullying policies, ii) components of anti-bullying
programs, iii) communication of anti-bullying policies to the school community, iv)
staff training, v) reporting and management of claims of staff victimisation, vi)
sanctions against bullies, and vii) homophobic bullying.
Results
It was found that, in a legislative vacuum, the schools in Northern Ireland had been
acting in a proactive manner regarding the management of such bully/victim
problems (eg., development and implementation of policies, effective
communication strategies).
Conclusions
These results provide a baseline from which the efficacy of subsequent legislation in
Northern Ireland can be evaluated. Utilisation of the methodology adopted in this
study would be beneficial in other jurisdictions in evaluations of knowledge,
attitudes, and management of bully/victim problems, either pre- or postimplementation of legislation.
Keywords: bully; victim; school legislation; anti-bullying; education; Northern
Ireland
2
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Introduction
The right to an education free from harassment is enshrined in the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Whilst anti-bullying legislation
has been enacted in most of the United Kingdom (for example, England:
Department for Education and Skills, 1999; Scotland: Johnstone, Munn, &
Edwards, 1992; Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1993; Wales:
National Assembly for Wales, 2000), and Ireland (e.g., Department of Education
and Science, 1993), it has only recently been implemented within Northern
Ireland (The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003) (see
Ananiadou & Smith, 2002, for a review of legal requirements in European
countries).
As part of their pastoral care responsibilities, Boards of Governors and
Principals in Northern Ireland schools have a common law duty of care towards
their pupils, as well as a statutory responsibility for discipline and good
behaviour in their school. With regards to discipline, as a result of changes in
educational legislation in 1989, these schools are required to have a Discipline
Policy1. Under this legislation, Principals are tasked with determining
appropriate measures for the promotion of self-discipline and good behaviour on
the part of pupils, and for the enforcement of such measures. Whilst the Order
makes it mandatory for all schools to have a Discipline Policy in place,
individual school policies vary and are often a reflection of the school’s ethos.
However, despite a statutory requirement to have such a policy, the Department
of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI: 1998, p. 7) reports that:
1. see Article
124 of the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989.
3
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
“Although required by law to do so, some schools still do not have a written
discipline policy; or, even where they have a written policy, some still do not make
it available to parents.”
Whilst the 1989 legislation was specific in its requirement for local schools to
develop and implement policies regarding the discipline of their pupils, it was
unfortunate that this requirement was not extended to the need to develop and
implement separate anti-bullying policies. Indeed, the new legislation did not
even require schools to make any kind of reference to the issue of bully/victim
problems among their pupils. In relation to this, DENI (1998) further reported
that:
“While many schools’ [discipline] policies do reflect current best practices, some are
not the result of a whole-school approach, and may therefore be inconsistently
applied; and some do not cover important issues such as bullying behaviour.”
(DENI, 1998, p. 7: parentheses added).
This situation was contrary to the requirements imposed on schools throughout
the rest of Great Britain in 19982. Specifically, these schools were given statutory
duty to deal with bully/victim problems:
“The head teacher shall determine measures (which may include the making of
rules and provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to … encouraging
good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils and, in particular,
preventing all forms of bullying among pupils”. (Section 61 (4)(b) School Standards
and Framework Act 1998).
The absence of similar legislation in Northern Irelands schools was raised in the
Northern Ireland Assembly in 20013. In his response, the Education Minister, Mr
Martin Mc Guinness, MP, MLA reported that
2. under
Section 61 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
4
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
“Every school is required to have a written discipline policy which must promote
self-discipline, good behaviour and respect for others among pupils. Bullying
behaviour is unacceptable and should be addressed by schools as part of their
existing discipline policies. On a voluntary basis, many schools have developed a
separate anti-bullying policy. I intend to strengthen this position by taking the next
legislative opportunity to make it mandatory for every school to have an antibullying policy in place and to implement it.” (HANSARD, 2001, p. 247).
In the intervening period since this exchange between Mr Beggs and the
Education Minister, DENI have pursued the intentions of the Minister despite the
suspension of the legislative assembly and restoration of direct rule from
Westminster (the U.K. Parliament) at midnight on Monday 14 October 2002. For
example, from a research perspective, DENI published the results of the first
major study of the incidence of bully/victim problems within the Northern
Ireland school system (Collins, Mc Aleavy, & Adamson, 2002, 2004) the week
following suspension of the assembly (Wednesday 23 October 2002).
Furthermore, from evidence-based, or at best, ‘evidence informed’ policy
perspective, DENI have utilised the results of this study in the pursuance of a
legislative framework in respect of bully/victim problems in the Province’s
schools. The fruits of this proactive approach can be observed in the recent
introduction of The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003,
which became effective on 1 April 2003.
Article 19 of the new Order amends Article 3 of the Education (NI) Order
1998 on school discipline policies to require that the prevention of bully/victim
problems be specifically addressed and to ensure consultation with pupils.
3. by Mr
Beggs, MLA (member of the Legislative Assembly of Northern
Ireland), in Question 11 of the Oral Answers section of the official business of
the Northern Ireland Assembly on Monday 25 June 2001.
5
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Specifically, the Order requires: (i) that the Board of Governors must consult
with pupils on the general principles which will be reflected in the school’s
discipline policy, (ii) that the Principal, when deciding on measures which will
be used to encourage good behaviour in the school, must specifically include
measures to prevent bully/victim problems among pupils, and (iii), that the
Principal, before deciding on measures to encourage good behaviour, must
consult with pupils and parents (DENI, 2003). Thus, with the introduction of
Article 19, schools need to be satisfied that their current discipline policy deals
with the prevention of bully/victim problems in a sufficiently clear and robust
manner in order to satisfy the new legal requirement.
Whilst the introduction of Article 19 of the Education and Libraries
(Northern Ireland) Order 2003 was a welcome development in this area, it should
be noted at this point that neither this legislation nor the findings of the DENI
report into the incidence of bully/victim problems (Collins et al., 2002, 2004)
were in the public domain when the study reported upon in the current paper was
conducted. Rather, until this point, schools were directed by the pre-existing
legislation (i.e., The Education Reform (NI) Order 1989), and guidance
documents from DENI (e.g., Promoting and Sustaining Good Behaviour:
Discipline Strategy for Schools: DENI, 1998; Pastoral Care in Schools:
Promoting Positive Behaviour: DENI, 2001). Indeed, whilst the most recent of
these publications presents the Department’s most current thinking regarding the
issue of bully/victim problems and anti-bullying policies in schools, this
document had not been disseminated throughout the school system before the
commencement of the present study. Thus, at the time of the present study,
schools in Northern Ireland had received a paltry amount of guidance regarding
6
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
bully/victim problems and how to effectively legislate at a local level regarding
such issues.
The aim of the present study was to ascertain the nature of the
management of bully/victim problems across Northern Irelands schools prior to
the enactment of legislation making it mandatory for each school in Northern
Ireland to develop and implement an anti-bullying policy.
Method
Questionnaire
Based on a review of the literature, as well as consultation with educational
experts in the Province, a series of questions were developed to examine what
was ‘happening on the ground’ regarding the following issues: i) dissemination
and implementation (or not) of DENI, or bespoke, discipline and anti-bullying
policies, ii) components of anti-bullying programs, iii) communication of antibullying policies to the school community, iv) staff training, v) reporting and
management of claims of staff victimisation, vi) sanctions against bullies, and
vii) homophobic bullying. Whilst most questions were of a closed response
format and required categorical responding (e.g., Yes/No), respondents were also
provided with the opportunity to provide qualitative responses on most questions.
Where appropriate, brief content and/or thematic analyses are presented.
Procedure
From an exhaustive sampling frame of all 1,329 schools in the Northern Ireland
education system (96 nursery, 910 primary, 167 secondary, 73 grammar, 54
special, 29 further education), a total of 285 schools replied to the Audit
questionnaire (20 nursery, 181 primary, 41 secondary, 26 grammar, 13 special, 3
7
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
further education, 1 non-specified), a return rate of 23.11%. Due to the low
response rate, it should be highlighted that responses may not be typical of all
schools. Also, considering that responding schools were self-selecting,
cognisance should be taken of the potential representativeness and limitations of
the findings of the study.
Results and Discussion
Dissemination of DENI directives regarding bully/victim problems
The first question presented to respondents was: “Do you receive any directives
from the Department of Education regarding bullying in school?”. Whilst 64.2%
(n = 183) of respondents indicated that their school had received such directives,
23.5% (n = 67) responded in the negative. A further 12.3% (n = 35) of
respondents did not answer this particular question.
Of the 63.16% (n = 180: 14 nursery, 116 primary, 25 secondary, 16
grammar, 9 special) respondents who provided qualitative comments regarding
the directives they had received, a thematic analysis indicated that the most
common response themes were: ‘DENI circulars’, ‘advisory documents’, and
‘Pastoral Care guidance’. Examples of responses that reflect these themes
include:
INSERT TEXT BOX 1
Thus, despite the fact that no legislative or specific directives had been
developed or disseminated to schools regarding bully/victim problems at the time
of the study, nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that they had received
such information. With the issues of bully/victim problems being subsumed
8
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
within some of the documentation developed and disseminated by DENI up to
this point (e.g., Pastoral Care in Schools: Child Protection: DENI, 1999), it
would appear that these publications and their content have been digested and
acted upon by school Principals in Northern Ireland.
Development and implementation of bully/victim policies within schools
When asked: ‘Does your school have a ‘Discipline Policy’, or other policy
related to bullying?’, whilst 97.5% (n = 270) of Principals indicated that their
school had such a policy (i.e., a Discipline or other policy related to bullying),
2.5% (n = 7) responded that this was not the case for their school. In follow-up
questions, just over two-thirds of these respondents 67.8% (n = 179) reported that
the (bullying) policy was subsumed within their Discipline Policy. Of the 107
respondents who reported that their bullying policy was not subsumed within
their Discipline Policy, 50.5% (n = 54) indicated that they had separate
arrangements for such a policy. In relation to those schools that reported that they
did not have such a policy, 51.0% (n = 26) of these schools reported that they
were considering one in the future.
For those schools that had such a policy in place, either within or without
their Discipline Policy, over 70% of these policies had been initiated and
implemented within the five years running up to the study (i.e., 1996 to 2000).
Specifically, for those schools that had a policy subsumed within their Discipline
Policy, 70.3% (n = 109) of these schools had implemented the policy during this
time period. It was of note that some of these policies had been in place since
1985. Over eighty percent (81.5%: n = 35) of the policies that were not subsumed
9
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
within the Discipline Policies had been initiated within this five-year period, with
the longest established policies being in place since 1990.
Respondents were provided with the opportunity to elaborate further
upon their policy regarding bully/victim problems. Of the 82.81% (n = 236: 16
nursery, 150 primary, 36 secondary, 21 grammar, 2 further education, 11 special)
respondents who provided qualitative comments in relation to their policy, a
thematic analysis indicated that the most common response themes were: (i)
bully/victim problems addressed within the Discipline Policy, (ii) bully/victim
problems addressed within a separate Bullying Policy, (iii) bully/victim problems
addressed within the Pastoral Care Policy, (iv) bully/victim problems addressed
within a Promoting Positive Behaviour Policy, and (v) bully/victim problems
addressed without reference to policy. Examples of responses that reflect each of
these themes include:
INSERT TEXT BOX 2
Components of anti-bullying programs
Respondents were further provided with the opportunity to briefly outline the
components of their anti-bullying program: “Can you tell us briefly about your
anti-bullying program?”. Whilst a plethora of initiatives and schemes were
reported throughout the responses, relatively few Principals reported upon all of
the various strands of their programs. However, two secondary school Principals
did provide such detail:
INSERT TEXT BOX 3
The components that were most commonly reported included: policy and
guidelines (e.g., Bullying Policy, Discipline Policy, Pastoral Care Policy),
communication of policy and program to whole school community, development
10
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
of positive ethos, observation of pupils, reporting procedures (e.g., line
management for staff, pledge cards for pupils), social skills training for pupils,
support for victims and bullies, and awards, rewards, and sanctions systems. The
issue of bully/victim problems were addressed through: assembly time, class
time (e.g., relationships and sexuality education, religious instruction, circle
time), talks, videos (e.g., Save The Children), drama, posters, peer mediation,
and The No-Blame Approach (Maines & Robinson, 1992, 1998). Apart from
‘home-spun’ resources, the most commonly utilised resources had been sourced
from: KIDSCAPE, The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, Save The Children, and ELB Positive Behaviour Teams.
From the responses to the above set of questions, it can be seen that in the
absence of legislation requiring schools to implement policies directed at
ameliorating bully/victim problems, the vast majority (97.5%) of Principals in
Northern Ireland have adopted a proactive approach in respect to such issues
within their schools. Whilst some schools have reported incorporating measures
to combat bully/victim problems among their pupils in their mandatory
Discipline Policy, others have either subsumed their bully/victim policy within
their Pastoral Care Policy or have developed a stand-alone policy in this respect.
Furthermore, the majority (> 70.0%) of these policy initiatives had been
implemented relatively recently. Regarding those Principals who indicated that
their school did not have a policy regarding bully/victim problems, it was noted
that just over half of these schools (51.0%) were considering implementing such
a policy. It was also evident that in the absence of standardised materials and
approaches to tackling bully/victim problems, schools in Northern Ireland have
been resourceful in their attempts to develop and implement their own anti-
11
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
bullying programs. However, it was interesting to note that the issues of staff
training and creating a ‘telling school’ were not commonly reported to be
components of such programs.
In relation to the rest of Great Britain and also the Republic of Ireland
where legislation exists regarding the implementation of such policies, the data
from these questions further highlights the proactive approach of Principals in
Northern Ireland regarding bully/victim problems. For example, in a recent
analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of anti-bullying policies in the
rest of Great Britain, Smith and Samara (2003) found that whilst such policies
covered basic issues such as defining bullying and how it should be dealt with,
they did not deal with issues such as homophobic bullying and bullying via
mobile phone text messages. Regarding the development and implementation of
bully/victim policies in the Republic of Ireland, O’Moore, Kirkham, and Smith
(1997) report that, despite the introduction of National Guidelines in 1993
(Department of Education and Science, 1993), schools in the Republic of Ireland
have been less than enthusiastic about developing and implementing discipline
and bullying policies in their schools. A similar conclusion was reported from
research conducted by a leading teachers’ trade union in the Republic of Ireland
(Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, 1993).
Communication of bully/victim policies within school communities
Subsequent questions further sought to determine: (i) the extent to which these
policies and programs were communicated to the school community (i.e., staff,
pupils, and parents) (e.g., “If you have an anti-bullying program, is this
12
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
communicated to all staff”), and (ii) how these policies and programs were
communicated (e.g., “If yes, how is this done, and by whom?”).
Examination of the responses to these questions highlighted that
bully/victim policies and anti-bullying programs were communicated to virtually
all members of the school community (staff: 97.8% [n = 222]; pupils: 96.0% [n =
193]; parents: 95.0% [n = 192].
Regarding communication of policies and programs to staff, the most
common methods of dissemination were: formal and informal staff meetings,
verbal and written communication, and in-service training days. Responsibility
for the dissemination of such information was reported to be the responsibility of
either the Principal, the Pastoral Care co-ordinator, or the Senior Management
Team. In relation to communication of policies and programs to pupils, the
favoured methods of dissemination included: assemblies, class discussions, the
curriculum (e.g., through relationships and sexuality education), circle time
stories, drama, letters and bulletins, notice boards, competitions, and pupil
councils. Dissemination of such information was reported to be the preserve of:
teachers, the Principal, classroom assistants, and pupils themselves.
Communication of policies and programs to parents occurred most frequently
through: open nights, prospectus/parents’ booklet, induction programme, orally
at parent interviews and/or annual parent-teacher evening, anti-bullying
agreement, and home-school correspondence (e.g., policies sent home). In
general, parents were informed of policies and programs either by the Principal,
the teachers, or the Board of Governors.
13
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Staff training regarding bully/victim problems
With the knowledge that teaching staff receive training and guidance regarding
bully/victim problems through in-service training and support from ELB
Behaviour Support Teams, respondents were asked: ‘Have your teaching staff
been alerted to be watchful of bullying behaviours among pupils?’. Practically all
Principals (98.6%: n = 277) responded in the affirmative. Respondents indicated
that their teachers had been alerted to be vigilant of bully/victim problems
through DENI and ELB circulars and publications, staff meetings, and in-service
training.
Whilst teaching staff received training and guidance regarding
bully/victim problems, the same cannot be said for all other staff in the school
environment. With this in mind, respondents were asked: ‘Have any of your
other staff (e.g., lunch-time staff, caretakers) received any formal training or
guidance with regards to what constitutes bullying behaviour among pupils and
how to deal with it if it occurs?’. Contrary to the data regarding teaching staff,
only 64.2% (n = 176) of non-teaching staff had received training and guidance in
this respect. For those staff who had received training or guidance, this was
provided by the Principal and/or teaching staff through in-school training and
meetings.
Thus, from the responses of school Principals to these two questions it
can be seen that disparity exists between the guidance and training provided to
teaching and non-teaching staff in respect to bully/victim problems. Whilst such
disparity between teaching and non-teaching staff is not uncommon and has been
well documented previously (e.g., Boulton, 1996; Sharp, 1994),
recommendations regarding staff training in DENI’s (Collins et al., 2002, 2004)
14
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
recent report into the incidence of bully/victim problems in the Province’s
schools should help to redress this inequality.
Staff victimisation
Information regarding reports of victimisation from teaching and non-teaching
staff was solicited from respondents (e.g., “Have any of your teachers ever
reported a bullying incident in which they felt they were the victim?”, “If they
reported who the bully was, can you tell us who it was – e.g., other teacher,
student, parent”). Regarding the incidence of victimisation, whilst 30.7% (n =
87) of Principals reported that teachers within their school had reported being the
victim of bullying behaviours, a lower rate of 12.1% (n = 34) was reported for
non-teaching staff. Whilst the number of teachers within each school reporting
being bullied ranged from 1 to 10 (mean = 2.5: SD = 1.86), the number of nonteaching staff within each school reporting being bullied ranged from 1 to 8
(mean = 2.03: SD = 1.69).
For teachers, the most frequent perpetrators were: parent(s) (42.4%, n =
36), pupil(s) (20.0%, n = 17), other teachers (18.8%, n = 16), and parent(s) and
child(ren) (11.8%, n = 10). For non-teaching staff, the most frequent perpetrators
were: parent(s) (24.2%, n = 8), pupil(s) (21.2%, n = 7), teacher(s) (18.2%, n = 6),
and other colleague(s) (18.2%, n = 6).
Of the 29.82% (n = 85: 47 primary, 22 secondary, 8 grammar, 8 special)
of respondents who provided qualitative comments regarding the outcome of
teachers’ complaints of victimisation, a thematic analysis indicated that the most
common response themes were: ‘interviews with all parties’, ‘reporting of
incident(s) to higher authorities (e.g., Board of Governors) and/or external
15
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
agencies (e.g., trades unions)’, ‘disciplinary procedures’, and ‘grievance and/or
health and well-being issues’. Examples of responses that reflect each of these
themes include:
INSERT TEXT BOX 4
Of the 13.2% (n = 33: 23 primary, 4 secondary, 4 grammar, 2 special) of
respondents who provided qualitative comments regarding the outcome of nonteaching staff’s complaints of victimisation, a thematic analysis indicated that the
most common response themes were: ‘communication’, ‘interviews with all
parties’, and ‘disciplinary procedures’. Examples of responses that reflect each of
these themes include:
INSERT TEXT BOX 5
From the above analyses of Principals’ responses to questions regarding reports
of victimisation from their teaching and non-teaching staff, it can be seen that, as
well as bully/victim problems among pupils, the issue of workplace bullying also
needs to be addressed within Northern Ireland’s school system. Having reported
upon the incidence of victimisation among these groups of staff, analyses were
also presented regarding the reported numbers of, and identity of, perpetrators in
these complaints. However, it is interesting to note that whilst the list of
perpetrators included colleagues, pupils, and parents, Principals were never
highlighted as being the perpetrators of such behaviours. Whilst it may actually
be the case that no Principal has taken part in bullying their staff, it could also be
the case that Principals have responded in a socially desirable manner and
omitted to inform upon themselves in this respect. Thus, future research should
seek to gather data regarding workplace bullying in Northern Ireland’s school
16
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
system from a multiple informant perspective (e.g., the whole school
community).
In explorations of the qualitative comments provided by respondents
regarding the outcome of complaints made, it was shown that whilst ‘reporting of
incident(s) to higher authorities (e.g., Board of Governors) and/or external
agencies (e.g., trades unions)’ was a theme regarding the outcome of teachers’
complaints, this was not the case regarding the outcome of complaints made by
non-teaching staff.
Exclusion sanctions imposed upon bullies
Regarding the suspension of pupils for bullying offences (i.e., “Have you ever
suspended a pupil for bullying within the last 5 years?”), of the 280 Principals
who responded to this question, 26.8% (n = 75) reported that they had invoked
this sanction in their school in the previous five years. When asked: “… how
many pupils would you have suspended for this reason?”, the number ranged
from 1 to 30 pupils, with a mean of 1.27 (SD = 0.44) and a mode of 1 (n = 18).
However, it should also be highlighted that 19.2% (n = 14) of Principals had used
this sanction against two pupils, 16.4% (n = 12) had suspended three pupils, and
a further 21.8% (n = 16) had suspended eight or more pupils during this time
period.
As regards expelling pupils for bullying offences, of the 268 Principals
who responded to this question (i.e., “Have you ever expelled a pupil for bullying
within the last 5 years?”), 3.0% (n = 8) reported that they had invoked this
sanction in their school in the previous five years. When asked: “… how many
pupils would you have expelled for this reason?”, 4 (50%) Principals reported
17
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
that they had expelled one pupil and 3 (37.5%) Principals reported that they had
expelled two pupils. One Principal refrained from reporting the number of pupils
that they had expelled for bullying other pupils.
Thus, despite the high number of schools legislating at a local level in
respect to bully/victim problems (e.g., Anti-Bullying Policy), it can be seen that
some Principals have had to impose the ultimate sanction regarding dealing with
pupils who bully their peers, that is, suspension and expulsion of these bullies.
Whilst over one quarter of responding schools had suspended bullies, some
schools had taken steps to permanently exclude bullies from their schools. With
involvement in bully/victim problems being recognised as one of a number of
‘gateway’ behaviours that lead young people towards exclusion from society
(Collins et al., 2002, 2004), it would appear that attention should be directed
towards the development and implementation of prevention and intervention
programs (e.g., No Blame Approach: Maines & Robinson, 1992, 1998) that seek
not to exclude bullies from formal education. Indeed, it has been argued that
educating excluded pupils in ‘Education Other Than At School’ (EOTAS)
programs fails to address the core issues relating to their exclusion in the first
place (Collins et al., 2002, 2004).
Homophobic bullying
At the time of preparation of the Audit questionnaire, the issue of homophobic
bullying in Northern Ireland’s schools was being addressed in the wider
community by community action groups (e.g., The Rainbow Project) with the
support of local political parties. A poster entitled ‘Homophobic Bullying
Shatters Lives’ was developed by The Rainbow Project and, following extensive
18
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
media exposure, was sent to every school in Northern Ireland. A set of themed
questions in the Audit questionnaire explored the issue of homophobic bullying.
In response to the question: ‘Has your school received the ‘Homophobic
Bullying Shatters Lives Poster?’, just 6.5% (n = 17) of the 263 Principals
responding to this item reported that they had received the poster. However,
when asked whether or not they had displayed the poster, 10.5% (n = 8) of the 76
Principals responding to this item reported that they had displayed the poster.
Next, Principals were asked whether or not any pupils had reported such bullying
since the poster was displayed. Of the 92 Principals who responded to this
question, 7.6% (n = 7) reported in the affirmative. Principals who indicated that
they had received the poster but had not displayed it were asked why they had
refrained from displaying the poster. Of the 14.74% (n = 42: 20 primary, 8
secondary, 12 grammar, 2 special, 1 further education) respondents who
provided qualitative comments regarding their reason(s) for not displaying the
poster, a thematic analysis indicated that the most common response themes
were: ‘poster not delivered to the school’, ‘content either not appropriate or too
suggestive for the age range of pupils’. Examples of responses that reflect each
of these themes include:
INSERT TEXT BOX 6
In relation to the large number of Principals’ reports of not having received the
poster, the researcher was informed by The Rainbow Project (personal
communication with Project Manager, 5 September 2003) that, due to concerns
raised by some ELBs regarding the content and focus of the poster,
dissemination to all schools in the Province was not possible. Thus, analyses of
19
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
the data from the questions in the Audit questionnaire regarding homophobic
bullying should be interpreted with caution.
Conclusion
Data from the 285 Northern Irish schools who participated in the present research
demonstrate that, despite the absence of mandatory legislation or specific
guidance from DENI regarding the management of bully/victim problems, the
vast majority of responding Principals in Northern Ireland adopted a proactive
stance in relation to such issues (e.g., development, implementation and
communication of specific policies).
Such results may suggest a strong platform of support in the Northern
Ireland school community for the recent implementation of legislation in the
jurisdiction regarding the management of such bully/victim problems. The
current study employed an ‘audit’ approach to explore the existing knowledge
and attitudes towards the management of bully/victim problems in a prelegislative context. Such an approach would be useful in other jurisdictions,
either prior to a policy change, as in the present case, or to provide an overview
of current practices in the school system. In a climate of evidence-informed
practice, such studies would provide a baseline from it could be the effectiveness,
or otherwise, of new policies and directives could be assessed.
Considering that schools in other jurisdictions (e.g., Republic of Ireland:
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, 1993; O’Moore et al., 1997) have been
less than enthusiastic about developing and implementing discipline and bullying
policies in their schools, such findings bode well for those children involved in
bully/victim problems. However, it could also be argued that the results from the
20
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
present study are not representative of schools in Northern Ireland regarding the
management of bully/victim problems, due to the fact that participating schools
in the present sample were self-selected, thereby potentially representing only
those schools with a positive and proactive approach to such matters.
Because the current research program was conducted independently of
either DENI or the trade unions, it could be argued that without any potential
punitive measure in relation to non-completion of the questionnaire, some
Principals may have felt less than compelled to either participate in, or provide
further feedback in this research, especially if they had undertaken little work in
this area. Thus, it is entirely possible that the responses reported upon in the
current research are from those schools that operate a positive and child-centred
pastoral care ethos that extends to the protection of children from the insidious
effects of bully/victim problems in a legislative vacuum.
Considering that the present research was conducted during a time period
when the school system in Northern Ireland was bereft of strong directives in
relation to the management of bully/victim problems, it would be worthwhile to
pose the same questions in a post-legislative climate. Such evaluative research,
utilising the findings of the present research as a baseline, could truly ascertain
the efficacy of the recent legislation in this area.
References
Ananiadou, K., and P.K. Smith. 2002. Legal requirements and nationally
circulated materials against school bullying in European countries.
Criminal Justice 2, 471-491.
21
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Boulton, M.J. 1996. Lunchtime supervisors’ attitudes towards playful fighting,
and ability to differentiate between playful and aggressive fighting: An
intervention study. British Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 367-381.
Collins, K., G. Mc Aleavy, and G. Adamson. 2002. Bullying in schools: A
Northern Ireland study. Research Report Series No.30. Bangor (Northern
Ireland): Department of Education for Northern Ireland.
Collins, K., G. Mc Aleavy, and G. Adamson. 2004. Bullying in schools: A
Northern Ireland study. Educational Research 46, 55-71.
Department of Education and Science. 1993. Guidelines on countering bullying
behaviour in primary and post-primary schools. Dublin: The Stationary
Office.
Department for Education and Skills. 1999. Circular 10/99 Social inclusion:
pupil support. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/
Department of Education for Northern Ireland. 2003. Welfare and protection of
pupils: Education and libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 Circular
Number 2003/13. Date of Issue: 18 June 2003. Bangor (Northern Ireland):
Department of Education for Northern Ireland.
Department of Education for Northern Ireland. 2001. Pastoral care in schools:
Promoting positive Behaviour. Bangor (Northern Ireland): Department of
Education for Northern Ireland.
Department of Education for Northern Ireland. 1999. Pastoral care in schools:
Child protection. Circular Number 1999/10. Bangor (Northern Ireland):
Department of Education for Northern Ireland.
22
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Department of Education for Northern Ireland. 1998. Promoting and sustaining
good behaviour: A discipline strategy for schools. Bangor (Northern
Ireland): Department of Education for Northern Ireland.
HANSARD. 2001. Northern Ireland Assembly: contents. Monday 25 June 2001.
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation. 1993. Discipline in the primary school.
Dublin: Irish National Teachers’ Organisation.
Johnstone, Margaret, Pamela Munn, and Lynne Edwards. 1992. Action against
bullying. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Maines, Barbara, and George Robinson. 1998. The No Blame Approach to
bullying. In Directions in educational psychology, ed. Diane ShorrocksTaylor, 281-295. London: Whurr Publishers.
Maines, Barbara, and George Robinson. 1992. Michael’s story: The No-Blame
Approach. Bristol: Lame Duck Books.
National Assembly for Wales. 2000. Circular 3/99 Pupil Support and Social
Inclusion. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales Education Department.
Oliver, E., and H. Marks. 1999. Teachers bullied by superiors – TUI survey. The
Irish Times on the Web. Thursday 30 September.
O’Moore, A.M., C. Kirkham, and M. Smith. 1997. Bullying behaviour in Irish
schools: A nationwide study. Irish Journal of Psychology 18, 141-169.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Scottish Council for Research in Education. 1993. Supporting schools against
bullying. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
23
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Sharp, Sonia. 1994. Training schemes for lunchtime supervisors in the United
Kingdom. In Breaktime and the school: understanding and changing
playground behaviour, ed. Peter Blatchford and Sonia Sharp, 118-133.
London: Routledge.
Smith, Peter K., and M. Samara. 2003. Do policies miss some bullies?
Proceedings of British Psychological Society 12, 1212.
Stenlake, A. 2000. Teachers want anti-bullying law. BBC News Online, Friday
28 April.
The Education and Libraries (NI) Order 2003. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
The Education Reform (NI) Order 1989. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
United Nations General Assembly. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child.
New York: United Nations.
24
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
TEXT BOX 1
‘Bullying’ needs to be addressed under:
(a) Child Protection
(b) Discipline
(Respondent 46: Primary)
Many publications:
(i) Action Against Bullying Support Pack
(ii) Supporting Schools Against Bullying
(iii) Don’t Let Them Suffer in Silence
(iv) Kidscape Stop bullying
and many more.
(Respondent 59: Primary)
Advice from SEELB & DENI e.g., “Let’s Stop Bullying Now”
(Respondent 91: Primary)
25
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
TEXT BOX 2
We have a discipline policy which makes reference to bullying
(Respondent 51: Primary)
We have a policy on Bullying which includes preventative and reactive
approaches to Bullying. It includes procedures for staff to deal with Bullying and
suggests strategies to use with the Bully + the victim.
(Respondent 205: Secondary)
Part of our Pastoral Care Policy incorporates our definition of bullying and the
procedures followed should a bullying incident be reported.
(Respondent 22: Primary)
Based on positive approach involving parents, children and staff – rewards and
sanctions clearly understood and agreed.
(Respondent 44: Primary)
26
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Anti-bullying pledge card signed by pupils & parents on annual basis.
Every incident of bullying is recorded & investigated.
Pupils have written a play, performed it & cast visited classes to discuss roles.
Slogan & poster campaign (several years ago now).
(Respondent 65: Primary)
27
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
TEXT BOX 3
(a) Policy. This includes (i) types of bullying (ii) signs & symptoms (iii) action –
inform adult / discussion / recording / parents informed.
(b) “BULLY BOX” – available in public place in school for discreet comment.
(c) BUDDY PREFECTS – set up as a result of initial questionnaire to work /
help in Junior School.
(d) SCHOOL COUNCIL – designed to give ownership for decisions relating to
school.
(e) BULLYING-AWARENESS WEEK – held annually & involving all staff +
pupils.
(f) QUESTIONNAIRES – used regularly to establish level / type etc. of bullying
+ help future plans.
(g) OUTSIDE AGENCIES – use Board’s Behaviour Team, plays on bullying for
schools etc.
(Respondent 208: Secondary)
28
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
The policy includes several strategies:
(a) PSE programme years 8-12 includes worksheets dealing with bullying
(b) Peer support group to help students who bully and are bullied
(c) Poster campaign
(d) School council
(e) Suggestions box
(f) Pastoral assemblies
(g) Buddy system for year 8
(h) Cross curricular links with RE / English / History etc.
(i) Strong staff presence around school at breaks to prevent bullying situations
(j) Special events eg. Class acts theatre in education.
(Respondent 218: Secondary)
29
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
TEXT BOX 4
The pupil (below compulsory age) was withdrawn pending attendance with
parents at a parenting - behaviour program followed by the implementation of a
phased and supported induction program.
(Respondent 31: Primary)
Meeting of all parties to “clarify mis-understanding” of intentions.
(Respondent 34: Primary)
Principal met with all three parents (one serious incident led to involvement of
the police) – Two settled amicably. Principal negotiated with teacher / senior
teacher – satisfactory outcome.
(Respondent 108: Primary)
Pupils are subject to the school policy.
When a parent is involved the principal would normally interview the parent. On
one occasion, the Board of Gov’s excluded a parent from the school.
(Respondent 119: Primary)
30
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Principal invited parent for interview and situation was resolved – parent had
been verbally abusive and realised that they were in the wrong.
(Respondent 141: Primary)
Through peer mediation + compromise we tried to put a solution in place but
things never really “were the same again”.
(Respondent 144: Primary)
(i) Principal wrote to parent to make appointment to discuss matter, letter from
B.O.G. followed, both ignored.
(ii) Principal wrote to parent. Meeting with principal and V.P. followed. Matter
resolved. Teacher received apology.
(Respondent 152: Primary)
Unhappy parents.
Unhappy teachers.
And on one occasion: Governor investigation, NEELB investigation Teacher
break-down / hospitalisation (6 months).
(Respondent 155: Primary)
31
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
i) (Unresolved) grievance procedure: formal: not followed through by “injured”
party: active participation by unions.
(ii) Teacher took time off (3 months): No resolution formally.
(iii) Teacher reported physical assault by other teacher but wished no action to be
taken.
(Respondent 165: Primary)
Led to tribunals, court cases etc. teacher won her case, however B.O.G. still not
paying heed to judgement, a lot of bad feelings remain.
(Respondent 196: Primary)
One teacher – harassment case against another teacher.
Discipline procedure had to be invoked. As negations [sic] failed between one
teacher + the other. Both teachers were members of the same union – the teacher
was found to be on at least two occasions to have used a tone / manner against
plaintiff verbal warning was given.
(Respondent 273: Special)
32
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
TEXT BOX 5
Principal arranged meeting between those concerned & it was amicably dealt
with.
(Respondent 62: Primary)
Discussed openly with all concerned.
(Respondent 87: Primary)
Investigation and warnings under school’s discipline procedures.
(Respondent 33: Primary)
Both parties individually interviewed by Headteacher. Tempers cooled, situation
diffused.
(Respondent 103: Primary)
Termination of contract.
(Respondent 37: Primary)
33
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
Investigation and disciplinary action.
(Respondent 78: Primary)
Teacher was disciplined.
(Respondent 139: Primary)
34
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
TEXT BOX 6
Didn’t receive a copy.
(Respondent 123: Primary)
Poster doesn’t actually trigger off any memory bulb but even if it did arrive I
would not display it because I don’t feel it is an issue for our pupils at the
moment!
(Respondent 150: Primary)
We have not received the poster but there has been a few instances of
homophobic bullying reported in school.
(Respondent 268: Grammar)
It is perhaps because it is too graphic, too suggestive, for all pupils to have access
to such information. Some pupils are too young, some are too old-fashioned.
(Respondent 57: Primary)
It isn’t an issue seen yet in my primary school. Plus my parents would not want
an issue like this raised in the school!
(Respondent 196: Primary)
35
C. Mc Guckin and C.A. Lewis
Educational Research
(I would need to be convinced that it was suitable / appropriate for this school.)
(Respondent 248: Grammar)
36