Disablist bullying in schools: giving a voice to student teachers
Noel Purdy1 and Conor Mc Guckin2
1
Department of Teacher Education, Stranmillis University College, Belfast, Northern Ireland
2
School of Education, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
Corresponding Author:
Dr Noel Purdy, Stranmillis University College, Belfast, BT9 5DY.
Telephone: 00 (44) 2890384305, Fax: 00 (44) 2890664423,
E-mail: n.purdy@stran.ac.uk
Page 1 of 15
Disablist bullying in schools: giving a voice to student teachers
Abstract
This paper reports in detail on the qualitative findings from a study which aimed to critically
examine the experiences and confidence of student teachers in Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland in relation to disablist bullying. This paper focuses in particular on the
voice of student teachers from six focus group interviews (n=29) carried out among final year
teacher education students in both jurisdictions. Students were asked about their experiences
of dealing with bullying incidents during school placement, and in particular incidents
involving children with special educational needs and disabilities. The study highlights the
lack of preparation of the student teachers as a result of the absence of any focus on disablist
bullying in initial teacher education courses, and a subsequent lack of confidence in dealing
with such incidents which were found to be often challenging and complex. Students reported
that they often resorted to ad hoc, instinct-led responses or overlooked incidents entirely, with
few basing their responses on prior learning in initial teacher education. Implications are
discussed and a policy and practice update is provided since the completion of the study in
2011.
Key Words: disability, special educational needs, initial teacher education, bullying
Introduction
Since the earliest studies of bully/victim problems in the 1970's (e.g., Olweus 1978) the
bullying research community has gained insight into this form of social aggression with
regard to defining features, sub-types, incidence, individual differences, effects, and how to
counter such problems (e.g., Connolly and O’Moore 2003; Corcoran, Connolly, and O’
Moore 2012; Farrington and Ttofi 2009; Mc Guckin, Cummins, and Lewis 2010; Mc Guckin
and Lewis 2008; O’Moore and Minton 2004; Whitney and Smith 1993).
In recent years, the main focus of both public and research attention regarding bully/victim
problems has been upon cyberbullying. Like traditional/face-to-face (f2f) bullying, this focus
has resulted in much knowledge generation and action. For example, COST Action IS0801
demonstrated how researchers and policy makers could collaborate to explore and plan action
on a variety of fundamental issues, such as definition, measurement, coping strategies,
intervention, prevention, and legal issues.
Purdy and Mc Guckin (2014) highlighted that, despite this invaluable attention and action
regarding cyberbullying, other forms of bully/victim problems should not be
overlooked. They pointed out that while attention continues to focus on homophobic
bullying (e.g., Rivers 2011), sexist, sexual, and transphobic bullying (e.g., Department for
Education and Skills [DfES], 2010), and the newly emerging area of alterophobia (Minton
2012), relatively little attention is paid to ‘disablist’ bullying – where those with a
disability/Special Educational Need (SEN) are directly involved in bully/victim problems.
Disablist Bullying: From Definition to Support
There is no international consensus on how precisely to operationally define disablist
Page 2 of 15
bullying. In guidance issued under the last UK Labour government, reference was made to
“bullying involving children and young people with SEN and disabilities” (DCSF, 2008,
p.7). The Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum (2010) has defined disablist bullying much
more broadly as “… hurtful, insulting or intimidating behaviour related to a perceived or
actual disability”. Possible manifestations of disablist bullying include: the regular use,
consciously or unconsciously, of offensive and discriminatory language; verbal abuse and
threats; public ridicule; jokes about disability; exclusion from social groups; refusal to
cooperate with someone because of their impairment; or refusing to meet a disabled person’s
access needs (Bristol City Council, 2006, p.18).
While several recent international studies have explored the nature, incidence, and correlates
of disablist bullying – either in a general manner (e.g., Fernández, 2009) or related to specific
categories of SEN/disability (e.g., Humphrey and Symes 2010a,b; Unnever and Cornell,
2003), this has occurred on a sporadic and less than systematic manner, like much research in
the area of bully/victim problems (Mc Guckin, Lewis and Cummins, 2010). Despite this, a
common finding in international research is that there are higher incidence rates among
children with SEN than among those without (e.g., U.S.: Carter and Spencer, 2006; England:
Norwich and Kelly, 2004).
From their review of the empirical work in the area, Purdy and Mc Guckin (2014) identify
two reasons as to why children with SEN / disabilities may be at higher risk for involvement
in bully/victim problems: (a) possibly lower levels of social competence (Whitney, Nabuzoka
and Smith, 1992), and (b) potentially fewer friendships, reflective of a "dose-effect" buffer in
relation to likelihood of victimization and number of good friends (Martlew and Hodson
1991). Purdy and Mc Guckin's (2014) review also pointed out that these are both areas where
the influence of educators can have a positive effect (Frederickson, 2010; Morton and
Campbell, 2008).
The Role of Educators
In attempting to understand the role of education in ameliorating the effects of bully/victim
problems involving children with SEN/disabilities, little attention has been focused on the
role of teachers or student teachers (Purdy and Mc Guckin, 2014).
Importantly, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland adhere to the international
consensus regarding educational inclusion (e.g., UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006). In
addition to support for such international agreements, both jurisdictions also seek to adhere to
Article 19 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989),
which decrees that every child should be protected from physical or psychological hurt or
mistreatment.
Critically, Purdy and Mc Guckin (2014) pointed out that within this policy context, guidance
for teachers in Ireland (North and South) dealing with disablist bullying remains relatively
scarce - with the exception of a very brief pamphlet on the subject by the Northern Ireland
Anti-Bullying Forum (NIABF, 2010).
This is in contrast with the United Kingdom, where the DCSF (2008) Safe to Learn materials,
published under the last Labour government and no longer official government policy,
included one publication which specifically addressed bullying involving children with
special educational needs and disabilities. This comprehensive document considered legal
duties for schools in relation to pupils with SEN. It also outlined preventative strategies such
as the development of a school policy, listening to the voice of pupils with SEN, and using
Page 3 of 15
the curriculum to tackle disablist bullying, as well as response strategies such as the use of
appropriate sanctions and peer mentoring. On a regional level in the UK, the guidance
offered by Bristol City Council (2006) goes further and, in addition to the topics covered by
DCSF (2008), offers guidance on supporting victims and monitoring and recording incidents.
In identifying the pivotal role that teachers play in combating such issues, and the need for
further empirical work in this area, Purdy and Mc Guckin (2014) investigated student
teachers’ knowledge, experience and confidence in dealing with disablist bullying in
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. From their sample of 257 students, results
highlighted that none of the participants, in either jurisdiction, had received guidance in
relation to disablist bullying as part of their Initial Teacher Education (ITE). There was a
need for practical, solution-focused, and evidence-based input at the level of ITE and
Continuing Professional Development in both jurisdictions.
Results from larger scale quantitative projects like that of Purdy and Mc Guckin (2014) are
certainly welcome. With these, we can gain a critically important "outsider" perspective from
large and representative samples of key informants. Arguably, however, supplementing such
work with a more qualitative 'insider' perspective would greatly enrich our understanding of
how young professionals "feel" about issues that, to some, may still be somewhat taboo despite being inculcated into an education system that espouses the notion and ethos of
"inclusion" in all its forms, through studies of foundation subjects (e.g., psychology,
sociology) and methodological teaching tools to allow them to achieve this individualised
inclusively (e.g., differentiation). Despite the recent societal changes in both parts of Ireland
(e.g., peace process, financial growth and subsequent austerity, immigration), Ireland remains
a relatively conservative society, albeit one that increasingly views itself as "inclusion
friendly". This is evidenced, for example, through the development and enactment of the
Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (Government of Ireland, 2004) in
the Republic of Ireland and the Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland)
Order (2005).
An emergent body of research has drawn attention to the need for pupil voice, based on a
recognition of rights and competencies, but also the contributions pupils can make to
educational structures and practices (Shevlin, 2010). In Ireland, researchers have explored
the voices of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN), in relation to their experiences of
marginalization in mainstream schools (Shevlin and Rose, 2003), and their placement in
special or mainstream contexts (Shaha, 2007), to understand the barriers and facilitators to
inclusion experienced by pupils with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Carr-Fanning,
under review), and the empowerment of pupils with social, emotional, and/or behavioural
difficulties (Flynn, Shevlin, and Lodge, 2012).
However, what may be more neglected is the "professional voice", that of pre-service and inservice teachers. Indeed, the recognition of, and respect for, the multiple valid voices within
educational contexts is fundamental to realising the inclusion agenda (Carr-Fanning, Mc
Guckin, and Shevlin, 2013). Shevlin, Winter, and Flynn (2012) explored in-service teachers’
perceptions of inclusive practices, and recognised the role of teachers’ knowledge and
understanding in the inclusion/exclusion of students with SEN. However, what is missing is
an appreciation of the voice of pre-service teachers, where the development of such
knowledge and understanding occurs.
Page 4 of 15
Thus, it is appropriate to supplement the quantitative "outsider" knowledge provided by
Purdy and Mc Guckin (2014) with an understanding of the "insider" perspective provided by
the "professional voice" of those students enrolled on ITE courses.
More specifically this particular research study set out: to gain student teachers’ perspectives
on their preparation for school placement (with particular reference to special educational
needs, bullying and disablist bullying); to explore the nature of any disablist bullying
incidents they had encountered while on school placement; and to determine on what basis
they responded to such incidents.
Methodology
A mixed methodological approach was adopted comprising six focus group interviews,
followed by paper questionnaires. Two centres of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) were
selected for the recruitment of participants, one in Northern Ireland, the other in the Republic
of Ireland. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, the sample also included students from three
other neighbouring institutions. In all cases the students chosen were final year student teachers
as it was felt they would be most likely to have encountered incidents of bullying behaviour
during school placement.
Given the fact that student teachers’ experiences of disablist bullying had not been reported
before in the research literature, it was decided that exploratory focus groups would be
employed, for as Longhurst (2003, p.120) notes, such focus group are important and useful for
‘researchers wishing to orientate themselves to a new field’. The focus groups thus served a
highly formative purpose in the research design (Hopkins, 2007), as they helped to inform the
design of the subsequent questionnaires. Although it is sometimes argued that group
participants should not be known to each other beforehand (Tonkiss, 2004) on this occasion it
was felt that this should not be a necessary condition, and as Holbrook and Jackson (1996)
note, there are also significant strengths gained from a group where members are already
comfortable in each other’s company. Following a brief introduction in which participants
were welcomed, the topic was introduced and ground rules were established (Krueger and
Casey, 2000) the two researchers facilitated the discussion, actively encouraging group
members to interact with each other, assuming the role of moderators (Morgan, 1997), and
ensuring that no one dominated the discussion (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011).
Discussions lasted between 45 and 65 minutes.
The focus group participants were invited to respond to an email invitation to their year group
according to their chosen phase (primary or post-primary), and in each case the groups
numbered between four and seven participants. All those who responded were invited to attend
the interviews. In total there were four focus groups held in Northern Ireland (two primary
and two post-primary) and two focus groups in the Republic of Ireland (one primary and one
post-primary). There were no cross-national focus groups, and any contextual confusion was
avoided by having the two lead researchers present, one from each jurisdiction. A total of 29
student teachers took part in the six focus groups, with just four males in total, all of whom
were from Northern Ireland. Almost all of the focus group participants were aged 21-25,
although there were two mature students (one in each jurisdiction) aged 30-40. The majority
of the participants in the focus groups were from Northern Ireland (72%, n=21) and were
primary students (59%, n=12), while the majority of the respondents to the questionnaire were
from the Republic of Ireland (75%, n=192) and were also primary students (90%, n=231).
Page 5 of 15
Females were overrepresented within the sample (88%, n=227), reflecting course enrolment in
participating institutions.
Clusters of questions were developed for the focus groups regarding students’ prior preparation
in relation to special educational needs and disabilities, anti-bullying and disablist bullying in
particular. Participants were asked questions such as: ‘What guidance have you received during
your course on disablist bullying?’, and ‘Has anybody come across any incidents of disablist
bullying?’ Students were asked in particular to consider what guided them in their responses
to bullying incidents. None of the focus group participants were asked about their own special
educational needs or experiences of bullying as a pupil, and none volunteered such information.
Questionnaire items were similarly organised by theme as per the focus groups. Response
option formats included multiple choice, forced choice, and Likert scales. A total of 257
questionnaires were completed and returned for analysis (NI: n = 65, 25%; RoI, n = 192, 75%).
The overall response rate was 56% (463 distributed). The majority of respondents (90%; n =
233) were studying to become primary school teachers (81%, n = 188 of these were from the
Republic of Ireland).
In accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association
(2011), ethical approval for the research was granted by the Ethics Committees of both
participating institutions. Voluntary informed consent was gained from the participants in the
focus group interviews through clear information being shared at the outset regarding the aims
of the project, the importance of confidentiality and anonymity, and the participants’ right to
withdraw at any stage. The focus group interviews took place in mid- to late June, therefore
after the examination period, when there would be no possibility of students feeling under
pressure to attend.
The focus group interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded by theme (Wilkinson,
2011). The questionnaire data were analysed using statistical software.
Findings
Following analysis of the focus group data, a number of key themes emerged which are
outlined in detail below. The first theme was the lack of preparedness of the student teachers
to address issues relating to disablist bullying. The vast majority of the student teachers from
both jurisdictions expressed a strong preference for practical guidance in relation to special
educational needs and anti-bullying strategies, and many commented unfavourably on the
theoretical emphasis in their university-based preparation, especially in the case of the
Northern Irish students. One student commented in relation to SEN that “to be honest with
you, I’m probably no better educated about it now that I was when I came in the door” while
another remarked that “the new curriculum is all more hands on coz that’s the way you learn,
but yet a lot of what we’re doing, is all theory and you don’t get the practice”. While all of
the students in both jurisdictions had followed courses on SEN (albeit with criticism of the
lack of practical application), the extent of training in relation to bullying varied between the
jurisdictions. In the Republic of Ireland all of the students interviewed had completed a
taught module which included sessions on the nature and extent of bullying as well as
practical whole-school and classroom preventative and responsive strategies. In Northern
Ireland the picture was patchier. A minority of the students interviewed had completed a
comprehensive module on pastoral care in schools which included substantial content on
tackling bullying in schools, however the students noted that this was a final year oversubscribed elective module which was available to just one third of the year group. Although
students in both jurisdictions had encountered incidents of disablist bullying during their
Page 6 of 15
school placements, none at all had been taught anything specific about this particular form of
bullying in their initial teacher education courses in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of
Ireland.
The second theme to emerge was the sheer variety of experiences recounted by the students
in relation to experiences of inclusion by children with special educational needs in
mainstream contexts. Some of the students told of incidents of bullying in which the child
with special educational needs was deliberately excluded by the peer group, such as a young
boy with ADHD who was repeatedly left out of lunchtime football games “because he
seemed to, didn’t know what to do when he got the ball”, or a young girl with autism who no
one else in the class wanted to pair up with to pick flowers on a nature walk since her poor
fine motor skills would prevent her from picking as many flowers as the others. More
complex incidents were also recounted where the child with special educational needs was
reported to be perpetrating the bullying behaviour. Students felt “shock and confusion” in
such cases, telling of, for instance, an eleven year old boy with spina bifida whose behaviour
was very challenging:
“…he was very bright, ah, extremely good at maths and I guess he was the
biggest bully in the whole class, he was very snide with people, it wasn’t physical
bullying, but his intelligence made him so superior to the other people in the class
that that you know, you know, he was able to he was able to really, really get at
people. It was almost strange to see somebody so young with the ability to really,
really get at people.”
In another case a post-primary pupil who had been injured and disfigured in a firework
accident was reported to have been both the target of nasty verbal bullying from her peer
group on her return to school, but also had begun to make false accusations (she made up
“wee stories”) against some pupils and teaching staff. The result was a particularly
challenging situation for a first year student teacher to have to deal with.
However there were also several examples recounted which highlighted the crucial role
played by the teacher. On the one hand there is the potential for a very positive impact due to
the role of the individual class teacher. One primary student teacher told of how a class
teacher, a PE specialist, worked hard to include a child with a physical disability in her PE
lessons, creating a positive and inclusive environment where he was accepted by his peers:
“I think just in my final year of teaching practice there we had a boy in a wheel
chair. He had spina bifida, and that had a real potential of being something that
was, you know, he was different and he could be, he wasn’t very bright, things
like that, and during P.E. he had to crawl along the ground and things like that
that made him very different, but the class, because the class had been together
for so long, the class reacted so well, and were nice, and so that was inclusion
working in my eyes. The teacher was a P.E. specialist so she was always
thinking of sports day “How do we get him involved in sports day?” so she was
very proactive…”
Furthermore in the case reported above of the young girl with autism who was frequently left
on her own to pick flowers, the student teacher began to ask the pupils to form groups of
three rather than two, and changed the groupings around in order to reduce opportunities for
social exclusion and other forms of bullying. And the young boy with ADHD previously
excluded in football games was integrated more successfully, once the teacher introduced a
new rule that the ball had to be passed to each member of the team before the team was
allowed to score a goal.
Page 7 of 15
On the other hand there were several instances reported where the teacher’s influence had
been more negative. One student told of his friend with epilepsy who felt her post-primary
education was “one of the worst times of her life” due to a lack of understanding on the part
of teachers, while another (mature) student explained how her daughter (with ADHD) had
been “set up as different” by her year one teacher in primary school, and as a result the girls
in the class treated her the same way right through primary school and “made her life
absolutely miserable”.
The third theme to emerge, linked to the lack of preparedness and absence of module content,
was the ensuing lack of confident, effective responses to incidents of disablist bullying. In
contrast to a reasoned response based on evidence presented in taught modules during their
initial teacher education, the students reported they often felt at a complete loss and struggled
to know how to respond at all, when faced with incidents of disablist bullying. The range of
responses was broad.
One student explained how he struggled to address bullying behaviour perpetrated by a
young boy with spina bifida. When the boy bullied others in PE, the student felt that he could
not give him a fundamental movement exercise as a sanction (as he would customarily have
done) so in the end “I found it very, very difficult to find any way of sort of reprimanding him, so
yes, by necessity the bullying was almost tolerated.”
While inadequate preparation therefore led in some instances to avoidance and a “tolerance”
of a bullying situation, another student explained that in the absence of any preparation in
relation to bullying or disablist bullying, his response would be to rely simply on instinct:
“You deal with it naturally. And that has the potential to be an ineffective reaction. I
mean I don’t know, or, I don’t know why or what causes bullying; I don’t know what
the outcomes for people that are bullied are. I mean formally I’ve never, I’ve never
even touched on it ...”
When this was explored further in the focus group, one student explained how a student
teacher’s own life experiences were likely to determine their ‘natural’ response in the absence
of any informed preparation from their initial teacher education:
“Well I think that it can be a consequence of our own experiences, if a teacher has
had a very victimized childhood, she would approach the situation, perhaps quite
differently to someone, a teacher, who has in their own childhood been the
bully…”
Similarly one mature student told of how she relied on her own experiences as a parent to help
her know how to respond to minor cases of disablist bullying among pupils (“low level kinda
stuff”) such as one pupil saying to another “Oh, you’re very slow at writing”. In this case the
mature student noted that “I know what it’s like to have bickering teenagers so immediately I
just nipped it in the bud.” In this relatively low-level incident, prior parental experience clearly
helped to guide the student’s behaviour and helped ensure a swift and effective response.
The results of the survey have been reported extensively in Purdy and McGuckin (2014), but
are summarised below. Despite all respondents agreeing or agreeing strongly (‘agree’ 23%,
n=59; ‘agree strongly’ 77%, n=200) that it is important for teachers to be trained to deal with
bullying incidents, and despite the fact that over 70% (n=170) had dealt with incidents of
bullying during school placements, less than two thirds of respondents (65%, n = 167) felt
confident in dealing with such incidents. The survey found that none of the student teachers
had been taught anything about disablist bullying in particular in either jurisdiction, even
Page 8 of 15
though 13% (n=30) had dealt with disablist bullying during their placements. Consequently,
confidence levels were low, with almost one third reporting that they did not feel confident and
a further 46% (n=117) ‘unsure’ how to deal with an incident of disablist bullying. Of particular
interest was the question which explored what would guide their response to an incident of
disablist bullying, should it arise. Here over half of respondents (54%, n=138) would consult
their school policy, and 44% (n=111) would seek advice from a more experienced teaching
colleague. However only 12% (n=31) would rely on information gained during their initial
teacher education and over one third (35%, n=90) would rely merely on ‘natural instinct’.
When asked to suggest improvements to current course content, a large majority of students
(77%, n=193) recommended more practical strategies to tackle disablist bulling, and half (50%,
n=125) requested more background information about the topic.
Discussion
The aims of the current study were to explore student teachers’ voices, telling of their
experiences of dealing with disablist bullying, and to evaluate how in particular they responded
to such incidents when they did occur during school placement.
Perhaps most alarming at the outset was the fact that none of the respondents had learnt
anything about disablist bullying at all during their ITE courses in any of the participating
institutions across the island of Ireland. All students reported that they were taught about
special educational needs (though they were often highly critical of the lack of practical
strategies and emphasis on theoretical perspectives), and the majority had been taught basic
anti-bullying strategies (though many fewer among the Northern Irish cohort). However
students had not been taught anything at all about how to help prevent or deal effectively with
bullying incidents involving children with special educational needs in particular, irrespective
of their role (perpetrator, target, bystander etc). Given the consistent research findings
(Thompson, Whitney and Smith, 1994; Mishna, 2003; Mencap, 2007; Holzbauer, 2008; DENI,
2011) which suggest that children with special educational needs are more likely to be victims
of bullying than other children, the argument is persuasive that ITE courses should address this
important issue affecting the most vulnerable children in our schools. In this study students
expressed a desire for this content to be introduced but for the input to be practical, solutionfocused and delivered in collaboration with experienced, practising teachers from schools.
However this study also makes it clear that such preparation must take into account the range
of possible bullying scenarios, and the variety of roles which the child with special educational
needs can play. The qualitative data from this study highlights the need to appreciate that
children with special educational needs can often be victims of bullying. In all of the cases
reported by student teachers in this study, the bullying took the form of nasty comments or
jibes or the social exclusion of the children with special educational needs from classroom
group work or playground games. The study therefore concurs with Holzbauer (2008) who
found that the use of slurs, epithets, mockery and ostracism were more common than theft or
physical aggression in cases of disability harassment. Moreover while there were many
instances recounted by student teachers of children being very kind and helpful towards their
peers with physical disabilities, this was often a helper-helpee asymmetrical friendship rather
than a truly equal relationship (Meyer et al, 1998; Frederickson, 2010). However this study
has also helped to emphasise the range of roles which children with special educational needs
can play in bullying situations, for while often victims, there were several cases recounted
where the child with special educational needs or a disability was actually the perpetrator of
the bullying behaviour (e.g., deliberately making snide remarks, tripping up other pupils,
making false accusations etc.). Indeed the student teachers explained that these were the cases
Page 9 of 15
which they struggled most to deal with, perhaps initially as they were shocked to find the
children with a disability in this role. This is also much less commonly reported in the research
literature (see however the work of de Monchy et al. [2004] in relation to children with
behaviour problems), and presented real challenges for the student teachers. It is clear therefore
that such cases reflecting the variety of bullying roles also need to form part of any additional
content in ITE.
Finally, in the absence of any course content in relation to disablist bullying, student teachers
often felt at a loss and dealt with the situations “naturally” as one student explained, basing
their responses on their previous life experience which has the potential to be completely
ineffective. While one mature student was able to draw on her personal experiences as a parent
of teenage children to intervene swiftly in a low-level bullying situation, this was the only such
case recounted, and it could not be guaranteed that all cases encountered would be equally
straightforward or would have been encountered before in the family home. Clearly this is
unsatisfactory and leads to ad hoc, instinct-led responses rather than responses based on the
kind of rational, evidence-based, research-informed teaching which characterises best practice
in teacher education (Fenstermacher, 1978, 1986; BERA/RSA, 2014).
The result is a situation where the majority of the students in this study had received special
educational needs preparation which they felt was too theoretical, where a sizeable minority of
the student teachers (from Northern Ireland) had not been taught anything about how to tackle
any form of bullying in schools, and where none of the student teachers had learnt anything
about disablist bullying in particular. The implications are clear for initial teacher education
programmes in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Conclusion
By way of postscript, at a policy level too there have been significant developments since 2011.
The Department of Education and Science in the Republic of Ireland has published detailed
guidance (DES, 2013) giving details of different types of bullying (which includes the bullying
of those with disabilities or special educational needs), a mandatory anti-bullying policy
template, advice on creating a positive school climate and clear procedures for recording
incidents of bullying. The effectiveness of the implementation of such guidance will of course
need to be evaluated (Corcoran and Mc Guckin, 2014). In Northern Ireland there are similar
encouraging signs of progress. The Minister of Education, John O’Dowd, MLA, asked the
Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum in September 2013 to review existing anti-bullying
legislation, guidance and practice in schools in Northern Ireland. Following the submission of
the comprehensive review in December 2013, the Minister has set out his intention to bring
forward new legislation with accompanying departmental guidance in early 2015. (NI
Assembly Hansard, 2014)
In terms of Initial Teacher Education provision there have also been significant developments
since the original study. In Northern Ireland the study highlighted serious deficiencies in the
course content and most notably in terms of the lack of provision for all students in relation to
anti-bullying interventions in schools. This has now been addressed by the institution so that
all undergraduate student teachers now learn about how to address bullying in schools, with a
particular focus on cyberbullying, homophobic bullying and disablist bullying. This is
developed further in the final year optional module and at Masters level which has resulted in
several recent research dissertations looking specifically at disablist bullying. In the Republic
of Ireland, following the international review panel’s report on the structure of initial teacher
education in Ireland, provision has changed, replacing the previous model whereby several
Page 10 of 15
smaller institutions sent their final year students to be taught together in one recognised centre
of anti-bullying research. The extent to which student teachers are now taught about antibullying strategies for schools therefore is currently unknown, since the provision is now
dispersed to the smaller institutions. Further research would be necessary to confirm whether
any progress has been made.
The developments underline perhaps the potential impact which such an evaluation can have
on the micro-level of individual course content, but also highlight the extent to which provision
is subject to the demands imposed by macro-level national reviews of ITE infrastructure. The
study is limited in its scale with a relatively modest sample of 257 student respondents to the
survey and six focus group interviews comprising 29 student teachers. Further research would
be important to reveal the extent of developments in ITE provision across the institutions since
2011, but also to extend the study to other ITE institutions across Ireland, Great Britain and
beyond. Finally, while this study explores the previously unheard voice of the student teachers
in relation to disablist bullying, there remains an urgent need to hear the voice of in-service
teachers across the island of Ireland and beyond.
Page 11 of 15
References
Bristol City Council Children and Young People’s Services (2006) Reporting and dealing with
disablist incidents in Bristol Schools. Bristol: Bristol City Council.
British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.
http://www.bera.ac.uk. (accessed 29 August 2014)
British Educational Research Association/RSA (2014) Research and the Teaching Profession Building the capacity for a self-improving education system. https://www.bera.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/BERA-RSA-Research-Teaching-Profession-FULL-REPORT-for-web.pdf
(accessed 23 November 2014)
Carr-Fanning, K., Mc Guckin, C., and Shevlin, M. (2013) ‘Using student voice to escape the spider’s
web: A methodological approach to de-victimizing students with ADHD’. Trinity Education Papers,
2, pp.85-111.
Carr-Fanning, K. (under review). “There’s nothing so wrong with you, that what’s right with you
couldn’t fix”: A study of stress, emotion, and coping in the lived experiences of students with ADHD.
Ph.D. from the School of Education, Trinity College Dublin.
Carter, B. B., and Spencer, V. G. (2006) ‘The fear factor: bullying and students with disabilities’.
International Journal of Special Education 21, pp.11–23.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education (7th edition),
London: Routledge.
Connolly, I., and O’Moore, M. (2003) ‘Personality and family relations of children who bully’.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, pp.559-567.
Corcoran, L., Connolly, I., and O’Moore, M. (2012) ‘Cyberbullying in Irish Schools: An investigation
of personality and self-concept’. Irish Journal of Psychology, 33(4), pp.153-165.
Corcoran, L. and Mc Guckin, C. (2014) ‘Addressing bullying problems in Irish schools and in
cyberspace: a challenge for school management.’ Educational Research, 56 (1), pp.48-64.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Bullying involving children with special
educational needs and disabilities. Safe to Learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in schools. London:
DCSF.
Department for Education and Skills (2010) Guidance for schools on preventing and responding to
sexist, sexual and transphobic bullying. Safe to Learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in schools.
Nottingham, UK: DfES.
Department of Education Northern Ireland (2011) The nature and extent of pupil bullying in schools
in the north of Ireland. www.deni.gov.uk (accessed 29 August 2014).
Department of Education and Skills (2013) Anti-Bullying Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary
Schools. http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Anti-Bullying-Procedures-forPrimary-and-Post-Primary-Schools.pdf (accessed 29 August 2014).
Farrington, D. P., and Ttofi, M. M. (2009). ‘School-based programs to reduce bullying and
victimization’. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 10.4073/csr.2009.6.
Page 12 of 15
Fenstermacher, G. (1978) ‘A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness’.
In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 6, pp. 157-185). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Fenstermacher, G. (1986) ‘Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects.’ In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.
Ferderickson, N. (2010) ‘Bullying or befriending? Children’s responses to classmates with special
needs’ British Journal of Special Needs, 37 (1), pp.1-12.
Fernández, D. F. 2009. Discapacidad y bullying: una investigación en Centros Específicos de
Educación Especial de Córdoba capital (Disability and bullying: Research carried out in Special
Educational Schools in Cordoba). Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Córdoba.
Flynn, P. M., Shevlin, M., and Lodge, A. (2012) ‘Pupil voice and participation: Empowering children
with emotional and behavioural difficulties’. In T. Cole, H. Daniels, and J. Visser (Eds.), The
Routledge International Companion to Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties. Oxon: Routledge.
Government of Ireland (2004). Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act. Dublin:
The Stationery Office.
Holzbauer, J.J. (2008) ‘Disability Harassment Observed by Teachers in Special Education’, Journal
of Disability Policy Studies, 19, pp.162-171.
Hopkins, P.E. (2007) ‘Thinking Critically and Creatively about Focus Groups’ Area, 39 (4), pp.528535.
Humphrey, N., and Symes, W. (2010a) ‘Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying
among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools’. European
Journal of Special Needs Education. 25 (1), pp. 77-91.
Humphrey, N., and Symes, W. (2010b) ‘Responses to bullying and use of social support among pupils
with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in mainstream schools: A qualitative study’. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 (2), pp.82–90.
Krueger, R. and Casey, M. (2014) Focus Groups – A Practical Guide for Applied Research (5th
edition). London: Sage.
Longhurst R. (2003) Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In N.J. Clifford and G. Valentine
(Eds.) Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage.
Martlew, M. and Hodson, J. (1991) ‘Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in a
special school: comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers’ attitudes’. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 61, pp.355-372.
Mc Guckin, C., and Corcoran, L. (Eds.) (2015). Bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence,
psychological impacts and intervention strategies. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Mc Guckin, C., Cummins, P. K., and Lewis, C. A. (2010). “f2f and cyberbullying among children in
Northern Ireland: Data from the Kids Life and Times Surveys”. Psychology, Society, and Education
2, pp.83-96.
Mc Guckin, C., Lewis, C. A., and Cummins, P. K. (2010) ‘Experiences of school bullying,
psychological well-being and stress in Northern Ireland: Data from the 2004 Young Life and Times
Survey’. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 31 (1-2), pp.53-61.
Page 13 of 15
Mc Guckin, C., and Lewis, C. A. (2008). ‘Management of bullying in Northern Ireland schools: A
pre-legislative survey’. Educational Research, 50(1), pp.9-23.
Mencap (2007) Bullying wrecks lives: the experiences of children and young people with a learning
disability.
https://www.mencap.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/200803/Bullying%20wrecks%20lives.pdf
(accessed 30 November 2014)
Meyer, L. H., Minondo, S., Fisher, M., Larson, M. J., Dunmore, S., Black J. W. and D’Aquanni, M.
(1998) ‘Frames of friendship: social relationships of adolescents with diverse abilities’, in L. H.
Meyer, H.-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S. Schwartz and B. Harry (Eds) Making Friends: The
Influences of Culture And Development. Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brooks
Minton, S. J. (2012) ‘Alterophobic Bullying and Pro-Conformist Aggression in a Survey of Upper
Secondary School Students in Ireland’. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4, pp.8695.
Mishna, F. (2003) ‘Learning Disablity and Bullying: Double Jeopardy’, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 36 (4) pp.336–347.
Monchy de, M., Pijl, S.J. and Zandberg, T. (2004) ‘Discrepancies in Judging Social Inclusion and
Bullying of Pupils with Behaviour Problems’. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19 (3),
pp. 317-330.
Morgan, D. L. (1997) Focus Group as Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Morton, J. F., and Campbell, J. M. (2008) ‘Information source affects peers’ initial attitudes toward
autism’. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 29 (3), pp. 189–201.
Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum (2010) Is your child being bullied? Information for parents
and carers of children with disabilities and/or special educational needs. Belfast: NIABF.
Northern Ireland Assembly (Hansard) 23 June 2014 Volume 96, No 5, p.35.
Norwich, B. and Kelly, N. (2004) ‘Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and
bullying in mainstream and special schools’. British Educational Research Journal. 30 (1), pp.43-65.
O'Moore, M., and Minton, S. J. (2004). Dealing with bullying in schools: A training manual for
teachers, parents and other professionals. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. London: Wiley.
Purdy, N. and McGuckin, C. (2014) ‘Disablist Bullying in Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland: An investigation of student teachers’ knowledge, experience, and confidence’, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (4), pp. 446-456.
Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspectives. Oxford University
Press.
Shaha, S. (2007) ‘Special or mainstream? The views of disabled students’. Research Papers in
Education, 22(4), pp.425-442.
Shevlin, M. and Rose, R. (2003) Encouraging voices: Respecting the insights of young people who
have been marginalized. Dublin: National Disability Authority.
Page 14 of 15
Shevlin, M. (2010) ‘Valuing and learning from young people’. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting
obstacles to inclusion: International responses to developing inclusive education (pp. 103-121).
London: Routledge.
Shevlin, M., Winter, E., and Flynn, P. (2012). ‘Developing inclusive practice: Teacher perceptions of
opportunities and constraints in the Republic of Ireland’. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 17(10), pp.1119-1133.
Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 No. 1117 (N.I. 6).
Thompson, D., Whitney, I., and Smith, P. K. (1994) ‘Bullying of children with special needs in
mainstream schools’. Support for Learning, 9, pp.103–106.
Tonkiss, F. (2004) ‘Using Focus Groups’. In C. Seale (Ed.) Researching Society and Culture.
London: Sage.
United Nations (2006) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York:
United Nations. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml (accessed 30
November 2014).
United Nations (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United
Nations. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm (accessed 30 November 2014).
United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) (1994) The Salamanca statement on
principles, policy and practice in special needs education. World Conference on Special Needs
Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, UNESCO.
Unnever, J. D. and Cornell, D. G. (2003) ‘Bullying, self-control, and ADHD’. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 18, pp.129-147.
Völlink, T., Dehue, F., and Mc Guckin, C. (Eds). (2015). Cyberbullying and youth: From theory to
interventions. Current issues in social psychology series (series editor: Arjan Bos). London:
Psychology Press / Taylor and Francis.
Whitney, L., and Smith, P. K. (1993). ‘A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle
and secondary schools’. Educational Research, 35, pp.3-25.
Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D., and Smith, P. K. (1992) Bullying in schools: Mainstream and special
needs. Support for Learning, 7, pp.3–7.
Wilkinson, S. (2011) ‘Analysing Focus Group Data’, in D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative Research (3rd
Ed). London: Sage.
Page 15 of 15