The use and effectiveness of anti-bullying strategies in school.

220 Pages·2011·1.78 MB·English

Research Report DFE-RR098
The Use and
Effectiveness of Anti-
Bullying Strategies in
Schools
Fran Thompson and Peter K. Smith
Goldsmiths, University of London
This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took
office on 11 May 2010. As a result the content may not reflect current
Government policy and may make reference to the Department for Children,
Schools and Families (DCSF) which has now been replaced by the Department
for Education (DFE).

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Department for Education.
The Use and Effectiveness of Anti-Bullying Strategies in Schools
Plan of Report
This report is divided into five sections, plus examples of good practice and appendices.

The executive summary is available as a research brief. It can be accessed at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RB098.pdf

Section 1
1.1. Aims
1.2. Objectives
1.3. Methodology
Section 2 describes the consolidated findings regarding proactive strategies used in schools.
2.1 General findings for proactive strategies
2.2 Whole-school approaches
2.3 Classroom strategies
2.4 Playground strategies
2.5 Other proactive strategies
2.6 Proactive strategies summary
Section 3 describes the consolidated findings regarding peer support strategies used in schools.
3.1 General findings for peer support strategies
3.2 Buddy schemes
3.3 Peer mediation
3.4 Peer mentoring
3.5 Peer listening
3.6 Circle of friends
3.7 Bystander defender training
3.8 Playleaders/sports mentors
3.9 Bully busters and anti-bullying committees
3.10 Cybermentors
3.11 Lunchtime clubs
3.12 Peer support strategies summary
3.13 An evaluation of the peer mentoring pilot commissioned by the former Department of
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)
2
Section 4 describes the consolidated findings regarding reactive strategies used in schools.
4.1 General findings for the reactive strategies
4.2 Direct sanctions
4.3 Restorative approaches
4.4 Support group method
4.5 Pikas method
4.6 School tribunals
4.7 Other reactive strategies
4.8 Reactive strategies summary
Section 5 provides recommendations
5.1 General recommendations
5.2. Proactive strategies
5.3. Peer support strategies
5.4. Reactive strategies

A selection of case study schools as examples of good practice

Appendices 1-12

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their help and support with this
project. The research team at Goldsmiths, University of London: Sharon Howard, Dorothy Grigg,
Tiziana Pozzoli, Neil Tippett and Samaneh Sadeghi; and Anna Thompson for her help with
transcription.

Thanks are also due to many Healthy School regional coordinators and the majority of local authority
anti-bullying leads who helped disseminate the questionnaires for the first survey. Also all the case
study schools for their time and help in organising our visits and making time to be interviewed.

Finally, we are grateful for the support given by the DfE Steering Committee, in particular Sue Steel,
Lauren Seager-Smith and Fergus Crow of the Anti-Bullying Alliance; Lynne Parsons, National
Strategies; Ekow Armah, National Healthy School Programme; Thaddaeus Douglas, Beatbullying;
Ben McGrath, Mentoring and Befriending Foundation and Julie Crossan, NSPCC.
3
The Use and Effectiveness of Anti-Bullying
Strategies in Schools

A Report to the Department for Education from Goldsmiths,
University of London
with support from the Anti-Bullying Alliance

Section 1: Aims, objectives and methodology

The project started in September 2008 and lasted until November 2010. The research was conducted
by the Unit for School and Family Studies, based at Goldsmiths, University of London with support
from the Anti-Bullying Alliance. The project was directed by Professor Peter K. Smith and the main
researcher on the project was Ms Fran Thompson.

1.1 Aims
• To examine which strategies schools in England use to deal with episodes of bullying, and
which are supported by local authorities.
• To find out why schools choose these strategies; how their choice of strategy varies by age,
type of incident and type of bullying and how choice of strategy varies by sector
(primary/secondary/special/PRU)
• To evaluate the effectiveness of a range of strategies, from the perspective of the anti-bullying
lead, pupils and other school personnel.
• To make a final report and recommendations based on the above and on what constitutes
good practice in the strategies assessed as effective.
• An additional part of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the peer mentoring pilot
commissioned by the former Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), in a
quarter of the case study schools.
1.2 Objectives
• To focus on the use and success of a wide range of bullying strategies – those concerned with
dealing with episodes of bullying when they occur, and working with both the victims and
perpetrators. These were the primary strategies mentioned in the earlier Don’t Suffer in Silence
4
pack, the subsequent Safe to Learn guidance produced by the former DCSF, and in the
Tackling bullying in schools summary prepared by Goldsmiths for the Anti-Bullying Alliance.
• To focus in more detail on those strategies that can be used to deal directly with an incident of
bullying, where it will be possible to obtain more hard evidence on which strategy was used in
particular cases, and what kind of outcome was obtained. A range of important longer-term
proactive strategies are included, which provide a backdrop to the use and effectiveness of
immediate reactive strategies.
• To approach a random sample of schools as follows: 1,500 primaries, 1,300 secondaries, 50
special schools and 50 Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), with an expectation of a one third
response rate; to approach all local authorities in England; and to carry out more detailed work
in 36 case study schools.
1.3 Methodology
National surveys of schools and local authorities in England
These provide baseline information on which strategies are used by schools and supported by local
authorities, and the perceived effectiveness of those strategies in stopping bullying. From September
2008 to March 2009 a national survey was made, approaching all 150 local authorities and 10% of
schools, including schools participating in the former DCSF’s peer mentoring pilot. From September –
December 2009 a follow-up survey was made with schools that had responded previously.

The first survey asked schools and local authorities to give information on a range of anti-bullying
interventions that prevent and respond to bullying. All strategies were rated on a five point scale:
1 = very negative effect; 2= negative effect; 3= no effect; 4 = positive effect; 5 = very positive effect.
The effectiveness of each strategy is then expressed as a mean rating (e.g. 4.26).

Five of the main reactive strategies used by schools had more detailed questions about why schools
used the strategy and if they did not use it, why not; for what kind of incident and bullying was the
strategy used; were staff trained to deliver the strategy and were they supported by their local
authority; was there variation or change in the strategy and did they have evidence of its
effectiveness and if so, from what source. Local authorities were asked a similar set of questions
about the strategies that they recommended to schools.

Questionnaires were sent and returned by post, email, and online at the Unit for School and Family
studies website. The follow-up questionnaire sent to schools a year later used the same list of
5
strategies but asked different questions about its effectiveness in reducing bullying; cost effectiveness
and ease of implementation.
The national survey of schools and local authorities provided baseline data about proactive, peer
support and reactive strategies. In total, 1378 school questionnaires were obtained together with 527
follow-up school questionnaires. These were completed by school staff. In total, 47 local authority
questionnaires were completed by the anti-bullying lead.
Figure 1.1 shows the number of schools responding to each questionnaire, by sector. The target rate
of 10% of schools in England was exceeded for the primary, special and PRU sectors. However, the
target of 420 schools for secondary sector was not achieved. Very many schools were contacted for
the first survey, so it is not feasible to calculate a response rate. For the second survey the response
rate was 41%. All local authorities were represented in the school samples. Of 150 local authorities in
England, 47 returned questionnaires, so the response rate was 31%.

Figure 1.1: Numbers of schools responding for first and follow-up surveys
First questionnaire Second questionnaire
Primary 888 324
Secondary 387 167
Special 82 28
PRU 21 8
Total 1378 527

Individual case studies of selected schools
The case studies provide more detailed information on school practice in the use of anti-bullying
strategies and examples of good practice guidelines. Besides information from staff, pupils were also
interviewed. A selection of 36 case study schools was made; 16 primaries (including one infant); 17
secondaries; one special school; and two PRUs. These included 12 schools from the former DCSF
peer mentoring pilot, four primaries and eight secondaries, comprising four each from the three
relevant schemes: Childline in Partnership with School, Beatbullying, and Mentoring and Befriending
Foundation.

Schools were selected from the nine regions of England as defined by the Anti-Bullying Alliance.
They ranged from rural to inner city schools, some in wealthy areas and comfortable suburbs, but
almost a third in areas of significant deprivation and unemployment. A few schools had been in
special measures and others were succeeding in preventing and responding to bullying in extremely
6
difficult circumstances. Some of the schools were in the process of turning round. Other schools had
effective systems in place but needed to fight stasis in anti-bullying work and others in more
privileged areas struggled with the inclusion of students from local housing estates. The special
school was situated in a large county and had a full range of students with special educational needs
and a unit devoted to students on the autistic spectrum. One PRU was in a large provincial city and
had a clinical intake; the second PRU was based in inner city London.

Schools were visited during summer term 2009, and interviews were held with selected staff, and
interviews and focus groups with pupils, to look in detail at how strategies are employed and what
outcomes are achieved. School incident reports were left to be filled in. In spring 2010, schools were
contacted again by telephone to assess changes, clarify ambiguities, and collect report forms.

Figure 1.2 shows the numbers of staff and pupils interviewed at the case study schools (16 primaries
and 17 secondaries). In addition, four staff and nine students were interviewed at the special school
and seven staff and eleven students at the two PRUs.

Figure 1.2: Numbers of staff and students interviewed in mainstream case study schools
(n=33)
34
School staff interviewed
67
Student focus groups with 172
peer supporters 107
Primary (n =16)
Secondary (n=17)
Student focus groups (not 107
peer supporters) 93
Interviews with students 43
involved in bullying
incidents 57

Data sources - summary
There were six sources of data for this report:
• 1378 school questionnaires with base line data about proactive; peer support and reactive
strategies.
• 527 follow-up school questionnaires asking different questions about the same range of
strategies.
7
• 47 local authority questionnaires with base line data about proactive; peer support and reactive
strategies.
• 36 case study visits with information from interviews of anti-bullying staff; peer supporters;
other students and students involved in bullying incidents.
• 36 follow-up case study interviews with anti-bullying leads.
• 285 bullying incident records from all case study schools except the nursery, which had none:
o 177 were provided by staff in 27 of the case study schools – 11 primaries; 14
secondaries; the special school and one PRU.
o 108 were from interviews with students involved in bullying incidents, in 31 of the case
study schools.

Overview of findings on school usage and ratings of main strategies
Three main approaches were distinguished: proactive strategies; peer support strategies; and
reactive strategies. Figures 1.3 and 1.4 give an overview of the findings from the first school survey,
on strategy usage and effectiveness ratings. Figure 1.3 shows the percentages of schools using a
range of proactive, peer support and reactive strategies. Figure 1.4 shows school ratings for a range
of proactive, peer support and reactive strategies.

Proactive strategies are in three sections:
• Whole-school approaches are in pale orange.
• Classroom strategies are in pale yellow.
• Playground strategies are in pale green.
Peer support strategies are in purple.
Reactive strategies are in blue.

NB: We have tried to include information from all four sectors in the report, charts and
figures. However, if the data was from fewer than 25 schools, this has been omitted
from the figures as the small sample size would make percentage comparisons
unreliable. This applied mostly to the PRUs and sometimes to the special schools but
also to strategies used by a minority of schools.

8
Figure 1.3: Percentages of 1378 schools from the first survey using a range of strategies
(strategies in order of most used).
PSHEE 99%
Assemblies 98%
School council 97%
National Healthy School Programme 93%
Adult modelling of positive relationships 91%
Developing a restorative ethos and culture 88%
Systems that support parent/carer involvement 86%
SEAL 85%
Improving school environment 81%
Curriculum work 96%
Cooperative group work 89%
Circle time 86%
Quality circles 16%
Improving school grounds 81%
Training lunchtime supervisors 80%
Playground policy 46%
Buddy schemes 69%
Circles of friends 68%
Peer mentoring 48%
Peer listening 34%
Peer mediation 27%
Bystander defender training 4%
Direct sanctions 92%
Restorative approaches 70%
Other reactive strategies 12%
Support group method 10%
Pikas method 5%
School tribunals 2%

9