School policies on bullying and cyberbullying: perspectives across three Australian states

Abstract

BackgroundDespite decades of research, bullying in all its forms is still a significant problem within schools in Australia, as it is internationally. Anti-bullying policies and guidelines are thought to be one strategy as part of a whole school approach to reduce bullying. However, although Australian schools are required to have these policies, their effectiveness is not clear. As policies and guidelines about bullying and cyberbullying are developed within education departments, this paper explores the perspectives of those who are involved in their construction. PurposeThis study examined the perspectives of professionals involved in policy construction, across three different Australian states. The aim was to determine how their relative jurisdictions define bullying and cyberbullying, the processes for developing policy, the bullying prevention and intervention recommendations given to schools and the content considered essential in current policies. SampleEleven key stakeholders from three Australian states with similar education systems were invited to participate. The sample selection criteria included professionals with experience and training in education, cyber-safety and the responsibility to contribute to or make decisions which inform policy in this area for schools in their state. Design and MethodsParticipants were interviewed about the definitions of bullying they used in their state policy frameworks; the extent to which cyberbullying was included and the content they considered essential for schools to include in anti-bullying policies. Data were collected through indepth, semi-structured interviews and analysed thematically. FindingsSeven themes were identified in the data: (1) Definition of bullying and cyberbullying; (2) Existence of a policy template; (3) Policy location; (4) Adding cyberbullying; (5) Distinguishing between bullying and cyberbullying; (6) Effective policy; and (7) Policy as a prevention or intervention tool. The results were similar both across state boundaries and also across different disciplines. ConclusionAnalysis of the data suggested that, across the themes, there was some lack of information about bullying, and cyberbullying. This limitation could affect the subsequent development, dissemination and sustainability of school anti-bullying policies, which has implications for the translation of research to inform better student outcomes.

How do secondary school students explain bullying?

“…Bullying is traditionally defined as repeated aggression or harmful actions directed at target individuals, who are disadvantaged or less powerful in their interactions with the perpetrator or the perpetrators (e.g. Chalmers et al 2016;Cowie and Jennifer 2008;Eriksen 2018;Espelage and Swearer 2011;Jimerson, Swearer, and Espelage 2010;Yang and Salmivalli 2015), even though there is an ongoing debate among scholars about how to define bullying (e.g. Canty et al 2016;Horton 2011;Schott and Søndergaard 2014;Volk, Veenstra, and Espelage 2017).…”

Social Pedagogues’ Definitions Of Three Types Of Bullying

“…Also, policy-makers were interviewed about the definitions of school bullying and cyberbullying that they have used in their state policy frameworks. Most of the participants' definitions of bullying and cyberbullying in school context did not correspond fully with the commonly agreed definition used by researchers showing partial definition for bullying and/or cyberbullying in the area of repetition and intention without mentions of power imbalance (Chalmers et al, 2016).…”

The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition

“…Whichever way it is defined, bullying is a serious and widespread problem that severely affects those exposed to it at the time of the bullying (Cornell et al 2013;Rigby 2003) and has a long-term impact on their mental health and well-being (Arseneault, Bowes, and Shakoor 2010;Lereya et al 2015). Therefore, school staff and students need to know what bullying is in order to recognise, report, and stop it (Chalmers et al 2016; DeOrnellas and Spurgin 2017). Exclusion, talking about other people behind their backs, and spreading rumours about others, often called 'indirect bullying', tend not to be included as often in the lay bullying definitions (Maunder, Harrop, and Tattersall 2010) or in younger children's definition of bullying (Smith, Madsen, and Moody 1999).…”

“…Several studies have found that teachers experience difficulties in applying the definition of bullying (Ellwood and Davies 2010;Migliaccio 2015;Naylor et al 2006) and that they spend much time and effort on determining whether an incident is bullying (Allen 2015). Educators' definitions of bullying often differ from the definition commonly used by researchers (Chalmers et al 2016;Cheng et al 2011;Craig, Bell, and Leschied 2011;Harger 2016); likewise, staff and students' definitions also frequently differ (Maunder, Harrop, and Tattersall 2010;Naylor et al 2006). Many studies have found that students may construct and justify bullying victimisation as a consequence of the 'victim's' perceived difference from themselves (Forsberg 2017;Ryan and Morgan 2011;Thornberg 2011Thornberg , 2015.…”

“…Many studies have found that students may construct and justify bullying victimisation as a consequence of the 'victim's' perceived difference from themselves (Forsberg 2017;Ryan and Morgan 2011;Thornberg 2011Thornberg , 2015. Policy makers' definitions may also vary; in an Australian study, Chalmers et al (2016) reported that only one of eleven professionals involved in policy making used a definition similar to the established one.…”