stark county olweus bullying prevention program (obpp)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Definitions .................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary .................................................................................... 5

Introduction................................................................................................. 6

Data and Methods ....................................................................................... 8

Metrics .............................................................................................. 10

Limitations ........................................................................................ 11

Results ...................................................................................................... 13

Olweus (Student) Bullying Questionnaires (OBQ) .......................... 13

Teacher Surveys ............................................................................... 21

Building Survey and On-Site Interviews .......................................... 24

Implementation and Fidelity to the Model ....................................... 28

Recommendations ..................................................................................... 29

References................................................................................................. 30

Appendix A: OBQ 2015-16 Implementation Years 1,2 and 3 .................. 31

Appendix B: 2016 Olweus Teacher Survey ............................................. 51

Appendix C: Building Survey 2016.......................................................... 54

Appendix D: Qualitative Building Interview Questions for Year Four and

Beyond Implementers of the OBPP .................................................. 57

Appendix E: Fidelity Checklist, First Year Form, Years 1 & 2................ 58

Appendix F: Fidelity Checklist, For Continued Program Implementation:

Year 3 ............................................................................................... 61

Fourth Year Report – Stark County Olweus Bullying Prevention Program 3

DEFINITIONS

Bullying: “A person is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons” (Olweus 1994: 98).

Building Survey: Prior to the on-site interview, a short building survey using SurveyMonkey Inc. was sent to Olweus schools in their third and fourth years of implementation (see Appendix C).

Bystander: “Individuals who are neither victims nor perpetrators of bullying” are bystanders (Padgett and Notar 2013: 33). A bystander may do nothing and let the bullying happen, join in, or participate in bullying.

Cohort: A cohort refers to the group of schools that started the Olweus program in the same year. As of May 2016, there were four existing cohorts. While cohort 1 overall continues either all or parts of the Olweus program, those schools were not a part of the grant in 2015-16 and thus they did not collect student-level data using the Olweus questionnaire explained below. Other data, gathered by internal evaluators, was collected in the form of a building survey and on-site interviews.

Cohort 1 – 2012-13 Implementation Year Cohort 2 – 2013-14 Implementation Year Cohort 3 – 2014-15 Implementation Year Cohort 4 – 2015-16 Implementation Year

Empathy: Empathy is one’s “ability to share someone else’s feelings” (http://www.merriam-webster.com /dictionary/empathy). Another way to think of empathy is the ability to put oneself in another person’s position and attempt to understand their experiences from the other person’s perspective- to figuratively ‘put yourself in someone else’s shoes.’

Fidelity Checklist: The Olweus Fidelity Checklist a list of questions for action items that measure how well the program is being implemented at the building level. There are two forms, one for first year implementation and one for continuing implementers (years 2 and 3; see Appendix E and F). Both have questions surrounding the following dimensions: bullying prevention coordinating committee (BPCC), staff training, Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ), school-wide events, classroom-level activities, school rules and individual interventions. For those continuing there are two additional dimensions to fidelity: celebrating and enhancing the program.

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP): The OBPP “is a long-term, system-wide program for change involving program components at four levels”: school-level, individual-level, classroom-level and community-level components (http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_scope.page). It “is a comprehensive model that utilizes annual surveys, classroom curriculum, implementation resources and training. When the program is implemented as written (with fidelity to program components and principles), positive outcomes for schools include: reductions in bullying behavior; lower rates of alcohol and other drug abuse; and improved academic achievement” (http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/ public/olweus_program_materials.page).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_scope.page

http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_program_materials.page

http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_program_materials.page


Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ): The OBQ is a compilation of 42 standardized multiple-choice questions measuring various dimensions of bullying behavior among school-age (grades 3rd-12th) children (see Appendix A).

Olweus Schools: Schools in Stark County that are currently implementing and/or have implemented the Olweus1 Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) for the duration of the Sisters of Charity grant.

On-Site Interview: Internal evaluators visited schools in their fourth year of implementation for on-site interviews with administrators during the months of April and May of 2016 (see Appendix D).

Teacher Survey: A short survey using SurveyMonkey Inc. was sent to teachers currently teaching in Olweus Schools (see Appendix B).

Upstander: When a bystander takes the initiative to intervene or stop the bullying as it happens, their designation switches to upstander: “a person who stands up, speaks out, and/or takes action in defense of those who are targeted for harm or injustice” (http://upstanderproject.org/).

1 “The names “Olweus” and “Olweus Bullying Prevention Program” are protected as trademarks and may not be used in any way that involves self-promotion or the sale of products without the written permission of Hazelden as the publisher” (file:///C:/Users/ Office/Downloads/olweus_research_history.pdf).


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the end of year four in the grant, the OBPP has been adopted by 52 schools in Stark County – a 126% increase from year one.

In the sample, teachers overall responded that they:

– Are committed to implementing the OBPP at their school; – Feel they are receiving support from administration; – Work to intervene when they see bullying happen; – Overall see better relationships in their schools between teachers and students; and – Were committed enough to request needing more resources from the Olweus team.

Among 3rd through 5th graders, comparing cohorts 2 (in year three of implementation) and cohort 3

(in year two of implementation), both boys (-10.9%) and girls (-4.2%) in cohort 2 reported a lower percentage of being bullied.

Long-term bullying showed a decrease from cohort 3 to cohort 2 for grades 3rd – 5th.

Boys were less likely than girls to tell someone about being bullied.

Comparing cohort 2 to cohort 3, the percent of students who told no one they were bullied decreased 4% for 3rd-5th graders and decreased 3% for 6th-8th graders.

Boys and girls in cohort 2 reported higher percentages of empathy for grade bands 3rd-5th and 6th-8th, when compared to cohort 3.

Comparing girls and boys for 3rd-5th grades, cohort 2 was higher by 7 percentage points than cohort 3 when choosing to become an upstander. A 5% increase was seen between the cohorts for 6th-8th graders as well.

There were fewer bystanders in Stark County OBPP schools when compared to the same grades in the nation.

A majority of cohort 1 schools (80%) are choosing to continue with an anti-bullying program and have an implementation plan in place.

Overall, OBPP schools in the first three years of implementation made good progress toward implementing the program with fidelity.


INTRODUCTION

Bullying is a pervasive issue that has detrimental impacts on society (Rivara and LeMenestrel, 2016). Particularly vulnerable are our youth, both as victims and perpetrators. According to Dan Olweus2, “[a] person is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons” (1994, p.98). Bullying comes in different forms such as verbal abuse, physical injury, exclusion, taunting and has deleterious effects for not only the victims of bullying, but bullies and witnesses as well. These effects include “poor school performance, anxiety, depression, and future delinquent and aggressive behavior” (Rivara and Minstrel 2016, p. 13).

Students who are bullied tend to be depressed, introverted and more passive (Beran and Shapiro, 2005). Thus, it is important to assess how many students are not telling anyone about being bullied.

The largest group present in any incident of bullying is the bystander. Bystanders “are individuals who are neither victims nor perpetrators of bullying” (Padgett and Notar, 2013 p. 33). According to Padgett and Notar (2013) most bullying occurs when there is a peer audience. The audience then adds to the incident and solidifies the status and power of the bully, as well as adding to the fear of becoming the victim for those watching. The “bystander usually accepts or even participates in the bullying, or they may try to stop the bully and take up for the target” (p. 33). When a bystander ignores bullying, it is seen as encouragement and that student in essence is enabling the bully. Studies have shown that bystanders choosing to intervene and stop bullying is an essential element to ending bullying altogether. Once a bystander takes the initiative to intervene, s/he transforms into what industry professionals refer to as an upstander. An upstander is “a person who stands up, speaks out, and/or takes action in defense of those who are targeted for harm or injustice” (http://upstanderproject.org/).

Researchers argue that empathy (the ability to feel what another feels), as a part of the “prosocial personality” characteristics, is one aspect that leads individuals to intervene and help others3. Empathy is one part of what motivates one student to help another. Further, both boys and girls who bully have less empathy towards others4. Erdogdu (2016) suggests that when empathy is modeled by teachers and parents, it leads to students being more empathetic.

To combat bullying in grade schools, the Stark County Educational Service Center (SCESC) and the Stark County parochial schools made a proposal in August 2011 to the Sisters of Charity Foundation of Canton to fund the Olweus (pronounced Ol-VEY-us) Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP).

2 The Ohio State Legislator has an Anti-Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying Model Policy, approved by the State Board of Education which includes procedures for reporting, documenting and investigating incidents of harassment, intimidation and bullying (including cyber bullying) as explained in the Ohio Revised Code (https://saferschools.ohio.gov/content/anti_harassment _intimidation_and_bullying_resources). The Ohio saferschools.ohio.gov definition for bullying (which includes harassment and intimidation) aligns with that of Olweus. Ohio’s definition for bullying: “actions that are unwanted, are intended to harm someone’s feelings or physical safety, occur more than once or threaten to happen again, and are by a student or a group of students with real or perceived power” (see https://saferschools.ohio.gov/content/anti_harassment_intimidation_and_ bullying_resources for more information). 3 Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger and Freifeld (1995) conduct the research, as cited in Zoccola, Green, Karoutsos, Katona and Sabini (2011). 4 These findings are according to Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) as cited in Erdogdu (2016).

https://saferschools.ohio.gov/content/anti_harassment_intimidation_and_bullying_resources





The OBPP is the most extensively researched bullying prevention program available today. If implemented with fidelity, it is a whole school program that involves students, staff, parents and the community (because incidents of bullying do not occur only at school) in unified and consistent approaches in the prevention of bullying. Olweus employs standardized principles and rules utilizing training and manuals. At its very core, OBPP also represents a cultural shift. All stakeholders must buy into shared attitudes, values, goals and practices for OBPP to reduce bullying.

Studies show that the effects of the OBPP on reducing bullying may not be seen until six months or more after the initial implementation of the program (Smith, Pepler & Rigby, 2004). “There was little evidence of change in the first phase of the programme implementation, and some indicators suggested that the problems may have worsened [initially]” (Smith et al., 2004: p. 136). Smith et al. (2004) attribute the initial increase in bullying to a growth in awareness of bullying as a problem.

Studies have shown differences in bullying by gender in youth (Rivara and LeMenestrel, 2016; Gropper and Froschl, 1999). Not only do studies find that boys tend to bully more, and girls tend to report incidents more often than boys, but boys were also more likely to be involved in bullying period. The two types of bullying most commonly found among younger students involves “being made fun of or called names and being the subject of rumors” (Rivara and LeMenestrel, 2016: p. 44). In general, physical bullying is seen with boys, and most relational bullying (rumors, exclusion) is seen among girls (Rivara and LeMenestrel, 2016).

Two main questions will be discussed in this report: Has the OBPP helped to reduce reported incidents of bullying behavior in Stark County OBPP schools in year three implementation (cohort 2)?; and Has the OBPP been implemented with fidelity in school cohorts years 2-4? Research question one focuses on a reduction in reported incidents of bullying in OBPP schools, but also includes reporting on variables related to instances of bullying. Research question two concentrates on the fidelity shown by OBPP schools in 2015-16 reports.


DATA AND METHODS

At the end of year four in the grant, the OBPP has been adopted by 52 Stark County schools. This shows a positive difference of 29 schools since year one of the grant, representing a 126% increase. In 2015-16 approximately 31,716 students attended schools implementing the OBPP. This total does not include schools who continue to use OBPP in part or its entirety beyond year three.

Table 1: The 52 Olweus Schools in 11 Districts

Cohort 4 – Year I Implementation (9 total schools) District School Name Location Grade Canton City Allen Elementary Canton PK-2 Canton City Belle Stone Elementary Canton PK-2 Canton City Dueber Elementary Canton PK-2 Canton City Harter Elementary Canton PK-2 Canton City McGregor Elementary Canton PK-2 Canton City McKinley Senior High*5 Canton 9-12 Canton City Schreiber Elementary Canton PK-2 Canton City Timken Early College High** Canton 9-12 Canton City Worley Elementary Canton PK-2

Cohort 3 – Year II Implementation (15 total schools) District School Name Location Grade

Canton City Altitude Career Tech and Wellness Academy @ Crenshaw* Canton 6-8

Canton City Arts Academy @ Summit* Canton K-8 Canton City Belden Elementary* Canton 3-5 Canton City Cedar Elementary* Canton 3-5 Canton City Clarendon Elementary* Canton 3-5

Canton City College and Career Readiness Academy @ Lehman* Canton 6-8

Canton City Compton Learning Center* Canton 6-12 Canton City Early College Academy @ Souers* Canton 6-8 Canton City Gibbs Elementary* Canton 3-5 Canton City Mason Elementary* Canton 3-5

5 *OBQ administered to 3rd – 12th graders; not given to students in grades K-2. ** Timken Early College High School (TECHS) students were included with McKinley High School for the OBQ. While students that attend TECHS are also listed as McKinley students, TECHS does have its own faculty and staff and thus two sets of faculty and staff needed Olweus training in order to implement the program. This was completed in the fall of 2016. ***Malvern Middle School did OBQs in March 2013; May 2014; May 2015.


Canton City STEAMM Academy @ Hartford* Canton 6-8 Canton City Youtz Elementary* Canton 3-5 Minerva Minerva Elementary* Minerva K-5 Minerva Minerva High* Minerva 9-12 Minerva Minerva Middle* Minerva 6-8

Cohort 2 – Year III Implementation (5 total schools) District School Name Location Grade Alliance City Alliance Middle* Alliance 6-8 Brown Local Malvern Middle *** Malvern 6-8 Louisville City Louisville Elementary* Louisville K-5 Louisville City North Nimishillen Elementary Louisville Pre K-3 Perry Local Pfeiffer Intermediate* Massillon 5-6

Cohort 1 – Year IV and Beyond (23 total schools) District School Name Location Grade Canton Local Canton South High Canton 9-12 Canton Local Faircrest Memorial Middle Canton 5-8 Canton Local Walker Elementary Canton PK-4 Diocese of Youngstown Our Lady of Peace Elementary Canton PK-5 Diocese of Youngstown Regina Coeli St. Joseph Elementary Alliance PK-5 Diocese of Youngstown SS. Philip and James Elementary Canal Fulton PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Barbara Elementary Massillon PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Joan of Arc Elementary Canton PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Joseph Elementary Canton PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Louis Elementary Louisville PK-5 Diocese of Youngstown St. Mary Elementary Massillon PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Michael Elementary Canton PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Paul Elementary North Canton PK-8 Diocese of Youngstown St. Peter Elementary Canton PK-5 Fairless Local Fairless Middle Navarre 6-8 Northwest Local Northwest High Canal Fulton 9-12 Northwest Local Northwest Middle Canal Fulton 6-8 Northwest Local Northwest Primary Canal Fulton K-2 Northwest Local Stinson Elementary Canal Fulton 3-5 Perry Local Watson Elementary Massillon K-5 Sandy Valley Local Sandy Valley Elementary Magnolia PK-5 Sandy Valley Local Sandy Valley High Magnolia 9-12 Sandy Valley Local Sandy Valley Middle Magnolia 6-8


This report focuses on the implementation and effectiveness of the OBPP in participating Stark County schools within the first three years of integrating the program using five metrics. Contributors to this evaluation report include: external evaluator, Dr. Liza Grossman and graphic editor Kim Ross with Stark Education Partnership; and internal evaluators Joyce Lemke and Maureen Capellas with the Stark County Educational Service Center (SCESC). Additional thanks to Dr. Teresa Purses and Adele Gelb from Stark Education Partnership for their aid in the editing process.

The Metrics The Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ) – Prior to implementing the Olweus program, each school administered the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ) to its students. It is a standardized and valid survey created to measure different aspects of bullying in grade school, middle school and high schools across the world. There are 42 questions. The OBQ is subsequently re-administered on a yearly basis through the third year of implementation. OBQ allows each school to measure changes in bullying behaviors at their site over time. The full results for the Stark County report can be viewed in Appendix A. Other data and analysis were included without the full OBQ reports for cohort years two and three. In order to protect the school and student’s identities, no data were shared from individual schools.

The OBQ had approximately an 84% response rate with a total of 7,587 qualified students completing the OBQ this year (SurveyMonkey, 2009)6. It should be noted that smaller samples at different grade levels and the administration of the survey to students who happened to attend school that particular day did limit the generalizability of the data and year-to-year comparisons. Comparisons were made between years as well as between cohorts in the same year (2015-16). The authors of the OBQ recommend that comparisons be made by grade level(s) due to the developmental differences that occur as students age.

The OBQ raw data is held by Dan Olweus and Hazeldon Publishing, and the data provided to those using the program is in table and graph format. Analysis on the OBQ data was conducted using the summary OBQ report (n=7,587). This included all OBPP schools within the first three years of implementation, the second year (n=4,300) implementation cohort, and third year (n=1,878). The latter two reports were used in order to do a comparison analysis. Due to the way in which the data were provided, descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were used.

Within the OBQ there were five indicators used to assess how effective the OBPP has been in Stark County schools. These included the variables:

Percent of reported incidents of bullying (Q4); Percent of students who “told nobody” about being bullied (Q11); Students as bystanders (Q21); Levels of empathy toward others (Q23); and Students’ perception of teacher (and other adults at school) intervention in instances of

bullying (Q20).

6 The response rate was calculated with student enrollment numbers for all participating schools. Because over the course of the year student enrollment can shift, the percentage was considered an approximation.


Teacher Surveys – Teachers in participating schools were asked to respond in May to the annual survey about Olweus implementation and changes in student/staff relationships administered through SurveyMonkey. First through third year implementer responses are presented. The response rate for the teacher survey was 31%. Building Surveys – Building administrators of OBPP schools in implementation years three and four or more completed a short survey using SurveyMonkey ahead of the in-person interviews completed by the internal evaluator. A content analysis is used to find themes from the interviews.

On-Site Visit – During April and May of 2016, the internal evaluator conducted Olweus interviews with administrators at 12 schools implementing anti-bullying techniques in their fourth plus year of implementation. Those interviewed included principals, teachers and school counselors. See Appendix D for a list of guiding interview questions.

Fidelity to the Model – Site coordinators or principals at each school were asked to complete a first year or continuing implementation checklist that records the progress of implementing elements of the OBPP. This evaluation assessed the results for both forms. These data, along with the teacher surveys, are key indicators of program implementation progress. A comparison of the metrics (see Appendixes E and F) for schools who reported using the first year implementation and those using the continuing form (years 2 and 3) were assessed separately. A descriptive analysis was used to determine fidelity to OBPP.

Where appropriate, tests of statistical significance were conducted using chi-square. All tests of significance were done using the p < .05 level.

Limitations

The chi-square test does not give us much information about the strength of the relationship or its substantive significance in the population. Also, chi-square is sensitive to the sample size. It merely tests whether a statistical difference exists between two groups, it does not address substantive differences.

While the use of Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ) continues to grow, year-to-year comparisons were still limited due to schools being at different stages of implementation (starting, one or two year, etc.) and wide variation in distribution – particularly to upper grade levels. The OBQ was used with students from grades 3rd through 12th and consisted of 42 questions.

Comparisons using OBQ data must be made cautiously. If school populations stayed the same, results from one year could easily be compared to the second. However, schools are constantly changing. Fifth graders become 6th graders, some students leave while others come in. A teacher in one class may give the questionnaire one year, but not the next. The population that responds this year is not exactly the population that responded last year. Further limiting generalizations, the sample for each grade was based on who was in attendance on the day the questionnaire was administered.

Given the limitations, a review of OBQ results here may present the best “snap shot” of how school culture is changing.


OBQ recommends that the questionnaire be administered to students in grades 3rd-12th. Therefore, the OBQ was not administered to students in K-2, however, there were students who were in those grades in implementing schools. Thus, it was not possible to generalize the findings beyond these grades. Further, the results cannot be generalized to students in OBPP Stark County schools where the OBQ was not administered; therefore, the population for this report was limited to students in grades 3rd-12th OBPP schools – years one through three implementations.

Descriptive statistics are used as opposed to more powerful statistical procedures because no case level data was provided. This limits the extent findings can be generalized and attributed. However, having multiple years, as well as being able to compare by cohort, allows for patterns to emerge and provides the ability to assess the following two research questions:

1) Has the OBPP helped to reduce reported incidents of bullying behavior in Stark County OBPP schools in year three implementation (cohort 2)?7; and

2) Has the OBPP been implemented with fidelity in school cohorts years 2-4?

7 A subset question linked to research question 1 is: Whether or not the OBPP has a long-lasting effect on bullying? Building Surveys and Site Interviews will be used to help answer this question. The sample is smaller, and the data is mainly qualitative in nature. While harder to generalize, qualitative data adds a deeper understanding of how well the program is working and areas of opportunity for improvement.


RESULTS: OLWEUS (STUDENT) BULLYING QUESTIONNAIRES (OBQ)

During the 2015-16 academic year 7,587 students (3,774 girls and 3,813 boys) attending OBPP schools in years one through three of implementation in Stark County completed the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire compared to 7,280 total students the previous year. Results using aggregated data collected from schools in their second and third years of implementation are presented in this section. While this gives an “overall” picture of bullying in Stark County for schools in years two (cohort 3) and three (cohort 2) of implementation respectively, discrete changes are difficult to calculate.

Chart 1: Number of Girls and Boys Responding by Grade

Declining Bully Incidents: Comparing Cohort 2 and 3 In comparing cohort years, the data did not show the same group of students from year-to-year, but instead two different groups of students – one in year 2 of implementation (cohort 3) and another group of schools in year 3 of implementation (cohort 2). Thus, the important comparison is between how many years the OBPP has been implemented with students in general and not focusing on the difference(s) which may be found in specific students. While differences between student groups cannot be controlled, it does provide a cursory view of how students at the same developmental stage (grade band) are reacting to the OBPP.

When the cohort implementation years’ percentages were compared, both boys and girls in grades 3rd through 5th had a lower percentage of reported incidents of being bullied “2-3 times per month” or more


in the past couple of months.8 The percentage for girls in grades 3rd through 5th comparing cohort 2 and 3, decreased 4.2%. Boys had an even greater decrease of 10.9% between cohorts for the same grade band. As with other studies (Smith et al., 2004), time was needed in order to see a decline in bullying incidents.

Table 2: Cohort 3 and Cohort 2 Comparison for Grades 3-8 in 2015-16 Bullied “2-3 Times Per Month” or More in the Past Two Months

Implementation Year Girls 3rd-5th Grades

Girls 6th-8th Grades

Boys 3rd-5th Grades

Boys 6th-8th Grades

Cohort 3 (Year II) N = 4,300 26% 19% 25% 15%

Cohort 2 (Year III)* N=1,878 22% 24% 14% 17%

Percent Difference – 4.2% 5.3% – 10.9% 2% *The chi-square statistic is 8.7303. The p-value is 0.00313. The result is significant at p < 0.05.

“Told Nobody” About Being Bullied While it is not unusual for the increase in reported bullying behavior to occur due to increased awareness, other indicators of the program can help in assessing the effectiveness of the program – such as whether students who were bullied told someone of the incident. The following is compiled data for OBPP school years one to three, broken down for girls and then boys. “Talking to someone” refers to a student telling a teacher, other adult at school, parent/guardian, a brother, sister or friend about their experiences(s) being bullied. Students who are bullied tend to be depressed, introverted and more passive (Beran and Shapiro, 2005). Based on these findings, as the program was implemented for longer periods of time, fewer students (both boys and girls) told no one of being bullied. Fewer students telling no one about bullying shows that a lower percentage of students were isolated.

8 When comparing cohort data only grades 3 – 8 were used because the cohort 2 did not have data for students in grades 9-12.


Cohort 2 and 3 Comparison As shown in Table 3, the percentage of girls in both 3rd–5th grades and 6th–8th grades who told no one about being bullied decreased. In the 3rd –5th grade band, it decreased 4%, and in the 6th–8th grade band, the difference was 7%. The percentage of boys in the 3rd-5th grade band who told no one declined 2% while boys in the 6th–8th grade went up 2%. Overall, both the percent of boys and girls who were isolated by telling no one about being bullied declined over time. Table 3: Percentage of Students Who Have Not Told Anyone About the Bullying (Q19 and Q19b)

Cohort 3 – Year II Implementation (2015-16) 3rd – 5th 6th – 8th 10th – 12th Total Girls 20% 28% 0.0% 23% Boys 24% 28% 15% 25% Girls and Boys 22% 28% 8.7% 24%

Cohort 2* – Year III Implementation (2015-16) 3rd – 5th 6th – 8th 10th – 12th Total Girls 16% 21% 18% Boys 22% 30% 26% Girls and Boys 18% 25% 21%

Percent Decrease for Girls and Boys -4% -3% Note: Highlighted data shows a lower percentage in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 3 *When comparing boys’ and girls’ percentages Cohort 2 and 3, the chi-square statistic is 5.2335. The p-value is 0.022156; the result is significant at p <0.05.

Telling someone about being bullied is the first step in addressing bullying.9 These findings suggest that overall, girls were talking about their experience of being bullied proportionately more than boys.10

Student Empathy Empathy is one of the aspects that motivates students to help their peers who are being bullied (Penner et al., 1995). Essentially, empathy leads students to be upstanders. Boys and girls (grades 3rd -5th and 6th - 8th) in cohort 2 reported higher percentages of empathy when compared to cohort 3. Further, cohort 2, with the exception of girls in grades 6th-8th, had higher percentages of empathy than the national comparisons. Empathy is a very important factor for reducing incidents of bullying. It is a good sign that empathy was higher for students in cohort 2 when compared to cohort 3.

9 (http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/index.page, retrieved on October 11, 2016). 10 When comparing implementation years for all schools, we can see that overall, in 2014-15 24% of boys and girls told nobody about being bullied. While in 2015-16, 23% of both boys and girls in the sample told nobody they were bullied. This was a slight decrease, but an important one.

http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/index.page


Table 4: Percentage of Students Who Responded They "Feel a Bit Sorry" or "Feel Sorry and Want to Help" to Q23: When You See a Student Your Age Being Bullied at School, What Do You Feel or Think?

Cohort 3 – Year II Implementation (2015-16) 3rd – 5th 6th – 8th 10th – 12th total Girls 91% 87% 89% 89% Boys 84% 76% 63% 79% Girls and Boys 87% 81% 77% 84% Girls National Comparison 94% 93% 91% 94% Boys National Comparison 89% 82% 73% 85% Girls and Boys National Comparison 92% 88% 82% 89%

Cohort 2* – Year III Implementation (2015-16) 3rd – 5th 6th – 8th 10th – 12th total Girls 96% 90% 93% Boys 91% 81% 86% Girls and Boys 94% 85% 89% Girls National Comparison 95% 93% 94% Boys National Comparison 89% 84% 87% Girls and Boys National Comparison 92% 89% 90%

Note: Highlighted data shows a higher percentage in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 3 Note: Highlighted data shows a lower national percentage compared to Stark County in the same year

*When comparing girls' and boys' percentages cohort 2 and 3, the chi-square statistic is 0.0184. The p-value is .892045. The result is not significant at p < .05.

Upstanders and Bystanders Table 5 shows that when comparing the percentage of students who responded that they “try to help the bullied student” when faced with an incidence of bullying, nearly every grade band and group is higher than the national comparison for cohort 2. Further, in cohort 2, both boys and girls in grade bands 3rd-5th grades and 6th-8th grades had higher reported percentages for trying to help fellow classmates when being bullied than those in the same grade bands in cohort 3. Cohort 2 did not have any high schools in the sample, thus cohort 3’s 10th-12th grade band can only be compared to the national comparison. While closely aligned, 10th-12th graders in cohort 3 reported one percentage point lower than the national comparison for the same grade levels.

The fact that both the lower grade bands had a higher percentage of students in cohort 2 willing to act as an upstander and intervene, as opposed to participating in the incident as an audience member (bystander), is very encouraging. Comparing girls and boys in 3rd through 5th grades, cohort 2 was higher by 7 percentage points. Whereas, for students in 6th-8th grades there was a 5-point percentage increase.


Table 5: Percentage of Students Who Responded That They "Try to Help the Bullied Student" to Q37: How Do You Usually React if You See or Learn That a Student Your Age is Being Bullied by Another Student(s)?




*When comparing boys’ and girls’ percentages cohort 2 and 3, the chi-square statistic is 0.0002. The p-value is .987675. The result is not significant at p < .05.

Alternatively, for many different reasons, students may choose to not take action and become a bystander or audience member. It is a form of inactive participation in incidents of bullying. As shown in Table 6, when comparing cohort 3 to cohort 2 in Stark County OBPP schools, the results were overall positive. First, with the exception of boys in 6th-8th grades where the reports of 10% remained constant, for girls, there was a difference of one percent in grades 3rd-5th and 5 percentage points in 6th-8th grades. Further, just 4% of boys reported being a bystander in cohort 2, a 3-point percentage drop when compared to boys in 3rd-5th grades in cohort 3. Finally, the comparison to national percentages is spotty for the two lower grade bands. In cohort 3, 10th-12th graders were far below that of the national average for both girls and boys. Therefore, there were fewer bystanders in Stark County grades 10th-12th compared to the nation.


Table 6: Percentage of Students Who Responded That "I Just Watch What Goes On" to Q37: How Do You Usually React if You See or Learn That a Student Your Age is Being Bullied by Another Student(s)?



Note: Highlighted data shows a lower percentage in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 3 Note: Highlighted data shows a higher national percentage compared to Stark County in the same year

*When comparing boys' and girls' percentages cohort 2 and 3, the chi-square statistic is 0.0306. The p-value is .861052. The result is not significant at p < .05.

Overall, students in their 3rd year of implementation reported a smaller percentage of students who were bystanders. Further, for Cohort 2 students there were higher percentages of students in Stark County OBPP schools that responded they would attempt to intervene and disrupt an incident of bullying. While this report cannot state conclusively that the OBPP was the sole cause for these encouraging results11, it is encouraging to see that there were positive trends with regard to bystander behavior.

11 In order to establish a clear relationship between the findings and the OBPP, a much more advanced use of statistical modeling is needed (i.e. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression). The OBQ is provided in table and graph format, no raw data is provided which would be needed to draw any further conclusions.


Student Perceptions of Teachers: Cohort Comparison With the exception of 6th-8th grade girls in cohort 2, all groups reported seeing higher percentages of teacher intervention when compared to the national percentages (using the same grade bands). Illustrating further progress, the overall data for cohort 2 girls and boys indicated a higher percentage of students noting teachers intervening in instances of bullying at school. These findings suggest that as schools progress in the implementation of the OBPP, students perceive their teachers as being more involved in stopping bullying at school. While overall the percentages reported are positive, there is still room for growth. It is important to note that this metric is based solely on students’ perceptions of teacher intervention, not the number of actual interventions. Therefore, this variable is of importance not to actual reduction or intervention levels per se, but instead to the perceived climate on OBPP school campuses. If teachers are perceived as taking bullying seriously and give the message consistently that bullying will not be tolerated, it is more likely to be taken seriously by students (Erdogdu, 2016).

Table 7: Percentage of Students Who Responded “Often” or “Almost Always” to Q20: How Often Do the Teachers or Other Adults at School Try to Put a Stop to it When a Student is Being Bullied at School?




*When comparing boys’ and girls’ percentages cohort 2 and 3, the chi-square statistic is 0.1422. The p-value is .706066. The result is not significant at p< .05.


Bully Incidents Lasting for “One Year” or More The percentage of students being bullied “2-3 times per month” or more for “one year” or more (Q17) decreased across genders for grades 3rd-5th from cohort 3 to cohort 2. This could mean that more students are realizing what bullying is and making better choices. Or, it could signify more students are intervening, and/or more teachers are intervening. There were slightly higher percentages for boys and girls in grades 6th-8th for long-term bullying. This may be a result of the differences among students from year-to-year, or it could point to a need for further intervention and education for students in 6th-8th grades and parents. It is important for students’ well-being, as well as their academic success, that bullying decreases – especially long-term bullying. As with bully reports in the past two months, there were overall a higher percentage of girls being bullied than boys when compared by grade band in long-term incidents of bullying as well.

Table 8: The Percentage of Students Who Have Been Bullied “2-3 Times Per Month” or More for “One Year” or More (Q17)

3rd – 5th 6th – 8th Cohort 3 – Year II Implementation (2015-16) Girls Boys Girls Boys

% Bullied for One Year or More* 8.9% 7.6% 6.1% 3.9%

% Bullied in Past Couple of Months 26.2% 24.5% 18.6% 15.2%

Cohort 2* – Year III Implementation (2015-16) 3rd – 5th 6th – 8th 10th – 12th Total

% Bullied for One Year or More* 7.1% 6.0% 8.9% 6.0%

% Bullied in Past Couple of Months 22.0% 13.6% 23.9% 17.2%


RESULTS: TEACHER SURVEYS

The teacher survey questionnaire was designed by the Stark County Olweus Consortium (trainers and site coordinators) and administered to teachers in all schools near the end of the academic year. Results from similar questionnaires have been compared over time to levels of bullying behavior in other Olweus programs, such as those in Pennsylvania.12

The four question survey was designed to assess teacher perceptions of personal commitment, administrative support, relationships and project needs. A total of 266 responses were received, though not every responding teacher answered all the prompts for question 3. The main results can be found below under findings.

As with any online survey, limitations are imposed by the number of responses received and by respondent self-selection bias (i.e. do only the most enthusiastic or disgruntled respond?) This year’s responses were also compared to the responses received from 2014 and 2013 (see Appendix B).

Findings

A full 93% of teachers in the sample responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that they are committed to implementing the OBPP at their school.

83% of respondents feel they are receiving the support needed from administration to implement the program.

Nearly 98% of teachers surveyed “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they intervene to stop bullying.

Teachers largely “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they (72%) and their students, their peers with students (64%) and students to students (63%) have developed more positive relationships.

Forty-four percent of the teachers in the sample conducted classroom meetings on a weekly basis.

Close to half (47%) of teachers in the sample consistently use the consequence rubric. In addition to most teachers reporting a high level of support, 55% also responded that

they need more resources and support from their Olweus team.

12 Nearly all Western Pennsylvania schools have employed Olweus. See: Anti-bullying efforts credited with reducing violence in Pennsylvania schools at: http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/pennsylvania_success_story.page

http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/pennsylvania_success_story.page


Table 9: Teacher Survey (Counts) 2013, 2014 and 2016 2016 (N=266) 2014 (N=229) 2013 (N=105)

Answer Options SA Agree

SD Disagree

SA Agree

SD Disagree

SA Agree

SD Disagree

I am committed to implementing the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. 247 18 208 18 102 31

I am getting the support I need from my administration to implement the Olweus program.

222 43 186 43 86 12

I have developed a more positive relationship with my students since Olweus was implemented.

192 69 172 53 86 13

I have observed more positive relationships among my students since Olweus was implemented.

168 93 162 62 93 12

I have observed more positive relationships among staff and students since Olweus was implemented.*

171 88 170 58 68 18

I conduct classroom meetings on a weekly basis.* 117 133 71 126 52 36

I need more resources and support from my Olweus team.* 146 110 83 140 45 46

I intervene when I see bullying behavior. 260 4 228 1 99 0

I use the consequence rubric consistently. 126 130 112 111 47 45

*Chi-square tests were statistically significant at the p<.05 level.

When comparing teacher’s answers in 2016 to those in 2014, the Likert indicators in question three were tested using a chi-square at the p<.05 level of significance. While the following details the tests of significance done between two samples (2014, 2016) on the indicators in question three on the teacher survey, it is done with the understanding that tests of chi-square are sensitive to small cell numbers and sample size.13 Three indicators in question three were significant, they were:

With a chi-square of 4.2111 and a p-value of .040161, there was a statistically significant difference between teacher’s perception of positive relationships among staff and students since the start of Olweus, in 2016 (64%) and in 2014 (74%).

13 Tests were done comparing 2013 to 2016 as well, however, the sample size in 2016 is more than twice that of 2013. Because the sample sizes for 2014 and 2016 is closer (a difference of 37), this is the comparison that is reported.


Also significant with a chi-square of 5.234 and a p-value of .02215 are teacher’s responses to conducting classroom meetings. There was a higher percentage for this indicator in 2016 (44%) than in 2014 (31%). This finding suggests that classroom meetings are happening with more regularity.

With a chi-square of 18.7474 and a p-value of <.00002, there is a statistical difference between teacher’s responses for needing more resources and support from the Olweus team, in 2014 (36%) and in 2016 (55%). This result suggests that teachers need more support than two years ago, but this may in fact be a good thing, as understanding of the program and its impact grows.


RESULTS: BUILDING SURVEY AND ON-SITE INTERVIEWS

Building Survey

A building survey was sent out to schools in their third or fourth year of OBPP implementation. There were 15 responses to the 11 question survey (see Appendix C). The response rate was 65% for the building survey which is considered above average for an online survey sent via email.

Schools in their third or fourth year completed the building survey. The main purpose was to confirm whether schools would continue with the program and why. A full 80% – or 12 out of 15 of schools – responded they are continuing the program.

Chart 2: Third and Fourth Years Implementation Building Responses: Do You Plan to Continue Implementing a Bullying Prevention Program Next Year?

Note: There were 15 total responses and no one skipped this question.

Chart 3 below shows the program components that schools plan to continue implementing. These include:

Follow up procedures with students who are bullied; students who bully; parents of students who bully; parents of students who are bullied

Regular classroom meetings Staff discussions focused on the school’s bullying prevention efforts Posting the school’s anti-bullying rules Supervising known “hot spots” for bullying On-the-spot intervention when staff members witness bullying Tracking bullying incidents that occur Student bullying questionnaire (either the official OBPP or a free one created in Survey Monkey

for Stark County schools) Coordinating committee meetings Programs to educate parents about bullying


Chart 3: Response to the question: “Check Any Elements Below that You Will Continue to Implement”

The most effective aspects of the OBPP cited by the respondents included:

“Regular class meetings that provided students time to discuss their experiences and successes/ difficulties as Upstanders”

“Organized system of delivery - rich content” “Initial kickoff getting the anti-bullying message out to the community in a positive format” “Bringing awareness to our students” “Bullying database, putting out consistent rules and definitions” “Bullying rules being posted, students and teachers aware of rules and consequences” “We have found that the discussion circles are extremely effective in getting issues out in the open” “OLWEUS gives students a voice in the classroom meetings that are held” “The elements easily tied into what we were currently doing” “Teaching bystanders how to react”


When asked about their school’s greatest successes, the responses centered on bringing students, staff and faculty together and building relationships: “In our school survey about parent satisfaction, the question was asked of the parents: ‘The school provides a safe learning environment’. We had 33 respondents, and out of a five-point scale – five being the highest level of agreement– our parents gave an average score of 4.8!”

Building relationships means having common language and goals. This was seen when faculty and staff: “hear the students use the common vocabulary and witness students being upstanders.”

Every audience matters is important in the reduction of bullying. Investing in faculty and staff, as well as parents and students, make a difference: “Training an entire staff” “Discussions with staff about the importance of helping our students”

After implementing the many aspects of the OBPP, seeing students’ behavior change for the positive: “reducing the amount of name-calling,” “kicking off each school year with an assembly,” “addressing bullying head on with teachers in ‘hot spots;’” “students embracing the concepts when [you see] them teaching others.”

Sixty-nine percent of the sample responded positively to having a plan for anti-bullying in place for the coming school year. Only 4 out of the 13 responded they did not have one.

The bullying literature suggests that anti-bullying programs can sometimes take time to implement fully – especially when taking a whole school or holistic approach – such as the OBPP (CITE). The qualitative data shows that the program is continuing in most 4-year schools and has made a qualitative difference in the lives of school faculty/staff, parents, and most importantly, students.

The reasons cited for not continuing the program include:

A need for better resources for lessons; Time for student meetings; Time constraints and conflicts with regular faculty/staff role expectations; and Creating their own program.

When asked why schools were choosing not to continue certain aspects of the program, there were four main responses:

“Funding and time management” “Parents are not very receptive to having one more thing on the calendar.” “We have so many new staff members, we would need to provide training.” “Lack of training, the questionnaire is difficult to organize for the grade levels.”


On-Site Interviews

One major strategy that emerged from the onsite interviews is implementing a kick-off event at the start of the year. Nine out of 12 respondents had a kick-off to (re)introduce the OBPP to students. Events included Olympic theme activities, Everyone Can be a Hero and Elec Simon. Many schools have a kick-off annually. The majority of schools continue to post anti-bullying signs and one had students sign an anti-bullying contract as well as have other activities throughout the school year (such as May Field Day emphasizing kind behavior).

Two schools mentioned cyber-bullying; in one case, the respondent noticed an upsurge in instances of cyber-bullying. However, another school listed combating cyber-bullying as a success for this past year.

More than one school mentioned that classroom meetings were being used and cited that as a success within the school. However at least one school mentioned that it would be helpful to have more direction for class meetings such as “a set time, themes for week, month, and year…idea of a manual with weekly themes providing bracelets students could wear home would be welcome, and would ‘take the thinking out of it!’”

One school has an active steering committee looking for more ways to integrate the OBPP and bring added value to their school program. Another school has integrated the OBPP as part of their 5-year Catholic Identity Plan.

An ‘obstacle’ that emerged was in helping parents and students understand what bullying is and is not. One school invited parents to attend a meeting at school to help with that issue. In an effort to have a common language and understanding, one principal has planned a survey for parents and students to assess added value for the program.

Seven out of 12 schools would welcome an Olweus refresher session at the start of the year. One principal asked specifically for staff development on classroom meetings. Another requested training for bus drivers as well. Moreover, the website was positively reviewed, in fact respondents would like more resources available via the website (http://www.starkspeaksupforkindness.org/).

Two schools mentioned challenges in staff turnover. More than one school mentioned their sadness at the passing of Ms. Patty Lab, an Olweus Trainer and a stalwart supporter of the program and schools to which she served.

http://www.starkspeaksupforkindness.org/


IMPLEMENTATION AND FIDELITY TO THE MODEL

Twelve schools submitted the OBPP School-wide Implementation Checklist for year 1 (Appendix E), and 5 schools submitted the Continuation Implementation Checklist for schools in their second year or beyond of implementation (Appendix F). Most schools in year II of implementation submitted a first year form because of the timing of their entrance into the program the year prior. There were a total of 17 out of 19 schools that submitted the fidelity checklist.14 Overall schools made good progress on fidelity, and in some cases certain items had 90-100% completed fidelity.

Results for First Year Form

All schools (100%) reported having administered the OBQ before beginning the program. A majority (92%) of schools formed a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC)

and participated in a 2-day training, and the other 8% are making good progress on both aspects. Most (83%) school leaders and committee members have a copy of the School-wide Guide

and Teacher Guide. Most (83%) held a student kick-off event at the start of the program.

Results, Continuing School Form

100% of schools were either making good progress or reported complete fidelity for periodically consulting with the certified Olweus trainer.

80% of schools reported completed or making good progress with new members of the BPCC receiving training and copies of the Guides.

80% of schools in their 3rd year of implementation administered the OBQ on an annual basis. 80% of schools are making good progress on giving positive consequences for students who

follow rules 2-4 and who help to stop bullying. A full 100% of schools reported either completed or making good progress on:

– Staff intervention on the spot when bullying is observed – Staff members investigating reported incidents of bullying or that are suspected of happening – Staff members reporting incidents of bullying they observe or suspect happened – Staff continue to conduct follow-up meeting with involved students and/or parents

(where appropriate)

An area of opportunity exists in encouraging teachers to hold classroom-level parent meeting two to three times a year. None of the schools reported this item as completed. First year fidelity checklists schools had 8% making progress, and 92% cite progress needed; 100% of schools in cohort 2 reported needing progress.

14 Reasons for not submitting a fidelity checklist include having training too late in the year to really have time to implement the program, or they finished their year 3 implementation agreement.


RECOMMENDATIONS

As a measure of fidelity and quality, the fidelity checklist is one of the most important data points for evaluation. It is recommended that Olweus teams communicate its importance to school administrators, as well as provide clear due dates and support to each building in completing and submitting them on time.

Methods need to be explored to help boys feel more comfortable and confident in telling someone they were bullied. Implementers may want to consider additional steps to help boys talk about their experiences.

Relational bullying by girls is often harder to observe and thus harder to interrupt and correct. Efforts to decrease the percent of bullying incidents among girls should be explored and implemented.

Empathy among students and for other students is essential to increasing upstander behaviors. Strides have been made in Stark County. Opportunities to encourage, reward and create a culture of expectations surrounding empathy and kindness should be continued.

Tied to empathy are teachers and parents as role models. The role that both groups play in modeling empathy and good behavior cannot be overstated. Teachers and parents need encouragement and support as well. Again, Stark County OBPP schools have made positive inroads with teachers especially, but it is recommended that these efforts are continued and where possible increased.

Explore strategies to expand content and usage of new Stark Speaks Up website opportunities for teachers and administrators to share successful strategies, student success stories, examples of kick-offs and books to share.

Develop and deliver two to three “in the moment” staff development opportunities focused on school, parent and community-wide communication, class meetings and bus drivers for implementing schools in Cohorts 2, 3 and 4.

Consider a “Students Come Together” event or program that brings students together to share experiences, strategies and planning for expanded school and community-wide efforts.


REFERENCES

Beran, T.& Shapiro B. (2005). “Evaluation of an Anti-Bullying Program: Student Reports of Knowledge and Confidence to Manage Bullying.” Canadian Journal of Education. 28(4): 700-717. Elsea, M. & Smith P. K. (1998). “The Long-Term Effectiveness of Anti-Bullying Work In Primary Schools.” Educational Research. 40(2):203-218. Erdogdu, M. Y. (2016). “Parental Attitude and Teacher Behaviours in Predicting School Bullying.” Journal of Education and Training Studies.4(6):35-43. Gropper, N. & Froschl, M. (1999). “The Role of Gender in Young Children’s Teasing and Bullying Behavior.” Presented at the American Educational Research Association 1999 Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23. Jolliffe, D. & Farrington, D. P. (2006). “Examining the relationship between low empathy and Bullying. Aggressive Behavior. 32(6): 559-567. Olweus, D. (1994.) “Bullying at School: Long-Term Outcomes for the Victims and On Effective School-Based Intervention Program,” Pp. 97-130 in Aggressive Behavior: Current Perspectives, Edited by L. Rowell Huesmann. New York : Plenum Press. Padgett, S. & Notar, C. E. (2013). “Bystanders Are the Key To Stopping Bullying.” Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(2): 33-41. Penner, I.A., Fritzsche, B.A., Craiger, J.P., and Freifeld, T.R. (1995). “Measuring the Prosocial Personality.” In J. Butcher and C.D. Spielberger (Eds.). Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rivara, F., & Le Menestrel, S. (Eds.). (2016). Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice. National Academies Press. Smith, P.K., Pepler, D., & Rigby K. (2004). Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. SurveyMonkey. (2009). Response Rates & Surveying Techniques: Tips to Enhance Survey Respondent Participation. Retrieved October 18, 2016 from:http://s3.amazonaws.com/SurveyMonkeyFiles/Response_Rates.pdf. Zoccola, P. M., Green, M.C., Karoutsos, E., Katona,S. M., & Sabini, J. (2011). “The Embarrassed Bystander: Embarrassability and the Inhibition of Helping.” Personality and Individual Differences. 51 (8): 925-929.


APPENDIX A: OBQ 2015-16 IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 1,2, AND 3

Bully Incidents: Summary of All 1st, 2nd and 3rd Year Implementation Stark County

OBPP Schools15 This appendix reports data from the OBQ of cohorts 2, 3 and 4. The OBQ data for all three cohorts were combined. However, the data were non-cumulative. These results were not included in the above narrative because the results are by definition skewed. It was not possible to do a one-to-one comparison from year to year when looking at implementation years combined together. The following analysis was made cautiously, and whether changes have to do with the work of the OBPP schools was not clear from this data. Stark County incidence was higher, or at the same level, when compared to the national16 percentages for grade level incidents of bullying “2-3 times a month or more” in the past two months at Olweus schools (baseline before OBPP is implemented). This is a key benchmark in determining bullying behavior. The percentage reported varies widely by grade level and became less reliable in the upper grades due to the lower number of responses. Furthermore, it was expected that the percentage of students who reported bullying would actually rise in the short-term due to “increased awareness” about bullying (see Graph 3c). When bullying incidents were disaggregated by gender and compared by grade, the Stark County results show that overall, there was a higher percentage of girls reporting being bullied when compared to boys in the sample. Interestingly, a lower percentage of girls identified themselves as bullies (5.5%) when compared to boys (6.6%), see Graphs 3a and 3b. As shown in Table 11, a total of 4,827 incidents of bullying “2-3 times per month” or more in the past two months were reported by boys and girls in Stark County OBPP schools since the start of the program in 2012. Initially, the percentage and number of reported incidents tended to increase as the OBPP was implemented, which is not surprising because of increased awareness of bullying. In fact, it may not be until after the program has been implemented with fidelity a minimum of 6 months or more that long-term effects take place (Smith et al., 2004; Eslea and Smith, 1998).

From 2014-15 to 2015-16, looking at all Stark County OBPP schools, the percentage of reported incidents of bullying “2-3 times per month” or more decreased by 2.4%. When looking at the summary data from 2014-15 to 2015-16, only two groups of students had increases, boys in grades 3rd-5th and boys in grades 9th-12th. It is difficult to broadly generalize the high school data due to the small number of respondents in both years. The 3rd-5th grade data for boys show that while the absolute number of incidents being reported declined, the percent of reported incidents increased by two percentage points. There are a variety of reasons why these two grade bands have increased. It is important to note that these data do not distinguish between implementation year, but show all students in 3rd grade through 12th grade whose schools are in year one, two or three of implementation. Thus, it could be that one or more schools within

15 Malvern Middle School was slated to integrate OBPP with the original cohort (2012), but did not implement the program until the fall of 2013. Therefore, Malvern Middle is included in this report as being in year 3 of implementation. However, Malvern was included in the first 3 annual reports: 2013, 2014, 2015. 16 The National Comparison is based on schools surveyed during the 2014 & 2015 school years before the OBPP was implemented.


the two grade bands are not implementing with fidelity, or it could be that more of these grade band schools are in their second or third year of implementation, which may cause their number to initially increase before declining due to increased levels of bully awareness (Smith et al., 2004).

Table 10: The Number of Times a Child Was Bullied “2-3 Times Per Month” or More in the Past Two Months (Q4)

3rd – 5th 6th – 8th 9th – 12th Total Girls Times % Times % Times % Times %

2015-16 374 24.8% 284 20.3% 108 12.6% 766 20.4% 2014-15 509 26.5% 376 24.1% 24 13.6% 909 24.8% 2013-14 257 21.1% 321 20.6% 38 11.4% 616 19.8%

2012 181 22.7% 194 16.6% 62 15.0% 437 18.4% Total Girls 1,321 1,175 232 2,728

Boys Times % Times % Times % Times % 2015-16 328 21.2% 233 15.9% 82 10.5% 643 16.9% 2014-15 368 19.0% 256 17.2% 15 8.3% 639 17.8% 2013-14 192 16.6% 234 16.5% 31 9.4% 457 15.7%

2012 152 19.6% 170 15.3% 38 9.8% 360 15.8% Total Boys 1,040 893 166 2,099

Girls and Boys Times % Times % Times % Times % 2015-16 702 517 190 1,409 18.9% 2014-15 877 632 39 1,548 21.3% 2013-14 449 555 69 1,073 17.9%

2012 333 364 100 797 17.1% 4,827

“Told Nobody” About Being Bullied: Summary Report

Overall 21% of girls in the sample for 2015-16 told no one about being bullied. This finding is just below the national average (see Graph 11a).

While 26% of boys in the sample told nobody about their experiences of being bullied, the percentage of boys bullied was lower than for girls. Therefore, while a larger percentage of girls in the sample reported being bullied, boys were less likely than girls to report their experience (see Graph 11b).


The graphs that follow were taken directly from the combined OBQ data analysis of cohorts 2, 3 and 4 provided by Hazeldon. The title for each was set by Hazeldon and as such does not follow with the preceding label of “chart” for figures presented earlier in the report.


APPENDIX B: 2016 OLWEUS TEACHER SURVEY

Thank you for completing this 4 question 3-5 minute survey.

Your responses will help improve and inform the direction of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.

* 1. Please select the name of your building:

Alliance City: Alliance Middle School Canton City: Compton Learning Center Canton City: McKinley High School Main Campus Canton City: Timken Early College High School Canton City: Altitude Career Tech & Wellness Academy @ Crenshaw Canton City: Arts Academy @ Summit Canton City: College and Career Readiness Academy @ Lehman Canton City: Early College Academy @ Souers Canton City: STEAMM Academy @ Hartford Canton City: Belden Leadership School (3-5) Canton City: Cedar Leadership School (3-5) Canton City: Clarendon Leadership School (3-5) Canton City: Gibbs Leadership School (3-5) Canton City: Mason Leadership School (3-5) Canton City: Youth Leadership School (3-5) Canton City: Allen Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton City: Dueber Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton City: Harter Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton City: McGregor Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton City: Schreiber Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton City: Stone Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton City: Worley Reading & Math Preparatory School (PK-2) Canton Local: Canton South High School Canton Local: Canton South High School Canton Local: Faircrest Memorial Middle School Canton Local: Walker Elementary School DOY Catholic School: Our Lady of Peace Elementary School DOY Catholic School: Regina Coeli & St. Joseph Elementary Schools DOY Catholic School: St. Barbara Elementary School DOY Catholic School: St. Joan of Arc Elementary School DOY Catholic School: St. Lewis Elementary School DOY Catholic School: St. Mary Elementary School DOY Catholic School: St. Michael Elementary School DOY Catholic School: St. Paul Elementary School DOY Catholic School: St. Peter Elementary School DOY Catholic School: SS. Philip & James Elementary Schools Fairless Local: Fairless Middle School Louisville City: Louisville Elementary School Louisville City: North Nimishillen Elementary School Malvern Local: Malvern Middle School Malvern Local: Malvern Elementary School Minerva Local: Minerva High School Minerva Local: Minerva Middle School Minerva Local: Minerva Elementary School


Northwest Local: Northwest High School Northwest Local: Northwest Middle School Northwest Local: Stinson Elementary School Northwest Local: Northwest Primary Perry Local: Pfeiffer Intermediate School Perry Local: Watson Elementary School Sandy Valley Local: Sandy Valley High School Sandy Valley Local: Sandy Valley Middle School Sandy Valley Local: Sandy Valley Elementary School

* 2. Select your grade band:

PK-2 3-5 6-8

* 3. Please respond to the following statements:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I am committed to implementing the Olweus Bullying

Prevention program.

I am committed to implementing the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. Strongly Agree

I am committed to implementing the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. Agree

I am committed to implementing the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. Disagree

I am committed to implementing the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. Strongly Disagree

I am getting the support I need from my administration to

implement the Olweus program.

I am getting the support I need from my administration to implement the Olweus program. Strongly Agree

I am getting the support I need from my administration to implement the Olweus program. Agree

I am getting the support I need from my administration to implement the Olweus program. Disagree

I am getting the support I need from my administration to implement the Olweus program. Strongly Disagree

I have developed a more positive

relationship with my students since Olweus was

implemented.

I have developed a more positive relationship with my students since Olweus was implemented. Strongly Agree

I have developed a more positive relationship with my students since Olweus was implemented. Agree

I have developed a more positive relationship with my students since Olweus was implemented. Disagree

I have developed a more positive relationship with my students since Olweus was implemented. Strongly Disagree

I have observed more positive relationships among my students since Olweus was

implemented.

I have observed more positive relationships among my students since Olweus was implemented. Strongly Agree

I have observed more positive relationships among my students since Olweus was implemented. Agree

I have observed more positive relationships among my students since Olweus was implemented. Disagree

I have observed more positive relationships among my students since Olweus was implemented. Strongly Disagree

I have observed more positive relationships

among staff and students since Olweus was

implemented.

I have observed more positive relationships among staff and students since Olweus was implemented. Strongly Agree

I have observed more positive relationships among staff and students since Olweus was implemented. Agree

I have observed more positive relationships among staff and students since Olweus was implemented. Disagree

I have observed more positive relationships among staff and students since Olweus was implemented. Strongly Disagree


Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I conduct classroom meetings on a weekly

basis.

I conduct classroom meetings on a weekly basis. Strongly Agree

I conduct classroom meetings on a weekly basis. Agree

I conduct classroom meetings on a weekly basis. Disagree

I conduct classroom meetings on a weekly basis. Strongly Disagree

I need more resources and

support from my Olweus team.

I need more resources and support from my Olweus team. Strongly Agree

I need more resources and support from my Olweus team. Agree

I need more resources and support from my Olweus team. Disagree

I need more resources and support from my Olweus team. Strongly Disagree

I intervene when I see bullying behavior.

I intervene when I see bullying behavior. Strongly Agree

I intervene when I see bullying behavior. Agree

I intervene when I see bullying behavior. Disagree

I intervene when I see bullying behavior. Strongly Disagree

I use the consequence rubric consistently.

I use the consequence rubric consistently. Strongly Agree

I use the consequence rubric consistently. Agree

I use the consequence rubric consistently. Disagree

I use the consequence rubric consistently. Strongly Disagree

* 4. We need more Olweus training in regard to: (Check all that apply)

Classroom Meetings On-the-Spot Interventions Use of Consequence Rubric Adult Bullying Positive Consequences/Reinforcement

Powered by

See how easy it is to create a survey.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/take-a-tour/?ut_source=survey_poweredby_howitworks

https://www.surveymonkey.com/?ut_source=survey_poweredby_home


APPENDIX C: BUILDING SURVEY 2016


APPENDIX D: QUALITATIVE BUILDING INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR YEAR FOUR AND BEYOND IMPLEMENTERS OF THE OBPP

1. What element(s) of the Stark Speaks UP Prevention Program were most effective at your school?

2. What were your greatest success(es)?

3. What were your greatest obstacle(s)?

4. Do you plan to continue implementing a bullying prevention program next year? Yes/No A. If no, skip to a final question “What are the main reasons for not continuing the program? The rest of the questions do not apply to these respondents. If Yes, which elements in particular will you continue? a. Coordinating committee meetings b. Student bullying questionnaire (either the official Olweus Bullying Questionnaire or a free one

created in survey monkey for Stark County Schools) c. Posting the school’s bullying rules d. Staff discussions focused on the school’s bullying prevention efforts e. Supervising known “hotspots” for bullying f. Programs to educate parents about bullying g. Regular classroom meetings h. Tracking bullying incidents that occur i. On-the-spot intervention when staff members witness bullying j. Follow up procedures with:

i. Students who are bullied ii. Students who bully

iii. Parents of students who bully iv. Parents of students who are bullied

B. If there are certain elements you won’t continue, what are the main reasons why?

5. What further support(s) do you need to aid/sustain your school’s bullying prevention efforts?

6. Do you have a continuation plan in place in order to sustain your efforts? If so what are the main components?


APPENDIX E: FIDELITY CHECKLIST, FIRST YEAR FORM, YEARS 1 &2 (N=12)

Item Task Completed Making Good

Progress Progress Needed

1 Have you obtained the commitment and active support of district leadership? 67% 25% 8%

2 Have you obtained the commitment and active support of your building level administrators? 75% 17% 8%

3

Have you obtained the commitment and support of the majority of educators and staff in your school? 50% 42% 8%

4 Have you consulted with or had a staff person trained as a certified Olweus trainer? 67% 8% 25%

Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC)

5 Have you formed a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC)? 92% 8% 0%

6 Have you selected an on-site program coordinator who will also chair the BPCC? 75% 25% 0%

7 Have your school leaders and members of the BPCC participated in a two-day OBPP training? 92% 8% 0%

Staff Training

8 Have all other school staff participated in a full-day training? 67% 17% 8%

9

Do your school leaders and each committee member have a copy of the School-wide Guide and Teacher Guide? 83% 8% 8%

10

Does each teacher (or at a minimum every group of three teachers) have a copy of the Teacher Guide? 58% 17% 25%

11 Have all staff read these guides before program implementation? 33% 42% 25%

12

Has your BPCC met on a regular basis (approximately every two weeks) after their training to plan for implementation? 25% 50% 25%

Olweus Bullying Questionnaire

13 Did you administer the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire before beginning the program? 100% 0% 0%

14

Did you share key findings from the questionnaire with administrators, educators, staff, parents, and students? 67% 25% 8%


15

Did your BPCC complete the committee workbook- which constitutes your plan to implement all elements of the program? 58% 17% 25%

School Events and Classroom Activities

16 Did you hold a student kick-off event at the start of the program? 83% 8% 8%

17

Have you introduced the four anti-bullying rules school-wide and given guidance to teachers and other staff about how to apply consequences for these rules? 50% 42% 8%

18

Have you looked at ways to refine your supervisory system, so bullying is less likely to happen in "hot spots"? 25% 50% 25%

19 Are all teachers holding class meetings at least once a week? 42% 25% 33%

20

Are all teachers using role-plays and related follow-up discussions to illustrate bullying concepts during class meetings? 25% 50% 25%

21 Was a school-wide parent meeting held? 8% 17% 75%

22 Are teachers holding classroom-level parent meetings (two to three per year)? 0% 8% 92%

School Rules, Individual Interventions, and Curriculum

23 Are the four anti-bullying rules posted in classrooms and throughout the school building? 50% 42% 8%

24

Have the four anti-bullying rules been thoroughly explained and discussed with all students and their parents? 25% 42% 33%

25

Are all school staff members consistently enforcing negative consequences for students who do not follow rule 1 and bully other students? 33% 50% 17%

26

Are all school staff consistently giving positive consequences for students who follow rules 2-4 and help to stop or prevent bullying? 8% 75% 8%

27

Are all staff members intervening on the spot (where appropriate) every time they observe bullying inside or outside the classroom? 8% 67% 17%

28

Are all staff members investigating all incidents of bullying that are reported to them or that they suspect are happening? 17% 50% 25%

29

Are all staff members reporting (where appropriate) all incidents of bullying that they observe or suspect to appropriate school administrators/staff? 17% 42% 25%


30

Are staff members conducting follow-up meeting with involved students and/or parents (where appropriate)? 17% 25% 42%

31 Are all staff members participating regularly in staff discussion groups? 17% 33% 33%

32 Have teachers incorporated anti-bullying themes into their regular curriculum? 0% 50% 33%


APPENDIX F: FIDELITY CHECKLIST, FOR CONTINUED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: YEAR 3 (N=5)

Item Task Completed

Making Good Progress

Progress Needed

1 Do you have the continued commitment and active support of district and school leadership? 60% 0% 40%

2 Are you periodically consulting with your certified Olweus trainer? 80% 20% 0%

Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC)

3 Is your BPCC continuing to meet on a monthly basis 40% 20% 40%

4

Are you rotating membership on your BPCC and assigning a new person to be your on-site OBPP coordinator(optional) every two years? 0% 40% 60%

5

Do new members of the BPCC receive training and copies of the School-wide Guide and Teacher Guide? 60% 20% 20%

Staff Training

6 Are you offering booster trainings for all of your staff, perhaps at the beginning of each school year? 20% 60% 20%

7 Are you training and mentoring new staff? 60% 20% 20%

8 Have you required that all new staff read their guides (and that all returning staff review them)? 0% 80% 20%

Olweus Bullying Questionnaire

9 Are you continuing to administer the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire on an annual basis? 80% 0% 20%

10

Are you continuing to review your Olweus Bullying Questionnaire data to assess "hot spots" or issues an dare you addressing them as they come up? 60% 20% 20%

School-wide Events

11 Do you hold a student kick-off event at the beginning of each school year? 60% 20% 20%

12 Are you holding school-wide parent meetings? 40% 0% 60%

13 Are all staff still participating regularly (five times per year) in staff discussion groups? 40% 0% 60%

Classroom-level Activities

14 Are teachers still holding class meetings at least once a week? 20% 40% 40%


15

Are teachers still using role-plays and related follow-up discussions periodically to review bullying concepts? 60% 0% 40%

16 Are teachers still holding classroom-level parent meetings at least two to three times a year? 0% 0% 100%

17 Have teachers continued to incorporate anti-bullying themes into their regular curriculum? 40% 60% 0%

School Rules and Individual Interventions

18 Are the four anti-bullying rules still posted in all classrooms and throughout the school building? 60% 0% 40%

19

Are the four anti-bullying rules and consequences against bullying thoroughly explained and discussed with all new students and their parents, and reviewed with returning students and parents? 40% 40% 20%

20

Are school staff consistently giving positive consequences for students who do not follow rule 1 and bully other students? 60% 0% 40%

21

Are all school staff still consistently giving positive consequences for students who follow rules 2-4 and who help to stop or prevent bullying? 0% 80% 20%

22

Are all staff members continuing to intervene on the spot (where appropriate) every time they observe bullying inside or outside of the classroom? 60% 40% 0%

23

Are all staff members still investigating all incidents of bullying that are reported to them or that they suspect are happening? 60% 40% 0%

24

Are all staff members still reporting (where appropriate) all incidents of bullying that they observe or suspect to appropriate school administrators/staff? 60% 40% 0%

25

Are staff continuing to conduct follow-up meetings with involved students and/or parents (where appropriate) 60% 40% 0%

Celebrating and Enhancing Your Program

26 Are you continuing to celebrate your successes and promote your accomplishments in the local media? 40% 40% 20%

27 Are you still looking for ways to enhance you program? 60% 20% 20%

stark county olweus bullying prevention program (obpp)

Documents