WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT: A STUDENT DRIVENANTI-BULLYING APPROACH

JILL PACKMAN AND WILLIAM J. LEPKOWSKI

University of Nevada, Reno

CHRISTIAN C . OVERTON

University of North Texas

MARLOWE SMABY

University of Nevada, Reno

Bullying is a serious problem in schools today. Most programsthat deal with bullying are adult-driven and dependent. Inspiredby the students in one middle school, the authors ask if student-driven anti-buUying programs exist and are effective. The scopeand consequences of bullying is reported. Research-basedresponses to bullying are explored and arguments that supportmore fully incorporating students into these anti-bullying cam-paigns is presented. Rationale and strategies for student-drivenbullying programs are provided and implications for researchdiscussed.

Introduction student's perspective and involvement inBullying is a pervasive and serious dealing with such a complex student-expe-

problem in today's schools. Recently, an rienced problem. The school was informedattempt was made by one of the authors to that in this approach, students would bework with a middle school to address bul- asked how they saw bullying and what theylying in a somewhat unique way. Teachers would do to address it. The students wouldand administrators at the school were con- then be given the time and opportunity totemplating a variety of different prevention carry out their ideas. The school felt thatprograms and were having difficulty meet- this type of an approach would be moreing the developmental needs of their consistent with the needs of their students,culturally diverse population. The author After discussing logistical details, the pro-shared with them the importance of the gram was begun.

Jill Packman is an Assistant Professor and coordinator of the School Counseling Program atthe University of Nevada, Reno. William J. Lepkowski is a doctoral student at the University ofNevada, Reno. Christian Overton is a doctoral student at the University of North Texas. Mar-lowe Smaby is Dept. Chair and Professor of Counseling & Educational Psychology Departmentat the University of Nevada, Reno. Any correspondence regarding this manuscript should beaddressed to Jill Packman; packman@unr.edu or CEP/MS 281; University of Nevada, Reno;Reno, Nevada, 89557

546

A Student Drive Anti-Bullying Approach.../ 547

A diverse group of interested studentswere gathered and formed a "bullying com-mittee." The author then facilitated astudent discussion on bullying and harass-ment. Students quickly described bullyingand harassment as rampant and very harm-ful in their school. With ease, theyidentified where and when bullyingoccurred and described different types ofbullying. When informed that their helpwas desired and essential in addressingbullying in their school, they became ener-gized. They broke into subgroups anddevised presentations and ideas to gener-ate awareness and action among the studentbody. The students' presentations werebased upon what they would need to learnabout bullying and harassment and howthey would best learn the information.Ideas ranged from skits, to video tapesdepicting what bullying is and how to dealwith it, to games to facilitate awareness.Each group visited two classrooms per dayfor three weeks. Following many weeksof successful classroom visits, these newlyempowered students created a poster titled,"We're not gonna take it any more". Thebanner was hung in the cafeteria as areminder of the school commitment toeliminate bullying and harassment.

The student enthusiasm and initial suc-cess of this effort inspired the authors toresearch similar attempts to address bul-lying. Specifically, we wanted toinvestigate the degree to which studentsare involved in anti-buUying programs andthe effectiveness such programs. This arti-cle: (a) outlines the scope andconsequences of bullying, (b) examineswhat the research indicates as to the effec-tiveness of various anti-bullying efforts.

(c) provides rationale and strategies forimplementing a student-driven anti-bully-ing program, and (d) discusses how furtherresearch might be done to empiricallyassess such programs.

The Scope and Consequences of BullyingBullying is broad in scope. The U.S.

Department of Education (1998) foundapproximately 25% of 4th - 6th grade stu-dents reporting being bullied in the priorthree months. They also reported ruralschools having roughly 77% of 7th - 12thgrade students reported having been thevictim of school bullying (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 1998). The results ofa survey by the National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (Nanselet al., 2001) identified over 3 million vic-tims and over 3.5 million bullies betweengrades 6 - 1 0 nationwide. Additionalresearch indicates that bullying is a glob-al problem, citing studies in numerousother countries that find bullying a prob-lematic and widespread phenomenon(Hazier, 2000; Hazier & Carney, 2002).Unfortunately, some research has foundinstances of bullying to be on the rise (Indi-cators of School Crime and Safety, 2003).

While it is important to recognize thescope of bullying, the consequences of thisbehavior are the true cause for alarm.According to Rigby (2003), victims of bul-lying were more likely to report somaticcomplaints such as headaches and stomachaches. A survey of Australian secondaryschool students found a significant asso-ciation between those who are victimizedand higher likelihood of poorer health,including things like feeling ill and losingsleep (Slee, 1994). Although these physi-

548 / Education Vol. 125 No. 4

cal consequences are concerning, most ofthe harm caused by bullying is emotionalin nature (Temlow, Fonagy & Saccow,2001). A study ofthe effects of bullying onpsychiatric symptoms found victims andperpetrators to both suffer mental healthconsequences years after the bullyingoccurred (Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000).Other common effects of bullying on vic-tims include chronic anxiety and depressivereactions (Rigby, 2003), increased schoolabsenteeism (Rigby, 2002; Slee, 1994),lowered self-esteem (Rigby, 2002), feel-ings of loneliness and increased risks ofsuicide (Fox, Elliott, Kerlikowske, New-man, & Christeson, 2003; Roberts &Coursol, 1996). Victimization from bully-ing has even more recently been linked asa contributing factor in high profile schoolviolence incidents (Hazier, 2000; Murline,1999). Bullies also experience conse-quences as they are more likely to haveconduct problems and to develop a dislikefor school (Nansel et al., 2001). Researchdemonstrates that childhood bullies aremore likely to bring weapons to school(Nansel et al., 2001) as well. Finally, thosewho bully have an increased chance ofappearing in court for delinquency (Rigby,2003).

Bystanders, whom often comprise thelargest number of students, are also affect-ed. Witnesses of bullying are frequentlyleft feeling afraid and not wanting to getinvolved for fear of a possible loss of sta-tus or retaliation from the bully (U.S.Department of Education, 1998). A studyof bullying incidents on playgrounds foundobservers present in 88% of bullying sit-uations but intervening in only 19%(Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001). Slee

(1994) reported 49.4% of students sur-veyed felt it was "none of their business"in indicating why they would not help afellow student who is being bullied, and20.6% of students reported fearing retali-ation as inhibiting their defending a victim.Interestingly, Temlow, Fonagy, and Sac-cow, 2001 suggest some children mayexperience a vicarious thrill when watch-ing the event take place, which mayencourage the bully further. With theimpact it has on victims, perpetrators, andbystanders, bullying can no longer be over-looked as just an inevitable part ofchildhood development.

Current Anti-Bullying EffortsSo what are schools doing to address

bullying? One sometimes tempting butoverly simplistic approach used is to onlyget tougher on the bullying. Zero tolerancepolicies have grown in popularity and, usedalone, have shown little evidence ofincreasing school safety (Skiba, 2000; Fox,et al., 2003). Skiba (2000) also found that,compared with research on security mea-sures in schools, there is more availableresearch support for preventative programssuch as conflict resolution. While consis-tent limits and enforcement appearessential to effective anti-bullying cam-paigns (Olweus, 2003), over-reliance onzero tolerance policies seems unlikely towork. In addition, narrowly focusing onhelping only victims may as become arecipe for failure as, according to Robertsand Morotti (2000), the needs ofthe bullyare also important to address in effectiveanti-bullying efforts.

More effective anti-bullying efforts tendto be comprehensive in addressing the

A Student Drive Anti-Buliying Approach.../ 549

problem at many levels (Clarke & Kiseli-ca, 1997; Olweus, 1994; Skiba, 2000). Onesuch program has been shown to reducebully/victim problems by 50% after 8-20months in action (Olweus, 2003). This pro-gram has been implemented and studied inNorwegian schools for over 20 years andaccording to its author, its success is builton creating school environments charac-terized by: "(a) warmth, positive interest,and involvement from adults; (b) firm lim-its on unacceptable behavior; (c) consistentapplication of nonpunitive, nonphysicalsanctions for unacceptable behavior or vio-lation of rules; and (d) adults who act asauthorities and positive role models (p.15)." Other similar anti-bullying approach-es include student and faculty education,increased awareness ofthe problem of bul-lying, and adult involvement (Harris &Petrie, 2003), as well as counseling forindividual victims and bullies (Peterson &Rigby, 1999).

While many of the advocated anti-bul-lying programs used in schools have astudent component, typically the majorityof the effort is teacher-directed (Peterson& Rigby, 1999) and requires the mostaction from adults (e.g. teachers and par-ents) (Salmivalli, 2001). Indeed, theprograms found in a review of the litera-ture were developed and administeredprimarily by adults. Programs may haveadults speak to students about how to dealwith bullies, how to speak up for help, andhow to help each other. While it is clear thatthe severity of this issue should promptadults to become active, many reasons existsupporting the idea that accessing studentproblem-solving and leadership might fur-ther enhance anti-bullying programs.

A Rationale for Student-Driven ApproachesThe first argument for a student-driven

program is that bullying is primarily a stu-dent-experienced problem. It is the studentswho are the perpetrators, victims, and thebystanders. Even the most determinedschool faculty may not be able to stop bul-lying alone as research indicates thatbullying is more likely to occur when thereis minimal to no adult supervision (Rigby,2002). Indeed, one study found incidentsof bullying more common on the play-ground, where less supervision is common,than incidents in the school building(Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001). Atlasand Pepler (1998) also point out that schoolclassrooms are not immune either. Theseauthors concluded that, "(a) bullying ispervasive in the classroom, (b) teachersare generally unaware of bullying, and (c)the peer group is reluctant to intervene tostop bullying (Atlas & Pepler, 1998)."While increased adult supervision has beenshown to reduce bullying incidents(Olweus, 1994), it is unlikely that studentscan be fully supervised all of the time orin all of the places in which bullyingoccurs.

A second argument for increasing stu-dent involvement lies in the frequentdifferences of adults and children over thecauses and commonness of bullying. Leff,Patterson, Kupersmidt, and Power (1999)found that teachers' identification of bul-lies and victims only matched studentidentification about half of the time. Theauthors of this study indicated that this dis-crepancy may be due to students seeingtheir peers in many situations while teach-ers (especially in upper grades) may onlysee a group of students once per day in the

550 / Education Voi. 125 No. 4

classroom. At home, children are also morelikely to acknowledge issues as contribut-ing to their treatment of their peers. Parentsare less likely to report incidences that mayencourage bullying behavior, where as thechild may provide a clearer picture of thehome situation (Stevens, DeBourdeaud-huij, & VanOost, 2002).

Bullying can also occur in subtle ways,making it more challenging for adults tounderstand. It has been argued that stu-dents who do not exhibit behavioralproblems in class may go unnoticed as bul-lies (Leff, Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Power,1999). Some students may be savvyenough to behave when the teacher is look-ing, only to harass and bully others whenunsupervised. This point is also importantwith female students whom have beenfound to bully in the less obvious ways ofspreading rumors and exclusion (Lager-spetz & Bjorkvist, 1994; Owens, Shute, &Slee, 2000). Because female bullies aregenerally more verbally and socially abu-sive than their more physical malecounterparts (Temlow, Fonagy & Saccow,2001), many adults view their behavior asless threatening and damaging and conse-quently overlook or dismiss thesebehaviors. Involving students can give amore accurate picture in anti-bullyingefforts.

A third reason for student involvementis found in the increasing recognition thatbullying occurs within a group context withdifferent students taking on different roles.Passive participant roles such as the rein-forcer or the assistant to the bully havebeen examined (Salmivalli, 1999). Theassistant or reinforcer often encourages thebully to continue their aberrant behavior.

In a study of Finnish 6th and 8th grade stu-dents less than 20% of students comprisedthe bully and victim categories for bothgrades, while approximately 25% of stu-dents comprised the assistant or reinforcerroles in both grades. Another role to con-sider in bullying is the defender. Thedefender aids the victim. Sutton and Smith(1999) found that less than 20% ofthe stu-dents acted in the defender role for bothgrades. Temlow, Fonagy & Saccow (2001)also described the differences in powerdynamics among bystanders. In their study,Temlow et al found that 10% to 20% ofchildren from third to ninth grades expe-rienced a vicarious thrill as an onlooker. Asmaller percentage of children are oftenpresent, whom the authors considered vic-arious victims because they are toointimidated to intervene. O'Connell,Pepler, and Craig (1999) found 75% of anonlooker's time during a bullying incidentwas spent reinforcing the harasser'sactions.

Salmivalli (1999) stated that this "peergroup power" is an important way to helpstop bullying. If a larger percentage ofbystanders experience a thrill from observ-ing one student oppress another, thenperhaps that group of students could beswayed to counter the bullying behaviorsin a group of like-minded peers. As Gar-rett (2003) remarked, "Once the 60 percentof children who are neither bullies nor vic-tims adopt the attitude that bullying is anunacceptable behavior, schools are well ontheir way to having a successful bullyingprogram (p. 127)." By empoweringbystanders to avoid reinforcing the bully,they can tip the scales ofthe social dynam-ics that maintain this destructive cycle.

A Student Drive Anti-Buiiying Approach.../ 551

Developing student trust in adultinvolvement is also vital and anotherimportant reason student leadership is crit-ical in dealing with bullying. Manystudents feel that school faculty do not carenor intervene enough in bullying incidents.One study found that teachers intervene infewer the 5% of bullying situations (Craig& Pepler, 1999). Garrett (2003) reportedthat 71% of teachers versus 25% of stu-dents say that teachers almost always stepin during a bullying incident, indicating alarge disparity between the perceptions ofstudents and teachers when looking atteacher intervention. In addition, only 10%of secondary students surveyed by Slee(1994) indicated that they would talk witha teacher if being harassed. Many bullyinterventions involve students coming for-ward and reporting or stepping in andhelping a fellow peer. If students do nottrust the adults requesting these courageousacts, they are less likely to respond.

These feelings that adults don't care orwon't understand may be reduced whenstudents are involved to campaign againstbullying. Students and teachers can then beseen as collaborators in the process to solvethe problem, not just as adults goingthrough the motions. In their efforts toaddress bullying in an Australian secondaryschool, Peterson and Rigby (1999) utilizedstudent-helpers and found modest resultsafter evaluating the campaign's effect onstudents. The authors also commented,"Anti-bullying activities directed andundertaken by students themselvesreceived most approval from peers." Astudy by Salmivalli (2001) found peer-ledanti-bullying efforts reduced the self andpeer reported incidents of bullying among

female students, although less impact wasseen with male students. Supporting peerleadership seems likely to enhance studenttrust that the adults are serious, care, andwill back up student efforts to stop bully-ing.

Finally, schools are about education.Bandura points out (Woolfolk, 2001) that"enactive learning", or learning by doing,is a primary way in which individualsacquire knowledge (p. 323). By involvingstudents in the solution ofthe issue of bul-lying from a young age, they can learnsocial skills necessary to address similar-ly complex issues as future adult citizens.Giving students the opportunity to addressthis issue can spark student creativity andenergy and the skills to deal with similarproblems like sexual harassment andracism as adults.

School bullying exists in the realm ofthe child's world. If students are incorpo-rated and truly treated as an essential sourceofthe solution to this problem, more effec-tive results may be found.

The Three "A's" of Student DrivenIntervention

The authors developed three categoriesto aid schools in the development of stu-dent-driven anti-bullying campaigns. Theunderlying principle of this model is thatstudent ideas and leadership must be a pri-mary consideration. The adults who workwith the students must resist the tempta-tion to tell the students how they shouldsolve the problem or what they should do.Tapping student energy and excitementrequires a trust that the students can devel-op creative and useful solutions in dealingwith bullying.

552 / Education Vol. 125 No. 4

Awareness. Awareness involves gener-ating awareness on two levels. The firstinvolves developing awareness and sup-port among faculty and administrators. Oneway to get this started is to conduct ananonymous survey to assess the prevalenceof bullying in the school. Harris and Petrie(2003) recommend that teachers also beincluded in the survey process as teachersand students often perceive bullying dif-ferently. Survey results can provideconcrete data helpful in gaining facultysupport. It also can provide a baseline asto the extent of bullying prior to anti-bul-lying efforts that can be compared after anintervention. Additionally, it is essential toestablish bullying as a problem so that thefaculty recognizes the need for a mean-ingful effort to deal with bullying. Thiswill help support the need for student time,staff support, and physical resources. Inthe case example at the beginning of thearticle, the author was first offered theoption of only using a 20 minute home-room time to engage students inanti-bullying activities. As faculty andadministrators became more aware of theextent of the problem, they also becamemore aware of the need to trade time andresources for a solution. The author workedwith teachers and administrators to advo-cate for a more realistic amount of time inorder to give students a true opportunity tosucceed.

The next level of awareness involvesthe students. Once faculty are on board,the students can then be addressed. Hazierand Carney (2002) argue that effective sup-port requires emotional awareness andempathic understanding. In their article,the authors suggest activities that help stu-

dents personally connect with the impactof violent acts, thus prompting them tocommit to change. Additionally, lettingstudents know that their help is essentialto stopping bullying is a starting point toempower action. As stated earlier,bystanders have a great potential to aid instopping bullying. If they become morefully aware of the negative impact of bul-lying, and that their actions can eithersupport or reduce bullying, they can great-ly change the bullying dynamics in theschool.

Special care must be given anytime stu-dents are asked to put themselves on theline to help address a school problem. Aspointed out by Cowie (1999), "attempts tomobilize the strength of young people toresolve their own difficulties through peer-led interventions can meet with unexpectedhostility or sabotage from adults and evenfrom other members of the peer group." Iffaculty support for student efforts is lack-ing, well-intentioned students may feelvulnerable when they try to intervene andhelp. Adults facilitating student led anti-bullying efforts must be aware of the risksstudents face in addressing bullying. Thisawareness can prompt strategic planningto minimize such potential hazards. Suchplanning should include in-service trainingon facilitating a student driven campaignand support for teachers who agree to help.In the next section we will discuss specif-ic ways to enhance student empathy,empower student action, and reduce therisk felt by students wanting to help in anti-bullying campaigns.

Avenues. In order to implement studentled efforts, strategic planning must takeplace. This means considering the how.

A Student Drive Anti-Bullying Approach.../ 553

where, when, and for how long, of studentanti-bullying efforts. School time is pre-cious. Thoughtful planning can ensure thatconsistent time and sufficient support isprovided, thus helping students feel likethe adults seriously care about their ideasand actions. Rushed or disjointed efforts,on the other hand, can have a negativeeffect. Walker and Avis (1999) describedseveral important reasons why peer-ledefforts fail in schools, including lack ofinvestment in the student efforts, unclearobjectives, and lack of support and train-ing for the student-leaders.

The size of the groups and the type ofadult facilitation are also essential in plan-ning avenues to address bullying. Studentswho have been victimized by bullying oftenfeel less confident and more anxious(Roberts & Coursol, 1996). This may makeit difficult for them to speak up or fullyparticipate in discussions involving bully-ing and may be especially true in anenvironment where those who bully arepresent and where the facilitator lacks theskills or awareness to provide a safe atmos-phere for sharing. To counter such negativedynamics, small group venues may beideal. Such groups could be devised sim-ilar to counseling support groups, in which5-7 students meet regularly with facilita-tion by an adult skilled in leading groups.This time should be separate from the timeneeded to plan student presentation. Schoolcounselors and trained teachers might serveas such eifective helpers. These adult lead-ers must be able to facilitate a safediscussion in which students create theideas and strategies.

Once the time, setting, and facilitators

are ready to go, student leadership canbegin. Facilitators may begin by recruit-ing volunteer students. Assemblies,classroom presentations, and announce-ments could all be utilized to spread theword and excitement in the opportunityfor students to become active in address-ing bullying. Faculty should be involved inscreening potential members. A variety ofstudents should be included; not just thoseinvolved in student leadership. In the exam-ple given at the beginning of this article,the group of students included those froma variety of school cliques and racial back-grounds. One peer led anti-bullyingcampaign (Salmivalli, 2001) had a schoolwide meeting with dramatic skits per-formed by students and music played bythe band as ways to generate interest.

Those students who wish to join theanti-bullying could be invited to a plan-ning meeting in which ideas, groups, andcommittees could be formed. This meet-ing could involve brainstorming anddiscussion of how the group could addressbullying. In one Australian secondaryschool, volunteer students engaged in avariety of efforts to counter bullying suchas by helping victims, speaking out atschool gatherings, developing posters, andperforming skits on bullying (Peterson &Rigby, 1999). Peer mediation and conflictresolution are also popular studentapproaches that could help minimize bul-lying. Representative students may also beinvited to faculty meetings on bullying orto help audit current policies the schoolhas on harassment and bullying. As in theauthors efforts discussed in the introduc-tion, students may decide to develop

554 / Education Vol. 125 No. 4

presentations, games, and skits to take tothe classrooms. Facilitators might then takesuch student ideas and organize smallaction groups to help students meet thevarious goals.

Assimilation. School personnel and stu-dents alike are most likely familiar withtemporary programs and initiatives thatnever seem to get off the ground. For last-ing change in the way bullying is viewedand addressed to occur, a climate of respectand acceptance is necessary. An on-goingcommitment to students and their ideas iscritical. Those who develop anti-bullyingprograms must think about how theseefforts can continue each year. Rotatingstudents at different grade levels is onesuch method that aids in bringing newmembers in as the old members move on.

It has been recognized that continuousevaluation and effort is essential to effec-tive bullying prevention (Skiba &Fontanini, 2000). Annual program evalu-ations and meetings prior to each schoolyear could be important ways to assess andaddress the school's anti-bullying effort.The adult facilitators must consistentlywork to generate student excitement andinvolvement from year to year. Studentideas can again play a critical role in thisplanning phase for the long term sustain-ability of their efforts.

ConclusionBullying is a school problem with seri-

ous and far-reaching consequences. Theenergy and effort exercised by the studentswho decided "we're not gonna take it" indi-cates the large potential of students to bekey players in addressing bullying. Anti-

bullying efforts would benefit from get-ting the full involvement of students and,indeed many research-supported argumentsexist for involving student leadership indeveloping anti-bullying programs. Thethree components of awareness, avenues,and assimilation described in this articleprovide a framework to help involve stu-dents and better ensure success in dealingwith bullying.

Our review of the literature revealedbullying prevention programs to most com-monly rely on adults as the primarymembers of this social effort. Littleresearch was found that dealt directly withstudent-developed models of bully pre-vention and their outcomes. This indicatesboth a potential area of enhancement ofcurrent bullying programs and a subjectworthy of empirical research.

ReferencesAtlas, R.S., & Pepler, D.J. (1998). Observations

of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Edu-cational Research, 92(2), 86-99.

Clarke, E. A., & Kiselica, M. S. (1997). A system-atic counseling approach to the problem ofbullying. Elementary School Guidance &Counseling, 3J(4), 310-325.

Cowie, H. (1999). Peers helping peers: Interven-tions, initiatives, and insights. Journal ofAdolescence, 22, 433-436.

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1999). Observationsof bullying and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,13, 41-60.

Fox, J.A., Elliott, D.S., Kerlikowske, R.G., New-man, S.A., & Christeson, W. (2003). Bullyingprevention is crime prevention. A report byFight Crime: Invest in Kids.

A Student Drive Anti-Bullying Approach..,/ 555

Garrett, A, G, (2003), Bullying in AmericanSchools. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland& Company, Inc,

Harris, S,, & Petrie, G, F, (2003), Bullying: TheBullies, the Victims, the Bystanders. Lanham,Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc,

Hawkins, D,L,, Pepler, D,J,, & Craig, W,M,(2001), Naturalistic observations of peer inter-ventions in bullying. Social Development,10(4), 512-521.

Hazier, R, J, (2000), When victims turn aggres-sors: Factors in the development of deadlyschool violence. Professional School Counsel-ing, 4(2), 105-112,

Hazier, R, J,, & Carney, J, V, (2002), Empoweringpeers to prevent youth violence. Journal ofHumanistic Counseling, Education and Devel-opment, 41(2), 129-149,

Kumpulainen, K,, & Rasanen, E, (2000), Childreninvolved in bullying at elementary school age:Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance inadolescence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(12),1567-1577,

Lagerspetz, K, M, J,, & Bjorkvist, K, (1994), Indi-rect aggression in boys and girls. In L, R,Huesmann (Ed,), Aggressive behavior: Cur-rent perspectives (pp, 131-150), New York:Plenum Press,

Leff, S,S,, Patterson, C, J,, Kupersmidt, J,B,, &Power, T,J, (1999), Factors influencing teacheridentification of peer bullies and victims.School Psychology Review, 28(3), 505-517,

Mulrine, A, (1999), Once bullied, now bullies, withguns, US News and World Report, 126, 24-26,

Nansel, T,R,, Overpeck, M,, Pilla, R,S,, Ruan,W.J,, Simons-Morton, B,, & Scheidt, P (2001),Bullying behaviors among US youth: Preva-lence and association with psychosocialadjustment. Journal ofthe American MedicalAssociation, 285(16), 2094-2100,

National Center for Education Statistics (2002),Nonfatal student victimization - studentreports. Indicators of School Crime and Safe-ty, 2002, Available:http://nces,ed,gov/pubs2003/schoolcrime/6,asp?nav= 1

O'Connell, P, Pepler, D,, & Craig, W, (1999), Peerinvolvement in bullying: Insights and chal-lenges for intervention. Journal ofAdolescence, 22, 437-452,

Olweus, D, (1994), Bullying at school: Long-termoutcomes for the victims and an effectiveschool-based intervention program. In L, R,Huesmann(Ed,), Aggressive behavior: CurrentPerspectives (pp, 97-130), New York: Wiley,

Olweus, D, (2003), A profile of bullying at school.Educational Leadership, 60(6), 12-17,

Owens, L,, Shute, R,, & Slee, P, (2000), "Guesswhat I just heard!": Indirect aggression amongteenage girls in Australia, Aggressive Behav-ior, 26, 67-83,

Peterson, L, & Rigby, K, (1999), Countering bul-lying at an Australian secondary school withstudents as helpers. Journal of Adolescence,22,481-492,

Rigby, K, (2002), New Perspectives on Bullying.London, England: Jessica Kingsley PublishersLtd,

Rigby, K, (2003), Consequences of bullying inschools. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry- In Review, 48(9), 583-590,

Roberts, W, B,, & Coursol, D, H, (1996), Strate-gies for intervention with childhood andadolescent victims of bullying, teasing, andintimidation in school settings. ElementarySchool Guidance and Counseling, 30, 204-207,

Roberts, Jr,, W, B,, & Morotti, A, A, (2000), Thebully as victim: Understanding bully behav-iors to increase the effectiveness of.Professional School Counseling, 4(2), 148-155,

Salmivalli, C, (1999), Participant role approach toschool bullying: Implications for interventions.Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453-459,

Salmivalli, C, (2001), Peer-led intervention cam-paign against school bullying: who consideredit useful, who benefited? EducationalResearch, 43(3), 263-278,

556 / Education Vol. 125 No. 4

Skiba. R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence:An analysis of school disciplinary practice(Report No. RR-SRS2). Bloomington, IN:Education Policy Center. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED469537).

Skiba, R., & Fontanini, A. (2000). Bullying pre-vention. What works in preventing schoolviolence. Report from Safe and ResponsiveSchools Fact Sheet Series. Bloomington, IN:Education Policy Center. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED470431).

Slee, P T. (1994). Life at school used to be good.Youth Studies Australia, 13(4), 20-23.

Sutton, J., & Smith, P K. (1999). Bullying as agroup process: an adaptation of the participantrole approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97-111.

Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P.(2002). Relationship of the family environmentto children's involvement in bully/victim prob-lems at school. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 57(6), 419-428.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P, & Sacco, F C. (2001).An innovative and psychodynamically influ-enced approach to reduce school violence.Joumal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 22, 15-23.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Prevent-ing bullying: A manual for schools andcommunities. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education. Available: www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/ssp/bullymanual.htm.

Walker, S.A. & Avis, M. 1999. Common reasonswhy peer education fails. Journal of Adoles-cence, 22, 573-577.

Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology (8thed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.