An Examination of a Florida School District’s Antibullying Policy and

Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Antibullying Interventions

By

Marie J. Louis

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Abraham S. Fischler School of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Nova Southeastern University

2014

ii

Approval Page

This applied dissertation was submitted by Marie J. Louis under the direction of the persons

listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education and approved in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Nova

Southeastern University.

________________________________________ ___________________________

Gina Peyton, EdD Date

Committee Chair

________________________________________ ___________________________

Sheila Halpin, EdD Date

Committee Member

Ronald J. Chenail, PhD Date

Interim Dean

iii

Statement of Original Work

I declare the following:

I have read the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Responsibility as described in the

Student Handbook of Nova Southeastern University. This applied dissertation represents my

original work, except where I have acknowledged the ideas, words, or material of other authors.

Where another author’s ideas have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have

acknowledged the author’s ideas by citing them in the required style.

Where another author’s words have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have

acknowledged the author’s words by using appropriate quotation devices and citations in the

required style.

I have obtained permission from the author or publisher—in accordance with the required

guidelines—to include any copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, survey instruments, large

portions of text) in this applied dissertation manuscript.

___________________________

Signature

Marie J. Louis

___________________________

Name

December 1, 2014

___________________________ Date

iv

Acknowledgments

To God be the glory, for great things He has done! I thank God for my family and friends

who supported me through this process. I also say a special thank you to my “inner circle” for

their prayers, words of encouragement, and especially, the tough love. You are appreciated. God

bless you.

v

Abstract

An Examination of a Florida School District’s Antibullying Policy and Teachers’ Perceptions of

the Effectiveness of Antibullying Interventions. Marie J. Louis, 2014: Applied Dissertation,

Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler School of Education. ERIC Descriptors:

Action Research, Bullying, School Policy, School Safety, Teacher Attitudes

Peer harassment/victimization is an international issue with negative influences on the mental

health and academic performance of children. In order to address this serious problem, school

districts in the United States, have developed antibullying policies according to state mandated

legislation. However, the task of implementing policy falls on the shoulders of those who daily

encounter students. The attitudes and perceptions of teachers regarding an antibullying policy are

important and must be taken into consideration if the policy is to be effectively implemented.

The purpose of this action research study was to examine the State of Florida’s antibullying

legislation and The District’s (school district located in southeast Florida) antibullying policy to

determine their comprehensiveness by using the Content Analysis for School Antibullying

Policies (CASABP). This study also surveyed prevention liaisons regarding their perceptions of

the effectiveness of antibullying strategies implemented at their schools, using the Current

Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools (CBPIPAS). Prevention liaisons

are school based staff members (i.e., teachers, guidance/peer counselors, etc.) who serve as

conduits between The District and schools. They are responsible for the dissemination of

prevention curriculum related to The District’s antibullying policy.

The results from the content analysis showed that the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation

had a medium level of comprehensiveness and The District’s antibullying policy had a high level

of comprehensiveness. Additionally, a cross-section of data from the survey explained

prevention liaisons’ perceptions of the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying

strategies as mandated by The District’s policy. Findings indicated that having a written

antibullying policy was implemented at over 94% of schools in The District and considered

effective by over 60% of prevention liaisons. In addition, embedded within the policy were 75%

of the strategies currently being implemented. However, ineffective and inconsistent

implementation due to obstacles associated with teacher training, resources, and/or

administrative issues, only served to reduce the value and significance of having the policy.

In order for an antibullying policy to be effective, it must be implemented with fidelity.

This practical action research study made recommendations as to how stakeholders can

collaborate in bullying prevention and effectively implement interventions, thus creating safer

learning environments for students.

vi

Table of Contents

Page

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................1

Definition of Terms .............................................................................................................6

Statement of Purpose ..........................................................................................................8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................10

Historical Background and Significance of Bullying .......................................................10

Theoretical Framework .....................................................................................................14

Antibullying Legislation and Policy .................................................................................16

Transformational Leadership ............................................................................................18

Programs/Interventions/Strategies ....................................................................................20

Implementation and Effectiveness Issues .........................................................................22

Action Research ................................................................................................................24

Rationale ...........................................................................................................................25

Purpose Statement and Research Questions .....................................................................26

Summary ...........................................................................................................................27

Chapter 3: Methodology ...............................................................................................................29

Introduction ........................................................................................................................29

Research Design.................................................................................................................29

Participants ........................................................................................................................32

Instruments ........................................................................................................................33

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................41

Limitations ........................................................................................................................48

Summary ...........................................................................................................................48

Chapter 4: Results .........................................................................................................................51

Introduction ........................................................................................................................51

Content Analysis Results ..................................................................................................52

Survey Results ..................................................................................................................54

Results by Research Question ...........................................................................................72

Summary ...........................................................................................................................74

Chapter 5: Discussion ...................................................................................................................76

Overview ............................................................................................................................76

Summary and Interpretation of Findings – Content Analysis ..........................................78

Summary and Interpretation of Findings – Survey ...........................................................84

Context and Implications of Findings ...............................................................................90

Limitations ........................................................................................................................93

Recommendations .............................................................................................................94

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................96

References .....................................................................................................................................97

vii

Appendices

A CASABP (content analysis rubric) .....................................................................107

B CBPIPAS (survey instrument) ............................................................................110

C Correspondence From Workshop Facilitator ......................................................116

Tables

1 Research Question 3 and Survey Measures ..........................................................40

2 Operational Definitions .........................................................................................43

3 Steps for Establishing Interrater Reliability and Content Analysis ......................44

4 Procedures for Administration of CBPIPAS (Survey) .........................................46

5 Summary State of Florida’s Antibullying Legislation ..........................................53

6 Summary The District’s Antibullying Policy .......................................................54

7 Part I Demographics—Q.4 ....................................................................................56

8 Part I Demographics—Q.5 and Q.6 ......................................................................57

9 Summary Part I Demographics .............................................................................58

10 Bullying Prevention Strategies at Prevention Liaisons’ Schools ..........................59

11 Data Analysis Part II—School Environment Subsection .....................................60

12 Data Analysis Part II—Staff Involvement Subsection .........................................61

13 Data Analysis Part II—Working With Bullies and Victims Subsection ..............62

14 Data Analysis Part II—Parent Involvement Subsection .......................................63

15 Data Analysis Part II—Educating Students Subsection .......................................64

16 Data Analysis Part II—Peer Involvement Subsection ..........................................65

17 Frequency of Responses for Bullying Prevention Strategies ................................66

18 Summary Part II Bullying Prevention and Intervention Activities .......................67

19 Data Analysis Part III—Q.4 ..................................................................................68

20 Data Analysis Part III—Q.5 ..................................................................................69

21 Data Analysis Part III—Q.6 ..................................................................................70

22 Data Analysis Part III—Q.7 ..................................................................................71

23 Summary Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers ..........................................71

24 Survey Response Totals ........................................................................................72

25 Survey Results Research Question 3–(Implementation) ......................................73

Figures

1 Action Research Steps ...........................................................................................30

2 Action Research Data Collection Techniques .......................................................31

3 Collaborative Efforts Through a Socioecological Framework ..............................91

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Building a positive school environment is an important contributor to academic success.

The development of a school culture that “encompasses values, communication and management

styles, rules and regulations, ethical practices, reinforcement of caring behaviors, [and] support

for academic excellence” (Orpinas & Horne, 2010, p. 49) fosters a creative attitude in students

and adults. However, because of aggressive student interactions that frequently permeate a

school’s culture and create a hostile learning environment, school safety is a major concern. This

atmosphere of violence serves to suppress student creativity and academic success (Schellenberg,

Parks-Savage, & Rehfuss, 2007).

According to Orpinas and Horne (2010) policies regulating school safety, are “essential

for maintaining a positive school climate” (p. 51). The authors further posited that teacher input

is invaluable in creating safe and nurturing environments for students to learn. While there are

many concerns linked to school safety and the promotion of a positive school culture, peer

victimization is a topic that dominates the current conversation on policy development.

The topic. Peer victimization (bullying) is “unprovoked aggressive behavior repeatedly

carried out on victims unable to defend themselves” (Good, McIntosh, & Geitz, 2011, p. 48).

This antisocial behavior damages a school’s culture, is often deliberate, and occurs in a variety of

formats such as taunting, teasing, ostracizing, physical violence, and cyberbullying. Bullying

reflects an unequal balance of power between the bully and victim and can be classified as direct

(overt) or indirect (covert). Increasingly recognized as a threat to society, research on this

aggressive behavior reveals that “approximately a third of youth in elementary and middle

school experience bullying in any given academic year, which translates into more than 1.6

million youth being victimized annually” (Christie-Mizell, Keil, Laske, & Stewart, 2011, p.

2

1571). For victims perceived as vulnerable, submissive, or different, bullying is a traumatic

experience. Bullying happens across gender, age, socio-economic status, race, and ethnicity. It

occurs in the workplace, at home, in prisons, in the armed forces, on the playground, school bus,

and in schools. No matter the format or venue, one thing is common; bullying is about

dominating or controlling someone else and its effects are dangerous.

Copeland (2009) asserted that antibullying policies, interventions, and programs could

substantially reduce bullying incidents and according to Sherer and Nickerson (2010), “a school-

wide antibullying policy can provide the framework to direct the school’s actions in addressing

the problem of bullying” (p. 218). Bullying is such a prevalent factor in American schools that

school districts across the country have not only developed antibullying policies but have also

introduced programs that address peer intimidation at a growing rate. Extensive research on this

topic supports the negative influences bullying has on the mental health and academic

performance of children (Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Duong, 2011) and justifies the need for

effective antibullying programs to better assist students and schools.

The research problem. The problem investigated in this study was the effectiveness of

antibullying interventions as perceived by prevention liaisons in accordance with the State of

Florida’s antibullying legislation and a local school district’s antibullying policy. Prevention

liaisons are school based staff members (i.e., teachers, guidance/peer counselors, etc.) who serve

as conduits between The District (a school district located in southeast Florida) and schools.

They are responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to The District’s

antibullying policy.

Background and justification. Good, McIntosh, and Geitz (2011) reported that a survey

conducted by the World Health Organization ranked the United States 15th out of 35 countries in

3

terms of reported prevalence of bullying behavior. Although not a new concern, research

indicates that the problem of bullying is consistently getting worse (Gibbone & Manson, 2010).

Bullying characteristics are harmful intentions, repeated occurrences, and an imbalance of power

between the bully and the victim. This aggressive behavior can be physical (e.g., hitting, kicking)

or verbal (e.g., teasing, taunting) and when conducted using technology such as cellular

telephones, cameras, and/or the Internet, is referred to as cyberbullying. Authors, Good et al.

(2011) made mention of a Limber (2002) study that described how approximately one in five

students are victims of bullying, and depending upon whether the student is the bully, victim, or

bully-victim the numbers could actually be closer to one in three students. Furthermore, victims

of bullying often experience “low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, insecurity, oversensitivity,

introversion, and withdrawal from social activities” (Good et al., 2011, p. 48). Clearly, bullying

is a widespread problem that can result in harmful outcomes. It can have damaging effects on the

psychological, physical, and social adjustment of students who are involved as either bullies,

victims, or bystanders (Gubler & Croxall, 2005). Bullying affects everyone.

Stakeholders such as schools, communities, and parents play important roles in the

reduction and elimination of this terrible problem. All parties must continue to be attentive to and

supportive of strong antibullying policies and interventions. Antibullying regulations endorse the

development of awareness and the reporting of bullying incidents in schools (Gibbone &

Manson, 2010). Children that believe they need to resort to physical or emotional abuse to be

respected, to show dominance or control over other individuals, need effective antibullying

interventions that can facilitate transforming this negative mind-set into a more positive and

productive one. Research and evidenced based antibullying interventions should not only

highlight character education but also promote the development and modeling of a culture of

4

kindness and mutual respect among students, faculty, and staff in order to help foster a safer

learning environment for all.

Setting. The setting for this study is a school district in south Florida (referred to as The

District). According to 2014 data, The District provides for the educational needs of over

260,000 students in 235 schools (137-elementary, 6-combination (K-8), 40-middle, 33-high, and

19-centers).The District also has virtual schools and over 100 charter schools. Boasting a diverse

student population, The District serves students from more than 204 countries speaking 135

different languages. It employs over 32,000 people that includes instructional staff,

administration, clerical, support staff, etc. (permanent employees) numbering more than 25,600

and an additional 6,900 employees who are temporary, or substitutes (Broward County Public

Schools, n.d., District Profile). The researcher is a licensed classroom instructor with

certification in educational leadership and aspirations of becoming an effective administrator

within The District.

Designed by the Office of Prevention Programs and Student Support Services, under the

Safe Schools Healthy Students Grant initiative, The District’s antibullying policy was adopted in

July 2008 (Broward County Public Schools, n.d., Antibullying Policy). The office of Diversity,

Cultural Outreach and Prevention (DCOP), (a department within The District) provides services,

resources, strategies, and support for teachers, parents, and students that assist with health and

wellness, instructional strategies, substance abuse prevention, and violence prevention

(Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention, 2007, About).

According to The District’s antibullying policy, by 2011, each school was supposed to

have a prevention liaison (PL), (school based staff member assigned by the principal), to serve as

a conduit between The District and the school. The DCOP collaborates with local schools and

5

trains PLs how to effectively implement The District’s antibullying policy at their schools. This

is accomplished by distributing prevention information through emails, school visits, and

providing prevention workshops throughout the school year (Diversity, Cultural Outreach &

Prevention, 2007, Prevention Liaison Training). There is no stipend or funding for this position

so staff members functioning as PLs are doing so in addition to their regular school duties.

Deficiencies in the evidence. Deficiencies in the literature regarding the effectiveness of

antibullying policies generally point to a lack of fidelity in intervention implementation. Much of

the extant literature shows that many students do not report bullying incidents because they do

not believe that anything will be done about it (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). However, if students do

not report bullying behaviors, what can schools do to help them? Furthermore, having a policy in

place does not necessarily mean that it is being effectively implemented. School staff buy-in is

vital and necessary. Measures must be taken to ensure that all staff and faculty are aware of the

policy, its requirements, and what is in place (at their school) to properly enforce it. However,

confusion still exists as to who is responsible and what exactly should be done when it comes to

bullying – its reduction and prevention. This study addressed this gap and added to the

knowledge base regarding effective antibullying policy implementation.

Audience. The audience for this study was all stakeholders in The District. According to

the United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2011), stakeholders include “parents or

guardians, students, volunteers, school personnel, community representatives, and members of

local law enforcement” (p. 31). A collaborative effort on the part of all stakeholders is necessary

when it comes to policy development. This promotes unity in purpose, specifically regarding

acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for a school community.

6

Additionally, prevention liaisons (PLs), school staff (i.e., teachers, guidance counselors,

etc.) assigned by the principal, are spokespersons for The District regarding the antibullying

policy and its implementation at their respective schools. Therefore, PLs represent

schools/teachers within The District. Their opinions regarding the effectiveness and

implementation practices of antibullying interventions were considered an integral part of this

study and assisted in promoting policy awareness that when effectively implemented contributed

to safer learning conditions.

Definition of Terms

Action research. As used in this study, refers to “any systematic inquiry conducted by

teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning

environment to gather information about how their particular schools operate, how they teach,

and how well their students learn” (Mills, 2014, p. 8).

Antibullying. As used in this study, is any method, intervention, or strategy utilized to

prevent or stop bullying behavior (Toso, 2012).

Antibullying policy. As used in this study, is a school district’s statement of how

bullying is defined and addressed.

Bully. As used in this study, is someone who engages in bullying behavior, and may be

used synonymously with perpetrator or aggressor.

Bullying. As used in this study, is aggressive behavior repeated over time, intentional,

and includes imbalance of power between the victim and bully (Olweus, 1993). The term may be

used synonymously with peer victimization, peer intimidation, peer harassment, and/or relational

aggression.

7

Bully-victim. As used in this study, is someone who is sometimes the aggressor and at

other times is the victim.

Bystander. As used in this study, is someone that is present during a bullying incident

but does not necessarily participate, a witness of bullying behavior.

Character education. As used in this study, “A national movement creating schools that

foster caring young people by modeling and teaching good character through emphasis on

universal values that we all share” (Character Education Partnership, n.d., About Us).

Cyberbully. As used in this study, is someone who uses technology to bully another

person.

Cyberbullying. As used in this study, is using the Internet or technology such as cellular

telephones, computers, tablets, social media sites to bully someone. It is sometimes referred to as

relational aggression/bullying (Long & Alexander, 2010).

Interventions. As used in this study, the programs, practices, strategies, and/or methods

utilized to prevent and/or reduce bullying.

Peer victimization/intimidation/harassment. As used in this study, may be used

synonymously with bullying, and is when someone is “repeatedly exposed to negative actions

from one or more peers” (Raskauskas, 2010, p. 523).

Practical action research. As used in this study, is a type of action research that

involves a specific school/central phenomenon with a view toward improving practice (Creswell,

2012).

Prevention liaison (PL). As used in this study, refers to school based staff members who

serve as the connection between The District and their local schools. “Prevention Liaisons are

responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to four strands of prevention:

8

violence prevention, substance abuse prevention, instructional strategies, as well as health and

wellness” (Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention, 2007, Prevention Liaison Training).

Relational aggression. As used in this study, is “nonphysical aggression in which one

manipulates or harms another’s social standing or reputation” (Leff, Waasdorp, & Crick, 2010, p.

509). This term may be used synonymously with bullying and/or cyberbullying.

School district. As used in this study, public school systems “that provide regular,

special, and/or vocational education services for children in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.

Public school systems in the United States are locally administrated and their geographic

structure varies by state and region” (United States Department of Commerce, 2012, School

Districts).

Victim. As used in this study, is someone who is the receiver of the intentions and

actions of a bully and/or cyberbully.

Zero Tolerance Policy. As used in this study, “A school policy which states bullying

will not be allowed at any point in time by any person, on school grounds, field trips, or any

school related event” (Ramsey, 2010, p. 15).

Statement of Purpose

The changing demographics in schools demand district policies that promote equality and

reduce discrimination, bullying, and violence. Research that promoted, “zero-tolerance

policies… and antibullying programs that tell victims to walk away from bullies ignore the

realities that come with increased diversity, popular culture, and evolving technology” and are

ineffective and counterproductive (Shariff, 2004, p. 223). Information regarding the perceived

effectiveness of antibullying interventions implemented in schools, the need for improvement,

and the possible obstacles to doing so will assist in the understanding, development, and

9

implementation of antibullying policies. The task of achieving school climates that are inclusive,

safe, and caring is and should be of the utmost importance for all stakeholders.

The purpose of this practical action research study was to conduct a content analysis of

the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying policy to determine

their comprehensiveness. Additionally, this study surveyed prevention liaisons (PLs) regarding

their perceptions of antibullying strategies currently implemented, in order to make specific

recommendations to stakeholders regarding intervention effectiveness. The information collected

in this study was utilized to inform practice regarding implementation of The District’s

antibullying policy.

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Historical Background and Significance of Bullying

Considered by many researchers as the father of modern research on bullying, Dan

Olweus started his work in Norway in the 1970s. His research helped shape antibullying

initiatives around the world and his program, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, serves as

a prototype for many bullying prevention programs and continues to exert “great influence on

contemporary intervention models” (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008, p. 27).

The definitions of bullying are various. According to Olweus (2003) “a student 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 students” and “also entails an imbalance in strength” (p. 12). Also

characterized as antisocial behavior, bullying affects others physically and/or emotionally, and is

considered the intimidation/harassment/aggression of peers (Accordino & Accordino, 2011;

Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012; Long & Alexander, 2010). While there is no universally agreed

upon definition of bullying, one common thread is that bullying is an aggressive behavior

defined by an imbalance of power between the bully and victim, meant to cause harm, takes

different forms, and is repetitive in nature.

Bullying occurs in a variety of formats. Direct (overt) methods of bullying are those that

happen directly to the victim. Physical aspects of this type of bullying would include hitting,

kicking, slapping, punching, pushing, spitting, and/or stealing. Additionally verbal abuse, also

considered a direct form of bullying, includes teasing, taunting, name-calling, and/or making

racial/ethnic slurs. Direct bullying methods are easily observable. Conversely, indirect (covert)

bullying incorporates tactics that for the most part are unobservable, including activities that

intentionally exclude others, influence others to behave in certain ways, and/or spread rumors

11

about others (Long & Alexander, 2010). This type of bullying is difficult to prove, and

oftentimes goes unreported.

Cyberbullying, using the Internet or technology to hurt someone is an example of indirect

bullying and sometimes referred to as relational bullying (Long & Alexander, 2010). Slonje and

Smith (2008) described the use of devices like cellular phones, laptops, and tablets by

cyberbullies and further explained, “With cyberbullying the victim may continue to receive text

messages or emails wherever they are” (p. 148). The victim cannot leave the situation because

technology allows the bullying to continue, thus underscoring the seriousness of cyberbullying.

Researchers from around the world have studied and addressed the problem of bullying

for decades. Bullying is not just an American phenomenon but also has a significant presence

internationally. According to Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, and Isava (2008) when it comes to

antibullying research, “American educators and mental health professionals have been relatively

recent players at the international table” (p. 27). Jimerson, Swearer, and Espelage (2010) also

remarked that research on school bullying is “decidedly international, with seminal scholarship

originating in Sweden, Norway, England, Japan, and Australia” (p. 1). Dixon (2011) further

posited that bullying has been of international concern for the past 10 - 20 years and studies on

this subject have occurred in many European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan,

and South Korea. Additionally, Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) explained that bullying is a

reality for children across the world on a regular basis, with percentages “ranging from 9% in

Sweden, around 12% in England, to 25% in the U.S., and even more than 50% in Lithuania” (p.

104).

The beginning of the 21st century saw an increase of studies on bullying in schools and

antibullying interventions worldwide (Rigby & Smith, 2011). Hazler and Carney (2010) posited

12

that bullying has proven to be of such international concern that “no culture is immune” (p. 417)

and according to Smith (2012) several European countries have developed legal requirements

regarding school bullying. The pervasiveness and harmful effects of bullying have spurred

countries all over the world to develop initiatives addressing this issue (Jimerson, Swearer, &

Espelage, 2010). The ramifications of international research and data on bullying give proof to

the universality and gravity of this problem.

Statistically speaking, data confirm the prevalence of bullying. One national survey

indicated that approximately 28% of adolescents in the United States reported victimization

within the past school year (Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder, 2012). In another national study,

one fifth of the youth surveyed admitted being bullied and one fourth claimed they were teased

and/or harassed (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). Yerger and Gehret (2011) also reported that 23% of

elementary students indicated being bullied at least one to three times in the last month. The

authors further stated that one-half of all bullying incidents go unreported with cyberbullying

incidents being less than that.

Lerman (2010) reported that an estimated 160,000 children stay home from school to

avoid peer intimidation. Bullying has made schools hostile and fearful settings and the social and

emotional suffering experienced by victims of bullying keep some students from coming to

school altogether (Long & Alexander, 2010; Good et al., 2011). The consequences of bullying

are numerous. There is no mistaking the seriousness of bullying and its deleterious effects on

students.

Recognized as a persistent problem in schools around the world, the effects of bullying

have taken a toll on all students even if they are not victims. For example, Frey, Edstrom, and

Hirschstein (2010) explained bystanders are also affected by the distress of bullying and

13

experience “moral confusion” (p. 403) and therefore end up not understanding how to cope with

their emotional trauma. Aggressive and disruptive behaviors that invariably affect the learning

environment, bullying has negative implications for everyone involved including the

communities in which they live (Christie-Mizell et al., 2011). Bullying is stressful, chronic, and

contributory to “avoidant behavior and social withdrawal” (Cornell, Gregory, Huang, & Fan,

2013, p. 139). Bullying denies young people basic educational opportunities because they either

dropout or become truants (Frey, Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2010).

Designated as a serious health concern by the American Medical Association, the long-

term consequences of childhood bullying, could manifest as child abuse, domestic violence and

other criminal activities in adulthood (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). Demanet and Van Houtte (2012)

posited that bully-victims are the most likely to suffer with “depression, problem behavior, poor

school-functioning, poor social and emotional adjustment, even psychological and psychiatric

disturbances” (p. 105). Gubler and Croxall (2005) felt that bullies are “seven times more likely to

become delinquents or criminals than their non-bully peers” (p. 65). Additionally, Ttofi,

Farrington, Lösel, and Loeber (2011) in their review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

on the effects of bullying, cited considerable evidence on the detrimental effects that bullying has

on its individual victims, schools, and the community as a whole.

Earning national attention, the consequences of bullying and its link to suicide are in the

news more and more. Twemlow and Sacco (2008) commented that “social aggression can be

lethal leading to suicide and/or homicide” (p. 298). One headline touted “Bullied girl’s suicide

has ongoing impact” (Haas, 2012). This article discussed the ramifications of 15-year-old Phoebe

Prince, an Irish immigrant, who took her life in desperation after months of harassment by male

and female students. Another headline read “Rachel Ehmke, 13-year-old Minnesota Student,

14

Commits Suicide After Months of Bullying” (Huffington Post Education Blog, 2012). This blog

explained how Rachel was a victim of peer abuse and cyberbullying for months until she finally

hung herself. Rachel’s community held a prayer vigil after her death, to show support for her

family and to prompt awareness of the seriousness of bullying. News stories such as these have

generated public outcry for something to be done about bullying.

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical foundations are an important consideration in order to understand why

children engage in antisocial behavior. The contributions of different psychological approaches

assist in the understanding of bullying and in the development of effective interventions. Monks

et al. (2009) discussed several theories that may be applicable to the field of bullying.

The evolutionary approach views bullying as having its roots in “reciprocity and fairness”

(Monks et al., 2009, p. 153) but contended that it does not defend the concept of bullying. The

attachment theory shows how the quality of parental attachment influences the development of

relationships in children and influences how individuals relate to, and develop, relationships with

others. When individuals are insecure in their relationships there will be higher levels of hostility

and aggression.

Hymel, Schonert-Reichi, Bonanno, Vaillancourt, and Rocke Henderson (2010) described

the sociocognitive theory of moral agency as a possible explanation of how children adopt their

moral standards and that these standards internalize and guide their conduct. Obermann (2011)

posited that the social cognitive theory of moral disengagement might explain how individuals

can engage in harmful behaviors that are inconsistent with their moral principles. Several studies

have shown a link between moral disengagement and children’s use of different kinds of

aggression (Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Carmak & Blatney, 1995; Paciello et al., 2008; Pelton et

15

al., 2004 as cited in Obermann, 2011). However, while Obermann felt that the relationship

between moral disengagement and school bullying needed further investigation, Hymel et al.

(2010) felt that results of some studies demonstrated significant links between bullying behavior

and moral disengagement.

The sociocultural theory suggested that the culture of an organization, such as a school is

important. When seen from this perspective the focus would be on changing the organizational

culture as opposed to the individuals within it. Monks et al. (2009) posited that members of a

school are sometimes seen as supporting bullying behaviors either directly or through their

attitudes towards it and that is why many schools have developed a whole school approach to

defeat bullying. According to Elsaesser, Gorman-Smith, and Henry (2013) the social learning

theory proposed that individuals learn from observing the behavior of others. Monks et al. (2009)

also felt that there was evidence of the impact parents and teachers have on children’s behavior

and cited research by Farrington (1993) and Twemlow and Fonagy (2005) concerning this

theory. However, it is the socioecological perspective that considers not only those involved but

also the environment that influences bullying behavior.

Authors, Espelage and Swearer (2010) contended that the socioecological framework,

developed by Kurt Lewin in 1936 “illustrates that behavior is the function of the individual’s

interactions with his or her environment” (p. 61).This model has often been used to study school

violence, was extended to include bullying and serves as the theoretical framework for this study.

The socialecological model supports the idea that bullying is a learned behavior and is a product

of environmental factors such as parents, peers, families, communities, and society. Swearer et

al. (2012) agreed and stated, “Involvement in bullying and peer victimization is the result of the

complex interplay between individuals and their broader social environment” (p. 333). Olweus

16

(2003) also reported that the “attitudes, behavior, and routines of relevant adults – in particular,

teachers and principals” (p. 14) are essential in understanding how and why bullying problems

manifest. Therefore, understanding the theoretical framework of bullying with a socioecological

model will assist in the development of antibullying policy, interventions, and reduction of

bullying behaviors in schools.

Antibullying Legislation and Policy

According to the United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2011), bullying is a

concern for society and a crucial topic when discussing school legislation and policy. Since

1999, there has been increased emphasis on school violence and bullying, primarily due to the

Columbine High School shooting (Temkin, 2008; USDOE, 2011). During the past few years, an

alarming component of school shootings in the United States has been that “some of these

youthful shooters were repeat victims of bullying and peer harassment, were unpopular, and they

ultimately went on a shooting spree as a way of exacting revenge” (Merrell et al., 2008, p. 27).

The shooting at Columbine High School was the first high-profile incident of violent behavior

where bullying seemed to be the underlying cause. This terrible event spurred a flurry of

“legislative action within state legislatures to curtail bullying behavior on school campuses or to

mitigate its effects” (USDOE, 2011, p. 1). Swearer, Limber, and Alley (2009) commented

“historically, in this country, antidiscrimination, harassment, and gun laws have laid the

foundation for communication that these are serious societal concerns, the same trend appears to

be happening for bullying” (p. 39).

Since not all forms of bullying, fall under federal jurisdiction, the federal government has

chosen not get too involved in this issue (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2011), so following

the shootings at Columbine, policy makers responded by developing antibullying regulations at

17

state and school levels (Temkin, 2008). Limber and Small’s (2003) examination of state adopted

antibullying policies gave a glimpse into how lawmakers viewed bullying. The authors

explained, “State laws have been the primary legislative vehicle for announcing new initiatives

designed to reduce bullying behavior” (p. 446). Policy makers set the tone for a school district’s

priorities and level of activity concerning antibullying efforts. They also play a significant role in

promoting “positive awareness and sustained effort needed to reduce bullying and create

peaceful school learning environments” (Twemlow & Sacco, 2008, p. 297).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 identified school safety as specific data collection

and reporting criteria (Merrell et al., 2008) and therefore, required states to pass laws that

mandated local school districts write safety plans and stipulate consequences for violation of

proper school behavior. While the word bullying does not appear in this legislation, it does

however require that each school district have a policy on maintaining a safe school environment

(Edmondson & Zeman, 2011). Therefore, states must have antibullying legislation that requires

school districts to develop and implement antibullying policies. School districts are expected by

state law to develop policies that encompass “a range of required components, such as reporting

and investigation procedures, consequences for prohibited conduct, school personnel training

provisions, or support services for victims” (USDOE, 2011, p. 30). State laws, however, differ in

how they instruct school districts to incorporate new bullying requirements into current school-

based policy documents.

Swearer et al. (2009) posited that legislation is necessary in order to “force school

districts to develop an antibullying policy” (p. 49). Regardless of whether all states have

legislated antibullying laws, all school districts should develop, implement, and follow

antibullying policies. Policies must address the unique environment of each particular school and

18

community. A well-written policy must clearly define as well as explain bullying and the

school’s expectations regarding appropriate behaviors and consequences for inappropriate

behaviors. Swearer et al. (2009) wrote “parents, local school boards, and school administrators

should be supportive and lead the efforts in developing and implementing antibullying policies”

(p. 41). Staff and administrative support for antibullying initiatives must be strong for effective

implementation to occur.

On June 10, 2008, the Florida Legislature passed The Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All

Students Act. This Act required that all Florida school districts adopt a policy prohibiting

bullying and harassment of students and staff on school grounds, at school-sponsored events, and

through computer networks. This legislation also required that the Department of Education

distribute a model policy by October 1, 2008 (Florida Department of Education, n.d., Safe

Schools Related). In order to assist Florida school districts, the Florida Department of Education

(FDOE) created a template for a model district policy to serve as a guideline in developing their

antibullying policies.

Transformational Leadership

The speed with which policies are introduced and/or changed from state legislatures,

mandate that “school leaders must be prepared to guide districts, schools, and teachers through

the often difficult task of changing to meet new expectations” (Fowler, 2013, p. 241). State

legislation dictates district policy and local schools have the obligation of carrying out district

policy. However, every school has its own distinct culture and its “leaders help determine the

cultural tone of a school through the beliefs they hold, the words they speak, and the actions they

take” (Sparks, 2007, p. 110). While effective schools (and school leadership) may be legislated

by policies and regulations, the onus of implementation of said policies and regulations fall on

19

the shoulders of those who are physically present at the schools. Therefore, leadership styles and

approaches play a vital role in the reduction of school violence (Long & Alexander, 2010;

Sparks, 2007).

The theory of transformational leadership posits that if given support, “organizational

members become highly engaged and motivated by goals that are inspirational because those

goals are associated with values in which they strongly believe” (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p.

388). In essence, leadership practices that have a positive influence on others are considered

transformational. Transformational leaders are concerned “with improving the performance of

followers and developing followers to their fullest potential” (Northouse, 2007, p. 181).The

ability to shape the views of others to produce desired outcomes is a necessary attribute for

successful organizational leaders. Effective school administrators, teachers, and staff should

therefore be transformational as well as instructional leaders (Leithwood & Sun, 2012) because

academic achievement has been linked to school safety (Barton, 2009; Long & Alexander,

2010).

Limber and Small (2003) communicated that while state legislation regarding reducing

school violence is necessary, whether or not it is has been effective is entirely another question.

The district communicates state mandates to its schools through policy, but schools have the

responsibility of following through with policy implementation. Any law or policy written to

address bullying must take into account not only current research but “how effectively the law

influences school policies and programs” (Limber & Small, 2003, p. 446).

Swearer et al. (2009) reported that school administrators perceived state policies as

additional work and found it difficult to change staff behaviors. However, buy-in from all

stakeholders (i.e., staff, parents, community, etc.) is necessary for any implementation of policy

20

and/or interventions. Administrators who recognize and acknowledge the importance of bullying

prevention will make every attempt to garner staff buy-in. Administrators must set the

foundation and standard of moral and ethical behavior for their schools regarding the

implementation of the district’s antibullying policy with fidelity. Long and Alexander (2010)

concurred and stated, “The principal’s leadership style and level of commitment, coupled with

the attitudes and beliefs of teachers and parents, are significant in the reduction of bullying” (p.

33). Administrators must realize that cooperation is required among everyone involved and

effectively model the appropriate behaviors to produce the desired outcome in order to create a

safe and secure school.

Programs/Interventions/Strategies

State antibullying laws typically mandate zero tolerance policies in schools (Jones, 2013).

A zero tolerance policy is one where the bully is punished by either suspension or expulsion. An

exclusionary method at best, zero tolerance policies have been shown to be ineffective in

reducing school bullying (Frey et al., 2010; Jones, 2013). Antibullying policies generally set

forth recommendations regarding the prevention of peer harassment and require that some form

of school-wide intervention be in place. Research conducted over the past 20 years has shown

that bullying prevention programs must include multilevel strategies that “target bullies, victims,

bystanders, families, and communities” to be considered effective (Bowllan, 2011, p. 168). Yoon

(2004) also explained that interventions that presume a socioecological stance would

successfully target bullying behaviors by improving the school climate. Therefore, developing a

positive school climate will facilitate the reduction of risks associated with bullying.

Researchers have found many strategies to help reduce and/or prevent bullying. One

important first step is to make sure that policies are clearly stated and in alignment with the

21

district’s (school’s) vision, mission, and goals (Long & Alexander, 2010). Barton (2009)

explained that taking a proactive response to bullying would benefit students and their overall

academic and social growth. Unfortunately, it seems that most schools tend to take a reactive

approach by “installing metal detectors, surveillance equipment, and hiring additional guards”

which does not help with aspects of bullying that occur “out of sight of the video cameras and

without the use of metal weapons” (Barton, 2009, p. 3). Rather, the author recommended that

resources would be better allocated in the incorporation of violence prevention techniques,

curriculum integration of school safety procedures, peer mediation programs, character

education, and the development of conflict resolution skills as these initiatives would “teach

students how to avoid dangerous situations, places, and people” (Barton, 2009, p. 3).

Sherer and Nickerson (2010) explained that antibullying initiatives should “alter the

broader school environment” (p. 218) and expounded on several research based strategies to

combat bullying. For example, in addition to having a school-wide policy on bullying, methods

of data collection and reporting are crucial for providing not only an informational reference

point but also helps in raising awareness of the problem and provides schools with a system of

tracking bullying incidents. Strategies involving improved supervision of students in common

areas where bullying takes place and utilizing a variety of approaches that include and promote

parental awareness must be developed and implemented. Providing for continuous staff

development (inclusive of bus drivers, cafeteria workers, office staff, and custodial staff) needs

to be communicated and received as an integral part of any antibullying intervention.

Educational approaches that facilitate student awareness, understanding of bullying, and involve

them in the prevention process (e.g., peer remediation and/or counseling) should also be

employed. Interventions must also include that bullying behavior needs to be addressed

22

immediately after an incident, follow-up meetings conducted, and counseling provided for the

bully and the victim (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

Implementation and Effectiveness Issues

Clemons and McBeth (2008) define implementation as “organizational activities directed

toward the carrying out of adopted policy by administrative bureaucracies at the national, state,

and local levels” (p. 79). In order to have successful policy implementation individuals and

agencies, (e.g., stakeholders) must be willing participants in the process. “Successful

implementation depends on developing and maintaining both the will and the capacity of the

intermediaries” (Fowler, 2013, p. 242). A school-wide policy on bullying as well as

acknowledgement that bullying is taking place is necessary for any antibullying initiative to be

implemented with fidelity. Long and Alexander (2010) posited that antibullying programs should

be established cooperatively with all stakeholders so that their (stakeholders’) needs are

appropriately addressed and for the program to be operative.

Effective implementation of antibullying strategies is critical in the reduction and

prevention of school bullying. A plethora of research concerning antibullying interventions, what

schools do and should do to prevent bullying abounds; however, there are gaps in extant

literature as to the effectiveness of antibullying programs (Rigby & Bauman, 2010). Sherer and

Nickerson (2010) pointed out “little is known regarding American schools’ current status

pertaining to bullying prevention/intervention efforts” (p. 217). References to outcomes of some

antibullying programs have varied; for example, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program,

developed and evaluated by Olweus in Norway, showed that there was between a 30% - 50%

reduction in bullying (Rigby & Bauman, 2010). However, the program’s effectiveness outside of

Norway has been minimal and according to Rigby and Bauman (2010) only a 15% reduction in

23

bullying can be attributed to antibullying programs and that is more than likely “due to a lack of

thorough implementation” (p. 455).

Moreover, few studies have addressed attitudes of faculty and staff regarding the

effectiveness of antibullying interventions (Holt & Keyes, 2004). Most research on school

bullying and interventions have utilized student information and while the perspective of

students are important and valid, information from adult stakeholders may provide more

assistance in bullying prevention (Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, & Dill, 2008). Teachers

are the ones who must carry out school policy and implement the strategies, interventions, and/or

programs within their schools. If there are implementation or effectiveness issues, then teachers,

their attitudes, and beliefs should be examined; because they are the ones who are exposed to

students on a regular basis and the ones expected to implement the necessary strategies to

reduce/prevent bullying (Rigby & Bauman, 2010; Yoon, 2004).

Existing research has shown that “inconsistencies in program implementation have

diminished treatment effects” (Biggs et al., 2008, p. 534). If teachers do not buy-in to a specific

program or intervention, they will not promote it. Teachers must believe in what they are doing

in order to model it effectively for their students. They are the ones who would know or see if

bullying is occurring, they are the ones students will come to when there is a problem, and they

are the ones who must report it. There are many possible reasons that influence whether teachers

do or do not implement interventions and one might be a “teacher’s perception of the

intervention’s effectiveness” (Biggs et al., 2008, p. 536). Considering research showed that lack

of implementation can be directly correlated to lack of effectiveness in antibullying programs,

Biggs et al. (2008) admonished that there is still a need in extant literature regarding the “careful

attention to fidelity issues” (p. 536).

24

Action Research

First developed in the 1930s by social psychologist Kurt Lewin as a group process to

meet the needs of the time, action research is a process that includes four steps, planning, acting,

observing, and reflecting. It spread from the social sector to academia with a focus on relating

research to practice. Action research is a series of steps that “organizational or community

members have taken, are taking, or wish to take to address a particular problematic situation. The

idea is that changes occur either within the setting and/or within the researchers themselves”

(Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 4). According to Ghazala (2008) “there is a dual commitment in

action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in

changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction” (para. 3). Described as an

organized investigation that is collective, collaborative, and self-reflective, action research is

conducted by stakeholders in order to improve educational practices.

A gap between research and practice exists in the field of education (Mills, 2014), and

action research addresses this gap by embedding learning into practice, enacting change and

improving issues while “formulating public knowledge and contributing to theories of action”

(McGrath & O’Toole, 2011, p. 509). Creswell (2012) advanced that action research

Encourages change in schools; Fosters a democratic (i.e., involvement of many

individuals) approach to education; Empowers individuals through collaboration on

projects; Positions teachers and other educators as learners who seek to narrow the gap

between practice and their vision of education; Encourages educators to reflect on their

practices; Promotes a process of testing new ideas. (p. 578)

Two styles of action research are participatory and practical. Creswell (2012) wrote, “The

purpose of participatory action research is to improve the quality of people’s organizations,

communities, and family lives” (p. 583). Participatory action researchers study issues that

address social problems that suppress the lives of students and educators. However, in practical

25

action research, an educational stakeholder is the researcher. Its primary focus is on how to fix a

problem as opposed to theoretical principles. According to Mills (2014), this research model

assumes that researchers are committed to professional development, school improvement, and

continually reflect on their practices. The practical action researcher is empowered in the

decision making process because they choose the “area of focus, determine their data collection

techniques, analyze and interpret their data, and develop action plans based on their findings” (p.

12).

Rationale

According to Toso (2012) “the first line of defense in bullying prevention is state

antibullying legislation and the ensuing establishment of antibullying policies at the district

level” (p. 4). Toso conducted a content analysis of state antibullying policies of the northeast

region of the United States. This study was a replication of one done by Smith, Smith, Osborn,

and Samara (2008) in the United Kingdom, utilizing the Content Analysis for School

Antibullying Policies (CASABP) (see Appendix A). Smith et al. (2008) felt that a school’s

antibullying policy should be a reflection of a school’s commitment to reducing bullying. Since

antibullying policies may vary from state to state and between school districts within the state

“there has been some [skepticism] about their effectiveness in impacting upon levels of bullying”

(Smith, Smith, Osborn, & Samara, 2008, p. 2). The authors further posited that the analyses of

antibullying policies would more than likely increase to ensure that the standards set forth by

state and/or district mandates are being realized. Their content analysis was conducted to “give

important insights into the strengths and limitations of many school antibullying policies” (p.

10). Toso (2012) concurred and explained that her study “revealed the comprehensiveness of

state antibullying legislation and policies in school districts” (p. 4).

26

Yoon and Kerber (2003) hypothesized that since teachers are generally the ones who

have to deal with bullying behaviors, their perceptions and attitudes should be given the utmost

attention when it comes to establishing a safe learning environment. The way a teacher responds

to bullying can have an impact on future bullying behaviors for both victim and bully. The

Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools (CBPIPAS) survey

instrument (see Appendix B) was designed by Sherer and Nickerson in 2006 to determine what

antibullying strategies schools implemented and the perceived effectiveness of those

interventions (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

In view of the fact that very little research existed regarding antibullying interventions in

American schools, Sherer and Nickerson developed the CBPIPAS to address this gap in

literature. The authors posited that more information was necessary in order to understand the

how American schools handle bullying. Originally administered to school psychologists because

of their active roles in violence and bullying prevention, this survey addressed antibullying

interventions that should encompass all aspects of bullying. The emphasis of this study centered

on the implementation and perceived effectiveness of antibullying strategies, in five categories:

“(a) systems-level interventions, (b) school staff and parent involvement, (c) educational

approaches with students, (d) student involvement, and (e) interventions with bullies and

victims” (p. 217).

Purpose Statement and Research Questions

Schools in The District have their own culture and consequently employ a variety of

antibullying interventions reflecting their diversity, uniqueness, and personal needs. Given the

various antibullying interventions that exist within The District, concerns regarding the fidelity

of implementation and/or the effectiveness of antibullying initiatives need to be addressed. This

27

practical action research study examined Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s

antibullying policy, utilizing the CASABP measuring rubric. Additionally, a survey of the

perceptions of The District’s prevention liaisons regarding the implementation and effectiveness

of antibullying interventions at their schools was conducted using the CBPIPAS. The results of

this study added to the body of knowledge, informed practice regarding antibullying policy, and

enabled the researcher to make specific recommendations to stakeholders within The District

regarding the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions. The following

research questions formed the foundation of this study.

1. How comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation?

2. How comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy?

3. What are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the implementation and

effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools?

Summary

The insidious and rampant problem of bullying is of great concern internationally. It

affects every aspect of society regardless of an individual’s socio-economic status, race,

ethnicity, religious background, sexual preference, and geographic location. It is especially

pervasive in the school system and therefore, schools are legally as well as ethically responsible

for the prevention of peer harassment (Schoen & Schoen, 2010). State legislation and school

district policy dictate rules and regulations regarding discipline, suspension, and expulsion

(Limber & Small, 2003). According to Swearer et al. (2009) steps such as referring to the

district’s model policy, defining bullying behaviors, clearly outlining and specifying

investigative and disciplinary actions, and training stakeholders on prevention procedures must

be included in the development of effective policies.

28

Additionally, much of the research in the U.S. has been from the student’s perspective

and while that may be important, it is necessary to look at how teachers perceive the

effectiveness of bullying interventions (Holt & Keyes, 2004) because they are the ones who must

implement it. Therefore, a practical action research model that analyzes The District’s

antibullying policy and determines the effectiveness of its application in local schools, according

to its teachers’ perceptions, will give insight into how communities can collaborate and unite in

the reduction and prevention of bullying and effectively implement antibullying interventions,

thus creating safer learning environments for students (Schoen & Schoen, 2010).

29

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

According to Nansel et al. (2001), bullying among young people has increasingly become

an important problem that not only affects a child’s well-being but the way they socialize. While

relationships typically have a certain amount of conflict, “bullying presents a potentially more

serious threat to healthy youth development” (p. 2). The adverse effects of bullying have caused

the nation, state, and local communities to set regulations and introduce antibullying prevention

programs. The establishment of an antibullying policy on state and local levels is necessary for

recognizing, addressing, and reducing bullying behaviors; however, a well-written policy is futile

if antibullying interventions are not effectively implemented in schools.

This practical action research study analyzed the comprehensiveness of Florida’s

antibullying legislation, The District’s antibullying policy, and surveyed prevention liaisons’

attitudes regarding the effectiveness of antibullying interventions implemented at their schools.

A cross-section of data collected from the survey also explained the relationship between

bullying prevention practices and The District’s antibullying policy.

Research Design

The design used for this study was practical action research. According to Creswell

(2012) action research designs are ways that “educators aim to improve the practice of education

by studying issues or problems they face” and “reflect about these problems, collect and analyze

data, and implement changes based on their findings” (p. 577). This type of research seeks to

foster collaboration among stakeholders and utilizes either quantitative, qualitative, or a mixed

methods design. Riel (2010) asserted that the results of an action research study are “practical,

relevant, and can inform theory” (para. 6). This design places value on the significance of the

30

findings to the researcher and stakeholders, as well as provides an effective strategy for

improving an organization’s climate and culture.

At its core, action research focuses on problem solving, utilizes methodologies that are

dependent on the requirements of the research/researcher, and has a unique cyclical approach

(Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014; Riel, 2010). The steps in the action research process, repeat as

needed (see Figure 1). McGrath and O’Toole (2011) posited that this research design “relies on

an action-reflection cycle to achieve its learning outcomes” (p. 508).

Figure 1. Action Research Steps. Adapted from “Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher”, by G. E.

Mills, 2014, p. 20, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Copyright 2014 by Pearson Education Inc.

An element of action research, practical action research focuses more on an applicable

approach than a theoretical one (Mills, 2014). Additionally, in practical action research, the

investigator is committed to school improvement and has the capability to “choose their own

area of focus, determine their data collection techniques, analyze and interpret their data and

develop action plans based on their findings” (Mills, 2014, p.12).

Identify an Area of Focus

Collect Data

Analyze and Interpret Data

Develop an Action Plan

31

The content analysis and survey conducted as part of this study are integral components

of this practical action research design. Data collection techniques for action research studies can

be organized into three categories known as the Three Es: Experiencing, Enquiring, and

Examining (Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). These techniques

enable the researcher to determine the most appropriate means of gathering information (see

Figure 2).

Figure 2. Action Research Data Collection Techniques. Adapted from “Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher

Researcher”, by G. E. Mills, 2014, p. 99, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Copyright 2014 by Pearson Education

Inc.

This study only utilized the Enquiring and Examining techniques. The role of the

researcher in Enquiring is to ask questions, this form of data collection may include interviews,

questionnaires, and/or attitude scales. During the Examining technique, the researcher’s role

involves the examination of documents, journals, field notes, and/or audio/videotapes (Creswell,

2012; Mills, 2014; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). Data collected through Enquiring and

Examining techniques were analyzed and the results reported in chapter four.

The use of the CASABP rubric to determine the comprehensiveness of the State of

Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying policy was one aspect of this

practical action research study. Additionally, by evaluating prevention liaisons’ perceptions of

The Three Es

Experiencing Researcher observes

Enquiring Researcher asks

questions

Examining Researcher analyzes

documents

32

antibullying initiatives this study sought to determine the effectiveness of antibullying

interventions being implemented (within The District), as measured by the CBPIPAS survey

instrument. The use of a practical action research design facilitated planning efforts, the

implementation, and evaluation of intervention strategies as outlined in Florida legislation and

The District’s policy.

Participants

A purposeful sampling was done for both aspects of this practical action research study.

According to Creswell (2003) in purposeful sampling, the investigator selects the documents

and/or participants that would effectively answer the research questions. For example,

documents that contain the main topic or theme being studied or participants that have specific

experiences with the “central phenomenon” in the study would be sufficient to warrant selection

by the investigator (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 112).

The content analysis portion of this study required the use of documents (Florida

Antibullying Law – §1006.147 FS and The District – Statute 5.9: Anti Bullying) that are

publically available and easily obtained online through the Internet. The participants for the

survey were prevention liaisons (PLs). PLs were chosen because they have specific knowledge

of and/or exposure to antibullying interventions in their schools. Mandated by The District’s

antibullying policy, each school in The District must have a PL, making each PL a representative

of the total school/teacher population in The District. PLs are school based personnel (i.e.,

teachers, guidance counselors, and/or peer counselors, etc.) that are trained by The District in

prevention matters and they in turn, take that information back to their local schools for

dissemination. The CBPIPAS survey instrument was administered at the end of a PL

professional development workshop hosted by The District after permissions from the

33

Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of Nova Southeastern University and The District, as well as

the director of the Diversity, Cultural Outreach and Prevention (DCOP) (department within The

District) were obtained (Creswell, 2008).

Instruments

Content Analysis for Schools Antibullying Policies (CASABP). Neuendorf (2002)

stated:

Content analysis is a summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages that relies on the

scientific method … and is not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured

or the context in which the messages are created or presented. (p. 10)

A content analysis can therefore be used to summarize the comprehensiveness of a document

and seeks to apply general conclusions regarding the document.

According to Smith et al. (2008), antibullying policies are an indication of how

committed schools are to preventing bullying. The authors further suggested that in order to be

judged effective by stakeholders, a policy must first be clear as well as comprehensive. Toso

(2012) concurred and further explained that any study of bullying and its prevention should also

include an “analysis of antibullying legislation and ensuing district policies” (p. 47).

A review of literature on bullying revealed an investigation conducted by Toso in 2012,

regarding antibullying legislation and policies. Toso studied antibullying legislation and district

policies of the northeast region of the United States. Using a mixed methods research design,

Toso utilized the CASABP rubric to determine the comprehensiveness of antibullying legislation

in nine states and antibullying policies of 351 randomly sampled school districts and found the

CASABP to be a valid and reliable instrument (Toso, 2012).

According to Smith et al. (2008), the research conducted so far in England suggested that

school antibullying policies might be deficient in important areas. Therefore, the authors

34

developed the CASABP, to examine antibullying policies of schools in the United Kingdom

(Smith et al., 2008; Toso, 2012). The CASABP, originally designed with 31 questions in four

subgroups, analyzed 142 school antibullying policies and found that “schools had about 40% of

the items in their policies” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 1). Additionally the CASABP rubric had face

validity and “the internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the total antibullying policy content

scale was reasonably high (.76)” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 9).

The CASABP has since been updated and modified and now contains 34 items divided

into the same four sections. Each section measured whether the policy addressed a specific issue

regarding bullying and is a representation of a “composite score based on the authors’ definitions

and information” (Toso, 2012, p. 53). Section A addressed the definition of bullying in a policy

and has 13 items. Section B addressed whether a policy included reporting and responding

criteria for bullying incidents and has 11 items. Section C addressed whether a policy made

provision for the recording, communication, and evaluation of the policy and has four items.

Lastly, section D addressed whether a policy discussed strategies for the prevention of bullying

and has six items (Toso, 2012).

A valid and reliable instrument to examine antibullying policies, the CASABP rubric was

used in this study. The researcher was granted permission to use this instrument from the

authors. A copy of the 34-item CASABP rubric was included in Toso’s research report and

replicated for use in this study. The CASABP rubric was used to answer Research Questions 1

and 2.

This study used the same instrument (CASABP), as Smith et al. (2008) and Toso (2012)

did in their studies; however, some differences should be noted. The investigation conducted by

Smith et al. reviewed and compared 142 individual school antibullying policies. Toso’s study

35

reviewed and compared the antibullying legislation of nine states and 351 school districts’

antibullying policies. This study analyzed the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation (one

state) and The District’s antibullying policy (one school district) to determine their respective

comprehensiveness (see Research Questions 1 and 2).

The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) developed a template as a guideline for

school districts to follow regarding the development of a model antibullying policy. The FDOE’s

Model Policy Against Bullying and Harassment (Florida Department of Education, 2014, DOE’s

Revised Model) outlined what Florida’s 67 school districts should have in their policies;

however, the basic requirements are generic in nature. A model policy is one that surpasses that

reflected in the FDOE’s model. Districts are required to have a policy that incorporates what is

stated in the model policy, however, they are also encouraged to include other aspects as dictated

by the individual and personal needs of their district. The CASABP is a comprehensive, valid,

and reliable measurement tool that analyzed the specific components of other policies and

assisted in determining the extensiveness of The District’s antibullying policy. If The District’s

antibullying policy meets model policy status according to the FDOE standards, then the use of

the CASABP rubric could be used to measure and validate whether The District’s antibullying

policy is truly a model policy or not.

Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools

(CBPIPAS). This study also examined prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the

implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions. The use of a cross-sectional

survey instrument allowed inferences to be made about the sample population’s attitudes or

beliefs and then applied it to the general population (Creswell, 2003). Fink (2003) likewise

explained that a survey is an organized way of collecting data regarding the attitudes of people.

36

Additionally, surveys are generally easy to administer and issues with confidentiality can easily

be maintained (Creswell, 2003).

An investigation using a variety of search engines looking for existing surveys that were

appropriate for this study did not yield any that addressed teacher perceptions on bullying

prevention. Many of the surveys found were primarily for use by students or part of a specific

bullying program and did not address effective implementation of antibullying interventions or

strategies in general. A literature review through numerous databases (e.g., ERIC, ProQuest,

Sage Publications, etc.) for articles on bullying, bullying prevention, antibullying, and/or teacher

attitudes finally yielded two studies with surveys that addressed teacher perceptions.

The first study was the Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS) conducted

by Cross et al. in 2007 (Cross et al., 2011). Cross et al. administered the ACBPS at the request of

the Australian government in order to “benchmark the nature and extent of covert and other

bullying behaviors in schools” (p. 398). The National Safe Schools’ Framework (NSSF) is a

national policy that outlines 23 whole-school practices as a guide for Australian schools to assist

them in the reduction of bullying behaviors. The authors posited that the primary goal of the

ACBPS was to enhance knowledge about covert bullying in Australian schools and to inform

policy and practice regarding this serious problem (Cross et al., 2011).

Two instruments were developed and used in the ACBPS: a student survey and a teacher

survey. Teachers were surveyed regarding their school’s implementation of the NSSF’s 23

“strategies to reduce covert bullying using one of six response options, ranging from strategy not

adopted to strategy adopted” (p. 399). The survey also allowed for teachers to rate the level of

the staff’s proficiency in addressing bullying problems. Cross et al. (2011) contended that the

goal of the staff survey was to understand staff perceptions regarding bullying issues. The

37

ACBPS was a very thorough examination of covert bullying in Australian schools, and while

many of the components it assessed are similar to those needing evaluation in this study, the

ACBPS instrument would have required extensive modifications and would have been difficult

to administer because of its overall length.

The second study was located in the article entitled, “Antibullying Practices in American

Schools: Perspectives of School Psychologists” (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010). Sherer and

Nickerson conducted this study using the Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in

American Schools (CBPIPAS) survey instrument. The authors administered the survey in 2006

to address a gap in research literature regarding antibullying interventions in American schools.

They felt that much of the research on bullying prevention practices received a lot of

international attention; however, little was still known regarding bullying prevention in the

United States.

The purpose of the Sherer and Nickerson study was to address the need for more

information on antibullying practices in American schools by looking at five categories: “(a)

systems-level interventions, (b) school staff and parent involvement, (c) educational approaches

with students, (d) student involvement, and (e) interventions with bullies and victims” (p. 217).

The following is an analysis of each category.

In systems level interventions, a variety of bullying prevention strategies that studies

have shown positively impact the school environment are addressed. For example, having an

antibullying policy, establishing a bullying committee that facilitates and coordinates bullying

prevention activities, providing a means to collect, disseminate and/or track data on bullying

incidents, and implementing research based antibullying programs (i.e., Olweus Bullying

38

Prevention Program) are some key considerations in this category (Meraviglia, Becker,

Rosenbluth, Sanchez, & Robertson, 2003; Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

The next category, school staff and parent involvement, included procedures for

involving school staff in bullying prevention activities; providing professional development,

staff training, and increasing adult supervision in places where bullying may occur. In addition,

strategies for including parents would be distribution of newsletters on bullying and its

prevention, inviting parents out to antibullying assemblies, and conferencing with parents of

victims and bullies when incidents occur (Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

Educational approaches with students, the third category, included activities that raise the

awareness of the whole school regarding bullying problems. An example of this would be the use

of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program which promotes the establishing of “classroom rules

against bullying, having consequences for violations of rules, and holding regular classroom

meetings to facilitate the discussion of bullying problems and peer relations” (Sherer &

Nickerson, 2010, p. 218). Additionally, the incorporation of antibullying curriculum, character

education, and conflict resolution skills in the classroom are strategies that positively influence

students (Barton, 2009; Meraviglia et al., 2003; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

Student involvement in prevention and intervention efforts is another category that Sherer

and Nickerson (2010) felt needed to be addressed in order to reduce bullying. The development

of support processes such as peer mediation, peer counseling, and allowing students input in

decision-making processes regarding bullying are considered important components of

antibullying interventions (Long & Alexander, 2010).

Lastly, interventions with bullies and victims are also key components necessary to

address bullying prevention. This category involved addressing bullying incidents immediately

39

as well as consistently following-up with both the victim and bully. Individual and/or group

counseling with the bully, victim, and even bystanders may be warranted and should be provided

(Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

Participants of the Sherer and Nickerson study were a random sample of school

psychologists. School psychologists were selected because they play a major role in violence

prevention and are privy to school-wide policies regarding bullying. Diamanduros, Downs, and

Jenkins (2008) also addressed the role of school psychologists on the topic of bullying and

concurred they (school psychologists) are important because they are often involved in

promoting awareness on bullying and its psychological impact on children.

Sherer and Nickerson’s four-page survey was organized into three sections. The first

section addressed general demographic questions; the second section addressed bullying

prevention and intervention activities implemented in respondents’ schools; and the last section

asked respondents for their opinions regarding the most effective, least effective antibullying

strategies, and areas in need of improvement. To establish content validity, the authors sent a

draft of the questionnaire to a convenience sample of 10 school psychologists and the only

feedback received were minor wording issues on a few items to improve clarity (Sherer &

Nickerson, 2010).

The CBPIPAS survey was mailed to 500 school psychologists, however only 213

responses were received and evaluated as part of the study. The results showed that school

psychologists had mixed feelings about the effectiveness and implementation of antibullying

policies. This may be because some school psychologists are assigned to multiple schools and

“schools can vary in the way they develop and implement their antibullying policies, resulting in

different perceptions of its effectiveness” (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010, p. 226).

40

For the purpose of this study, the CBPIPAS instrument was a self-administered survey

given to teachers participating in a professional development workshop on prevention conducted

by The District. The teachers that took this survey were prevention liaisons (PLs). An important

aspect of The District’s antibullying policy is that every school should have a PL. The PL is

“responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to the four strands of

prevention – violence prevention (the bullying policy, etc.), substance abuse prevention,

instructional strategies, as well as health and wellness” (Diversity, Cultural Outreach &

Prevention, 2007, Prevention Liaison Training). The District provides resources to help PLs train

their school staff, students, and parents on prevention strategies. Prevention liaisons are a sample

representation of the population of schools/teachers within The District. The CBPIPAS was used

to determine these teachers’ perception of implementation and effectiveness of antibullying

interventions. Variables embedded within Research Question 3 and addressed by the survey are

outlined in Table 1. Permission to modify and use the CBPIPAS was obtained from its author.

Table 1

Research Question 3 and Survey Measures

Variables

Research question

Items on survey

1. Implementation of antibullying

interventions, strategies, and/or

programs

RQ 3

What are prevention liaisons’

perceptions regarding the

implementation and effectiveness

of antibullying interventions?

Part II Bullying Prevention and

Intervention Activities –

Questions 1 and 2.

2. Perceived effectiveness of

antibullying interventions,

strategies, and/or programs

RQ 3

What are prevention liaisons’

perceptions regarding the

implementation and effectiveness

of antibullying interventions?

Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and

Barriers – Questions 4-7.

41

Procedures

According to Mills (2014) the steps in action research include, “identifying an area of

focus, collecting data, analyzing and interpreting the data, and developing an action plan” (p.

19). The area of focus, the effectiveness of antibullying interventions as perceived by prevention

liaisons in accordance with Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying

policy have been established. The next step was data collection.

Action research data collection techniques, known as the Three Es: Experiencing,

Enquiring, and Examining (Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008) enable

the researcher to determine the most appropriate means of gathering information. This study only

utilized the Enquiring and Examining techniques. During the Enquiring phase, the researcher

asks questions of participants to better understand the central phenomenon being studied and

may use a survey instrument (such as the CBPIPAS) to collect data. Additionally, a content

analysis of documents (such as the CASABP) would constitute using and/or recording

information, which would be Examining. Further steps in the action research process, analyzing,

and interpreting data, and developing an action plan are reported and discussed in chapters four

and five.

The content analysis portion of this study utilized the CASABP rubric as a measuring

tool because of its proven reliability and validity by its developer Smith et al. (2008) and in

subsequent research by Toso (2012). A good instrument is one that is reliable, meaning that a

researcher can get the same results every time it is used. In content analysis, achieving reliability

is extremely important because “without acceptable levels of reliability, content analysis

measures are meaningless” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 12). The use of human coders or raters relies on

establishing interrater reliability, “a level of agreement among two or more coders” (p. 12). Both

42

Smith et al. and Toso incorporated the use of raters and participated as raters in their studies. In

this study, the researcher was rater 1 and rater 2 was chosen based upon their qualifications and

background in educational research.

Neuendorf (2002) posited that the development of a codebook (operational definitions)

and a score sheet serve as “protocol for content analyzing messages” (p. 132). For example,

raters will look throughout the text that they have coded and “using a predetermined coding

scheme, identify whether they assigned the same or different codes to the text” (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2007, p. 135). The operational definitions (see Table 2) assisted in eliminating

ambiguity as well as individual differences among raters and is an example of the one used in the

Toso study (2012). The scoring sheet was a copy of the CASABP with a space provided to

answer either yes or no.

Rater 2 was instructed in the scoring process as well as given directions and explanations

on the use of the scoring sheet and operational definitions. In the scoring process, each category

in the policy was scored either a one for meeting the criteria outlined or a zero for not meeting it.

Each section was then subtotaled and a total score was given ranging from 0 - 34 (Smith et al.,

2008; Toso, 2012).

A pre-trial was conducted; rater 1 and rater 2 independently scored a Florida school

district’s antibullying policy (District X), using the CASABP rubric, and then determined

interrater reliability. When interrater reliability had been established, the actual study began.

Both raters independently scored the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation, confirmed

interrater reliability, then independently scored The District’s antibullying policy, and confirmed

interrater reliability. Finally, both raters conducted a post trial by independently scoring another

Florida school district’s antibullying policy (District Y). This was to re-establish and re-confirm

43

interrater reliability (see Table 3). This study included a pre- and post trial with testing for

interrater reliability occurring four times. Data collected from the content analysis were reported

in the results section (see Chapter 4).

Table 2

Operational Definitions

Section A – Definition of bullying behavior (contains 13 items):

How the policy defines bullying, differentiates it from other types of aggressive behavior,

describes the difference between physical and verbal bullying, mentions relational, material,

cyber, homophobic, racial, and sexual bullying. It also discusses the issue of pupil-pupil

bullying as well as adult/teacher – pupil bullying or vice versa.

Section B – Reporting and responding to bullying incidents (contains 11 items):

Explains what victims should do after a bullying incident, how teachers should respond,

mentions the responsibility of other school staff, parents, pupil bystanders and states

whether sanctions for bullying depend upon the type or severity of the episode. It also

addresses whether follow up sanctions were effective, discusses what actions will be

taken if bullying persists, how to help the student who is victimized as well as the one

who bullies and discusses how parents will be informed.

Section C – Recording bullying, communicating and evaluating the policy (contains 4

items):

Explains how bullying incidents will be reported, who is responsible for coordinating the

recording system, shows how the information will be used and mentions periodic review of the

policy.

Section D – Strategies for preventing bullying (contains 6 items):

Mentions positive behaviors exhibited in averting bullying, peer support, advice for parents, and

preventative role of playground activities or lunchtime supervisors and discusses issues in

inclusiveness for everyone including non-English speakers and students with learning

disabilities.

Note. Adapted from “Attacking bullying: An examination of antibullying legislation and policies,” by T. M. Toso, (2012) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3505717)

44

Table 3

Steps for Establishing Interrater Reliability and Content Analysis

1.

Pre-trial

Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score a Florida school district’s

antibullying policy (District X)

Interrater reliability established

2.

Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score the State of Florida’s

antibullying legislation

Confirm interrater reliability

3.

Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score The District’s antibullying

policy

Confirm interrater reliability

4.

Post trial

Researcher/Rater 1 and Rater 2 will independently score another Florida school

district’s antibullying policy (District Y)

Interrater reliability re-confirmed Note. Adapted from “Attacking bullying: An examination of antibullying legislation and policies,” by T. M. Toso,

(2012) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3505717)

The CBPIPAS survey instrument developed by Sherer and Nickerson (2010) was used in

this study to determine PLs’ perceptions on the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying

interventions in The District. According to Creswell, (2012) researchers use surveys to describe

attitudes or characteristics of a population. A cross-sectional survey design was used because the

researcher can collect data at one time and this helps in measuring “current attitudes or practices”

(p. 377). Sherer and Nickerson also used a cross-sectional survey design in their study.

The CBPIPAS instrument utilized in this study was 3-pages (back-to-back), and a self-

administered survey. It asked respondents questions about 43 antibullying strategies. The first

45

section of the survey has eight demographic items. The second section has three items and the

scoring procedures are as follows:

For 39 strategies, respondents provided frequency of use of each strategy on a 5-point

rating scale (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = always, 5 = don’t know). On the

remaining four strategies (antibullying policy, antibullying committee, school-wide

positive behavior support plan, and reporting procedures), respondents indicated whether

their schools used each strategy by circling yes, no, or don’t know because these

strategies are either in place or not and rating the frequency of usage does not apply to

them. (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010, p. 221)

Finally, the last section of the survey had four items and asked for opinions about the most

effective and ineffective antibullying strategies, areas in need of improvement, and barriers to

improvement by choosing from a list of 20 bullying prevention strategies (the last question had

nine options).

After receiving permissions from the IRBs of Nova Southeastern University and The

District to conduct this study, a request was made to administer the CBPIPAS survey instrument

at one of the prevention liaison professional development workshops, which generally occurs

during the spring of each school year. Once approved, the facilitator of the workshop and the

writer agreed on the most appropriate time (during the workshop), to administer the CBPIPAS,

which would take approximately 15 - 30 minutes. The prevention liaison workshops were held

on three different days (2-days for elementary PLs and 1-day for secondary PLs). The survey

was administered just before lunchtime at the elementary PL workshops. For the secondary PLs,

the survey was administered at the conclusion of their session.

After sufficient copies of the CBPIPAS survey instrument and participation letter were

made and distributed, a brief introduction and explanation regarding the purpose of the survey

was given. The writer read the participation letter aloud and reiterated that participation in the

survey was voluntary and that all information collected would be held in strict confidence. The

46

writer informed participants where to place completed surveys, gave directions for completion of

the survey, and stepped out of the meeting room until the survey was completed (approximately

15 - 30 minutes). A participant was previously designated to notify the writer when all surveys

had been returned to the specified collection location. The writer then returned inside, collected

the surveys, and thanked everyone for their participation (see Table 4). Data collected from the

CBPIPAS were reported in the results section (see Chapter 4).

Table 4

Procedures for Administration of CBPIPAS (Survey)

Steps

Directions

Approximate time

1.

Introduce the survey and explain its

purpose. Answer any questions

participants may have.

5 minutes

2.

Distribute survey and give directions for

its completion and collection.

5 minutes

3.

Step out of room while survey is being

completed.

15 minutes

4.

Return and collect completed surveys.

5 minutes

Data analysis. This practical action research study answered the following research

questions.

1. How comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation?

2. How comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy?

3. What are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the implementation and

effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools?

The CASABP rubric was used to answer Research Questions 1 and 2. Agreements

between raters were established during the pre-trial, confirmed during the study, and re-

47

established during the post trial. In order to establish interrater reliability the coefficient kappa

was formulated. According to Neuendorf (2002), kappa is an option for calculating intercoder

reliability and while it “does not assess internal consistency among a variety of measures” ... it is

primarily concerned with “agreement, agreement beyond chance, and covariation” (p. 148).

Cohen’s kappa was utilized in this study to assess interrater reliability. It is a widely used

reliability coefficient that “assumes nominal-level data and has a normal range from .00

(agreement at chance level) to 100 (perfect agreement), and a value of less than .00 indicates

agreement less than chance” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 151). According to Toso (2012) “a kappa of

.70 or above indicates adequate inter-rater agreement” (p. 72). Additionally, Viera and Garrett

(2005) set forth guidelines for the interpretation of kappa which Toso (2012) also used in her

study; a kappa of 0.61 - 0.80 shows substantial agreement and a kappa of 0.81 – 0.99 shows

almost perfect agreement. Once the data were collected and coding completed, the data were

analyzed and descriptive analysis reported in the results section (see Chapter 4).

The CBPIPAS survey instrument was used to answer Research Question 3. In order for

an antibullying policy to be effective, it must be implemented with fidelity. The District’s

antibullying policy outlines general and specific guidelines for its employees regarding

antibullying interventions and practices. However, if these interventions are not in place, or

ineffectively implemented due to barriers associated with teacher training, resources, and/or

administrative issues, having a good policy in place only satisfies state and district mandates but

has no true value or significance. The data collected from the survey, (PLs’ responses for each

question) were statistically and descriptively analyzed. Percentages, means, and standard

deviations were calculated, tabulated, and described in the results section (see Chapter 4). In

addition to determining the comprehensiveness of The District’s antibullying policy, a cross-

48

section of data collected from the survey explained the relationship between bullying

intervention practices and The District’s antibullying policy (see Chapter 5).

Limitations

According to Fink (2003), “sampling error or bias is inevitable” (p. 27), however, some

measures were used in this study to reduce them. For example, demonstrating that the target

population and the sample do not differ on the selected variables, helped in reducing sampling

error. The use of prevention liaisons (PLs) as a representative sample of the total population of

The District’s teachers was sound because having a prevention liaison is mandated by The

District’s antibullying policy. The significance of the PL’s position in the school is representative

of the fact that they are considered the front line for the receiving and distribution of prevention

information from The District to all the schools and teachers in The District. However, a factor

for potential limitation that could not be controlled was the amount of participants that would

take the survey because while all schools may have been mandated to have a PL, they may not

have assigned one or a PL may not attend.

Summary

The CASABP was used to determine the comprehensiveness of Florida’s antibullying

legislation and The District’s antibullying policy. The CBPIPAS examined whether teachers

believe antibullying interventions are effectively implemented in The District. The perceptions of

these teachers (PLs) can assist in understanding how the development of policy is inadequate in

the prevention of bullying in their schools. An antibullying policy will only work if it is properly

implemented. In order for effective implementation to occur, administrators must recognize and

convey the importance of policy implementation to the entire staff. There must be teacher buy-in,

49

effective evidence-based strategies in place, staff trainings need to occur (on a regular basis), and

consistent follow-up procedures and routines need to be established.

It is an assumption that school staff can only intervene if bullying has been reported to

them or happens in front of them, because of this, much of the research on antibullying

interventions stems from studies or surveys of students who reported being bullied and what

happened afterward (i.e., was it handled immediately and/or appropriately, etc.). However, extant

literature shows that many students do not report bullying incidents, because they do not believe

that anything will be done about it (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). If students do not report bullying

behaviors, which studies show that 70% of them do not, (Rigby & Bauman, 2010), how can

school staff assist them?

This practical action research study sought to enhance the body of knowledge and inform

practice regarding antibullying strategies by determining PLs’ perceptions of the effectiveness of

antibullying interventions that exist at their schools. When school staff are aware of what is in

place, properly trained, and have the capability of enforcing (antibullying) policy they will be

better able to assist students in reporting bullying behaviors when they occur, and in decreasing

bullying behaviors, as mandated by district policy.

School staff is aware of The District’s antibullying policy. They know that bullying

issues must be addressed. However, with all of their other duties, unless they are directly

confronted with bullying in some form or aspect, they carry on somewhat routinely with their

jobs. It is only when an incident occurs that they are then forced to recognize the importance of

effectively implementing antibullying interventions. It is unfortunate that unless a school, class,

teacher, or student is experiencing an issue with bullying, it may not be taken seriously. While

the legal requirements of having a policy may have been met by The District, measures must be

50

taken to ensure that all staff and faculty are aware of the policy, its requirements, and what is in

place (at their school) to properly enforce it. However, confusion still exists as to who does what,

when, and/or how when it comes to bullying – its reduction, and prevention. The purpose of this

study was to address those issues.

51

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

Peer harassment/victimization is an international issue with negative influences on the

mental health and academic performance of children, and has been extensively documented in

research (Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Duong, 2011). In order to address this serious problem, school

districts in the United States, have developed and implemented antibullying policies according to

state mandated antibullying legislation (USDOE, 2010). However, the task of implementing

policy falls squarely on the shoulders of those who are directly involved with students, those who

encounter students on a day-to-day basis. The attitudes and perceptions of administrators and

teachers regarding an antibullying policy are important and must be taken into consideration if

any policy is to be effectively implemented.

This practical action research study examined the State of Florida’s antibullying

legislation and The District’s (school district located in southeast Florida) antibullying policy,

utilizing the Content Analysis for Schools Anti Bullying Policies (CASABP) rubric. Also, a

survey of the perceptions of The District’s prevention liaisons (i.e., teachers and/or counselors

representing each school in The District) on the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying

strategies at their schools was administered using the Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention

Practices in American Schools (CBPIPAS) survey instrument.

The following research questions formed the basis for this study.

1. How comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation?

2. How comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy?

3. What are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the implementation and

effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools?

52

The results of data collected through the CASABP rubric and CBPIPAS survey instrument are

reported in this chapter.

Content Analysis Results

The CASABP answered Research Questions 1 and 2. This measuring rubric was divided

into four sections. Section A—Definition of bullying behavior was worth 13 points. Section B—

Reporting and responding to bullying incidents was worth 11 points. Section C—Recording

bullying, communicating, and evaluating policy was worth 4 points. Section D—Strategies for

preventing bullying was worth 6 points. The maximum points for all sections totaled 34.

The CASABP required the utilization of two coders/raters (the researcher was rater 1 and

rater 2 was selected based upon her qualifications in mathematics and research). Since the

establishment of interrater reliability is important in content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002), a pre-

trial was conducted to ascertain interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was confirmed twice

during the study, and re-confirmed through the post trial.

For the pre-trial, both raters independently scored a Florida school district’s (District X)

antibullying policy using the CASABP rubric. District X received 24 out of 34 total points.

Approximately 70.58% of District X’s antibullying policy met the requirements of the CASABP.

The percentage of agreement between raters was 94.11 and interrater reliability was established

at .93 (M= 6.00, SD= 4.56).

Now that interrater reliability had been established, an examination of the State of

Florida’s antibullying legislation was next. Using the CASABP, the total score was 21.50 out of

34 points. Overall, the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation met 63.23% of the requirements

needed on the CASABP. The percentage of agreement between raters was 85.29 and interrater

reliability was .81 (M= 5.37, SD= 3.81). The District’s antibullying policy was scored next. The

53

District’s total score was 28 out of 34 points. The District met 82.35% of the requirements in the

CASABP rubric. The percentage of agreement between raters was 94.11 and interrater reliability

was .92 (M= 7.00, SD= 4.37). Finally, a post trial was conducted to re-confirm interrater

reliability. Another Florida school district’s (District Y) antibullying policy was individually

examined by both raters. The total score received was 23 out of 34 points. District Y met 67.64%

of the requirements as set forth by the CASABP. The percentage of agreement between raters

was 88.23 and interrater reliability was .85 for the post trial (M= 5.75, SD= 4.17).

Tables 5 and 6 show the scoring and analysis of the State of Florida’s antibullying

legislation and The District’s antibullying policy (respectively) as measured by the CASABP.

Table 5

Summary State of Florida’s Antibullying Legislation

CASABP

Rater 1

Rater 2

Total

Percentage

of agreement

Interrater

reliability

Section A (13 points)

9

11

10

85

Section B (11 points)

6

8

7

82

Section C (4 points)

2

2

2

100

Section D (6 points)

2

3

2.5

83

Total points (34)

19

24

21.5

85

.81

%

55.88

70.58

63.23

M

4.75

6.00

5.37

SD

3.81

Note: Percentage of agreement is the sum of the number of agreements between the coders, divided by the total

possible score and is also used in Cohen’s Kappa to calculate interrater reliability.

54

Table 6

Summary The District’s Antibullying Policy

CASABP

Rater 1

Rater 2

Total

Percentage of

agreement

Interrater

reliability

Section A (13 points)

11

12

11.5

92

Section B (11 points)

10

10

10

100

Section C (4 points)

3

3

3

100

Section D (6 points)

3

4

3.5

83

Total points (34)

27

29

28

94

.92

%

79.41

85.29

82.35

M

6.75

7.25

7

SD

4.37

Note: Percentage of agreement is the sum of the number of agreements between the coders, divided by the total

possible score and is also used in Cohen’s Kappa to calculate interrater reliability.

Survey Results

The CBPIPAS survey was given at The District’s prevention liaison (PL) workshop

conducted on three different days (2-days for elementary PLs and 1-day for secondary PLs).

Elementary participants were administered the survey just before they went to lunch and

secondary participants received the survey at the conclusion of their workshop. According to

correspondence received from workshop facilitator (see Appendix C), there are 217 prevention

liaisons. Of 217 PLs, 144 (66.35%) attended the professional development workshop. Ninety-

eight attendees (68.05%) were from elementary schools and 46 (31.94%) were from secondary

schools. A total of 124 (86.11%) PLs participated in the survey of which 75% were from

elementary and 25% from secondary. From the 124 participants, 93 (94.89%) were elementary

and 31 (67.39%) were secondary.

55

The survey had three parts. Part I Demographics had eight questions. Part II Bullying

Prevention and Intervention Activities had three questions. Question 1 contained four items,

Question 2 had six subsections totaling 39 items, and Question 3 was an open-ended item.

Finally, in Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers, participants had to choose from a list of

20 strategies (condensed from Questions 1 and 2) the three most effective, the three most

ineffective, and the three strategies needing the most improvement to answer Questions 4, 5, and

6. Question 7 asked respondents to select from a list of nine, reasons that may be barriers to

improvement. After data were collected and coded (including additional responses that were not

originally included on the survey), descriptive analyses using percentages, means, and standard

deviations were calculated and are reported here by section.

Data Analysis for survey Part-I Demographics. Demographic data collected

(Questions 1 through 8) were for informational purposes only.

Question 1 asked participants to check either male or female. Of 124 participants 110

(88.70%) represented females and 14 (11.30%) represented males.

Question 2 asked participants at what type of setting do they work. One participant chose

not to respond so the category NR (no response) was added to the codebook (but not to the

calculations). The majority of those that responded, 88 (71.54 %) worked at elementary schools,

followed by 18 (14.63%) that worked at middle schools, nine (7.31%) worked at high schools,

four (3.25%) worked at a center, two (1.62%) worked at K - 8 (elementary/middle schools), and

two respondents (1.62%) worked at more than one school (middle and high schools).

Question 3 asked participants about the highest educational degree they have earned. The

majority of participants, 83 (66.93%) possess a master’s degree. Twenty-two participants

56

(17.74%) possess an educational specialist degree, 10 (8.06%) possess a doctorate degree, and

nine (7.25%) possess a bachelor’s degree.

Question 4 asked participants what was their position/title. The majority of participants,

60 (48.78%) responded that they had more than one position. However, when data from the more

than one position category were analyzed, it showed that 97 (78.86%) participants were actually

guidance counselors. Table 7 provides the breakdown of responses, including the analysis with

the more than one position.

Table 7

Part I Demographics—Q.4

Position

n=123

%

> 1

position

%

Classroom teacher

3

2.43

17

13.82

Special area teacher

1

.81

5

4.06

Curriculum specialist

1

.81

3

2.43

Guidance counselor

51

41.46

97

78.86

Support staff

1

.81

14

11.38

Prevention liaison

1

.81

58

47.15

Peer counselor

0

0

10

8.13

Other

5

4.06

17

13.82

>1 position

60

48.78

Note: NR (no response) was 1 and not included in calculations.

Questions 5 and 6 asked participants how many years of experience they have in The

District and in their school respectively. They had to choose from the appropriate range for their

years of service. For The District, the majority of participants, 30.32% responded 6-10 years of

57

experience. For school, the majority of participants, 44.16% responded 1-5 years of experience

(see Table 8).

Table 8

Part I Demographics—Q.5 and Q. 6

Q.5

Q.6

Years of experience

n=122

The District

%

n=120

School

%

< 1 year

5

4.09

5

4.16

1-5 years

11

9.01

53

44.16

6-10 years

37

30.32

27

22.50

11-15 years

29

23.77

18

15.00

16-20 years

17

13.93

13

10.83

21+ years

23

18.85

4

3.33 Note: NR (No response) for Question 5 was 2. NR was 4 for Question 6. NR not included in calculations.

Question 7 asked participants how many years they have been a prevention liaison. It was

noted while analyzing the responses that 43 (35.83%) responded they had more than 2 years of

service. This category had to be added to the codebook for data analysis. Thirty-five (29.16%)

respondents reported they were PLs for 2 years, 25 (20.83%) reported they were PLs for less

than 1 year, 9 (7.50%) reported they were PLs for only 1 year, and 8 (6.66%) respondents

reported this was not applicable to them. Four participants gave no response to this question and

were not included in calculations.

Question 8, the final question for Part I Demographics, asked participants about the

quality of their prevention liaison training. Of the 122 respondents, 73 (59.83%) reported the

quality of their training as good. Twenty-three participants (18.85%) reported the training was

58

either fair or excellent. Three participants (2.45%), reported that the training was poor. Two

participants did not respond to this question and are not included in the calculations.

Table 9 displays a breakdown of the total responses for Part I Demographics. Response

rate was 98.58% (M= 122.25).

Table 9

Summary Part I Demographics

Items

n

%

Highest

response

n (%)

Response

Rate (%)

1. Gender

124

100.00

Female

110 (88.70)

2. Setting

123

99.19

Elementary

88 (71.54)

3. Degree

124

100.00

MS

83 (66.93)

4. Position

123

99.19

Guidance

97 (78.86)

5. # years-The District

122

98.38

6-10

37 (30.32)

6. # years-School

120

96.77

1-5

53 (44.16)

7. # years as PL

120

96.77

>2+

43 (35.83)

8. Quality of PL training

122

98.38

Good

73 (59.83)

M

122.25

98.58 Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

Data Analysis for survey Part II Bullying Prevention and Intervention Activities.

Questions 1 and 2 of this section refer to 43 antibullying strategies. Question 1 asked whether the

prevention liaison’s school implemented four specific strategies. The available responses were

yes, no, and do not know. There was a 99.19% response rate (M= 123.00).

Table 10 shows the breakdown of responses for Question 1.

59

Table 10

Bullying Prevention Strategies at Prevention Liaisons’ Schools

Responses

Strategies

Yes

No

Don’t

Know

Total

Responses

Response

rate (%)

1. Written antibullying policy 117 3 4 124

2. Antibullying committee 57 63 3 123

3. School-wide positive behavior plan 107 12 4 123

4. Formal reporting procedures 112 9 1 122

M

98.25

21.75

3.00

123

SD

27.80

27.75

1.41

99.19 Note: N= 124. M and SD were calculated on response averages.

Question 2 addressed 39 strategies that were grouped together into six subsections

(School Environment, Staff Involvement, Working With Bullies and Victims, Parent

Involvement, Educating Students, and Peer Involvement). The responses available were 1-never,

2-sometimes, 3-often, 4-always, and 5-do not know. The category NR was included for data

analysis but not in sample calculations.

The first subsection, School Environment had four items. There was a 98.18% total

response rate (highest M= 42.50-always and the lowest M= 8.50-don’t know, highest SD= 8.18-

always and the lowest SD= 4.20-don’t know ). The category NR (no response) was included in

60

data analysis however was not utilized in the sample calculations. See Table 11 for a breakdown

of responses for the subsection School Environment.

Table 11

Data Analysis Part II-School Environment Subsection

Items

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

NR

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

1. School-wide

survey 22 34 21 35 11 1 123

2. Modifying

space and

schedule to

reduce bullying

12 27 27 51 6 1 123

3. Improving

quality of

recess

7 31 33 36 13 4 120

4. Procedures to

avoid contact

between the

bullies and

victims

4 20 45 48 4 3 121

Total 45 112 126 170 34 9 487 98.18

M 11.25 28.00 31.50 42.50 8.50 2.25 121.75

SD 7.88 6.05 10.24 8.18 4.20

Note: N= 124

The next subsection was Staff Involvement and contained six items. Data analysis

showed there was a 97.98% total response rate (highest M= 57.66-always and the lowest M=

7.53-never, highest SD= 20.17-always and the lowest SD= 3.76 never). The category NR (no

response) was included in data analysis however was not utilized in the sample calculations. See

Table 12 for a breakdown of responses for the subsection Staff Involvement.

61

Table 12

Data Analysis Part II-Staff Involvement Subsection

Items

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

NR

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

1. Antibullying

resources for

teachers 2 20 34 6 5 2 122

2. Antibullying

resources for non-

teachers 12 26 28 32 24 2 122

3. Antibullying

training for

teachers 5 11 12 92 2 2 122

4. Antibullying

training for non-

teaching staff 11 17 21 47 24 4 120

5. Increasing adult

supervision in less

structured

locations

8 22 28 63 0 3 121

6. Monitoring

invisible locations 9 31 25 51 6 2 122

Total 47 127 148 346 61 15 729 97.98

M

7.83

21.16

24.66

57.66

10.16

121.50

SD

3.76

6.96

7.52

20.17

10.92

Note: N= 124

The next subsection for Question 2 was Working With Bullies and Victims (10 items).

There was a 96.53% total response rate for this section (highest M= 64.70-always and lowest M=

3.50-never, highest SD= 18.83-always and lowest SD= 2.79-don’t know). The category NR (no

response) was included in data analysis however was not utilized in the sample calculations. See

Table 13 for the breakdown of responses for Working With Bullies and Victims.

62

Table 13

Data Analysis Part II-Working With Bullies and Victims Subsection

Items

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

NR

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

1. Identifying students at

risk for bullying others 4 17 41 56 1 5 119

2. Identifying students at

risk for victimization 3 22 43 49 2 5 119

3. School staff having a talk

with bullies following

bullying incidents

0 3 26 89 1 5 119

4. School staff having a talk

with victims following

bullying incidents

0 2 24 93 1 4 120

5. Research based

programs/curricula 3 15 29 65 8 4 120

6. Individual counseling

with bullies 1 9 32 74 4 4 120

7. Group counseling with

bullies 12 25 35 42 6 4 120

8. Disciplinary

consequences for bullies 3 14 34 67 2 4 120

9. Individual counseling

with victims 0 11 31 75 3 4 120

10. Group counseling with

victims 9 26 40 37 8 4 120

Total

35

144

335

647

36

43

1197

96.53

M

3.50

14.40

33.50

64.70

3.60

119.70

SD

4.03

8.40

6.38

18.83

2.79

Note: N= 124

The next subsection, Parent Involvement, had five items. There was a 96.77% total

response rate (highest M= 70.60-always and lowest M= 2.60-never, highest SD= 16.54-always

and lowest SD= 3.19-don’t know). The category NR (no response) was included in data analysis

63

however was not utilized in the sample calculations. See Table 14 for a breakdown of responses

for subsection Parent Involvement.

Table 14

Data Anlysis Part II-Parent Involvement Subsection

Items

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

NR

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

1. Informing

parents of

antibullying

policy

1 7 21 90 1 4 120

2. Educating

parents about

bullying

5 15 34 64 3 3 121

3. Providing

parents with

information on

antibullying

curriculum

7 19 38 46 9 5 119

4. Contacting and

meeting with

parents of

bullies

0 8 29 76 7 4 120

5. Contacting and

meeting with

parents of

victims

0 9 30 77 4 4 120

Total

13

58

152

353

24

20

600

96.77

M

2.60

11.60

30.40

70.60

4.80

120

SD

3.20

5.17

6.34

16.54

3.19

Note: N= 124

Educating Students is the next subsection in Question 2 and had seven items. There was a

95.84% total response rate (highest M= 50.85-always and lowest M= 6.42, highest SD= 21.77-

always and lowest SD= 5.85). See Table 15 for a breakdown of responses for subsection

Educating Students.

64

Table 15

Data Analysis Part II-Educating Students Subsection

Items

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

NR

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

1. Talking to students

about bullying in

assemblies

5 14 23 78 0 4 120

2. Distributing printed

resources about

bullying to students

12 19 41 46 2 4 120

3. Violence prevention

curricula 9 26 31 43 9 6 118

4. Antibullying

education curricula 7 29 35 42 5 6 118

5. Classrooms rules

against bullying 1 8 27 76 6 6 118

6. Weekly class meeting

to discuss bullying

and peer conflicts

25 41 20 15 18 5 119

7. Engaging students in

cooperative group

work

3 15 40 56 5 5 119

Total

62

152

217

356

45

36

832

95.84

M

8.85

21.71

31.00

50.85

6.42

118.85

SD

8.00

11.13

8.14

21.77

5.85

Note: N= 124

The final subsection in Question 2, Peer Involvement, had seven items. The total

response rate was 97.23% (highest M= 40.57-never and lowest M= 3.42-don’t know, highest

SD= 19.65-never and lowest SD= .97-don’t know). The category NR (no response) was included

in data analysis however was not utilized in the sample calculations. See Table 16 for a

breakdown of responses for subsection Peer Involvement.

65

Table 16

Data Analysis Part II-Peer Involvement Subsection

Items

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

NR

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

1. Students working as

school ambassadors 31 26 37

24

3

3

121

2. Peer juries/court to

“try” bullies

81

20

8

8

4

3

121

3. Students formally

participating in

decision-making

process

37

38

30

9

4

6

118

4. Students taking

leadership roles in

antibullying activities

33

35

27

22

3

4

120

5. Peers offering

companionship/

friendship to victims

24

30

39

23

5

3

121

6. Peer mediation

28

35

29

27

2

3

121

7. Students working as

peer counselors

50

34

18

17

3

2

122

Total 284 218 188 130 24 24 844 97.23

M

40.57

31.14

26.85

18.57

3.42

120.57

SD

19.65

6.28

10.79

7.50

.97

Note: N= 124

Table 17 displays the results for Part II Question 2 by response. There was a 97.09%

response rate for this section (highest M= 50.81-always and lowest M= 6.15-don’t know, highest

SD= 18.65-always and lowest SD= 2.73-don’t know). See Table 17 for a breakdown of responses

for Part II Question 2.

66

Table 17

Frequency of Responses for Bullying Prevention Strategies

Note: N= 124. Mean, percentages, and standard deviation were calculated based on total responses for all

subsections. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

Part II Question 3 was an open-ended response item that asked participants to specify any

other bullying prevention/intervention strategy that their school was currently implementing and

not included in Questions 1 and 2. This question had a low response rate. Of 124 participants 22

Part II Question 2

Responses

Subsections

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Don’t

know

Total

responses

Response

Rate (%)

School environment

(4 items)

11.25

28.00

31.50

42.50

8.50

121.75

Staff involvement

(6 items)

7.83

21.16

24.66

57.66

10.16

121.50

Working with

bullies & victims

(10 items)

3.50

14.40

33.50

64.70

3.60

119.70

Parent involvement

(5 items)

2.60

11.60

30.40

70.60

4.80

120.00

Educating students

(7 items)

8.85

21.71

31.00

50.85

6.42

118.85

Peer involvement

(7 items)

40.57

31.14

26.85

18.57

3.42

120.57

Totals

74.60

128.01

177.91

304.88

36.90

722.37

97.09

M

12.43

21.35

29.65

50.81

6.15

120.39

SD

14.16

7.53

3.26

18.65

2.73

67

(17.74%) responded and 102 (82.25%) did not respond. This question was discarded and not

included in the data analysis.

Table 18 displays a summary analysis for Part II Questions 1 and 2.

Table 18

Summary Part II Bullying Prevention and Intervention Activities

Items (43)

M

Response rate (%)

Q.1

Please indicate whether your school uses the following

bullying prevention/interventions strategies (4 items)

123.00 99.19

Q.2

Please indicate how often your school uses the following

strategies to prevent/handle bullying incidents

(6 subsections with 39 items)

120.39 97.09

M

121.69

Total response rate (%) 98.13

Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

Data Analysis for survey Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers. The final

portion of the CBPIPAS survey, Part III Questions 4 through 7, dealt with the perceptions of

participants as to the effectiveness, needs, and barriers associated with prevention/intervention

strategies. For Questions 4 through 6, participants chose their responses from the 20 strategies

listed, (condensed from the 43 strategies in Questions 1 and 2).

Table 19 gives the breakdown for Question 4 by frequency of selection. The total

response rate was 71.77%.

68

Table 19

Data Analysis of Part III Q.4

Effective Bullying Prevention Strategies n= 89 %

1. A whole school antibullying policy 53 59.55

2. A school-wide positive behavior plan 35 39.22

3. Setting up a bullying reporting procedure 35 39.22

4. Staff education and training 28 31.46

5. Modifying space and schedule for less structured activities 13 14.60

6. Counseling with bullies 11 12.35

7. Immediate responses to bullying incidents 10 11.23

8. Antibullying educational activities with students 9 10.11

9. Research based programs/curricula 9 10.11

10. Interventions for students at risk for bullying/victimization 8 8.98

11. Procedures to avoid contact between the bullies and victims 7 7.86

12. Involving parents in bullying intervention 7 7.86

13. Increasing supervision in less structured and invisible locations 7 7.86

14. Involving students in bullying prevention 7 7.86

15. Involving parents in bullying prevention 6 .74

16. Zero-tolerance policy with bullies 6 6.74

17. Counseling with victims 6 6.74

18. An antibullying committee 5 5.61

19. A school-wide survey to address bullying 5 5.61

20. Involving students in bullying intervention 1 1.12

Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

Table 20 gives the breakdown for Question 5 by frequency of selection. The response

69

rate was 55.64%.

Table 20

Data Analysis of Part III Q.5

Ineffective Bullying Prevention Strategies n= 69 %

1. Modifying space and schedule for less structured activities 23 33.33

2. Zero-tolerance policy with bullies 20 28.98

3. A school-wide survey to address bullying problems 19 27.53

4. Procedures to avoid contact between the bullies and victims 19 27.53

5. Antibullying committee 16 23.18

6. Involving parents in bullying prevention 13 18.84

7. Staff education and training 9 13.04

8. School-wide positive behavior plan 8 11.59

9. Research based programs/curricula 8 11.59

10. Setting up a bullying reporting procedure 7 10.14

11. Interventions for students at risk for bullying/victimization 7 10.14

12. Increasing supervision in less structured and invisible

locations 7 10.14

13. Counseling with bullies 6 8.69

14. A whole school antibullying policy 5 7.24

15. Involving parents in bullying intervention 5 7.24

16. Immediate responses to bullying incidents 5 7.24

17. Antibullying educational activities with students 3 4.34

18. Counseling with victims 3 4.34

19. Involving students in bullying intervention 3 4.34

20. Involving students in bullying prevention 2 2.89

Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

70

Table 21 gives the breakdown for Question 6 by frequency of selection. The total

response rate was 61.29%.

Table 21

Data Analysis of Part III Q.6

Bullying Prevention Strategies Needing Improvement n= 76 %

1. Involving parents in bullying prevention

18

23.68

2. Research based programs/curricula

15

19.73

3. Zero-tolerance policy with bullies

14

18.42

4. Involving parents in bullying intervention

13

17.10

5. Increasing supervision in less structured and invisible locations

13

17.10

6. Involving students in bullying prevention

13

17.10

7. Involving students in bullying intervention

13

17.10

8. Antibullying committee

11

14.47

9. School-wide survey to assess bullying problems

11

14.47

10. Modifying space and schedule for less structured activities

11

14.47

11. Procedures to avoid contact between the bullies and victims

11

14.47

12. Interventions for students at risk for bullying/victimization

11

14.47

13. Staff education and training

11

14.47

14. School-wide positive behavior support plan

10

13.15

15. Immediate responses to bullying incidents

10

13.15

16. Antibullying educational activities with students

9

11.84

17. Setting up a bullying reporting procedure

6

7.89

18. Whole school antibullying policy

5

6.57

19. Counseling with bullies

3

3.94

20. Counseling with victims

3

3.94

Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

71

Table 22 gives the breakdown for Question 7. The response rate was 66.93%.

Table 22

Data Analysis of Part III Q.7

Barriers to Improvements n= 83 %

1. Budget constraints 46 55.42

2. Lack of trained staff 27 32.53

3. Lack of support from teachers 17 20.48

4. Lack of support from parents 31 37.34

5. Lack of time 46 55.42

6. Priorities focused on other issues 43 51.80

7. Lack of support from administration 11 13.25

8. Lack of expertise and resources 12 14.45

9. Other 11 13.25

Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

Table 23 shows a total response rate of 63.91% for this section of the CBPIPAS.

Table 23

Summary Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers

Items (4) n Response rate (%)

Q. 4

What are the three most effective bullying prevention/intervention

strategies in your school’s current antibullying practice?

89 71.77

Q. 5

What are the three most ineffective bullying prevention/intervention

strategies in your school’s current antibullying practice?

69 55.64

Q.6

What the three bullying prevention/interventions areas that are most in

need of improvement (either adding into current practice or increasing

intensity) to better address the problem of bullying in your school?

76 61.29

Q.7

What are the barriers that make it difficult for these improvements to take

place?

83 66.93

M

79.25

Response rate (%)

63.91

Note: N= 124. NR was not included in calculations.

72

Table 24 displays the response totals for the CBPIPAS (Parts I, II, and III). The

CBPIPAS survey had a response rate of 86.87% (M= 107.73).

Table 24

Survey Response Totals

Items

M

Response rate (%)

Part I Demographics (Questions 1 - 8)

122.25

98.58

Part II Bullying Prevention and Intervention Activities

(Questions 1 & 2, 43 items)

121.69

98.13

Part III Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers

(Questions 4 - 7, 4 items)

79.25

63.91

M

107.73

Total response rate (%) 86.87

Note: N= 124. NR (No response) was not included in calculations.

Results by Research Question

Research Question 1 was how comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying

legislation. The percentage of compliance was 63.23%, the level of comprehensiveness was

medium (M= 21.50, SD= 4.37). The level of comprehensiveness was determined by dividing the

total score earned by the total maximum points of 34 utilizing the following standards: Low = 1

– 11 points (2.94% - 32.35%); Medium = 12 – 23 points (35.29% - 67.64%); and High = 24 – 34

(70.58% - 100%).

Research Question 2 was how comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy. The

percentage of compliance was 82.35%, the level of comprehensiveness was high. (M=28, SD=

4.37). The level of comprehensiveness was determined by dividing the total score earned by the

total maximum points of 34 utilizing the following standards: Low = 1 – 11 points (2.94% -

32.35%); Medium = 12 – 23 points (35.29% - 67.64%); and High = 24 – 34 (70.58% - 100%).

73

Research Question 3 was what are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the

implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools. The CBPIPAS

survey instrument, Part II Questions 1 and 2 addressed implementation and Part III Questions 4

through 7 addressed effectiveness.

Table 25 displays the top five most and least implemented antibullying strategies at

respondents’ schools. The majority of respondents, 117 (94.35%), reported their schools used a

whole school antibullying policy. Thirty-five respondents (28.45%) reported that a school-wide

survey to address bullying was least implemented at their schools.

Table 25

Survey Results Research Question 3—(Implementation)

Most Implemented Strategies

Responses

%

A whole school antibullying policy

117

94.35

Formal reporting procedures

112

91.80

A school-wide positive behavior plan

107

86.99

Immediate responses to bullying incidents

91

76.15

Involving parents in bullying intervention

76.5

63.75

Least Implemented Strategies

A school-wide survey to address bullying

35

28.45

Involving students in bullying intervention

45.57

37.88

Procedures to avoid contact between the bullies and victims

48

39.66

Modifying space and schedule for less structured activities

51

41.46

Involving students in bullying prevention

51.75

43.67 Note: No Response (NR) was not included in calculations. Multiple items in the CBPIPAS corresponded to multiple

strategies, therefore calculations reflect use of mean for yes and always responses.

74

Part II Questions 4 through 7 answered the effectiveness aspect of Research Question 3.

For Question 4, 53 respondents (59.55%) reported that the most effective strategy was a whole

school antibullying policy. Thirty-five respondents (39.22%) reported having both a school-wide

positive behavior plan and setting up a bullying reporting procedure were the second most

effective strategies. Twenty-eight respondents (31.46%) reported staff education and training as

the third most effective strategy.

For Question 5, 23 respondents (33.33%) reported that modifying space and scheduling

for less structured activities was the most ineffective strategy. The second most ineffective

strategy was a zero-tolerance policy with bullies, which 20 respondents (28.98%) reported.

Lastly, tied for third most ineffective strategies were a school-wide survey to address bullying

and procedures to avoid contact between the bullies and victims, which 19 respondents (27.53%)

reported respectively.

For Question 6, 18 respondents (23.68%) reported that involving parents in bullying

prevention needed the most improvement. Fifteen respondents (19.73%) reported that having

research-based programs/curricula was the second strategy in need of most improvement and 14

respondents (18.42%) reported that a zero-tolerance policy with bullies was the third strategy

needing the most improvement.

For Question 7, 46 participants (55.42%) reported that both budget constraints and lack

of time were barriers to improvement and another 43 (51.80%) respondents reported priorities

focused on other issues as a barrier to improvement.

Summary

The content analysis of the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation and the District’s

antibullying policy revealed their levels of comprehensiveness (medium and high, respectively).

75

The District’s policy contained more strategies than required by the state. Additionally, the

cross-sectional survey demonstrated that 75% of strategies being implemented in schools are

incorporated in The District’s antibullying policy. Prevention liaisons’ perceptions of

implementation and effectiveness of antibullying strategies revealed mixed attitudes. While

nearly all PLs felt that having an antibullying policy was the most implemented strategy, and a

little over 60% felt it was the most effective strategy, findings indicated that many of the specific

strategies contained therein are not being implemented to fidelity.

76

Chapter 5: Discussion

Overview

Bullying has garnered so much national attention that states have enacted legislation for

school districts to have an antibullying policy to address this issue (Limber & Small, 2003).

While districts endeavor to meet this legislative mandate, their local schools have the task of

implementing the policy and ensuring its effectiveness. However, research has shown that in

order for antibullying policies to be effectively implemented there must be staff and

administrative support (Austin, Reynolds, & Barnes, 2012; Swearer et al., 2009; Young et al.,

2009). Adequate staff support, resources, and training develops an environment conducive to

stakeholder buy-in (Austin et al., 2012; O’Brennnan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009; Rivers, Poteat,

Noret, & Ashurst, 2009).

A district’s antibullying policy is a reflection of the district’s commitment to reducing

bullying and must be clear and specific; any study of bullying prevention must include an

analysis of legislation and policy (Smith et al., 2008; Toso, 2012). Districts must “establish an

effective school policy acceptable to teachers, counselors, administrators and other stakeholders”

(Austin et al., 2012, p. 287). There should be consistent implementation as well as regular

evaluations in order for effective implementation to occur. Furthermore, administrators must

convey the importance of the policy to the entire staff, and establish bullying

prevention/intervention strategies as a priority for maintaining a positive and safe learning

environment.

Much of the extant research on antibullying interventions and effectiveness of policy

implementation are student centered (Biggs, et al., 2008; Holt & Keyes, 2004). However, since

teachers are the ones who must administer school policy, if there are issues with policy

implementation, then the attitudes and perceptions of teachers should be examined (Rigby &

77

Bauman, 2010, Yoon, 2004). According to Kennedy, Russom, and Kevorkian (2012) “The role

of teacher perceptions of the seriousness of bullying is recognized as being predictive of the

likelihood of intervention in bully incidents” (p. 3). Additionally, teachers must believe in what

they are doing for there to be effective implementation of any policy (Biggs et al., 2008).

This practical action research study investigated the comprehensiveness of the State of

Florida’s antibullying legislation, The District’s antibullying policy; and also the

implementation, and effectiveness of antibullying initiatives as perceived by prevention liaisons.

Prevention liaisons are school based staff members who serve as conduits between The District

and schools, and are responsible for the dissemination of prevention curriculum related to The

District’s antibullying policy.

A content analysis of the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s

antibullying policy was conducted utilizing the CASABP rubric. Additionally, the CBPIPAS

survey instrument was administered to prevention liaisons. The summary, interpretation, context,

and implication of findings are presented in this chapter, along with limitations experienced and

recommendations for the future. The results of this study added to the body of knowledge,

informed practice regarding antibullying policy, and enabled the researcher to make specific

recommendations to stakeholders within The District regarding the implementation and

effectiveness of antibullying interventions with respect to The District’s antibullying policy. The

following research questions formed the foundation of this study.

1. How comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation?

2. How comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy?

3. What are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the implementation and

effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools?

78

Summary and Interpretation of Findings – Content Analysis

A content analysis was conducted to determine the comprehensiveness of the State of

Florida’s antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying policy. This form of data

collection allowed the researcher to examine documents, summarize their general content, and

apply general conclusions (Neuendorf, 2002). The CASABP rubric was the instrument employed

to determine the extent of compliance of the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation and The

District’s antibullying policy. The validity and reliability of this instrument was previously

established by its author and in subsequent studies (Smith et al., 2008; Toso, 2012) and

permission was granted to the researcher to use the CASABP rubric.

This study had two raters, the researcher was rater 1 and rater 2 was selected based upon

her experience with research and mathematics. The scoring sheet was a copy of the CASABP

with a space provided to answer either yes or no. Rater 2 was instructed in the scoring process

and given directions and explanations on the use of the scoring sheet and operational definitions.

In the scoring process, each category in the policy earned either 1 point for meeting the criteria

outlined or 0 points for not meeting it.

The establishment of interrater reliability was essential, so during content analysis,

Cohen’s kappa was used to establish, confirm, and re-confirm interrater reliability. Viera and

McBeth (2005) explained kappa levels of .81 - .99 were considered almost perfect agreement for

interrater reliability. For the pre-trial, the kappa level was .93 and therefore considered almost

perfect agreement. Subsequent tests for interrater reliability also confirmed almost perfect

agreements (State of Florida was .81 and The District was .92). The post trial re-confirmed

almost perfect agreement as well at .85.

79

The CASABP rubric analyzed four components that encompassed the necessary

requirements an antibullying legislation and/or policy should contain. Section A addressed the

definition of bullying and had 13 items. Section B addressed reporting and responding criteria

for bullying incidents and had 11 items. Section C addressed recording, communicating, and

evaluating the policy and had four items. Lastly, section D addressed strategies for the

prevention of bullying and had six items. The maximum score a policy could receive was 34.

The level of comprehensiveness was determined by dividing the total score earned by the total

maximum points of 34 utilizing the following standards: Low = 1 – 11 points (2.94% - 32.35%);

Medium = 12 – 23 points (35.29% - 67.64%); and High = 24 – 34 (70.58% - 100%). The

summary and interpretation of findings for the comprehensiveness of the State of Florida’s

antibullying legislation and The District’s antibullying policy as measured by the CASABP are

presented by research question.

Research Question 1 How comprehensive is the State of Florida’s antibullying

legislation. For section A, definition of bullying, the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation

averaged 10 out of 13 points, meeting 76.92% of section A’s requirements. For section B,

reporting and responding to bullying incidents, the State of Florida had a mean score of 7 out of

11 points, meeting 63.63% of section B’s requirements. For section C, recording bullying,

communication, and evaluating policy, the State of Florida received a mean score of 2 out of 4

points and met only 50% of the requirements. In section D, strategies for preventing bullying, the

State of Florida received a mean score of 2.5 out of 6 points and only met 41.66% of the

requirements.

The combined total of both raters averaged 21.50 out of 34 points which meant that the

State of Florida’s antibullying legislation met 63.23% of all the necessary requirements. The

80

percentage of agreement between raters was 85.29% and interrater reliability was .81 which was

considered almost perfect agreement. The overall rating of 21.50 points (63.23% compliance)

was considered a medium level of comprehensiveness.

Research Question 2 How comprehensive is The District’s antibullying policy. For

section A, definition of bullying behavior, The District scored of 11.5 out 13 points and met

88.46 % of the requirements. For section B, reporting and responding to bullying incidents, The

District’s overall score was 10 out of 11 points and met 90.91% of the requirements. For section

C, recording bullying, communication, and evaluating policy, The District scored 3 out of 4

points and met 75% of the requirements. For section D, strategies for preventing bullying, The

District‘s total score was 3.5 out of 6 points and met 58.33% of the requirements. It was noted

that The District received low scores for this section by both raters.

The combined score for all sections averaged to 28 out of 34 points. This meant that The

District met 82.35% of all components measured by the CASABP. The percentage of agreement

between raters was 94.11% and interrater reliability was .92 which was considered almost

perfect agreement. The overall rating of 28 points (82.35% compliance) was considered a high

level of comprehensiveness.

Additional findings from the CASABP showed that for section A, both raters agreed that

the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation was missing items A2 (has a definition that makes

it clear that bullying is different from other kinds of aggressive behavior) and A12 (mentions

bullying due to disabilities). Both raters also agreed that The District was only missing item A2

(has a definition that makes it clear that bullying is different from other kinds of aggressive

behavior). Additionally, there was disagreement as to whether or not the state addressed

81

homophobic bullying (A8) and also whether or not the state and The District mentioned

adult/teacher vs. pupil bullying (A11).

Of interest was that The District’s policy mentioned bullying because of disabilities but

did not mention the difference between bullying behavior and aggressive behavior. These

findings suggested that while the state only gave a generic definition of bullying, it left it up to

local school districts to specifiy or clarify their bullying definition. Therefore, state legislation

did not mandate that this criteria be addressed. According to Smith et al. (2008) clear definitions

are essential components in the development of any policy and assists in maximizing their

effectiveness.

For section B, both raters agreed that items B4 (clearly mentions the responsibilities of

parents if they know of bullying), B6 (states whether sanctions applied for bullying can vary),

and B8 (discusses what action will be taken if the bullying persists) were missing from the State

of Florida’s antibullying legislation. Both raters also agreed that The District’s policy was only

missing item B8 (discusses what action will be taken if the bullying persists). Disagreements

between raters existed as to whether or not the state legislation says how teaching staff should

respond to a report of bullying (B2) and also, whether or not the state clearly mentions the

responsibilities of other school staff (B3).

The findings for this section of the CASABP suggested that state legislation only

mandated a standard method of reporting and responding to bullying incidents. It is evident that

if the state does not include specifics in its legislation then a school district does not have to

either. However, the question arises as to what happens if and/or when bullying persists, what

guidelines are in place to ensure there is compliance? If something was already in place, school

officials would know how to handle the situation and be in agreement with state mandates as to

82

what should be done. Additionally, how does this impact a school’s culture if faculty, staff, and

students perceive that nothing is in place for repetitive or persistent acts of bullying? Training for

“all” staff is a key component for reducing bullying. Students who perceive that there is a

positive school climate with caring teachers would probably report issues of bullying more

(Kueny & Zirkel, 2012).

In section C, both raters agreed the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation was missing

items C2 (says who is responsible for coordinating the recording system) and C4 (mentions

periodic review and updating of the policy). Both raters also agreed that only item C4 (mentions

periodic review and updating of the policy) was missing from The District’s antibullying policy.

There were no disagreements between raters for this section.

The findings indicated that while the state legislation did not mention who is responsible

for coordinating the recording system, it was implied that school districts should. The District’s

policy mentioned that the principal or principal’s designee is the one responsible, which does

meet the criteria but is still somewhat vague. An additional finding suggested that because there

was no provision made for a procedure for policy review or updating (for either the state or The

District), this could be problematic. School cultures are fluid, constantly evolving, and the issues

that are not present today may be present tomorrow. Regular review of procedures and policies

would take that into consideration. Nickerson, Cornell, Smith, and Furlong (2013) posited that in

order to effectively evaluate a policy’s progress, procedures to update and re-evaluate it as

needed, must be established.

In section D, both raters agreed the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation was missing

items D2 (discusses general issues of peer support), D4 (mentions the preventative role of

playground activities or lunchtime supervisors), and D5 (discusses issues of inclusiveness). Both

83

raters also agreed The District’s antibullying policy was missing items D4 (mentions the

preventative role of playground activities or lunchtime supervisors) and D5 (discusses issues of

inclusiveness). Disagreements by raters on whether or not The District’s policy addressed

general issues of peer support (beyond what is included in B5) (D2) and also whether or not the

state legislation made provision for parents about bullying (beyond what is included in B4) (D3).

The findings suggested the state legislation and The District’s policy did not mention

strategies that addressed issues of inclusiveness and the preventative roles of playground

activities or lunchtime supervisors. Both the state and The District did not meet the criteria for

this section adequately, which shows a lack of strategies that include student partnerships.

Research has shown that bullying behaviors can occur in places that are unobservable and may

also go unreported (Nickerson, Cornell, Smith, & Furlong 2013) therefore it is imperative that

there is increased supervision in a variety of places and times (e.g. during recess and in the

cafeteria). Additionally, extant literature has linked issues of children identified with special

needs (e.g., physical, mental, learning disabled) and those with limited English

speaking/comprehension capabilities as those being at a greater risk for victimization (Hanish et

al., 2013).

The content analysis, as measured by the CASABP, demonstrated that The District’s

antibullying policy surpassed what was in the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation and also

satisfied more requirements than what was mandated by Florida law. Since the State of Florida’s

antibullying legislation marginally addressed each section in the CASABP, it is assumed that the

state’s antibullying legislation was developed to be generic enough so that school districts would

be able to adopt and then modify it according to their needs. Sacco et al. (2012) posited that state

laws only minimally outline what they require of school districts and usually leave it up to the

84

state’s department of education to come up with a model policy for direction. Hence, the Florida

Department of Education (FDOE) developed the FDOE Model Policy Against Bullying and

Harassment. Antibullying policies are required for all school districts in the state of Florida and

must have at least the minimum requirements as mandated by Florida state legislation. However

to achieve model policy status a district’s antibullying policy must go above and beyond the

scope of what is required by the state.

When referencing the FDOE Model Policy Against Bullying and Harassment, even

though there are items not accounted for in The District’s antibullying policy, it still superceded

what was required by the state’s antibullying legislation by including features in the policy not

mentioned or mandated. The findings for each section of the CASABP rubric demonstrated that

The District’s antibullying policy attained a high level of comprehensiveness, surpassed the

requirements put forth by the State of Florida’s antibullying legislation, and should be considered

a model policy according to FDOE standards.

Summary and Interpretation of Findings – Survey

The CBPIPAS survey instrument was utilized to collect data regarding the perceptions of

prevention liaisons on the implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions in The

District. According to Creswell (2003), the use of a cross-sectional survey instrument is a

method of inquiry that allows inferences to be made about the sample population’s attitudes or

beliefs that the researcher can apply to the general population. The CBPIPAS survey instrument

was originally developed to address a gap in literature regarding antibullying strategies being

implemented in American schools. This survey instrument had content validity (Sherer &

Nickerson, 2010) and the researcher was granted permission to use it.

85

The CBPIPAS was a self-administered survey given to prevention liaisons (PLs) in The

District at a professional development workshop. Prevention liaisons are school-based staff

members, designated by their principals to be trained by The District in matters concerning

bullying. Since The District’s antibullying policy stated that every school must have a PL, they

were chosen as the target population for this survey and served as a sample of schools/teachers in

The District. The summary and interpretation of findings for the implementation and effectivness

of The District’s antibullying policy according to perceptions of prevention liaisons are now

presented.

Research Question 3 What are prevention liaisons’ perceptions regarding the

implementation and effectiveness of antibullying interventions at their schools. According to

the workshop facilitator, of 235 K - 12 schools (charter schools are not included) operating in

The District, there are 217 PLs (virtual schools and 12 other schools do not have any). This

meant that 92.34% of The District’s schools have PLs. Of 217 PLs in The District, 144 (66.35%)

attended the training on bullying (when the survey was administered) which meant 61.27% of

The District’s schools were represented at the workshop. However, of those that attended the

workshop, 124 (86.11%) participated in the survey. This figure meant 57.14% of all PLs in the

District took the survey and 52.76% of all schools/teachers in The District were represented.

Response rates over 50% can be considered adequate (Instructional Assessment Resources,

2011, Conduct Research) therefore; the sample population of prevention liaisons was seen as an

acceptable sample of schools/teachers in The District.

The CBPIPAS survey was divided into three sections; participants answered 14 questions

with 55 items. Question three of Part II was discarded and not included in the data analysis

86

because of its very low response rate (17.74%, n= 22). The mean for the survey was 107.73, with

an 86.87% response rate (N= 124). An analysis for each section of the CBPIPAS survey follows.

Part I of the CBPIPAS survey instrument asked demographic questions (8 items). It had a

mean response of 122.25 indicating a 98.58% response rate (N= 124). According to the

demographics section, of those that responded, most were females, worked at elementary

schools, and possessed master’s degrees. Additionally, a substantial amount of respondents, 97

(n= 123), were guidance counselors and only 58 participants reported they were prevention

liaisons. Approximately 66 respondents (n= 122) have worked in The District for at least 6 – 15

years (combined results from 6 - 10 and 11 - 15 years), but 53 (n= 120) have worked at their

schools for only 1 - 5 years. Furthermore, 75 participants (n= 120), reported that they have been

prevention liaisons for 2 or more years and 73 participants reported they felt the quality of their

prevention liaison trainings were good. These findings suggested that prevention liaisons (and/or

those who participated) had multiple positions in The District and may be either new at their

school or changed schools after a few years.

Part II had two questions that addressed bullying prevention and intervention activities.

Question 1 was four items and Question 2 had six subsections with 39 items. Part II had a mean

of 121.69, with a response rate of 98.13% (N= 124). Questions 1 and 2 surveyed PLs about 43

specific antibullying strategies, whether or not they implemented them, and how frequently. The

category no response (NR) was included for coding and data analysis, however, NR data were

not used when establishing sample population calculations. Data collected from these two

questions were used to answer the implementation aspect of Research Question 3.

Question 1 asked whether the prevention liaison’s school implemented four specific

strategies (antibullying policy, antibullying committee, school-wide positive behavior support

87

plan, and formal reporting procedures). The total response rate was 99.19% (N= 124). Overall,

the findings for this question revealed that 117 respondents reported having a written

antibullying policy, 112 reported having formal reporting procedures, 107 reported having a

school-wide positive behavior plan, but only 57 respondents reported having an antibullying

committee.

Question 2 addressed 39 other strategies that were grouped together into six subsections

(School Environment, Staff Involvement, Working With Bullies and Victims, Parent

Involvement, Educating Students, and Peer Involvement). For the subsection School

Environment (4 items), the response rate was 98.18% (N= 124). The findings suggested that

strategies in this subsection are not being implemented with fidelity and are in need of

improvement. The next subsection is Staff Involvement (6 items) with a response rate of 97.98%

(N= 124). Findings for this subsection suggested a lack of antibullying resources and training for

non-teaching staff. The next subsection, Working With Bullies and Victims (10 items), had a

response rate of 96.53% (N= 124). The findings for this subsection suggested that while the

majority of strategies are being implemented, improvement is needed in identifying students at

risk for victimization and group counseling with bullies. The next subsection was Parent

Involvement (5 items), with a total response rate of 96.77% (N= 124). The findings for this

subsection revealed that the majority of participants always implemented these strategies in their

schools. However, a need for improvement existed in providing parents with information on

antibullying curriculum. The next subsection, Educating Students (7 items) had a response rate

of 95.84% (N= 124). The findings suggested that distributing printed resources about bullying to

students, violence prevention curricula, antibullying curricula, weekly class meetings to discuss

bullying and peer conflicts, and engaging students in cooperative group work (5 out of the 7

88

strategies listed) are not being implemented with fidelity and in need of improvement. The final

subsection of Part II Question 2 was Peer Involvement (7 items). The total response rate for this

subsection was 97.23% (N= 124). The findings indicated that there is a lack of implementation of

all strategies. The active involvement of students and peer support systems are important

components for reducing bullying (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

The final portion of the CBPIPAS survey, Part III Questions 4 through 7, addressed

effectiveness, needs, and barriers, and were used to answer the effectiveness aspect of Research

Question 3. This section had a mean of 79.25 and a response rate of 63.91% (N= 124). From the

20 strategies listed, (condensed from the 43 strategies of Part II Questions 1 and 2), Question 4

asked respondents to choose three strategies that were the most effective; Question 5 asked for

three strategies that were the most ineffective; and Question 6 asked respondents to choose the

three strategies that were in need of the most improvement. Question 7 asked what barriers made

it difficult for improvements to take place (a list of nine options were given). The total response

rate for Question 4 was 71.77% (N= 124). The response rate for Question 5 was 55.64% (N=

124). Question 6 had a response rate of 61.29% (N= 124) and the response rate for Question 7

was 66.93% (N= 124). The findings are discussed as they applied to Research Question 3.

In response to Research Question 3 (implementation), the findings suggested that of the

43 strategies examined, the bullying prevention strategy implemented with the most frequency,

as per prevention liaisons, was an antibullying policy (94.35%). Additionally, the findings also

revealed that the least implemented strategy was a school-wide survey to address bullying

problems (28.45%).

In response to Research Question 3 (effectiveness), findings indicated that 53 (59.55%)

reported having a whole school antibullying policy was the most effective strategy. Additional

89

findings indicated that 23 respondents (33.33%) reported modifying space and scheduling for

less structured activities was the most ineffective strategy and finally, 18 respondents (23.68%)

reported that involving parents in bullying prevention was the strategy needing the most

improvement. Findings regarding barriers to improvements indicated that 46 participants

(55.42%) reported that both budget constraints and lack of time were major issues. An additional

43 respondents (51.80%), reported priorities focused on other issues as another barrier to

improvement.

Upon further examination, this study revealed a direct relationship between the strategies

examined on the survey and The District’s antibullying policy. For each section of the CASABP

rubric used to measure The District’s comprehensiveness, 15 out of 20 strategies (75%), were

identified. One strategy that was found in all four sections (A - D) of the CASABP was a whole

school written antibullying policy. Setting up a bullying reporting procedure and increasing

supervision in less structured and invisible locations were strategies identified in sections B and

C. Involving parents in bullying prevention and/or intervention were strategies identified in

sections B and D. Zero-tolerance policy with bullies, immediate responses to bullying incidents,

counseling with bullies and/or victims were identified in section B. A school-wide survey to

address bullying problems was identified in section C. A school-wide positive behavior plan,

modifying space and schedule for less structured activities, interventions for students at risk for

bullyiing and/or victimization, involving students in bullying prevention and/or intervention

were identified in section D. Overall, these findings suggested that The District’s antibullying

policy may be considered highly comprehensive and implemented with great frequency and is

effective.

90

Context and Implications of Findings

Effective implementation of antibullying strategies is critical in the reduction and

prevention of school bullying. While tremendous progress has been made by state legislatures

and local school districts in the development of antibullying policies, there exists a gap in extant

literature on bullying prevention and intervention strategies in American schools (Sherer &

Nickerson, 2010). Futhermore, research has shown that lack of implementation can be directly

correlated to lack of effectiveness in antibullying programs, therefore, Biggs et al. (2008)

cautioned that there is still a need regarding fidelity issues. This action research study’s intent

was to address this gap.

The socioecological stance taken in this study claimed that bullying emerges as a result of

many contributing dynamics. Children at risk for engaging in bullying or for being victimized by

bullies have a need for “social support, supportive friends, a positive school climate, involvement

in extracurricular activities , and a supportive family” so as to protect them and minimize the

psychological damage that results from peer harrassment (Swearer, Espelage, & Napolitano,

2009, p. 24). The findings of this action research study validated a socioecological framework.

The development of safe learning environments is dependent on many environmental factors. All

stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, school districts, administrators, instructional/non-instructional

staff, support staff, students, and parents), must play an active role in the consistent, effective

implementation of antibullying interventions (Austin et al., 2012; Fowler, 2013; Olweus, 2003;

Swearer et al., 2012). See Figure 3.

The intent of action research is to improve educational practice. According to Mills

(2014), “Educational change that enhances the lives of children is a main goal of action research.

But action research can also enhance the lives of professionals” (p. 13). By utilizing this research

91

design, the researcher identified problems within The District, collected and analyzed data

regarding the issue, and then formulated recommendations (a plan of action), in order to

ameliorate specific deficiencies as identified in the study.

Figure 3. Collaborative efforts through a socioecological framework. Adapted from “Educational Research:

Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research”, 4th

Edition, by J. W. Creswell, 2012,

p. 587, Boston, MA: Pearson. Copyright 2012 by Pearson Education Inc.

The findings from this research study indicated that an overwhelming majority of

prevention liaisons feel that The District’s antibullying policy is being implemented and a little

over 60% believe it is effective. However, the findings also showed, that strategies embedded

within the policy are not necessarily being implemented at all. The lack of antibullying

committees suggested that the onus of bullying intervention falls squarely on the few individuals

who are privy to prevention information. School counselors and instructional staff have a myriad

of other duties that occupy their time and unless there is a specific bullying incident that needs to

be addressed there is no real pressure to focus on it. Sagor (2005) advanced how the rise in

Bullying Prevention

Parents and Students

Community

Schools

District Policy

State Legislation

92

“punitive public policies” wreak havoc on students and teachers to attain academic success,

within a specific timeframe, as measured by achievement benchmarks on high-stakes testing (p.

166). So prevention issues may have to take a back seat to test preparation (and other priorities)

if not seen as important at the school site.

The implications of a lack of violence prevention curricula, peer mediation programs, and

development of conflict resolution skills indicated a poor use of resources because educating

students through the dissemination of bullying material facilitates student awareness and reduces

bullying (Barton, 2009). Additionally, while having a school-wide policy on bullying is crucial,

developing and having methods of collecting and reporting data are essential components for

effective bullying reduction, as these strategies serve as a foundation for prevention as well as

prioritize the seriousness of this problem (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).

Research also concurred with the findings of this study, that improved suvpervision of

students in common areas, utilizing a variety of approaches that promoted parental involvement,

and providing continuous staff development and resources for non-teaching staff (e.g., bus

drivers, cafeteria workers, office staff, and custodial staff) are vital strategies that need to be

consisistenly and effectively implemented. According to Sherer and Nickerson, (2010) “non-

teaching staff are more likely than teachers to be present at school locations where bullying

occurs more frequently, such a the playground, cafeteria, school bus, and hallways” therefore

including instructional as well as non-instructional staff are important and effective antibullying

strategies (p.225).

Further implications of this study’s findings demonstrated that stakeholders must also

understand data regarding zero-tolerance strategies which shows that they are ineffective in

reducing bullying behaviors. According to Briggs (2012) “Solutions to bullying must be

93

implemented for long term results and consist of system- and community-wide efforts. Research

suggests that zero-tolerance policies as well as “three strike rules are ineffective” (p. 2). Careful

examination of antibullying policies and interventions, as well as creating connections with the

home and community should be considered as best practices in the effort to reduce bullying

(Swearer et al., 2009).

Limitations

Issues with sampling error or bias were addressed by using prevention liaisons (PLs) as

the representative sample of the total population of The District’s schools/teachers. Every school

in The District was supposed to have a prevention liaison (as mandated by The District’s

antibullying policy). In addition, the variables tested were applicable to all schools/teachers in

The District (Fink, 2003). The District has 235 schools but only 217 PLs, because some schools

did not assign any. Additionally, not all PLs attended the workshop and of those that attended,

only 124 actually took the survey. What should be noted is that of those that took the survey only

58 indicated that they were prevention liaisons. Most identified themselves as guidance

counselors. This was a potential limitation since many of the secondary PLs did not attend the

workshop because of testing and graduation priorities. An additional limitation was the period

allotted for the survey. Since the secondary PLs were given the survey at the end of their

workshop, many had decided to leave and did not participate. While the survey itself did not

have a low response rate, one of the questions had to be thrown out because only 22 of those

participating answered it. It is believed that if a different date and/or time had been allotted for

the survey to be given (for secondary) more PLs would have participated. In addition, a more

detailed explanation of the directions for completing the survey may have increased responses as

well.

94

The variety of instruments used in this study employed only two of the Three E’s

(Creswell, 2012; Mills, 2014) method of data collection. Enquiring, when researchers ask

questions, was employed by using the CBPIPAS survey instrument; and Examining, when

researchers analyze documents, by using CASABP for the content analysis. As far as

determining the validity and reliability of the instruments employed in this action research study,

both instruments were demonstrated to be reliable and have validity as per their developers

(Sherer & Nickerson, 2010; Smith et al., 2008). However, according to Mills, (2014) the validity

and reliability of action research study designs are determined by whether or not stakeholders

and/or the teacher/researcher perceive the plan of action recommended actually solves the

problem that was being researched. This is because, in general, action research is specific to a

classroom, school, and/or district.

However, in order to increase validity of a practical action research study Mills (2014)

suggested looking at four specific characteristics (developed by Guba, 1981), credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Mills (2014) explained these four

characteristics are important aspects of assessing an action research study’s trustworthiness. In

this practical action research study, the incorporation of different methods to substantiate data

(the CASABP rubric and the CBPIPAS survey) was believed to have established credibility,

dependability, and confirmability; additionally, by giving extensive and specific details about the

setting and context of the research to provide connectivity with the audience, transferability was

ensured.

Recommendations

Bullying research is an international concern and “has had a cross-cultural influence”

(Hanish et al, 2013, p. 288). As discussed by Austin et al. (2012) some antibullying interventions

95

may work better in other countries than in the United States because of variations in cultures that

exist in schools and communities. The diversity that exists within The District demands attention

to how intervention programs are selected and more importantly how training is given and to

whom. Fowler (2013) suggested, “School leaders in charge of implementing a policy must think

about what they are doing and plan carefully” (p. 241). Schools within The District need to

understand The District’s antibullying policy themselves and then examine how what is in place

at their schools aligns with The District ‘s policy. This will help in determining how best to

implement a school wide program. Of specific concern should be strategies that target special

groups (e.g., disabled students, LGBTQ students, and English language learners). Research has

shown that these groups are at greater risk for victimization (Hanish et al., 2013).

Administrators in The District need to establish antibullying committees at their

worksites “for the purpose of informing and supporting other school personnel” (Austin et al.,

2012, p. 288). This sets the tone of his/her stance on bullying prevention. According to Bolman

and Deal (2008) “If employees are unclear about what they are supposed to do, they often tailor

their roles around personal preferences instead of systemwide goals, frequently leading to

trouble” (p. 74). When administrators take ownership of bullying prevention and make it one of

the school’s top priorities, faculty, staff , and the community at-large will buy-in. This issue

should be consistently addressed, through a variety of venues (i.e., faculty meetings, professional

development workshops, and PTA meetings); in collaboration with stakeholders, in order for

bully-free environments to develop (Austin et al., 2012). The prevention liaison cannot and

should not be the only person in charge of disemminating prevention information to a school;

having an antibullying committee in place shares the responsibility of bullying prevention. Long

and Alexander (2010) concurred and posited that antibullying programs need to be established

96

cooperatively with all stakeholders making the development of an antibullying committee a

relevant recommendation.

Conclusion

Programs developed from a socioecological perspective will decrease and diffuse peer

harassment (Espelage & Swearer, 2010; Hazler & Carney, 2012). An effective antibullying

policy must incorporate a variety of stages for planning and ultimately, the selection of bullying

prevention programs (Orpinas & Horne, 2010). Consideration must be given to the fact that

many, if not most prevention programs created on a state, national, or international level only

provide generic outlines for implementation (Hazler & Carney, 2012). This is because the unique

needs of a local school and/or district cannot be totally reflected in such programs. Therefore,

periodic revisions of policy are “necessary to more clearly define unacceptable physical, verbal,

sexual, social, and cyberbullying along with the consequences for those would violate such

policies” (Hazler & Carney, 2012, p. 362). Whatever antibullying measures (collectively decided

upon by stakeholders) are used in schools, success will be contingent upon teacher buy-in and

effective implementation.

97

References

Accordino, D. B., & Accordino, M. P. (2011). An exploratory study of face-to-face and

cyberbullying in sixth grade students. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 14-30.

Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=

3&sid=9f50c6af-f6cd-46db-9535-27f43b4ddc62%40sessionmgr15&hid=14

Austin, S. M., Reynolds, G. P., & Barnes, S. L. (2012). School leadership and counselors

working together to address bullying. Education, 133(2), 283-290. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA313160601&v=2.1&u=novaseu_main&

it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=242e1418eb8e15da91bcbb429106772a

Barton, E. (2009). Leadership strategies for safe schools. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Dill, E. J. (2008). Teacher

adherence and its relation to teacher attitudes and student outcomes in an elementary

school-based violence prevention program. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 533-549.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/219657678?accountid

=6579

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.

(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Bowllan, N. M. (2011). Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive school-wide bullying

prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school. Journal of School Health, 81(4),

167-173. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=28be115c-f990-4fd7-aabd-

35f8cb25579d%40sessionmgr14&vid=5&hid=28

Briggs, W. (Spring, 2012). Bullying basics: Fast facts for busy counselors. Annals of

Psychotherapy and Integrative Health, 15(1), 10-11. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA282741109&v=2.1&u=novaseu_main&

it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=140f5d63ad22c598adfb963c1a56bf12

Broward County Public Schools. (n.d.). Antibullying Policy. Retrieved from

www.browardschools.com/Privacy-Policy/Antibullying-Policy

Broward County Public Schools. (n.d.). District Profile. Retrieved from

http://browardschools.com/About-BCPS

Character Education Partnership. (n.d.). About Us – What is character education? Retrieved

from http://www.character.org/about/faqs/

98

Christie-Mizell, C. A., Keil, J. M., Laske, M. T., & Stewart, J. (2011). Bullying behavior,

parents’ work hours and early adolescents’ perceptions of time spent with parents. Youth

& Society, 43, 1570-1590. doi: 10.1177/0044118X10388261

Clemons, R. S. & McBeth, M. K. (2008). Public policy praxis. (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson

Longman.

Copeland, D. A. (2009). Bullying in public schools in Missouri. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI Microform No. 3373121)

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and

bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1),

138-149. doi: 10:1037/a0030416

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and Conduction Mixed Methods Research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, D., Epstein, M., Hearn, L., Slee, P., Shaw, T., & Monks, H. (2011). National safe schools

framework: Policy and practice to reduce bullying in Australian schools. International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(5), 398-404. doi: 10.1177/016502541147456

Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). The impact of bullying and victimization on students'

relationships. American Journal of Health Education, 43(2), 104-113. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/947249945/

fulltextPDF/13839497CA836AA94C/1?accountid=6579

Diamanduros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, S. J. (2008). The role of school psychologists in the

assessment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying. Psychology in the Schools, 45,

693-704. doi: 10.1002/pits.20335

Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention. (2007). About. Retrieved from

http://www.browardprevention.org

Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention. (2007). Prevention Liaison Training. Retrieved from

http://www.browardprevention.org/portfolio-items/prevention-liaison-training/

99

Dixon, R. (2011). Rethinking school bullying. Towards an integrated model. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Edmondson, L., & Zeman, L. D. (2011). Do school bully laws align with prevention best

practices? Health Educator, 43(2), 3-11. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/se

rvlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ967820

Elsaesser, C., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2013). The role of the school environment in

relational aggression and victimization. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 42, 235-249. doi

10.1007/s10964-012-9839-7

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2010). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and

intervention. Understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In S.

R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools.

An international perspective (pp. 61-72). New York: Routledge.

Fink, A. (2003). How to sample in surveys: The survey kit (Vol. 7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Safe schools related DOE memos. Retrieved from

http://www.fldoe.org/safeschools/doememos.asp

Florida Department of Education. (2014). DOE’s Revised Model Anti-Bullying Policy. Retrieved

from http://www.fldoe.org/schools/safe-healthy-schools/safe-schools/bullying-

prevention.stml

Fowler, F. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. (4th ed.) Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Frey, K. S., Edstrom, L.V., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2010). School bullying: A crisis or an

opportunity? In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of

bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp. 403-415). New York: Routledge.

Ghazala, Y. (2008). Action research: An approach for the teachers in higher education. The

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1288361060?accounti

d=6579

Gibbone, A., & Manson, M. (2010). Bullying: Proactive physical educators’ contribution to

school-wide prevention. Journal of Physical Education, 81(7), 20-24. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/750493607/

fulltextPDF/138394E12B340D90911/1?accountid=6579

Good, C. P., McIntosh, K., & Gietz, C. (2011). Integrating bullying prevention into schoolwide

positive behavior support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(1), 48-56. Retrieved from

100

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/887546636/

fulltextPDF/13839602600EBE64BA/1?accountid=6579

Gubler, G., & Croxall, K. (2005). Reducing bullying through prevention. Journal of Family and

Consumer Sciences, 97(2), 65-66. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/218172040/

fulltextPDF/138395F3BE12C0102AC/3?accountid=6579

Haas, K. (2012, July 16). Bullied girl’s suicide has ongoing impact. MSNBC.com. Retrieved

from http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/2/28/9781587-bullied-girls-suicide-has-

ongoing-impact?lite

Hanish, L. D., Bradshaw, C. P., Espelage, D. L., Rodkin, P. C., Swearer, S. M., & Horne, A.

(2013). Looking toward the future of bullying research. Recommendations for research

and funding priorities. Journal of School Violence, 12(3), 283-295. doi:

10.1080/1538820.2013.788449

Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2010). Cultural variations in characteristics of effective bullying

programs. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of

bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp. 417-430). New York: Routledge.

Hazler, R. J. & Carney, J. V. (2012). Critical characteristics of effective bullying prevention

programs. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds).

Handbook of school violence and school safety. International research and practice (2nd

Ed., pp. 357-368). New York: Routledge.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and

Faculty. doi: 10.4135/9781452226644

Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M.

Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools. A social-ecological perspective on

Prevention and Intervention (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Huffington Post Education Blog. (2012, May 8). Rachel Ehmke, 13-year-old Minnesota student,

commits suicide after months of bullying. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/rachel-ehmke-13-year-old-_n_1501143.html

Hymel, S., Schonert-Reichi, K. A., Bonanno, R. A., Vaillancourt, T., & Rocke Henderson, N.

(2010). Bullying and morality. Understanding how good kids can behave badly. In S. R.

Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An

international perspective (pp. 108-118). New York: Routledge.

Instructional Assessment Resources. (2011). Conduct Research. Retrieved from

https://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/teaching/gather/method/survey-

Response.php?task=research

101

Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2010). International scholarship advances

science and practice addressing bullying in schools. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, &

D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp.

1-6). New York: Routledge.

Jones, K. (Fall, 2013). Chalk Talks: #zerotolerance #KeepingupwiththeTimes: How federal zero

tolerance policies failed to promote educational success, deter juvenile legal

consequences, and confront new social media concerns in public schools. Journal of Law

and Education, 42(4), 739-749. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1441706241?accounti

d=6579

Kennedy, T. D., Russom, A. G., & Kevorkian, M. M. (2012). Teacher and administrator

perceptions of bullying in schools. International Journal of Education Policy &

Leadership, 7(5), 1-12. Retrieved from

http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/395/122

Kueny, M. T., & Zirkel, P. A. (March, 2012). An analysis of school antibullying laws in the

United States. Middle School Journal, 43(4), 22-31. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1282264481?accounti

d=6579

Leff, S. S., Waasdorp, T. E., & Crick, N. R. (2010). A review of existing relational aggression

programs: Strengths, limitations, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 39(4),

508-535. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/837123898?accountid

=6579

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A

meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly,

48(3), 387-423. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11436268

Lerman, B. (2010). Addressing bullying policy and practice. Principal Leadership, 11(1), 34-37.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/747989328?accountid

=6579

Limber, S. P., & Small, M. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying in schools. School

Psychology Review, 32(3), 445-455. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/219654222/fulltex

tPDF/138395AA9C732537CEA/1?accountid=6579

Long, T., & Alexander, K. (2010). Bullying: Dilemmas, definitions, and solutions.

Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(2), 29-34. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/196350979/

fulltextPDF/138395D8AAB64EB2DA2/1?accountid=6579

102

McGrath, H., & O’Toole, T. (2011). Critical issues in research design in action research in an

SME development context. European Journal of Trading and Development, 36(5), 508-

526. doi: 10.1108/03090591211232075

Meraviglia, M. G., Becker, H., Rosenbluth, B., Sanchez, E., & Robertson, T. (2003). The Expect

Respect project: Creating a positive elementary school climate. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 18, 1347–1360. doi: 10.1177/0886260503257457

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, G. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school

bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School

Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26-42. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Monks, C. P., Smith, O. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009). Bullying in

different contexts: Commonalities differences and the role of theory. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 14, 146-156. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).

Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial

adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 285(16), 2094-

2100. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nickerson, A. B., Cornel, D. G., Smith, J. D., & Furlong, M. J. (2013). School antibullying

efforts: Advice for education policymakers. Journal of School Violence, 12(3), 268-282.

doi: 10.1080/1538820.2013.787366

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2009). Examining developmental

differences in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and

bully/victims. Psychology in the Schools, 46(2), 100-115. doi: 10.1002/pits.20357

Obermann, M. (2011). Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school

bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 133-144. doi: 10.1002/ab.20378

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell.

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

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/224841352?accountid

=6579

103

Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2010). Creating a positive school climate and developing social

competence. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of

bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 49-59). New York: Routledge.

Ramsey, C. J. (2010). Teachers' experiences with student bullying in five rural middle schools

(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

(UMI No. 3398019)

Raskauskas, J. (2010). Multiple peer victimization among elementary school students: Relations

with social-emotional problems. Social Psychology of Education: An International

Journal, 13(4), 523-539. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9124-0

Riel, M. (2010). Understanding Action Research, Center For Collaborative Action Research.

Pepperdine University. Retrieved from http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Rigby, K., & Bauman, S. (2010). How school personnel tackle cases of bullying: A critical

examination. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of

bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp. 455-467). New York: Routledge.

Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of

Education: An International Journal, 14(4), 441-455. doi: 10.1007/s11218-011-9158-y

Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The

mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4), 211-

223. doi: 10.1037/a0018164

Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety:

2011 (NCES 2012–002 NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Sacco, D. T., Silbaugh, K., Corredor, F., Casey, J., & Doherty, D. (2012). An overview of state

antibullying legislation and other related laws. Retrieved from

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/State_Anti_bullying_Legisl

ation_Overview_0.pdf

Sagor, R. (2005). The action research guidebook: A four-step process for educators and school

teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Schellenberg, R. C., Parks-Savage, A., & Rehfuss, M. (2007). Reducing levels of elementary

school violence with peer mediation. Professional School Counseling, 10(5), 475-502.

Retrieved from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=235

Schoen, S., & Schoen, A. (2010). Bullying and harassment in the United States. The Clearing

House, 83, 68-72. doi: 10.1080/00098650903386444

104

Shariff, S. (2004). Keeping schools out of court: Legally defensible models of leadership. The

Educational Forum, 68(3), 222-233. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/220689530/

fulltextPDF/138396735962B0171FF/1?accountid=6579

Sherer, Y. C., & Nickerson, A. B. (2010). Antibullying practices in American schools:

Perspectives of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 217-229. doi:

10.1002/pits.20466

Slonje, R., & Smith, P. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x

Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In. S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson,

M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety.

International research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 93-103). New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith, P. K., Smith, C., Osborn, R. & Samara, M. (2008). A content analysis of school

antibullying policies; progress and limitations. Educational Psychology in Practice,

24(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1080/02667360701661165

Sparks, D. (2007). Leading for results: Transforming teaching, learning and relationships in

schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Koenig, B., Berry, B., Collins, A., & Lembeck, P. (2012). A

social-ecological model for bullying prevention and intervention in early adolescence. In

S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of

school violence and school safety. International research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 333-

355). New York, NY: Routledge.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., & Napolitano, S. A. (2009). Social-ecological problems

associated with bullying behaviors. In In S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage, & S. A.

Napolitano (Eds.), Bullying prevention & intervention: Realistic strategies for schools

(pp. 15-27). New York: The Guilford Press.

Swearer, S. M., Limber, S. P., & Alley, R. (2009). Developing and implementing an effective

antibullying policy. In S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage, & S. A. Napolitano (Eds.),

Bullying prevention & intervention: Realistic strategies for schools (pp. 39-52). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Temkin, D. (2008). Addressing social aggression in state antibullying policies. Penn GSE

Perspectives on Urban Education. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/PDFS/EJ835619.pdf

Toso, T. M. (2012) Attacking bullying: An examination of antibullying legislation and policies.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No.

3505717)

105

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies

tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of

longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 63–73. doi:

10.1108/17596591111132873

Twemlow, S., & Sacco, F. (2008). Creating and administering successful policy strategies for

school antibullying programs. In E. Vernberg & B. Biggs (Eds.), Preventing and treating

bullying and victimization (pp. 297-318). New York, NY: Oxford.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2011). Peer-to-peer violence and bullying. Examining the

Federal Response. Retrieved from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2011statutory.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2012). United States Census Bureau.School Districts. Retrieved

from http://www.census.gov/did/www/schooldistricts/index.html

United States Department of Education. (2010). Antibullying policies: Examples of provision

in state laws. Key Policy letter from the Education Secretary and Deputy Secretary.

Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education Web site:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/101215/html as an enclosed MS Word

document.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy

and Program Studies Service. (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies.

Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-

bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf

Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (May, 2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa

statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-363. Retrieved from

http://www.stfm.org/Portals/49/Documents/FMPDF/FamilyMedicineVol37Issue5Viera3

60.pdf

Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The link between parents’ perceptions of

the school and their responses to school bullying: Variation by child characteristics and

the forms of victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 324-335. doi:

10.1037/a0022748

Willig, C., & Stainton-Rogers, W. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in

psychology. doi: 10.4135/9781848607927

Yerger, W., & Gehret, C. (2011). Understanding and dealing with bullying in schools. The

Educational Forum, 75(4), 315-326. Retrieved from:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/910326292?accountid

=6579

Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and

Treatment of Children, 27(1), 37-45. Retrieved from

106

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/202684807?accountid

=6579

Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention

strategies. Research in Education, 69, 27-35. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/213168091?accountid

=6579

Young, A., Hardy, V. Hamilton, C., Biernesser, K., Sun, L., & Niebergall, S. (2009).

Empowering students: Using data to transform a bullying prevention and intervention

program. Professional School Counseling, 12, 413-420. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA206850819&v=2.1&u=novaseu_main&

it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=cd3e7a982be6adb15cd54f0041a1b351

107

Appendix A

CASABP (content analysis rubric)

108

CONTENT ANALYSIS FOR SCHOOL ANTIBULLYING POLICIES [MAY 2008 rev] No. of pages of policy: __

Rater: ___________

Date: _______

For each of the questions please assume the questions are asking if the policy:

A. Definition of bullying behavior (13 points)

1. Has a definition of bullying (Yes or No)

2. Has a definition that makes it clear that bullying is different from

other kinds of aggressive behavior (Yes or No)

3. Mentions physical bullying (hits, kicks) (Yes or No)

4. Mentions direct verbal bullying (threats, insults, nasty, teasing) (Yes or No)

5. Mentions relational bullying (rumors, social exclusion) (Yes or No)

6. Mentions material bullying (damage to belongings, extortion of money) (Yes or No)

7. Mentions cyber-bullying (email, text messages) (Yes or No)

8. Mentions homophobic bullying (Yes or No)

9. Mentions racial bullying (or harassment) (Yes or No)

10. Mentions sexual bullying (or harassment) (Yes or No)

11. In addition to pupil-pupil bullying, discusses the issue of adult/teacher-pupil

or vice versa (Yes or No)

12. Mentions bullying due to disabilities (Yes or No)

13. Mentions bullying because of faith or religious beliefs (Yes or No)

Score: __________

B. Reporting and responding to bullying incidents (11 points)

1. States what victims of bullying should do (e.g. tell a teacher, should

clearly apply to victims/pupils who experience bullying) (Yes or No)

2. Says how teaching staff should respond to a report of bullying (should

specifically mention bullying, and be more specific than just ‘deal

promptly’) (Yes or No)

3. Clearly mentions the responsibilities of other school staff (teaching

assistants, lunchtime supervisors, etc.) if they know of bullying

(more than simply referring to ‘all staff’) (Yes or No)

4. Clearly mentions the responsibilities of parents if they know of bullying

(this can include knowing if their child has a behavior problem if

bullying is included elsewhere) (Yes or No)

5. Clearly mentions the responsibilities of pupils (e.g. bystanders) if

they know of bullying (Yes or No)

6. States whether sanctions applied for bullying can vary (e.g. by type

or severity of incident) (Yes or No)

7. Mentions follow-up to see whether the sanctions were effective (Yes or No)

8. Discusses what action will be taken if the bullying persists (Yes or No)

9. Suggests how to support the victim (more than just ‘we will support victims’) (Yes or No)

10. Suggests how to help the pupil(s) doing the bullying to change their

behavior (apart from sanctions) (Yes or No)

109

11. Discusses if, when or how parents will be informed? (‘parents will be

informed’ if it clearly refers to bullying) (Yes or No)

Score: __________

C. Recording bullying, communicating, and evaluating policy (4 points)

1. Says how reports of bullying will be recorded (Yes or No)

2. Says who is responsible for coordinating the recording system (Yes or No)

3. Shows how records or survey data will be used to know whether

the policy is working or not (Yes or No)

4. Mentions periodic review and updating of the policy (Yes or No)

Score: __________

D. Strategies for preventing bullying (6 points)

1. Mentions anything of encouraging cooperative behavior,

rewarding good behavior, improving school climate,

or creating a safe environment? (Yes or No)

2. Discusses general issues of peer support (beyond B5) (Yes or No)

3. Discusses advice for parents about bullying (beyond B4) (Yes or No)

4. Mentions the preventative role of playground activities or

lunchtime supervisors (Yes or No)

5. Discusses issues of inclusiveness (e.g. non English speakers,

pupils with learning disabilities) (Yes or No)

6. Mentions the issue of bullying on the way to school or

happening outside school? (Yes or No)

Score: __________

TOTAL SCORE:

(Out of 34 points)

From “Attacking bullying: An examination of antibullying legislation and policies,” by T. M. Toso, 2012,

Doctoral dissertation, pp. 183-187. Copyright [2012] by ProQuest LLC. Adapted with permission.

110

Appendix B

CBPIPAS (survey instrument)

111

Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Practices in American Schools

The purpose of this survey is to determine the effectiveness of antibullying interventions currently implemented at

your school with respect to state legislation and district policy. Responses will be used to provide baseline data to

update current research regarding whether existing school wide bullying prevention strategies are effective.

By completing the survey, you are consenting to take part in this research. The survey will take approximately 10-15

minutes to complete, and the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you for taking the

time to complete this survey. Your participation in this important research is valued. After completing the survey,

please return it to the facilitator before leaving. THANK YOU!

Bullying Definition

We say a student is being bullied when another student or a group of students intentionally and repeatedly treat(s)

the student in the following ways and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend him/herself: (a) hit, kick,

threaten, or lock inside a room; (b) steal or destroy property; (c) tease him/her repeatedly in a nasty way or send

him/her nasty notes or electronic messages; (d) do not talk to or let him/her join activities; and (e) spread rumors

about him/her. It is not bullying when two students of about the same strength have the odd fight or quarrel.

I. Demographics

Instructions: Please answer each question by checking the box or writing your responses in the space provided.

1. Gender Female Male

2. Setting (Please check all that apply)

Elementary K-5

Elem./Mid. K-8 Middle 6-8

High 9-12

Charter

Center

3. What is your highest academic degree received?

Bachelor’s Master’s Specialist (EdS) Doctorate (PhD/PsyD/EdD)

4. Position (Please check all that apply)

Classroom Teacher

Special Area Teacher (i.e. ESE, P.E., Languages, Art, Music, etc.)

Curriculum Specialist (i.e. Math, Reading, or Science Coach, etc.)

112

Guidance Counselor

Support Staff (i.e. Social Worker, School Psychologist, etc.)

Prevention Liaison

Peer Counselor

Other (please specify) ____________________________________

5. Years of experience (in the district) ___

6. Years of experience (at your school) ___

7. How long have you been a Prevention Liaison? (Please check one)

Less than 1 year

1 year

2 years

N/A

8. How do you perceive the quality of your bullying prevention/intervention training?

Poor Fair Good Excellent

II. Bullying Prevention and Intervention Activities

1. Please indicate whether your school uses the following bullying prevention/intervention strategies by circling

Yes or No. If you do not know if your school uses the strategy, circle DK.

Strategy School Use

A written antibullying policy (either as an independent written document, as part

of student code of conduct, or as part of school safety plan)

Yes No DK

An antibullying committee that facilitates and coordinates antibullying activities Yes No DK

A school-wide positive behavior support plan Yes No DK

Formal reporting procedures (e.g., hotlines, report forms, bully box) Yes No DK

113

2. Please circle the number indicating how often your school uses the following strategies to prevent/handle

bullying incidents:

Strategy Never Sometimes Often Always Don’t

Know

Sch

oo

l E

nv

iro

nm

ent

A school-wide survey to assess the extent and

nature of bullying problems 1 2 3 4 5

Modifying space and schedule to reduce the

occurrence of bullying (e.g., staggering

lunchtime/recess/passing time between classes,

assigning students to different areas of

playground/cafeteria, shortening recess/passing

time)

1 2 3 4 5

Improving the quality of recess (e.g., providing

sufficient, age-appropriate play equipment,

introducing activities that are structured, non-

competitive, and inclusive)

1 2 3 4 5

Procedures to avoid contact between the bullies

and victims 1 2 3 4 5

Sta

ff I

nv

olv

emen

t

Antibullying written or web-based resources for

teachers 1 2 3 4 5

Antibullying written or web-based resources for

non-teaching staff (e.g., bus driver,

lunchtime/recess supervisor)

1 2 3 4 5

Antibullying training for teachers 1 2 3 4 5

Antibullying training for non-teaching staff (e.g.,

bus driver, recess supervisor) 1 2 3 4 5

Increasing adult supervision in less structured

locations (e.g., playground, cafeteria) 1 2 3 4 5

Monitoring invisible locations (e.g., bathroom,

locker room) through adults checking these

locations regularly or using video monitors

1 2 3 4 5

Wo

rkin

g w

ith

Bu

llie

s &

Vic

tim

s

Identifying students at risk for bullying others and

providing intervention as needed 1 2 3 4 5

Identifying students at risk for victimization and

providing intervention as needed 1 2 3 4 5

School staff having a talk with bullies following

bullying incidents 1 2 3 4 5

School staff having a talk with victims following

bullying incidents 1 2 3 4 5

*Research based programs/curriculum (e.g.,

Character Education, Olweus Bullying Prevention

Program, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

Individual counseling with bullies (e.g., empathy,

anger management, interpersonal problem solving) 1 2 3 4 5

Group counseling with bullies (e.g., empathy,

anger management, interpersonal problem solving) 1 2 3 4 5

Disciplinary consequences (i.e., suspension,

expulsion) for bullies 1 2 3 4 5

Individual counseling with victims (e.g.,

assertiveness, emotions regulation, interpersonal

problem solving)

1 2 3 4 5

114

Group counseling with victims (e.g., assertiveness,

emotions regulation, interpersonal problem solving 1 2 3 4 5

Par

ent

Inv

olv

emen

t Informing parents of the antibullying policy and

program 1 2 3 4 5

Educating parents about bullying via printed

resources, PTA, or parent education 1 2 3 4 5

Providing parents with information about the

antibullying curriculum and activities to support

their use at home

1 2 3 4 5

Contacting and meeting with parents of bullies 1 2 3 4 5

Contacting and meeting with parents of victims 1 2 3 4 5

Ed

uca

tin

g S

tud

ents

Talking to students about bullying in student

assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Distributing printed resources about bullying to

students 1 2 3 4 5

Violence prevention curricula in the classroom

(number of sessions ________) 1 2 3 4 5

Antibullying educational curricula in the

classroom (number of sessions ________) 1 2 3 4 5

Classroom rules against bullying 1 2 3 4 5

Weekly class meetings to discuss bullying and

peer conflicts 1 2 3 4 5

Engaging students in cooperative group work 1 2 3 4 5

Pee

r In

vo

lvem

ent

Students working as school ambassadors to help

new students explore the environment 1 2 3 4 5

Peer juries/court to “try” bullies 1 2 3 4 5

Students formally participate in decision making

process of how to stop bullying 1 2 3 4 5

Students taking leadership roles in antibullying

activities (e.g., speaking in assemblies, performing

in dramas, leading discussion in the classroom,

etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

Peers offering companionship/friendship to

victims (e.g., after-school clubs, buddying) 1 2 3 4 5

Peer mediation 1 2 3 4 5

Students working as peer counselors to provide

counseling services to victims 1 2 3 4 5

3. Please specify any bullying prevention/intervention strategy that your school is currently implementing that

was not included above:

__________________________________________________________________________.

115

III. Effectiveness, Needs, and Barriers

4. What are the three most effective bullying prevention

/intervention strategies in your school’s current

antibullying practice? Please choose from the list on the

right and write the numbers in the space provided:

___________; ____________; ___________.

Bullying Prevention/Intervention Strategies

1) A whole school antibullying policy

2) A school-wide positive behavior support

plan

3) An antibullying committee to coordinate

antibullying activities

4) A school-wide survey to assess bullying

problems

5. What are the three most ineffective bullying

prevention /intervention strategies in you school’s

current antibullying practice? Please choose from the list

on the right and write the numbers in the space

provided:

___________; ___________; __________.

6. What are the three bullying prevention/intervention

areas that are most in need of improvement (either

adding into current practice or increasing intensity) to

better address the problem of bullying in your school?

Please choose from the list on the right and write the

numbers in the space provided:

___________; ___________; ___________.

7. What are the barriers that make it difficult for these

improvements to take place? Please check all that apply.

Budget constraints

Lack of trained staff

Lack of support from teachers

Lack of support from parents

Lack of time

Priorities focused on other issues

Lack of support from administration

Lack of expertise and resources

Other _______________________

5) Setting up a bullying reporting procedure

6) Modifying space and schedule for less

structured activities (e.g., staggering

lunch/recess, assigning students to

different areas, shortening recess/ passing

time)

7) Procedures to avoid contact between the

bullies and victims

8) Interventions for students at risk for

bullying/victimization

9) Involving parents in bullying intervention

10) Involving parents in bullying prevention

11) Staff education and training

12) Increasing supervision in less structured

and invisible locations

13) Antibullying educational activities with

students

14) Zero-tolerance policy with bullies

15) Immediate responses to bullying incidents

16) *Research based programs/curriculum

(e.g., Character Education, Olweus

bullying Prevention Program, etc.)

17) Counseling with bullies

18) Counseling with victims

19) Involving students in bullying prevention

20) Involving students in bullying

intervention

From “Anti-bullying practices in American schools: Perspectives of school psychologists,” by Y. C. Sherer and A.

B. Nickerson, 2010, Psychology in the Schools, Volume 47, pp. 223-224. Copyright [2010] by Wiley Periodicals,

Inc. Adapted with permission.

116

Appendix C

Correspondence From Workshop Facilitator

117

Re: May, 2014 Prevention Liaison Meetings

From: Debra V. Rozsa <debra.rozsa@browardschools.com> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:56 AM To: Marie Louis Subject: Re: May, 2014 Prevention Liaison Meetings Marie Louis <mariloui@nova.edu> on May 29, 2014 at 7:31 AM -0400 wrote:

According to the information I have from the district, there are approximately 315 schools and the antibullying policy requires each school to have a Prevention Liaison.

There are a total of 324 schools which includes 95 charters. I deducted the 95, to my knowledge

we do not have PL's in those schools.

1. How many Prevention Liaisons does the district actually have? 217

2. How many Prevention Liaisons actually attended the workshop? 98 elem., 46 secondary, this

was a very bad time for secondary folks with prom, testing, graduation, and field trips.

Your responses to this would greatly assist me in completing my data analysis.

Thank you again for all you do. Welcome

Debra V. Rozsa

Diversity, Cultural Outreach & Prevention

Substance Abuse Prevention Specialist

Lauderdale Manors Early Learning & Family Resource Center

754-321-1625