stakeholders, CRTs, are also reviewed.
Physical Environ
Titman (1997) reported how much influence the playground has in setting the school tone, attitude and behaviour, not just in the playground but also inside the classroom. O’Rourke’s (1987) baseline data showed that “an unstimulating playground environment, which provided children little opportunity to play” negatively impacted on behaviour (p. 2), and Slee (1995) recommended that schools need to address peer bullying with students during non-instructional blocks of time.
Doyle (1986) maintained that a well-maintained playground and organised classrooms set a positive tone or climate for the school. Furthermore, Evertson and Emmer (1982), and Duke (1989) found that focussing on values and modelling of desired behaviours based on problem-solving and mutual respect within the community are effective in reducing the incidence of bullying.
School culture and climate impact on a school’s effectiveness when dealing with bullying and behaviour issues (Olweus, 1987). School values, modelling of excellent communication skills, and collaboration between administration, teachers and support staff in developing behaviour and bullying policy (Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Duke, 1989), can all provide congruence and coherence in approaches implemented and supported by administration in the allocation of resources (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1995; Charach et al., 1995).
Staff
Teachers, through their professional training and experience working with children, acquire the behaviour management skills necessary to promote academic achievement and positive attitudes towards learning. When the teaching staff is organised, communicate effectively, and consistently support and implement school policy regarding behaviour and bullying, the number of incidents are reduced (Olweus, 1993; Smith & Birney, 2005).
Trust in colleagues, parents and students are necessary and conducive to providing a positive and safe learning environment. In Smith and Birney’s (2005) study:
“….. trust in the principal was not a factor in teachers' decisions to protect the students ..… In sum, the results suggest that in schools where teachers trust their colleagues a cooperative and unified faculty mission toward protecting students may well exist, regardless of faculty trust in the principal. The conclusion seems clear; only faculty trust in colleagues promotes teacher protection of student bullying in schools.” (p. 8)
When teachers are not organised, prepared for the learning environment or are inconsistent in applying consequences in accordance to the school’s Code of Conduct, there exists an atmosphere or climate within the school to support bullying (Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Duke, 1989).
Teachers are overwhelmed at recess and consequently often unaware of bullying problems. I found the findings of Cohn and Canter (2002) disturbing in that one in four teachers had no difficultly in accepting bullying or putdowns, with teachers only intervening in four percent of bullying incidents. This is reflected in Craig and Pepler (1997) who found that a low level of intervention was confirmed through observations in the playground. Teachers tend to respond to incidents involving physical aggression that are visible, whereas other forms of bullying remain hidden. One study by Charach, et al. (1995) found that
teachers’ perceptions did not match student perceptions in bullying situations. Teachers held the belief that they intervened in 70 percent of situations, whereas findings that only 25 percent of students agreed with this assessment, indicated that teachers were unaware of the extent of the bullying.
O’Rourke (1987) recommended that “teacher engagement in lunchtime and recess activities be compulsory and patrolling voluntary” (p. 3). She found that students were focused and engaged in structured play activities (89%) when teachers were involved, resulting in fewer disruptions. She also found that: “fights did not occur when teachers were playing but they did occur when patrolling” (p. 3); “teachers not ‘on duty’ did not intervene” (p. 4); and “the rate of intervention by teachers on duty was less than two interventions per one hundred observed” (p. 4).
Mishna (2004) reported that there is confusion regarding teachers’ perceptions of bullying, and that this confusion results in complications. Complications such as when the child who is bullied is provoking the person who bullies, the event are not viewed as serious. In this case the teacher feels no compassion for the bullied child and extends more compassion to the person who bullies.
“One teacher depicted bullying as 'part of growing up' and as a good thing that helped victims learn to deal with others who are controlling or manipulative” (Mishna, 2004, p. 238).
“At times a child considered a situation bullying, whereas the adult ascribed another meaning and concluded that the same situation was not bullying”(Mishna, 2004, p. 242).
Smith and Birney (2005) maintain that providing a safe learning environment is crucial to a student’s sense of wellbeing. This occurs in schools where staff members are able to establish a bond of trust and communicate that trust effectively to students and
parents in order to promote a sense of shared responsibility and concern. When this occurs, there is not only the feeling of a safer environment but an actually safer learning environment.
In reviewing teachers’ understandings of bullying, Farrell (1999) found that early primary school teachers prefer to use terms such as ‘unacceptable’ and ‘inappropriate’ when describing ‘bullying’ behaviours. Furthermore, Li (2006a) investigated pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding cyber bullying and found that most teachers understand how cyberbullying impacts students, yet, they do not perceive it to be a problem in schools, contradicting research findings that it is a growing school concern. She also found that teachers did not know how to intervene if they saw it taking place. Li provided the following observation:
“One possible explanation is that, unlike bullying, victims of cyberbullying usually do not have visible bruises or other marks; therefore it is easy to be disguised. Teachers, therefore, have more difficulties to identify such problems.” (para. 22)