There are a range of approaches to intervention. At its simplest, English schools will enforce their mandatory anti-bullying policies (Department for Education, 2017) and should have regard to the e-safety educational requirements in the National
Curriculum (Department for Education, 2013b). Other schools will take a more proactive approach to attempt to pre-empt bullying and cyberbullying activities.
Mark and Ratliffe (2011) investigated cyberbullying across three schools which were different types of American school: public, private and charter. The results indicated the charter school had the lowest level of cyber-victimisation. As well as
40 hypothesising about relative access to technology and a smaller school generating more positive relationships, this was also the only school which had a curriculum designed to teach about Internet safety. Many interventions include use of a
curriculum to educate students, suggesting this may be a proactive technique schools can utilise (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011; Pearce et al., 2011; Perren et al., 2012). In
England, e-safety has been part of the National Curriculum since 2008 (Qualifications & Curriculum Development Agency, 2007) meaning children and young people should receive some education about e-safety.
Many schools have adopted restorative justice techniques which were first employed in the criminal justice system. Through restorative techniques schools seek to address a raft of inter-related problems including “exclusions, truancy, bullying, violence, and other forms of antisocial behavior” (Cowie, Hutson, Jennifer, & Myers, 2008, p. 500). Restorative approaches are seen as a whole-school approach and require a change in thinking from sanctions and control towards consideration of reasons for why the harm was caused and what can be done to rectify it (Song & Swearer, 2016). This involves consideration of the harm experienced by the perpetrator as the root of the anti-social behaviour, as well as the harm caused to the victim; the school must also reflect on any areas of policy and practice where they may be contributing to the harm experienced (Anfara, Evans, & Lester, 2013). Anfara et al. (2013) claim the approach is participatory and democratic, and inconsistent with punitive approaches of
sanctions; yet, many schools attempt to use restorative justice within their existing system of sanctions. Some researchers have expressed concern about the fidelity of implementation of their anti-bullying programmes in schools, and attribute less
41 positive results to schools trying to take short-cuts to implementation (Karna et al., 2012; Olweus & Limber, 2010; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005), which may also occur with restorative justice approaches. Song and Swearer (2016) are
concerned that restorative justice approaches have many forms, practitioners are inconsistent in the application of rules, as there is a lack of carefully researched and published guidance, and, consequently, it is difficult to evaluate the success of restorative approaches. They call for rigorous testing of restorative approaches to discover if it works and if so, which strategies are successful within a school environment (Song & Swearer, 2016). Morrison (2006) reports victims in the
criminal justice system generally have positive outcomes from restorative approaches. Song and Swearer (2016), though, have serious concerns about the use of restorative approaches for bullying cases; a victim must face their bully and discuss the harm caused, which may lead to further victimisation. There may be differences between bullying, which is often protracted and personal, and criminal activities, which are likely to be one-off events, although they may be deeply traumatic. Restorative approaches may be effective for some cases of bullying, but may also be traumatic for the victim, even if they have apparently agreed to participate voluntarily. There is a significant power differential between a member of staff asking a victim to participate and a traumatised victim who is a child. Clearly, additional research is required for the use of restorative approaches in schools.
Peer-based interventions have been well-researched in schools and offer an alternative approach (Cross, Lester, Barnes, Cardoso, & Hadwen, 2015; Cross et al., 2016; Karna et al., 2012; Menesini et al., 2003). These interventions deploy students to support
42 peers and provide a mechanism for developing a greater sense of belonging (Cowie, 2014; Cross et al., 2015). Of course, if the aim is to develop a greater sense of belonging, then schools need to be aware of who is selected for these roles. Frequently, those selected for peer leadership roles already have a positive
relationship with the school, a strong sense of belonging and leadership skills. For instance, the Cyber Friendly Schools Project (Cross et al., 2015) trained peer mentors who frequently had no personal experience of cyber-victimisation. Yet, High and Young (2018) found victims attribute more significance to messages of support from those who have prior experience of victimisation themselves, and did not believe those without experience were credible supporters. Students who have a balance between leadership skills and experience of victimisation appear to be the optimum for empathy and credible support. A key role for peer mentors can be gathering and relaying the common anxieties and worries of their peers to enable schools to take timely and effective action (Cowie, 2011). However, it is also important to take account of the context of each school as there are cultural differences in how
individuals respond to cyberbullying (Wright et al., 2018). School climate is complex and depends on school ethos, policies and the actions of individuals with the school. As well as ensuring a supportive framework is in place for all students, teachers also need support to respond appropriately within the framework as situations arise. Student input should be a key part of the dialogue for designing an appropriate framework to be utilised by staff and students together. It is not currently clear, though, how victimised young people want to be supported by adults, hence RQ3 asks: how do young people perceive the role of adults in managing cyberbullying incidents?
43