Estadios de desarrollo cognitivo

In order to implement effective and appropriate interventions to address the problem of bullying in secondary schools, it is critically important to first establish the underlying factors contributing to bullying, determine the impact of bullying on all stakeholders of the school

72

and explore the legal implications of bullying before tangible solutions are sought and efficiently implemented.

3.5.1 Underlying factors contributing to bullying

Bullying deposits its toxic power in the school, the family, the community, the workplace the nation, and ultimately the world (Fried & Sosland 2011:19). Not only are parents of bullies losing control, but the statistics demonstrate the very high levels of conflict both within families, the school, and the community (Fried & Sosland 2011:152). As a result of this, and in order to address the problem at all levels, the researcher believes that it is vitally important to first establish the influence of bullying from a family perspective.

3.5.1.1 Influence at family level

According to Swearer et al. (2011:4) families are the major socialisation agent for young children and add that, “Unfortunately, children are sometimes presented with less than ideal role models and learn” pro-aggression attitudes, develop an inability to regulate emotions, and often fail to gain the necessary problem-solving or coping skills to manage situations at home. “Specifically, it is argued that bullies possess a hot-tempered, impulsive and domineering temperament, reinforced by growing up in a family that tolerates aggression and the use” of power assertive discipline (Protogerou & Flisher 2013:121). Additionally, a synthesis of research on family characteristics of bullies found that bullies come from families with low social cohesion, little warmth, absent fathers, high power needs, permit aggressive behaviour, physical abuse, poor family functioning and authoritarian parenting (Swearer & Napolitano 2011:6).

(a) Modelling effects

Learners’ experiences of violence mirror the experiences at home and the broader community since the ways in which children acquire violent repertoires can only be understood by exploring the ecology of the context in which they grow up (Smith 2013:53). There is almost universal agreement that bullies generally become abusers through learned behaviour, acquired primarily from family members and friends (Fried & Sosland 2011:27). Bullies are more likely to have been abused themselves and may have witnessed their fathers abusing their mothers physically. As Szyndrowski (2005:11) points out,- a teenager

73

who observes his father beating his mother every time they have a difference of opinion, is likely to batter his partner in order to coerce her into submission.

In addition, bullies have been observed to come from families where the parents are more authoritarian, condone “fighting back” and the use of physical punishment to settle scores (Smith 2013:88). Furthermore, children who bully others may come from families lacking warmth, in which violence is common, and where discipline is inconsistent. Additionally, children raised by authoritarian parents- parents who are demanding, directive, and unresponsive- are the most prone to act out bullying behaviour (Fried & Sosland 2011:152). Not surprisingly, Swearer et al. (2009:20-21) maintain that domestic violence and child maltreatment are directly associated with bullying perpetration.

Research findings have demonstrated that parents of bullies are often cold and indifferent, inconsistent in their display of affection and are unable to set clear boundaries and this behaviour is reflected in the bullies’ behaviour both at home and at school (Protogerou & Flisher 2013:121). Moreover, parents who are aggressive, hostile, argumentative, short tempered, domineering or critical and generally demonstrate violent behaviour inadvertently serve as role models for their own children. These children harness their anger and implement the intimidation tactics employed by their parents to harass their peers at school (Miller & Lowen 2012:48). Furthermore, parents who abuse drugs and alcohol try to maintain a closed home environment where everyone is controlled (McAdams & Lambie 2003:1). This has a negative effect on adolescents who feel frustrated, neglected and abused and they, in turn, vent their anger by screaming and abusing others at school both verbally and physically. Learners who believe that aggression and violence are acceptable increase their chances of becoming bullies at school (Miller & Lowen 2012:24).

(b) Temperament

The best documented individual factor in bullying perpetration is temperament (Dupper 2013:15). The Encarta Concise English Dictionary (2001:1486) defines temperament as “a prevailing or dominant quality of a person’s mind that is characterised by excessive moodiness, irritability or sensitivity.” Furthermore, temperament refers to the basic tendencies by children to develop certain personality styles and interpersonal behaviour. “Children who are active and impulsive in temperament may be more inclined to develop

74

into bullies” (Dupper 2013:15). These children have trouble responding to new situations, resist change and react to new stimuli with shock or rejection and this difficult temperament becomes a precursor for conduct disorders during adolescence when they display heightened irritability and react angrily at the slightest provocation through acts of physical and verbal bullying (Delfos 2004:86).

Furthermore, a wide range of emotions surround experiences of bullying perpetration and in this regard, “anger has been found to be a significant predictor of bullying perpetration” in schools (Swearer et al. 2009:16). Research findings indicate that learners who are prone to emotional instability and therefore have lowered self-esteem might channel their anger by bullying others in order to make themselves feel better. According to Dupper (2013:15), learners who have a low threshold for anger management bully their peers regularly, tend to be easily frustrated, have low levels of empathy, have difficulty following rules, view violence positively and are defiant towards adults. This anger, if not attended to, may result in the perpetration of delinquent and coercive behaviour and may potentially result in more serious criminal involvement (Swearer et al. 2009:16). In this regard, it becomes imperative for parents and teachers alike to teach children how to control their temper appropriately, to calm down when they are angry, and to handle their frustrations and their disappointments in healthy ways (Fried & Sosland 2011:155).

(c) Poverty and homelessness

Living in economic hardship can be a serious threat to a family’s stability, leaving children more vulnerable to targeting or mocking (Miller & Lowen 2012:202). Additionally, Benette (in Tintswalo 2014:51) argues that “people who are exposed to chronic poverty, which is the case for the majority of township and rural dwellers, often have less resources or mechanisms which they can employ to exercise control over their lives”. In the Uthungulu District, where the researcher serves, poverty is an endemic problem where job losses as a result of retrenchments and staff-downsizing by struggling companies have left a number of families homeless, and this dire circumstance has rendered aggressive and bullying behaviour a risk factor in many schools. Consequently, violence then appears to be an attractive option as a child whose family is experiencing financial difficulties may unleash his anger and frustration on others around him (Tintswalo 2014:51).

75

According to Huston and Ripke (2006:426-427), low income families have a greater likelihood of producing poor performing and aggressive individuals and impoverished neighbourhoods that induce the youth to engage in antisocial lifestyles. However, while this may be the case, Miller & Lowen (2012:202) argue that bullying exists within all socio- economic groups and should definitely not be regarded as a “poor child’s problem” as even children from affluent families have the potential to become bullies because of their power and superior economic status. As a matter of fact, many resilient children who come from families that have experienced a wide range of challenges go on to become self-reliant, industrious, responsible and successful adults who fully understand the meaning of hard work, integrity and persistence (Miller & Lowen 2012:202).

However, despite the arguments for and against poverty being a risk factor for bullying, Fullam (2012:1) believes that poverty does make a difference in a child’s life and that, therefore, this difference could lead to the victimisation of the child by more affluent learners at school. Moreover, Fullam (2012:1) points out that children living in poverty and who suffer from low self-esteem and defencelessness can become aggressive as their frustrations can cause them to lash out.

(d) Divorce and death in the family

When parents divorce, it can be particularly confusing and distressing for children and stressful for everyone in the family (Miller & Lowen 2012:200). In fact, the trauma children experience before and after such actions remain etched in their minds for a long time and affects their moods, behaviour and self-esteem negatively. Therefore, the manner in which a child or adolescent deals with his/her emotions during this difficult time may increase his/her risk for acting aggressively or impulsively towards others. Delfos (2004:141) concurs with this view by stating that complicated divorce proceedings can be an extremely traumatic experience for a young adolescent who may resort to antisocial behaviour in order to cope with the trauma. Additionally, in single-parent homes, the absence of paternal authority and role models results in higher rates of adolescent aggression and violence (Gasa 2005:45).

On the other hand, the researcher believes that death in the family may pose another risk factor for the victims of bullying. The death of a loved one in the family can bring untold

76

grief and suffering to children and their families. While adults tend to grieve with deep and profound intensity, children “jump in and out of the grief process for an extended period of time,” feeling devastated, and in desperate need of adult empathy and caring (Miller & Lowen 2012:201). Victims experience anxiety and low self-esteem as a result of their loss and bullies are quick to observe this vulnerability, resulting in victims finding themselves on the receiving end of their thoughtless and insensitive comments and provocation. Miller and Lowen (2012:201) contend that the bullying situation becomes increasingly cruel and unbearable when it is established that the victim’s parent or loved one died as a result of suicide, as this provides the aggressor with ammunition to taunt and tease the bereaved victim about the circumstances of his parents’ passing.

3.5.1.2 Influence at school level

The role of schooling in perpetrating and multiplying violence can only be understood in terms of its authoritarian nature (Harber 2004:69). According to Harber, schools have been established as authoritarian bureaucracies for the purposes of control, denying learners the fundamental human rights of participation. The researcher believes that this top-down approach to schooling can instil anger in learners who are forced to accept the views of others, particularly teachers, without question. The problem is further exacerbated by the controlled implementation of the prescribed curriculum by teacher-administered punishments (Mncube & Harber 2013:16).

(a) Corporal punishment

According to Mthanti and Mncube (2014:71) corporal punishment can be described as “any physical action that hurts a child in the name of discipline.” It is a form of violence institutionally sanctioned in many schools around the world (Mncube & Netshitangani 2014:2) The WHO reports that corporal punishment in schools in the form of hitting, punching, pinching, “beating or kicking remains legal in at least 65 countries despite the fact that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has underlined that corporal punishment is incompatible with the Convention” (Harber 2004:75). In respect of the developed or industrialised world, it is illegal in France, Korea, Israel and a number of Australian and American states. In other countries where it is officially banned such as South Africa and China, it is still widely used, suggesting that corporal punishment in school still

77

exists in at least one third and perhaps as much as half of the countries of the world (Plan 2008:12-14).

Despite its official abolishment in schools in South Africa in 1996, the pervasive use of corporal punishment is widespread in most South African schools, particularly rural schools (Mthanti & Mncube 2014:72). Furthermore, a survey of 750 school learners in KwaZulu- Natal confirmed that it is still a common practice among teachers in schools to this day (Harber 2004:79). The 2012 National School Violence Study, the second such study conducted since 2008, rates KwaZulu-Natal as having the highest incidence of corporal punishment in South African schools (Payet 2014:6). The South African Council for Educators (SACE) chief executive officer, Rej Brijraj, confirmed that 185 incidents of corporal punishment were reported in the last financial year- of which 24 cases were from KwaZulu- Natal. Teachers often used a stick, PVC pipe, duster or ruler to punish learners while others resorted to slapping and kicking to discipline learners (Payet 2014:6).

The problem of corporal punishment is further compounded by the fact that it is justified on the grounds that it is a part of the “African culture” (Mncube & Harber 2013:16). Among African learners and parents, particularly from rural township schools, there is a strong public endorsement of corporal punishment (Mthanti & Mncube 2014:72). Learners often feel powerless against the harsh disciplinary measures and this is often exacerbated through an idealogical justification of punishment expressed by teachers as being essential to make learners conform (Tintswalo 2014:53). However, the researcher is of the view that apart from the fact that corporal punishment is banned in South African schools, one should never forget the pain and suffering, shame and humiliation felt by the children who are abused by the very people who are supposed to protect them. Accordingly, the SACE Chief Education Officer (CEO), Reg Brijraj, asserts that corporal punishment is tantamount to assault and is, therefore, a criminal offence- a criminal act cannot be allowed. Instead, harsher sentences are more likely to be prescribed in future owing to the frequency of the incidences of corporal punishment (Payet 2014:6).

According to Harber (2004:80), there is strong and consistent research evidence that physical punishment and the deliberate humiliation of children is significantly linked to the development of violent attitudes and actions such as bullying. The research findings indicate

78

that learners “are being bullied by teachers to a surprising degree and in a wide range of destructive and harmful ways” (Whitted & Dupper 2008:329). Accordingly, children exposed to violence in their homes and at school tend to use violence to solve problems as they establish in themselves the belief that violence begets violence (Harber 2004:80).

(b) Authoritarian schooling

While it is assumed that bullying results from flaws in the character of individual learners in school, research over many years have proven that interventions have had very little impact in reducing bullying because the school organisation and culture itself can be conducive to bullying (Mncube & Harber 2013:9). This is because authoritarian organisations provide an environment where learner “rights, needs and feelings can too readily be ignored or suppressed and where it is difficult” for them to act independently and to critique and challenge school rules and prescribed curricula (Harber 2004:20). Indeed, historically, authority and order in schools have consistently been associated with violent imposition in the form of physical punishment thereby creating an oppressive and authoritarian ethos (Mncube & Netshitangani 2014:2).

The researcher is of the view that when schools are designed purely for heightened control, without proper explanations, learners find it difficult to make sense of the rules, and become agitated and frustrated. Furthermore, the degree of control within authoritarian institutions varies from context to context and from institution to institution. In the majority of schools, power over what is taught and learned, when it is taught and learned, how it is taught and where it is taught and learned, is not in the hands of learners but in the hands of predominantly government officials, head teachers and teachers (Harber 2004:24). Consequently, a learner who feels marginalised and does not feel understood will not be inclined to follow the advice given by teachers, will be recalcitrant and this behaviour will be reinforced over time (Delfos 2004:194). The researcher is of the opinion that often school rules become punitive when teachers resort to policing the school environment to enforce school rules rather than educate learners regarding why the rules are necessary and it is this unexplained repression that provides the learner with a justification for aggression.

Harsh disciplinary measures such as beatings can prove detrimental to the secondary school learners who feels humiliated by such actions, and which results in them retaliating with

79

hostile, antisocial and aggressive behaviour (Delfos:2004:207). Furthermore, strong and consistent research evidence shows that physical punishment and the deliberate humiliation of children are significantly linked “with the development of violent attitudes and actions” (Harber 2004:80). According to Moeller (2001:278) this aggressive behaviour is further entrenched by the prevalence of an irrelevant and uninspired curriculum combined with teaching techniques that fail to engage the learners’ interest. As Carl Rogers (In Harber 2004:19) explains “Learners do not participate in choosing the goals, the curriculum or the manner of working. These things are chosen for the learners. Students have no part in the choice of teaching personnel, nor any voice in educational policy.” Consequently, and as Harber (2004:20) argues, rejection of imposed authoritarian forms can in itself lead to violence and bullying perpetration.

(c) School climate

Konstantina and Pilious-Dimitris (2010:93) assert that, “research evidence indicates that a negative school climate is a contributing risk factor for bullying.” When the school climate is unhealthy and not supportive, then bullying and concomitant problems proliferate (Swearer & Napolitano 2011:5). Furthermore, classroom practices and punitive teacher attitudes are salient components of school climate that contribute significantly to bullying prevalence (Swearer et al. 2009:22). Accordingly, Allen (2010:1) points out that there is much more to classroom management than being able to influence and control student behaviour. In a study conducted with 99 teachers and 2002 learners, researchers found that classroom management had a direct impact as well as an indirect impact via social structure on the prevalence of bullying (Craven, Finger & Yeung 2007:3). This crucial finding demonstrates the influential role of the teacher in the management of student social dynamics (Craven et

al. 2007:3).

Accordingly, Olweus (in Konstantino & Pilious-Dimitri 2010:95) emphasises the importance of developing a positive school climate to reduce bullying, ensuring clear rules, regulations and appropriate sanctions against bullying behaviours, learner participation in the formulation of rules and sanctions, rewards and encouragement of positive and non-violent behaviour of aggressive learners by teachers, non-punitive sanctions of aggressive behaviour, and collective activities that promote collaboration and positive interactions

80

among learners. Furthermore, Gottfredson et al. (2005:412) argues that the main factors of school climate related to high levels of learner victimisation include unclear, unfair and inconsistently enforced rules, ambiguous responses to learner misconduct, inconsistent discipline management, poor teacher-administration co-operation, and punitive or authoritarian attitudes on the part of teachers.

Another form of direct, internally generated violence within schools, which creates a negative ethos and tense school climate is the incessant bullying of learners by teachers (Mncube & Harber 2013:16). Accordingly, a study of violence in the Free State Province found that out of a sample of 800 teachers 43% reported that teachers in their schools had threatened one or more learners at their school over a period of a year, whereas 17% had attacked or assaulted one or more learners at their school during the same period (De Wet 2007:59). In sub-Saharan Africa, research suggests that female teachers often call on male