Let’s shut up about bullying

If you’ve ever been the victim of aggression or been the perpetrator or even both, each of ‘you’ may have wished it would end, but obviously for different reasons. Yes, some kids and teens may appear pretty darn happy about hurting others. But rare is the child or teen who never develops any remorse. For parents on both sides, it can be hard to lead the way. Educators often feel caught in the middle.

Clearer Language, Clearer Solutions

Not all students with aggression problems are so happy with their own behaviour. Even when they are, most are not beyond reach. But our ability to solve this serious problem is hog-tied by the name we give it. Without dwelling on that awful image too much, let’s look at how clearer language brings clearer solutions.

Assault? Invasion? Humiliation?

One of the first things behavioural psychologists learn in training is, you can’t solve a problem until you describe it—very clearly. “Bullying” is too vague. The word perpetuates the problem. If parents consult a psychiatrist, a few (not all) will add a label like “conduct disorder.” This literally means, ‘here-comes-trouble-disease.’ Hey, thanks for the insight. Or, shall I say, fuel for the fire.

Immediate Safety versus Structural Change

Ending the immediate danger is often the limit of what schools can accomplish. They are stretched for resources. Reducing the ongoing problem starts with finding out what happened. For many reasons, we have trouble describing it. There are more kinds of offending behaviour than the three named above. Most acts are skillfully concealed—to get away with it, of course. But often, under that, they are also sources of shame. This makes it even harder to get to ‘why.’

Cyber-Aggression

Until recently, this was an ideal way for the aggressor to hide, for a while. But on Sept. 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with teen girl AB that her identity and the abusive postings about her will be kept private while the identities of her persecutors are investigated. Then a court can determine a motive. But even that doesn’t usually clarify, for the aggressor, what personal change he or she must accomplish. That takes both objectivity and insight.

Name-calling includes bullying.

Hey, don’t I mean, “bullying includes name-calling?” That’s true, but that’s a given. As my daughter of fifteen pointed out, labeling a student with the b-word hardly motivates one to stop. Moreover, it decreases our chances of getting to ‘why.’ She added, when we mount “anti-bullying” campaigns, the first message received by every guilty student is, ‘You are excluded. You are the problem. We’re going to solve it. We’re going to do something about you.’  Sometimes, we only get to send one message.

So, what works, then?

Focus on the solution, more than on the problem. Before we look at the hard evidence, let us first acknowledge one under-used cultural gift from First Nations: Restorative justice circles. Rather than wait for an incident to occur (it will) one preventative practice can be weekly circle-talks to recognize and celebrate what’s going well AND air concerns, under adult supervision. Retaliation chill will still be there (OH yeah) but the message will always get through:

We’re here, to hear you out.

Later, a student may privately approach a staff member. Or, they may ask a friend to carry the news. Best case? A voluntary confession, of course. But silently ceasing the aggression is almost as positive. What’s different about this approach is that it focuses on changing the structure of the situation, instead of just trying to change one aspect of one individual. They are responsible for their behaviour. But no behaviour happens in a vacuum. In part, aggression reflects certain common, structural issues.

Who’s going to follow through on THAT?

We’re talking about precious instructional time, here! Well, York Region and two other Ontario school boards have been leaders in RP. Durham Board (DDSB) has experimented with it. Resources for boards include International Institute for Restorative Practices (www.IIRP.org). The proactive approach described above comes to us from Native tradition and is not necessarily part of every RP training, but a high school special educator and a youth corrections pastor, both known to this writer, added it themselves, due to awareness that it works.

Is it evidence-based?

The IIRP and Rutgers University are one source. They conducted various studies including three shown in the graphic, below. More recently (March 2011, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy) University of Ottawa graduate student Kristin Reimer published her Master’s thesis findings from her study of RP at one Ontario school board, which added Ontario-based evidence.

Who Says?

Ontario’s (2000) Safe Schools Act actually promotes such community-building programs. But, as Reimer points out, the Act addresses school systems originally structured to use retribution. Toronto and Toronto Catholic boards both work hard at safe-school initiatives, but board-wide RP training would be any board’s budget nightmare. And not all training is created equal. My two colleagues who added their own proactive twist, the weekly ritual of air concerns in groups, went beyond training. A standard part of RP is a disarmingly simple set of post-incident questions, structured to build recompense, rather than retribution.

Obviously, these structural shifts in community and administrative approaches cannot substitute for police investigation and criminal justice where needed. But if any of us has ever had help catching our behaviour before a risk escalates, we know we came to earlier and easier confrontations with values and with, ‘Why?’ Some of us may indeed be passing on our victim role. But no matter what the issues, in the long run, ‘Too much, too soon’ will always be more cost-effective than, ‘Too little, too late.’

So let’s shut up about ‘bullying.’ Assault, humiliation, and invasion are clear words for unacceptable actions. But the B-word is a verb and the verb is based on a label and the label is based on anger.

Now . . . What was it, again, that we were trying to reduce, all around? Let’s get structurally proactive about it. Having worked with many traumatized victims, and perpetrators ranging from Grade 1 girls to men convicted many times, I’ve become a big fan of ‘Too much, too soon.’

---

Ken McCallion is registered in the College of Psychologists of Ontario for Clinical and School Psychology. At Beaches Family Practice, psychologyisgrowth@live.ca 416-698-0999 – voice mail x 206