Case Study: Tackling Bullying in a School - Desklib

This case study report discusses the initiatives taken by a school to tackle the problem of bullying. It explores the short-term and long-term changes made, the social and psychological context, the political and moral context, the legal context, and the processes, timelines, and resources involved. The report emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and inclusive environment for students.

Case Study
Introduction
The case study report is based on the initiatives taken by the principal and teachers of a school,
ABC, to tackle the problem of bullying reported in the school premises. The school did not have
any specific policy against bullying and the principal was caught off-guard with the complaint.
In a parents-teachers’ meeting, one of the parents reported the case of an older boy bullying her
young son after school. She and the other parents demanded that the school look into the matter
and take some action. The principal intervened in the meeting to get all facts about the incident.
The principal and the teachers formed a committee consisting of three senior teachers, two
parents, the principal and a school board member to start looking into the matter. They
acknowledged that the first mistake by the school had been to not be ready for such an incident
and not have any policies or procedures in place regarding bullying. The short-term changes
were made about investigating the matter at hand about the reported incident while the long-term
plan included drafting a strict anti-bullying policy, setting up counselling facilities, training the
students and teachers on bullying, and developing a network for students to report such incidents,
if and when they occurred. The change program started with acceptance of the prevalence of
bullying, and included confiding in the parents, reaching out to the students, analyzing the school
policy on such issues, and agreeing to invest in a program to control bullying in the campus.
The issue of bullying on school campuses, while being a horrible experience for the victims and
witnesses, is unfortunately not uncommon (Smith & Brain, 2000). The principal realized that
ABC had been lucky enough to not have too many incidents of such nature in the past but it
definitely needed to be ready to face such a challenge in the future. Bullying has been defined as
“aggressive, intentional acts carried out by a group or an individual repeatedly and over time
against a victim who cannot easily defend himself or herself” (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017;
Olewus, 1993, p.48). Bullying is thus a deviant act carried out with an overt intent to harm the
target. The intent behind perpetrating bullying could stem from a variety of reasons such as
aggressive personalities of bullies, low self-esteem, need to assert power, and other such
psychological traits or stress of studies, problems with parents, problems at home and other such
contextual factors (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel, 2014; Slattery, George, & Kern, 2019). Bullying
has been found to have adverse effects on the mental and physical health of the targets and

witnesses, and even the bullies. It also has a spiraling effect where the victims may turn to
becoming bullies themselves with a misplaced sense of revenge (Wolke & Lereya, 2011). The
principal rightly identified this as one of the most crucial issues facing the students and wanted to
take every measure to ensure the problem is nipped at the bud.
Context
Social and Psychological context
The initial complaint suggested that a boy of 11 years of age had accosted a 7-year-old boy after
the school and demanded him to give him all his money. When the younger boy refused, the
older boy threatened to hit him. The younger boy got scared and handed over the money. When
the same thing happened three times in a row, the parents intervened to know where their kid’s
money was being spent. The principal had called both the students to his office and demanded
an explanation. He realized that the younger boy did not speak clearly out of fear of reprimand
from the principal as well as the bully. The perpetrator had troubles at home, with his parents in
the middle of a divorce, and he had taken to resorting to scaring others to feel powerful. The
socio-cognitive theory, when applied to designing an intervention to address bullying (Swearer,
Wang, Berry, & Myers, 2014) demonstrates that the relationship between the bully and his/her
social environment is a very important dynamic. The theory suggests that a person learns from
observing others in his/her social circle and if such a person is exposed to aggressive behavior,
he/she may become susceptible to perpetrating such a behavior as well (Osher, Cantor, Berg,
Steyer, & Rose, 2018). In the context of the school, the principal found that the family situation
of the boy created an impression that anger, aggression, and fear were acceptable emotions when
dealing with other people (Horton, 2019).
The anti-bullying campaign hence started with tackling this issue at hand. The newly designed
policy addressed explaining what constitutes as bullying behavior, the acceptable norms of
respect and code of conduct for students and staff in the school, and the strict measures that
would be taken to address if any complaints were raised. The school also appointed a counsellor
to be made available to students to discuss any issues they had in their personal life or in their
studies. The principal and the school board thought availing the counselling facilities would help
keeping in check any impulsive behaviors as well as create a safe space for students to express
their concerns and seek help.

Political and moral context
The teachers were enlisted to be major stakeholders in the change intervention. They were made
to attend a training program explaining the consequences of bullying on al parties involved. The
external trainers also spoke in detail about how situational factors such as peer pressure, pressure
of performance, remarks by teachers, need for competition enforced by school ranking systems,
pressure to get into good colleges can all contribute to creating emotional and mental pressure on
the students. These could act as triggers for engaging in deviant behaviors (Peeters, Cillessen, &
Scholte, 2010). It was the responsibility of the teachers to ensure that they remain civil to the
students and treat them with care and respect. It was also stressed upon that the teachers report
any warning signs of behavior that they may notice in the students. This could be signs relating
to perpetrators or victims. The program also covered the resistance or fear that victims may feel
in coming out to voice their concerns. The counsellor and the grievance redressal committee had
to be responsible in ensuring that there is no fear of reprimand, and complaints get addressed in a
fair and timely manner. They would also have to ensure that students do not make incorrect
complaints, and both the victim and the accused get their chance to explain the situation.
Legal context
Laws against harassment have become prominent in workplaces. Educational institutions are
also working towards penalizing acts of deviance such as bullying, harassment and violence of
any kind. The principal wanted to cover cyber-bullying in the scope of the policy as well since
that was relevant in the context of the time (Brewer & Kerslake, 2015; Volk, Veenstra, &
Espelage, 2017). The change intervention also reached out to parents to being actively involved
in the policy making process. This was done with an intent to assure them about the school’s
intentions to handle the problems as well as educate them on identifying behavioral patterns in
their own children. The children need to be able to trust their parents to let them know that it is
okay to tell them about being bullied. Children should also be able to seek peace in their home
and with their parents so that they don’t act as behavioral triggers. The schools’ anti-bullying
policy ensured that all students understood that perpetrators would be heavily penalized and that
should act as a deterrent for those being tempted to behave in deviant manner (Aldridge,
McChesney, & Afari, 2018; Salmivalli, 2014).

Processes, timelines and resources
Date/Event Description Processes Resources People
December 2016
(before the
change
initiative)
Parent Teacher
Meeting where
the complaint
was raised,
principal
intervened,
committee was
formed to
address the issue
at hand
Principal met the
teachers and
parents;
principal met the
students in
questions;
school board
meeting was
convened;
committee was
formed
Face to face
communication
with parents,
teachers and
students
Parents,
teachers,
Principal,
Students in the
complaint,
Members of
School Board
March 2017 Decision to
penalize the boy
in the complaint
was taken;
decision to
appoint a
counsellor was
taken; Final draft
of the anti-
bullying policy
was approved
The boy was
suspended for
the remainder of
the school term,
counselling for
the student and
his parents was
started; formal
appointment of
the counsellor
Follow-up on the
complaint;
looking at the
anti-bullying
policies of other
schools; research
into
consequences of
bullying; draft
revisions for
school policy for
bullying
Committee for
grievances;
principal;
parents of the
students,
students (victim
and perpetrator)
April to June
2017
Training
sessions for
teachers and
parents;
Workshops for
all students
Orientation
about code of
conduct,
explanation of
bullying
behaviors,
details about
school’s new
policy against
bullying;
introduction to
school
counsellor and
how she could
be approached
by the students;
pledge taken by
students against
Training
workshops,
audio-visual
materials for the
seminars; anti-
bullying posters
in the school
premises
Principal,
counsellor,
parents,
teachers, student
volunteers, all
students

bullying
June-December
2017
6-month review
of the policy and
grievance
committee;
review of
complaints
received and
handled; parent-
teacher meeting
to take stock of
the situation
Document
review; past
complaints
received were
seen and the
action taken;
students were
asked to
volunteer to help
in the
counselling
process; repeat
seminars for
students and
teachers
e-mails and
discussions with
parents, students
and teachers
about adhering
to the policy and
requesting for
suggestions to
make the school
environment
happy and
stress-free
Counsellor,
parents,
teachers,
students
June 2018 A survey was
administered
among the
students to
inquire about
their emotional
health, coping
strategies, and
their anonymous
accounts of any
troubling
behavior they
had experienced,
witnessed or
perpetrated
Orientation of all
students to
school’s policy;
repeat seminars
for teachers and
students’ special
sessions for
parents to spot
symptoms or
triggers in their
children; data
collection and
analysis of the
survey results
Online surveys
to the students;
seminars for
parents and
teachers;
Survey data was
analyzed and
presented
Principal,
counsellor,
teachers,
parents, students
December 2018-
present
A report based
on the survey
was prepared
that provided
statistics on
troublesome
behavior; anti-
bullying posters
and pledges
grew in
popularity;
seminars were
made a part of
orientation for
new teachers
Results of the
survey were
shared with the
school board,
new measures
were designed
and adopted
accordingly to
maintain zero
complaints of
bullying
Report,
seminars,
discussion with
parents and
students
Parents,
counsellor,
members of
school board,
principal,
student
volunteers

Evaluation
Phase 1
The initial six months were dedicated to understanding the complaints received, the school’s
position on penalty for bullying behavior, and forming a policy against bullying. The research
conducted by the committee during this phase revealed the personal and environmental
influences that can act as trigger behaviors in students to act in deviant ways. This phase also
saw the involvement of teachers in the process as being more than just imparters of knowledge,
but also caretakers of the students. The committee got the approval of the school board to
appoint a counselor on the school premises whose main responsibility was to ensure that there
was a safe space where the students could voice their concerns. The counselor had a rich
experience of working with students in other schools and hence could lead the implementation of
the change initiatives in the subsequent phases.
Phase 2
The approved policy was shared with all students, parents, teaching and non-teaching staff, and
the members of the school board. It contained details of what constituted bullying behavior,
code of conduct, details of the counselor and her job specifications, names of teachers who
would act specifically as personal mentors for the students, and an email account where students
could anonymously send their complaints, share their experiences, and provide suggestions to
make the school a more open, inclusive, and relaxed environment. The counselor led the design
and delivery of the workshop for the teachers and parents. The objective of the workshop was to
sensitize all stakeholders towards situational triggers that could be detrimental to the child’s
development, identifying warning signs, and how parents could create a bond of openness and
trust with their children where they could speak up about such incidents without fear or shame.
These workshops were subsequently made mandatory for all new employees to be a part of as
well. There were short seminars held for all students in batches, using audio-visual aids,
storytelling and role plays to explain the school’s stand on bullying, importance of maintaining
their emotional and mental well-being along with physical health, and avenues where they could
express any concern they had. The counsellor shared regular communication with the students

urging those who had impulse control issues to talk to her before taking any actions. This stage
saw a lot of positive momentum and increased the level of comfort and trust amongst the parents
for how the school was tackling the issue. The principal was earlier reprimanded by the school
board on being inactive on this front, but after seeing the action plan, the board sanctioned the
principal’s requisition for additional resources to support the anti-bullying change initiative.
Phase 3
After a year of the start of the change management initiative, there was substantial data available
to review the past implementation of the policy. The committee met monthly to review the
status and nature of the complaints received and follow up regarding the same. Initially, the
committee had received a few complaints from students, but as the policy began being
implemented and the perpetrators being penalized, it set out a message amongst the students
about the zero tolerance regarding bullying behavior. This led to the frequency of complaints
reducing. A survey was administered to the students where they could anonymously share if
they had experienced or witnessed any incidents of bullying. This was also done to know the
pulse of the students and to check against any fear of reporting any incidents. The counselor also
met the principal to give her report on how many students had come forth to share their personal
troubles and confided in her that mandatory counselling as a penalty for being a bully was
actually helping them to accept responsibility for their actions and make amends where
necessary. Another positive outcome of this initiative was how senior students volunteered to be
co-counselor or ‘student champions.’ They organized street plays, poster designs, and slogans
for ant-bullying campaigns. They also developed a pledge for all students to take daily in the
assembly against bullying and standing up for those who did not have the courage to do so
(Dollar, 2016). The survey reported an overall increase in the bonding amongst the students as
well. This phase was considered to be an indicator of success of the entire initiative. The school
board appreciated the effort and notified the principal to develop the plan further to make this
‘anti-bullying’ initiative widespread in neighboring schools as well. The principal had a phase 4
designed for the future as well.
Reflection
In my interviews with the principal, the teachers involved in the initiative, the on-campus
counsellor, the parents and some of the student volunteers, I observed how the ‘anti-bullying’

campaign initiated from a single complaint to fortifying into a widespread effort with the entire
school community coming together to lend support and do their part. The principal of the ABC
school showed maturity and sound leadership when he decided to put the full force of the school
behind the campaign. Cranston (2013) would agree that this is an exemplary show of
responsible leadership wherein the principal drove the campaign as a matter of moral and ethical
responsibility towards the students. The first important thing under consideration was the
absence of any measures to take against bullying. Considering the contextual variables of the
fast-paced society, easy accessibility to technology, immense amount of educational load on
students, absence of full-time parenting, more cases of divorce and separation in parents,
exposure to aggressive behavior through different sources of media, peer pressure, all could
tantamount to creating a distorted perception of what is right and good behavior in the students
(Bradshaw, 2015; Zych, Ortega-Ruiz, & Del Rey,2015). The school had a moral responsibility
above else to ensure that the students are molded to be well-adjusted citizens of the future who
are not just of sound knowledge, but of sound mind and emotional health as well. The teachers
and parents all lent their support in the initial stages of the change management initiative which
contributed to its successful development and implementation (Farmer, Lines, & Hamm, 2011).
The challenge ahead lays in ensuring the momentum of such an intervention does not die down.
The next phase would be to take this initiative to a larger level where other schools can
collaborate and create a far-reaching campaign against bullying. The principal had identified
disturbing trends of stereotyping against certain students based on their gender, family income
level, and even physical appearance. He understood the problem is pervasive and needs to be
dealt with carefully and systematically. Research (Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty,
2017; Merell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isawa, 2008) shows that the efficacy of such interventions at
the individual school levels, while not being much, are definitely in the positive direction.
Support from the larger community (Govender & Young, 2018; Patton, Hong, Patel, & Kral,
2017) would go a long way in making such behaviors less prevalent while subsequently making
them completely absent. Another challenge also lays in understanding why a student would feel
fear or shame in making a complaint. The children may not always be strong enough to report if
anything bad has happened with them. The shame and guilt associated with being a victim and
the fear associated with being a witness are issues that the principal wanted to target in the next
phase of the anti-bullying imitative of the school. The focus of such initiatives has to be rightly

student-focused rather than just those made to appease the board or other stakeholders (Cuban,
2013).
References
Aldridge, J. M., McChesney, K., & Afari, E. (2018). Relationships between school climate,
bullying and delinquent behaviours. Learning Environments Research, 21(2), 153-172.
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425-469.
Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American
Psychologist, 70(4), 322.
Brewer, G., & Kerslake, J. (2015). Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and
loneliness. Computers in human behavior, 48, 255-260.
Cranston, N. (2013). School leaders leading: Professional responsibility not accountability as the
key focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(2), 129-142.
Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching
practice?. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109-125.
Dollar, T. J. (2016). Person-Level Predictors of Bullying and Bystander Behaviors Of Middle
School Students.
Farmer, T. W., Lines, M. M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of
teachers in children's peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32(5), 247-256.
Govender, C., & Young, K. (2018). A comparison of gender, age, grade, and experiences of
authoritarian parenting amongst traditional and cyberbullying perpetrators. South African
Journal of Education, 38(1).
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hymel, S. (2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth: A
meta‐analytic review of links to aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior, 40(1), 56-68.
Horton, P. (2019). The bullied boy: masculinity, embodiment, and the gendered social-ecology
of Vietnamese school bullying. Gender and Education, 31(3), 394-407.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective
interventions. Psychology, health & medicine, 22(sup1), 240-253.
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. 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.
Olweus D. 1993. Bullying in school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell
Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2018). Drivers of human development:
How relationships and context shape learning and development1. Applied Developmental
Science, 1-31.
Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research
strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 3-16.
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H., & Scholte, R. H. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying
subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(9), 1041-1052.

Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in
interventions?. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286-292.
Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of
research. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research
on Aggression, 26(1), 1-9.
Slattery, L. C., George, H. P., & Kern, L. (2019). Defining the word bullying: Inconsistencies
and lack of clarity among current definitions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 1-9.
Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Berry, B., & Myers, Z. R. (2014). Reducing bullying: Application of
social cognitive theory. Theory into practice, 53(4), 271-277.
Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying?
Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying
research. Aggression and violent behavior, 36, 34-43.
Wolke, D., & Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of disease in
childhood, 100(9), 879-885.
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and
cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and violent
behavior, 24, 188-198.