Bullying is a global problem. It impacts all life stages, but is widely acknowledged as having a significantly negative impact on children and young people under the age of 18 -- the first generation to grow up “surrounded by digital devices” (eSafety, 2021, p. 3). Incidents of bullying can impact children and young people’s mental health, including their levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, and can negatively influence their self-esteem and perceived degree of social connectedness. In some instances, bullying can lead to ongoing emotional issues, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and related behaviours (Ford et al., 2017). The issue of bullying is not confined to teenagers, with parents of children in primary years also reporting incidents of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Tanrikulu, 2017). Moreover, cyberbullying takes place across a variety of online mediums, with one study finding that over 19 per cent of children and young people reported bullying on social media sites and apps, 11 per cent through text messaging, and nearly 8 per cent through online video games (eSafety, 2021).
The onset of COVID-19 increased concerns about incidents of cyberbullying for children and young people (Gupta & Jawanda, 2020). Education systems have been severely disrupted, and many nations switched to online delivery for periods of time between 2020–2022, increasing the online activity of children and young people (United Nations, 2021). In Australia, the focus of this paper, as many as 44 per cent of Australian teenagers reported having a negative online experience in the first six months of COVID-19 (March – August 2020) (eSafety, 2021). Such online incidents included contact from someone they did not know, receiving inappropriate or unwanted content, and being deliberately excluded from their social group or events organised within their social group (eSafety, 2021).
While traditional bullying and cyberbullying are often reported separately, the two overlap (eSafety, 2021; Hu et al., 2021). It has been argued that traditional bullying consists of three key elements: (1) “purposeful unwanted negative (aggressive) behaviour that (2) typically implies a pattern of behaviour that is repeated, and (3) occurs in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power or strength, favouring the perpetrator(s)” (Olweus & Limber, 2018, p. 139). Cyberbullying has been defined as encompassing these same three elements, but with specific nuances around the imbalance of power, which can include “technological know-how, relative anonymity, social status, number of friends, or marginalized group position” (Smith et al, 2012), as well as repetition, which includes the length of time that images and messages remain online.
Systems-level Approaches To Bullying
Schools are called upon to play a significant role in addressing bullying, with expectations that they understand the offline and online behaviours of their students, and remain current with new online platforms (Lindstrom et al., 2019; Pennell et al., 2020). While schools – and the staff therein – are well placed to educate children and young people about bullying and other anti-social behaviours (Sivaraman et al., 2019; Tanrikulu, 2018), their role in managing this behaviour is complicated by criminal and legal requirements, expectations of parents, their primary role as educators, and the complex and rapidly changing nature of cyberbullying. Current research demonstrates that policies, targeted programs, and legal responses implemented in isolation cannot adequately address bullying (Pennell et al., 2022; Rapee et al., 2020; Sabia & Bass, 2017). As in many nations, Australian schools have developed policies, programs, and strategies to address traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Pennell et al., 2022; Sabia & Bass, 2017), largely at the behest of state level government departments. In some instances, schools have adopted a whole-school approach, drawing on a socio-ecological model that acknowledges the complex and interrelated systems at play (Chalmers et al., 2016; Sivaraman et al., 2019). A whole-school approach fits with school level actions and responses to violence and anti-social behaviours more broadly (Chalmers et al., 2016).
While the assessment of targeted programs is critical to measuring the extent to which they are effective, there are, to our knowledge, no self-assessment tools for schools to measure their progress towards being fully prepared to prevent and respond to bullying and other anti-social behaviours amongst their school community.
Theoretical Frameworks
Schools are successfully reducing bullying by developing programs based on socio-ecological system theory (Allen, 2010; Boyd & Lawes, 2018; Hawkins et al., 2021; Hornby, 2016; Njelesani et al., 2020). Introduced by Bronfenbrenner (1977), socio-ecological theory contends that individuals are situated within a range of complex, interrelated system levels that influence their development. While the theory was developed in the 20th century, schools are drawing on socio-ecological theory in the 2020s as they respond to bullying at a systems level. In doing so, they are creating a whole-school practice, such as establishing reporting systems, that engages a range of components and individuals in prevention and intervention activities (Sivaraman et al., 2019). This approach acknowledges that whole-school approaches should be augmented with individual components, such as focusing on the perpetrators and victims, with the two employed in concert (Rapee et al., 2020). Cross et al. (2018) argue that whole-school approaches to bullying include socio-ecological strategies delivered in classrooms, schools, and to families. As such, whole-school approaches have been seen to be more successful than single-component approaches, such as traditional disciplinary actions or classroom curriculum learning (Cross et al., 2018).
In whole-school approaches to bullying, the relationship between systems is described as “nested, reciprocal, and dynamically interacting” (Pennell et al., 2020, p. 286). Bronfenbrenner (1977) described systems as micro-, meso-, exo- and macrosystems, depending on how individuals are impacted by each one. All levels of the socio-ecological framework are implemented with anti-bullying programs at a school level (Pennell et al., 2020). The macrosystem is described as societal and cultural aspects that impact bullying, the exosystem as school practice influenced by communities, the mesosystem as school actions of prevention and intervention, and the microsystem as the prevention and intervention activities of stakeholders inside schools. These circles are arranged from the outermost (macrosystem) to the innermost student bullying behavior, placing issues of bullying at the centre of schools’ interrelated systems.
Initial Development Of The Ssat
To develop the SSAT, a review was conducted of the Australian and international literature on system-level approaches to preparing for, preventing, and responding to bullying and cyberbullying and other challenges or disruptions to the social environment. This review revealed the lack of school level, self-assessment tools (Pennell et al., 2020). In addition, a review was conducted of Australian government policies and guidelines for schools to address bullying and cyberbullying. On the basis of these reviews, five Focus Areas were identified, which then informed the development of a 40-item instrument.
The five Focus Areas were: Data, Gateway Behaviours, Reporting, Response, and School social connectedness/climate. The Data Focus Area included issues around the collection and analysis of data relevant to traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and social relationships; the priority placed by schools on the collection and analysis of such data; and the conduct of regular and integrated data reviews. Gateway Behaviours were defined as: “lower-risk behaviours, online or offline, which are used to show contempt and dominance. When left unchecked, these behaviours can escalate into conflict and bullying. Examples include posting embarrassing photos online, ignoring, name calling, whispering about people in front of them, eye rolling” (modified from Englander, 2013). The Reporting Focus Area included the ease and clarity for students, staff, and parents around the processes for reporting incidents or concerns, as well as levels of trust that incidents and concerns are reported, acted upon, and resolved. The Response Focus Area included implementation of the school’s response plan, meetings with the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) and their parents or carers, and follow-up. The School social connectedness/climate Focus Area included issues around the collection of data on social relationships within the school and level of agreement by school staff on the importance of creating and maintaining a positive school environment.
In addition to the 40 items developed to measure the five Focus Areas, the instrument included two “global rating questions” asked at both the beginning and end of the SSAT that asked how well placed the school was to (a) prevent, and (b) respond to a cyberbullying or other type of socially disruptive event. Following the first set of global rating questions, participants listened to a short audio vignette depicting a school bullying situation which participants were to refer to when responding to the 40 items. After the second set of global rating questions, three questions asked participants to evaluate the vignette on level of engagement, plausibility, and helpfulness in responding to the self-assessment questions. Along with the SSAT, schools also completed a Gap Analysis tool. The Gap Analysis tool focused on identifying gaps at a system level and measuring the extent to which schools addressed these gaps over time. The Gap Analysis tool consisted of 21 yes/no items.
The aim of this paper was to describe the development, and reliability and validity testing, of a school self-assessment tool designed to help schools identify how prepared their school system is to prevent and respond to bullying and other disruptive social challenges, and where there is room for system-level improvements.