AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 26, pages 99111 (2000)

Critical Issues for Teacher Training to

Counter Bullying and Victimisation
in Ireland
Mona OMoore*

Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre, Education Department, Trinity College,

Dublin, Ireland
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

This paper addresses the need on a national scale for formal preservice and inservice
training programmes for teachers on bullying and victimisation. It also discusses the
areas of teacher training that are believed to be most critical in effecting a change in the
level of bullying and victimisation in schools. The need for training of teachers was
crystallised in Ireland recently by the tragic death of a young student who had been
bullied for 5 years at school. Particular attention is paid in this paper to the need for
teachers to understand the importance of self-esteem in bullying behaviour. Results are
presented that indicate that children and adolescents who bully share with victims lower
levels of self-esteem than peers who have never bullied or been bullied. Aggr. Behav.
26:99111, 2000. 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Key words: teacher training; bully; victim; bully-victim; anti-bullying policy

INTRODUCTION
On February 19, 1998, a young student, Kenneth Connolly, committed suicide in
Ireland. Four weeks later his parents and girlfriend came to the Anti-Bullying Research
and Resource Centre at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, to share their heartbreaking
account of events with the author. The parents stated that their son Kenneth had been
bullied at school for 5 years but that he had been unable to talk about it until he was no
longer a pupil at the school.
Listening to the circumstances that drove Kenneth Connolly to commit suicide was
yet another stark reminder that there is ambivalence and lack of condemnation of bully-
ing in society that is reflected in our schools.

*Correspondence to: Dr. Mona OMoore, The Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre, Education
Department, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Received 1 September 1998; amended version accepted 29 January 1999

2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

100 OMoore

Kenneth was intellectually talented and extremely good at sports. He was named
senior hurler at the age of 17 years and won a perpetual cup after playing golf for only
6 months. He played in a local band with his close friends. Yet he was subjected to
consistent physical and verbal abuse for 5 years as he progressed through secondary
school. And all during this time as a victim, not only did the perpetrators go unchal-
lenged but also the spectator apathy, which was evident among his peers and teachers,
was allowed to flourish.
At the inquest Kenneths parents made a statement, the sole aim of which was to heighten
the awareness of bullying. They asked for three things:

1. That bullies realise that through their actions they can drive a person into despair
and death.
2. That victims of bullying please do not suffer in silence as our beloved Kenny did
for many years.
3. That the Government has to protect children from this happening again and set up
help for children and parents so they know where to turn to get proper help.

Kenneth is not the first to die as a result of school bullying in Ireland. Eighteen months
ago, there was another teenage boy who could no longer tolerate the impact of bullying.
Bullying related suicides have also been reported in England, Japan and Norway.
For each suicide that comes to the attention of the media, there is a huge response.
Many embarrassing questions are asked of society. Education authorities promise to inves-
tigate and do more to avoid further tragedies. However, in the aftermath there is little evi-
dence of a driving force on the part of policy makers to make schools a safer place.
In Ireland in 1993, the government launched National Guidelines on countering bullying
behaviour in primary and postprimary schools. The initiative motivated schools to develop
policies. However, 1 year after the National Guidelines were initiated, it was found as part
of a nationwide study on bullying [OMoore et al., 1997a] that 22% of primary schools and
25% of second-level schools had not developed a policy on bullying.
Most policies were included in the school code of discipline. Only 19% of primary
and 15% of second-level schools had stand-alone policies on bullying. But what was
difficult to comprehend was that there were some schools that stated that they did not
intend to develop a policy. In other words, of the schools that had not developed a
policy within a year of the Guidelines having been launched, 14% of primary schools
and 17% of postprimary schools did not intend to develop a policy.
School principals and staff recognise that for policies to be effective there must be
formal training programmes for pupils, teachers, school management, and the wider
community that addresses both the prevention and the management of bullying behaviour.
There are several initiatives in Ireland to prevent, reduce, and counter bullying [Byrne,
1998; OMoore, 1995]. However, the disparate efforts, although undoubtedly effecting
change with the populations they target, cannot reach all sectors of society. Ideally,
programmes, as international evidence indicates [Olweus, 1997; Roland and Munthe,
1997], should be organised on a national scale so that every school community might
draw benefit from them.
It can be seen from Table I that there are teachers in Ireland who do not recognise
bullying as a problem. The schools that reflected the views expressed in Table I were
part of a nationwide study of bullying in schools [OMoore et al., 1997a].
 Teacher Training to Counter Bullying 101
TABLE I. Percentage of Prinicipals of Schools Whose Staff Perceived Bullying to Be a Problem in
Their Schools
Principals, %
Primary schools Postprimary schools
Is bullying recognised as a problem by your staff? (N = 159) (N = 89)
Yes, by all 74.8 48.8
Yes, by most 8.4 32.6
Yes, by some only 4.5 15.1
No 12.3 3.5

The results suggest that there are teachers in 25% of primary schools and 51% of
second-level schools who do not recognise bullying as a serious issue. Thus, it is im-
perative that formal training programmes for teachers be introduced at the initial teacher
training level. Essentially, teachers are the keys to change. In Europe there are few
children and few parents who have not had contact with teachers. We know from all our
theories of learning that teachers through their own behaviours and interactions with
their pupils are central in shaping the values and attitudes of children. Todays child is
tomorrows parent. Thus, if we can sensitise all teachers to the ill effects of bullying
behaviour we would, through their commitment to prevent and counter it, sensitise
future generations of children and parents.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Kenneth and the other young people who
have found school bullying not to be, as many people believe, character building but
rather intolerable and ultimately destructive. It is hoped that the European Commissions
Violence in Schools initiative (1997), as reflected in this special issue of Aggressive
Behavior, and subsequent initiatives will with time show that these young people did
not die in vain. The aim of the present paper is to address the issues in teacher training
that it is believed will be most critical in effecting a change in the level of bullying/
violence in schools. Reference will be made to Kenneth and to findings from research
on school bullying to underpin the rationale for selecting these issues.

TEACHER TRAINING
What Is Bullying?
With the exception of the Nordic countries, it is only during the past decade that there
has been a growing awareness of bullying in Europe and elsewhere [Smith and Brain,
this issue]. Thus, there are many adults, teachers included, who will not have been
subjected to an authoritative account of what bullying is. The prevalent misconception
among adults that bullying is a normal phase of development needs to be challenged. It
is especially important for teachers that they understand what bullying is and the many
forms that it can take. They will then be in a position to identify it and deal with it in an
appropriate manner.
The Extent of Bullying
To help teachers to identify with the need to prevent, reduce, and counter bullying
behaviour they will have to be made aware of the extent of the problem. There is evi-
dence that teachers tend to underestimate the level of bullying among schoolchildren.
102 OMoore

OMoore and Hillery [1991] found that their teachers identified only 24% of the total
number of bullies. In a more recent and larger study [OMoore et al., 1997a], when the
schools were given their individual results, it was found that 21% of primary school
principals and 24% of second-level school principals thought that the level of bullying
among their pupils was higher than they had expected.
Table II shows that 31.3% of primary school pupils and 15.6% of postprimary school
pupils in Ireland reported that they had been victimised during term time. Victimisation
and bullying were assessed during the summer term of 1994 by the modified version of
the Olweus self-report questionnaire [Whitney and Smith, 1993].
From Table III it can be seen that 26.5% of primary school pupils and 14.9% of
postprimary school pupils reported that they had bullied others during term time. How-
ever, when the pupils were classified into pure victims (victims who had not bullied oth-
ers), pure bullies (bullies who had not been bullied), and bully-victims (children who had
both been bullied and bullied others), it can be seen from Table IV that there were 43.5%
of primary school pupils and 26.4% of postprimary school pupils involved in bullying as
victims, bullies, or both. The figures in Tables II, III, and IV include all children in the
survey who reported that they had been bullied or that they bullied others once or twice,
sometimes, once a week, or every day. The response category once or twice was in-
cluded so as not to risk underreporting as there is evidence that children tend to minimise
the level of victimisation [Neary and Joseph, 1994; OMoore et al., 1997a] and the extent
to which they bully others [Roland, 1989; OMoore et al., 1997a, 1998].
Thus it is estimated from the schoolgoing population in Ireland, which consists of
870,000 pupils [Dept. of Education, 1995], that there may be 215,000 primary school
children and 96,200 post primary pupils who are at risk of suffering the ill effects of
bullying and victimisation.
Differences among boys and girls and year differences in the levels of bullying have
been reported by OMoore et al. [1997a]. They have argued that these figures may even
underestimate the real level of bullying and victimisation in schools in Ireland. The re-
sults that Ireland presently has of the extent of bullying should leave teachers with little or
no room for complacency. Indeed, they will be able to recognise that there are a consider-
able number of children at risk of adverse effects who will need their remedial action.
The Signs of Victimisation and Bullying
There must be a comprehensive understanding of the signs of victimisation and bul-
lying. Kenneths parents were not alone in not knowing that their son was bullied at
school. There is substantial evidence to indicate that pupils are reluctant to tell adults in
authority that they are being bullied [Mellor, 1990; OMoore et al., 1997a; Whitney and

TABLE II. Percentage of Children and Adolescents Who Reported Being Bullied During a
School Term
Pupils, %
Primary schools Postprimary schools
Been bullied (N = 9,599) (N = 10,843)
Once or twice 18.6 10.8
Sometimes 8.4 2.9
Once a week 1.9 0.7
Several times a week 2.4 1.2
 Teacher Training to Counter Bullying 103
TABLE III. Percentage of Children and Adolescents Who Reported That They Bullied Others
During a School Term
Pupils, %
Primary schools Postprimary schools
Bullied others (N = 9,599) (N = 10,843)
Once or twice 20.0 11.5
Sometimes 5.1 2.4
Once a week 0.7 0.3
Several times a week 0.7 0.7

Smith, 1993]. OMoore et al. [1997a] found that 65% of primary school pupils and
84% of postprimary school pupils had not told their teachers of their victimisation.
Although more children told someone at home that they were bullied at school, as
many as 46% of primary school pupils and 66% of postprimary school pupils did not
tell anyone at home.
If teachers were to learn to recognise the signs of victimisation and bullying they
would be able to communicate incidents to the relevant parents. Strategies could then
be developed to deal with the bullying.
The Ill Effects of Bullying
A good knowledge of the ill effects of bullying is necessary to dispel any myths that
teachers may themselves have about bullying. It should also help them to dispel the myths
that others may have. The myths that are still reverberating throughout society are:

Being bullied in school does no one any harm.

Bullying is just a normal part of growing up.
Bullying is character building.
Bullying will make a man of you.
Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you.
Dont tell or youre a rat.

However, these will be harder to justify in the face of growing evidence of an asso-
ciation of educational, physical, and psychological problems with bullying. Poor self-
esteem has consistently been found to characterise children who suffer from victimisation
[Olweus, 1993; OMoore, 1995; Slee and Rigby, 1993]. Moreover, Neary and Jones
[1994] have reported that their data emphasised that depression may be a common
outcome of victimisation. Depression has also been reported as a long-term conse-

TABLE IV. The Typeology of Bullying and the Percentage of Pupils in Each Category
Pupils, %
Primary schools Postprimary schools
Category (N = 9,599) (N = 10,843)
Pure bullies 12.3 10.8
Pure victims 17.1 11.5
Bully-victims 14.1 4.1
Total involved 43.5 26.4
104 OMoore

quence of persistent victimisation [Olweus, 1997]. Williams et al. [1996] have drawn
attention to the many health symptoms associated with bullying in primary school pu-
pils and to the increasing risk of symptoms with increased frequency of bullying. Fur-
thermore, fear of going to school, school absenteeism, and truancy have been reported
to be a cause of victimisation [OMoore and Hillery, 1989; Reid, 1989; Smith and Sharp,
1994]. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is evidence of poor concentration and
impeded academic progress among victimised children and adolescents [Rigby, 1996;
Smith and Sharp, 1994].
The Causes of Bullying Behaviour
There must be a thorough understanding of what causes bullying. It is not uncom-
mon to hear teachers blame victims for their misfortune. The sensitivity and negative
attitude to violence that victims tend to display are seen as negative attributes. Indeed,
teachers and principals sometimes express intolerance at the victims inability to sort
out their own problems. This is particularly so where there is a culture of machismo in
the school. So, rather than seeing sensitivity and the ability to restrain oneself from
violent counterattack as a virtue, it is instead seen as a crime. This perception among
adults no doubt contributes to the high reluctance of children to tell adults of their
victimisation. If there is sincerity about the efforts to create a more caring, violence-
free society, then educators should promote and reinforce sensitivity in children. In an
awareness-raising programme about bullying, great care should be taken in how vic-
tims are portrayed. Olweus [1993], e.g., in his otherwise very good book, Bullying at
School: What We Know and What We Can Do, sets a very negative tone for the vic-
tims. He states that victims signal to others that they are insecure and worthless indi-
viduals who will not retaliate if they are attacked or insulted. He also describes them
as being characterised by an anxious or submissive reaction pattern combined (in the
case of boys) with physical weakness. Descriptions like these create stereotypes that
serve only to promote a negative image of victims.
Yet it is clear from listening to Kenneths parents just how ill-fitting Olweuss de-
scription of Kenneth is. Although a victim for 5 years, he had the testimony of enviable
physical fitness and strength. Moreover, he had achieved the enviable trait of control-
ling his anger that restrained him from any violent counterattack. Far from being the
submissive, insecure schoolboy, he took the initiative, because of his caring and sensi-
tive nature, to organise a collection so that a fellow pupil who had lost his money could
nonetheless buy a school jumper. If Kenneth, on the other hand, had taken the line of
one of Irelands leading broadcasters, then he might indeed be alive today. David Hanly,
in a very moving article [Sunday Tribune, 1996] following the suicide of the 13-year-
old Sikh schoolboy in Stratford, Englandwho, incidentally, was a strong boy who
stood 58 in height, a superb sportsman, and a brilliant member of his schoolcon-
cluded this article by telling us: Once, when I was about seven I was myself, a victim.
And then, suddenly, something snapped. I lost control and beat my tormentor so badly
that I had to be dragged off him. I had no more trouble from him, and Ive passed the
experience on to my children. Now one might ask, is this the approach we are seeking
to promote or is this the approach we know perpetuates the cycle of violence?
Shortly after Kenneths suicide, the author sat with a father who was fearful that his
son might commit suicide as Kenneth had done. He cried as he expressed his remorse at
not having brought up his son a thug. So, in our training of teachers we should be
 Teacher Training to Counter Bullying 105

mindful of the tendency of teachers to place undue emphasis on victims to develop a

menu of self-help skills to shake off their attackers. It would be preferable that in our
training we emphasised the role they could play in preventing bullying.
There is evidence to suggest that children who bully harbor feelings of inadequacy
[OMoore & Hillery, 1991; OMoore, 1995]. While it is argued that the relationship
between bullying and self esteem is controversial [Olweus, 1993; Rigby & Slee, 1992],
analysis of self-esteem of the children who participated in the second stage of the recent
nationwide study by OMoore et al [1997a] further indicates that children who bully
have greater feelings of inadequacy than children who are not involved in bullying.
From Table V it can be seen that the more frequently that the children bullied, the lower
was their self-esteem.
Self-esteem was measured by the Piers Harris Self-Concept Test [Piers, 1984]. When
the different subgroups of children who bullied were examined, it was found that whereas
children who bullied only (pure bullies) had higher self-esteem than bully-victims, they
nonetheless had significantly lower global self-esteem than children not involved in
bullying [OMoore et al., 1997b].
However, it can be seen from Tables VI and VII that children and adolescents who
bullied only did not feel significantly less adequate than did the control children in
relation to their physical appearance, popularity, and level of anxiety. Indeed, it can be
see from Table VII that adolescents who bullywhether only once, twice, sometimes,
or frequently (i.e., once a week or more)are significantly less anxious than those who
do not bully. The lower anxiety levels among the pure bullies of adolescent age may
mask the feelings of inadequacy and explain why bullies are often rated by others as
confident, tough, and popular [Olweus, 1993].
Preventive Strategies
In view of the above findings on self-esteem, it is believed that to effect any real
change in the prevention and alleviation of bullying there must be a heavy emphasis in
teacher training on how to prevent low self-esteem and on how to enhance self-esteem.
Although it is recognised that parents are critical in the formation of their childrens
self-esteem, the role that teachers play in shaping a childs view of himself or herself
should not be underestimated.
Schools are highly competitive institutions, where there is daily appraisal of aca-
demic work, sporting ability, and social behaviour. Thus, most pupils experience daily

TABLE V. Mean Total Scores on the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Test for Children and Adolescents
Who Bully Compared With Children Not Involved in Bullying
Primary schools pupilsa Post-primary school pupilsb
Frequency of bullying No. Mean S.D. No. Mean S.D.
None 5510 60.2 12.2 4679 56.8 12.2
Once or twice 1303 55.1 13.2 791 53.6 12.5
Sometimes 319 49.7 13.5 226 51.4 12.4
Once a week 61 48.1 13.5 21 49.5 11.9
Several times a week 65 48.4 14.8 57 48.9 15.4
a
F ratio = 111.67, df = 4, P < .001.
b
F ratio = 26.98, df = 4, P< .001.
106 OMoore
TABLE VI. Mean Scale and Total Scores on the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Test for Children
Primary pupils
Pure bullies Pure victims
Once, Once,
twice, twice, Bully-
Controls sometimes Frequentlya sometimes Frequentlyb victimsc
Self-concept (N = 4,267) (N = 781) (N = 48) (N = 1,071) (N = 159) (N = 918)
Global 62.2 57.8 52.6* 54.8 45.2* 50.1*
Behaviour 13.7 11.6 7.9* 12.7 11.5* 10.4*
Intellectual and 12.5 11.2 10.1* 11.3 10.1* 10.1*
school status
Physical appearance 8.9 8.7 9.0 NS 7.7 6.1* 7.6*
and attributes
Anxiety 10.6 10.4 10.9 NS 8.6 6.1* 8.2*
Popularity 9.8 9.7 9.5 NS 7.6 4.9* 7.4*
Happiness and 8.8 8.4 8.2* 7.8 6.0* 7.3*
satisfaction

Pure bullies are children who bully only, pure victims are victims only, bully-victims are those who both
bully others and are bullied, and controls are not involved in bullying. The analysis of variance was used to
test the differences among the group means.
a
The P values reported in this column reflect the differences between the controls and the group of pure
bullies who bully once, twice, and sometimes and those who bully frequently (i.e., once a week or more).
b
The P values reported in this column reflect the differences between the controls and the pure victims who
are victimised once, twice, and sometimes and those who are victimised frequently (i.e., once a week or
more).
c
The P values reported in this column reflect the differences between the bully-victims and the controls.
*P < .001.

reminders of their potential and their limitations. They are constantly being ranked and
evaluated. Frequently, the superior achievement of one pupil is used to debase the
achievements of others. Thus, for every pupil whose self-esteem is being boosted there
is another whose feeling of self-worth is potentially diminished. Furthermore, in their
efforts to get children to learn, there are teachers who publicly humiliate children, thus
causing frustration, anger, and feelings of inadequacy. Although a positive home envi-
ronment can act as a buffer to negative school experiences, not all children are fortunate
to have homes that can counteract the sense of failure that schools or individual teach-
ers can engender in their pupils. It is critical, therefore, that teachers are trained to
become more sensitive to childrens need for adequacy and the significant role that they
play in preventing feelings of inadequacy.
Research is indicating how the development of cooperative learning strategies in the
classroom helps foster a positive classroom environment and thereby increases coop-
erative behaviour in the classroom [Johnson and Johnson, 1991]. Cowie et al. [1994]
have shown that cooperative group work reduces the extent of victimisation of vulner-
able children, even in difficult conditions. Because there is strong evidence that victims
are most often bullied by someone from their own class [Genta et al., 1996; OMoore et
al., 1997a; Whitney and Smith, 1993], methods of teaching and discipline that draw on
positive methods are likely to achieve more positive attitudes and behaviour in pupils.
Foster and Thompson [1991] present a striking example of the benefits of developing a
nonviolent sanctions policy in school. No opportunity was lost in interacting positively
 Teacher Training to Counter Bullying 107
TABLE VII. Mean Scale and Total Scores on the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Test for Adolescents
Post-primary school pupils
Pure bullies Pure victims
Once, Once,
twice, twice, Bully-
Controls sometimes Frequentlya sometimes Frequentlyb victimsc
Self-concept (N = 3,981) (N = 681) (N = 49) (N = 604) (N = 90) (N = 364)
Global 58.0 54.9 52.1*** 51.1 44.5*** 49.1***
Behaviour 13.3 10.8 8.0*** 12.3 11.7*** 10.6***
Intellectual and 11.8 10.8 10.5*** 10.7 9.8*** 10.0***
school status
Physical appearance 8.1 8.2 8.6 NS 6.9 6.0*** 7.1***
and attributes
Anxiety 9.4 9.7 10.5* 7.6 5.8*** 7.9***
Popularity 9.4 9.5 9.4 NS 7.3 5.1*** 7.4***
Happiness and 8.1 7.9 7.7** 7.1 5.5*** 7.0***
satisfaction

Pure bullies are adolescents who bully only, pure victims are victims only, bully-victims are those who
both bully others and are bullied, and controls are not involved in bullying. The analysis of variance was
used to test the differences among the group means.
a
The P values reported in this column reflect the differences between the controls and the group of pure
bullies who bully once, twice, and sometimes and those who bully frequently (i.e., once a week or more).
b
The P values reported in this column reflect the differences between the controls and the pure victims who are
victimised once, twice, and sometimes and those who are victimised frequently (i.e., once a week or more).
c
The P values reported in this column reflect the differences between the bully-victims and the controls.
*P <.05.
**P < .01.
***P < .001.

with pupils and recognising their efforts. Essentially, the factors that make for good
parenting also make for good teaching.
Strategies to Deal With Incidents of Bullying
Although it is generally agreed that prevention in relation to bullying is better than
cure, occasions will undoubtedly arise in which such behaviour is exhibited. It is there-
fore necessary to include in the training of teachers strategies for dealing with bullying.
It is imperative that teachers recognise that they must challenge every incidence of
bullying that comes to their attention. Children need to see that their teachers mean
business and that they are effective in their interventions.
Research from the United Kingdom [Whitney and Smith, 1993], Italy [Menesini et al.,
1997], and Ireland [OMoore et al., 1997a] indicates that just more than half of all teachers
in primary schools and less than half of all teachers in postprimary schools try to intervene
when a pupil is being bullied. Boys report teachers as less likely to intervene than do girls.
Table VIII indicates the inadequate response of teachers and parents to bullying. Sadly, the
level of reprimanding by teachers drops as the children advance from primary to postprimary
school [OMoore et al., 1998]. Examination of children and adolescents who reported that
they bullied frequently (once a week and several times a week) revealed that whereas
69.7% of teachers had spoken to them about their bullying, only 21.3% of teachers in
postprimary schools had spoken to the frequent bullies about their behaviour.
108 OMoore
TABLE VIII. Percentage of Children and Adolescents Who Bully But Who Have Not Been Spoken
to About Their Behavior by Teachers or Parents
Pupils, %
Primary schools Postprimary schools
Have not been spoken to (N = 2,503) (N = 1,700)
By teachers 52 67
By anyone at home 57 73

Kilpatrick [1997] has illustrated very clearly how unchecked bullying in school pro-
motes a climate of violence and aggression that can encourage crime. Indeed, she re-
ports that as the young offenders looked back on their wasted lives, they regretted the
fact that school staff had not taken effective action to check the bullying and that their
parents had not become involved.
It is important that teachers learn as a matter of policy to make contact with the
parents or guardians of a child whose behaviour is a cause of concern. This will allow
the parents an opportunity to examine and alleviate the stress factors that may be con-
tributing to the undesirable behaviour. All too often parents are not notified until
behaviour has so deteriorated that the child is on the edge of being suspended or ex-
pelled or indeed has been suspended or expelled.
Although the Department of Education in Ireland has issued National Guidelines
toward a Positive Policy for School Behaviour and Discipline (Circular M33/91), which
state that expulsion should be resorted to only in the most extreme cases of indisci-
pline and only after every effort at rehabilitation has failed and every other sanction has
been exhausted..., there are schools that do not heed that recommendation. For ex-
ample, on April 21, 1998, it was learned that a 15-year-old boy had committed suicide
1 year after being expelled from school for being in possession of 5 worth of cannabis.
No other school would take him, and no drug center thought he was in need of treat-
ment. The boy felt shunned by the system and saw no hope for a decent future. Another
boy, a victim of serious bullying, who came to the attention of the Anti-Bullying Cen-
tre, was expelled at 14 years of age, for stabbing the ringleader of the gang of 5 who had
bullied him for over a year. The school instantly expelled both victim and bully. Whereas
the bully was able to find another school, the victim has not, even after the passage of
eighteen months. Consequently, his behavior has so deteriorated that he is currently
receiving psychiatric treatment.
It is critical that teachers come to understand that to suspend or expel a pupil from
school is to add to the psychic blows of an already wounded individual. There is enough
research material available that shows the strong relationship between disruptive behaviour
and substance abuse and low self-esteem. The upset or disruptive child as Keogh (1998)
has pointed out needs help, not condemnation. Thus, it is recommended that teachers be
encouraged to adopt the view, which should be supported by a government policy state-
ment that when schools feel they can no longer cope with a pupil due to lack of profes-
sional resources, that they give the parents or guardian of the pupil the option either to
obtain professional assistance for the child while he/she continues to attend the school or
to remove their child to another school. It is recognised that such a policy would require a
good school psychological service. For educators to condone that a child is deprived of an
education or some form of professional follow-up should be unacceptable today.
 Teacher Training to Counter Bullying 109

Research by Cowie and Sharp [1996], Roland and Munthe [1997] and Besag [1998]
has highlighted the benefits of empowering pupils to take positive action against bully-
ing. Thus teachers will need to be trained in how to support pupils in becoming more
pro-social. At present, there is a high level of spectator apathy to bullying among pu-
pils. Indeed the willingness to help others when other pupils are bullied diminishes
with age [Rigby & Slee, 1992; Whitney & Smith, 1993; Menesini et al., 1997; OMoore
et al. 1997a]. Results from Ireland indicate very strongly that as children get older, they
become more desensitised to bullying. It is only by the final year in post-primary school
(ages 17 to 18) that the position reverses and greater sensitivity is shown to children
who are bullied [OMoore et al., 1998].
Thus, there is a great future in schools for student councils, peer counselling, and peer
mediation. Training teachers in counselling and mediation would ease the training of pu-
pils and provide the support that they require to master conflict resolution. It would also
enable teachers themselves to deal more effectively with conflicts as they arise. In addition,
skills of conflict resolution and counselling among teachers would help teachers to develop
co-operative relationships with parents when there is a sensitive disciplinary or education
issue to be discussed. This is of particular relevance in relation to contacting parents about
their childrens bullying or violent behavior. It is not uncommon for teachers to find parents
of children who bully difficult to manage when they are on the defensive.
Methods to deal with alleged incidents of bullying which hold great promise for teach-
ers and which therefore should be included in their training programme are The No Blame
Approach [Maines & Robinson, 1992] and the Common Concern Method [Pikas, 1989].
The methods fit comfortably into the positive and rehabilitative approach to teaching that
is felt to be the key to prevention and alleviation of bullying. It is the authors experience
that teachers who have been introduced to these methods find that they encourage the
emphatic response in the perpetrators of bullying. Also beneficial is that pupils learn to
take responsibility for their negative behaviour. In addition, teachers have reported that
the methods help to promote trust and co-operation among pupils and staff.
Developing a Policy to Encounter Bullying
The onus of initiating a policy tends to lie with the principal of a school. As every
teacher has the opportunity to become a principal, teacher training should provide teach-
ers with the information that is needed to develop a school policy on bullying behaviour.
Those National Guidelines on Countering Bullying behaviour in schools, which were
initiated by The Department of Education in Ireland in 1993, provide a good example
of the elements that are needed. The key elements are:

To create a school ethos which encourages children to disclose and discuss inci-
dents of bullying.
To raise awareness of bullying as a form of unacceptable behaviour with school
management, teachers, pupils, parents/guardians.
To ensure comprehensive supervision and monitoring measures through which all
areas of school activity are kept under observation.
To develop procedures for noting and reporting incidents of bullying.
To develop procedures for investigating and dealing with incidents of bullying.
To develop a program of support for those affected by bullying behaviour and for
those involved in bullying.
110 OMoore

To work with and through the various local agencies in countering all forms of
bullying and anti-social behaviour.
To evaluate the effectiveness of school policy on anti-bullying behaviour.

However, as Sharp & Thompson (1994) point out it must be emphasised that no policy
will work unless there is a concerted whole-school approach with firm leadership and
commitment from the principal and board of management or the governing equivalent of
a school. Also essential is that policies be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis.
In the light of our present knowledge of policies on bullying, we know that if they are
thoroughly implemented, they will help to prevent, reduce, and counter bullying [Smith
& Sharp, 1994]. However, if they are not acted on, then it can lead to tragedies such as
Kenneths. Thus there is an onus on the government to see that all schools develop one
and that it is regularly evaluated for its effectiveness.
In conclusion, it is imperative that there should be a formal programme of training on
a national scale for teachers. The training needs to be undertaken at both pre-service
and in-service level. The critical issues for training should include:

What is meant by bullying

The extent
The signs
The effects
The causes
Preventive strategies
How to deal with victim/bully problems
Developing a school policy to counter bullying

It is hoped that such training should enable teachers in the future to become a driving
force within their school communities in preventing, reducing, and countering bully-
ing. It should then be possible to realise the wishes of Kenneths parents and those of
society. For what can bring more lasting benefits to society than a physical and psycho-
logically safe school environment for our children?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Mr and Mrs Connolly and Karina for sharing the story of their be-
loved Kenneth with me. This paper is dedicated to his memory and to the memory of
the other young people who have died as a result of being bullied at school. It is hoped
that their deaths will act as a catalyst for professionals and policy-makers to strengthen
their resolve to prevent, reduce and counter bullying in school communities.

REFERENCES

Besag V. 1998. Anti-bullying work in England. E.U. Byrne B. 1998.: Anti bullying initiatives in Ireland.
conference on initiatives to combat violence in E.U. conference on initiatives to combat violence
schools, May 1516, Barbican Centre, London. in schools, May 1516, Barbican Centre, London.
http://www.gold.ac.uk/euconf (poster report) http://www.gold.ac.uk/euconf (poster report).

Cowie H, Smith PK, Boulton MJ, Laver R. 1994.
Co-operation in the multi-ethnic classroom.
London; David Fulton.
Cowie H, Sharp S. 1996. Peer counselling in
schools: a time to listen. London : David Fulton.
Department of Education. 1995. Charting our edu-
cation future. Dublin: Government Publication.
Foster P, Thompson D. 1991. Bullying: towards a
non violent sanctions policy. In: Smith PK, Th-
ompson D, editors, Practical approaches to bul-
lying. London: David Fulton.
Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A. Costabile A. Smith
PK. 1996. Bullies and victims in schools in cen-
tral and southern Italy. Eur J Psychol Educ
11:97110.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 1991. Learning together
& alone: cooperative, competitive and individu-
alistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Keogh P. 1998. Suspensions for problem children?
Education and Living, Irish Times Tuesday, May
5th, 5.
Kilpatrick J. 1997. Bullying pays! A survey of
young offenders. In: Elliott M, editor. Bullying:
a practical guide to coping for schools. London:
Pitman in assocation with Kidscape.
Menesini E, Eslea M, Smith PK, Genta ML,
Giannetti E, Fonzi A, Constabile A. 1997. Cross
national comparison of childrens attitudes to-
wards bully/victim problems is school, Aggr
Behav 23:245257.
Maines B, Robinson G. 1992. Michaels story: the
no blame approach. Bristol, England: Lame
Duck Publishing.
Mellor A. 1990. Bullying in Scottish secondary
schools. Spotlights 23. Edinburgh: Scottish
Council for Research in Education.
Neary A, Joseph S. 1994. Peer victimisation and
its relationship to self-concept and depression
among school girls. Personality Individual Dif-
ferences 16:183186.
Olweus D. 1993. Bullying in schools: what we know
and what we can do. London: Blackwell.
Olweus D. 1997. Bully/victim problems in school:
knowledge base and an effective intervention
programme. Irish J Psychol 18:170190.
OMoore AM, Hillery B. 1989. Bullying in Dublin
schools. Irish J Psychol 10: 426441.
OMoore AM, Hillery B. 1991. What do teachers
need to know. In: Elliott M, editor. Bullying: a
practical guide for coping for schools. London:
Longman in association with Kidscape.
OMoore AM. 1995. Bullying behaviour in chil-
dren and adolescents in Ireland. Children Soci-
ety 9:5472.
Teacher Training to Counter Bullying 111
OMoore AM, Kirkham C, Smith M. 1997a. Bully-
ing behaviour in Irish schools: a nationwide
study. Irish J Psychol 18:141169.
OMoore AM, Kirkham C, Smith M. 1997b. Self
concept and bullying among school children and
adolescents. Fifth European Congress of Psy-
chology, July 611. Dublin (paper).
OMoore AM, Kirkham C, Smith M. 1998. Bully-
ing in schools and Ireland: a nationwide study.
Irish Educ Stud 17:254271.
Piers EV. 1984. Piers-Harris childrens self con-
cept scale. California : Western Psychological
Services.
Pikas A. 1989. A pure concept of mobbing gives
the best results for treatment. School Psychol
Int 10:95104.
Reid K. 1989. Bullying and persistent school ab-
senteeism. In: Tattum DP, Lane DA, editors.
Bullying in schools. Stoke on Trent, England:
Trentham Books.
Rigby K, Slee P. 1992. Dimensions of interpersonal
relations among Australian children and impli-
cations of psychological well-being. J Soc
Psychol 133:3342.
Rigby K. 1996. Bullying in schools and what to do
about it. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Coun-
cil for Educational Research.
Roland E. 1989. Bullying: the Scandinavian re-
search tradition. In: Tattum DP, Lane DA, edi-
tors. Bullying in Schools. London: David
Fulton.
Roland E, Munthe E. 1997. The 1996 Norwegian
programme for preventing and managing bul-
lying in schools. Irish J Psychol 18:233247.
Sharp S, Thompson D. 1994. The role of whole
school policies in tackling bullying behaviour
in schools. In: Smith PK, Sharp S, editors.
School bullying: insights & perspectives. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Slee PT, Rigby K. 1993. The relationship of
Bysencks personality factors and self-esteem
to bully-victim behavior in Australia. Per Indiv
Diff 14:371373.
Smith PK, Sharp S, editors. 1994. School bullying
: insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.
Sunday Tribune. 1996. The insidious secret of the
bully. 20 October.
Whitney I, Smith PK. 1993. A survey of the nature
and extent of bullying in junior/middle and sec-
ondary schools. Educ Res 35:325.
Williams K, Chambers M, Logan B, Robinson D.
1996. Associates of common health symptoms
with bullying in primary school children. Brit
Med J 313:1719.