Bully Report home  ~  Safe Schools Coalition home  ~  site map

BULLYING REPORT:

HOW ARE WASHINGTON STATE SCHOOLS DOING?

December 2003
FINAL REPORT

By Lauren Hafner, researcher for

	and
The Washington State PTA		The Safe Schools Coalition

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BULLYING REPORT: HOW ARE WASHINGTON STATE SCHOOLS DOING?
By Lauren Hafner, researcher for The Washington State PTA and The Safe Schools Coalition

Partner Organizations:

The Arc of Washington State: Advocates for the Rights 
of Citizens with Developmental Disabilities

League of Women Voters of Washington

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction of Washington State

Office of the Washington State Attorney General

Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs

Washington Education Association  

---

Table of Contents Click the link to jump to that part of this page.

Acknowledgements Executive Summary Introduction HIB - A growing problem on multiple fronts What is bullying? How widespread is the problem? Bullying and its impact on youth Psychological implications Implications for physical health Behavioral implications Academic implications Bullying's lasting impact Bullying in Washington State schools Bias-motivated bullying Background on the Anti-Bullying Act

The 2003 PTA/SSC survey Methods Results   Categories of prohibited bias-based HIB Other distinguishing characteristics   Comparisons with the 2002 SSC survey Potential forms of HIB Sharing policies with the school community and beyond Complaints and subsequent investigations of HIB incidents Intervention, discipline, remedial action Training Bullying prevention programs and activities Best practices Conclusion Works Cited

Appendices (in PDF format - these open in new windows)
A. WSSDA/OSPI model policy B. WSSDA/OSPI model procedure C. SSC model procedure D. PTA/SSC request for information	E. Survey from Aug. 5, 2003 F. Policy/procedure analysis tool G. Table of policies, procedures, reporting forms, and other materials by district

---

Executive Summary

This report examines the variety and scope of anti-bullying policies and procedures that school districts in Washington State have adopted in accordance with "The Anti-Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying [HIB] Act of 2002." This law, which we call The Anti-Bullying Act for short, took effect August 1, 2003. It also describes how districts are implementing their policies and procedures, training staff, and preparing students to be able to address the problem of bullying themselves. The study was conducted on behalf of the Washington State Parent Teacher Association [WSPTA] and the Safe Schools Coalition [SSC], an organization with the mission to "help schools - at home and all over the world - become safe places where every family can belong, where every educator can teach, and where every child can learn, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation." 

As far as can be determined from the information provided by superintendents and their staff, districts around Washington have recognized school-based bullying as an urgent problem in need of attention, and they are working hard to address it through systematic, inclusive, and thorough efforts. Responding districts are making good progress toward meeting the demands of the new Anti-Bullying Act, by drafting and implementing policies and procedures, and by involving parents, students, employees, and other stakeholders in the process of figuring out the best approach to prevent HIB behavior on a local level. This study has found that:

• The policies and procedures sent by responding districts are, by and large, comprehensive. It is exciting to report that responding districts are taking a firm stance against bias-motivated bullying; one hundred fifty-six, or 92% of submitted policies, explicitly prohibit all eight categories included in the Anti-Bullying Act's definition of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability). 

• Districts have made good use of the model WSSDA/OSPI policy and procedure. Altogether, 68% of responding districts adopted the model policy, the model procedure, or both. Several, for example, have held themselves to even higher standards by providing anonymous reporting opportunities to every student, or by making a commitment to resolve incidents in fewer than 60 days.

• Most responding districts have done a reasonably thorough job in spreading the word about their policies/procedures to students, parents, employees, and the larger community, or have made plans to do so. One hundred fifty-four policies or procedures (91%) include a pledge to disseminate the new rules to at least some stakeholders, while 142 (84%) of the policies or procedures provided commit those districts to educating students about their HIB regulations. Eighty-eight percent of responding districts have trained some or all of their employees (or plan to do so), beyond merely informing them about policies/procedures. These responding districts are making good efforts to train their staff about HIB issues by making adequate use of available training resources in addition to seeking out and/or creating their own.

• The anti-HIB activities reported by the responding districts are encouraging, and we thank those that took the time to submit information during a busy time of year. However, it is worrisome that nearly one third of all districts provided no answers to our questions. Does this mean that the nonresponders are out of compliance with the new law and not yet addressing their HIB problems, or do their anti-HIB activities parallel those of the responding districts? We don't know. Things look promising for Washington's schools if the efforts of the 69% that responded are representative of all districts. If, however, the others did not respond because they were struggling with getting ready to comply, much work remains to be done. 

A total of 205 districts, or 69% of all districts in the state, responded to a request to submit policies, procedures, and/or reporting forms, as well as a short survey asking districts to describe their efforts to disseminate information about their policies. Nearly all districts that responded had adopted HIB policies or were in the process of adopting them. Of the districts that replied:

182 returned completed surveys 169 sent HIB policies and/or procedures 162 sent HIB policies 142 sent HIB procedures

30 sent reporting forms 28 sent other materials, including student handbooks, brochures, and training materials.

Many policies/procedures were modeled nearly verbatim after examples issued by the Washington State School Directors' Association [WSSDA] and the Office of Superintendent for Public Instruction [OSPI], or had a few negligible changes in language that did not affect the criteria being analyzed. Of the districts responding, 108, or 64% of those that sent policies/procedures, adopted the model policy. This represents 36% of all Washington districts. Eighty-nine districts adopted the model procedure, representing 53% of the districts that submitted policies/procedures, and 30% of all state districts. Altogether, 68% of responding districts adopted the model policy, the model procedure, or both. Many district policies and procedures were still quite similar to the models but omitted a key provision included in the sample policy or procedure. One hundred forty policies/procedures contained requirements for annual review of the documents.

The Anti-Bullying Act requires districts to define Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying (HIB) as "any intentional written, verbal, or physical act including but not limited to [those] motivated by any characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080(3)," the state's malicious harassment statute, which lists eight characteristics as common motivators of bias-based acts: "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability." In other words, districts must, according to the new law, tell students explicitly that they may not harass one another on these eight or any other bases. 

Of the 169 districts that submitted policies/procedures, 156 (92%) are in compliance with that provision of the law, explicitly banning acts of HIB based on all eight of these forms of bias. Some districts opted to list additional categories along with the required eight. The other policies included some, but not all, of these protected categories. One hundred sixty policies (95%) prohibited HIB acts motivated by gender, and HIB acts motivated by religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation were specifically prohibited by 159 (94%) policies. HIB incidents motivated by color, ancestry, or national origin were prohibited in 158 (93%) of the policies submitted. "Other" protected categories were specified in seven (4%) policies.

The Anti-Bullying Act also refers to "other distinguishing characteristics" that could motivate prohibited HIB behavior. The WSSDA/OSPI model explains that this term "can include but [is] not limited to physical appearance, clothing or other apparel, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and marital status." The policies of 149 districts, or 88% of those that submitted policies/procedures, include at least one of these five characteristics, while 142 (84%) listed all five examples included in the model. Marital status was mentioned in 148 (88%) policies, followed by physical appearance, which was included in 147 (87%) polices. Gender identity and socioeconomic status were each cited in 146 (86%) policies, while clothing/other apparel was mentioned in 144 (85%) policies. 

Of the 169 districts that submitted policies, 157 (93%) described ways in which HIB might be exhibited. Rumors and jokes were each cited in 155 (92%) policies, slurs were listed in 154 (91%), and threats, drawings and cartoons were each included in 153 (91%) policies. Demeaning comments were listed in 152 (90%) policies, while gestures, pranks, physical attacks, and "other written, oral or physical actions" were each specifically mentioned in 151 (89%) policies.

One hundred fifty-four policies or procedures committed districts to disseminating information about their policy/procedure. One hundred thirty districts specified how they would inform individuals about their policy. Of the policies/procedures provided, 142 (84%) documents pledge the district's commitment to educating their students about their HIB policy/procedure. Two policies/procedures obligate districts to implement multicultural student education programs that promote understanding and acceptance of diverse cultural, religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. 

In the surveys, 174 out of 182 districts said they had or would be informing students about their policy/procedure, while 178 said they would be informing employees or planned to do so. The breakdown of employees informed or to be informed included:

administrators - 174  all teachers - 164 some teachers - 8  counselors and/or social workers - 162 paraprofessionals - 161 school nurses/health staff - 148

volunteers - 91 other employees, as indicated on the survey - 81, which included: bus drivers - 18  food service staff - 8 custodians - 7

Districts stating that they had informed or planned to inform parents totaled 161, and those that had informed or intended to inform the community numbered 139. 

Although not all districts specified in their policies/procedures who would be informed or how, the following are methods that districts described in the survey:

inclusion in student handbook - 162  training sessions, in-service, or other meetings - 158 school announcements, orientations or assemblies - 149 letters or bulletins - 122

posted materials in schools - 110  inclusion in employee/volunteer manual - 99 notices in community newspaper - 46  other - 31

Most district procedures describe both formal and informal processes for lodging HIB complaints. Many districts offer students the option of filing complaints anonymously. Ten districts have committed all of their schools to develop a process for receiving anonymous complaints, while 105 leave it to the discretion of building principals to determine whether their school will guarantee an anonymous process. 

Minimum standards for the investigation of alleged HIB incidents are laid out in 133 of the 169 policies/procedures submitted. One hundred sixteen of the districts require written responses from complaint officers within 30 days, while nine districts require that this be done within 20 or fewer days. One hundred seventeen require corrective action within another 30 days, while seven districts require a period of 20 or fewer days. A section regarding appropriate interventions or remedial actions to address complaints of HIB, including restoring a positive school climate, support for victims and others affected by the violation, counseling, correction, mediation, educational training, and discipline, was included in 151 of the policies/procedures sent. Students are explicitly allowed to have a parent or another trusted adult present with them during an investigation by 120 of the policies/procedures.

A total of 18 districts described potential disciplinary actions for violations of their policy, which included emergency exclusion, progressive discipline, suspension, and expulsion. Referral to law enforcement was mentioned in 155 of the policies/procedures, while knowingly reporting or supporting false allegations of HIB-related misconduct, as well as retaliation against victims or witnesses, were considered violations of policy by 159 districts. Fourteen districts explained the process by which complainants could appeal decisions regarding alleged HIB incidents.

The Anti-Bullying Act encourages but does not mandate that policies be implemented in conjunction with comprehensive training for employees, volunteers, and other individuals associated with the schools, yet nearly all districts that submitted policies/procedures had included training requirements in these documents. One hundred thirty-three policies/procedures (79% of returns) obligate districts to train their staff regarding HIB policies, and one district also requires additional training for employees around issues of cultural competency and diversity.

Of the 182 districts that completed surveys, 148 said some or all of their staff had received training on HIB issues, while 118 said staff was scheduled for HIB training at some point in the future. In addition, a total of 106 respondents said that district staff had been trained regarding their HIB policy, and that more training for staff was scheduled for the 2003-4 school year. Eighty-eight percent of responding districts have trained employees or plan to do so. Survey respondents that described past and future HIB training opportunities in their districts typically mentioned that district or school administrators had already received some training, and that most or all district employees would be trained during the 2003-4 school year. Several districts said they took advantage of HIB instruction offered by their Educational Service District. 

Others stated that they had sent staff to the harassment workshops offered by the Washington State Association for Multicultural Education. Others relied on consultants, district legal counsel, or compliance officers for training.

One hundred sixty-five districts reported some type of planned or ongoing bullying prevention in their schools. Responding districts indicated the following elements were part of their anti-bullying activities, either as part of the general curriculum or as a type of formal program (percentages are based on the proportion of schools responding to the survey): respecting differences/discussing prejudices - 133 (73%); explaining and encouraging reporting - 116 (64%); anger management - 115 (63%); mentoring/behavior modeling - 103 (57%); learning about diverse groups - 101(55%); teaching self-control or self-defense - 96(53%); involving parents - 92 (51%); conflict negotiation skills - 90 (49%); understanding bystander roles - 84 (46%); trained peer mediators - 81 (45%); role playing - 77 (42%); involving school nurses/health staff - 73 (40%); bullying assessment survey - 61 (34%); project-based/peer-based learning - 61 (34%); social norms - 60 (33%); restructuring the physical settings of schools [which could include improving the playground environment to invite positive activities, or the removal of isolated "risk areas" where bullying is more likely] - 25 (14%); other - 12 (7%).

Most districts were able to indicate how many of their schools had these types of programs and activities in place. Of the 182 responding districts, 165 have begun or will be launching programs. Bullying prevention programs were reported at the elementary level by 160 districts, at the middle school level by 139 districts, at the high school level by 117 districts, and at other schools (mostly alternative education) by 37 districts.

Several districts developed exceptionally clear and thoughtful policies or procedures, including Bainbridge Island, Edmonds, Everett, Federal Way, Lind, Marysville, Mead, Mercer Island, Monroe, Montesano, North Kitsap, Northport, Northshore, North Thurston, Oak Harbor, Olympia, Seattle, Vancouver, and Vashon Island School Districts. In addition, some districts submitted additional information that demonstrated a solid commitment to preventing and minimizing bullying in their schools, including: Anacortes, Bainbridge Island, Dayton, Federal Way, Franklin Pierce, Hood Canal, McCleary, Mount Vernon, North Kitsap, Pomeroy, Spokane, Vashon Island, White Pass, and Yelm School Districts.

The responding districts have shown some good progress in working to prevent bullying, but this is an area that will require constant attention when it comes to school policy and practice. While a few survey respondents said that their districts had been involved in rigorous bullying prevention and response for some time, many others indicated their efforts were just beginning. Districts commented that much will need to be accomplished in the years ahead, but they also indicated their commitment to seeing the process through. Bullying is a phenomenon that has been shown to be highly resistant to change, but it can be overcome with persistent, consistent, and creative initiatives, and many of Washington's schools appear up to the challenge - we hope this is true across the state.

Introduction

Bullying among students is a problem that has plagued schools since the beginning of institutionalized education, yet it is a problem that remains poorly understood and difficult to define. Today, school bullying appears to be more prevalent and more serious than in previous decades, involving more vicious conduct and deadlier outcomes. Bullying in schools has been recognized as a public health problem of growing significance that is also strongly associated with health risk behaviors. Children involved in bullying either as victims or perpetrators have a more difficult time in school, a higher prevalence of psychological and psychosomatic symptoms, and are more likely to report common health problems. Bullying can have a life-long impact on victims, bullies, and even the bystanders who witness acts of bullying that go unaddressed. Reducing peer bulling in schools can do much to improve the health and well-being of school-aged children, and districts around the country are taking action in a variety of ways.

The "Anti-Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying Act" (Substitute House Bill 1444), required each school district in Washington to develop a policy "that prohibits the harassment, intimidation, or bullying of any student" no later than Aug. 1, 2003, and to share information about the policy with students, employees, parents/guardians, and volunteers. The Washington State School Directors' Association [WSSDA] and the Office of Superintendent for Public Instruction [OSPI] have issued a model policy and procedure that districts may adopt wholesale or use as a guide to develop their own. Districts are free to draft their own policies or amend existing documents, so long as they include the following definition:

"Harassment, intimidation, or bullying" means any intentional written, verbal, or physical act, including but not limited to one shown to be motivated by any characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080 (3) (race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability), or other distinguishing characteristics, when the intentional written, verbal, or physical act: (a) Physically harms a student or damages the student's property; or (b) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's education; or (c) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or threatening educational environment; or (d) Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school. Nothing in this section requires the affected student to actually possess a characteristic that is a basis for harassment."

RCW 9A.36.080(3), the state's malicious harassment statute referred to in the paragraph above, lists eight characteristics as common motivators of bias-based acts: race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability." In other words, districts must, according to the new law, tell students explicitly that they may not harass one another on these eight or any other bases. 

This report explains the results of a survey distributed to all 296 superintendents in Washington, as well as an analysis of the anti-Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying [HIB from here forward] policies and procedures that they submitted. It examines the character and comprehensiveness of these regulations and the efforts of districts to inform their schools and the larger community about them. 

This report also looks at the training opportunities districts are providing, as well as their initiatives to help youth understand the causes of bullying and empower them with the knowledge and skills to try to prevent it. The Anti-Bullying Act encourages but does not mandate that policies be implemented in conjunction with comprehensive training for employees, volunteers and other individuals associated with the schools, yet nearly all districts that responded either had offered or would be offering HIB training. Similarly, the Anti-Bullying Act does not require districts to initiate formal bullying prevention programs, yet many have elected to implement them, usually by adopting one or several of the wide variety of programs based on a standard curriculum.

HIB - a growing problem on multiple fronts

What is bullying?

In the Anti-Bullying Act, harassment, intimidation, and bullying are considered synonyms for the same phenomenon, and this report will use the terms "bullying" or "HIB" to refer to all three. Bullying refers to a particular type of aggression: deliberate physical, verbal, or psychological behavior that happens repeatedly over time and is intended to harm or disturb. Bullying can also be thought of as a social phenomenon that involves an unequal power relationship, either real or perceived, between the bully and his or her target, and is often associated with group behavior and hierarchies.^{15, 21} 

How widespread is the problem?

Only a small body of research has examined the prevalence of bullying behavior and the frequency with which it occurs among U.S. students. The available estimates of bullying in U.S. schools are variable and wide-ranging statistics, reflecting the complicated nature of this often subtle behavior. Bullying may be direct or indirect, and is frequently mistaken for other, more accepted types of behavior. Diverse definitions of bullying have made it difficult to categorize and analyze its true extent among American schoolchildren, and the irregularity of self-report of bullying and victimization has also added to the challenge. Many studies that examine aggressive behavior by students in a school setting do not, at the same time, address other fundamental components of bullying such as power imbalance and repetitiveness.⁷

That being said, it has been well documented that bullying in schools is a pervasive and stubborn problem that appears to be growing worse. Bullying prevention research pioneer Dan Olweus notes that several indirect signs suggest that bullying "both takes more serious forms and is more prevalent nowadays."¹⁹ A 1998 survey of nearly 16,000 children enrolled in public and private schools across the country found that 29.9% of kids in grades 6-10 reported "moderate or frequent involvement" in bulling activity, either as a perpetrator (13%), a victim (10.6%), or both (6.3%).¹⁵ In another nationally representative study, American youth aged 8-15 ranked "teasing and bullying" as a more significant problem in their lives than racism, pressure to have sex, and pressure to use alcohol and drugs.¹⁷ According to findings by the American Psychological Association, bullying today is more common and has more deadly consequences than in previous decades.² 

A number of factors, including religion, culture, gender identity, race, and economics, can form the basis for bullying and discrimination. As Fried et al., point out in "Bullies, Targets, and Witnesses," prejudice in one area can grow into intolerance for other differences.6 Categories of bias-motivated bullying that are covered in the Anti-Bullying Act include race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability. Bias-based bullying refers to conduct rooted in a bully's prejudice or ignorance about a certain group, rather than a dislike of a particular person or a characteristic such as physical appearance.¹⁶ Bullying motivated by a target's race, gender, or sexual orientation (actual or perceived) makes up a large proportion of bias-based bullying activity, and will be discussed in greater detail in the section about bullying in Washington state.  

Bullying and its impact on youth

The American Medical Association recognizes bullying as a "complex and abusive behavior with potentially serious social and mental health consequences for children and adolescents."1 Peer bullying can have long-lasting detrimental effects on the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of all involved, including victims of bullying, perpetrators of bullying, and those who find themselves in both roles (known as bully/victims.)²¹

Psychological implications

Research has found that youth involved in bullying are at greater risk for a number of mental health problems, the most common being depression. Short-term psychological effects on victims include increased feelings of loneliness, a loss of self-esteem, and difficulties making friends or maintaining relationships with classmates. Victims may also suffer humiliation, insecurity, and may develop a fear of attending school.²⁵ Children involved in bullying at an early age have been found to have more psychiatric symptoms in adolescence than youth not involved in bullying.¹¹

Depression and thoughts of committing suicide are much more common among boys and girls who have been bullied than those who have not.²⁷ Bullies are 2.8 to 4.3 times more likely, victims four times more likely, and bully/victims 6.3 to 8.8 times more likely to suffer from depressive symptoms than children not involved in bullying. Similarly, bullies are also four times more likely, victims 2.1 times more likely, and bully/victims 2.5 times more likely to report having serious thoughts of suicide.³ 

Implications for physical health

Bullying has also been linked with poorer physical well-being. The relationship between bullying and physical health is less understood, but there does seem to be an association among schoolchildren, who are at least more likely to report poor health symptoms if they have been involved in bullying. Here again, the connection seems to hold true for bullies, victims, and bully/victims. One study found that students subjected to severe bullying early in high school endured considerably worse physical health during their later high school years.²² Victims of bullying and bully/victims are the most likely to present physical health symptoms such as sore throats, colds, and cough.³¹

Psychosomatic health issues, such as poor appetite and anxiety, are also more common among victims of bullying and bully/victims.^9,31 Victimized children have been found to experience more frequent stomach aches and head aches, and to be more likely to have troubles with sleeping and bed wetting.³⁰ One study found that victims were 4.6 times more likely, bullies 5.1 times more likely, and bully/victims 8.7 times more likely to experience psychosomatic symptoms than students not involved in bullying; these symptoms included low back pain, neck and shoulder pain, stomach ache, nervousness, irritation or tantrums, difficulty sleeping or waking, fatigue, and head ache.³

Behavioral implications

Bullying has strong associations with behavioral misconduct; children who bully have been found to be more likely to demonstrate other problem behaviors. Male and female offenders of bullying reported delinquent conduct far more often than non-bullies in a study by van der Wal et al., which also found that direct bullying of others is a much greater risk factor for delinquent behavior than indirect bullying.²⁷ Frequent consumption of alcohol and the use of other controlled substances have been found to be more common among bullies and bully/victims.⁹ Nansel et al. found that alcohol use was positively associated with bullying others, but negatively associated with being bullied. Smoking was found to be more common among both bullies and bully/victims.¹⁵

A good deal of research has also examined the link between bullying and violent behavior. Studies have found that bullying and being bullied are strongly associated with involvement in physical fights and carrying weapons to school. Nansel et al. found bullying to be a marker for a variety of serious violent behaviors, including frequent fighting, fighting-related injury, and weapon carrying.¹⁴ Bullying also seems to have been a contributing factor in many mass school shootings. The U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center examined 37 school shootings in the U.S., and found that bullying played a key role in two-thirds of these incidents. A number of these attackers had gone through harsh, long-term bullying, and their experiences seemed to be a major motivation behind the attacks.²⁶

Academic implications

Bullying at school is also related to academic competence and school adjustment, although research findings in this area do not always agree. Juvonen et al. examined the grade point averages (GPAs) of victimized students ages 12-15, and found them to be lower than those of middle school students not involved in bullying.⁸ A 2001 study by Nansel et al., by contrast, did not find a significant relationship between academic achievement and bullying victimization. The researchers did discover, however, that bully/victims had poorer scholastic competence than students not involved in bullying, and that bullies were 1.8 times more likely to be below average students as they were to be good students.¹⁴ 

A British study of children ages 8-13 found that both bullies and victims did worse in school than children not involved in bullying, and that victims were affected more than bullies.¹³ These results are consistent with the conclusion of a study involving U.S. children of nearly the same age, which found that victims and bullies showed lower academic competence, while a study by Schwartz found that students who were bully/victims had lower academic competence on the same scale as bullies.²³ 

Bullying's lasting impact

The effects of recurrent childhood bullying often follow victims into their adult years; these individuals have a higher risk of depression and other mental health problems, and may even commit suicide due to the lasting impact of intense bullying.25 Eron et al.'s landmark study provides further evidence that increased criminal behavior is one of the long-term consequences of childhood bullying. The researchers asked nearly 900 third graders to identify the classmates they considered to be bullies. After 22 years, one out of four of the individuals classified as bullies had a criminal record, while the odds of any child becoming an adult criminal were one in 20.5 A study by Scandinavia's Olweus also indicates that bullying behavior in childhood can be a predictor of increased criminal activity later in life. He found that 60% of boys who were categorized as bullies in grades 6-9 had at least one conviction by the time they reached 24, in contrast with only 23% of boys who were not considered bullies. Olweus also found that 35-40% of these former bullies had three or more convictions by this age, while only 10% of the non-bullying males had reached this same level of criminality.¹⁹

Bullying in Washington State Schools

Studies of bullying in Washington schools have shown that students' experiences with bullying are roughly on par with the rest of the country. Younger students are more likely to report having been bullied at school: roughly 20% of sixth graders, for example, say they are put down "a lot" or "every day" by other students, compared to only 13% of 12th graders. From 15.1% to 18.6% of sixth through 12th graders report that other kids at school frequently tell lies or spread rumors about them. Nearly 10% of sixth graders report that threats of physical violence from fellow students are common, compared with 8.3%, 6.5%, and 4% of students in the eighth, 10th, and 12th grades, respectively. And nearly 15% of sixth graders say they are often shoved, pushed, or hit by schoolmates, compared to 14.4%, 9.4%, and 5.7% of eighth, 10th, and 12th graders.⁴

When Washington students are asked how they would react if confronted with a bullying situation at school, the results vary markedly by age. For example, while 41.6% of sixth graders say they would seek out the help of an adult if they saw one student bullying another, only 6.5% of 12th graders would take the same recourse. Only 7.4% of sixth graders state that they would "stay and watch" the incident, compared with 22.7% of 10th graders and 19.4% of 12th graders. 

Meanwhile, only 11.1% of would-be bystanders in the sixth grade claim they would "walk away or mind their own business," while the percentage of eighth through 12th graders who say they would do so if they encountered bullying at school ranges from 21.1-27.3%. Children's confidence in being able to confront a perpetrator clearly increases with age; approximately 40% of sixth, eighth, and 10th graders say that they would tell someone to quit bullying another student, which increases to 49% by 12th grade.4 These statistics all point to the need to implement age-specific approaches for informing students about bullying and how they can be involved in its prevention.

Bias-motivated bullying

The data also reveal that bias-based bullying is prevalent in Washington, particularly acts motivated by race, gender, or sexual orientation. The 2002 Healthy Youth Survey found that approximately 15% of girls and 25% of boys in the 10th and 12th grades say they have been subjected to offensive comments or attacks based on their race or ethnicity, either at school or on their way to and from school. Thirty-five to 45% of girls in grades eight, 10, and 12 say they have been the victims of offensive sexual comments or attacks at school or on their way to or from school, while 20-25% of boys in the same age bracket say they have experienced the same kind of harassment. 

Males were more frequently subjected to offensive comments or attacks because others thought they were homosexual: approximately 12% of eighth, 10th, and 12th graders experienced this type of harassment. The percentages of offensive comments or attacks because of perceived homosexuality reported by girls the same age ranges from 6.5% to 9.6% depending on grade, with younger girls reporting more persistent harassment.

Experiencing this type of bullying is, as it turns out, associated with a variety of negative outcomes. Eighth- and 10th-grade girls and boys who reported carrying a weapon or carrying a weapon onto school property were more than twice as likely to have been sexually harassed. Girls in grades eight, 10, and 12 who skipped school at least once in the last month because they "felt unsafe" were twice as likely to have been sexually harassed, and the same was true for 10th-grade boys. Girls in grades eight, 10, and 12 who have gone to school either drunk or high were also more likely to have been sexually harassed, and the same was found for boys in grades eight and 10. Both boys and girls in grades eight, 10, and 12 who had been depressed in the last year, seriously considered suicide, made a plan to commit suicide, or who had attempted suicide were all more likely to have been sexually harassed. Girls in the eighth, 10th, and 12th grades whose average grades were D's and F's were more likely to have reported sexual harassment than girls earning A's, B's, and C's.

Boys and girls in the eighth grade who said they carried a weapon in the last month were more likely to have reported being harassed because of their race. As with the students who had reported sexual harassment, both boys and girls in grades eight, 10, and 12 who had been depressed in the last year, seriously considered suicide, made a plan to commit suicide, or who had attempted suicide were all more likely to have been racially harassed. Both boys and girls of the same age who had been drunk or high while at school were also more likely to have reported harassment based on race. And, finally, boys and girls in grades eight, 10, and 12 with the lowest average grades were also the most likely to have reported racial harassment.¹⁰

Background on the Anti-Bullying Act ²⁹

Substitute House Bill 1444, "An act relating to preventing harassment, intimidation, or bullying in schools," was signed into law March 27, 2002 by Governor Gary Locke after the legislation was passed by the Senate and House on March 6 and March 9, respectively. In short, the law requires each school district in Washington to adopt or amend a policy to prevent harassment, intimidation, and bullying according to the legal definition it establishes [cited earlier], but otherwise grants considerable flexibility for districts to include local content. The Anti-Bullying Act also obligates districts to share their policies with students, parents, employees, and volunteers. A section that would have required districts to compile and report data on "all [HIB] incidents resulting disciplinary action" was vetoed. 

The state legislature also required OSPI to develop a model HIB policy and training materials by Aug. 1, 2002. OSPI collaborated with the Washington State Attorney General's Bullying and Harassment Task Force, a stakeholder group of education representatives, and a variety of other experts to develop and review a model policy and a procedure that addresses how to handle HIB incidents, both of which the WSSDA also has endorsed [Appendices A, B]. The model policy and procedure may be found on the OSPI Web site at www.k12.wa.us/safetycenter/default.asp, and the WSSDA Web site at www.wssda.org. 

The Safe Schools Coalition also produced an amended version of the WSSDA/OSPI procedure, which includes some suggestions for districts wishing to adopt more rigorous standards than the minimum put forward by the WSSDA/OSPI model [Appendix C]. Among other things, SSC's procedure contains a provision for the development and implementation of multicultural education programs for faculty, staff, and students, and guarantees district-wide availability of anonymous student complaints. The SSC model procedure is available at http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/lawpolicy-models.html.

The 2003 PTA/SSC Survey

Methods

Letters signed by the Washington State Parent Teacher Association [WSPTA] and the Safe Schools Coalition [SSC] were mailed to all 296 district superintendents on Aug. 5 [Appendix D]. The letters requested copies of districts' HIB policies, procedures, and/or reporting forms, and asked that they be returned no later than Aug. 18. An email with the same request (and a copy of the letter attached) was sent to most districts on the same day to give them the option of responding electronically. 
Both the letter and email message contained a short survey, which asked districts to describe their efforts to train staff about their policies, how they have disseminated information about them, and their work around bullying prevention [Appendix E]. Superintendents were asked to either fill out the surveys themselves or pass them on to an appropriate staff member. A preliminary report was written based on the information received.

Because of the short deadline that also fell during a busy point in the school year, another round of requests was issued in mid October. All submissions received by Oct. 24 were added into the analysis, while those received after that date were not included in the totals but are noted in Appendix G. 

Materials submitted from each district were coded with a unique identification number. Policies and procedures were evaluated through the use of a data analysis tool [Appendix F]. Characteristics of interest included specific forms of prohibited bias-based bullying, examples of "other distinguishing characteristics" that can motivate bullying, and whether the policy or procedure described the minimum standards for the investigation of an HIB report. An Access database was created to record and analyze the data from policies, procedures and surveys.

Results

A total of 205 districts, or 69% of all districts in the state, responded to the request for information [Fig. 1]. Nearly all 205 had adopted HIB policies or were in the process of adopting them. Of the districts that replied: 

• 182 returned completed surveys
• 169 sent HIB policies and/or procedures
• 162 sent HIB policies
• 142 sent HIB procedures
• 30 sent reporting forms
• 28 sent other materials, including student handbooks, brochures, and training materials.

The totals for policies and procedures submitted include six districts that returned policies/procedures covering sexual harassment, child abuse, or statements regarding notification of threats of violence or harm. The provisions of these policies and procedures that do not specifically address HIB were included in the analysis, since it was assumed that these documents are serving as stand-in regulations until these districts passed formal HIB policies and/or procedures. Five districts submitted combined HIB policies/procedures, and these were included in the totals for both policies and procedures.

When policies/procedures are discussed, percentages are based on 169, the number of districts that submitted policies, procedures, or both. This is because some of the categories of data analyzed in this report could be found in either the policy or procedure, depending on how the district drafted these regulations, and it is simpler to base discussion around content rather than analyze each document separately. Survey percentages are based on 182, the number of districts that returned surveys.

Many policies/procedures were modeled nearly word-for-word after the WSSDA/OSPI examples or had a few negligible changes in language that did not affect the criteria analyzed in this report [Fig. 2]. Of the districts responding, 108, or 64% of those that sent policies/procedures, adopted the model policy. This represents 36% of all Washington districts. Eighty-nine districts adopted the model procedure [Fig. 3], representing 53% of the districts that submitted policies/procedures, and 30% of all state districts. Altogether, 68% of responding districts adopted the model policy, the model procedure, or both. One hundred forty policies/procedures contained requirements for annual review of the documents.

Even if they did not follow the WSSDA/OSPI samples verbatim or contain nearly identical wording, many district policies and procedures were still quite similar to the models but omitted a key provision, such as training mandates, allowing students to have a trusted adult present during the investigation of an HIB incident, or a list of the forms bullying may take. Some districts obviously devoted considerable time and effort to develop policies and procedures that fit the needs of their schools, and they are cited in the "best practices" section of this report.

Categories of prohibited bias-based HIB

The Anti-Bullying Act, in its definition of harassment, intimidation, and bullying, prohibits any intentional written, verbal, or physical acts motivated by race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability. Of the 169 districts that submitted policies/procedures, 156 (92%) are in compliance with that provision of the law, explicitly banning acts of HIB based on all eight of these forms of bias. Some districts opted to list additional categories along with the required eight. The other policies included some, but not all, of these protected categories. One hundred sixty (95%) of the submitted policies prohibited HIB acts motivated by gender. HIB acts motivated by religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation were specifically prohibited by 159 (94%) of districts that returned policies. HIB incidents motivated by color, ancestry, or national origin were prohibited in 158 (93%) of the policies submitted [Fig. 4].

"Other" protected categories were specified in seven (4%) policies, and included age, ethnicity, creed, physical condition, and sexual activity. [Note that two of the seven districts included ethnicity in the "other distinguishing characteristics" category, while two districts included age in the "other distinguishing characteristics" category.] The remainder (twelve districts) either did not list specific types of bias-based HIB or did not supply the information required (in the form of policy and/or procedure) to assess this question.

Other distinguishing characteristics

The WSSDA/OSPI model policy also lists other possible bases for prohibited HIB-related conduct, which include physical appearance, clothing or other apparel, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and marital status [Fig. 5]. The Anti-Bullying Act makes clear that a student does not have to actually possess these characteristics - they can be real or perceived. The policies of 149 districts, or 88% of those that submitted policies/procedures, include at least one of these five characteristics, while 142 (84%) listed all five examples included in the model. 

Marital status was mentioned in 148 (88%) submitted policies, followed by physical appearance, included in 147 (87%) polices. Gender identity and socioeconomic status were each cited in 146(86%). Clothing/other apparel was included in 144(85%) policies, while pregnancy and illness were each mentioned in three policies. Other distinguishing characteristics cited in policies included family status, ability, politics, parental status, and occupation. 

Comparisons with the 2002 SSC survey

In the SSC study conducted last year, districts were requested to submit copies of any policies relating to bullying, harassment, and/or discrimination. Districts were asked for information in late April 2002, just after HB 1444 was signed into law, but nearly a year and a half before the legislation was to take effect.
Of the 296 districts, 62%(182) responded. Forty-five respondents said they did not currently have a policy, while the others sent copies of these documents. Nineteen indicated they would be using the WSSDA/OSPI sample bullying policy as a model for their district. 

The study found that only a third of Washington's school districts were known to address harassment in their policies (106 of responding districts, or 36% of all state districts), while less than half were known to have a policy on non-discrimination (115 of responding districts, or 39% of all state districts). Only eight responding districts had policies that specifically prohibited bullying (<1% of all state districts), and only a third addressed violence.12

Of the policies submitted in 2002, the following categories of bias-based discrimination were specifically prohibited: race (70%), religion (63%), physical disability (61%), gender (58%), national origin (56%), color (50%), mental disability (47%), sensory disability (45%), and sexual orientation (20%). In addition, "other distinguishing characteristics" that could motivate bullying that were cited in these policies included: marital status (31%), previous arrest/incarceration (18%), age (15%), socioeconomic status (9%), ethnicity (8%), pregnancy (8%), illness (3%), and gender identity (1%). These percentages are compared with this year's results in the following graphs: [Fig. 6, 7]. These figures show a dramatic improvement in the comprehensiveness of district policies over the past year.

Potential forms of HIB

There are countless forms that HIB acts can take. The WSSDA/OSPI model policy lists 13 examples: slurs, rumors, jokes, innuendos, demeaning comments, drawings, cartoons, pranks, gestures, physical attacks, threats, and other written, oral, or physical actions. Of the 169 districts that submitted policies, 157 (93%) described ways in which HIB might be exhibited. Rumors and jokes were each cited in 155 (92%) policies, slurs in 154 (91%), and threats, drawings, and cartoons were each included in 153 (91%) policies. Demeaning comments were listed in 152 (90%) policies, while gestures, pranks, physical attacks, and "other written, oral, or physical actions" were each specifically mentioned in 151 (89%) policies.

Other types of prohibited HIB acts that districts included were hazing (six districts, or 4% of those responding), nicknames or name-calling (five districts, or 3% of those responding), graffiti, deliberate ostracism, electronic acts (such as email messages), stereotypes, epithets, photographs, touching, teasing, gossiping, taunts, extortion of money, and destruction of a student's property.

Sharing policies with the school community and beyond

One hundred fifty-four policies or procedures committed districts to disseminating information about their policy/procedure. One hundred thirty districts, or 77% of districts that submitted policies/procedures, specified how they would inform individuals about their policy. The WSSDA/OSPI model states that parents "shall be provided with copies of this policy and procedure," and notes that "a fixed component of all district orientation sessions for employees, students, and regular volunteers shall introduce the elements" of these policies. Besides orientations and distributing copies of the regulations, district policies/procedures stated that information would be shared with individuals through handbooks, parent/teacher conferences, and other means. 

Of the policies/procedures provided, 142 (84%) documents pledge the district's commitment to educating their students about their HIB policy/procedure. Two policies/procedures obligate districts to implement multicultural student education programs that promote understanding and acceptance of diverse cultural, religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds.

In the surveys, districts provided further details about how and to whom they would be disseminating information about their policies/procedures [Fig. 8]. Districts that said they had or would be informing students numbered 174 out of 182 that completed the survey (96%), while 178 (98%) said they would be informing employees or planned to do so. The breakdown of employees informed or to be informed included: 

• administrators - 174 
• all teachers - 164
• some teachers - 8 
• counselors and/or social workers - 162
• paraprofessionals - 161
• school nurses/health staff - 142
• volunteers - 91
• other employees, as indicated on the survey - 81, which included:
  • bus drivers - 18*
  • food service staff - 8*
  • custodians - 7*

*these categories were written in by respondents

Districts stating that they had informed or planned to inform parents totaled 161 (88%), and those that had informed or intended to inform the community numbered 139 (76%).

The ways in which districts chose to share information about their policies/procedures with the above individuals are varied. Although not all districts specified in their policies/procedures who would be informed or how, the following are methods that districts described in the survey [Fig. 9]:

• inclusion in student handbook - 162 
• training sessions, in-service, other meetings - 158
• school announcements, orientations or assemblies - 149
• letters or bulletins - 122
• posted materials in schools - 110 
• inclusion in employee/volunteer manual - 99
• notices in community newspaper - 46
• other - 31

A number of districts mentioned that they would be hosting an evening for parents to learn about their HIB policy, or short HIB workshops for both parents and staff.

Complaints and subsequent investigations of HIB incidents

Most district procedures describe both formal and informal processes for lodging HIB complaints. Generally, an informal complaint process may be used by anyone to attempt to resolve an HIB incident. Informal remedies may allow a complainant - or others involved - to tell the alleged perpetrator that his or her behavior is inappropriate or bothersome, and the complaint may often be made anonymously. For a variety of reasons, informal complaints may develop into formal complaints, which are made in writing and rarely guarantee anonymity for the complainant. Formal complaints usually are given a more intensive investigation and are addressed through different remedies.

One hundred thirty-three districts that submitted policies/procedures have established both informal and formal complaint processes for reporting HIB incidents, while three describe a formal complaint process only. Many districts (115 of those that sent policies/procedures) offer students the option of filing complaints anonymously. Ten districts have committed all of their schools to develop a process for receiving anonymous complaints, while 105 leave it to the discretion of building principals to determine whether their school will guarantee an anonymous process [Fig. 10]. 

One hundred thirty-three policies/procedures discuss the issue of confidentiality of complaints. Most state, as the WSSDA/OSPI model does, that complainants should not be promised confidentiality at the beginning of an investigation, but that "efforts should be made to increase the confidence and trust of the person making the complaint." 
Minimum standards for the investigation of alleged HIB incidents are laid out in 133 of the 169 policies/procedures submitted. One hundred twenty allow students to have a parent or another trusted adult present with them during an investigation. The WSSDA/OSPI model policy allows 30 days before a written response regarding the investigation must be given to the complainant and the accused, and 30 days after the written conclusion is issued before corrective action must be taken. 

Of the districts submitting policies/procedures, 116 required written responses from complaint officers within 30 days, two specified a 20-day limit, five required conclusions within 15 days, and 14- and 10-day periods were chosen by one district each. Forty-six districts either did not specify a time period or did not submit the information necessary to answer this question.

Of the districts submitting policies/procedures, 117 required corrective action within another 30 days, one required 15 days, one specified 14 days, one required 10 days, and four districts required corrective action be taken within five additional days. Forty-seven districts either did not specify a time period or did not submit the information necessary to answer this question.

Intervention, discipline, remedial action

Most districts that submitted policies/procedures included a section regarding appropriate interventions or remedial actions to address complaints of HIB. These types of responses, listed in 152 of the policies/procedures sent, included restoring a positive school climate, support for victims and others affected by the violation, counseling, correction, mediation, educational training, and discipline. 

A total of 18 districts described potential disciplinary actions for violations of their policy, which included emergency exclusion, progressive discipline, suspension, and expulsion. Referral to law enforcement, depending on the severity and frequency of HIB conduct, was mentioned in 155 of the policies/procedures. Knowingly reporting or supporting false allegations of HIB-related misconduct, as well as retaliation against victims or witnesses, were considered violations of policy by 159 districts. Fourteen districts explained the process by which complainants could appeal decisions regarding alleged HIB incidents.

Training

The Anti-Bullying Act encourages but does not mandate that policies be implemented in conjunction with comprehensive training for employees, volunteers, and other individuals associated with the schools, yet nearly all districts that submitted policies/procedures included training requirements in these documents. 

One hundred thirty-three policies/procedures (79% of returns) obligate districts to train their staff regarding HIB policies, and one district also requires additional training for employees around issues of cultural competency and diversity. A majority of these districts that committed themselves to train staff about their policies/procedures adopted the provision from the WSSDA/OSPI model to ensure "comprehensive training of staff and volunteers" in implementing their policies. This 79% is nearly four times the 20% of district policies from the 2002 survey that contained requirements for bullying and/or harassment training beyond merely informing staff about a policy. 

Further, just because some districts did not have policies/procedures that committed them to training does not mean that those districts are not providing training for their staff and volunteers. Of the 182 districts that completed surveys, 148 said some or all of their staff had received training on HIB issues, while 118 said staff were scheduled for HIB training at some point in the future. In addition, a total of 106 respondents said that district staff had been trained regarding their HIB policy, and that more training for staff was scheduled for the 2003-4 school year [Fig. 11]. This means 88% of responding districts have trained employees or plan to do so. 

Survey respondents that described past and future HIB training opportunities in their districts (not all gave details) typically mentioned that district or school administrators had already received some training, and that most or all district employees would be trained during the 2003-4 school year. Administrators, and sometimes counselors, were often the first to receive HIB instruction, and were often the only personnel in a district reported to have been trained to date. 

In many cases, employees to be trained this year were to receive their instruction from others in the district (such as administrators or counselors) who had already been trained through the use of resources outside the district. A number of districts described in-services focused on HIB prevention that would be presented by staff during the coming school year. Some districts indicated that each school would be creating custom training programs most appropriate for their sites and would be deciding where and when to host them. The standard amount of required training, as reported by districts, is about one to four hours per person, although eight hours was not uncommon, and some districts noted that staff had attended workshops that lasted several days.

Several districts said they took advantage of HIB instruction offered by their Educational Service District. [Nine ESDs provide educational services to all public schools and state-approved private schools in Washington.] The ESDs, in cooperation with OSPI, offer on-site training to help districts develop anti-HIB strategies and resources. This training includes a definition of HIB and how to recognize it, as well as information about the requirements of the Anti-Bullying Act and how to assess current district policy. The training focuses on building a no-tolerance school culture around HIB, and it emphasizes prevention and intervention, reporting and complaint procedures, and how to impart prevention skills to students. The ESDs will continue to offer additional training specific to HIB over the next year.

In addition, a number of districts mentioned orientations that OSPI, the Association of Washington School Principals [AWSP], the Office of the Attorney General, and the ESDs provided to school administrators. These orientations concentrate on developing and implementing HIB policies and procedures and also cover best practices for creating a supportive learning environment for all students. Many districts stated that they had sent staff to the harassment workshops offered by the Washington State Association for Multicultural Education, and quite a few mentioned they had enrolled staff this year in one of the four sessions of WSAME's "Harassment 102: Practical Issues & Concerns for Schools."

Several districts used the bully prevention instruction of Martin Fleming, founder of For KidSake, a company which provides training and consultation to schools and communities nationwide. A few mentioned that their training had been or would be conducted by McGrath Systems, Inc., a professional development company. Others relied on consultants, district legal counsel, or compliance officers for training. Training through the Western States Benchmarking Consortium was also mentioned. A number of districts mentioned that staff had been trained or would be trained through their insurance carrier; many cited training by Canfield & Associates, Eastern Washington Insurance Group, and Puget Sound Risk Management. 

A few districts noted that some of their staff participated in Take a Stand Against Bullying seminars, an anti-bullying curriculum developed by two Shoreline Police Officers. These eight-hour "Train the Trainer" sessions give overviews of the Take a Stand Against Bullying components. Some districts trained administrators and others using anti-bullying curricula such as Bully-Proofing Your School or Second Step, while others utilized in-house resources such as videos or PowerPoint presentations.

Bullying prevention programs and activities

Beyond requirements for training staff and educating students about policies, many districts described how they have implemented structured anti-bullying activities to help prevent potential bullying before it starts. Districts have implemented a broad spectrum of comprehensive programs with diverse instructional approaches, designed to enable students to prevent bullying and resolve HIB incidents themselves. These programs and activities help students across a range of ages learn about the causes of bullying and how to recognize it when it happens, and they also equip them with skills and strategies to prevent and diffuse potential bullying situations, such as controlling aggression, understanding the roles of bystanders, and learning how to negotiate conflict. The architects of these programs believe that merely banning bullying, while a good step toward prevention, does not do enough to help curb this behavior.

Of the 182 districts that returned surveys, 165 reported some type of ongoing or planned bullying prevention in their schools [Fig. 12]. Responding districts indicated the following elements were part of their anti-bullying activities, either as part of the general curriculum or as a type of formal program (percentages are based on the proportion of schools responding to the survey): respecting differences/discussing prejudices - 133 (73%); explaining and encouraging reporting - 116 (64%); anger management - 115 (63%); mentoring/behavior modeling - 103 (57%); learning about diverse groups - 101 (55%); teaching self-control or self-defense - 96(53%); involving parents - 92 (51%); conflict negotiation skills - 90 (49%); understanding bystander roles - 84 (46%); trained peer mediators - 81 (45%); role playing - 77 (42%); involving school nurses/health staff - 73 (40%); bullying assessment survey - 61 (34%); project-based/peer-based learning - 61 (34%); social norms - 60 (33%); restructuring the physical settings of schools [which could include improving the playground environment to invite positive activities, or the removal of isolated "risk areas" where bullying is more likely] - 25 (14%); other - 12 (7%).

Many districts found this question difficult to answer, since it asked them to describe program elements across a range of schools and grade levels. Most were, however, at least able to indicate how many of their schools had these types of programs and activities in place. Of the 182 responding districts, 165 have begun or will be launching programs. Bullying prevention programs were reported at the elementary level by 160 districts, at the middle school level by 139 districts, at the high school level by 117 districts, and at other schools (mostly alternative education) by 37 districts.

Districts mentioned several standard anti-bullying curricula or curriculum components that had been adopted by their schools, including Second Step, Steps to Respect, Kelso's Choice, Staying on Track, Natural Helpers, the AVID program, components of the Great Body Shop, and other programs based on the work of Olweus. Several districts said they would be implementing bullying prevention programs during the coming school year, including one which will be forming a parent/student committee to help design a comprehensive program. Many districts noted they would be expanding their current anti-bullying programs into additional schools and/or grade levels.

A number of districts described curricula they had designed on their own, including presentations for both students and parents at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, and many had or were intending to standardize these for all grades. Some districts reported a high level of involvement in bullying prevention, but not necessarily through formal programs. One district has committed a full-time counselor trained in bullying prevention and intervention to each building, while others mentioned that conflict resolution and respecting others were part of general instruction for all students. 

Best Practices

Several districts developed exceptionally thoughtful policies or procedures that were sensitively tailored to the needs of their students and employees, contained a thorough outline for the district's response to HIB incidents, or included components of the SSC model procedure. These included:

Bainbridge Island Edmonds Everett Federal Way Lind

Marysville Mead Mercer Island Monroe Montesano

North Kitsap North Thurston Northport Northshore Oak Harbor

Olympia Seattle Vancouver Vashon Island

The above districts each submitted clear and comprehensive policies/procedures, carefully drafted to ensure those districts can prevent future occurrences of HIB as effectively and responsively as possible. 

Other districts included additional materials in their responses that demonstrated a solid commitment to preventing and minimizing bullying in their schools: 

• Anacortes shared plans to conduct a one-day "bullying symposium" that would present bully-proofing messages "in an entertaining and meaningful way" with the help of a theater company. The symposium would also include a workshop/retreat for student leaders and counselors - the goal of which would be to form an anti-bullying student leadership team - as well as a workshop to aid parents, volunteers, and the community in understanding how they can help students work to end bullying.

• Bainbridge Island developed a student-led, district-wide anti-bullying campaign during the 2002-3 school year. Younger students met to discuss and choose slogans, while older students were trained to be able to instruct younger students on key anti-bullying issues as identified through an all-student survey. 

• Central Valley described an impressive list of training opportunities for staff, including several full-day workshops. 

• Dayton's customized brochure explains what harassment means and outlines the process for students to report incidents.

• Federal Way's student, parent, and employee handbook includes the process for filing HIB complaints and the timeframe involved in their investigation and resolution. Students and parents must acknowledge that they have received and understood the handbook and its contents. The district has also established a tipline for anyone to report alleged HIB incidents anonymously. 

• Franklin Pierce submitted an "anti-bullying pledge" by which parents and guardians vow to stay current on school bullying policies, regularly discuss feelings about relationships and school with their children, and work with the school to promote positive behavior and an appreciation of difference. In a similar student pledge, students promise to actively participate in bullying prevention efforts with school staff and other students. The district also sent anti-bullying pledges to be signed by staff and volunteers.

• Hood Canal produced a brochure which reminds students of their right to a bullying-free school experience and informs them of ways to prevent and arrest HIB behaviors. 

• McCleary sent in a harassment understanding contract that defines harassment, sexual harassment, and bullying. It is to be signed by student and parent upon their understanding that these behaviors are illegal, and that engaging in them or assisting the actions of others could result in legal and school disciplinary action.

• Mount Vernon's report form is written in language that is more easily understood by students. The district has also developed an anti-bullying campaign, "Give Respect - Get Respect," to be implemented over the 2003-4 school year. In the centralized part of the campaign, an HIB team will oversee training, meetings, and workshops for staff. Students and school culture are the focus of the site-based approach, which will consist of student leadership activities, flyers and buttons, parent group presentations, and a variety of bullying prevention activities. 

• North Kitsap's procedure includes a sample "letter to bully" for students to use when making an informal complaint.

• Pomeroy Junior/Senior High students make a commitment to stop HIB acts against other students through a contact signed by the student, counselor, and principal. The district also shared their assessment survey, which asks students to describe the climate of their schools regarding harassment and if they feel that climate should be improved.

• Spokane will center its annual "Diversity and Equity Awards" for 2004 around HIB, recognizing "individuals and groups who have focused their equity and diversity efforts to stop bullying and harassment in their schools and life." The district has also created a multi-cultural performance group to address topics including HIB, racism and sexism through dance, drama, and music. Spokane has also established a safety top hotline for reporting incidents of HIB.

• Vashon Island included a report form entitled "My Side of the Story," to be used to take brief reference notes for elementary students lodging an informal complaint. 

• White Pass Junior/Senior High students, with assistance from a strategic planning students committee, drafted a "statement of policy and philosophy" regarding HIB. The document defines HIB and the forms it may take, and uses plain language to discuss investigations, remediation and discipline, confidentiality, retaliation, and how the policy will be communicated. 

• Yelm produced a "What You Should Know" pamphlet to familiarize students on campus or at school functions with their rights and responsibilities regarding HIB and to prepare them for the reporting and investigation process.

We also recognize that other districts not listed by name have devoted considerable time and energy to addressing HIB in their schools. We thank all districts that responded to the request for information for their efforts to date in this critical area, and we hope that they continue to work to improve their anti-bullying policies and practices. 

Conclusion

As far as can be determined from the information provided by superintendents and their staff, districts around Washington have recognized school-based bullying as an urgent problem in need of attention, and they are working hard to address it through systematic, inclusive, and thorough efforts. Responding districts are making good progress toward meeting the demands of the new Anti-Bullying Act, by drafting and implementing policies and procedures, and by involving parents, students, employees, and other stakeholders in the process of figuring out the best approach to prevent HIB behavior on a local level. This study has found that:

• The policies and procedures sent by responding districts are, by and large, comprehensive. It is exciting to report that responding districts are taking a firm stance against bias-motivated bullying; one hundred fifty-six, or 92% of submitted policies, explicitly prohibit all eight categories included in the Anti-Bullying Act's definition of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability). 

• Districts have made good use of the model WSSDA/OSPI policy and procedure. Altogether, 68% of responding districts adopted the model policy, the model procedure, or both. Several, for example, have held themselves to even higher standards by providing anonymous reporting opportunities for all students, or by making a commitment to resolve incidents in fewer than 60 days.

• Most responding districts have done a reasonably thorough job in spreading the word about their policies/procedures to students, parents, employees, and the larger community, or have made plans to do so. One hundred fifty-four policies or procedures (91%) include a pledge to disseminate the new rules to at least some stakeholders, while 142 (84%) of the policies or procedures provided commit those districts to educating students about their HIB regulations. Eighty-eight percent of responding districts have trained some or all of their employees (or plan to do so), beyond merely informing them about policies/procedures. These responding districts are making good efforts to train their staff about HIB issues by making adequate use of available training resources in addition to seeking out and/or creating their own.

• The anti-HIB activities reported by the responding districts are encouraging, and we thank those that took the time to submit information during a busy time of year. However, it is worrisome that nearly one third of all districts provided no answers to our questions. Does this mean that the nonresponders are out of compliance with the new law and not yet addressing their HIB problems, or do their anti-HIB activities parallel those of the responding districts? We don't know. Things look promising for Washington's schools if the efforts of the 69% that responded are representative of all districts. If, however, the others did not respond because they were struggling with getting ready to comply, much work remains to be done. 

Research studies on bullying intervention strategies have shown that bullying can be reduced by implementing a set of procedures that has been agreed upon by a variety of stakeholders for both preventing and responding to bullying behavior. In order to be effective, however, these regulations must be implemented thoroughly and consistently throughout the school community, with staff, parents, and students actively engaged in the process.24 Effective school-based bullying prevention values the opinions of students, takes their HIB reports seriously, and empowers them to take on HIB themselves. It means engaging the whole school - not just bullies and victims, and not just certificated staff - as well as enlisting the help of parents and the surrounding community.20 

"Legislation alone will not stop every bully from physically or verbally tormenting a peer," according to a 2001 report by the state Attorney General's Task Force, which originally recommended the creation of legislation to deal with bullying in Washington schools.28 "The most successful programs are those that involve the students themselves and where students take initiative and responsibility for reducing incidents of bullying....Passing legislation is a powerful way to direct schools to tackle the problem of HIB seriously, but schools must follow through to curb harassment," the report cautioned. 

Creating a culture of awareness around HIB and affirming that the behavior is unacceptable lets children talk more freely about it.21 Anti-bullying efforts need to embrace multiple approaches, proactively acknowledge and address past mistakes and wrongs, and work toward the ultimate goal of creating and maintaining a welcome environment for all students and staff.21, 18 Practices should be continuously monitored, evaluated, and updated. Olweus maintains that four goals should be included in any intervention program: to increase awareness of HIB problems and expand knowledge about it, to gain active participation by teachers and parents, to make clear rules prohibiting bullying, and to offer support and protection for victims.19

The responding districts have shown some good progress in working to prevent bullying, but this is an area that will require ongoing attention when it comes to school policy and practice. While a few survey respondents said that their districts had been involved in rigorous bullying prevention and response for some time, many others indicated their efforts were just beginning. As one district noted, "Some schools have already done advanced work, but training and implementation are in various stages of progress." Districts commented that much will need to be accomplished in the years ahead, but they also indicated their commitment to seeing the process through. Bullying is a phenomenon that has been shown to be highly resistant to change, but it can be overcome with persistent, consistent, and creative initiatives, and many of Washington's schools appear up to the challenge - we hope this is true across the state.

---

Works Cited

1. American Medical Association. Bullying Behaviors Among Children and Adolescents. H-60.943. Accessed online Aug. 25, 2003: ssn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-60.943.HTM

2. American Psychological Association, press release Aug. 17, 2001.

3. Dake JA, Price JH, Telljohann SK. The nature and extent of bullying at school. J Sch Health. 2003 May;73(5):173-80.

4. Einspruch, E.L., Deck, D.D., Nickel, P., and Hyatt, G. (2001). Washington State Survey of Adolescent Health Behaviors: Analytic Report. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA.

5. Eron, LD, Huesmann LR, Dubow E, Romanoff R, Yarmel PW. (1987) Aggression and its correlates over 22 years. In DH Crowell, IM Evans and CR O’Donnell (eds) Childhood aggression and violence (pp 249-262). New York: Plenum Publishing Corp.

6. Fried SE, Fried P. Bullies, Targets and Witnesses. New York: M. Evans and Co., 2003.

7. Harachi T., R. Catalino, JD Hawkins. “United States,” ch. 17 in The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. PK Smith, et al.

8. Juvonen J, Nishina A, Graham S. Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. J Educ Psychol. 2000:92:349-359.

9. Kaltiala-Heino R, Rimpela M, Rantanen P, Rimpela A. Bullying at school--an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. J Adolesc. 2000 Dec;23(6):661-74.

10. Jenks L, Washington State Department of Health, unpublished research for the Safe Schools Coalition from the 2002 Healthy Youth Survey.

11. Kumpulainen K, Rasanen E. Children involved in bullying at elementary school age: their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence. An epidemiological sample. Child Abuse Negl. 2000 Dec;24(12):1567-77.

12. McDowell, Carmen. The prevalence, characteristics and typology of Washington state school district policies on bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Oct. 7, 2002. Accessed online Aug. 12, 2003: http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/PolicyAnalysisProject-Final10-6-02.pdf

13. Mynard H, Joseph S. Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year olds. Br J Educ Psychol. 1997;67:51-54.

14. Nansel TR, Overpeck MD, Haynie DL, Ruan WJ, Scheidt PC. Relationships between bullying and violence among US youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003 Apr;157(4):348-53.

15. Nansel TR, Overpeck MD, Pilla R, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt PC. Bullying behaviors among US youth – prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA 2001; 285:2094-2100.

16. National Youth Advocacy Coalition. Resource spotlight: school bullying. Accessed online Aug. 27, 2003: http://www.nyacyouth.org/nyac/res_spot_bullying.html

17. The Nickelodeon/Kaiser Family Foundation Talking with Kids National Survey of Parents and Kids. “Talking with kids about tough issues.” 2001. Accessed online Aug. 20, 2003: http://www.kff.org/content/2001/3105/summary.pdf

18. North Central Educational School District. “Safe and Civil Schools.” Accessed online: Aug. 30, 2003: http://www.ncesd.org/sdfs/programs.htm

19. Olweus D. Bulling at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers; 1993.

20. Office of Superintendent for Public Instruction, Washington State Safety Center training materials. Accessed online Aug. 12, 2003: http://www.k12.wa.us/safetycenter/CSSPtraining.asp

21. Pearce, J. Practical approaches to reduce the impact of bullying. Arch Dis Child 1998;79:528-531(Dec).

22. Rigby K. Peer victimization at school and the health of secondary school students. Br J Educ Psychol. 1999:69:95-104.

23. Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD. The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Dev. 1993;64:1755-1772.

24. Thompson D., Arora T., Sharp S. Bullying: effective strategies for long-term improvement. London: Routledge Falmer, 2002.

25. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet, June 2001. “Addressing the problem of juvenile bullying.”

26. U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center. Safe School Initiative: An interim report on the prevention of targeted violence in school. Washington, DC: U.S. Depts. of Treasury and Education with the support from the National Institute of Justice; October 2000.

27. van der Wal MF, de Wit CA, Hirasing RA. Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics. 2003 Jun;111(6 Pt 1):1312-7.

28. Washington State Attorney General’s Task Force report on a Legislative Response to Bullying. Jan. 15, 2001.

29. WASA Policy Watch, April 2002. Accessed online: Aug. 23, 2003. http://www.wasa-oly.org/governme/bullying/BullyingNews.pdf

30. Williams K, Chambers M, Logan S, Robinson D. Association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. BMJ. 1996:313:17-19.

31. Wolke D, Woods S, Bloomfield L, Karstadt L. Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems. Arch Dis Child. 2001 Sep;85(3):197-201.

---

top of this page    ~  Contents   ~  Bully Report home   ~  Safe Schools Coalition home   ~  site map