Whose Job is it to Stop Bullies in Schools?

In his recent ABC news opinion column, “Want to Stop Bullies?” Lee Dye cites new studies that claim that:

1. Girls are more likely than boys to intervene to stop bullying than boys are.
2. Girls intervene more because they’re expected to by their parents, best friends and favorite teachers.
3. Popular males are more likely to pick on weaker boys, while unpopular, weaker but aggressive boys are more likely to pick on girls.

Of course.  So what?

I’m glad Mr. Dye is speaking out and I share his desire to stop bullies and harassment, bullying and abuse in schools.

The reason I’m sarcastic is that I think these studies, done by interviewing 269 middle school students in four schools in North Central Florida, are typical of the thought process and pseudo-scientific research that says that if we knew more we could design better programs to stop bullies.  And they imply that we can’t have successful anti-bullying programs until we have more research.

However, this research adds nothing we didn’t already know.  And the generalizations are contradicted by evidence from the recent suicide deaths of four girls in Schenectady, New York.

We already know that getting the kids involved in anti-bullying programs is critical.  We already know that it’s crucial to teach children what to do when they are bystanders and see bullying.  In order to incorporate that knowledge into anti-bullying programs, we don’t need to wait until there’s more pseudo-science research to prove that point.

In summary, we know that it’s everyone’s job to stop bullying in schools and everyone’s help is necessary, especially the kids.  No one group can make a program work if the other members of the local community resist or are uncaring.  The programs in New Hampshire are only the latest reports documenting what we know already.

Successful programs have the seven elements crucial to success:

1. The programs specify acceptable and unacceptable behavior
2. Children are taught specifically what to do if they’re bullied or if they’re bystanders
3. The programs involve everyone – school board members, police, principals, teachers, administrative staff and bus drivers, the kids, and at least a vocal, core group of parents.
4. Consequences are clear and effective action rapid
5. Courageous and proactive administrators, school principals and teachers
6. Kids are also trained at home not to bully and how to stop bullies
7. All steps are implemented simultaneously

Anti-bullying laws are necessary to force reluctant or uncaring district administrators and principals to act.  They’re also necessary to protect principals and teachers who do act from bullying parents who defend their little terrorists and threaten to sue the principal and school for harassing their little bully.  That’s like in the Harry Potter series where Lucius Malfoy protects his vicious son, Draco.

The biggest problem in stopping bullies is not the lack of research about bullying: It’s the lack of skillful effort being put forth by the most caring people.  At many schools, well-meaning principals and teachers need to join forces with a core group of parents to get programs in motion.  At other schools, frustrated and angry parents need to rally other parents in order to force uncaring or cowardly school district administrators and principals to make effective school policies and then take act promptly and strongly.

Teach Empathy in Middle School? Can we? Should We?

A recent article in the New York Times illustrates attempts of one middle school of privileged kids in Scarsdale, New York, to teach empathy for those less privileged.  The less privileged included examples from great literature, of old, disabled and autistic people, and even of those students who didn’t get invited to last weekend’s social activities by the “in-crowd.”  Similar efforts are being considered by many other middle and high schools. Can such programs succeed?  Should schools engage in social engineering?

Education, in the root of our word and from its earliest time, was based on “cultivation” in the sense of cultivating a crop of good and virtuous citizens capable of leading a society that does good and supports the virtue of all citizens.  Leading was usually the vocation of only the privileged.  Education of the less privileged also emphasized creating good and virtuous citizens, but was focused more on what we might call vocational training for productive labor.

We can’t convert all schools – elementary, middle or high schools – into strictly vocational training and expect to produce good and virtuous citizens, capable of self-government.  In our democratic society, we treat all kids as privileged in the sense that they get training in virtue and being a good citizen.  They all also have the potential of serving at the highest levels of government, instead of such service being the privilege of only those born to privilege.

Empathy is a necessary element of being a good citizen, as well as a necessary component of great leadership and management.  For example, it’s one of the leadership and management training sets promoted by all business schools.  And the current economic recession or depression has a large component of greed and unethical and un-empathetic behavior at its core.

Parents should be teaching empathy to their children even before they’re developmentally capable of it, instead of thinking that a course as part of an M.B.A. training will ever do any good.  Since many parents don’t teach empathy, and also in support of those who do, I’m glad that elementary and middle schools are intentionally making that a part of the curriculum, in addition to academic subjects.  The key to teaching empathy and virtue is the character of the teacher, not the syllabus or lesson plan.

But teaching at home and in programs at school can’t be expected to solve the problem for every one, even though results in schools in the south Bronx are also encouraging.  Many children and teenagers will get it; others won’t.  One of the most famous examples of the impossibility of teaching everyone is Alcibiades, a brilliant, rich boy taught by Pericles at home and Socrates at school, who grew up to be unethical, unscrupulous and un-empathetic.

Humans do have free will, but that doesn’t man we stop trying to teach them.  We simply try with our eyes wide open.  Even in Scarsdale, as the article says, “mean girls are no less mean, and the boys will still be boys.”  Also, there’s still “name-calling, gossip and other forms of social humiliation.”  Bullies and bullying will always exist.

But now the schools make clear that such behavior is frowned upon.  Punishing it can be very difficult because it’s such a tricky area to find appropriate responses.  However, the clarity with which we label uncaring and unacceptable behavior gives every student a clear chance to judge the perpetrators and decide whether to try to join the in-crowd, ignore them or stand up for the students who are targeted..

We can’t and shouldn’t count on schools to protect our children from hurt feelings all the time.  We must help our children know what’s important to them and whose opinion matters to them.  We must also help them develop the inner grit and resilience to know how to protect themselves from verbal harassment as well as from physical abuse.