THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADULT
AND CHILDHOOD BULLYING IN SCHOOLS
By: Deidra Alexander Sorrell, Ed.D.
ABSTRACT
In this study, the researcher hypothesized that there was a correlation between workplace bullying among adults in schools, and student bulling in schools. This study also sought to examine whether there was a correlation between a hostile adult school climate and student bullying in schools, correlations between teacher pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools, and correlations between teacher awareness of student bullying and student bullying in schools. One hundred twenty nine participants, who identified themselves as educators, completed a ten item questionnaire about bullying in the schools. The findings indicated that there was a significant relationship between adult workplace bullying in schools and student bullying in schools. Correlations were also seen between hostile adult school climate and student bulling in schools, and pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools. However, the strongest correlation was actually a negative correlation between staff awareness of student bullying within schools and the presence of student bullying in the schools. The results of this study were surprising to the researcher and supported the need for more studies exploring the reasons and remedies for staff unawareness and student bullying in schools.
Introduction
In 2012, after a football game an office clerk at an east coast inner city public high school heard the words “get her ” before two female colleagues aged 42 and 52 began hitting and kicking her to the ground. This horrendous attack was masterminded by the school principal, who was initially hired to “turn around” the troubled high school plagued with low test scores, student shootings, and behavioral issues. The victim reported that she did not know why she was attacked. The principal was later charged with simple assault and fired from her position (McCabe, 2012).
In 2014, at an east coast, suburban high school, the principal was accused of verbally abusing teachers and staff members. Some of her abuse included making inappropriate comments about white teachers (e.g. the only reason white teachers work in this county is because they cannot find work elsewhere). She referred to white teachers as white trash and black staff members as ghetto chicken heads. When staff members complained about her behavior, this principal retaliated with more verbal abuse and harassment. The abuse caused one employee to resign due to panic attacks. These accusations resulted in two discrimination lawsuits and one pending with over $350,000.00 awarded to the harmed staff members. This principal is still working in the county and the school system supports that she is innocent (Wiggins, 2014).
One would expect that the above behaviors would have been carried out by some misguided school children. However, the reality is that the bullying described above was committed by middle aged adults employed by the school systems that they were hired to positively impact. The United States Department of Education (2011) reported that school bullying among students is a widespread yet neglected problem that has negative implications for all students. Even the Secretary of Education urged every state to develop an effective bullying prevention programs to protect students from bullying. By 2012, most states including the District of Columbia had working anti-bullying plans. However, the researcher pondered why schools would implement bullying prevention programs for students while allowing adult bullying to occur in schools.
Bullying is not a new phenomenon (Rigby, 2002). An individual wanting power over another individual is a problem that dates back into history (Murphy, 2013). In the Bible, Psalms 56:5-6 states “My enemies make trouble for me all day long; they are always thinking up some way to hurt me! They gather in hiding places and watch everything I do” (Psalms 56:5-6, New International Version). A power imbalance is typically the reason why bullying occurs in various settings (Einarsen et al., 2011).Van Goethem, Scholte, & Weirs (2010) asserted that bullying is a societal problem that impacts the school yard as well as the professional world. Student bullying is defined as intentional and repeated acts that occur through physical, verbal and relational forms in situations where there is a power difference (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & Brennan, 2007). Bullying in the workplace is characterized as repeated verbal abuse, psychological abuse, or both within an organizational environment. Workplace bullying occurs among coworkers, supervisor to subordinate, or group to individual (Cranshaw, 2009). More severe than mere rude behavior, workplace bullying is deliberate and severe enough to cause harm to the targeted person’s health or economic status (Namie & Namie, 2009).
Problem Statement
Prior research agrees that bullying is a severe and pervasive problem with many detrimental effects (Carbo & Hughes, 2010). However, school bullying occurs most when there is a willing environment (Fox & Stallworth, 2009). Parsons (2005) suggested that schools with student bullying may also have a toxic bullying culture that promotes negative behaviors among students and staff. School bullying can have a trickle-down effect that can include the administrators bullying the teachers, the teachers bullying the students, and the students bullying each other. The tragedy of this is that school staff members seem unaware of the problematic nature of a bullying culture in schools.
Purpose of the Study
There are few research studies with a focus on bullying among adults and students in the public school environment. People perceive the school to be a refuge or safe place from the outside world. However, the corporate business model has become the framework for educational systems by pushing test scores, and a competitive, accountability based culture (Parson, 2005). Because teachers and administrators are leaders in forming school culture (Walton, 2004), they are also instrumental in identifying and changing the culture (Macneil, Prater & Busch, 2009). The purpose of this study was to identify whether there is a relationship between adult bullying and child bullying in schools.
Review of Literature
Student Bullying in Schools
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2012), 28% of students between the ages of 12 and 18 reported physical or relational victimization at school. Furthermore, 15.8% of student reported being cyberbullied by school mates (Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Counter, 2012). Bullying is defined as intentional and repeated acts that occur through physical, verbal, and relational forms, where a power imbalance exists (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & Brennan, 2007). Traditional physical bullying typically involves the student being pushed, shoved, hit, spit on, or even teased by the perpetrator (NCES, 2012). Relational or indirect bullying, typically perpetuated by girls, includes the manipulation of relationships through gossiping, rumor spreading, exclusion and sabotage to cause psychological pain (Crothers & Minutolo, 2009). The difference between traditional and relational bullying is that the relational bully can be anonymous or pretend as if there was no intent to harm (Bjorkeqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). Similar to relational bullying, cyberbullying involves a bully who can use the anonymity of an electronic device to harm others (Ahlfors, 2010). Cyberbullies typically use social media posts, text messages, private or direct messages, emails, and blog posts to cause psychological stress to the target.
Bullying is not a normal part of growing up. Litwiller and Brausch (2013) found that the victims of traditional physical bullying and cyberbullying report higher instances of unsafe sexual behavior, substance abuse, suicidal ideation and violence toward others. This violence toward others supports the finding that being a victim of school bullying makes one vulnerable to being bullied in the workplace (Smith, Singer, Hoel, and Cooper, 2003).
Workplace Bullying in Schools
At least one in six workers in the United States has been affected by workplace bullying. When surveyed, 81% of bosses have the characteristics of a bully (Parsons, 2005). Cranshaw (2009) defines workplace bullying as psychological abuse that is typically verbal, but repeated with intent to harass and harm an individual professionally. Workplace bullying is systematic (Ocel & Aydin, 2012) and takes place over a given period of time (Leymann, 1996). Research varies on how long the abuse should take place before it is considered bullying. Leymann (1996) stated that the abuse should occur for a minimum of 6 months, but Ocel and Aydin (2012) posits that there is no specific minimum time frame. What makes workplace bullying more serious than simple unprofessional behavior or incivility is that the abuse is done with the intent on harming the victim professionally (Einarsen et al., 2011). Additionally, the victim must perceive the behaviors as oppressive, unfair or undermining in order for it to be considered workplace bullying (Ocel & Aydin, 2012).
One third of kindergarten through twelfth grade educators reported stress and exhaustion associated with the manager’s leadership style (e.g. principal) within the school work environment (Cemaloglu, 2011). Blase et al. (2007) called teaching a high risk profession after finding that 42% of American public educators reported mistreatment from principals. Workplace bullying in public school education is typically indirect including; lack of support, withholding of resources (e.g. office supplies, copy machine access), favoritism, making unrealistic demands, and unwarranted criticism. Workplace bullying in schools can also include sabotaging teachers by asking other staff members to spy on them, lying on certain teachers and giving negative evaluations unfairly. Even though workplace bullying in schools is often indirect, some teachers reported direct bullying (e.g. yelling and threatening) as well (Blase & Blase, 2006).
Reasons for Bullying in Schools
Even though there are many reasons for bullying in schools, this study will focused on four main research based reasons for this problem.
School Climate
Climate is an often overlooked reason for bullying in schools (Bradshaw & Waasdorp, 2009). However, school climate actually plays an important role in all aspects of positive student outcomes including; increased student achievement, and decreased discipline problems. School climate includes shared beliefs, behaviors, and values among students, teachers and administrators. (Mitchell, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2010). Teachers and administrators are leaders in setting the culture for the school (Walton, 2004). The school culture, which is associated with the school climate, can lead to student bullying if there is hostility an aggression among staff (Fox & Stallworth, 2009). If the school climate enforces respect, but the staff members display the opposite, students end up getting mixed messages about expected behaviors in the school. However, students and teachers often differ in perceptions of school climate. Teachers tend to judge school climate based on the teacher’s individual classroom management. Students tend to judge school climate on overall experiences in school including experiences with bullying (Parsons, 2005; Nansel et al., 2001). Therefore, school leaders are charged with the responsibility of identifying the school culture and changing it if necessary (Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). One indication of a poor school climate is high faculty turnover. As such, improving the school climate should be part of the school improvement initiative along with student achievement (Mitchell, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2010).
From an ecological perspective, a negative outside climate can impact the school climate (Hong & Espelage, 2012). However, research supports that students may experience negativity in both home and community climates (e.g. crime, poverty, community violence), but the school can still play a positive role in the lives of students. If there is consistency with the school staff, including the administrators, the school can thwart the effects of the community (Mitchell, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2010).
Corporate Model
The new business model of public school education supports competition (Parsons, 2005). Organizations become vulnerable to workplace bullying when there is an increase in downsizing, tough management and competition (Murtagh, 2003). Abusive principals tend to bully the most competent and confident educators whom they deem a threat to the organization (Parsons, 2005; Salin, 2003). Even though research supports that men and women bully equally, the chosen target is usually a woman (WBI, 2014). An abusive principal or school leader tends to feel powerful, entitled, and lack empathy. They may use downward bullying (e.g. the principal harasses the target) or sideways/horizontal bullying (e.g. the principal chooses a coworker to spy on or bully the target) to gain power over the teacher. This bullying approach to school leadership does produce increased teacher commitment to the school community or raise student achievement. In fact, it does the opposite. When teachers and school staff are bullied, it obliterates the schools integrity, which leads to teacher burnout, high teacher turnover, and ultimately student failure (Parsons, 2005).
Lack of Teacher Awareness
As stated earlier, students tend to rate school climate based on overall experiences in school, including experiences with bullying. If the student reported being bullied, students also tended to rate personal perception of the school climate as poor (Nansel et al., 2001). However, Fekkes, Pijpers, and Verloove-Vanhorick (2005), found that only half of the children surveyed in this study on school bullying, actually reported the bullying to his or her teacher. Stockdale et al. (2002), supported the above findings by stating that student bullying is often underreported to teachers by students, and to the administration by teachers. Moreover, when teachers are given the responsibility to identify bullies in his or her school, teachers are often incorrect in his or her findings (Leff et al., 1999). When teachers are correct in identifying bullies in the school, teachers tend to feel incompetent in his or her abilities to handle conflicts (Boulton, 1997).
Espelage and Swearer (2003) suggested that schools need innovative assessment measures to help students identify bullying in the school and ask for help. The Olewus Anti-Bullying program has been a popular resource for schools to learn how to identify and reduce bullying (Olewus, 1993). In addition, the Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) program has been successful in gaining the entire school to buy into the rewards of practicing good behavior (Bradshaw & Waasdorp, 2009). However, schools can be even more proactive by consulting the school psychologist or other mental health staff members about identifying bullies. Consulting with parents about bullying behaviors can also be helpful when parents are properly informed and educated about bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). However, empowering students to divulge information is the most useful strategy. The support group approach allows the victims and observers of bullying a safe place to speak out against bullying (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). Allowing the student a computerized and anonymous way of reporting bullying is also an innovative way to allow students to report bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). A confidential or anonymous hotline, text message number or social media page may be a useful strategy for students to report bullying.
Efforts to Reduce Bullying in Schools
According to Parsons (2005), Adult bullies do not know that they are bullies. They feel that they are honest and outspoken, but ultimately powerful. As stated earlier, the root of bullying of any type is power (Veenstra et al., 2007). However, power is part of the American culture. The United States culture is rooted in power and individualism (Hofstede, 1993).
Student bullies may be unaware of bullying behavior as well. The media shapes the culture by stating who is hot and who is not. Social media is used as an outlet to revere celebrities one day and then tear them down the next day (Parsons, 2005). When students display this behavior in school, it is harmful and can be viewed as relational aggression. Some school staff members are even guilty of unfair treatment of students due to social status. When teachers and administrators ignore bullying from popular students, yet display hostile attitudes toward other students, students learn that it is acceptable to bully certain students. (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Educators must be cognizant about the role that popular media, social media, and the school staff play in normalizing bullying behavior.
Aside from the American culture and corporatization of education, administrators, teachers, parents and students must agree that bullying must stop. To reduce bullying in schools, school leaders must first lead by example by showing respect to teachers, staff, students and parents. Next, the school leader should assess the school environment for the presence of bullying (Parsons, 2005). School leaders should investigate for adult as well as student bullying. Third, the school leader must gain commitment or buy-in from all educational stakeholders (Bradshaw & Waasdorp, 2009). What this means is the administrators, teachers, staff, parents and students must agree to help end bullying. Parsons (2005) also adds that schools must also improve cultural competence by having a zero tolerance policy against all racist and homophobic behavior among staff and students. Teachers must also display inclusion by establishing a cooperative learning environment for students who are high and low academically.
The data revealed that bullying is a significant problem among adults and children in schools. Even though data supports that school climate is an indicator of school bullying, teachers and students often differ on perceptions of climate. For that reason, school professionals must model appropriate behavior and thoroughly investigate bullying behaviors in schools.
The goal of this study was to provide more information to support the existing data revealing the important role that climate plays in promoting or reducing bullying behaviors. The researcher hypothesized that schools with hostile, bullying leadership also have a negative climate that impacts the prevalence of student bullying. The remainder of this paper will discuss the methodology, analysis, and findings of this study.
Research Question and Research Design
This study analyzed the presence of workplace bullying and its impact on student bullying k-12 educators in the public school setting. Moreover, this study examined if there were any associations between workplace bullying and student bullying in schools. The hypothesis was that schools with workplace bullying among adults are more likely to have student bullying among children as well. Moreover, it was also hypothesized that a hostile adult school climate was associated with student bullying. In addition, it was hypothesized that teacher pressure to raise test scores instead of awareness of student bullying was associated with student bullying. The following are the initial four hypotheses and the null hypotheses for each:
H1: There is a positive correlation between adult workplace bullying and student bullying in schools.
H01: There is no positive correlation between adult workplace bullying and student bullying in schools.
H2: There is a positive correlation between a hostile adult school climate and student bullying in schools.
H02: There is a not a positive correlation between a hostile adult school climate and student bullying in schools.
H3: There is a positive correlation between teacher pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools.
H03: There is not positive correlation between teacher pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools.
H4: There is a negative correlation between teacher awareness of student bullying and student bullying in schools.
H04: There is not a negative correlation between teacher awareness of student bullying and student bullying in schools.
Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between adult bullying and student bullying in schools, while examining links between a hostile adult school climate, pressure to raise test scores and teacher awareness of bullying.
Population
A 2011 American workplace questionnaire found that half of the employees surveyed reported some type of bullying within the workplace. In fact, approximately 25% of the employees surveyed reported being victims of workplace bullying (Hananel, 2013). Wilkin (2010) adds that the academic environment is not exempt from workplace bullying because the same antecedents that cause corporate workplace bullying (e.g. restructuring and organizational change) can encourage bulling within the educational workplace. The aim of this research was to gain a diverse sample of public school educators that can be generalized to the United States population of public school educators.
Sample
The sample consisted of 129 educators in various positions who were not considered school administrators (e.g. teachers, teacher’s assistants, school counselors, school psychologists, related service providers). The demographics revealed that the participants mean age was 44.7 years-old. Sixty-one of the participants identified as female, 3 participants identified as male, and 49 participants did not indicate gender. Regarding school level, 36 participants worked in elementary schools, 21 participants worked in middle schools, 23 participants worked in high schools, and 49 participants did not indicate school level. With regard to discipline, 49 participants reported that they served as teachers, 10 participants worked as school psychologists, 4 participants worked as school counselors, 1 participant worked as a librarian, 1 participant served as a school social worker, five participants stated that they were related service providers, and 66 did not report specific discipline. With regard to the location of the participants, most of the participants reported that they worked in the District of Columbia (n=17) and Maryland (n=8). Other participants reported that they were located in the states of Texas, Georgia, Virginia, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado, Indiana, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Vermont, and New Mexico. One participant reported working in China.
Procedures and Measures
This study investigated the relationship between adult bullying in schools and student bullying in schools while examining links between a hostile adult school climate, pressure to raise test scores and teacher awareness of bullying. To measure these variables, the researcher utilized a 10 item questionnaire generated by Surveymonkey.com. The questions pertained to the presence of adult bullying, student bullying and school climate. The questions required answers on the likert scale. Participants were chosen through convenience sampling through internet anti-bullying blogs, teacher’s union blogs and social media (e.g. Facebook and Linked In). Snowball sampling was also used by asking participants to forward the survey link to other educators. The reason for seeking participants through the internet was to maintain confidentiality and anonymity in this process. Informed consent information was provided to participants along with a link to the survey. The survey was generated through www.surveymonkey.com (a commercial survey website).
Level of Significance
For this study, the level of significance is at the 0.05 level.
Statistical Tests
For the first research question, a Pearson r correlational statistical test determined whether there was an association between adult workplace bullying and student bullying in schools. The independent variable was adult workplace bullying and the dependent variable was the presence of student bullying. For the second research question, a Pearson r correlational statistical test determined associations between hostile adult school climate and student bullying in schools. The independent variable was a hostile adult school climate and the dependent variable was the presence of student bullying. For the third research question, a Pearson r correlational statistical determined associations between teacher pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools. The independent variable was teacher pressure to raise test scores and the dependent variable was the presence of student bullying. For the fourth and final research question, a Pearson r correlational test determined whether there were associations between teacher awareness of student bullying and student bullying in schools. The independent variable was teacher awareness of student bullying and the dependent variable was the presence of student bullying. In addition, a regression analysis was done to determine if any of the independent variables predicted the dependent variable of student bullying in schools.
Data Collection
As stated earlier, the researcher used convenience sampling as well as snowball sampling to gain participants for the study. A total of 129 participants completed the 10 question survey, which was hosted on surveymonkey.com. Throughout the months of April 2015 through July 2015, participants were gathered through social media sites and anti-workplace bullying websites. The ten question survey asked the following questions about workplace bullying, student bullying and professional climate:
- There is workplace bullying among adults at my school.
- My school has a climate of hostility among coworkers.
- The administrators or leaders at my school are hostile in management practices.
- My school is considered a low performing school (based on test scores).
- The staff feels pressure to improve test scores
- There is student bullying at my school
- The staff is aware of the student bullying at my school.
- The staff has a strategy to address student bullying at my school.
- At my school, the adult staff members model positive conflict management and civility to students by behaving appropriately to one another.
- Students seek out staff members for help regarding student bullying.
As stated earlier, each response was on the likert scale and the responder was asked to indicate whether the statement was; not true at all, somewhat true, true, very true, or not applicable. Demographic information was optional. Within the demographic section, participants were asked to indicate gender, age, discipline within education (e.g. teacher or service provider), level of educational service (e.g. elementary, middle, or high school), and location of employment (e.g. state or country).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
| There is workplace bullying among adults at my school. |
129 |
0 |
4 |
2.87 |
1.252 |
| The administrators or leaders at my school are hostile in their management practices. |
129 |
0 |
4 |
2.65 |
1.248 |
| My school has a climate of hostility among coworkers. |
129 |
0 |
4 |
2.58 |
1.164 |
| My school is considered a low performing school (based on test scores). |
129 |
0 |
4 |
2.43 |
1.380 |
| The staff feels pressure to improve test scores. |
128 |
0 |
4 |
3.09 |
1.177 |
| There is student bullying at my school. |
128 |
0 |
4 |
3.05 |
1.049 |
| The staff is aware of the student bullying at my school. |
129 |
0 |
4 |
3.02 |
1.075 |
| The staff has a strategy to address student bullying at my school. |
128 |
0 |
4 |
2.30 |
1.039 |
| At my school, the adult staff members model positive conflict management and civility to students by behaving appropriately to one another. |
129 |
0 |
4 |
2.22 |
.968 |
| Students seek out staff members for help regarding student bullying. |
129 |
0 |
4 |
2.61 |
.955 |
| Valid N (listwise) |
126 |
||||
Data Analysis
The descriptive statistics revealed that a majority of the educators reported workplace bullying as well as student bullying in schools. Forty-seven percent of the educators reported that it was “very true” that there was workplace bullying in the schools. Likewise, 16.2 of the educators reported that it was “true” that there was workplace bullying in the schools. Thirteen percent reported that it was only “somewhat true” that there was workplace bullying in the schools, while 22.4 percent reported that it was “not true at all” that there was workplace bullying in the schools. When asked whether the school had a climate of hostility among coworkers, 21.71% reported “not true at all”, 27.13% reported “somewhat true”, 19.38% reported “true”, and 31.01% reported “very true”. 47% of the educators reported that there is workplace bullying in the schools. Regarding the administrators or leaders at my school being hostile in management practices, 23.26 reported “not true at all”, 21.71% reported “somewhat true”, 15.50% reported “true”, and 37.98% reported “very true”. When asked if the educator’s school was considered a low performing school based on test scores, 27.91% reported “not true at all”, 13.18% reported “somewhat true”, 18.60 reported “true”, and 33.33% reported “very true”. With regard to the staff feeling pressure to improve test scores, 7.81% reported “not true at all”, 13.28% reported “somewhat true”, 22.66 reported “true”, and 51.56% reported “very true”.
Specific to student bullying, when asked if there was student bullying within the schools, 3.91% of reported “not true at all”, 21.88% reported “somewhat true”, 27.34 reported “true”, and 43.75% reported “very true”. When asked whether the staff was aware of the student bullying at the schools, 1.55% of reported “not true at all”, 19.38% reported “somewhat true”, 33.33 reported “true”, and 40.31% reported “very true”. When asked if staff had a strategy to address student bullying in the school, 20.31% of reported “not true at all”, 37.50% reported “somewhat true”, 24.22 reported “true”, and 15.65% reported “very true”. Regarding adult staff members modeling positive conflict management and civility to students by behaving appropriately to one another, 24.81% of reported “not true at all”, 37.21% reported “somewhat true”, 26.36 reported “true”, and 10.81% reported “very true”. The last question pertained to whether students sought out staff members for help regarding student bullying. With that question, 4.65% of reported “not true at all”, 39.53% reported “somewhat true”, 33.33 reported “true”, and 19.38% reported “very true”.
The Findings
With regard to the research questions, the descriptive statistics found that the mean score for the presence of workplace bullying among adults in the schools (M=2.87) was lower than the mean score for the presence of student bullying in the schools (M=3.05). The descriptive statistics found that the mean score for administrators being hostile in management practices (M=2.65) was lower than the mean score for the presence of student bullying in the schools (M=3.05). The mean score for staff feeling pressure to raise test scores (M=3.09) was slightly higher than the mean score for the presence of student bullying in the schools (M=3.05). The mean score for the staff being unaware of student bullying in the school (M=3.02) was slightly lower than the mean score for the presence of student bullying in the schools (M=3.05).
The correlations found in this study pertained to the four research questions indicated earlier in this study. The strongest correlation was actually a negative correlation between staff awareness of student bullying within schools and the presence of student bullying in the schools, r=.855, p=.000. What this means is that staff unawareness was strongly associated with student bullying in schools. A moderate positive correlation was found between the presence of workplace bullying among adults in the schools and the presence of student bullying in the schools, r = .334, p = .000. A moderate positive correlation was found between educators reporting pressure to raise test scores and the presence of student bullying in the schools, r = .380, p = .000. A weak positive correlation was found between the administrators at schools being hostile in management practices and the presence of student bullying in the schools, r = .288, p = .001.
A regression analysis was completed to investigate whether the independent variables could predict the dependent variable of student bullying in schools. In order to retain or reject the null hypothesis, the researcher must answer whether adult workplace bullying predicts student bullying in schools? Regarding the statistics, R2= .743, and the F test is F(4, 122) = 88.399, p< .000. The model is statistically significant; therefore we reject the null hypothesis.
How good a predictor is adult bullying in the schools? Regarding the statistics, β = .862, which indicates a positive and strong impact. T = 2.203, p < .001, therefore the researcher rejects the null hypothesis. In order to control for a type I error, the value of R is considered. R = .743, therefore 74% of the variance is explained while 26% is unexplained. While the values are statistically significant, the results should be interpreted with caution. Vulnerability for a type II error lies in possible unreliability with the surveys completed by the sample as well possible dishonesty and inaccuracy in completing the surveys. Reliability can be enhanced during the design and data collection process.
As a result, adult workplace bullying in schools is a moderately strong predictor of student bullying in schools, and the model is statistically significant R2 = .74, F (4, 122) = 88.399, p < .001. However 74% of the variance remains unexplained. The standardized coefficient β = .862, indicates a positive impact, t = 2.203, p < .001.
In order to retain or reject the null hypothesis, the researcher must answer whether the administrator’s hostility in management practices predicts student bullying in schools? As stated earlier, R2= .743, and the F test is F(4, 122) = 88.399, p< .000. The model is statistically significant; therefore the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.
Discussion
Unexpected results emerged from this study. Even though the correlations between adult bullying and student bullying were significant, there was a stronger relationship between pressure to raise test scores and lack of awareness of bullying with the presence of student bullying. What this means is the researcher hypothesized that there would be strong correlations between adult workplace bullying in schools and student bullying in schools, but found something more. Educators are so busy raising test scores that they are not able to pay attention to student bullying issues in the schools.
The research suggested that many educators are unaware of the problematic nature of bullying in the schools (Parsons, 2005). This study supported that educators are unaware of student bullying in schools. Likewise, the study supported that educators are concerned about raising test scores.
Limitations
Limitations are inevitable in research. Given the limited time to complete this study, the researcher only used 129 participants. A larger sample would have yielded more results that could have made the findings even more applicable to the educational population. In addition, the researcher could have expanded the study to include more research questions pertaining to the survey questions. The survey questions asked educators to rate whether his or her school was considered low performing, whether the staff had a strategy to address student bullying, whether staff members model civil behavior, and if students seek out staff members for help regarding bullying. Obviously, the research question pertaining to teacher awareness would have addressed some of the above questions, however more data pertaining to the educator’s experiences could have added depth to the study.
Another limitation of this study lied in the demographics. The researcher could have expanded the demographics questions by asking for racial background. In addition, given the significant number of educators who did not answer the optional demographic questions, the researcher should have changed her strategy with gaining demographics. The researcher should have made the demographics questions mandatory and at the beginning of the survey.
Recommendations for Future Studies
Future studies should address the effects of teacher stress, burnout and pressure to raise test scores on the presence of student bullying in schools. In addition, future studies should delve more into teachers’ unawareness of student bullying. A qualitative would be excellent in gaining rich data through interviews and/or focus groups on why teachers are unaware of student bullying. Lastly, an action research study on ways teachers can become more aware of student bullying in schools is recommended.
Conclusion
In this study, the researcher hypothesized that there was a correlation between workplace bullying among adults in schools, and student bulling in schools. This study also sought to examine whether there was a correlation between a hostile adult school climate and student bullying in schools, correlations between teacher pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools, and correlations between teacher awareness of student bullying and student bullying in schools. One hundred twenty nine participants who identified themselves as educators, completed a ten item questionnaire about bullying in the schools. The findings indicated that there was a significant relationship between adult workplace bullying in schools and student bullying in schools. Correlations were also seen between hostile adult school climate and student bulling in schools, and pressure to raise test scores and student bullying in schools. However, the strongest correlation was actually a negative correlation between staff awareness of student bullying within schools and the presence of student bullying in the schools. The results of this study were surprising to the researcher and supported the need for more studies exploring the reasons and remedies for staff unawareness and student bullying in schools.
References
Bjorkqvist, K. Osterman, K., Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees.
Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173-184.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 41,367-422.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2006). Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Education
Administration Quarterly, 38, 671-727.
Blase, J., Blase, J., & Du, F. (2007). The mistreated teacher: A National Study. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46, 263-301. doi: 10.1108/09578230810869257
Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: definitions, attitudes and ability to cope.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 223-233.
Bradshaw, C. P., & Waasdorp, T. E. (2009). Measuring and changing a “culture of bullying.”.
School Psychology Review, 38(3), 356-361.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133-148
Carbo, J., & Hughes, A. (2010). Workplace bullying: Developing a human rights definition from the perspective and experiences of targets. Working USA, 13(3), 387-403. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 856599033?accountid=34899
Cemaloglu, N. (2011). Primary principals’ leadership styles, school organizational health and workplace bullying. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 495-512. doi:
Cooper, D. C., Thayer, J. F., & Waldstein, S. R. (2014). Coping with racism: The impact of prayer on cardiovascular reactivity and post-stress recovery in african american women. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 47(2), 218-30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9540-4
Cranshaw, L. (2009). Workplace bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distraction by a thousand definitions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61, 263-267. doi: 10.1037/a0016590.
Crothers, L. M., Lipinski, J., & Minutolo. (2009). Cliques, rumors, and gossip by the water cooler: Female bullying in the workplace. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12, 97-110. doi: 10.1080/10887150902886423
Darensbourg, A., Perez, E., & Blake, J. (2010). Overrepresentation of African American males in
exclusionary discipline: The role of school-based mental health professionals in
dismantling the school to prison pipeline. Journal of African American Males in
Education, 1(3), 196-211.
Einarsen, S,. Höel, H., Zaph, D., & Cooper, C. (2011). Bullying and Harassment in the
Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice (2nd Ed). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: who does what, when
and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health
Education Research, 20(1), 81-91.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/Ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullyingand racism in the U.S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 238-456.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 7, 81-83.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311-322.
Leff, S.S., Kupersmidt, J.B., Patterson, C.J., & Power, T.J. (1999). Factors influencing teacher
identification of peer bullies and victims. School Psychology Review, 28, 505-517.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-184.
Litwiller, B. J., & Brausch, A. M. (2013). Cyber bullying and physical bullying in adolescent suicide: the role of violent behavior and substance use. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(5), 675-684.
McCabe, S. (2012). D.C. principal accused in parking lot beat-down. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d.c.-principal-accused-in-parking-lot-beat-down/article/2513569
Murphy, S. V. (2013). Perceptions of bullying in the workplace: A phenomenological study. (Doctoral research). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI Number: 3570580)
Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/N-N-2003A.pdf
Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2003). Anti-Bullying advocacy: An unrealized EA opportunity. Journal of Employee Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.workplace bullying.org/multi/pdf/N-N-2003B.pdf
Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2009). The Bully at Work (2nd ed.). Naperville, Ill: Sourcebooks Inc.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012 Indicator 11: Bullying at School and Cyber-Bullying Anywhere. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?Pubid=2012314
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Jama, 285(16), 2094-2100.
Ocel, H., & Aydin, O. (2012). Workplace bullying and turnover intention: The moderating role of belief in a just world. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 248-258.
O’Donnell, S., Macintosh, J., & Wuest, J. (2010). A theoretical understanding of sickness
absence among women who have experienced workplace bullying. Health Policy & Services, 20, 439-452.
Olewus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we know and What We Can Do. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Parsons, L. (2005). Bullied teacher, bullied student: How to recognize the bullying culture in
your school and what to do about it. Pembroke Publishers Limited.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating, and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10227/283/salin_HR_2003.pdf?sequence
Salin, D., & Höel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235-251. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 02683941311321187
Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and
the workplace: are there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 175-188.
Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural
elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of
Health Behaviors, 26(4), 266-277.
Workplace Bullying Institute. (2014). 2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey. Retrieved from http://www.workplacebullying/wbresearch/2014-wbi-national-survey/
Walton, G. (2004). Bullying and homophobia in Canadian schools: The politics of policies,
programs, and educational leadership. Journal of gay & lesbian issues in education, 1(4),
23-36.
Wiggins, O. (2014). School board settles 2nd discrimination case involving Largo High School
principal. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-board-settles-discrimination-
case-involving-largo-high-school-principal/2014/09/16/418ac74e-3dcd-11e4-b0ea-
8141703bbf6f_story.html
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Descriptive Statistics
Q1: There is Workplace Bullying among Adults at my School.
Q2: My school has a climate of hostility among coworkers.
Q3: The administrators or leaders at my school are hostile in management practices.
Q4: My school is considered a low performing school (based on test scores).
Q5: The staff feels pressure to improve test scores
Q6: There is student bullying at my school
Q7: The staff is aware of the student bullying at my school.
Q8: The staff has a strategy to address student bullying at my school.
Q9: At my school, the adult staff members model positive conflict management and civility to students by behaving appropriately to one another.
Q10: Students seek out staff members for help regarding student bullying.
Appendix B
Correlations
RQ1:
|
Correlations |
|||
|
There is workplace bullying among adults at my school. |
There is student bullying at my school. |
||
| There is workplace bullying among adults at my school. | Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.334** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
129 |
128 |
|
| There is student bullying at my school. | Pearson Correlation |
.334** |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
128 |
128 |
|
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
RQ2:
|
Correlations |
|||
|
The administrators or leaders at my school are hostile in their management practices. |
There is student bullying at my school. |
||
| The administrators or leaders at my school are hostile in their management practices. | Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.288** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.001 |
||
| N |
129 |
128 |
|
| There is student bullying at my school. | Pearson Correlation |
.288** |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.001 |
||
| N |
128 |
128 |
|
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
RQ3:
|
Correlations |
|||
|
The staff feels pressure to improve test scores. |
There is student bullying at my school. |
||
| The staff feels pressure to improve test scores. | Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.380** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
128 |
127 |
|
| There is student bullying at my school. | Pearson Correlation |
.380** |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
127 |
128 |
|
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
RQ4:
|
Correlations |
|||
|
The staff is aware of the student bullying at my school. |
There is student bullying at my school. |
||
| The staff is aware of the student bullying at my school. | Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.855** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
129 |
128 |
|
| There is student bullying at my school. | Pearson Correlation |
.855** |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
128 |
128 |
|
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
