University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING i

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING
WITHIN CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

By

Sue Jin Kim

_________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Sue Jin Kim
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING ii

DEDICATION
To my dad. We did it. And, to all beings. I am because of you.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Table of Contents iii

Abstract vi

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 8
Limitations and Delimitations 9
Definition of Terms 10
Organization of the Study 11

Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
School Climate 12
Classroom Climate 13
Classroom Management 14
Teacher Education and Classroom Management 16
Bullying: Definitions and Prevalence 17
Characteristics of Bullies and Victims 18
Bullying and the Role of the Family 19
Effects of Bullying Behavior 21
Teachers as Bullies 22
Classroom Management and Bullying 23
Principal Perceptions of Bullying 24
Teacher Perceptions of Bullying 25
Bullying Prevention 26
Anti-Bullying Campaigns and Outcomes 27
Positive Behavior Intervention and Support 29
Theoretical Framework 30
Social Learning Theory 30
Modeling the Use of Power in the Classroom 32
Heuristics and Cognitive Bias 33
Heuristics and Leadership 34
Critical Pedagogy 34
Research Questions 36
Summary 36

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING iv

Chapter 3: Methodology 38
Purpose of the Study 38
Research Questions 38
Qualitative Research 39
Sample and Population 41
Instrumentation 42
Validity Threats 43
Conceptual Framework 44
Data Collection 45
Data Analysis 45
Ethical Considerations 46
Summary 46

Chapter 4: Results 48
Purpose of the Study 48
Research Questions 48
Scope of Study and Participant Background 49
Data Collection 50
Findings 51
Research Question 1 51
Defining Bullying 52
Why Bullying Occurs 52
Teacher to Student Bullying 53
Why Teacher to Student Bullying Occurs 54
Ubiquity 55
Research Question 2 57
Token Systems 58
Positivity and Relationship Building 59
Social Context 61
Planning 62
Modeling 63
Research Question 3 66
Preventive Actions 67
Responsive Actions 70
Research Question 4 75
Discussion 76
Pervasiveness 76
Definitions and Explanations 77
Teacher Awareness and Education 79
Modeling 81
Prevention and Response 82
Summary 84

Chapter 5: Conclusions 85
Purpose of the Study 85
Research Questions 85
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING v

Summary of Findings 86
Conclusion 87
Implications for Practice 88
Foster a Culture of Self-Accountability, Humility, Reflection 88
Critical Teacher Education 88
Be the Change 89
Responsive Support 90
Limitations 91
Recommendations for Future Study 91

References 93

Appendix 103
Interview Protocol 103

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING vi

ABSTRACT
This qualitative study applied social learning theory to explore the phenomenon of teacher to
student bullying. The study sought to understand teacher to student bullying from the
perspective of six elementary school principals from one mid-sized school district in Southern
California, specifically within the classroom management strategies they most commonly
espouse. Additionally, the study aimed to identify support provided by principals to teachers
who bullied students as well as victims of teacher to student bullying. Patterns based on
responses were organized into emergent themes and charted. Despite evidence that teacher to
student bullying is a pervasive problem in education, few principals purported it was an existing
issue at their schools; however, the sensitivity of the topic matter did not prevent them from
conceding it frequently occurs in schools, but under the radar of most people. The respondents
provided divergent definitions of bullying based on intentionality and frequency, which were the
most referenced caveats. However, all alluded to bullying as the assertion or reassertion of
power, hierarchy, or dominance. The most frequently espoused classroom management rule of
thumb fell within the category of positivity, which included positive reinforcement and feedback,
and maintaining positive demeanor when engaging with students, even when taking disciplinary
action. The least referenced strategy was modeling expected behavior, which principals
described as teachers expecting of themselves what they expected of students. The findings
suggest principals require additional support with teacher to student bullying, particularly
regarding preventive and responsive action. The majority of principals cited general “high
expectations” as their primary preventive measure, implicitly suggesting consequences for
bullying behavior. However, such data leads to questions about whether or not couching
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING vii

expectations for appropriate and inappropriate conduct are effectual preventive measures. The
study also found responsive support was not being provided to students after victimization. Three
of the principals mentioned steps were taken after official complaints were submitted, such as
interviewing students and moving students into different classrooms at the request of parents.
No further support for victims of teacher to student bullying were found in this study.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction
School bullying is the most common form of victimization experienced by school-aged
children today and a topic of great concern to administrators, educators, and the general public
(Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2010). It gained increased attention over the past
three decades, beginning with the work of Olweus in the early 70s and was further analyzed
through various epidemiological, critical, and socio-cultural lenses. The topic became
particularly poignant, in effect, through popular media, as coverage of fatal cases of violence
related to bullying entered the public consciousness. A report investigating characteristics of
students involved in school shootings by the US Secret Service and the US Department of
Education (2004), found that three-quarters of attackers involved in 37 different school shootings
felt “persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked, or injured by others prior to the incident” (p. 21),
suggesting a great responsibility for researchers and practitioners in the field to fully understand
this phenomenon.
While pioneering research on school bullying continues, few studies have investigated
teacher to student bullying. Existing research on bullying at the hands of teachers is both
pervasive and understated (McEvoy, 2005; Twemlow et al., 2006; Whitted & Dupper, 2008).
Compelling empirical research on school climate indicates that students who attend schools with
positive and sustained school climates are more likely to have greater self-esteem, higher
academic achievement, and exhibit less violent behavior (Hyman & Snook, 2001, Cohen,
Pickeral, & McCloskey, 2009). According to Ratcliff et al. (2011), “Classrooms are complex
societies. Teachers are the leaders of these societies and the way they exercise their leadership
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 2

abilities greatly affects the interactions that take place between teachers and students as well as
interactions between the students themselves” (p. 16). As leaders, teachers play a significant role
in determining the climate and conditions of their classroom environments, modeling and
reinforcing desirable, or inadvertently, undesirable behaviors, and explicitly operationalizing
classroom expectations. Ultimately, this litany of classroom management behaviors shapes
student conceptions of authority, and subsequently, their conduct (Bandura, 1971; McCroskey &
Richmond, 1983). The long-term implications of such influence and authority are profound.
When the ubiquity of teacher to student bullying is juxtaposed with theories on social
learning and behavior emulation, the modeling of bullying behavior by teachers may be
undermining efforts by school leadership to eradicate bullying in schools. This study aims to
understand teacher to student bullying in schools from the vantage point of school leadership
through an analysis of their perspectives on bullying in schools and an investigation of the
classroom management practices they espouse.

Background of the Problem
Research on aggression and violence in schools, particularly in the area of bullying, has
grown significantly over the past 30 years (Smith, 2011). Extensive research has been conducted
on peer bullying and its deleterious effects on both the victim and bully (Zerillo, 2011). Bullying
is characterized as repeated oppressive behavior with the intent to harm or intimidate another
person into submission, typically through the exertion of power over a weaker victim (Nansel et
al, 2001; Olweus, 1993). It manifests in the form of verbal, physical, psychological, or relational
abuse, and can result in aggressors and recipients internalizing symptoms such as anxiety,
depression, diminished self-esteem, social withdrawal and suicidal ideation. Furthermore,
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 3

bullying can lead to difficulties forming and maintaining social relationships, increased truancy,
and poor academic performance (Chappell et al., 2006; Olweus, 1993). However, the
psychosocial ramifications of bullying are not limited to aggressors and victims. Observers also
demonstrate higher levels of anxiety and withdrawal behaviors, making negative attributions
based on perceived power relations within different environments (Sablynski, 2002). As a result,
bullying is not only damaging to the individuals directly involved, but also has adverse and
destructive consequences to other members of a school’s community.
Bullying manifests in the presence of an existing power imbalance, like the environment
typically found in the traditional classroom. This often renders victims defenseless in combating
such behaviors. A study by McEvoy (2005), which collected information from 236 public and
parochial high school and college students, revealed the pervasiveness of the problem. Of the
respondents, 93% identified teachers who bullied students in their schools, with 47% identifying
3 or more teachers. Similarly, in a survey study of 50 alternative education students, 86%
reported physical maltreatment, and 88% reported psychological maltreatment, both by an adult
in the school. Of the students in this study, more than 64% indicated that their worst school
experience involved maltreatment by an adult, suggesting students perceived bullying by the
adult as more distressing than bullying by a peer. (Whitted & Dupper, 2008).
Responses by teachers further corroborate student reports of bullying in school. In a
survey-based study of 116 elementary school teachers from seven urban elementary schools,
Twemlow et al. (2006) found 32% of teachers reported knowing one or more teachers who
bullied students in the past year. Furthermore, 45% of the teachers indicated that they
themselves had bullied a student. While there remains little research that specifically addresses
the consequences of teacher to student bullying, research on bullying suggests significant
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 4

deleterious consequences on the mental and physical health of both the bully and the victim,
potentially resulting in greater violence, and in extreme cases, suicide (Olweus, 1993).
Teachers play a decisive role in shaping the students’ experiences in the classroom
(Zerillo & Osterman, 2011), potentially promoting or suppressing both pro-social and anti-social
behavior in the classroom. Crane and Ballif (1973) found adults modeling responses to moral
situations in fifth grade classrooms as highly effective in modifying social behavior. In a study
conducted by Roland and Galloway (2002) on the impact of classroom management and
bullying, it was discovered that classroom management correlated with bullying among students,
and that the social structure of the class determined whether or not bullying occurred at all. A
similar conclusion was drawn in a study conducted in Japan where bullying was related back to
the social environment of the class (Kikkawa, 1987). These findings suggest that teacher
leadership and management practices significantly impact classroom climate and the frequency
of aggressive behavior by students. Teachers who are helpful and show affection greatly affect
morale and decrease incidences of bullying in their classrooms.

Statement of the Problem
Classroom management is generally defined as all of the actions taken by the teacher to
establish order and structure, while eliciting cooperative behavior from students (Stough, 2001).
Research on pre-service teacher education in the area of classroom management reveals its
profound absence in teacher education programs in the United States and other countries
(Stough, 2006; Wubbels, 2011). Stough (2006) revealed only 30% of teacher education programs
offered a course that referred to classroom management. The relative insignificance of
classroom management training was also evident in the teacher education programs of other
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 5

countries including Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, suggesting
little time and education is provided to teachers in building relationships with students or
cultivating positive learning environments through management practices.
In the absence of classroom management education, new teachers often rely on strategies
observed or espoused by mentors in their immediate surroundings. According to Armstrong
(1976), pre-service teachers frequently attempt to emulate classroom management strategies
exercised by their mentor teachers, who have considerable dyadic influence. Mentor teachers
favor certain practices over others for teachers in training. These heuristics, or “rules of thumb,”
are then promulgated to and between teachers, influencing classroom management practices.
However, folk wisdom generated and promoted by teachers, may not prove effective in the
contemporary classroom (Clement, 2010). Such didactic positions include, “starting out mean”
or “not smiling before Christmas.” Taken together, observations of master teachers and
exposure to archetypical ideologies and attitudes related to management influence the
construction of teachers’ leadership styles, sometimes to the detriment of the students in their
classrooms. An investigation into the nature of such heuristics, as well as the manner in which
they promote or repress maladaptive behaviors and social structures in classrooms, is a necessary
first step to understanding and mitigating teacher to student bullying.

Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study explored teacher to student bullying from the perspective of school
leadership, specifically within the classroom management strategies they most commonly
espouse. Since principalship is influential in the construction of school climate and teacher
praxis, understanding principals’ impressions of teacher to student bullying and effective
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 6

classroom management is especially important. The findings offer insight into how school
leaders define and address teacher to student bullying, juxtaposing that with the classroom
management practices they espouse, and shed light on how school leaders cultivate climates that
foster or inhibit bullying behavior at their schools.
The primary purpose of the present research was to identify: (a) how elementary school
principals define teacher to student bullying; (b) common classroom management heuristics
favored by elementary school principals; (c) strategies used by elementary school principals to
address teacher to student bullying; and (d) strategies used by elementary school principals to
support students who are victims of teacher to student bullying.
Background information about respondents (i.e. institutional information, education level,
years of teaching experience, etc.) and their thoughts about the prevalence of bullying, both
teacher to student and student to student at their schools, was collected and examined. The
collection of background information allowed for the identification of external variables. Semi-
structured interviews were performed to allow for interviewer flexibility in the extraction of rich,
descriptive data from participants. The rationale for pursuing qualitative data stems from the
researcher’s intent to clearly represent meanings and conceptions related to the use of power and
its modeling in the classroom.

Research Questions
The following four questions were investigated in this study:
1. How do elementary school principals define teacher to student bullying?
2. What common classroom management heuristics do elementary school principals
espouse?
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 7

a. Of these, which constitute teacher to student bullying?
3. What do elementary school principals do to assist teachers who engage in teacher to
student bullying?
4. What strategies do elementary school principals use to help students who are the victims
of teacher bullying?
The theoretical framework for this study is grounded in social cognitive learning theory, a
perspective that largely focuses on learning as dialectic between the individual and the
environment (Bandura, 1971).
Man’s capacity to learn by observation enables him to acquire large, integrated units of
behavior by example, without having to build up the patterns gradually by tedious trial
and error. Similarly, emotional responses can be developed observationally by
witnessing the affective reactions of others undergoing painful or pleasurable
experiences. (Bandura, 1971, p. 2)
Bandura suggests learning is interactive and derives from both explicit and implicit guidance and
reinforcement from the environment. Modeling desired behaviors in the classroom is therefore a
significant instrument for behavior modification and reinforcement. Consequently, teachers that
model undesirable behaviors, such as the abuse of power through aggressive or punitive
management practices may implicitly teach students to replicate such behaviors when presented
with greater social status, influence, or power. Once recognizing the significant role teachers
play as socializing agents (Bandura, 1971; McCroskey & Richmond, 1983), it proceeds that their
relative use of power in the classroom can potentially define or redefine the way in which
students perceive power, its application as a tool for exploitation, use and misuse.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 8

John Dewey’s (1916) evaluation of education as a social function, which fosters,
nurtures, and cultivates through its processes, provides a macro lens for theoretical analyses. He
asserts, “A school’s environment, its conditions, and its continuity, have the potential to promote
or hinder, stimulate or inhibit, the characteristic activities of a living being” (p. 11). As such, the
continuity of leadership from the classroom level to the school site level operates within the
larger social and political structures, further shaping conceptions of institutionalized authority.
An analysis of that which undergirds leadership behaviors involves an analysis of
ideology, or the system of ideas and ideals that form the basis of theories or practices. Slovenian
Marxist philosopher and cultural critic, Slavoj Zizek (1989), says:
The very concept of ideology implies a kind of basic, constitutive naïveté: the
misrecognition of its own presuppositions, of its own effective conditions, a distance, a
divergence between so-called social reality and our distorted representation, our false
consciousness of it. That is why a ‘naïve consciousness’ can be submitted to a critical-
ideological procedure.

Zizek proposes that ideology blinds us to inherent contradictions within our adopted beliefs and
subsequent behaviors. This disconnect necessitates an examination of endorsed knowledge and
convictions in contrast with actual behaviors; the nexus from which ideologies emerge and
persist. As such, this study attempts to identify the underlying ideologies that influence the
management of classrooms and leadership of the schools.

Significance of the Study
The central aim of this analysis is to contribute to the larger body of literature on bullying
in schools by informing practitioners, school administrators, and those in the academic
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 9

community, of how conceptions of power and aggression are implicitly and explicitly
transmitted through the management practices of teachers. Through an analysis of common
classroom management heuristics utilized by elementary school principals, as well as
perspectives on teacher to student bullying in educational settings, the phenomenon can be more
completely understood. Furthermore, findings aim to advance the understanding of why bullying
behavior persists in schools and student behavior. Understanding the origins of aggressive
behavior exhibited by teachers and the manners in which bullying are reinforced and modeled in
classrooms can empower school officials to become more cognizant of their own communicative
practices while expanding their conceptions of bullying as an offense not limited to students, but
available to all who have and preserve power in any social context.

Limitations and Delimitations
Although the information gathered in this study holds important implications for teachers
and administrators, there are limitations and delimitations to be considered. First, the data for
this qualitative study was gathered through semi-formal interviews of school leadership. The
researcher assumed all participants reported accurate and honest information in their interviews.
Second, the sensitive nature of the study presents a limitation, as participants may have been
hesitant to communicate challenges present at their school site. Divulging information on the
prevalence of bullying at their school may have been perceived as symptomatic of ineffective
leadership; therefore, the researcher’s role and presence may have affected the responses
provided. Third, the conclusions in the study are predicated on the idea that conceptions of
power and classroom management heuristics are reflective of actual management practices being
used in the school. In the absence of cumulative classroom observations accounting for specific
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 10

examples of teachers bullying students, the data are limited to principal interviews. Finally, the
study gathers qualitative data drawn from leaders at 6 elementary schools under one school
district. As such, the data collected are only representative of the study population and the
results may not apply to other academic or educational settings.
Intentionality as an aspect of understanding and accounting for bullying behavior also
presented a challenge. Aggressive behavior implies malicious intent or the desire to harm. With
regard to teacher to student bullying behavior, the intent may not be to harm a student; but rather,
to produce behaviors which are cooperative and will increase student achievement. On the
contrary, intent may not explicitly exist, as teachers or school leaders could lack cognizance of
how their behavior may impact students or the class climate. This presumed awareness on the
part of the perpetrator is generally consistent with the categorization of aggressive behavior. For
the purposes of this study, behaviors were examined apart from the “social roles” (i.e. authority)
that legitimize them to see if they might qualify as bullying in isolation.

Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following key terms have been explicated to guide the
conversation.
Bullying is defined as reoccurring derisive conduct, usually indicative of a power
differential that “threatens, harms, humiliates, induces fear, or causes an individual substantial
emotional distress and serves no legitimate academic or ethical purpose” (McEvoy, pg. 1, 2005).
A bullying teacher demonstrates repeated patterns of conduct that are threatening,
harmful, humiliating, fear-inducing, or emotionally stressful to students, absent of legitimate
academic purpose (Zerillo, 2010).
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 11

Heuristics refer to experience-based techniques for problem solving, or rules of thumb,
which offer potentially anecdotal solutions (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011).
Classroom management is defined as the set of actions teachers take to achieve and
maintain order in classrooms (Doyle, 1985; Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011; Emmer & Stough,
2001; Hyman et al., 1997).
Power is typically defined as an individual’s potential to affect an individual or a group’s
behavior (McCroskey& Richmond, 1983).

Organization of the Study
In this study, chapter 1 presents an introduction to the topic of teacher bullying and
background information on the problem being investigated, the theoretical framework for the
study, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. Chapter 2 presents a review of the
literature on social-cognitive learning theory, bullying in schools, classroom management, and
teacher bullying. In chapter 3, the researcher presents an in-depth description of the
methodology, research design, population, and instruments used for data collection, and the
analytical framework. Chapter 4 details the most pertinent information drawn from the data
including reflections by the researcher. And finally chapter 5 will summarize the findings from
the study as well as its implications for classroom management practices.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

School Climate
The literature is replete with research identifying the significance of school climate with
respect to prominence of bullying behavior. ‘School climate,’ used generally, describes the
ethos, or attitude of an academic organization (Gruenert, 2008). According to Cohen et al.
(2009), school climate is “the quality and character of school life and encapsulates people’s
experiences as reflections of the norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and
learning practices, and organizational structures” (p. 180). Specifically, it is comprised of the
concerns, collective moods, norms, interpersonal interactions, perceptions of safety, and
accountability systems that make up the organization and ultimately influence children’s
cognitive, social, and psychological development (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Hyman
& Snook, 2000; Gruenert, 2008). Brookover and colleagues (1978) claim the importance of
school climate, noting, “We believe that the differences in school climate explain much of the
difference in academic achievement between schools that is normally attributed to composition”
(p.303).
A positive school climate includes a safe and orderly environment where students and
teachers alike are, and believe themselves to be, physically and psychologically safe from harm
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). This climate imparts a program of self-discipline and
responsibility to students, provides appropriate consequences for violations of rules and
procedures, and promotes respect, collegiality, and professionalism between staff members.
Empirical research shows that students who attend schools with positive and sustained school
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 13

climates are more likely to have greater self-esteem, higher academic achievement, and exhibit
less violent behavior (Hyman & Snook, 2001, Cohen, Pickeral, & McCloskey, 2009).
The organizational literature recognizes leadership as an essential component in
determining a school’s climate and productivity (Cohen et al., 2009; Chelte, Hess, Fanelli, &
Ferris, 1989; Evans, 1968). Studies suggest that the behaviors and actions of principals have a
direct impact on the quality of school climate (City et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2005). Furthermore,
principal leadership can impact the social-emotional, professional, instructional, physical, and
environmental dimensions present in a school (Cohen et al., 2009).
Research on effective principal leadership suggests that principals should focus primarily
on practices related to instruction. Weller, Buttery, and Bland (1994) characterize effective
principal leadership as emphasizing student achievement and curriculum, providing a positive
instructional environment, evaluating student performance, supporting teachers by developing
instructional improvement plans, and facilitating communication with stakeholders. Hallinger
and Murphy (1986) also suggest that effective principal leadership is focused on the
development of curriculum and instruction rather than on management and structure.

Classroom Climate
Classroom climate is a subset of school climate and refers to the classroom management
techniques and strategies exercised by the teacher to cultivate a safe environment conducive to
learning. Flaunders (1970) stressed, “teaching behavior is the most potent, single, controllable
factor that can alter learning opportunities in the classroom” (p.13). Freire (1998) advocated for
classroom climates that reciprocally honor the needs, interests, concerns, and perspectives of
both students and teachers, noting, “The climate of respect that is born of just, serious, humble,
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 14

and generous relationships, in which both the authority of the teacher and the freedom of the
students are ethically grounded, is what converts pedagogical space into authentic educational
experience” (p. 86).
Ratcliff et al. (2011) examined two distinct classroom types: those labeled “strong” and
those “in need of improvement.” The teachers characterized as strong interacted more frequently
with students, asked more questions, and were generally more engaging than those categorized
as needing improvement. Furthermore, greater instances of misbehavior were observed in
classrooms with those teachers in need of improvement. These teachers used punitive techniques
more frequently when addressing misbehavior, influencing behaviors using the threat of
punishment.

Classroom Management
Effective classroom management is generally accepted as an essential feature in
successful learning environments, as disorder is likely to disrupt the learning process (Marzano,
Marzano & Pickering, 2003). Wang, Hartel, and Walberg’s (1994) meta-analysis included
surveys from experts who ranked classroom management first in a list of twenty-eight categories
that impact learning. Other countries also recognize the influence of classroom management on
teaching and learning. Lord Elton’s report on discipline in schools in Great Britain purports that
a “teacher’s group management skills are probably the single most important factor in achieving
good standards of classroom behavior” (1989, pg. 70). Research also suggests that problems
with discipline strongly correlate with teacher burnout and serve as a primary concern for
beginning teachers (Friedman, 2006; Jones, 2006; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). In relation to
teacher job satisfaction, classroom management is paramount.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 15

Classroom management is defined as the set of actions teachers take to achieve and
maintain order in classrooms (Doyle, 1985; Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011; Emmer & Stough,
2001; Hyman et al., 1997). The definition offered by the National Society for the Study of
Education Yearbook follows: “The provisions and procedures necessary to establish and
maintain an environment in which instruction and learning can occur” (p. xii). Additionally, it is
considered a component of the larger school climate as it refers to the sum of the strategies used
and philosophies held by teachers to maintain behavior that is conducive to learning (Hyman &
Snook, 2001). Effective classroom management, therefore, facilitates and enhances the learning
environment by motivating, empowering, and fostering success (Pasi, 2001).
Classroom management techniques afford a broad array of positive and negative
strategies capable of modifying student behavior. A quantitative study conducted by Wilson
(2006), examined self-reported positive and negative classroom management strategies used by
K-8 teachers in urban, Title I schools, or schools with a significant disadvantaged population
making them eligible for federal funding. The findings suggest that both primary and
intermediate teachers used a combination of positive strategies (i.e. praise, with-it-ness,
proximity, and token systems) and negative strategies (i.e. public ridicule, separation, yelling or
shouting, sarcasm, and name calling) to modify student behavior in the classroom. The study
also suggests that the teacher’s education level impacted the degree to which negative strategies
were employed, as un-credentialed teachers reported the use of negative strategies more
frequently.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 16

Teacher Education and Classroom Management
Although research findings suggest classroom management to be critical for ensuring
teacher quality and securing student outcomes, the topic is largely underrepresented in teacher
education programs (Jones, 2006; LePage et al., 2005; Stough, 2006; Cooper & Alvarado, 2006).
Stough’s (2006) meta-analysis demonstrates the absence of education for teachers explicitly
addressing ‘classroom management.’ Only 30% of the teacher education programs examined
offered courses whose title referenced classroom management. The disconnect between the
importance of classroom management skills and its relative absence in teacher education
programs is further corroborated in an Education Week (2004) article, where 63% of principals
stated that classroom management was a skill that needed to be taught to new teachers,
suggesting they did not acquire these skills within their teacher education programs.
In the absence of formal teacher education on classroom management, pre-service
teachers are more likely to emulate management behaviors of mentor teachers who notably hold
considerable influence in the dyadic relationship (Armstrong, 1976). Pelligrino (2010) found that
pre-services teachers drew heavily from their observations and partnership with mentor teachers
who influenced their authoritative practices in the classroom. Using Weber’s three basic origins
of authority: traditional authority, legal/rational authority, and charismatic authority (Weber,
1947), Pelligrino asserts that charismatic authority, which relies heavily on the personal
qualifications of the teacher to establish authority over followers, and traditional authority, which
involves power derived from obligation and absolutism, were not effective in managing and
sustaining positive student behavior. Legal or rational authority, which establishes and exercises
democratic principles as the foundation for classroom operations, was found to be the most
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 17

effective. The types of authority exercised by teachers, therefore, affect the manner in which
students perceive and navigate hierarchical relationships (Pelligrino, 2010).

Bullying: Definitions and Prevalence
Over the past 30 years, attention to school bullying in the United States has increased
significantly, largely due to media attention on school violence. A report by the US Secret
Service (2000) on the prevention of targeted violence examined the characteristics of thirty seven
students involved in school shootings. They found that two out of three shootings involved
assailants who were persecuted, bullied, threatened, or attacked by others prior to the incident;
according to the report, “the experience of bullying appeared to play a major role in motivating
the attack at the school” (p. 7).
Bullying is defined as reoccurring derisive conduct, usually indicative of a power
differential that “threatens, harms, humiliates, induces fear, or causes students substantial
emotional distress and serves no legitimate academic or ethical purpose” (McEvoy, pg. 1, 2005;
Olweus, 2013). Derisive conduct includes the threat or actual infliction of injury perpetrated by
one person upon another through words, physical gestures, exclusion or ostracism, or physical
harm (Dake, Price, Telljohann, 2003). Such provocations are generally associated with an
existing asymmetric physical or mental power relationship.
Olweus (2013) classifies bullying behavior using three criteria: 1) intentionality, 2) some
repetitiveness, and 3) an imbalance of power. The concept of intentionality implies an
aggressor’s intent to harm or inflict injury upon another. It is debated, whether or not intent
should be included in the classification of bullying behavior due to the difficulty of identifying
intent, or even an aggressor’s cognizance of her or his own behavior. Consequently, Olweus
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 18

suggests intentionality should be coupled with the sentiments of victims that view the behaviors
as “unwanted” (Olweus, 2013). Repetitiveness is used as a means for determining intentionality;
however, the author shows recourse by stating he “never thought of [repetitiveness] as an
absolutely necessary criterion” (p. 757). Finally, bullying necessitates the existence of a power
imbalance in favor of the perpetrator. This perceived power imbalance by the target could be
physical (e.g., shoving), social (e.g., rumor spreading), verbal (e.g., name-calling), or cyber (e.g.
name calling through text messaging), and used as a means of coercing or subjugating victims
into submission.
Bullying is a common experience for many young people. Nansel and colleagues (2001)
studied the prevalence of bullying in schools in the United States, surveying 15,686 students
enrolled in public and private schools. They found that 29.9% of students in grades 6 through 10
reported moderate to frequent involvement with bullying at school: 13% as bullies, 10.6% as
victims, and 6.3% as bully-victims. The University of Virginia’s Youth Violence Project (2004)
conducted a survey of 2,416 students in grades three through five in 16 suburban schools in
central Virginia. They found that approximately 15% students reported being bullied at least
once a week. Prevalence rates collected by Bradshaw et al. (2007), who conducted a public
school survey of 15,185 students in 75 elementary schools, 20 middle and 14 high schools, found
that 29.7% of students reported being victim to bullying: 33.7% in elementary school; 32.7% in
middle school; and 22.7% in high school.

Characteristics of Bullies and Victims
There exists little consonance in the literature on the physical characteristics of students
involved in bullying behaviors. Olweus (1978) found insignificant relationships between victims
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 19

and physical characteristics, such as obesity, personal hygiene, facial expression, posture, dress,
or physical disabilities (i.e. sight, hearing, or speech). His research suggested the only
substantial variable was the physical size of the student. Students that were smaller or weaker
than the aggressor were more likely to be victimized. Conversely, Lowenstein (1978) found that
size was not a significant variable; rather, the bullied and non-bullied child can be distinguished
based on physical and personal characteristics. Lowenstein’s findings suggest victims were less
attractive and had more atypical mannerisms or physical disabilities than non-victims. Other
correspondences were found in the literature between bullying and personal characteristics.
Farrington and Baldry (2010) demonstrate that children who are more hyperactive, impulsive, or
exhibit less signs of empathy are more likely to become bullies. Students who bully were also
found to have poorer self-regulation of their emotions (Garner & Hinton, 2010). Academic
achievement was also found to be lower in students that displayed all forms of bullying behavior
(Mynard & Joseph, 1996; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000). Mynard and Joseph (1996)
examined associations between bully-victim problems and the personality dimensions of 179
children ranging in age from 8 to 13 years old. No significant differences were attributed to
gender in relation to bullying or victimization. Pupils with higher scores on the “Bullying
Behavior Scale” were found to be associated with lower scores on scholastic competence, social
acceptance, behavioral conduct, and overall self-worth; however, no associations were made
with athletic competence or physical appearance. A national study by Luukkonen et al. (2010)
found that bullying is more recurrent among boys than girls, with one in five boys being bullied
in school compared to one in ten girls. Overall, the literature suggests that boys are more likely
than girls to be involved in physical bullying, while boys and girls are equally involved in verbal
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 20

bullying (Olweus, 1994; Nansel et al., 2001; Sourander & Helstela, 2000; Baldry & Farrington,
2000; Klomek et al. 2008).

Bullying and the Role of the Family
Early socialization is likely to play a role, but is not the determining factor in bullying
behavior. Sourander and Helstela (2000) conducted a longitudinal study, which examined the
factors associated with bullying and victimization and found that family factors such as a
parental education level, socioeconomic status, and family composition, were not correlated with
bullying or victimization. Strong correlations were found with students that were referred to
psychosocial services. Moreover, of the referred students, one third had bullied and the same
proportion had been victimized, indicating cyclicality. On the contrary, Wolke et al., (2001),
found that children of lower socioeconomic status were more likely than non-low socioeconomic
students to be bullied or victimized. Associations between other demographic variables and
bullying were also found in a study by Bond et al., (2001), which suggested that victimized
children were more likely to come from separated or divorced families.
Parental style also plays a role in the socialization of children that are bullied or
victimized. Baldry and Farrington (2000) researched the personal characteristics and parenting
styles of bullies and delinquents. Using a self-report questionnaire of 113 girls and 125 boys,
ages 11 through 14, they found students identified as bullies were 1.65 times more likely to come
from homes with authoritarian parental styles compared to participatory styles. Baumrind (1996)
describes the differences between passive, authoritative, and authoritarian parenting. Passive
parenting is characterized as exacting few limits with lax or arbitrary discipline with children
having excessive freedom. Authoritative parenting is characterized by reasonable discipline that
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 21

is supportive of change with children being treated with dignity and love. Authoritarian
parenting is characterized by rigid rules and power-based discipline with children having little
autonomy and experiencing conditional love. Moreover, bullies were more likely than non-
bullies to have parents who used punitive forms of discipline more often. Other family variables
appear to contribute to bullying behaviors in children. Farrington and Baldry (2010) found that
children of parents convicted of a crime were more likely to bully. Furthermore, children who
witness domestic violence between parents are also more likely to bully (Bowes et al., 2009).

Effects of Bullying Behavior
While the bulk of the literature examines the effects of bullying on mental health,
bullying behavior and victimization are found to have long-lasting physical effects on those
involved. In a study of 3,000 students conducted in London, victimized children reported more
challenges than non-victimized children with sleep, bed-wetting, headaches, and stomachaches
(Williams, Chambers, Logan, & Robinson, 1996). Wolke (2001) found that victims had
significantly more health problems than bullies, such as sore throats, colds and coughs, breathing
problems, nausea, and poor appetites.
Bullying behavior and victimization have shown long-lasting effects on psychosocial
health as well (Bond et al., 2001; Olweus, 1996; Swearer et al., 2001, Klomek et al. 2007; Turner
et al., 2013). A history of victimization was found to predict the onset of emotional problems
such as anxiety and depression, particularly in adolescent girls. Associations were also found
between peer victimization and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among adolescents.
Exposure to all types of peer victimization was related to high risk of depression and suicide in
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 22

both genders (Klomek et al. 2008; Turner et al., 2013) as well as poorer self-esteem (Nation et
al., 2008).
Relationships have also been found between bullying, victimization, and academic
performance. Nansel et al. (2001) found that students who bullied were 1.8 times more likely to
be below average students as they were to be good students. A British study of adolescents
between the ages of 8 and 13, found that both bullies and victims demonstrated poorer scholastic
competence than noninvolved students. This relationship also held true in another study of
middle school students aged 12 to 15 by Nishina and Juvonen (2005), which found that bullied
students had lower GPAs than non-bullied students.

Teachers as Bullies
Although the destructive nature of peer-to-peer bullying in school is extensively covered
in the literature, research on teachers as perpetrators of bullying remains undeveloped. Teacher
bullying is the abuse of power aimed at forcing students into submission through intimidation,
public degradation, and improper or excessive use of consequences beyond reasonable
disciplinary procedure (McEvoy, 2005; Tremlow et al., 2006). A study by McEvoy (2005),
which collected information from 236 public and parochial high school and college students,
revealed the pervasiveness of the problem. Of the respondents, 93% identified teachers who
bullied students in their schools, with 47% identifying 3 or more teachers. In a survey study of
50 alternative education students, 86% or more students reported physical maltreatment by an
adult in the school and 88% reported psychological maltreatment by an adult in the school. Of
the students in this study, more than 64% indicated that their worst school experience involved
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 23

maltreatment by an adult, suggesting students perceived bullying by the adult as more
detrimental than bullying by a peer (Whitted & Dupper, 2008).
Responses by teachers further corroborate student reports of bullying in school. In a
survey study of 116 elementary school teachers from seven urban elementary schools, Twemlow
et al. (2006) found 32% of teachers reported knowing one or more teachers who bullied students
in the past year. Furthermore, 45% of the teachers indicated that they themselves had bullied a
student. While there remains little research that specifically addresses the consequences of
teacher to student bullying, research on bullying suggests significant deleterious consequences
on the mental and physical health of both the bully and the victim, potentially resulting in greater
violence, and in extreme cases, suicide (Olweus, 1993).
Positive and negative experiences with teachers in the classroom can have long-lasting
effects on students and their conceptions of school and institutionalized power. In a study by
Hamre and Pianta (2001) of 179 children from kindergarten to eighth grade, it was found that
one of the strongest predictors of students’ academic and social behavior was their relationship
with their kindergarten teacher. Conversely, students that experience ridicule, verbal or physical
mistreatment or other maltreatment by a teacher or school staff member can develop
psychological trauma that impedes emotional and intellectual development (Hyman et al. 1997).

Classroom Management and Bullying
Sylvester (2011) suggests that teachers may not be cognizant of their bullying behavior.
She describes four common ways teachers may unintentionally bully students: sarcasm, name-
calling, denying work, and humiliation. Furthermore, she contends that teachers may not
categorize their behavior as bullying because the underlying motivation may be to elicit a
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 24

positive response from the student. Teachers may also view their actions as an appropriate
disciplinary response, or good classroom management. The subjectivity around what constitutes
teacher bullying was examined by Osterman (2010), with results finding that teachers were
relatively ambivalent about what constitutes teacher bullying. Low accountability teachers were
found to hold beliefs about bullying practices as a means to maintain discipline and promote
learning. In the same study, teachers gave no indication of district policies or procedures
regarding teacher to student bullying.
A study of 268 Kindergarten to 8th grade teachers on positive and negative classroom
management techniques used in the classroom found that 74.6% used separation as a means of
discipline, 62% yelled or shouted, and 50.4% used sarcasm. Furthermore, relationships between
gender and the use of negative management techniques were found, as male teachers reported
using negative techniques more frequently (Wilson, 2006).
A strong relationship exists between the social structure and management of the class and
the presence of bullying (Roland & Galloway, 2002). Sullivan et al. (2004), in their study of
parental style and bullying, suggest that authoritative teaching, like authoritative parenting,
which is focused, purposeful, respectful, and simultaneously encourages self-determination and
independence, is the ideal for every classroom. Their findings also indicated authoritarian
management styles strongly correlated with the development of a bullying culture in a classroom.

Principal Perceptions of Bullying
Principals play a critical role in bullying prevention. In fact, their leadership styles and
commitment to school initiatives, in tandem with the perceptions and attitudes of teachers,
radically influence the presence of bullying in a school (Rigby, 1996). Harris and Hathorn
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 25

(2006) surveyed 59 middle school principals to gain greater insight into their perceptions of
bullying on their campuses. The researchers discovered disjointed perceptions of bullying held
by principals and students. Principals conveyed a low awareness of where bullying was taking
place on campus, and generally felt their schools were safe. Minority principals were found to
be more aware of bullying on campus compared to White principals. Based on the data,
principals considered staff training, class-discussion about bullying, increased supervision, and
punishment, as effective ways to address bullying on campus.
Despite research that suggests preventive, whole-school approaches to bullying
prevention are the most effective, such approaches are rarely implemented. In a study of 385
elementary school principals, Dake et al. (2004) found more than 20% of schools lacked any
bullying prevention programming or activities, despite principals acknowledging no barriers
regarding their implementation. Only 2 respondents perceived the extent of bullying in their
schools as worse than the extent of U.S. elementary schools in general, while 376 perceived the
extent of bullying in their schools to be less than the average. Furthermore, principals perceived
post-bullying activities, such as calling parents and increasing supervision as more effective than
preventative measures, such as bullying prevention committees or reward systems for students
who assist in the prevention of bullying. Finally, principals who had received anti-bullying
training were more likely to initiate bullying prevention programming in their schools.

Teacher Perceptions of Bullying
Teacher perceptions of bullying typically do not include verbal aggression or exclusion;
thus, leniency toward aggressive student conduct in this category is addressed less frequently. In
a study of 98 elementary school teachers in an urban Midwest University, Yoon (2004) reported
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 26

the determining factor in teacher responsiveness to bullying was the perceived seriousness of the
conflict. According to Newman and Murray (2005), physical aggression and threats of physical
violence were perceived as events that warranted intervention. After interviewing 15 teachers
from two elementary schools in California, they found a majority of the teachers (83%) did not
consider teasing as a condition that would warrant intervention.

Bullying Prevention
Progressive educators recognize the child as more than the embodied intellect, but a
person deeply influenced by physiological, moral, emotional, social, and expressive conditions
(Miller, 1990). Therefore, educational constructs should be inclusive of subject matter that
pertains to the personal development of the child. These child-centered approaches emphasize
respect for individual differences, as well as a reverence for individuals and their unique
personalities (Miller, 1990). Furthermore, social connections based on mutual respect and trust
from both peers and adults help foster positive school climates. Many schools have developed
curriculum and offered training to teachers in the education of the heart to provide students with
the social-emotional tools to avoid or approach challenges in their environments (California
Department of Education, 2003).
Several factors have been found to contribute to bullying and other anti-social behaviors
at home and in schools. These include:
• punitive environments;
• a lack of positive reinforcement or consequences;
• inconsistencies in rules and subsequent consequences;
• a lack of awareness or responsiveness to differences in individuals.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 27

The California Department of Education (2003) offers educators and school leadership four
strategies for improving classroom environments. First, teachers can integrate social skill
development into lesson plans and instructional activities. Second, teachers can foster
relationships with and between students through appreciation of cultural differences or
discussions on varying perspectives or feelings. Third, teachers can foster community through
the celebration of individuality and acceptance of difference. And finally, teachers can be
diligent about responding to undesirable behavior, attitudes, or actions.
Following their investigation of middle school principals’ perceptions of bullying, Harris
and Hathorn (2006), generated recommendations for bullying prevention, which included
principals: 1) creating strategies for students to confidentially report incidents of bullying
without fear of reprisal; 2) conducting annual surveys with students, teachers, and stakeholders
to understand how students feel about school safety; and 3) developing intervention plans that
are less punitive and more focused on character education.

Anti-Bullying Campaigns and Outcomes
Although there are no federal laws that directly address bullying, many states adopted
policies that outline the detrimental effects of bullying, the scope of conduct, and the specific
actions that qualify as bullying (US Department of Health and Human Services, website). In the
State of California, legislation related to bullying has led to partnerships with law enforcement in
the development of safe school programs and collaborations among school districts to develop
interventions to improve attendance, encourage good citizenship, and reduce school violence
(California Department of Education, Education Code).
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 28

According to the US Department of Education (1998), the most effective anti-bullying
programs are those that use a comprehensive approach to intervention. The most notable and
commonly cited programs, The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, was the first
comprehensive whole-school, anti-bullying program to be implemented and systematically
evaluated (Olweus, 1993), and many anti-bullying programs were subsequently based on this
model. The model is built on the premise that improved school environments will lead to
improved student behaviors. Consequently, adult behavior is considered most crucial to the
success of the program, as adult awareness and responses potentially promote consistency and
unity within the school environment.
Studies of bullying intervention programs have yielded non-significant outcomes
resulting from varied success rates (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005; Smith, Smith,
Schneider, & Ananiadou, 2004; Ryan & Smith, 2009). Smith and colleagues studied 14 whole-
school anti-bullying programs, or those that approach bullying as a systemic problem that should
be approached at a school-wide level, and found the results negligible. Positive outcomes were
found when progress was systematically monitored. Baldry and Farrington’s (2007) review of
16 anti-bullying program evaluations found that 8 yielded positive results, 4 produced negligible
effects, 2 produced mixed results, and 2 showed undesirable outcomes. Vreeman and Carroll’s
(2007) review found only 3 of 21 studies that measured bullying and victimization yielded
positive results. In summary, reports from bullying intervention programs show less than
consistent findings with some instances where self-reported victimization, peer-reported
victimization, or self-reported bullying increased.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 29

Positive
Behavior
Intervention
and
Support. Anti-bullying initiatives that focus
on staff behaviors have been found to promote more positive and safe environments. A survey
study of 285 middle school students’ preferences regarding anti-bullying intervention strategies
found that students preferred those which involved teachers effectively managing their
classrooms, thereby deterring bullying behavior (Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006). Recent
studies on Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) show it to be a promising
framework from which schools and educational agencies can address bullying and mitigate
general concerns related to school climate.
PBIS is a school-wide behavior intervention system, which aims to alter the school
environment through staff behavior. The model draws from behavioral psychology, social-
learning theory, and organizational research, as it evaluates and aligns school-wide expectations
with the academic, behavioral, and environmental contexts. PBIS begins with the establishment
of school-wide expectations that are positively stated and uniform for all classrooms.
Subsequently, school-wide systems are put in place to reward students who demonstrate
expected positive behaviors. PBIS operationalizes discipline procedures such that practices
remain consistent throughout the school and interventions are determined during regular, data-
driven conversations between faculty and school leadership (PBIS Website).
High quality implementation of the PBIS program in schools has been associated with the
promotion of positive behaviors among students, including significant reductions to in-office
referrals and suspensions, teacher ratings of classroom behavior problems, emotion regulation
problems, and occurrences of bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2008). Furthermore, positive results
were found in teacher ratings of student pro-social behavior as well as student ratings of school
climate (Bradshaw et al., 2008; Bradshaw, 2013).
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 30

Some anti-bullying strategies have proven ineffective, and in some instances potentially
harmful for students. One approach, known as peer-mediation or peer-led conflict resolution has
been found to increase victimization (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). Another study suggests that
grouping students who exhibit aggressive or violent behavior together can exacerbate the
problem, as behaviors become further reinforced or emulated in the social environment (Dodge,
Dishion, & Lansford, 2006). Restorative justice approaches that engage bullies and victims in
the process of conflict resolution facilitated by adults are generally discouraged, as the
experience could be hurtful or further traumatic for the victim (Bradshaw, 2013). Furthermore,
there is little evidence suggesting that one-day awareness assemblies or brief school-wide
initiatives lead to positive changes in school climate (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009).
Finally, zero-tolerance policies have functioned as the archetype for school discipline
measures and a common response to bullying in schools (American Psychological Association,
2008). However, there is little evidence that such exclusionary approaches have curbed bullying
behavior (APA, 2008). In summary, positive behavior management and school-wide approaches
to bullying intervention have been shown to improve school climate and decrease bullying.

Theoretical Framework
Social Learning Theory
Bandura’s (1971) social learning theory, or observational learning theory, posits that
human behavior is adaptive and heavily influenced by the social environment. As such, learning
can take place through the observation and modeling of behavior, subsequently leading to its
replication in others. The seminal Bobo Doll Study by Bandura et al. (1961) examined the
effects of differential adult modeling on children. In the experiment, 36 boys and 36 girls
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 31

enrolled in the Stanford University Nursery School, ages 3 to 6 years old, were divided into 8
groups. Half of the subjects were exposed to aggressive models and the other half were exposed
to non-aggressive models. The subjects were individually escorted into a room and seated at a
table with various geometric forms, stickers, and pictures of animals, flowers, and figures and
were invited to paste them onto a pastoral scene. After settling the subject, the adult model was
brought into the opposite corner of the room, which contained a small table, chair, tinker toy set,
mallet, and a 5-foot inflated Bobo doll. In the non-aggressive condition, the adult model simply
played with the tinker toys and ignored the Bobo doll for the entire 10-minute period. However,
in the aggressive condition, the adult model violently attacked the Bobo doll, while using
verbally aggressive phrases such as, “Kick him” and “Pow.” Children that were exposed to the
aggressive model imitated the behavior after the adult was no longer present. Important gender
differences were also found in the experiment. Boys who observed an adult of the same-sex
modeling violent behavior were more influenced than boys who observed an adult of the
opposite sex modeling violent behavior. Furthermore, boys emulated physical violence twice as
often as girls and were found to imitate physical acts of aggression in contrast to girls who were
more likely to imitate verbal aggression.
Social learning theory is predicated on the idea that learning can take place through
modeling influences, which enable observers to acquire symbolic representations of activities. A
significant modeling influence is found in an individual’s social environment, comprising of
people with whom they regularly associate and provide repeated opportunities for observational
learning to take place. Characteristics of models also influence the degree to which the behavior
is emulated. Models with high status, prestige, and power are much more effective in eliciting
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 32

matching behavior in observers. Therefore, models that are associated with power have the
potential to determine and legitimize the conduct of a group (Bandura, 1971).

Modeling
the
use
of
power
in
the
classroom. Power is typically defined as an
individual’s potential to affect an individual or a group’s behavior (McCroskey & Richmond,
1983). Power can also be defined as an individual, or an entity’s, capacity to influence behavior
that otherwise may not have manifested. According to French and Raven (1968), the basis of
power is found in the perceptions of individuals whom the power is being exerted upon. It can
be perceived as:
1) Coercive, or with the threat of punishment for noncompliance;
2) Reward-based, whereupon rewards are offered for compliance;
3) Legitimate, whereby students accept the authority as it is assigned to the teacher
strictly based on accepted roles;
4) Referent, which is relational and based on the desire to please the powerful person; or
5) Expert, stemming from the student perceiving the teacher as competent and
knowledgeable.
McCroskey and Richmond (1983) studied the responses of 156 teachers and 2,698 students of
education levels ranging from seventh grade through college. Teacher responses were matched
with student responses in an effort to measure perceptions of power use in the classroom. The
results of the study indicated that perceptions of power use in the classroom were far from
isomorphic. When viewing coercive power negatively and reward, referent, and expert power
positively, teachers had a much more positive view of their behavior than did the students.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 33

Heuristics and Cognitive Bias
School leaders and teachers make countless decisions throughout the day that impact
others. Research in cognitive psychology suggests that human decision-making often involves
making judgments based on a confluence of information, primarily recent events or details that
are easily recalled (Kahneman, 2011). Heuristics may be described as the articulation of
insights, guides, or “rules of thumb” based on previous experience or revelations in approaching
future situations (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011; Green, 2008; McMahon & Ford, 2013).
Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier (2011) define a heuristic as “a strategy that ignores part of the
information, with the goal of making decisions more quickly, frugally, and/or accurately than
more complex methods” (p. 454). As such, heuristics operate in a limiting fashion, focusing
decisions on a specific set of strategies that have generated success in the past or save effort at
the cost of accuracy (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011).
While individuals might develop heuristics as a result of their own experiences with
different situations and subsequent outcomes, heuristics may also be transferred through
interactions with other individuals. Bingham, Eisenhardt, and Furr (2007) empirically examined
the effects of specific heuristics on employee performance. They classified heuristics as rough
plans for approaching future situations, which would reduce expenditure of time and resources
and mistakes inherent to trial and error. The study analyzed the internationalization strategies of
entrepreneurial firms by gathering interview data and found that increased presence of heuristic
“tools” positively correlated with internationalization performance.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 34

Heuristics and Leadership
A contextual feature that affects employee behavior involves the actions and attitudes of
leaders, including the experience-based heuristics, or “rules of thumb,” which they espouse.
McMahon and Ford (2012) empirically established a link between heuristics held by leaders and
employee performance. Their study explored the improvement of employee creativity through
the analysis of leader heuristic transfer (LHT), as measured by the conveyance of a leader’s
experienced based processes for problem solving, discovery, and pattern recognition. Using a
sample of 289 employee-supervisor-coworker survey triads, they found that LHT directly
increases employee creativity and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the articulation of heuristics
for problem solving, pattern recognition, and management by leaders, can significantly influence
behaviors and practices of employees.

Critical Pedagogy
Although heuristics serve some practical use, in the same manner, they constitute a form
of cognitive bias that can contribute to the perpetuation and reinforcement of ill informed,
ineffectual practices and oppressive paradigms. Critical pedagogy, which explores the
inadvertent oppression of students by a system, begins with the premise that men and women are
not free and must navigate a world with established asymmetries of power and privilege
(McLaren, 1989). The critical educator recognizes the intrinsically interactive, or dialectical,
relationship between individuals and the social universe; neither the individual nor society is
prioritized in analyses, as they are inextricably connected. Therefore, the analysis of established
ideas, practices, approaches, or theories, are intensely evaluated for contradictions that, in their
existence, may be sustaining, legitimizing, reinforcing, or reproducing the interests of the
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 35

dominant class, and subsequently, the subjugation of students through the promotion of
obedience and compliance with authority (McClaren, 1989).
From the perspective of the critical educator, the curriculum represents more than a
program or series of learning activities; it serves to prepare students for positions of dominance
or subordination in society. The curriculum is based on predispositions of the dominant party,
disseminating favored perspectives, over others, that discriminately affirm values of certain
groups over others based on race, class, and gender. These predispositions may manifest in
disproportional representation in textbooks, curriculum materials, course content, social
relations, and classroom practices. Additionally, the hidden curriculum, which refers to the
unintended outcomes of pedagogical approaches, transmits messages to students through the
teaching and learning styles emphasized in the classroom. McClaren (1989) asserts:
The hidden curriculum deals with the tacit ways in which knowledge and behavior get
constructed, outside the usual course materials and formally scheduled lessons. It is a
part of the bureaucratic and managerial “press” of the school – the combined forces by
which students are induced to comply with dominant ideologies and social practices
related to authority, behavior, and morality. (p. 75)
Critical educators relentlessly explore the ways in which “the system” is internalized by
individuals and manifests in the values and practices in schools.
Understanding teacher to student bullying requires a critical analysis of internalized
values and predispositions related to power, authority, compliance, pedagogy, and leadership.
Although school leaders may explicitly engage teachers and students in anti-bullying activities or
programming, internal contradictions may exist, implicitly communicating and validating
bullying as it is represented in authoritative management practices and subsequently reinforced
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 36

by relational hierarchy. Questioning such practices, which often fall below one’s conscious
radar, is imperative to a humanizing education; as such practices can potentially be reproduced in
students.

Research Questions
The following research questions drove the study:
1. How do elementary school principals define teacher to student bullying?
2. What common classroom management heuristics do elementary school principals
espouse?
a. Of these, which constitute teacher to student bullying?
3. What do elementary school principals do to assist teachers who engage in teacher to
student bullying?
4. What strategies do elementary school principals use to help students who are the victims
of teacher bullying?

Summary
Schools have an obligation to ensure both positive school and classroom climates.
Despite such imperatives, few graduates of teacher education programs are equipped with the
knowledge and skills to successfully manage student behavior, subsequently leading to the use of
punitive, ineffective management strategies that serve to disenfranchise students instead of
successfully integrating them into the academic environment. These behaviors, which mirror
peer-to-peer bullying, modeled for students by teachers and reinforced by the social structures of
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 37

the class and school, not only influence future student behavior in hierarchical relationships, but
also provide them with the social frameworks for oppressive practices.
The effects of bullying behavior, particularly from those who wield greater authority,
have long-lasting, deleterious effects on the physical and emotional health of victims. The
problem is further confounded by negligible outcomes produced by anti-bullying programs that,
in some cases, increase occurrences of bullying. School leaders must therefore examine the
array of research in the selection of a program best suited for their schools.
This chapter presented a summary of the literature on classroom management, bullying,
school climate, school leadership, and social learning theory. The next chapter clarifies in detail
the methods for the study, including its design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 38

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study explored teacher to student bullying in six public Southern
California elementary schools through an analysis of classroom management heuristics and
school leaders’ perspectives on teacher to student bullying. Since principal-ship is influential in
the construction of school climate and teacher praxis, understanding principals’ impressions of
teacher to student bullying and effective classroom management is especially important. The
findings offer insight into how school leaders define and address teacher to student bullying, in
contrast with the classroom management practices they espouse, and shed light on how school
leaders cultivate climates that foster or inhibit bullying behavior in their schools.
As such, this study aimed to identify: (a) how elementary school principals define teacher
bullying; (b) common heuristics related to classroom management favored by elementary school
principals and their relationship to bullying behavior; (c) strategies used by elementary school
principals to address teacher to student bullying; and (d) strategies used by elementary school
principals to support students who are victims of teacher bullying. The implicit assumption of
this research study is that heuristics related to classroom management held by school leadership
influence teacher practices in the classroom.

Research Questions
The primary purpose of the present research was to examine teacher to student bullying
by addressing the following research questions:
1. How do elementary school principals define teacher to student bullying?
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 39

2. What common classroom management heuristics do elementary school principals
espouse?
a. Of these, which constitute teacher to student bullying?
3. What do elementary school principals do to assist teachers who engage in teacher to
student bullying?
4. What strategies do elementary school principals use to help students who are the victims
of teacher bullying?
In aggregate, the research suggests a prevalence of teacher to student bullying in schools;
however, few studies have examined the attitudes and perceptions of school leadership with
regard to teacher to student bullying. The absence of this literature does not signify or suggest a
lack of importance; rather, it may be symptomatic of the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Principals who admit to problems of bullying in their schools may be seen as ineffective leaders
and potentially provide socially desirable responses. As such, this qualitative study explored
elementary school principals’ perspectives on teacher to student bullying, including: definitions,
classroom management heuristics, and support provided to teachers who bully and students that
are the victims of teacher bullying.

Qualitative Research
Given existing research indicate a prevalence of teacher to student bullying, this study
presented qualitative data that provides in-depth understandings of human behavior through the
gathering of interpretations of bullying, what qualifies as bullying, and commonly espoused
heuristics. Captured holistically, such interpretations provide insight into how and why teacher
to student bullying exists.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 40

Qualitative research allows for the exploration of meaning that is made by individuals or
a group as they relate to social encounters or problems, whereas quantitative research allows for
the examination of relationships among variables (Creswell, 2009). A qualitative approach was
selected for the purposes of this study in order to understand the meaning principals have
constructed or attributed to bullying and paradigms related to power. Merriam (2009) describes
qualitative research as the process of:
Understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of
their world and the experiences they have in the world… the focus is on process,
understanding, and meaning; the research is the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis; the process is inductive; and the product is richly descriptive. (p. 13)

Therefore, the primary function of qualitative research is to understand phenomena from the
participants’ perspectives and not the researcher’s.
There exist several types of qualitative research, including: phenomenology,
ethnography, grounded theory, narrative analysis, and critical research (Merriam, 2006). Critical
research, or critical social science, challenges, deconstructs, questions, and interrupts existing
paradigms, to transform or empower. The research embodies more than an attempt to
understand, but to critique and change society.
The pedigree of critical research has its roots in several schools of thought, including
Marxist theories on class division and socioeconomic structures, Haberman’s pedagogy of
poverty, and Freire’s seminal work on emancipatory education (Merriam, 2009). This
orientation also draws from feminist theory, which focuses on oppression as a function of terms
related to gender. Critical research examines oppression as a function of race, class, culture and
values held by the dominant group within a society. Finally, critical research questions
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 41

internalized beliefs held by individuals who, consciously and subconsciously, reinforce existing
power structures, thereby, preserving the status quo.
The critical component of this research study aimed to understand how classroom
management practices espoused by school leadership may operate to preserve a culture of
authority over students, subsequently manifesting as teacher to student bullying.

Sample and Population
The population for this study consisted of principals from one urban school district in
Southern California with a population of approximately 21,000 students. District officials,
including the superintendent and principals, were sought after for clearance to conduct the study.
The school district consists of 17 elementary schools (Kindergarten through Grade 5), 6 middle
schools (Grades 6 through 8), and two high schools (Grades 9 through 12). Of the 23 schools, 16
are identified as Title I schools, which serve high populations of educationally disadvantaged
students; thus receiving Title I funding from the federal government. Out of the 17 elementary
schools, 12 of them are Title I. The inclusion of both Title I and non-Title I schools allowed for
further comparisons to be made based on the mean socio-economic status of students in the
different schools.
Studies have yet to explore teacher to student bullying in relation to perspectives held by
school administrators. As such, school principals were selected as the stakeholders of choice for
this study due to their observation of and influence on teacher to student practices that are
condoned, ritualized, or systematically reinforced in schools.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 42

Instrumentation
Qualitative research is generally aimed at understanding how people interpret their
experiences, construct their worlds, and make meaning of the world around them (Merriam,
2009). This study was designed to acquire a greater understanding of the underlying attitudes
and perceptions regarding teacher to student bullying, held and reinforced by school leadership,
with many lending to bullying behavior. For this reason, primary data was collected through
semi-formal interviews of elementary school principals to allow communicative flexibility and
elaboration. Secondary data, which includes school site information, teaching and leadership
experience, and other individual variables, was collected through interviews and public websites
(i.e. District and CDE website). Together, this information was triangulated with the literature
for comparative analysis.
The semi-structured nature of the interview protocol allowed for greater flexibility
through the use of follow-up questions that help generate more specific information desired from
respondents. The majority of the interviews were guided by a list of pre-determined questions or
issues to be explored; however, the format was not restricted to the questions, but instead
allowed the researcher to respond to the respondents in cases where greater elucidation was
needed. Merriam (2006) describes semi-structured interviews as those where:
Interview guide includes a mix of more and less structured interview questions
All questions used flexibly
Usually specific data required from all respondents
Largest part of the interview guided by list of questions or issues to be explored
No predetermined wording or order (p. 89)
Each interview question was designed to address corresponding research questions. As
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 43

such, they began with definitions of bullying, teacher to student bullying, and classroom
management. Respondents were asked to explicate support provided to teachers who bullied and
students who were victims of bullying. Based on the research around classroom management
techniques, principals were asked what heuristics they supported or have articulated to teachers.

Validity Threats
The sensitive nature of the content being examined may influence the validity of the
study for the following reasons:
1) Participants may respond according to perceived social acceptability;
2) Participants may not answer questions with accuracy;
3) Participants may be influenced by the presence of the researcher and respond in a
manner considered desirable.
In addition to the validity threats associated with participant bias, there was also the threat of
selection bias. All six respondents were selected from a pool of principals within one school
district. Although two of the schools are non-Title I schools with greater diversity, the limited
number of schools included in the study, in tandem with their selection from one mid-sized
school district in Southern California, presents a potential threat to validity. Finally,
experimenter bias must also be taken into consideration when reviewing the findings for this
study. Although an interview protocol was developed for the study to allow for comparability
between respondents, due to its semi-formal nature, the mere inclusion of follow up questions
requesting elaboration may implicitly encourage expected responses. As a result, interviewees
may have altered their responses to meet or avoid perceived expectations.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 44

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in theories related to social learning
and the adoption of heuristics by teachers that may lend themselves to a culture of bullying.
Social learning theory is predicated on the idea that learning can take place through modeling
influences, which enable observers to acquire symbolic representations of activities. A
significant modeling influence is found in an individual’s social environment, comprising of
people with whom they regularly associate and provide repeated opportunities for observational
learning to take place. Characteristics of models also influence the degree to which the behavior
is emulated. Models with high status, prestige, and power are much more effective in eliciting
matching behavior in observers. Therefore, models that are associated with power have the
potential to determine and legitimize the conduct of a group (Bandura, 1971). As it follows,
teachers model behaviors implicitly and explicitly to students that involve notions of power and
authority.
McMahon and Ford (2012) empirically established a link between heuristics held by
leaders and employee behavior. Their study explored the improvement of employee creativity
through the analysis of leader heuristic transfer (LHT), as measured by the conveyance of a
leader’s experience based processes for problem solving, discovery, and pattern recognition.
Using a sample of 289 employee-supervisor-coworker survey triads, they found that LHT
directly increases employee creativity and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the articulation of
heuristics for problem solving, pattern recognition, and management by leaders, can significantly
influence behaviors and practices of employees.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 45

Data Collection
Identified schools and participants for the study were emailed requests to participate,
which included a cover letter explaining the purpose and relevance of the study. The letter
assured confidentiality and anonymity and include certification from the Institutional Review
Board of the University of Southern California. The superintendent was sought after for
clearance to conduct the study.
Background information about respondents (i.e. years of experience in education and
leadership, etc.) was collected during the first part of the interview protocol. The examination of
background information is important to the study because it allows for the identification of
external variables, which may prove significant during the course of the study and post analyses.
The second part of the study adds descriptive information stemming from narratives provided by
the respondents. Interview questions were open-ended, allowing participants to provide as much
or as little information on the topic as preferred and subsequently transcribed and coded for
analysis.
Data Analysis
Interview data was transcribed and coded along with interview notes by the researcher.
The methods for analyzing transcripts and notes were based on Miles and Huberman’s (1994)
framework, which involves:
• Data reduction, or categorization of data according to research questions
• Data display, or graphic representations that place coded information into
categories of distinct import
• Conclusion drawing and verification, whereby the researcher derives meaning and
draws conclusions based on the data
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 46

Personal characteristics for those interviewed and other general information gathered
about the schools’ staff and the schools were accounted for through interview and the document
analysis. Data gathered from the interviewees’ responses and the document analysis with
demographic information was analyzed and triangulated. According to Maxwell (2013),
triangulation “…reduces the risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to specific
method and allows for a better assessment of the generality of the explanations that one
develops.”

Ethical Considerations
Due to the sensitivity of the data collected and consideration for those participating in the
study, several steps were taken to ensure ethical integrity. The study itself was submitted and
approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California. All
of the participants in the study were made aware of the purpose and process of the study, as well
as the information it intended to gather. Interviews were conducted on a voluntary basis and
permission to use the information was granted in advance to the interview. Respondents were
made aware that interviews were recorded and were given the option to stop recording at any
time during the interview. Finally, at no time during the study were real names of schools,
leaders, teachers, or students used. Instead, individuals are identified using indexes: Principal 1,
2, etc.

Summary
Chapter 3 presented the methods used for the study to gather and analyze data on teacher
to student bullying from the perspective of elementary school leadership. The following chapter
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 47

presents key findings from the interviews of principals and reflections by the researcher. The
results were organized in accordance with the research questions and suggest implications based
on the body of research on bullying.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 48

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study began with an exploration into the phenomenon of teacher to
student bullying in six public Southern California elementary schools as perceived by school
leaders; their definitions of bullying, views on classroom management, and their experiences
addressing teacher to student bullying. By understanding heuristics related to classroom
management espoused by school leaders who play a crucial role in the construction of school
climate and culture, the study aimed to offer greater insight into the relatively nascent literature
on teacher to student bullying. This chapter presents the results of the study, including prevalent
themes from the 6 interviews of principals and reflections based on corresponding literature on
bullying, classroom management, and school leadership.

Research Questions
Specifically, the study aimed to identify: (a) how elementary school principals define
teacher to student bullying; (b) common heuristics related to classroom management favored by
elementary school principals; (c) strategies used by elementary school principals to address
teacher to student bullying; and (d) strategies used by elementary school principals to support
students who are victims of teacher bullying.
The following research questions were generated and explored through the study:
1. How do elementary school principals define teacher to student bullying?
2. What common classroom management heuristics do elementary school principals
espouse?
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 49

a. Of these, which constitute teacher to student bullying?
3. What do elementary school principals do to assist teachers who engage in teacher to
student bullying?
4. What strategies do elementary school principals use to help students who are the victims
of teacher bullying?
On the following pages, these questions are addressed in order, paying special attention to
dominant themes as they emerged within the interviews.

Scope of Study and Participant Background
The study population consisted of principals from one urban school district in Los
Angeles County, which serves approximately 21,000 students in two adjacent cities, each with
contrastive economic, ethnic and racial distributions. Under the districts’ operation are 17
elementary schools, 6 middle schools, and 3 high schools. Of the 26 schools, 16 receive Title I
funds, and all but one of the districts’ Title I schools exist in one city. Out of the 17 elementary
schools in the district, 12 of them are Title I.
In the 2012-2013 school year, 79% of the student population were Hispanic or Latino,
10% White, 3% African American, 3% Asian, and 3% Filipino. Additionally, 68% of all students
in the district qualified for free or reduced lunch (CDE Website).
Four of the six schools involved in the study are Title I schools. The inclusion of both
Title I and non-Title I schools allow for further comparisons to be made based on the mean
socio-economic status of students in the schools. Table 1 represents the experience levels of the
principals in the study, along with the school’s Title I status, statewide ranking, similar schools
ranking, and API score for 2012.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 50

Table 1
School Principal
Experience
Title I Status Statewide
Rank 2012
Similar
Schools Rank
2012
API 2012
P1 – Y 12 years No 9 1 895
P2 – R 5 years Yes 6 7 831
P3 - M 7 years Yes 4 4 795
P4 - A 2 years Yes 2 3 754
P5 - J 17 years Yes 6 9 833
P6 - E 7 years No 9 8 911
Of the 6 school principals interviewed for the study, all have worked in education for an
average of 25 years and as a principal an average of 8.3 years. Four of the principals oversee
Title I schools, which serve a significant percentage of students that are considered academically
disadvantaged. Statewide rankings compare the API of each school to all other schools in
California and rank them on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest. Alternatively, the similar
school ranking system is a comparison with 100 other schools with similar demographics,
providing a ranking system based on comparative schools in similar communities. The median
statewide ranking is 6, while the median for similar schools is 5.5 (CDE).
School principals were selected as the stakeholders of choice for this study due to their
observation of and influence on teacher to student practices condoned, ritualized, or
systematically reinforced in schools. Additionally, there are few studies aimed at understanding
teacher to student bullying from the perspective of school administrators.

Data Collection
To explore perspectives on teacher to student bullying from the perspective of elementary
school leadership, permission to conduct the study was requested and granted by the
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 51

superintendent of the school district. Subsequently, eight principals were selected and contacted
at random via email requesting their participation in the study; four of them represent Title I
schools and four from non-Title I schools. Of the eight, 6 verbally agreed to participate and were
sent an email explaining the purpose and relevance of the study. The letter also assured
confidentiality and anonymity, including certification from the Institutional Review Board of the
University of Southern California.
The interviews were semi-structured, with 12 base questions categorized according to
corresponding research questions, offering opportunities for the principal investigator to ask
probing questions or request clarification. Background information (i.e. years of experience in
education and leadership, etc.) was collected during the first part of the interview protocol. The
interview questions were designed to be open-ended and allow for participants to provide as
much or as little information on the topic as they preferred. Interviews were transcribed and
coded for key words and ideas. Patterns based on responses were then organized into emergent
themes and charted, providing insight into the frequency of particular themes as they appeared
within and across interviews. At the end of each interview, the subject was asked to add any
further information or final thoughts on the topic matter, providing opportunities for participants
to include content that may not have been addressed in the interview protocol.

Findings
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: How do elementary school principals define teacher to
student bullying?
Defining
bullying. Respondents were initially asked to define bullying prior to
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 52

providing a definition for teacher to student bullying. All of the respondents defined bullying as
“persistent,” “on-going,” or “constant” behavior that negatively impacted another person. Four
described bullying as exhibitions of power over another group, or “put-downs” that essentially
reinforced hierarchies or status in a given situation or context; however, only two used the word
“power” in their description. P1 was the only principal to provide a comprehensive description
of bullying that included different forms and behaviors:
I see it two-folds. Persistent and on-going behavior that really impacts another student or
person, negatively. It could be physical, verbal, intimidation, teasing, taunting. It can
happen face to face, cyber, second hand, where you feel intimidated because you’ve seen
it happen and you don’t feel comfortable telling.
While P1 described bullying as physical, verbal, and intimidating behavior, other respondents
provided broader, ambivalent definitions, which included “somebody who doesn’t take
responsibility for their actions.”

Why
bullying
occurs. When asked why bullying exists, all six respondents mentioned
self-awareness or upbringing as significant corollaries to harmful behavior, implying that in
some cases, the perpetrator may not be aware of the harm being inflicted. Respondents further
suggested that the perpetrators are likely to have been bullied in their life histories or were not
taught essential communicative skills or strategies to work with other people.
I think that we all have heard studies or statistics about people who are mistreated
themselves, who then turn around and mistreat others for purposes to raise their self-
esteem. I think a lot of times it happens because it fills a need within a person. It makes
them feel in control, powerful, more powerful, more in control, even if they are young
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 53

and cannot define it that way.
The respondent described bullying as a cyclical phenomenon that is perpetuated through the
mistreatment of one person, and then adopted by another as a means of mistreating another.
Another principal suggested bullying is a manifestation of one’s own insecurities, feelings of
incompetence, or below-ness. Five of the respondents felt people bullied because of deep-seated
insecurities with themselves, which lent to a sense of powerlessness and lack of control over
their lives or situations.
It all stems down to insecurities. And those insecurities, you try to make yourself better
and in that, trying to make yourself look better, you bully others to have power to look
better.
The respondent suggested that insecurities, or perceived deficiencies within the self, undergirded
bullying behavior as an act of recouping power and control over such feelings of inadequacy.
Another respondent stated that in education, “we advocate that you need to be better than other
people. When people don’t feel that sense, or feel powerful, they seek it out in another way.”
Both below-ness and above-ness were apparent in all of the respondents’ definitions of bullying
and reasons for why it exists.

Teacher to student bullying. All of the respondents defined teacher to student bullying
using terms similar to their original definitions of bullying. They acknowledged an imbalance of
power between teachers and students and suggested bullying behavior was a negative strategy to
foster cooperative behavior in students. All of the respondents referred to verbal abuse as a
means of describing or defining teacher to student bullying, citing sarcasm, teasing, and yelling,
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 54

as common examples. Three principals also referenced neglect as a form of bullying, whereby
teachers ignore the needs or responses of specific students, either intentionally or unintentionally.
I think it’s where the teacher shows their power and weakness of the student. And also,
doesn’t give the student the same rights as they would other students. Like ‘Go line up!’
or ‘No, you can’t go to the bathroom!’ when they wouldn’t say it to other students or
might let somebody else do it.
The principal described examples of bullying as a means of reasserting power through the
intimidating behaviors like yelling and disregard of students’ rights or privileges. None of the
principals included physical aggression in their examples or descriptions of teacher to student
bullying.

Why teacher to student bullying occurs. Three respondents related teacher to student
bullying behavior to an apparent absence of teacher education in the area of classroom
management and strategies to foster positive learning environments. One principal stated, “It’s
almost as if you don’t have the tools to create an environment where students follow the
expectations. You then want to push and make them do it in disrespectful ways.” From this topic
stemmed conversations about intentionality in three of the interviews, where respondents
suggested teachers do not necessarily intend to bully; rather, they lack the skills to manage
student behavior.
I don’t think teachers purposely want to bully kids. I think it is a lack of resources. You
don’t ever call on them, go out of your way to help them… There are teachers that bully
in other ways simply by not doing anything.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 55

The principal describes the omission of support to students as a way of bullying unintentionally.
Furthermore, four of the principals suggested that teacher education did little to equip teachers
with the skills to plan according to the needs of students in classrooms, which resulted in their
use of intimidation and fueled their contempt for certain students who did not demonstrate
cooperative behavior.
Similar to their descriptions of bullying, all of the respondents mentioned teacher
upbringing and subsequent lack of awareness as perpetuators of teacher to student bullying.
You have to realize that we don’t take any emotional or social growth tests as people to
work with kids. So, I have seen where teachers, you know when you’re manic-
depressive, and you have emotional outburst, overreact to things that aren’t a big deal,
and confrontational to a child. So it’s when that teacher’s emotions are out of control,
they respond inappropriately to kids. The other way I have seen it is when you have a
bias against a child for whatever reason - feeling they are not motivated, bias against
ethnicity, race, and gender preference.
The principal described an absence in the teacher selection process where teachers can be
identified with emotional struggles or disturbances prior to entering a classroom. As a result,
they may enter the classroom without the inter-personal or objective reasoning skills that would
support their cultivation of a positive learning environment.

Ubiquity. The majority of the principals, four out of six, described teacher to student
bullying as a pervasive issue. One principal replied, “I’m knee-deep in it.” Another principal
claimed, “It’s more of a problem than anyone wants to admit;” while another stated, “It’s an
issue, honey.” Although four principals suggested at some point during the interview that
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 56

teacher to student bullying occurred frequently and under the radar of most people, only one
principal acknowledged it was currently an issue at her school site. When invited to describe
their experiences addressing teacher to student bullying, four of the principals cited experiences
from their early years of school leadership. For example, one principal stated:
When I first came here, teachers were always screaming at kids, especially my first
couple years here. It was pretty bad, especially at each other.
Other principals suggested that the problem was pervasive in their first years of leadership, but is
no longer a problem at their schools.
Four of the six principals provided examples of teachers who lacked awareness of their
own behavior when speaking to other teachers about challenging students.
I’m walking down the hallway and I’m thinking about the first day and I encountered a
colleague in the hallway who said, ‘You have so and so in your classroom?’ I said, ‘Yes
I do.’ The teacher said, ‘I am so glad I never have to see his face again.’ My first
reaction was nervousness. Fear, like ‘Oh my gosh, is this child going to be a terror?’
And then later, my reaction was one of anger. Why would this colleague say this to me
about a student that I did not know at all on the first day of school, before the child had a
chance? … It was just a hurtful comment the teacher made about the child who turned
out to be a really nice kid.

The principal recalled an experience with a colleague who degraded a child assigned to her class
for the year, addressing the lack of professionalism in the teacher’s comments and an inability to
recognize the potential harm in spreading biases about a child’s performance in a new
environment to other teachers.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 57

Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, what common classroom management heuristics do
elementary school principals espouse? The interview questions included what elementary school
principals had most commonly observed at their school, along with heuristics they have espoused
to teachers. Table 2 represents common heuristics related to classroom management referenced
by more than one respondent.
Table 2

Token
Systems
Relationship
Building
High
Expectations
for Teacher
Conduct
Social
Context
Planning Flexibility
w/ Teacher
CM
Approaches
Modeling Positivity Respect
P1 -Y

P2 -R

P3 -
M

P4 -A

P5 - J

P6 -
E

According to Table 2, the most frequently espoused classroom management rule of thumb fell
within the category of positivity, which included positive reinforcement, positive feedback, and
maintaining positive demeanor when engaging students, even when taking disciplinary action.
The least referenced strategy was modeling expected behavior, which principals described as
teachers expecting of themselves what they expected of students.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 58

Token systems. The majority of principals, four out of five, cited classroom token
systems as one of the most common strategies used by their teachers. These reward-based
accountability systems included but were not limited to: marble jars, where teachers would add
or remove marbles from a jar according to class behavior; publicly displayed clip charts, where
student names were moved up or down according to behavior; publicly displayed name cards,
where students would change their colors according to their behavior; table points, where groups
of students were rewarded or penalized for cooperative or non-cooperative behavior. Although
four principals acknowledged these as common practices, two of them did not advocate for such
practices due to their “extrinsic” quality.
The vast majority of my teachers, 90%, believe in a reward system, and I am totally
opposed to a reward system. To me that is an extrinsic thing and I think kids should be
encouraged to do things intrinsically; to find the value in doing something not because
you’re going to get something, but because you will be a better person. And so, when I
taught for 15 years, I had no reward system… The color system, paper clips, and color
strips, if you get this many, you get to go into the treasure box at the end of the week…
Most of my teachers work that way.
The principal explained his disapproval of token systems; however, he shared that he does not
control teachers’ approaches to classroom management at schools. Similarly, another principal
stated that her teachers used classroom management strategies she would not necessarily
encourage, but takes a hands-off approach with teachers; being “flexible” with their approaches
as a means of avoiding disempowerment.
I was never comfortable with pull a card, pull a ticket, because I always felt like, if I’m
already on red by 9 o’clock, what do I have to lose? I’ve seen that. But I’ve also seen
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 59

some special needs kids really like that. It’s like, I know what to expect, I know if I do
this, this will happen. So I feel like some of those strategies don’t support enough kids.
Because they support some kids, we may need to look at strategies that support more
kids. So I was really happen when that whole notion of Tier 1, 2, and 3 came in. I’ve
found that no matter what management program, it works because it’s what the whole
school is doing. So as a principal, I haven’t said stop doing this, stop using that because
now we have more of a collective articulated behavior set of expectations.
The principal described her reservations with displayed accountability systems due to her
experience with some students who were demotivated by them and would quickly reach their
final card and feel defeated. However, she further communicated that some of her students
demonstrated great success with such practices as a second or third tier strategy. As a result, she
and her teachers collaboratively generate strategies according to the needs of students.

Positivity and relationship building. Four out of six principals referenced positivity as
a classroom management strategy they encourage their teachers to use. These methods included
“catching students being good,” “positive reinforcement,” or “focusing on the positive” when
providing feedback or correcting behavior.
Focus on the positive. Try to do a minimum of 3 positives to 1 negative. If a kid is
acting up, try to give him positive reinforcement as much as possible.
In this strategy, the principal requests that her teachers provide more positive than negative
feedback to students by a ratio of 3 to 1 and that it should take place as often as possible.
Another principal shared that her team’s focus on Positive Behavior Intervention and Support
[PBIS] has shifted the focus at her school:
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 60

Now that we’ve been really looking at PBIS, it was catching kids being good. It was
really positive. It was individualized behavior contracts. We had school-wide
expectations, not just for how you behave, but it was all focused on teachers. For
example, you never said, ‘Sit down!’ You said, ‘Where should you be?’ And it was in a
more respectful way. … The whole idea was remind them and they will follow.
The principal described that PBIS allowed teachers to focus on how they provided feedback to
students in a manner that was kinder and more respectful when providing feedback or offering
directives.
Relationship building was viewed as complementary to positive feedback by three
principals who shared that teachers should get to know their students and stakeholders and create
strong bonds with them as a strategy for managing the class.
Relationships with you and the child, you and the parents, and therefore, when you have
a relationship with somebody of mutual respect, do you yell at each other? No. Do you
frown at each other? No. The thing you should do is have a strong relationship with
your student, with your administrator, with your parents, and from that, that is the
foundation for everything.
The principal’s statements focused on the idea of mutual respect through bonding activities and
conversations with students, believing that doing so will increase the likelihood that the student
will cooperate when asked. Another principal shared that relationship building takes courage
and can be challenging for teachers.
My theme for the last 7 years is have the courage to get to know others. That is students,
go to their games, find out about family life, understand who they are and [why they] act
the way they do. Not only kids, but the parents. Get to know them. Have the courage to
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 61

form those relationships. Meet with them if there is something you are concerned with.
Also, have the courage with staff. Not only do you need to have the courage, you can’t
just be isolated. You have to have the courage to share your pitfalls, your strengths,
good, bad. It’s all about the culture you create.
During the interview, the principal showed the primary investigator examples of lion figurines,
which she said signified courage. She then explained she would hand these out to teachers who
took time to build relationships with students and stakeholders.
Self-awareness was also brought up as a component of relationship development by one
principal who said:
Teaching is really about creating relationships with the kids. If you have a good rapport
with the kids, they’re gonna work for you. They’re gonna do whatever. But if you
don’t, your job is gonna be much harder. So the key is building those relationships.
[Teachers] need to know where kids are coming from. They need to know what they
like and what they don’t like. They need to know their home lives. They need to know
how to say things a certain way just to help the kids feel better about themselves.
The principal felt that teachers needed to make adjustments based on the prior knowledge they
have about every child, enabling them to create conditions in their classrooms conducive to their
needs. Those principals advocating the importance of relationship building described it as a
means of information gathering and eliciting cooperative behavior.

Social context. Relationship building was mentioned by three principals as integral to
the development of a supportive culture due to the challenges that came with teaching in the
social context. Four of the principals referred to their schools as “tough,” with a great deal of
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 62

students with “high needs.” One principal of a non-Title I school admitted the challenge was far
greater than her skill-set could support.
The emotional needs of these kids is out of control. It is so hard to meet the needs of
these kids, I mean. I mean, they’re coming to school with huge emotional gaps and
social gaps and academic gaps. I literally don’t know what to do to help these children
and these teachers… There is such a great need and I mean, I try to give them sub-time,
supervision aid to help, but just to put bodies in there. Not one of them has a two-parent
family and a lot of them are being raised by grandparents because their parents are in
jail.
Similarly, a principal at a Title I school stated:
This is a tough school, so my kids get exposed to things they shouldn’t be exposed to at
such a young age. Violence, drugs, just yucky stuff. And so, they see things that they
shouldn’t be seeing. So I think there is a real need that we support them that way,
whether it is through explaining, or group work.
Both principals suggested that teachers must take time to understand students, taking into
consideration the challenges that come with the social context; that is, teaching in an urban
school with high percentages of students with greater social and emotional needs.

Planning. Four principals stated that modifications should be made according to
individual student needs and be integrated into the lesson planning process.
If you see a particular child, instead of calling the name, do an activity. Everybody gets
up, moves, and sits down. Because you know certain kids have to move. They can’t just
sit there. So you structure the movement because you know if they move every 6
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 63

minutes, then every 5 minutes, you’re doing something so you don’t reach that 6th
minute where they go bonkers. … So you’re structuring your room.
The principal described preventative measures teachers should take to allow students “who
move” to do so in a structured manner as a part of the lesson. Doing so would allow the teacher
to maintain a sense of control over the classroom while meeting the individual needs of a
physically active child.
Principals also suggested that modifications should be made according to the “types” of
students in the class.
I would always say, as you’re planning your lesson, you have to then plan it by your
smartest kid, your most struggling kid, your most hyperactive kid, because that’s how
you plan your lesson. It’s not just planning your lesson. You’ve got to realize he gets up
in two minutes, this one wants more, this one doesn’t understand it. That way, they’re
always busy with what they need to be doing and they’re learning something.
The principal argued that teachers must intervene before problems arise in the classroom by
understanding the various tendencies of the students in the class and planning accordingly.

Modeling. Of all the classroom management heuristics mentioned during the interviews,
modeling was among the least referenced. Two of the principals mentioned the importance of
teachers modeling expected behavior for students as a key component of classroom management.
First of all, we are responsible for helping kids develop the skills we want to see in them.
Academic, social, emotional. We are models for the behavior we expect from our kids.
We can’t just teach ‘be respectful.’ If they hear us ragging about other kids, ragging
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 64

about other teachers, ragging about parents, that’s not respectful. So one of the things I
do say is remember you are a model.
The principal referenced situations where teachers expected students to behave respectfully, but
did not adhere to these expectations themselves with their own conduct. The inherent irony of
such behavior, according to the principal, leads to inconsistent behavior in students. The second
principal suggested that peer-to-peer bullying may be a byproduct of bullying being modeled by
teachers.
To some degree, we are teaching them how to bully. I’ve had kids tell me, that teacher
is a bully, or that person is a bully. And generally, they’re right. I think we need to
believe kids a little more than we do. We’re modeling it. We’re making it okay to
ridicule somebody and sometimes the kids who are bullied, they’re quieter kids who
weren’t troublemakers necessarily, but got on that teacher’s nerves for whatever reason
and started acting out.
The principal asserted the ubiquity of teacher to student bullying and the possibility that it is
being modeled for students, particularly in situations where teachers ridicule or publicly call out
students for misconduct in demeaning or humiliating ways. Consequently, students may be
learning how to assert power and dominance by watching how teachers use it, whether it is fairly
or punitively.
All principals were asked whether or not they had heard of the following rules of thumb,
including:
“Don’t smile till December”
“Start tough, then ease up”
“Master your teacher look”
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 65

All six principals admitted they were familiar with the heuristics and were also encouraged to
use them by their administrators. With the exception of the teacher look, none of them felt they
were appropriate strategies for elementary school students. One principal suggested the
strategies were more appropriate for older students, saying, “That’s more of a middle school
thing.” The principals unanimously agreed the teacher look was a favorable strategy in
elementary school. When asked to describe the teacher look, they said it was not meant to
intimidate, but non-verbally “communicate a behavior is unacceptable without disrupting your
lesson.”

Table 2a

0
1
3
4
5
6
Token System Relationship
Building
High Expectations Social Context Planning Flexibility Modeling Positivity Mutual Respect
Classroom Management Heuristics
Seri
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 66

Table 2 represents emergent themes cited by two or more principals during the interview
process. Modeling, the least referenced strategy, was cited by two principals compared to
positivity, which was cited by five. Positivity included positive reinforcement through feedback
and acknowledgement of desired behaviors. In summary, positivity was the most commonly
adopted classroom management strategy in working with students and eliciting cooperative
behavior. None of the classroom management techniques espoused by principals would qualify
as teacher to student bullying according to its definition.

Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, what do elementary school principals do to assist teachers
who engage in teacher to student bullying? Responses were organized into categories titled
‘Preventive,’ or ‘Responsive.’ Table 3 illustrates emergent themes from the interview that
pertained to either category.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 67

Table 3

High Expectations
for Teacher
Conduct
(Preventive)
Providing
Professional
Development
in CM
(Preventive)
One to One
Meetings and
Support
(Responsive)
Empathy
(Responsive)
Disciplinary
Action
(Responsive)
Frustration
with
Disciplinary
Process
(Responsive)
Politics
(Responsive
)
P1 - Y

P2 - R

P3 - M

P4 - A

P5 - J

P6 - E

The most frequently addressed strategies for responding to teacher to student bullying included
one-to-one meetings with teachers and subsequent disciplinary action, or “write-ups” for teachers
who continued their conduct. When asked about preventive actions against teacher to student
bullying, five out of six principals felt the communication of high expectations for teacher
conduct at the beginning of the year was a strong deterrent of abusive behavior. The least
referenced defensive strategy was providing professional development to teachers on classroom
management and self-awareness.

Preventive actions. Of all of the questions on the interview protocol, principals
elaborated the least when asked about preventive actions against teacher to student bullying.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 68

Two preventive actions were referenced in total: high expectations for teacher conduct and
classroom management professional development. Five respondents, all with 7 years of
experience or more as a principal, referred to communicating expectations to teachers as an
active deterrent of teacher to student bullying. One respondent shared that she presented
overarching goals for the school at the beginning of the year, which included expectations for
teacher conduct:
I make it clear in my expectations that if I see [teacher to student bullying], hear it, we’re
going to talk, because it’s just not acceptable. I just call it my expectations and I
basically just say them. I don’t really specify the behavior other than to say if I see or
hear something negative toward a child. And I get that we’re human and we get
frustrated and want to vent, but a meanness, that intent. Then, we will talk because that
is not okay.
The principal quoted above explained the word bullying was never used when communicating
expectations of teacher to student conduct, but referred to it generally as negative behavior.
When asked whether or not she goes into detail about what constitutes negative behavior, she
shared that such details are not provided to her teachers. Another principal stated:
My rules in the class were very simple. Respect one another. Respect school property.
Do the right thing. It was that simple. I don’t have a lot of rules per se, but I have things
that drive me.
The principal expanded on his expectations of teachers as a macrocosm of what he expected
from a classroom teacher. He continued to say that teachers are expected to “respect one
another, respect students, and respect your administrator, and respect parents.” The details of
what type of conduct constituted respect were not provided to teachers.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 69

Expectations were also referenced by another respondent who shared with the
principal investigator a power point presentation she used at the beginning of every year, which
provoked teachers to reflect on why they decided to enter the field of education, including
literacy statistics and district-wide achievement data. The power point called upon teachers to be
committed, concerned, and motivated to make a change in student lives, however, no specific
standards or expectations of teacher to student conduct were addressed in the presentation.
When asked about preventive measures against teacher to student bullying, two
principals brought up teacher education and professional development. One of the six principals
acknowledged a pervasive lack of attention paid to classroom management and self-awareness in
teacher education programs, despite its importance to the teaching profession and the subsequent
need for it in schools.
It goes back to education. And we’re not taught those strategies. We’re just taught,
okay, here’s how you teach a reading lesson, but you’re not taught how to change the
state of a student if they’re not listening, or so and so started something and everyone’s
looking at that other kid and you’re doing a lesson. Well, how do you get the kids back?
Another principal, without directly addressing discrepancies in teacher education,
alluded to it by saying, “It’s almost as if you don’t have the tools to create an environment where
students follow the expectations. You then want to push and make them do it in disrespectful
ways.” Despite the fact that two principals acknowledged the absence of classroom
management and self-awareness education as part of teacher preparation, only one principal
offered such professional development opportunities for all teachers. She shared that part of
induction for new teachers at her school site included the reading of a book called Conscious
Discipline, and participation in monthly meetings where staff practiced collaboration and
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 70

positive communication amongst one another, and ultimately, with students. According to the
principal, the cooperative exercises aligned with specific chapters in the book and were meant to
challenge teachers’ pre-conceived notions about discipline and punishment in their classrooms
through empathic reflection and discussion.
Three of the principals shared that school-wide preventive support could not be
provided unless there was significant evidence that all teachers were struggling in the classroom.
At these schools, support for teachers who bully was only provided on a one on one basis with
the principal or instructional coaches. School-wide efforts were not in place.

Responsive actions. All six principals were asked whether or not they had
encountered teacher to student bullying under their leadership and how they responded to it. All
six acknowledged having experiences with teacher to student bullying and provided details on
the incidents that took place. The most common themes that emerged from inquiries into
responsive action included meetings with teachers and frustrations with the progressive
discipline policies and politics.
Respondents provided examples of verbal abuse and intimidation toward students as
an example of teacher to student bullying.
The teacher saw a student doing something wrong. He had thrown the ball, so he called
him over, got nose-to-nose, screaming at him what the rules were. ‘I told you!’ I was
coming out just doing a sweep and I saw him nose-to-nose, so you could imagine what
that looks like from a distance. As I got closer, I could hear the tone, the harsh
aggressive tone and the student scared and forced to look up when he was really scared
and wanted to look away. So I intervened.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 71

The principal explained that she asked the student to wait in the office and met with
the teacher after school, informing him that it was inappropriate and wrong. She then
encouraged the parent to file a formal complaint because, according to the respondent, “it takes it
into the investigation, not just from me seeing wrong, but I have to investigate because the parent
had documented it.” Such actions could then prompt her to take the case to the district level with
potentially more significant ramifications. The teacher was put on notice and the child was
moved out of the class.
A second respondent shared that a student approached her concerning a teacher’s
behavior.
He would come in daily and I kept seeing a pattern. And, I asked the teacher to come up
with a plan, but I didn’t see a real commitment to try to help that child. I kind of got
suspicious at that point and asked the student to tell me about how things were going in
the class. ‘I don’t like my teacher. She’s mean to me.’ Spoke with the teacher and
asked, ‘Why do you think the student wouldn’t want to come into your class? Is there
something we can change?’ Teacher was insulted. The teacher retaliated and the parent
called me. That’s when I started interviewing other kids and then had the conversation
with the teacher.
The principal explained she became more concerned when the teacher did not respond with a
desire to support the child who was afraid to attend her class. After investigating and confirming
with other students in the class that the teacher would insult the student, she put the teacher on
notice and moved the child out of the class.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 72

Another principal similarly described unwillingness on the part of the teacher to
recognize her own behavior when addressed about bullying behavior after multiple parents
submitted a formal complaint.
In passing, the teacher told me she didn’t like that kid. And I would say in response, you
need to get to know that kid. The child is sitting up here before school and everyone
lines up before the classroom. She yelled, ‘You need to go line up!’ Even though he was
sitting with his grandparents. It was the tone of her voice. And then, not wanting to go
the extra mile to meet with the parents. More on her terms, not their terms.
The principal continued by saying that the teacher was given a written warning which
“just goes in her file.” However, she felt that the situation remained unresolved stating that
“these types of people don’t take responsibility for their actions.” According to the principal, no
further actions were taken against the teacher despite the countless complaints of teacher to
student bullying and colleague to colleague bullying.
Another principal encountered a teacher bullying students while walking by the class.
I was actually walking by the classroom. I heard, ‘Sit down and don’t get up again!
Pretend your bottom is glued to that chair!’ I immediately went in and addressed it with
‘Is everything okay? I heard you say to a student such and such.’ I addressed it in that
way with the teacher. So then, the teacher was like the child was getting up non-stop.
Again it’s that frustration we feel as people. But just really reminding teachers, this is
someone’s child.
The principal went on to say that the situation was resolved in that conversation and no follow up
meeting was scheduled; however, she provided another example of teacher to student bullying in
the form of negligence.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 73

One of the para-educators notified the teacher that a student had soiled themselves. The
teacher essentially said, ‘Well it’s my recess and I don’t do changing, so let the child sit
there.
After being reported to about the incident, the principal contacted her district administrator about
the teacher’s conduct. The teacher was already on watch for previous transgressions; however,
the principal was deposed by the teacher’s union attorneys for doing so. The teacher was moved
from the school and no details on her employment were provided to the principal thereafter.
I wrote the teacher up, contacted administrators and eventually attorneys were involved.
Deposition happened and it was very ugly. I truly thought, how could our system of
evaluating teachers fail us so blatantly. It should not be that way. It should not be that
difficult to write an injustice, or override an injustice, and give consequences to a
professional who is charged with the care of children. It shouldn’t be that difficult.
The principal felt that she was the one on trial and not the teacher and expressed great
disappointment in the system.
Three principals shared ‘frustration with the system’ as a significant hurdle in
addressing teacher to student bullying.
We never treat the issue. You accommodate. You don’t put certain kids in their
classroom. But you never treat the problem. And then, they feel pressure and transfer, or
retire.
The principal described that teacher to student bullying was not directly addressed, but instead,
accommodations and modifications were made for the teacher in the place of formal disciplinary
action. Additionally, another principal suggested that problems were rarely resolved, “Unless
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 74

the teacher admits that’s what they did.” She continues by saying, “It’s very frustrating because
the only thing you can do is talk to that person and stay on that person.”
The principal’s apparent frustration with the system coincided with her description of
the process as “highly political,” and contingent on the stakeholders that are or may become
involved.
You have to watch it. My teacher is very well known in the district so I’ve had
discussions with my bosses to try to figure out how to help her. The thing is, she has
been like this, every principal has had to deal with her. She is loved by many, hated by
some. She’s a bully, but also the best teacher I have on my staff.

The principal described her struggle with the teacher despite complaints from parents, teachers,
and students about her bullying behavior and the teacher’s high quality teaching skills. The
challenge working with the teacher led the principal to admit that she would “rather quit than
deal with her another year.”
Another principal shared that addressing teacher to student bullying with parents can
be trying and must be met with great sensitivity to avoid unproductive attention.
The tough part is the parent piece. You don’t want it to blow up. But, you also need to
say we need to move your child. Most of the times, the parents knew, they didn’t like
the teacher.
According to the principal, being methodical and careful in the manner issues are addressed with
parents is an important part of addressing teacher to student bullying.
All six principals met with teachers after observing or receiving a parent complaint
concerning a teacher’s conduct. Four principals shared their frustration with teachers’ self-
awareness as well as the progressive disciplinary system itself not allowing for effective
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 75

disciplinary actions to take place. Only one principal shared a preventive measure beyond high
expectations of staff members. In four of the cases of teacher to student bullying, the teacher
was transferred or retired. One principal reported a positive change in behavior and another
reported that the teacher is still present at her school site with little progress.

Research Question 4
The research question asked, what strategies do elementary school principals use to
help students who are victims of teacher to student bullying? Findings from interviews of
principals found little evidence of support provided to students who are victims of bullying at the
hands of a teacher. Four of the principals shared that they have or would contact parents, and
three others shared that they moved students into different classrooms. Two of the principals
shared that they met directly with the students who were bullied as part of the resolution process,
encouraging them to communicate to school leadership whenever they felt uncomfortable or
bullied by an adult.
I became that kid’s point person. I kind of established that if this happened to you, or if
it happened to you before, it is okay to come and complain, either to your parent or to
me. I would check in and ask how they were doing and how they were feeling.

In a conversation with the student, the principal aimed to re-establish trust toward adults and
encourage communicative behavior so problems could be addressed. Another principal felt it
was important to apologize to students as a reconciliatory gesture:
I didn’t respond to them as victims, initially. Then I did once I learned, because you
tend to defer to the teacher. Then, that victim is victimized twice by two adults. I think
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 76

for me, the kids I’ve moved or apologized to, and if I know, I’d prefer that the adult
apologize to them. I’ve yet to have one that was willing to do that. So I put myself in
their shoes and apologize for them. Because I think you lose trust as a victim, and I
don’t want them to sustain that lack of trust. I tell them that I’ll do all I can to make the
situation better for them. And then, invite them to come by if there is any other way to
help them. I always apologize in place of the teacher.
The principal’s admission that she apologizes to students for them in the place of teachers is
what she considers part of the healing process.
The findings from the interviews suggested no other support was provided to students
who were bullied by teachers beyond transfer into another classroom (in half of the cases). Two
principals indicated they did nothing after witnessing their teachers yelling at students because
“they looked fine afterward” and “didn’t show signs of emotional distress.” Another principal
argued that many of her students demonstrate resilience to teacher to student bullying because it
is the way they are “treated at home.”

Discussion
Pervasiveness
Findings in the present study provide evidence for the pervasiveness of bullying;
however, principals demonstrated reluctance or lack of awareness of bullying occurrences at
their school sites. Four of the principals interviewed indicated that teacher to study bullying was
pervasive and an important topic matter to address, while all six, ranging in their experience
levels (2 years to 34 years), disclosed information concerning teachers who chronically bullied
students under their leadership. One principal admitted she was “knee-deep in it,” referencing a
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 77

teacher who is “well-known in the district” for her behavior toward peers, parents, and students,
while another principal asserted “it’s a bigger issue than most people want to admit.” However,
these admissions concerning the pervasiveness of teacher to student bullying during parts of the
interviews did not lead the majority of principals to admit it was currently a problem at their
school. These conflicting views were evidenced in four interviews in which principals explicitly
referenced incidents that “happened years ago” and responded “no” when asked if it was still a
problem at their school site.
The principals’ responses were also contradictory to the literature on teacher to
student bullying. According to Tremlow et al. (2006), 45% of elementary school teachers self-
reported to having bullied a student, including repeated punishment of the same child,
humiliation as a means of stopping disruption, defensiveness about teaching styles, and
spitefulness toward students. Another study of K-8 teachers found that more than 62% of
teachers yelled or shouted and 50% used sarcasm as a means of eliciting cooperative behavior in
students (Wilson, 2006). This inconsistency may be due to a lack of awareness of teacher to
student bullying occurring at their school sites, or of an unwillingness to admit that it is taking
place under their leadership.

Definitions and explanations. Inconsistencies in the responses of principals with
regard to the pervasiveness of teacher to student bullying may stem from a limited understanding
of what bullying entails. With the exception of one principal who provided a comprehensive
definition of bullying, which included multiple examples of its manifestations in different
contexts, the majority of principals struggled in their descriptions of what bullying actually was.
One principal described bullying as “not taking responsibility for your actions,” while another
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 78

described it as any behavior that has a negative impact on another person or group. In addition,
inconsistencies existed between principals when it came to various caveats, including
intentionality and persistence. Two principals affirmed that one-time behaviors qualified as
bullying given its precursory nature, while four others insisted the need for the existence of a
pattern. However, the majority of principals alluded to bullying as an assertion or reassertion of
relative power or hierarchy, using descriptors such as “put-downs,” “power imbalance,” and
“making someone feel less-than.”
The concept of superiority is an abstraction that necessarily celebrates one person’s
concept of “above-ness” over another’s These self-concepts manifest in actions that fail to reify
notions of equality or mutual respect (the acknowledgement of mutual humanity); instead
deferring to perceived authority or sense of entitlement by way of intimidation and advancement
of fear. This feature undergirds the work of critical pedagogists who explore the inadvertent
oppression experienced by students in schools through asymmetric power structures and
privilege.
Paolo Freire’s (1970) seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, illustrates the
imbalanced relationship between teachers and students, and argues the need for a dialectical and
dialogical education which approaches teaching and learning as a process that views all
participants, teachers and students, as equals in the inquiry process. If bullying is the reassertion
of relative power and hierarchy, it follows that many forms of communication and classroom
management styles constitute bullying behavior, regardless of intentionality. Furthermore, the
majority of examples provided by principals of teacher to student bullying behavior were
examples of verbal aggression, where teachers yelled directives at students like “Sit down!” and
“I said be quiet!” Such directives, or commands, are actuations of presumed authority over
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 79

others, not mutual respect, demonstrable in its role reversal, where a student yelling such
directives toward an adult would be viewed as a form of insubordination or defiance.
The seductive nature of asserting authority or reinforcing hierarchy as a means of
organizing and managing schools and classrooms comes with myriad challenges, which include
perceived superiority or “above-ness” over and above “inferior,” to illusions of justifiable verbal
and physical abuse, subsequently, modeling, ever so subtly, inequality as a necessary part of
human to human interaction. This was evidenced in the interviews where principals described
teachers who frequently put students down in front of them or in conversation with peers. One
principal mentioned an experience where another teacher degraded a student who was enrolled in
her class, exclaiming, “I’m so glad I never have to see his face again!” To the teacher, this child
was inferior, viewed as “less than.” Such perceptions of superiority or inferiority are antecedents
of bullying behavior and may be its root cause.

Teacher awareness and education. Five principals theorized that teachers did not
recognize their actions as bullying behavior due to their upbringing, life histories, or education.
One principal explained:
If you’re raised to be the bully, it will come across that way in your classroom. You’ll
think, ‘I’m the one in charge here.’ And, teachers bully teachers, too. I think when a
teacher is stronger in their own management skills; they won’t do that because they have
strategies. We revert back to how we’re raised. Some think punishment before rewards
or the positive. ‘I’m going to take this away.’
Another principal stated:
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 80

You have to realize that we don’t take any emotional or social growth tests as people to
work with kids. So, I have seen where teachers… You know when you’re manic-
depressive and you have emotional outbursts, overreact to things that aren’t a big deal.
Both principals suggest that individuals who are not taught redemptive skills such as self-control
or positive management end up exhibiting bullying behavior because they lack strategies to
avoid doing so. Classroom management as a significant subset of teaching and learning, and was
viewed as under-addressed in teacher education programs, as elucidated by another principal:
It goes back to education. And we’re not taught those strategies. We’re just taught,
okay, here’s how you teach a reading lesson, but you’re not taught how to change the
state of a student if they’re not listening, or so and so started something and everyone’s
looking at that other kid and you’re doing a lesson. Well, how do you get the kids back?
These strategies, whether pertaining to self-control or classroom management, were equally
referenced as integral to the teaching and learning process. These disparities in awareness and
emotional skills suggest a lack of emphasis on empathy by way of critical reflection in both K-12
and teacher education. Such findings have strong implications for reflective practices in schools
that promote self-accountability and critically address social-emotional needs before maladaptive
behaviors become habituated.
Stough's (2006) meta-analysis of teacher education programs found that 30% of
teacher education programs offered courses directly pertaining to classroom management despite
overwhelming agreement amongst researchers, teachers, and principals alike, that classroom
management is integral to the establishment of an environment conducive to teaching and
learning (Friedman, 2006; Jones, 2006; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). Recognizing this striking
deficiency in teacher education, one principal responded by including strategies for “conscious
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 81

discipline” to the teacher induction process at her site, which heavily emphasizes reflection and
teacher-centered intervention, versus student-centered, as a classroom management technique.
However, this was not a practice evidenced at any of the other school sites.
Emerging from these findings is the lack of emphasis on critical reflection in both K-
12 education and teacher education. Insufficient opportunities for consciousness building
through critical feedback, reflective practices, and the offering of corresponding skills, give way
to behaviors that resemble bullying, potentially under the radar of perpetrators, victims, and
observers. These findings suggest that teacher education should include opportunities to
challenge deep-seated, sometimes sub-conscious, notions about the self, others, the role of
students, the role of teachers, and the manner in which power should be exercised. Such
consciousness building, grounded in humility, requires individuals who will eventually be
charged with the care of students, to be critical of themselves, their actions, and their impact on
others.

Modeling. Strong evidence suggests that bullying is cyclical in nature and strongly
correlated with one’s environment. Roland and Galloway (2002) discovered a strong
relationship between the social structure and management of the class and the presence of
bullying. Comparable to the research on parental styles by Baldry and Farrington (2000), they
found that authoritative approaches to teaching, like authoritative approaches to parenting, which
focused on purposeful, respectful behavior and encouraged self-determination, were inversely
correlated with bullying behavior in a classroom. In contrast, authoritarian teaching or parenting,
characterized by rigid rules and power-based discipline, was found to strongly correlate with the
development of a bullying culture in a classroom. The cyclical nature of bullying is not only
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 82

evidenced in the research on parental style and classroom management, but also in cases of
domestic violence, where children who witness it are also more likely to bully (Bowes et al.,
2009). Taken together, the literature suggests that the construction of the social environment,
and the models that exist within it, carries implications for the presence of pro-social or anti-
social behavior. Therefore, teachers who may not be aware of their biases and subsequent
bullying behaviors may implicitly be modeling for students. Yet, contrary to this evidence, the
research did not find significant attention being paid by elementary school leaders to the
modeling of pro-social behavior for students. In effect, principals emphasized the importance of
behavior reinforcement through rewards or positive feedback, which strategically does not
necessitate modeling, or teachers as models. These findings suggest greater attention should be
paid to teachers and school officials modeling the physical and communicative behaviors
expected of students, commensurate with the educative structures, and avoiding the cultivation of
incongruent social expectations. Accordingly, anti-bullying campaigns may be more effectual if
geared toward adults, through critical reflection and practice, before being introduced to
students.

Prevention and response. Another important issue emerging from the data is the
relative absence of preventative efforts to dissuade teacher to student bullying before it occurs.
The findings suggest that principals viewed their communication of high expectations as the
most significant deterrent of teacher to student bullying. Yet, when prompted to elaborate on
their high expectations, they communicated their resistance to use the terms “teacher to student
bullying,” with one ambiguously referring to them as “negative behaviors toward students.”
None of the principals explicitly described inappropriate teacher to student conduct to teachers
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 83

when communicating their high expectations, suggesting they viewed such behaviors as common
sense. Sylvester (2011) suggests that teachers may not be cognizant of their bullying behavior,
unintentionally humiliating, name-calling, or being sarcastic toward students. The notion that
adults are aware of what does and does not constitute bullying behavior contradicts evidence that
these skills are under-emphasized in both K-12 education and teacher education. As the primary
preventive measure exercised by principals, it fails to address the deeper issue of awareness
missing in teacher training that provide skills directly related to the promotion of a culture of
mutual respect.
Findings in the present study also indicate that principals lack significant support
systems for students who are victims of bullying. Half of the respondents communicated that
they met with the student following incidents of victimization, essentially re-building trusting
relations and encouraging communication. Half of the respondents also shared that they moved
students out of the classes they were being bullied in to avoid further transgressions. Little
evidence of additional support for students that were bullied, sometimes for an entire year,
emerged from the interviews. Research suggests bullying behavior and victimization has long-
lasting effects on psychosocial health (Bond et al., 2001; Olweus, 1996; Swearer et al., 2001;
Klomk et al., 2007; Turner et al., 2013). It has been found that exposure to all types of bullying
increases the risk of depression and suicide in both genders (Klomek et al. 2008; Turner et al.,
2013). It may be the case that the deleterious consequences of bullying, particularly at the hands
of an adult, are deemphasized and rationalized by principals as an element of most children’s
upbringings, as evidenced by principals’ remarks like, “the kid looked fine,” and “unfortunately,
they get yelled at at home, so for them, it’s not a big deal.” School leadership challenging
oppressive behavior, despite its apparent normalcy, is part of the process of transcendence into a
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 84

more humanizing education. Educating school leaders on the myriad negative consequences that
come with every form of violence, in tandem with support for victims of such violence is
indispensable to responsive, anti-bullying efforts.

Summary
Teacher to student bullying was explored through the lens of school leadership in
chapter four. Emergent themes were based on research questions aimed to understand
principals’ perceptions of teacher to student bullying, why it exists, their approaches when
addressing and preventing it, and finally, whether or not support is provided to students who are
victims of bullying. The findings from the interviews were organized according to research
question and categorized based on reoccurring themes. The following chapter offers a reflection
on the findings, providing greater insight into the data collected from the study.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 85

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

Purpose of the Study
School bullying is one of the most common forms of victimization experienced by
school-aged children today and has garnered increased attention over the past three decades. The
purpose of the study was to understand teacher to student bullying from the perspective of
elementary school principals through an examination of the classroom management heuristics
they espoused. Pioneering research on school bullying and anti-bullying campaigns are
plentiful; however, little attention has been paid to teacher to student bullying despite evidence
of its pervasiveness. This may be constituent of deeper concerns surrounding teacher education
and site-level support, particularly in the area of classroom management and the construction of
a positive school climate. Considering the deleterious effects of bullying, particularly at the
hands of adults, this study aimed to understand teacher to student bullying through the lens of
elementary school leadership, paying attention to classroom management heuristics, preventive
and responsive systems, and the types of support available to victims.

Research Questions
The research questions were as follows:
1. How do elementary school principals define teacher to student bullying?
2. What common classroom management heuristics do elementary school principals
espouse?
a. Of these, which constitute teacher to student bullying?
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 86

3. What do elementary school principals do to assist teachers who engage in teacher to
student bullying?
4. What strategies do elementary school principals use to help students who are the victims
of teacher bullying?

Summary of Findings
Despite the evidence that teacher to student bullying is a pervasive problem in
education, few principals purported it was an existing issue at their school sites, however, the
sensitivity of the topic matter did not prevent them from conceding that it occurs frequently and
under the radar of most people. This lack of awareness regarding the pervasiveness of bullying,
as exemplified by the incongruence of their statements, suggests a lack of awareness of what
constitutes bullying behavior. Principals provided divergent definitions of bullying based on
intentionality and frequency as the most referenced caveats. They did, however, allude more
generally to bullying as the assertion or reassertion of power, hierarchy, or dominance. These
descriptions of bullying as “put-downs” or delineations of order in dyadic interchanges prove
problematic when considering the hierarchical nature of most human organizations, whether they
are classrooms led by teachers, or schools led by principals. At the same time, perceptions of
superiority and inferiority were described as ideological precursors to bullying behavior.
Teachers’ awareness, or lack thereof, of their own behaviors, was found to be the
most referenced characteristic when describing incidents of teacher to student bullying.
Principals reported that teachers would relegate responsibility to students and lacked the skills to
reflect upon themselves and their impact on the behavior of those around them, citing significant
disparities in teacher education that would promote reflective practices and self-accountability.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 87

However, their acknowledgements of teacher education programs that pay little attention to
conscious discipline were not met with attempts to address the disparity in the provision of
teacher development opportunities.
The findings, while preliminary, suggest that principals needed additional support in
the area of preventive and responsive action for teacher to student bullying. The majority of
principals cited “high expectations” as their primary preventive measure, implying the existence
of consequences for negative actions toward stakeholders. However, this data, in tandem with
the findings on awareness, lead to questions about whether or not subtly implying teacher to
student conduct without explicit examples of appropriate and inappropriate behavior is an
effectual preventive measure.
The study also found that responsive support was not being provided to students after
victimization, sometimes for periods of an entire year, or not at all. Three of the principals
mentioned similar steps were taken after official complaints were submitted, including a meeting
with the student as a means of rebuilding trust and communicative pathways, and moving the
student out of the classroom. No further actions were taken to support students who were
victims of teacher to student bullying in the study. Additional measures were deemphasized by
principals as unnecessary or superfluous based on observations of students’ apparent tolerance to
such behaviors due to the ubiquity of verbal abuse by parents and family members.

Conclusion
The research investigated the pervasiveness of teacher to student bullying within
classroom management strategies. Although no significant correlations were found in the
heuristics espoused by school leadership that may indicate a proliferation of negative
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 88

management behaviors, principals communicated great flexibility when it came to the classroom
management practices of their teachers, citing potential disempowerment if they were counseled
another way. Together, the findings from this study bring to the surface a significant disconnect
between principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying relative to the research existing on
the topic matter, as well as deficits in preventive and responsive supports for both teachers and
students.

Implications for Practice

Fostering a culture of self-accountability, humility, and reflection. School leaders
who cultivate an environment that encourages and rewards behaviors that resemble self-
accountability, humility, and reflection, as a fundamental praxis for teaching can combat teacher
to student bullying internally. Providing for multiple opportunities for critical reflection through
empathic dialogue, challenging teachers to ask, “How would you feel if someone said or did this
to you?” or “How would we feel if someone said or did this to our child?” would engender a call
to consciousness and provoke teachers to question themselves prior to and after engaging with
students. This approach necessitates the construction of an environment in which failure and
reflection are both seen as integral to the process of learning, requiring less punitive or
condemnatory responses to bullying; offering instead, critical and collaborative problem solving
opportunities.

Critical teacher education. Both school leaders and teachers alike enter the field of
education with preconceived notions about the world, about people, about teaching and learning.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 89

The same can be said about their conceptions of love, respect, and the role of authority in human
organizations. Teachers who enter the field with few educational opportunities that critically
challenge deep-seated beliefs concerning superiority, power, and oppression, as they relate to
pedagogy, risk lacking the skills that promote continued awareness building and the perpetuation
of oppression within the system. Renowned feminist theorist and critical pedagogist, bell hooks,
describes this kind of education in the following manner:
Progressive, holistic education, ‘engaged pedagogy’ is more demanding than
conventional critical or feminist pedagogy. For, unlike these two teaching practices, it
emphasizes well-being. That means that teachers must be actively committed to a
process of self-actualization that promotes their own well-being if they are to teach in a
manner that empowers students… To teach in a manner that respects and cares for the
souls of our students is essential if we are to provide the necessary conditions where
learning can most deeply and intimately begin. (hooks, 1994)
Institutions have a responsibility, therefore, to combat the cyclical nature of violence, whether it
is verbal, physical, or emotional, through the integration of critical pedagogy and self-inquiry,
providing time and space for educators to reflect and question their pre-suppositions about
humanity and education prior to entering the classroom. Additionally, principals can expand on
the praxis by similarly providing critical and reflective opportunities as an unalienable
component of teacher development.

Be the change. School-wide plans, inclusively constructed by administrators,
teachers and students alike, that recognize the importance of modeling pro-social, positive
behaviors, can support a culture that dissuades teacher to student bullying. The existence of
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 90

incongruence or inequality between the expectations of students and the expectations of teachers
and administrators resultantly breeds division, inequality, and unfairness. Such ideological
divisions are precursory to exhibitions of violence, whether teacher to student, teacher to teacher,
etc. Recognizing the myriad of research in social-learning and the cyclical nature of violence
should prompt school leaders and educators to move forward with great care and particularity in
how they communicate, both implicitly and explicitly, love, respect, mutuality, and humanity in
all of their actions. School leaders could therefore ask teachers to engage in deep inquiries as to
what such words mean, and subsequently dialogue about what they all look, sound, and feel like.
These conditions would therefore become an iteration of the school-wide plan to prevent
bullying of all types, beginning with the actions of adults before transferring to the expectations
of students.

Responsive support. Included in school-wide plans generated by school leaders and
faculty, should be protocols for following up with victims of violence, particularly teacher to
student, as all forms of bullying have been found to have significant deleterious effects. These
interventions can include, but not be limited to, multiple meetings with the on-site administrator
to check in with victims and fortify communicative pathways through relationship building,
access to individual or group counseling, creative or physical outlets that promote the
reincorporation of self-confidence, self-actualization and self-worth, and critical education that
allows for the continued processing of violence into deeper iterations of understanding and
empathy.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 91

Limitations
A number of limitations must be acknowledged when reviewing the findings from
this study. First, the principal researcher used a semi-structured interview methodology when
speaking with principals. Follow up questions were posed depending on responses provided
during the interview. As a result, correspondences or disparities may not have existed if
respondents were further prompted by the interviewer. Second, the study was aimed at
understanding teacher to student bullying within classroom management strategies espoused by
school leadership. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic matter, there was little incentive for
principals to be forthright with struggles they may currently be encountering as it may be
interpreted as a deficiency in their leadership capacity. Subsequently, the findings would have
been better supplemented with comparable interviews of teachers and students and vetted for
correspondences or divergences. Finally, the study examined the perspectives of six principals
within one school district and is not representative of the experiences of all school leadership. It
is a snapshot of a very specific geographic location and demographic that can add to the
understanding of teacher to student bullying as a phenomenon, but not represent its processes in
its entirety.

Recommendations for Future Study
The study adds to the body of knowledge around bullying, specifically teacher to
student bullying, from the perspective of school leadership, offering insight into the ideologies
operating below the surface of both leader and teacher actions. Although the study adds to the
narrative around teacher to student bullying, additional research is warranted as represented in
the following questions:
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 92

What are the perceptions of middle school and high school leadership of teacher to
student bullying?
What assumptions do school leaders in secondary education have about power and
authority in the classroom?
What are the most common classroom management strategies espoused by secondary
school leaders?
Are there correlations between perceptions of management based on the
demographic of students being served?
Is there a correlation between deficit thinking and classroom management techniques
used by teachers and espoused by school leadership?

The existence of teacher to student bullying as a phenomenon provides school leaders
and educators with an opportunity to critically examine their contributions to its actuation and
perpetuation. Research on its pervasiveness and varied manifestations suggest it is mutually
inclusive of ideologies around power, authority, humanity, and pedagogy. The findings in this
study impel practitioners to be both mindful and explicit in the construction of school-wide plans
that do more than pay lip service to respect, fairness, and consideration, but model it through
conscious, deliberate, continual and responsible praxis.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 93

References
American Psychological Association - Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are Zero-Tolerance
Policies Effective in Schools: An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations.
American Psychologist. Vol. 63, No. 9, 852–862 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Armstrong, D. C. (1976). Equipping teachers to deal with classroom control problems. High
School Journal, 60(1), 1-9.

Baldry, A. C. and Farrington, D. P. (2000), Bullies and delinquents: personal characteristics and
parental styles. J. Community. Appl. Soc. Psychol., 10: 17–31.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)10:1<17::AID-CASP526>3.0.CO;2-M

Baldry, A. C. and Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of Programs to Prevent School
Bullying. Victims and Offenders. Vol. 2, Iss. 2.

Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-82.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. General Learning Corporation. Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number 75-170398.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45(4), 405-414.

Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2007). What makes a process a capability?
Heuristics, strategy, and effec- tive capture of opportunities. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 27-47.

Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause
emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. BMJ: British Medical
Journal, 323(7311), 480-484. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7311.480

Bowes L, Arseneault L, Maughan B, Taylor A, Caspi A, Moffit TE. (2009). School,
neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: a
nationally representative longitudinal study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry
48:5455 4

Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Preventing bullying through positive behavioral interventions and
supports : A multitiered approach to prevention and integration. Theory into Practice,
52(4), 288.

Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ia- longo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of
school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational
health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 462l473.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 94

Bradshaw, C, Sawyer, A., & O'Brennan, L. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at
school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology
Review 36(3), 361-382.

Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., &

California Department of Education (2003). Bullying at School. Counseling and Student
Support Office. ISBN 0-8011-1584-1

California Department of Education (2015). Data and Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/

Chappell, M., Hasselman, S., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S., Maclver, K., & Sarullo, P. (2006). Bullying
in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence 46 (164).

Chelte, A. F., Hess, P., Fanelli, R., & Ferris, W. P. (1989). Corporate culture as an impediment to
employee involvement: When you can’t get there from here. Work and Occupations,
16(2), 1153-1164.

City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education:
A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.

Clement, M. C. (2010). Preparing Teachers for Classroom Management: The Teacher
Educator’s Role. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin.

Cohen, J., Pickeral, T., & McCloskey, M. (2009). Assessing school climate. The Education
Digest, 74(8), 45.

Crane, V., & Ballif, B. L. (1973). Effects of adult modeling and rule structure on responses to
moral situations of children in fifth-grade classrooms. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 41(3), 49-52. doi:10.1080/00220973.1973.11011408

Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180eacher

Cooper, James M., & Alvarado, Amy. (2006). Preparation, recruitment, and retention of
teachers. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Cresswell, J. (2009). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among jive traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
Crothers, L., Bell, R., Blasik, J., Camic, L., Greisler, J., and Keener, D. (2008). “Relational
Aggression in Children and Adolescents: An Overview of the Literature for School
Psychologists.” NASP Communiqué, Vol. 36, #5 February 2008.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 95

Dake, J., Price, J., & Telljohann, S. (2003). Teacher perceptions and practices regarding school
bullying prevention. The Journal of School Health 73(9), 347-355.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2004). Principals’ Perceptions and
Practices of School Bullying Prevention Activities. Health, Education & Behavior.
31:372. DOI: 10.1177/1090198104263359
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006) (Eds.). Deviant peer influences in
programs for youth. New York, NY: Guildford.

Doyle, W. (1985). Effective Teaching and the Concept of Master Teacher. The Elementary
School Journal. Vol. 86, No. 1, Special Issue: The Master Teacher (Sep., 1985), pp. 27-
33. The University of Chicago Press. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001213

Evans, W. M. (1968). A systems model of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin
(Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 107-123). Boston: Harvard
University Press.

Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. In
C.M. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research
practice and contemporary issues (pp. 3-16). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2010). Individual risk factors for school bullying. Journal of
Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2(1), 4-16. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/862598166?accountid=14749

Flaunders, N. (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing
Co.

Freire, P. (1998) Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach, Boulder,
Westview Press, 100 pp., ISBN 0 8133 2304-5

French. J. R.P., Jr.. & Raven. B. The bases for social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power. Ann Arbor. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1968.

Friedman, I. A. (2006). Classroom management and teacher stress and burnout. In

C.M. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research
practice and contemporary issues (pp. 925-944). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 96

Garner PW, Hinton ST. 2010. Emotional display rules and emotional self-regulation:
associations with bullying and victimization in community-based after school programs.
J. Community Appl. Psychol. 20:480i96

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. The Annual Review of
Psychology. 62:451–82. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Green, J. L. (1976). PHILOSOPHY, HEURISTICS, AND EDUCATION: A TRIADIC
ENSEMBLE. Journal of Thought, 11(4), 280-286.

Gruenert, S. (2008). School Culture, They Are Not The Same Thing. Principal. March/April.
www.naesp.org

Haberman, M. (2010). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2),
81-87. doi:10.1177/003172171009200223

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing instructional management behavior of principals.
Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625-638.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301

Harris, S., & Hathorn, C. (2006). Texas middle school principals' perceptions of bullying on
campus. Bulletin, 90(1), 49-69. doi:10.1177/0192636505284527

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Gloria
Watkins.

Hyman, I. A., Dahbany, A., Blum, M., Weiler, E., Brooks-Klein, V., & Pokalo, M. (1997).
School discipline and school violence: The teacher variance approach. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hyman, I. A., & Snook, P. A. (2000). Dangerous schools and what you can do about them. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(7), 489-498, 500-501.

Hyman, I. A., & Snook, P. A. (2001). Dangerous schools, alienated students. Reclaiming
Children and Youth, 10(3), 133-136.

Hyman, I., & Snook, P. (2001). Dangerous Schools, Alienated Students. Reclaiming Children
and Youth; Fall; 10:3, 133-136.

Jones, V. (2006). How do teachers learn to be effective classroom managers? In

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 97

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

Kahneman, D. (2011). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics

Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of
leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17on,

Kikkawa, M. (1987). Teachers’ opinions and treatements for bully/victim problems among
students in junior and senior high schools: Results of a fact-finding survey. Journal of
Human Development, 23, 25-30.

Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2008). Peer
victimization, depression, and suicidiality in adolescents. Suicide & Life-Threatening
Behavior, 38(2), 166-180. doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.166

LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H., Guttierez, C., Jenkins-Gunn, E., & Rosebrock, K.
(2005). Classroom management. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K.
Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a change world (pp. 327-357).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lowenstein, L. F. (1978) `Who is the bully?' Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 31,
147-149.

Luukkonen, A., Riala, K., Hakko, H., Räsänen, P., & Study-70 workgroup. (2010). Bullying
behaviour and substance abuse among underage psychiatric inpatient adolescents.
European Psychiatry, 25(7), 382-389. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2009.12.002

Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works:
Research based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An interactive approach. Applied Social
Research Methods Series. Sage Publications, Inc.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and Student
Perceptions. Communication Education. Volume 32, April.

McEvoy, A. (2005). Teachers who bully students: Patterns and policy implications.
Persistently Safe Schools. The National Conference of the Hamilton Fish Institute on
School and Community Violence. Philadelphia.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 98

McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of
education. New York: Longman.

McMahon, S. R., & Ford, C. M. (2013; 2012). Heuristic transfer in the relationship between
leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
20(1), 69-83. doi:10.1177/1548051812465894

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Higher
and Adult Education Series. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis.
London: Sage.

Miller, R. (1990). Foundations of the human sciences: Beyond reductionism: The emerging
holistic paradigm in education. The Humanistic Psychologist. Vol. 18, Iss. 3

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their associations with Eysenck’s
personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 51-54. The British Psychological Society.

Nansel, T. R., Overpect, M., Pila, R. S., Ruan, W. J. Simmons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

Nation M, Vieno A, Perkins DD, Massimo S. 2008. Bullying in school and adolescent sense of
empowerment: an analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. J.
Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18:211it2

Newman, R., & Murray, B. (2005). How students and teachers view the seriousness of peer
harassment: When is it appropriate to seek help? Journal of Educational Psychology
97(3), 347-365.
Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment
in middle school. Child Development76(2),435-450.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping-boys. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere Press.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school, what we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation. Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based
intervention program. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 35: 1171-90.

Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Res.
Cent. Health Promot. (HEMIL), Univ. Bergen.

Olweus, D. (2013). School Bullying: Development and Some Important Challenges. Annual
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 99

Revue of Clinical Psychology. 9:751-80.

Osterman KF (2010) Teacher practice and students’ssense of belonging. In: Lovat T, Toomey R
and Clement N (eds) International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student
Wellbeing. London: Springer, 239– Lond

Pasi, R. J. (2001). A climate for achievement. Principal Leadership, 2(4). [Electronic version].
www.principals.org/news/pl_clmt_4_achvmnt1201.cfm

Pelligrino, A. M. (2010). Pre-Service Teachers and Classroom Authority. American Secondary
Education. 38(3).

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports-PBIS Website. (2015). Overview. Retrieved
from www.pbis.org.

Principal Perspectives. (2004). Education Week, 24(6). Retrieved July 24, 2009, http://
web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=5
&sid=109cf08d-1615-4592-a5c5- fd36f43a13ff
%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3 d
%3d#db=ehh&AN=14745447.

Ratcliff, M. J., Jones, C. R., Costner, R. H., Savage-David, E., & Hunt, G. H. (2011). The
impact of misbehavior on classroom climate. Education Digest, 77(2), 16.

Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in Schools and What to Do About It. Melbourne: Aust. Counc. Educ.
Res.

Roland, R., & Galloway, D. (2002). Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Resarch,
44(3), 299-312.

Ryan, W., & Smith, J. (2009). Antibullying programs in schools: How effective are evaluation
practices? Prevention Science, 10(3), 248-259. doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0128-y

Sablynski, C. J. (2002). The effects of attributions and perceived organizational
response on observers of workplace bullying

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation
and outcome. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(Pt 3), 465.

Smith, J., Schneider, B, Smith, P., Ananiadou, K. (2004). “The effectiveness of whole-school
anti-bullying programs: a synthesis of evaluation research.esSchool Psychology Review
Vol. 33, No. 4, 547-560.

Smith, P. K. (2011). Why interventions to reduce bullying in schools may (or may not) succeed:
Comments on this Special Section. International Journal of Behavioral Development.
35(5) 419-423.
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 100

Sourander, A., HelsteläelstelHelenius, H., & Piha, J. (2000). Persistence of bullying from
childhood to adolescenceolescencefrom vioral Devollow-up study. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 24(7), 873-881. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00146-0

Stough, L. M. (2006). The place of classroom management and standards in teacher education.
In C.M. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 909-923). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Stough, L. M., Emmer, E. T. (2001). Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational
Psychology, With Implications for Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist.
36(2), 103-112.

Sullivan, K., Cleary, M., & Sullivan, G. (2004). Bullying in secondary schools: What it looks
like and how to manage it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about
school bullying? linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1),
38-47. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357622

Sylvester, R. (2011). Teacher as Bully: Knowingly or Unintentionally Harming Students.
Morality in Education. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin.

Tartwijk, J. V., & Hammerness, K. (2011). The neglected role of classroom management in
teacher education. Teaching Education. 22:2, 109-112, DOI:
10.1080/10476210.2011.567836.

Tremlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F., & Brethour, J. (2006). Teachers who bully students: A
hidden trauma. International Journal for Social Psychiatry. 52:187.

Ttofi, M. M. & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: effective elements
of anti-bullying programmes. Aggress. Confl. Peace Res. 1(1):13-24.

Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying victimization and
adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 41(1), 53-59. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005
United States Department of Education. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of
existing literature (DocumentNo.2004-09). Retrieved from DOEWeb site via GPO
Access: www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2013). Bullying. Office of
Adolescent Health. Website: http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-
topics/healthy-relationships/bullying.html

United States Secret Service & United States Department of Education. (2004). The Final
TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 101

Report and Findings of Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school
attacks in the United States. http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac
University of Virginia. (2004). Youth Violence Project, 2004 [Data File]. Available from
University of Virginia Web site http://vouthviolence.
Vreeman, R., Carroll, A. (2007). “A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent
bullying.” Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 161(1): 78-88.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Educational resilience in inner cities. In
M. C. Wang & E. Gorden (Eds.) Educational resilience in inner-city America:
Challenges and prospects (pp. 45-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weber, M. (1947). Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization. (A.M.
Henderson and T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Weller, L. D., Buttery, T. J., & Bland, R. W. (1994). Teacher evaluation of principals: As viewed
by teachers, principals, and superintendents. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 27(2), 112-117.

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

Wilson, K. S. (2006). Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Management Practices in Public
Elementary Schools. Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from University of Southern
California Libraries.

Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school Achievement1.
American Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 301-318.

Whitted, K., & Dupper, D. (2008). Do Teachers Bully Students?: Findings From a Survey
of Students in an Alternative Education Setting. Education and Urban Society. 40:3.
329-341. Corwin Press, Inc.

Wolke D, Woods S, Bloomfield L, Karstadt L. (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school
and common health problems. Arch Dis Child. 85(3):197(3):1

Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: What should
prospective teachers learn? Teaching Education, 22(2), 113-131. doi:
10.1080/10476210.2011.567838

Yoon, J. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment
of Children 27(1): 37-48.
Zerillo, C. & Osterman, K. F. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying. Improving
Schools. 14:239. DOI: 10.1177/1365480211419586.

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 102

Zizek, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. Verso Books. 978-086091971

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 103

Appendix A.

Interview Protocol
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study aims to examine elementary school principals' perceptions of and responses to teacher-to-
student bullying, paying special attention to classroom management practices and heuristics. Through the interview
of 6 elementary school principals from two different school districts in Southern California, of which 3 schools are
located in high-SES communities and 3 in low-SES communities, the study will: (a) Identify how elementary
school principals define teacher to student bullying; (b) Identify and critically analyze common heuristics related to
classroom management favored by elementary school principals; (c) Identify strategies used by elementary school
principals to address teacher-to-student bullying; and (d) Identify strategies used by elementary school principals to
support students who are victims of teacher bullying.

Introduction

I am a graduate student at the University of Southern California working on my dissertation on principal perceptions
of teacher to student bullying. As an educator and school principal, you are in a unique position to describe this
phenomenon from your perspective, the classroom management strategies you have perceived and espoused, and
how you’ve addressed it (if ever) in your position.

The responses provided by all 6 principals we interview will be combined for our report. Nothing you say will be
identified with you personally. As we go through the interview, please feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Just let me know if you would prefer not to respond to specific questions. Again, the purpose of the interview is to
get your insights into this phenomenon.

Any questions before we begin?

[Turn on recorder]

Interview Protocol

Time:
Date:
Location:
Interviewer: Kim
Interviewee: Principal

Interview Questions

1) Please share your years of service in education. What positions did you hold? Where? For how long?

A) RQ #1: Identify how elementary school principals define teacher to student bullying;

2) How do you define bullying?
3) Why do you think bullying exists?
4) How would you define teacher to student bullying?
5) Do you think it is a problem at your school? In your District?

TEACHER TO STUDENT BULLYING 104

(b) RQ #2: Identify and critically analyze common heuristics related to classroom management favored by
elementary school principals;

6) What are the most common classroom management “rules of thumb” you have observed at your school?
7) What are you some “rules of thumb” you have espoused to other educators?
8) Have you heard of the following classroom management strategies?
a. Teacher Look
b. Don’t Smile Till December
c. Start tough, then ease up

(c) RQ #3: Identify strategies used by elementary school principals to address teacher-to-student bullying;

9) What are some strategies you have used or would use to prevent teacher to student bullying?
10) What are some strategies you have used or would use to address teacher to student bullying?
11) Have you ever encountered or observed teacher to student bullying in your career?
a. If so, when?
b. What happened?
c. Did you take any action?

(d) RQ #4: Identify strategies used by elementary school principals to support students who are victims of teacher
bullying.

11) In cases where you have encountered teacher to student bullying in your position, were you able to provide
support to the student(s)?
a. If so, what did it look like?
b. Were the parents contacted or involved?
c. Did you observe a change in the teacher’s behavior from that point on?
d. Do you feel the problem was resolved?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study applied social learning theory to explore the phenomenon of teacher to student bullying. The study sought to understand teacher to student bullying from the perspective of six elementary school principals from one mid-sized school district in Southern California, specifically within the classroom management strategies they most commonly espouse. Additionally, the study aimed to identify support provided by principals to teachers who bullied students as well as victims of teacher to student bullying. Patterns based on responses were organized into emergent themes and charted. Despite evidence that teacher to student bullying is a pervasive problem in education, few principals purported it was an existing issue at their schools

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Promising practices in preventing bullying in K-12 schools: student engagement

PDF

Let's hear it from the principals: a study of four Title One elementary school principals' leadership practices on student achievement

PDF

Female elementary school principals and building capacity for teacher leaders

PDF

The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

Teachers' classroom pedagogy and perception: In schools with high rates of exclusionary discipline practices for African American students

PDF

Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Digital teacher evaluations: principal expectations of usefulness and their impact on teaching

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

The path to math: leadership matters: effective practices of principals that improve student achievement in secondary mathematics

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Sue Jin (author)

Core Title Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/07/2015

Defense Date 02/23/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bullying,classroom management,critical pedagogy,elementary,elementary school,hierarchy,leadership,Modeling,OAI-PMH Harvest,positive behavior intervention support,positive reinforcement,preventive,principals,professional development,responsive support,social learning theory,Students,teacher bullying,teacher to student,Teachers,youth violence

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Love, Laurie (committee member)

Creator Email suejin@gmail.com,suejinki@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-587337

Unique identifier UC11298807

Identifier etd-KimSueJin-3554.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-587337 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KimSueJin-3554.pdf

Dmrecord 587337

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kim, Sue Jin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA