University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 1

PROMISING PRACTICES FOR PREVENTING BULLYING IN K-12 SCHOOLS:
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

by

Emily Jo Hernandez

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

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Emily Jo Hernandez

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the students that I have had the honor of working with
throughout the years that have kept me grounded, committed, and driven towards being an
advocate for all students, particularly those that disconnect and disengage from school systems…
may this provide insight and understanding for school leaders, educators, and hope for victims of
bullying.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my mother. If she were living today, I know she would
be proud of me, the first person in our family to earn a doctoral degree, as she sacrificed her own
dreams of an education to raise a family.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 3

Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely acknowledge those individuals who made this dissertation
possible due to their support and encouragement.
I would like to express my appreciation to my chair, Professor Shafiqa Ahmadi, and
dissertation committee members, Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Mora-Flores, for guiding, supporting,
and believing in me through this process. Without your structured approach and feedback, I
would not have been able to accomplish this. Thank you to Dr. Linda Fischer with the USC
Doctoral Support Center for the time spent reading my work and revisions. I also share my
appreciation for my thematic group for working together in a graceful, supportive and
professional manner through it all.
I would also like to thank the mentors that inspired me through their leadership styles,
interactions with and dedication to students, and for the encouragement to pursue the doctoral
degree in educational leadership: Dr. Debra Duardo, Dr. Michael Carter, and Bob Bilovsky.
Lastly, I would like to thank my husband. Without his loving unconditional support,
belief and encouragement, as well as everything he has done to keep our family intact through
these years: caring of our children, my grandmother, and home… this would not be possible. I
thank my children for understanding and enduring the last three years with a mother that was not
fully present all the time. May my sacrifice be a message to you about the importance of
education in your own life. Thank you to my parents for instilling the belief in myself and
persistence to achieve my goals and dreams. I am sincerely grateful to my family, friends, and
colleagues that have been patient, understanding and supported me through this journey.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 6

List of Figures 7

Abstract 8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10

Statement of the Problem 16

Purpose of the Study 17

Significance of the Study 18

Limitations 18

Delimitations 19

Definition of Terms 19

Organization of the Study 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review 22

Student Dropout 23

Student Dropout and Student Engagement 23

Bullying and Student Dropout 25

Student Engagement 27

Bullying and Student Engagement 29

Bullying 30

School Violence Linked to Bullying 31

Bullying Laws and Legislation 33

Types of Bullying 35

Bullying, Gender, and Grade Level 37

Effects of Bullying 38

Bullying and School Leadership 39

Theoretical Framework 45

Conclusion 50

Chapter Three: Methodology 51

Research Questions 51

Research Design 52

Sample and Population 53

Overview of the School 54

Theoretical Framework 55

Methods 58

Data Analysis 60

Ethical Considerations 62

Conclusion 62

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 5

Chapter Four: Findings, Analysis, and Discussion 63

Participant Profiles 64

Results 66

Positive School Climate 67

Historical Context 67

Leadership 71

Whole-School Approach 79

School Organization and Infrastructure 81

Student Safety and Learning 83

Campus Supervision 88

Student Grouping/Cohorts 92

Student Interactions 96

Cooperative Learning 97

Focus on Student Interactions 101

Character Building and Social Skills 109

Chapter Summary 113

Chapter Five: Summary And Recommendations 114

Introduction 114

Purpose of the Study 114

Summary of the Findings 116

Positive School Climate 117

School Organization and Infrastructure 119

Student Interactions 122

Findings and Theoretical Framework 126

Implications for Practice and Policy 128

Recommendations for Future Studies 133

Conclusion 135

References 136

Appendix A 147

Appendix B 149

Appendix C 151

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 6

List of Tables
Table 1: School Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2012-13 54

Table 2: API Score Growth Over 5 Years 55

Table 3: Participant Overview 64

Table 4: Research Questions and Emerging Themes Found in Data 66

Table 5: School Campus Supervision Guidelines and Norms 90

Table 6: Findings: 3 Emerging Themes and Supporting Strategies 117

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 7

List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) Model as Applied to Educational Environments 46

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework Ed.D. Thematic Group, 2013 57

Figure 3: Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis 61

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 8

Abstract
Bullying and student dropout are prominent social issues affecting the United States, and the
disengagement of students from school has been linked to both. Examining bullying prevention
through the lens of student engagement, a main contributor of student dropout, can be validated
as a focused strategy in cultivating an anti-bullying culture as well as a school climate that
protects students from the process of dropout. The purpose of this study was to determine
promising practices at schools that promote an anti-bullying culture utilizing student
engagement. This study sought to identify the perceived systems and structures that contribute to
student engagement and an anti-bullying culture and how these perceived systems and structures
are implemented and sustained. This qualitative case study consisted of seven semi-structured
interviews with a school principal, assistant principal, counselor, faculty and staff, and
observations of classrooms, the school, and the community. School artifacts were also collected
and analyzed to triangulate the data. The findings from this study indicate three prevalent themes
that provide a framework for promising practices that contribute towards and an anti-bullying
culture in schools; positive school climate, school organization and infrastructure, and student
interactions. These emerging themes provide the systems and structures within the school that
are implemented and sustained to foster an anti-bullying culture. A positive school climate is
fostered through leadership that involves collective team-building and the use of a whole-school
approach. The school organization and infrastructure is strengthened by a focus on student safety
and learning, an effective campus supervision protocol and a system for the grouping of
students/cohort model. Student interactions are increased through the implementation of a
school-wide cooperative learning model with a focus on student relationships, character building
and social skills. The study aimed to bridge a gap in research on bullying, dropout prevention,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 9

and student engagement and to contribute towards promising practices that have an overall effect
on the climate of a school in preventing bullying and student dropout by increasing student
engagement. The findings support the guiding framework used for this study, Bronfenbrenner’s
theory of social ecological systems, through the implementation of systems-level approaches to
foster an anti-bullying culture.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Over the past 25 years, the United States has made virtually no progress in graduating
more students from high school and ready for college. Every 26 seconds, a student gives up on
school, resulting in more than 1.2 million students dropping out of high school every year
(Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore & Hornig Fox, 2010). Despite media attention on the dropout crisis
and new priorities given to education reform, approximately one-third of all public high school
students and one-half of all minority students fail to graduate with their class every year; the
United States ranks 18th in high school graduation rates (Balfanz et al, 2010). The California
Department of Education (2012) reports the state has a 76% statewide graduation rate and
dropout rate of 14%. This path to dropout is involves a process of slow disengagement of the
student to school.
Dropping out of school is a process of disengagement and is identifiable early on in the
student’s academic career, often as early as elementary school. Warning signs include poor
attendance, behavior and grades in middle and early high school (Balfanz et al, 2010). In
particular, attendance is often a key barometer of a student’s connection with school. These early
warning signs of student disengagement are indicative of risk of dropping out of school and early
warning signs of bullying victimization.
Across the nation, multiple incidents of school violence have been linked directly, or by
inference, to school bullying and have fueled a national concern resulting in political recognition,
laws and policies to curtail bullying behavior on school campuses. The first bullying law was
enacted in 1999 by the state of Georgia shortly after the Columbine shootings and as a response
to a bullying-related suicide (US Department of Education, 2011). Since then, over 120 bills
through 2011 have been enacted at the state level to define acts of bullying in the school setting
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 11

and to establish district policies that prohibit bullying behaviors (US Department of Education,
2011). As of 2011, 46 states, including California, had bullying laws and 45 of those states
directed school districts to adopt bullying policies; three of the 46 states prohibited bullying
without defining the bullying behavior (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). In 2012, the
Obama Administration launched a long-term anti-bullying campaign and announced support of
two monumental measures, the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools
Improvement Act, to help end bullying in schools (Hardikar, 2012). These measures added
sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories and sought to ensure that
students can learn in environments free from bullying and harassment (Hardikar, 2012). Since
Columbine in 1999, bullying has gained national attention prompting political support and
activity at the local, state and federal levels.
While, the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 were the first of many high profile
incidents of school violence that implicated bullying as a possible cause (Greene & Ross, 2005),
since then, a number of highly visible suicides among school age children and adolescents have
been linked to chronic bullying and further brought national attention to the issue (Mar & Field,
2001). Bullying has been linked to school violence (Ttofi, Farrington, & Losel, 2012). Most
recently, the nation was shaken by the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newton, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed. As tragic as the Newtown
events were, they were not the first horrific acts of violence to take place in schools, and research
shows that a large majority of school shooters are victims of bullying (Larkin, 2007). Further, it
has been found that there is a significant link between school bullying, victimizations and
perpetration, and aggressive/violent behaviors later in life (Ttofi et al., 2012). In addition,
students who are bullied also exhibit signs of disengagement, which increases the risk of their
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 12

dropping out of school altogether. Therefore, the aim of this study is to further understand
student engagement as a factor in preventing not only bullying, but also student dropout, by way
of the same intervention.
Background of the Problem
The consequences of dropping out have detrimental effects on the future of young
students. Balfanz et al. (2010) reported that dropouts are more likely than high school graduates
to be unemployed, in poor health, live in poverty, on public assistance, and become single
parents of children who also dropout of school. Dropouts are more than eight times more likely
to be in jail or in prison than are high school graduates, four times less likely to volunteer in their
communities, half as likely to vote, and represent only three percent of actively engaged citizens
in the United States (Balfanz et al., 2010). In addition, the average annual income for a high
school dropout in 2005 was $17,299 (Balfanz et al., 2010).
Students’ dropping out of school is a major concern. While these statistics describe the
negative consequences of students that dropout out of school, it also includes students involved
in bullying, either as victims or perpetrators, that are likely to drop out; as bullying has been
found to be a contributor to student dropout (Boivin, Hymel, & Hodges, 2001; Limber et al.,
1998). Victims of bullying are associated with an increased risk for dropping out of school
(Gastic, 2008); the links between bullying and dropping out require serious attention (Nansel et
al., 2001). For these reasons, it is important to understand bullying and its effects on those
involved. This section will discuss bullying; it’s definition, the relevant research, negative and
long-term effects, and the connection of bulling to student disengagement from school.
The first large scale study of bullying in the United States was published in 2001 (Nansel,
Overpeck, Pilla, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001). This national study among 16,000 American
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 13

school children found that nearly 30% of students reported moderate or frequent involvement in
bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). Further, it was reported that another nationally representative
survey found approximately 28% of students ages 12-18 reported being bullied at school (Zhang,
Truman, Snyder, & Robers, 2012). This is indicative that in nearly eleven years, there has been
minimal decline in the number of students reported being bullied at school.
The definition of bullying can vary, but there are essential characteristics that describe
bullying behavior. Bullying is traditionally defined as a repeated pattern of negative activity or
aggressive behavior that involves an imbalance of power and purposefully inflicts harm on the
bullying victim and can occur without provocation (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, 2007; Harris &
Petrie, 2002; Limber, 2003; Olweus, 1993; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010). Bullying can occur
directly, causing physical or emotional distress, or indirectly through acts of aggression that are
used to damage a victim’s personal relationships or social standing (Limber 2003; Olweus, 1993;
Sherer & Nickerson, 2010). For this study, the traditional definition provided by Glew et al.
(2007) is used.
Bullying is linked to numerous negative and long-term effects. Bullying victimization has
been associated with poor psychosocial adjustment, difficulty making and maintaining friends,
poor relationships with peers and a sense of loneliness (Nansel, et. al, 2001). Victims show
increased anxiety levels, psychosomatic symptoms, higher rates of eating disorders, and
aggressive-impulsive behaviors (Craig, 1998; Gini, 2008; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen &
Rimpela, 2000; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009). They are at greater risk of developing
stress, illness, poor self-esteem, depression, suicidal ideation, and of having suicidal attempts
(Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, & Gillberg, 2005; Klomek, Marracco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, &
Gould, 2007; Morrison, 2002; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Roland, 2002). Victims of bullying are
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 14

more likely to engage in at-risk behaviors such as using alcohol and smoking cigarettes (Harris et
al., 2002). Interestingly, chronic victims of bullying often admit to both bullying and being
bullied (Harris et al., 2002) suggesting that victims of bullying can also become perpetrators.
Being involved in bullying affects a student’s beliefs, behaviors, decision-making, and
adjustment to school. Involvement in bullying poses consequences for students in terms of
psychosocial adjustment, academic success, and school engagement (Gastic, 2008).
Victimization also affects the belief systems of bully victims that contribute to negative
behaviors. Their judgment and perception is altered and it was found that they were more likely
to believe that it is “not wrong” to take a gun to school (Glew, Fan, Katon & Rivara, 2008).
Bullying generally has negative long-term effects on student engagement, attendance, behavior,
and academic outcomes and has been linked to the dropout rate (Morrison, 2002; Gastic, 2008).
Victims exhibit poor social and emotional adjustment, lower social skills and abilities to make
friends, poor relationships with classmates, and experience higher levels of loneliness and
anxiety (Harris et al., 2002).
Poor attendance and disciplinary problems are significantly more likely for bully victims
and are associated with increased risk for dropping out of school (Suh & Suh, 2007). A
significant association has been found between bullying behaviors and psychosomatic symptoms
such as physical ailments that affects student attendance (Forero, McLellan, Rissel & Bauman,
1999). Gastic (2008) argues that there is compelling evidence that bullying victimization is
associated with higher levels of truancy and disciplinary problems at school. A positive
correlation between being a victim and misconduct has been identified (Dake, Price, &
Telljohann, 2003). Gastic (2008) found that the odds of transferring students out of school for
disciplinary problems were three times greater for bully victims than non-victims. These acting
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 15

out behaviors pose great challenges to victims of bullying and increase their risk of not
graduating from high school (Gastic, 2008). The involvement in bullying impacts a student’s
overall adjustment to school and leads to issues with connection and engagement to the school
system.
The effects resulting from bullying are early warning signs that play a role in a student
disengaging from school. These warning signs are also risk factors for dropping out of school.
Similar to the effects of bullying, student disengagement contributes to problems with school
attendance, including truancy and dropping out (Gastic, 2008; Klein, Cornell, Konold, 2012).
Gastic (2008) argues that bully victimization begins to manifest itself in the negative behaviors
of failing in school, disengagement and behavior problems. Frequently, schools respond with
punitive measures such as detention, suspensions and school transfers. School responses such as
these contribute to the disengagement of students to school, which leads to problems with
attendance, academic success and the potential for dropping out of school (Gastic, 2008). In
essence, students involved in bullying become negatively adjusted to school, resulting in
academic, attendance and behavioral problems that are intervened with in a punitive manner by
schools.
The consequences and effects of being involved in bullying affect student engagement.
The slow process of disengagement to school contributes to student dropout. The statistics on life
challenges for student dropouts are dire; unemployment, poor health, poverty, and incarceration
to mention a few (Balfanz et al., 2010). Since the first national study on bullying by Nansel et al.
(2001), eleven years later, there continues to be close to 30% of students that report being
victims of bullying (Zhang et al., 2012). As bullying has been linked to student dropout, the
challenge becomes knowing that students involved in bullying are very likely to disengage and
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 16

become dropouts as a result of their experience. For these reasons, this study focuses on the
central construct of student engagement that is involved in both bullying and student dropout as a
means to examine the promising practices that would be effective in the prevention of bullying,
thereby also working simultaneously to prevent student dropout.
Statement of the Problem
Student dropout and bullying are two major problems in our nation’s schools.
Approximately 15% of high schools in America account for close to half of the nation’s
dropouts, and over two-thirds of minorities drop out (Balfanz et al., 2010). In 2000 high schools
in America, nearly 40% of freshmen students drop out by their senior year (Balfanz et al., 2010).
Zhang et al. (2012) reported that 28% of students report being bullied, eleven years after the first
national study on bullying that found 30% of students reported being bullied (Nansel et al.,
2001); a minimal 2% decrease. Despite the passage of time, both bullying and student dropout
continue to be prevalent problems.
Bullying has emerged as a prevalent social problem in the United States linked to school
violence (Williams & Guerra, 2010). It has gained increased awareness due to media attention on
homicide and suicide cases where bullying has been found to be a precipitating factor. In a report
of school shootings, two-thirds of attackers felt “persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked, or
injured by others” prior to the incident (Dake et al., 2003). Bullying has been found to be linked
to student dropout (Gastic, 2008); and both bullying and dropout share a central construct of
student engagement.
Bullying is a contributing factor of student disengagement leading to student dropout.
The effects of bullying and the early warning signs of student dropout are similar; academic
failure, disciplinary problems, at risk behaviors, social and psychological issues, poor attendance,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 17

student disengagement. Despite the link made between bullying and student dropout, what is not
clearly understood is the relationship between school efforts to prevent bullying student dropout
simultaneously. This study aims to examine the prevention of bullying through student
engagement, which could serve as a protective factor to prevent student dropout.
Purpose of the Study
Student disengagement is a risk factor for school dropout (Gastic, 2008), and bullying
can have long term effects on students that affect their level of engagement in school. Bullying
and student dropout have been of particular interest in the media, political, economic, and
educational arenas because of its high costs to society. Students are dropping out of school at a
higher rate than ever before (Balfanz et al., 2010), and close to 30% of students continue to
report being bullied (Zhang et al., 2012). Student engagement as a common factor of both the
effects of bully victimization and student dropout can be a key indicator that if focused on
specifically could positively impact how schools address bullying and student dropout.
Promising practices identified and implemented in student engagement can work together to
prevent bullying and minimize the early warning signs associated with student dropout.
The purpose of this study was to determine promising practices at schools that promote
an anti-bullying culture through focusing on student engagement.
In an effort to gain insight into school practices that have been successful in preventing
bullying and increasing student engagement, this study seeks to obtain responses to the following
research questions:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to student
engagement and an anti-bullying culture in schools?
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 18

2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
student engagement and an anti-bullying culture in schools?
Significance of the Study
This research is instructive for school leaders, practitioners, researchers, and the
community. The information learned from this study may be important for school leaders to
understand the role student engagement plays in preventing bullying on their school campus. It
provides information to practitioners on the relationship between bullying and student
engagement contributors to student dropout, which adversely affect school outcomes. This study
provides valuable information for researchers to further examine the link between bullying and
dropout, and student engagement as it relates to prevention of bullying. Students, families and
communities will understand the role of student engagement and how it can prevent bullying at
their local schools. This study provides information on what works in schools to prevent bullying
utilizing student engagement strategies which also affect academic outcomes, school climate
and, ultimately, student dropout.
Limitations
Several limitations affected this study and were beyond the control of the researcher. Due
to the time constraints of the Ed.D. program at the University of Southern California, this study
was limited to one school case study. This also limited the sample size, the number of
interviewees, and observations, which may have affected the outcomes. While the “promising
practices” exist at the case study school, the “promising practices” may or may not be
generalizable or transferable to other similar schools. Every school has its own climate and
culture that may impact the implementation of “promising practices”.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 19

The selected school site agreed to participate in the study and participated in identifying
appropriate school staff available for observation and interviews. This may or may not have
contributed to a “halo effect” which is a “general bias in which a favorable or unfavorable
general impression of a person affects our inferences and future expectations about that person
(Aronson, 2008, p.141). As a qualitative study, the responses from subjects interviewed and the
responses from the subjects who were surveyed are their own, and the researcher has no control
of the truthfulness of the responses. Geographic regions limited the study. The researcher
focused on model schools within the southern region of California.
Delimitations
The researcher selected the following parameters for the sample in this study. The
selection was that of a high poverty, urban secondary public educational institution. Student
enrollment ranged from 700-1200 students. School site selected depicted a strong and effective
anti-bullying culture. For the purposes of this study, success was measured by the presence of a
strong anti-bullying culture and positive school-wide results. Positive school-wide results were
defined as an Average Performance Index (API) that has improved significantly over the last five
years, a graduation rate higher than the district average or that has improved significantly over
the last five years, and a low or decreasing suspension rate.
Definition of Terms
Many terms are relevant to and referenced in this study. For the purpose of the study,
these terms are defined as follows:
Bullying: Unwanted, intentional, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived
power imbalance that is often repeated over time (Olweus, 1993).
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 20

Structure: Mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by federal, state, and district
legislation or widely accepted as the official structure of institutions that are not subject to
change (Definition developed and agreed upon by thematic group).
System: Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students, parents,
funds, facilities, etc.) at the institution to ensure that the institution vision, mission, and goals are
met (Definition developed and agreed upon by thematic group).
Student engagement: A student’s relationship or connection to school. Refers to the
degree of bonding, connectedness, attachment, belongingness, involvement and commitment to
school. Also synonymous with school engagement (Libbey, 2004).
Dropout: A student who was enrolled in grades, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve
at some time during the school year and left school prior to completing the year or a student that
successfully completed the prior school year but did not begin attending the next grade to which
he/she was expected to attend (California Department of Education).
Organization of the Study
This study examined promising practices to prevent bullying by specifically looking at
the role of student engagement. The study identifies how systems and structures are implemented
and sustained at the school to support an anti-bullying culture. Chapter one provides an
introduction to the study and explains the purpose and significance of the study. Chapter two
presents a review of the literature on bullying, focusing on student engagement and student
dropout. Chapter three provides the research methodology, including the research design,
population and sampling procedure, and the instruments used in the study. Chapter four reports
the findings of the research while connecting the results to the literature. Chapter five provides a
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 21

brief summary of the findings, the implications for practice and recommendations for future
studies.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 22

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Bullying has been identified as a national concern and is widespread in school settings
(Nansel et al., 2001). It is linked to numerous negative long-term effects including student
disengagement from school and student dropout (Morrison, 2002; Gastic, 2008). In turn, student
disengagement is a contributing factor to student dropout (Gastic, 2008; Klein et al., 2012). This
chapter presents a review of the literature focusing on student dropout, student engagement and
bullying.
The purpose of this study was to expand research in the area of promising practices in
preventing bullying and understanding bullying’s relationship to student engagement as a
contributor to student dropout. The goals were to identify promising practices at schools that
promote an anti-bullying culture through the use of student engagement. This study looked into
the systems and structures at schools that can significantly affect bullying, student engagement
and student dropout.
This chapter is organized around three main topics: student dropout, student engagement
and bullying. The first section of this chapter reviews research on student dropout, which
includes a review of its relationship to student engagement and bullying. The second section
reviews the research on student engagement and its relationship to bullying. The third section
examines the phenomena of bullying, including its history, links to school violence, a review of
laws and legislation, types of bullying, differences by gender and grade level, and effects of
bullying. The fourth section includes a review of research on bullying and school leadership,
including promising practices in the field. The last section describes the theoretical framework,
Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems (1979), guiding this study.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 23

Student Dropout
Dropping out of school is a process of disengagement and is identifiable early on in the
student’s academic career. Disengagement from school is a key element in this process. Signs of
disengagement are prevalent and can be observed in students as early as elementary school.
Warning signs include poor attendance, behavior and grades in middle and early high school.
Attendance is often a key barometer of a student’s connection with school. Failing in school was
reported as a major factor (Balfanz et al., 2010). Boys are more likely to drop out because of
behavior problems, while girls are more likely to slowly disengage from school by skipping class
or being absent (Rumberger & Rotermund, 2012). Dropping out is more of a process than an
event (Rumberger & Rotermund, 2012); and the eventual act of dropping involves a slow
process of disengagement that begins early on in a student’s academic career.
Student Dropout and Student Engagement
The level of a student’s engagement to school has been found to be an important
precursor to student dropout. This section will review the connection between student
engagement and dropout, and review multiple theories of student dropout that identify student
engagement as an important fluid process that leads to school dropout.
Student engagement is a central construct in student dropout. The long-term effects of
school disengagement on problem behaviors have been identified (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry,
2012), and the construct of student engagement is central to most theories of school dropout
(Finn, 1989). Knight et al. (2012) argue that indicators of school disengagement measured during
the 8th and 9th grade are robustly related to school dropout and, later, involvement in crime and
problem substance use. Students who evidence multiple school risk factors during middle school
are prime candidates for interventions designed to enhance school engagement. Henry et al.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 24

(2012) further argued the importance of employing early warning systems and intervention
strategies to enhance school engagement early on. As an example, a screening tool such as the
“school disengagement warning index” can be used and is a robust predictor of high school
dropout (Henry et al., 2012). The implementation of early warning systems and corresponding
interventions should prove to be an efficient strategy for decreasing dropout and related problem
behaviors in the short and long term (Knight et al., 2012). Student disengagement in school
contributes to the likelihood of those students’ dropping out. Therefore, it is suggested to not
wait until students are dropping out, or have dropped out, of school to intervene.
There are multiple theories of school dropout that identify student engagement as a key
construct (Archambault et al., 2009). One of the earliest of these is, Social Control Theory,
which places an emphasis on attachment and belongingness to social institutions (Hirshi, 1969).
This theory asserts that disengagement results from the breakdown of weakened relationships
between the individual and the school. The bonds in social control theory are characterized by
commitment, beliefs, attachment, and engagement (Hirshi, 1969). A second theory is Tinto’s
(1975) Mediation Model of school dropout. In this model, students interact with the academic
and social system of a school. Goals and institutional commitment set the course for student
engagement and are believed to influence a youth’s academic and social experience at school,
and, in unfavorable conditions, can play a role in the decision to leave the system all together.
Thirdly, Finn’s (1989) Participation-identification Model of school withdrawal views
engagement by identification and participation in school. Within this model, students are
expected to identify more with school as they increase their participation. Conversely, low or
absent participation predicts gradual disengagement and eventual school withdrawal
(Archambault et al., 2009). Fourth, the Dropout Prevention Model of Wehlage, Rutter, Smith,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 25

Lesko, and Fernandez (1989) introduces the concepts of educational engagement and school
membership as intermediate steps that contribute to individual and social development at school.
From this perspective, students who fail to achieve these two goals present higher risks of
dropping out of school. Lastly, in Rumber and Larson’s (1998) model, engagement is
distinguished by two components, social and academic, which contribute to academic
adjustment. Social and academic engagement in this model are defined and seen as essential for
understanding the process that underlies school dropout (Archambault et al., 2009).
There are two major similarities that emerge within these theories. First, engagement is
conceived as a process that changes over the course of the school experience. Student
engagement is fluid and based on the dynamics of the student and the school environment and
systems, the level of engagement can change. Second, the importance of behavioral and
motivational aspects of engagement is a focus (Archambault et al., 2009). The behavioral and
motivational factors related to dynamics involving school, peers, academics, attendance, and
identification and participation with school are important. All the theories are based on the
notion that student engagement is important in the process that leads to school dropout
(Archambault et al., 2009). These theories suggest that student engagement is a central
component in the process of student dropout.
Bullying and Student Dropout
Bullying has been found to be a contributor to student dropout. The negative
consequences that affect those involved in bullying are similar to the risk factors associated with
student dropouts. This means that the early warning signs indicative of a student involved in
bullying may also be predicative of the early warning signs for a student at risk of dropping out.
The negative effects resulting from a student involved in bullying may look similar to that of a
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 26

student at risk for dropping out of school. Both may be disengaging from the school environment
for different reasons, but the behavior may look the same.
Bully victims exhibit risk factors similar to those of student dropout. Negative effects of
bullying and being bullied reach into adulthood, and bullies, as well as their victims, are likely to
drop out of school (Boivin et al., 1998). Victims of bullying are more likely to exhibit poor
attendance and disciplinary problems at school (Gastic, 2008). These truancy and disciplinary
problems may reflect attempts for bully victims to self-protect (Gastic, 2008). Gastic (2008)
studied the truancy and disciplinary problems of high school bully victims in the United States
and found that being bullied was positively associated with an increased risk for being frequently
absent, getting into trouble excessively at school and being subject to formal school disciplinary
actions or transfers. These risk factors are also associated with an increased risk for dropping out
of school (Gastic, 2008). The results suggest that periodic reviews of students’ attendance and
disciplinary records may be an effective way to become aware of those students who are at risk
not only for dropping out of school, but who may also be victims of bullying.
The early warning signs of bullying are also predictive of possible warning signs of
school dropout. Bully victimization begins to manifest itself in the negative behaviors of failing
in school, disengagement and behavior problems, and frequently, schools respond with punitive
measures such as detention, suspensions and school transfers (Gastic, 2008). School responses
such as these contribute to the disengagement of students to school. Dake et al. (2003) also
identified the positive correlation between being a victim and misconduct. Bullies are four times
more likely to be involved in criminal behavior, with 40% of bullies already having three or
more convictions by the age of 24 (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 1996). Gastic (2008) found that the
odds of transferring students out of school for disciplinary problems were three times greater for
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 27

bully victims than non-victims. Thus, student engagement has been identified as the primary
variable in understanding dropout, particularly as a gradual process operating in a student’s life
and influencing that final decision to withdraw completely (Jimerson et al., 2009). Students
involved in bullying may engage in avoidance and acting out behaviors that pose great
challenges and increase their risk of not graduating from high school.
As evidenced, bullying and the eventual decision of a student to completely disconnect
from a school system are related. Student engagement is the primary variable in understanding
student dropout (Jimerson et al., 2009). Being involved in bullying begins a cyclical path of
issues and behaviors that fuels disengagement from school. This path leads to problems with
attendance, behavior, academic progress, and potential student dropout. Student engagement is a
related construct for bullying and student dropout. The disengagement to school is a common
factor. Based on this, many students that drop out may be victims of bullying.
Student Engagement
Student engagement has been widely studied in educational research and is a term that is
used to measure a student’s relationship to school. Finn (1989) was among the first to define
school engagement as the extent to which a student is invested in school and participates in
school-related activities. Common terms in health and education literature include school
engagement, school attachment, school bonding, school climate, school involvement, teacher
support, and school connectedness. For the purpose of this study, the term “school engagement”
refers to a student’s relationship or connection to school (Libbey, 2004). While there are many
terms used to describe student engagement, there are nine consistent themes found by Libbey
(2004) that relate to student engagement: sense of belonging and being a part of a school;
whether or not students like school; level of teacher supportiveness and caring; presence of good
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 28

friends in school; engagement in current and future academic progress; fair and effective
discipline; and participation in extracurricular activities (Libbey, 2004).
Student engagement and the factors described above have been found to be highly
associated with student outcomes. Student engagement has repeatedly demonstrated to be a
robust predictor of achievement and behavior in schools (Appleston, Christenson, & Furlong,
2008; Shernoff & Schmidt, 2008). Libbey (2004) reported that “young people who feel
connected to school, that they belong, and that teachers are supportive and treat them fairly, do
better” (p. 282). In addition, student engagement has been found to be linked to multiple
educational outcomes such as achievement, attendance, behavior and dropout/completion (Finn,
1989; Jimerson, Campos & Greif, 2003; Jimerson, Renshaw, Stewart, Hart, & O’Malley, 2009).
Researchers have identified that effective interventions to promote student engagement also
enhance the probability of high school completion (Reschly, Appleton, & Christenson, 2007).
Student engagement is a complex construct that is important in promoting positive
outcomes for students. Challenges exist in the measurement of this construct due to its many
indicators such as affective engagement, behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and
academic engagement (Hart et al., 2011). Hart et al. (2011) recommend that student engagement
interventions be a part of the key to promoting school completion and academic outcomes. They
describe measures of student engagement be used as an assessment tool to target interventions
for students who are at risk, or used as prevention efforts at the school-wide level. Furthermore,
health and education literature suggests that student engagement contributes significantly to
student success in school (Libbey, 2004; Hart, Steward, & Jimerson, 2011).

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 29

Bullying and Student Engagement
Bullying has an impact on a student’s feeling of connectedness to school. Bullying and
peer aggression generally have negative long-term effects on a student’s level of engagement to
school. Bullying has been found to affect student engagement, attendance, behavior, academic
outcomes and has been linked to the dropout rate of students (Gastic, 2008; Morrison, 2002). In
their study of over 11,000 secondary students surveyed nationally, Hutzell and Payne (2012)
clearly showed an association between bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors in school.
They also found support for the concept of bully prone locations in schools which students who
are bullied frequently avoid (Hutzell & Payne, 2012). The development of avoidance behaviors
in students involved in bullying has an impact on their level of connectedness to school.
Bullying has an impact on a student’s overall adjustment to school, which affects their
level of engagement. Research has shown that victims of bullying exhibit poor social and
emotional adjustment, lower social skills and abilities to make friends, poor relationships with
classmates, and experience higher levels of loneliness and anxiety (Harris et al., 2002). Further,
students who perceive high levels of bullying in their school may become less engaged in school
and, consequently, be less motivated to learn. This disengagement contributes to problems with
school attendance, including truancy and dropout (Gastic, 2008; Klein, Cornell, Konold, 2012).
To illustrate, Soriano (1999) reported that 160,000 students miss school daily in the United
States because of bullying and threats. Suh and Suh (2007) found that poor attendance and
disciplinary problems are significantly more likely for victims of bullying and are associated
with increased risk for dropping out of school. According to the National Research Council and
Institute of Medicine (2004), improving school engagement is crucial to addressing national
problems with high school completion and academic performance. Students involved in bullying
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 30

experience difficulty in adjusting to the school environment which further results in their
disengagement to school.
Bullying
Bullying is not a new phenomenon. Some researchers contend that this problem has been
around forever, but that school bullying probably looked different than it does today (Daniels &
Bradely, 2011). At one point, bullying behaviors were considered to be a normal part of growing
up and not a serious concern (Daniels & Bradely, 2011). Some parents and educators considered
bullying to be a rite of passage or a normal part of building one’s character. Today, however,
bullying has become a serious concern among students, parents, educators and the community at
large (Lederman, J., 2012). Bullying has intensified in the past 12 years. A national study among
16,000 American school children found that nearly 30% of students reported moderate or
frequent involvement in bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). Eleven years later, Zhang (2012)
conducted a national study and found that 28% of student reported being bullied at school.
Olweus (1973) conducted the first systematic investigation of bullying in the early 1970’s in
Norway and has researched bullying behaviors in hundreds of thousands of Norwegian and
Swedish primary and secondary school students over the last 30 years. Similar research has been
conducted internationally with consistent findings (Chapell, Casey, De la Cruz, Ferrell, Forman,
Lipkin, Newsham, Sterling, & Whittaker, 2004): bullying is a common worldwide phenomena
and students in multiple countries report being involved in bullying (Harris et al., 2002; Smith,
Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano & Slee, 1999). A study of over 7,000 students in the
United States found that bullying and victimization is prevalent among urban, low
socioeconomic, African American and Latino middle and high school youth (Flescher Peskin et
al., 2006). One in five children and adolescents are victims of bullying (Limber, 2002) and 1 in 3
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 31

are involved as bully, victim or both (Nansel et al., 2001). Bullying behavior has been studied for
over 30 years, and significant numbers of students continue to report being involved in bullying.
The prevalence of bullying is increasing at all school levels (Gastic, 2008). Nationally, a
third of 6
th
through 10
th
grade students reported moderate or frequent involvement in bullying, as
a victim or bully (Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009; Nansel et al., 2001; Nishioka et al., 2011). A
study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) found that 74% of students ages 8 to 11 reported
being teased or bullied and 55% perceived bullying as a big problem in their school. The
numbers were even higher in secondary schools (Nishioka et al., 2011). In 2009, nearly 20% of
high school students who completed the U.S. Department of Health National Youth Risk
Behavior Survey, a nationally representative survey on the prevalence of victimization and
bullying, reported being bullied on school property during the previous 12 months (Nishioka et
al., 2011). In 2010, 32% of students reported being bullied at school, according to the School
Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey administered to almost 9,000
students 12 to 18 years old (Dinkes, Kemp & Baum, 2009). Another survey of over 7,000
elementary students found that more than a third, 34%, of students reported being victims of
bullying and almost two thirds, 65% of students, reported witnessing bully incidents at their
school (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Using real time observations, one study found that bullying
episodes occurred at an average of twice per hour in participating classrooms and involved
bystanders in 85% of occurrences (Atlas & Pepler, 1998). Despite the research, bullying
continues to take place at schools and is on the rise.
School Violence Linked to Bullying
Bullying has been linked to multiple high profile school violence incidents. The
Columbine High School shooting in 1999 was the first of many high profile incidents of school
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 32

violence (Greene & Ross, 2005). In addition, a number of highly visible student suicides have
taken place that were linked to chronic bullying, further bringing national attention to the issue
(Mar & Field, 2001). According to the research, there is a significant link between school
bullying, victimizations and perpetration, and violent behaviors later in life (Ttofi, Farrington &
Losel, 2012). Bullying has been linked to serious incidents of school violence, such as suicides
and school shooting.
Violence in the form of school shootings has also been linked to bullying. A large
number of school shooters are the victims of bullying (Larkin, 2007; Newman et al., 2004). It has
also been argued that in certain cases that bullying incidents may have led to feelings of
frustration that prompted school shooting events (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum & Modzeleski,
2002). Social rejection, including bullying, was reported in 13 out of 15 school shooting
incidents studied (Leary, Kowalski, Smith & Philips, 2003). In a report by the U.S. Secret
Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (2000), of 36 different school shootings, two-thirds
involved attackers who “felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by others prior to
the incident” (p.21). While other cases studied did not involve school bullying, they found that “a
number of attackers had experienced bullying and harassment that was long standing and severe,
playing a major role in motivating the attack at the school” (p. 21). Between 1994 and 1999, 220
school-associated violent deaths occurred in the United States, of which 172, or 78%, were
committed by students. Analysis revealed that the offending students were 2.6 times more likely
to have been bullied than their victims (Anderson, Kaufman, Simon, Barrios, Paulozzi, & Ryan,
(2001). Victims of bullying are at higher risk for engaging in violent behaviors as a result of their
victimization.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 33

In addition to catastrophic events such as school shootings and student suicides, bullying
has also been associated with fighting and carrying weapons (Kim & Leventhal 2008; Vossekuil
et al., 2002). During one month in 2001, 2.7 million students carried a weapon to school (Nansel
et al., 2003). According to Nansel et al. (2003) carrying weapons was associated with both being
a bully and with being a victim of bullying (Nansel et al., 2003). In certain cases, the shooters
were bullies themselves (Fast, 2008; Langman, 2009; Newman et al., 2004). Bully victimization
increases the likelihood of engaging in behaviors associated with school violence.
Bullying Laws and Legislation
Increased incidents of bullying and school violence have fueled a national concern
prompting legislative actions to curtail bullying. The American Academy of Pediatrics indicated
that bullying is a national youth health crisis and requires a national solution (Committee on
Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention, 2009). State and local policy makers have taken action
to prevent bullying and protect children; the first bullying law was created in 1999, since then
over 120 bills have been enacted through 2011 (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
Currently, there is no federal law that directly addresses bullying. In some cases, bullying
overlaps with discriminatory harassment when it is based on race, national origin, color, sex, age,
disability, or religion, and, when this happens, federally-funded schools, including colleges and
universities, have an obligation to address the harassment. If it is not resolved, the U.S.
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil
Rights Division can be involved (stopbullying.gov). Schools are obligated by these laws to
address behavior that is severe, pervasive or persistent, creates a hostile environment at school,
and or based on a student’s race, color, national origin, sex, disability or religion. Failure to
respond appropriately to harassment of students based on the above protected status may violate
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 34

one or more of the civil rights laws enforced by the Department of Education and the Department
of Justice. Schools must act according to the law in resolving all harassment complaints based on
protected classes.
In order to bring attention and awareness to the issue of bullying, a national campaign
was developed. In 2012, the Obama Administration launched a long-term anti-bullying campaign
(Bryn, 2011). The goal of the federal campaign was to increase awareness of bullying, stimulate
further research and to change norms and policies regarding bullying and bullying prevention
nationally by targeting the social context in which bullying occurs as an effective prevention
strategy (Bryn, 2011). The national media campaign focused on the tweens, ages 9 through 13
years, and the adults in their lives (Bryn, 2011). The campaign has been successful in increasing
awareness, building partnerships with private and public organizations, and harnessing youth
commitment and leadership towards preventing bullying (Bryn, 2011).
The government has also taken action in regards to school violence. Following the attack
at Columbine High School in April of 1999, the Secret Service and the Department of Education
initiated a study, the Safe School Initiative, of the thinking, planning, and other behaviors
engaged in by attackers who actually carried out school shootings (Vossekuil et al., 2002).
Vossekuil et al. (2002) identified 37 incidents of targeted school violence involving 41 attackers
in the United States from 1974 through June of 2000. The findings suggested that educators, law
enforcement officials and stakeholders can take productive actions in the problem of targeting
school violence. Their main finding was that school violence incidents were rarely a sudden,
impulsive act and that, in most cases, other people knew about the attacker’s ideas or plans to
attack and most attacks did not threaten their targets directly prior to the attack (Vossekuil et al.,
2002). Further, it was found that there is no definitive profile of students who became attackers,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 35

but most engaged in some identifiable behaviors prior to the incidents that caused concern
(Vossekuil et al., 2002). Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses, personal
failures and had considered or attempted suicide in the past (Vossekuil et al., 2002). They also
had access to and had used weapons in the past (Vossekuil et al., 2002). Lastly, many of the
attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the incident of violence (Vossekuil
et al., 2002). School violence is linked to perpetrators having experienced difficulty coping
socially and emotionally to a stressor, and having felt bullied in the past.
Types of Bullying
The definition of bullying can vary, but there are essential characteristics that describe
bullying behavior. According to Olweus (1991, 1993), true bullying reflects an unequal balance
of power and is both frequent and intentional on the part of the bully. The individuals exposed to
the negative actions have difficulty defending themselves. The definition of bullying used for
this study includes these important components of power and intentionality; bullying is an
unwanted, intentional, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived power imbalance
that is often repeated over time (Olweus, 1993).
Many aggressive behaviors in schools are associated with bullying. There are three main
types of bullying. Verbal bullying is often described as overt aggression and refers to verbal
aggression (Nishioka, et al., 2011). Verbal bullying involves teasing or taunting behaviors such
as name-calling, inappropriate sexual comments, and threatening to cause harm (Scherer &
Nickerson, 2010). Social bullying, also referred to as relational aggression, involves hurting a
person’s reputation or relationships. This type of bullying includes behaviors intended to hurt
someone’s social relationships with others, such as intentionally excluding or ignoring someone,
and spreading lies or rumors (Nishioka et al., 2011). Physical bullying involves hurting a
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 36

person’s body or possessions. Physical bullying behaviors can include hitting, kicking, punching,
spitting, tripping or pushing, taking or breaking someone’s things, and making mean or rude
hand gestures (Scherer & Nickerson, 2010).
Relational, social bullying, is gaining attention because of its negative outcomes for
students involved. Educators and policy makers have become concerned about the growing
evidence that relational aggression is also associated with negative outcomes for students
(Merrell, Buchanan, & Tran, 2006). Studies show that students subjected to the relational forms
of aggression, even without overt aggression, are more likely to have lower rates of classroom
participation, experience peer rejection, engage in alcohol and/or drug abuse and have lower self-
esteem (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Crick, Ostrov, & Werner, 2006). Studies have also found
that bully victimization experiences are likely to occur in the classroom, on the playground, and
in spaces where an authority figure is not present (Astor et al., 1999; Craig et al., 2000; Greef &
Grobler, 2008; Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004). Frequently, school officials, due to the lack of the
physical behaviors, may not address this type of bullying. Despite the absence of physical
bullying, social bullying affects victims in a similar manner.
Cyberbullying is an emerging problem in which people use new communication
technologies, such as social media and texting, to harass and cause emotional harm to their
victims (Suicide Prevention Resource Center). These technologies enable bullies to extend the
reach of their harassment, making the abuse more difficult to escape even after the school day is
done. Dinkes et al. (2009) conducted a nationwide study and found that 4% of students ages 12
to 18 reported being cyberbullied. Another study found that approximately 13% of students in
grades six through ten reported being cyberbullied (Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2010; Wang,
Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 37

Bullying, Gender, and Grade Level
Studies have found that differences in bullying victimization vary by gender. Researchers
consistently find that males report both bullying and victimization more often than do females
(Flescher Peskin, et al., 2006). In general, more boys than girls bully others and more girls than
boys report being bullied, yet more boys than girls are victims of bullying (Harris et al., 2002).
Boys reported more overt victimization, overt aggression and relational aggression towards other
students than did girls (Nishioka, et al., 2011). Boys use more direct methods of harassment and
girls use more indirect forms (Harris et al., 2002). Boys approved of aggression more than girls
did in both general social situations and in situations involving retaliation (Nishioka et al., 2011).
Bully-victims, those who are both bullied and bully others, are most likely to be male (Juvonen
et al., 2003; Rigby, 1998).
Bullying has been found to vary by grade level. A study of over 130,000 Norwegian
students found higher rates of victimization among students in lower grades (Olweus, 1994).
Bullying increases in middle school and begins to decrease as youth reach the 9th and 10th
grades (Harris et al., 2002; Nansel et al., 2001). The problem of bullying becomes particularly
insidious beginning in middle school, paralleling the onset of adolescence. Middle and high
school already marks a difficult time emotionally and socially for many adolescents. The
increase of bullying during this time period makes things even more difficult for students.
Students in upper grades reported higher agreement with beliefs that endorsed aggression
(Nishioka et al., 2011). A study of college bullying reported that a substantial amount of bullying
by both students and teachers may be occurring on college campuses. This data does not follow
the pattern of decreasing bullying with age that is vastly reported in bullying literature. These
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 38

findings suggest that bullying graduates to college and is also a fairly common occurrence at the
workplace (Chappell et al., 2004).
Effects of Bullying
Victims of frequent bullying report experiencing a range of negative and long-term
effects. Bullying victimization has been associated with poor psychosocial adjustment, difficulty
making and maintaining friends, poor relationships with peers and a sense of loneliness (Nansel
et al., 2001). In addition, Nansel et al. (2001) found that youth who are bullied may also be
avoided by other youth for fear of being bullied themselves or of losing social status among their
peer groups. Forero et al. (2012) reported that being bullied was associated with increased
psychosomatic symptoms and poor mental health. Students who are bullied experience a range of
psychological, psychosomatic and behavioral symptoms such as increased anxiety levels,
insecurity, low self-esteem and self-worth, eating disorders, and aggressive-impulsive behaviors
(Craig, 1998; Forero et al., 2012; Gini, 2008; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen & Rimpela,
2000; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009). Bullying behavior has been associated with
antisocial and criminal behavior and the victims of bullies have high levels of affective
symptoms including stress, anxiety, depression, illness, and suicidal tendencies (Morrison,
2002).
Suicide is a major problem among young people in the United States and is the third
leading cause of death for young people ages 12 to 18 (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2007). In a 12 month period, 14% of American high school students seriously
consider suicide, nearly 11% make plans about how they would commit suicide and
approximately 6% actually attempt suicide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007).
Both bully victims and perpetrators are at greater risk of developing depression, suicidal
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 39

ideation, and suicidal attempts (Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, & Gillberg, 2005; Klomek, et al.,
2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Roland, 2002). All three groups, victims, perpetrators and
perpetrator/victims are more likely to be depressed than children who have no involvement in
bullying (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009; Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2010). Depression is one
of the major risk factors of suicide. Wang, Nansel, and Iannotti (2010) found that victims of
cyberbullying are also at risk for depression and that these victims had higher levels of
depression than victims of face to face bullying.
Persons who engage in bullying are also at risk for negative future outcomes. Bullying
can be a sign of potential aggressive or violent behavior elsewhere in a child’s life (Bullock,
2002). Victims of bullying are more likely to engage in at-risk behaviors such using alcohol and
smoking cigarettes (Harris et al., 2002). Olweus (1992) reported that individuals with a history of
bullying are four times more likely to be convicted of criminal activity by their late 20’s.
Interestingly, chronic victims of bullying often admit to both bullying and being bullied (Harris
et al., 2002). In addition, some victims of bullying respond with retaliation. Victims of bullying
can also become perpetrators, perpetuating the cycle of aggression and violence against others
(Olweus, 1993).
Bullying and School Leadership
Bullying is an important topic for all school leaders. Becoming aware and understanding
the phenomenon of bullying is crucial for school leaders in order to effectively foster an anti-
bullying culture. This section reviews the importance of school leadership in bullying prevention
and a review of promising and ineffective practices in the prevention of bullying.
Bullying and victimization has become a central concern for all participants of the
educational community (Berger, Karimpour, & Rodkin, 2008). Harris and Petrie (2002) found
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 40

that bullying was a major problem and reported that bullying is a crucial issue for school leaders
to consider. In 2006, 43% of middle school administrators and 21% of elementary administrators
reported dealing with daily or weekly incidents of bullying in their school (Nolle, Guerino, &
Dinkes, 2007). The federal government recognized that there were plenty of bullying and
intervention programs, but missing was leadership in raising awareness and describing what to
do about bullying (Bryn, 2011). Principal awareness of the problem leads to administration
involvement. Awareness and involvement leads to reduction in bullying. A reduction in bullying
leads to an improved school experience for children (Harris & Petrie, 2002). Awareness and
making bullying prevention a priority is important to ensure the well-being of youth.
School bullying is a complex issue that calls for a comprehensive approach based on the
needs of the school culture (Casebeer, 2012). Using conflict resolution or mediation strategies to
address issues of bullying may undermine effective bullying intervention. Using these strategies
may exacerbate the bullying situation in that it fails to take into consideration the fact that
bullying is not the result of simple conflict; rather, it involves the exploitation of a serious
imbalance of physical or social power (Limber 2004). Further, group treatment strategies for
bullying are counterproductive in that group members may serve as role models and reinforce
bullying behaviors (Limber, 2004). Instead, bullying is a multi-faceted, systemic problem that
demands long term, comprehensive, and coordinated school wide interventions (Garrity, Jens,
Porter, Sager & Short-Camilli, 1997).
Evidence-based interventions should be used to effectively address the serious issue of
bullying at schools (Black et al., 2010). There are many strategies and interventions that are
commonly used by schools that have proven to be ineffective, such as zero tolerance policies
(Borum et al., 2010). The concept of zero tolerance is a strategy that continues to be utilized
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 41

despite evidence of ineffective outcomes. Zero tolerance policies are based on the premise that
schools will accept no amount of violence or threats of violence in order to deter any incidents
from occurring (Borum et al., 2010). However, the consensus is that zero-tolerance policies do
not work and may cause more harm than good (Borum et al., 2010; Fox & Burstein, 2010;
Newman et al., 2004). Further, evidence shows that zero tolerance polices fail to address the
underlying issues of the behavior (Martinez, 2009). Research shows that harsh penalties are
rarely given for severe offenses, but, rather, for lesser incidents. These policies have been highly
criticized for resulting in disproportionate discipline of minorities (Borum et al., 2010, Larkin,
2007; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). Zero-tolerance policies are not supported by research to be
effective in preventing or reducing bullying.
A whole school strategy as an intervention has been found to be most effective in
addressing problems of school bullying. Bullying is a multifaceted problem that requires anti-
bullying activities to address all factors surrounding the problem. A central tenet of bullying
prevention efforts is that bullying is a school-wide problem involving bystanders as well as
aggressors and their victims (Chandler, Nolin, & Davies, 2011; Olweus & Limber, 2000;
Unnever & Cornell, 2003). Sherer and Nickerson (2010) discuss bullying prevention and
intervention strategies that need to take place in five categories; systems-level interventions,
school staff and parent involvement, educational approaches with students, student involvement
and interventions with bullies and victims.
A school wide anti-bullying policy provides the framework that guides the school actions
to address problems with bullying. These types of policies have been widely accepted with anti-
bullying programs internationally and have shown to be effective (Hanewinkel & Olweus, 1993).
These frameworks have been used less consistently in American schools. Sherer and Nickerson
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 42

(2010) found that, in American schools, a variety of strategies are used to address bullying, but
most occur at the individual bully and victim level as opposed to more system-wide
interventions. Specifically, seven out of ten most frequently implemented strategies were
individual interventions with bullies and victims such as talking, counseling, avoiding contact
with bully and victims, and disciplining students who bully. In addition, the least frequently used
strategies were found to be system-level interventions such as use of an anti-bullying committee,
surveys, involving students in prevention, and intervention and resources and training for
nonteaching staff (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010).
The most effective methods of bullying reduction involve a whole-school approach.
Within this approach, most effective strategies include assessing the problem, planning school
conference days, providing better supervision, forming bully prevention committees,
encouraging parent teacher meetings, establishing classroom rules against bullying, classroom
meetings about bullying, requiring talks between bullies and victims, and scheduling talks with
parents involved (Dake, Price & Telljohann, 2003). Research (Klein, Cornell & Konold, 2012)
shows the importance of the school climate as a protective factor in preventing bullying and
student risk behavior. The school-wide approach is predicated on the idea that bullying can best
be reduced by changing the school climate and specifically addressing the culture of bullying
that encourages peer aggression (Unnever & Cornell, 2003).
Providing support services at the school site is also an important component in addressing
problems of bullying. The Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community
Violence (2013) addressed the need for improved mental health services in schools. The report
discussed the importance of access to mental health services for youth and adults who are
showing signs of psychological distress, depression, anxiety, withdrawal, anger and aggression
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 43

and support for their families (Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community
Violence, 2013). Glew et al. (2008) found that associations between involvement and academic
achievement, psychological distress, and the belief that it is not wrong to take a gun to school
reinforce the notion that school environment is interrelated with mental health and school
success. Further, Hoover and Oliver (1996) discussed the importance of involving school
counselors in a more significant role at schools. Support services should be available at schools
to provide academic support and resources to bully victims, especially those with inconsistent or
irregular attendance and/or problem behaviors (Gastic, 2008). Support service and health
practitioners evaluating students exhibiting psychological and psychosomatic symptoms should
consider bullying and the student’s school environment as potential causes (Forero et al., 2012).
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program Model is one of the most widely known
bullying prevention programs. The Olweus Program was first implemented in Norway in 1983
(Olweus, 1993, 2001, 2003). It builds on four principles derived from research on the
identification of problem behavior to be used at the individual, classroom and school levels
(Olweus, 1993, 2001, 2003). The program has several key components such as involvement from
adults, positive interest, and warmth. There is a focus on adults who act as positive role models
and authorities (Olweus, 2003). The program teaches firm limits on behaviors that are
unacceptable and consistent application of nonphysical and nonpunitive sanctions for violations
of rules or unacceptable behavior (Olweus, 2003). In an evaluation among 21,000 students,
substantial reductions in bullying of 49% to 32% were found using this model (Olweus, 2005).
Farrington and Ttofi (2009) suggest that programs inspired by the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program worked best to mediate bully/victim issues. Other researchers have studied the program
and have found modest to mixed effects, bringing in the question of whether this intervention
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 44

program can be successfully implemented in a broad range of locations and settings (Black et al.,
2010; Bauer, Lozano & Rivara, 2007).
School climate has also been studied as a factor to be considered in addressing school
bullying. It is necessary to identify important aspects of school climate that can facilitate or
impair student engagement in school. Student perceptions of the extent of bullying at school are
consistently associated with the levels of school engagement at both the individual student and
the school-wide level (Mehta, Cornell, Fan & Gregory, 2013). Mehta et al. (2013) argue for
school-wide prevention and intervention efforts that are designed to improve the school climate
and associated experiences for all students.
Given the vast and negative effects of bullying on its victims, school leaders must adapt
to the changing face of bullying. Changes in technology and pervasiveness in our culture,
particularly among youth, are generating new forms of electronic bullying (Gastic, 2008).
Epstein and Kazmierczak (2006) report that there are two main reasons for the rise of
cyberbullying. First, children and youth have access to and feel more comfortable in using and
navigating the internet. Second, the internet provides a sense of anonymity experienced by
children and youth. It also goes without saying that youth realize that there is little monitoring of
what they do or communicate in cyberspace. With the growing technological generation gap,
adults in the lives of students must become educated regarding the risk. Strong leadership is a
critical component to lay the framework for addressing all types of bullying at schools.
Some general strategies and tools are supported by research to address the issues of
bullying in schools. In their study, Hutzell and Payne (2012) recommended that schools
implement preventive interventions early in the school year. Also emphasized was the
importance of educating school personnel on the signs of peer victimization, and opportunities
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 45

for parent and peer training. Individual classroom interventions include regular classroom
meetings to educate students concerning the identification of bullying behaviors, the seriousness
of bullying and the techniques they can implement to discourage or stop bullying. Schools
should ensure firm and clear rules that specify limits to undesirable behaviors and enforce
disciplinary methods for such behaviors (Hutzell & Payne, 2012). Limber (2004) reported
several general tools for school leaders: increased supervision of student behavior, reinforcement
of prosocial behaviors, and the encouragement of parental involvement. Educators should
encourage students to try to help others who are being bullied and make a point of including
students who are easily left out of group activities (Limber, 2004). Lastly, Limber (2004) asserts
that individual educators need to assume intervention responsibility for every bullying instance.
School leadership is the most critical component in fostering an anti-bullying culture and
will determine the systems and structures in place at a school. There are many strategies that can
be used to address and prevent bullying at schools. Strategies and evidence based programs that
emphasize the interrelated impact of family, school culture and communities should be used
(Epstein & Kazmierczak, 2006). All of these entities must be considered and included when
working to address the problem of bullying. Thus, Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological
systems (1977, 1979) provides a framework for understanding the impact of bullying and the
importance of including students, families, schools and communities when implementing
bullying prevention and interventions at schools.
Theoretical Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems (1977, 1979) provides a framework that
includes students, families, schools and communities. This framework has been widely used in
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 46

understanding bullying and its effects on systems and is used as the guiding framework for this
study.

Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) Model as Applied to Educational Environments
Experts have argued that bullying can best be understood through an ecological
framework (Barboza et al., 2009; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). Social ecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) is an all-encompassing theory of human behavior that includes a
reciprocal interplay between the individual, their peer group, family, school, community, and
culture. (See Figure 1)
Bullying involves multiple participants and multiple levels (Mishna et al., 2005).
Endorsing a model of bullying that does not account for the many different systemic influences
incorrectly focuses on the individual, instead of accounting for the complex interactions that
occur between multiple systems. Based on this theory, it is impossible to understand the
behaviors of bullying without also understanding the many environments, the relationship of the
individual to these environments and the interaction between multiple settings that all influence
the engagement of bullying behaviors (Espelage & Swearer, 2008).
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 47

Bronfenbrenner (1979) argues that, in order to understand human development, one must
consider the entire ecological system in which growth occurs. This framework views youth
behavior as shaped by individual characteristics and a range of nested contextual systems of
schools, adults, neighborhoods and society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005).
Social ecological theory provides a conceptual framework to investigate the combined impact of
social contexts and influences on behavioral development (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillanourt, &
Hymel, 2010). Within this framework, the systems that directly affect children and adolescents
include families, schools, peer groups, teacher-student relationships, parent-child relationships,
parent-school relationships, neighborhoods, and cultural expectations (Swearer, Espelage,
Vaillanourt, & Hymel, 2010).
The framework is composed of five socially organized subsystems that help support and
guide human growth (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the
components that comprise an individual’s ecology are the macrosystem, exosystem, mesosytem,
and the microsystem. The framework calls for children as the center of the ecology in that they
are the developmental entity that interacts with their ecological surroundings. Their behaviors are
outcomes of not only their interactions but also their own individual traits (Bronfenbrenner,
1979, 1989).
The most important concept for the microsystem is the experience within interpersonal
relationships. Bronfenbrenner (1994) stipulates there are four microsystems around children,
those with family, teachers, peers and school environment. The mesosystem consists of social
interconnections, linkages and processes taking place between participants, such as students,
teachers and peers. For example, the relations between the home and the school would be
reflected in the mesosystem. In essence, it can be understood as a system of microsystems. The
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 48

next level in the framework is the exosystem. The exosystem involves experiences in a social
setting in which the individual does not have an active role, but is influenced by this experience
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). An example of the mesosystem is a parent’s job loss or financial
difficulty which, undoubtedly, has an effect on the family life, which directly affects the
children. On a larger scale, funding patterns can affect resources and schools that have a direct
impact on the students (Pintado, 2006). The overarching system, often referred to as the “societal
blue print” for a culture, is the macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p.40). The macrosystem
consists of the cultural values and beliefs that influence family and societal functioning. This
cultural “blueprint” can determine the social structure and activities in the other system levels.
Within the macrosystem, organizational, social, cultural, and political contexts can shape the
interactions within other systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The macrosystem, on the outer layers
of the system, has direct impact on all levels.
Understanding social-ecological theory within a context of bullying is important. This
theory has been used to explain students’ engagement in bullying behaviors (Garbarino & De
Lara, 2002; Newman et al., 2000; Olweus, 1993; Swearer & Doll, 2001; Swearer and Espelage,
2004). The aggressor or victim may be viewed as being within his or her own circle, in the center
of all the other concentric circles representing their families, schools, and community. This
model demonstrates how the individual shapes and is shaped by social entities such as their
peers, school and community. Using this framework, each ring must be called upon to identify
and implement effective anti-bullying interventions (Epstein & Kazmierczak, 2007). Reviews of
bullying research have applied the ecological structure to bullying and have concluded that
schools must be cognizant of many factors when working from an ecological perspective:
bullying is a constellation of behavioral interactions that exist within a system; often overlooked
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 49

are internalized disorders that can also contribute to bullying, families must be active partners in
anti-bullying efforts; anti-bullying programs must interrupt and neutralize the current peer
support for bullying behavior; interventions must alter adult responses such as teachers, staff,
and administrators; and changes must occur within the upper reaches of school administration if
there are going to be lasting effects (Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Swearer & Doll, 2001;). The
ecological structure as applied to bullying in a sense helps schools to understand that the act of
bullying is not one single act, but occurs within a system and affects the entire system as well.
Bullying and school violence occurs within and has an impact on multiple systems.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological system theory has been widely used to understand bullying
and incidents of school violence. Hong, Cho, Allen-Meares and Espelage (2011) used the
ecological framework to study and understand the Columbine High School shootings and
concluded that assessments examining the nature and influences of the various ecological
systems, such as family, peer group, school and community must be used to understand and
prevent school violence. According to this framework, the system levels are all influences that
shape individual attitudes and behaviors (Swearer & Espelage, 2004). The outer systems shape
the immediate level systems which creates a trickle-down effect. Utilizing this model in
understanding bullying is important for the implementation of structures and systems that are
created by schools. School leaders will understand bullying to be much more than one isolated
behavioral incident and the larger impact and effect of bullying on their campus. Interventions
applied, structures utilized, and systems developed using the ecological framework will affect
multiple systems. This study used the ecological systems theory to provide a framework for
understanding the promising practices in preventing bullying.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 50

Conclusion
Students are dropping out at increasing rates and it is a major concern for the country. In
over 2000 high schools in America, nearly 40% of freshmen students drop out by their senior
year (Balfanz et al., 2010). Similarly, school bullying has emerged as a prevalent social problem
in the United States and internationally (Williams & Guerra, 2010). Over 30% of students
reported being involved in bullying (Nansel et. al., 2001). Further, bullying has been linked to
school violence, such as school shootings (Larkin, 2007; Newman et al., 2004) and suicides (Mar
& Field, 2001), and has been found to be a significant link with violent behaviors later in life
(Ttofi et al., 2012). Bullying can have long lasting effects on students that play a role in their
level of engagement to school making them at risk for potential drop out. The process of
dropping out includes a slow disengagement from school. Both bullying and student
disengagement are linked to student dropout. In essence, focusing on student engagement to
foster an anti-bullying culture at a school will have an impact on a student’s potential for
dropping out. Student engagement can be viewed as a potential protective factor for both
bullying and student dropout. The intent of this study was to investigate the perceived systems
and structures that contribute towards increased student engagement and the prevention of
bullying in K-12 schools based on the contributions of the literature reviewed in this chapter.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The intent of this study was to investigate promising practices in preventing bullying in
K-12 schools by specifically focusing on student engagement as a contributor to student dropout.
Student engagement is a common risk factor of both bullying and student dropout. Bullying is on
the rise in schools, as is the number of students who continue to disconnect and drop out of
school. This study examined a school that demonstrates positive results in the area of bully
prevention and student engagement. In addition, school outcomes were taken into consideration
and the identified school has demonstrated high achievement and a low dropout rate. The goals
of the study were to identify promising practices by schools that promote an anti-bullying culture
through the use of student engagement.
This chapter outlines the research design of the study and provides an overview of the
participants and sample selection. It also discusses the theoretical framework and explains the
conceptual framework. The theoretical framework and the conceptual framework in combination
formulate the foundation for the study. Data collection procedures are examined and the
instrumentation used for this study is reviewed. Finally, the format for data analysis is outlined,
along with the ethical considerations made to ensure the safety and confidentiality of the
participants.
Research Questions
In an effort to understand the practices that have been successful in preventing bullying in
schools, following research question were posed:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to student
engagement and an anti-bullying culture in schools?
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 52

2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
student engagement and an anti-bullying culture in schools?
Research Design
The research questions framed the study and guided the choice of research method for
data collection. Qualitative methods were used in order to obtain a rich, in-depth understanding
of the promising practices for preventing bullying and fostering an anti-bullying culture in
schools. In qualitative studies, researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret
their experiences, how they construct their worlds and what meaning they are attributing to their
experiences (Merriam, 2009).
Merriam (2009) describes the nature of qualitative research as having a focus on process,
understanding and meaning with the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis. The qualitative process is inductive and the final product is richly descriptive to
illustrate what the researcher has learned about the phenomena (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative data
collection relies on a variety of sources of information, including interviews, observations, and
document analysis (Merriam, 2009).
A qualitative case study approach was utilized for this study due to its in-depth and rich
descriptive nature (Merriam, 2009). This approach is appropriate for this study because it
captures experiences, perspectives, and practices of leaders and stakeholders at a school that has
proven to be effective in implementing promising practices to create an anti-bullying culture.
Phenomena such as bullying, and factors that have an impact on student engagement and student
dropout are intricately complex. Additionally, being able to understand the interplay between
different systems and structures in a comprehensive and cohesive manner is necessary to fully
understand the components in developing a school plan that works. In order to understand the
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 53

interplay between systems and structures at the school, it was necessary to interview key school
personnel and observe them in their daily operations. Moreover, this study has a particular focus
on student engagement, and interviews and observations are crucial to understand this
experience. This study was strengthened by triangulation of data sources, which allowed for a
stronger understanding of the phenomena being investigated (Maxwell, 2013).
Sample and Population
This study examined the promising practices in preventing bullying through the use of
student engagement and through fostering an anti-bullying culture at one school. Specific criteria
were established to identify a high achieving, secondary public institution for this case study.
This section summarizes the selection criteria, sampling procedures, participants, and an
overview of the district and school.
Purposeful sampling was used to select the sample for interviews and observations.
Purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the researcher seeks to understand, gain
insight and learn and, therefore, must select a sample in which this would be possible (Merriam,
2009). Convenience sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, was used as participants and
locations were selected based on time, availability and “convenience” (Merriam, 2009, p.79).
Despite convenience sampling, credibility for this sample was validated by identifying
appropriate participants who were selected precisely because of their “special experience and
competence” (Merriam, 2009, p.77). This study involved the school site administrator, school
psychologist, counselor, teacher and other school staff such as the parent representative.
Participation was voluntary, and only staff members who were willing to be interviewed and
observed were a part of the study. Those interviewed had varying years of experience in their
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 54

profession and at the actual school site. A total of five faculty and staff members participated in
this study.
Overview of the School
Sunnyland School was selected because of its known reputation for a recent school
transformation with increasing educational outcomes, a positive school climate fostering an anti-
bullying culture, positive behavior support for students, reduction of suspensions, and strong
interventions and support programs. The school is located in an urban, high poverty area of
southern California. During the academic year of 2012-2013, it maintained an enrollment of 889
students from grades six through eight. The majority of the students at Sunnyland School are
Hispanic or Latino (90%) (Table 1).
Table 1
School Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2012-13
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
804

American Indian or Alaska Native, Not Hispanic
6

Asian, Not Hispanic c
14

Pacific Islander, Not Hispanic
1

Filipino, Not Hispanic
28

African American, Not Hispanic
24

White, Not Hispanic
12

Two or More Races, Not Hispanic
0

Not Reported
0

Total
889

The school is designated as high poverty and 89% of students participate in the free or
reduced-price meal program and Title I, special federal funding for support programs and staff.
English Learners comprise 17% of the enrollment and 12% are students with disabilities. During
the 2011-2012 academic term, approximately 40% of students were reclassified to English.
Sunnyland School has improved their API scores showing consistent growth over the past
five years. In 2011-12, the school made a 100 point jump in API. The API for the 2011-2012
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 55

term was 794, increasing from 650 in 2007-08. The school outperformed schools with similar
demographics over the previous five years (Table 2)
Table 2
API Score Growth Over 5 Years
API
Base Growth PTS Met All Statewide Rank Similar Schools Rank
2007-08 650 669 19 No 2 7
2008-09 663 628 -35 No 2 5
2009-10 626 663 37 Yes 1 2
2010-11 663 693 30 Yes 1 2
2011-12 694 794 100 Yes 2 2

In English Language Arts, over the last five years, there has been an increase of over 23%
of students scoring Proficient and Advanced on the California Standardized Test (CST) for a
total of 54% of students. Similarly, in Math, a 30% increase over the last five years with 49% of
students scoring Proficient and Advanced in Math.
Student suspensions have decreased by 90% over four years with only 2% of student
suspensions reported in the 2011-2012 term. Close to 79% of students at the school reported
feeling safe on school grounds during the 2011-12 academic year. On average, 38% of parents of
students at this school reported not being a high school graduate. Over 73% of students had a
96% attendance rate, which means they missed fewer than seven days of school per year, a 10%
increase from the 2010-2011 term.
Theoretical Framework
In order to study promising practices in preventing bullying, it is necessary to ground the
research in theory. Experts have argued that bullying can best be understood through an
ecological framework (Barboza et al., 2009; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). As previously explained
in chapter two, social ecological theory provides a theoretical framework to investigate the
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 56

combined impact of social contexts and influences on behavioral development (Swearer,
Espelage, Vaillanourt, & Hymel, 2010). In this framework, the systems that directly affect
children and adolescents include families, schools, peer groups, teacher-student relationships,
parent-child relationships, parent-school relationships, neighborhoods, and cultural expectations
(Swearer, Espelage, Vaillanourt, & Hymel, 2010).
Utilizing social ecological theory is a critical component in understanding promising
practices in preventing bullying. According to this framework, the system levels are all
influences that shape individual attitudes and behaviors (Swearer & Espelage, 2004). The outer
systems shape the immediate level systems which create a trickle-down effect. Consequently, it
is important to align promising practices in preventing bullying with the social ecological
framework to ensure program effectiveness.
Maxwell (2013) defines a conceptual framework as “the systems of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p. 39).
The literature review highlighted core concepts, terms, models, and theories that have shaped the
framework for this study. This framework informed the development of the problem of the study,
the formulation of specific research questions, the selection of the appropriate methodology for
data collection and analysis, and provided insight on the interpretation of findings (Merriam,
2013).
The conceptual framework, designed by the thematic group, was based on emerging
themes in the review of literature. Identified structures such as stakeholders, funding, policies,
staffing, and professional development are key components to have in place to create an anti-
bullying culture. With these structures in place, effective school systems can be developed. It is
the interplay between the school structures and systems that produce a school-wide anti-bullying
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 57

culture. A school-wide anti-bullying culture will promote student engagement and dropout
prevention. Fostering a school-wide anti-bullying culture requires more than just the structures
and systems in place at the school. The foundation of this model is effective school leadership.
Effective school leadership with a commitment to fostering an anti-bullying culture will
implement the critical structures and systems needed to effectuate change while simultaneously
creating sustainability by changing the school culture (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Ed.D. Thematic Group, 2013
In summary, the conceptual framework illustrates how critical systems and structures are
implemented and sustained to support an anti-bullying culture in schools. School structures that
work towards preventing bullying and supporting an anti-bullying culture in schools are
important to be in place. Effective leadership serves as the basis for driving the systems and
structures and creates the implementation and sustainability of an anti-bullying culture.
Altogether, this framework composes a system that works collaboratively to foster an anti-
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 58

bullying culture in schools that promotes student engagement, and, thus, prevents student
dropout.
Methods
Data Collection
This study used three types of methods for data collection; semi-structured interviews,
observations, and document analysis. Participants were provided with an explanation of the
interview and observation process and assured confidentiality. Informed consent forms were
signed prior to each interview. Interviews contributed to the study as the primary source of data,
and observations were conducted to support the data collected from the interviews. Documents
provided by the school were collected as well as public school information available in order to
triangulate the data. Merriam (2009) argues that triangulation through the use of multiple sources
of data increases the internal validity of the study. Maxwell (2013) contends that using multiple
methods creates a check on one another, to see if methods with different strengths and limitations
will support a single conclusion. Further, using multiple methods allows one to gain a more
secure understanding of the issues that are investigated (Maxwell, 2013). Data was collected
from September 2013 to December 2013.
Semi-structured Interviews
The intent of the interview process was to allow an open ended exploration of the
practices in place that contribute towards the structure and systems at the school site to prevent
bullying. The interviews conducted were semi-structured in nature and lasted approximately 45
minutes each. An interview protocol was utilized with a total of 12 questions asked of each
interview participant (Appendix A). Interview questions were developed after a result of multiple
pilot interviews conducted by members of a thematic group (Merriam, 2009). Questions used in
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 59

the interview protocol were open-ended in nature to obtain as much information as possible from
participants (Merriam, 2009).
Observations
In order to understand the structures and systems in place to prevent bullying at the
school site and to corroborate information gained from the interviews, data was collected through
observations at the school site. A total of four different classroom, school, and community
observations days were conducted at the school site. Data collected through observations
included locations such as classrooms, school offices, parent center, school transition times in
hallways and yard areas, lunch time, nutrition/recess, and school assemblies. Notably,
interactions among students were observed, as well as interactions among administration and
staff together and with students.
Observations were conducted using an observation protocol (Appendix B). The
observation protocol developed was based on the recommendation by Bogdan and Biklen (2003)
for field notes to be highly descriptive and reflective (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) states
that observation is a systematic research tool that can address a specific research question and,
when conducted correctly, can produce consistent and trustworthy results. A list of important
elements in observation is recommended by Merriam (2009) and the following were utilized in
the development of the observation protocol:
• the physical setting
• the participants
• activities and interactions
• conversations
• subtle factors
• your own behaviors
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 60

Artifact Collection and Analysis
According to Merriam (2009), documents are a major source of data in qualitative
research, are nonreactive and are grounded in the context under the study. In addition to
triangulation of data, document collection and data analysis are important because it can help the
researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding and discover insights relevant to the
research problem (Merriam, 2009). For this study, data was collected through the examination of
school documents in order to get an overall portrait of the school. Documents examined included
the school plan, the school accountability report card, meeting agendas and minutes, school
calendars, school operating materials, policies and bulletins, school site council meeting minutes,
budget and fund allocations, and school artifacts such as posters, flyers and announcements.
Data Analysis
Merriam (2009) describes data analysis as the process of making sense out of the data, in
essence the process of making meaning of the data. Creswell’s (2003) six steps for data analysis,
which provided a guiding framework for this study, were utilized in the data analysis process. An
illustrative version of Creswell’s model, developed by the 2013 thematic dissertation group, is
included below to illustrate the process of analysis implemented (See Figure 3).

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 61

Figure 3. Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
As the model demonstrates, it was necessary to first organize and prepare the data for
analysis. Data was first recorded through digital recording and notes were taken by the
interviewer. All digital recordings were transcribed. Second, all data collected from the
interviews, observations, and documents were combined. Third, the data was then organized into
chunks and scanned to get a sense of the information and identify initial themes. Merriam (2009)
refers to this initial process as “category construction” (p.178). This involved reading through the
data and developing a list of codes based on the data content. Fourth, the data was coded into
Step
Six

Interpret
or
make
meaning
of
the
dat

Step
Five

Decide
how
the
descirp9on
and
themes
will
be
represented
in
the
study
narra9ve

Step
Four

Use
coding
process
to
develop
a

descrip9on
of
the
par9cipants

and/or
se@ng

Use
coding
to
develop

themes
or
categories

Themes
are
analyzed
for
each

interview/observa9on
and
across

interviews/observa9ons

Step
Three

Begin
detailed
analysis
with
a
coding
process
(organizing
the
material
into
chunks
before
bringing

meaning
to
the
data)

Step
Two

Read
through
all
the
data
(first
obtain
a
general
sense
of
meaning

Step
One

Organize
and
prepare
the
data
for
analysis

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 62

similarly themed categories. All of the data labels were scanned and reviewed. Fifth, a
description of the participants’ experiences was developed from the coded data and themes were
analyzed based on the recurring patterns found for each type of data collection (Merriam, 2009).
The identified themes were organized into a descriptive narrative for the study. Lastly, the
researcher conducted a full examination of the data and attempted to make meaning from the
themes that emerged through data analysis.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical practices were followed in designing and conducting this study. According to
Merriam (2009), an important part of ensuring for the trustworthiness of a study and its
credibility is to ensure that the researcher him/herself is trustworthy in carrying out a study in an
ethical manner as possible. To ensure ethical means of data collection, the researcher diligently
followed the rules and regulations set forth by the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB), and IRB approval was granted for the implementation of this
study. All participants in the study volunteered to participate and were not coerced in any way.
Participants were also provided assurance of the confidentiality of their statements and the
benefits that could result from the study. The school and all participants were given pseudonyms
to enhance anonymity. All data was kept in a secure location to prevent harm to the participants.
Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the qualitative case study method and data analysis
used in the implementation of this study. The methods used to complete this study can and
should be replicated for future validation and to add to the significance of the findings. Chapter
Four presents the findings using the research questions to organize the data. In addition, the
findings are discussed in relation to the purpose of the study.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 63

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to examine the promising practices at K-12 schools that
promote an anti-bullying culture utilizing practices that increase student engagement. Bullying
affects student engagement, behavior, and academic outcomes. It is also linked to student
dropout (Gastic, 2008; Morrison, 2002). This study aimed to examine a school that utilized
student engagement as a strategy that fosters an anti-bullying culture. Chapter four presents the
findings from a case study of an urban public school by identifying the organizational systems
and structures perceived to contribute to these promising practices. In order to learn more about
what organizational systems and structures are in place, one middle school was selected to serve
as the subject of this case study. After a brief introduction of the site and participants studied, the
findings are presented based on emerging themes along with a detailed analysis and discussion.
Sunnyland middle school is located in southern California and serves the population of a
large urban city. During the 2012-13 academic term, the school had an enrollment of
approximately 890 students, of whom 14% were English Language Learners and 71% were
economically disadvantaged and qualified for the Free/Reduced Price Meal program. Sunnyland
School serves, predominantly, a minority population in that 91% of all students are Latino, 2%
are African American, and 6% are Asian.
The study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to student engagement and an
anti-bullying culture in schools?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support student
engagement and an anti-bullying culture in schools?
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 64

Data collection occurred via interviews with participants, along with four classroom, school, and
community meeting observations in addition to the collection of various artifacts: pictures,
calendars, daily schedule, school flyers, information sheets, school accountability report card,
school performance data summaries, maps and diagrams, campus supervision protocol, school
policies, school spending report, discipline foundation positive behavior support school report,
newsletters and community. Qualitative methods were used to obtain a rich, in-depth
understanding of the phenomena studied (Merriam, 2009). After a brief introduction of the
participants, the findings are presented based on major themes that emerged from the data.
Participant Profiles
A total of seven interviews were conducted with administrators, teachers, counselors, and
a community/parent staff representative. All participants agreed to take part in an audio-recorded
in-person interview. The table below describes the personnel interviewed and their number of
years at the school and in their profession.
Table 3
Participant Overview
Participant Position Number of Years in
Position at School
Number of Years
in Profession
Administrator 1 Principal 4 28
Administrator 2 Assistant Principal 3 15
Teacher 1 Teacher 3 8
Teacher 2 Teacher 2 6
Teacher 3 Teacher 3 10
Counselor Secondary
Counselor
12 9
Community
Representative
Staff 1.5 1.5

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 65

Administrator 1 identified as Mexican American and is the principal at Sunnyland
School. He has served the school for four years and began working there during a difficult time
in the school’s history, as will be described, with a goal of turning the school around and
increasing academic outcomes for students. He has been in the profession of education for 28
years and holds a multiple subject and an administrative credential. Administrator 2 identified as
White/Caucasian and Multiracial. She is the assistant principal and works closely with the
principal as a part of the leadership team at the school. She has been at the school for three and a
half years and in the profession of education for 15 years. She holds administrative and multiple
subject credentials. Teacher 1 identified as African American/Black, has worked at the school for
three years and has been a teacher for a total of eight years. She holds a single subject credential
and teaches 8
th
grade Algebra at the school. She also coordinates the Gay Straight Alliance
(GSA) club for the school. Teacher 2 identified as Mexican American and has been at the school
for two years. He has been teaching for a total of six years. He holds a single subject credential
and teaches 8
th
grade History. He also leads the school’s Students Run LA (SRLA) club. Teacher
3 identified as White/Caucasian has been at the school for three years and has worked in her
profession for ten years. She holds an educational specialist credential and works with special
education students in multiple grades. The school Counselor identifies as Cuban and
White/Caucasian. She holds a multiple subject and a pupil personnel services credential and has
been at the school for over 12 years. Of those, she has worked as a counselor for nine years. The
community representative school staff member identifies as Mexican American. She has been at
the school and in her current profession for one and half years. She is also a community member
who has first-hand knowledge, as she attended the school herself as a child and sent her own
daughter to the school.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 66

Results
In exploring the data collected through interviews, observations, and artifact analysis,
three salient themes emerged: 1) positive school climate, 2) school organization and
infrastructure, and 3) student interactions. The data reflect that the school cultivated a positive
school climate utilizing a whole-school approach to implement their vision. Also evident was the
development and implementation of a strategic school organizational system and infrastructure
that was at the foundation of the school’s operations. Lastly, there was a strong focus on
transforming student interactions and relationships evident within the school. Within each of
these themes, there are systems and structures that have been developed, implemented and
sustained that contribute to student engagement and an anti-bullying culture. Table 4 describes
the research questions as addressed by the emerging themes.
Table 4
Research Questions and Emerging Themes Found in Data
Research Question Positive
School Culture
School Organization
and Infrastructure
Student
Interactions
What are the perceived
systems and structures
that contribute to student
engagement and an anti-
bullying culture in
schools?

X

X

X
How are these systems and
structures implemented
and sustained to support
student engagement and
an anti-bullying culture in
schools?

X

X

X

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 67

Positive School Climate
The data reflected an overarching theme of a positive school climate used as the
foundation of the school. The positive school climate appears to be the outcome of a years-long
process of important history, which served as an impetus for major change within the school and
community. The historical information of the school, provided below, presents contextual
background that is important for understanding this transformational process.
Historical Context
An important component to consider prior to reviewing the findings is the historical
context of the school. The historical context provides the impetus for the recent changes and
transformation made by the school in the last four years, resulting in the emerging themes found
in the data. In 2010, the district’s local superintendent decided to reconstitute the school under
the parameters of No Child Left Behind. The school underwent a reconstitution because of its
overall failure to make academic progress over time and overall problems with community
concerns about the negative culture of the school. The reconstitution required all interested
teachers to reapply for their positions if they wanted to remain at the school. The principal
described chronic limited academic growth as one of the reasons for the reconstitution:
We had maybe five to six years of limited growth, but we had actually … if you average
it out in the last 5 years previous to the reconstitution, we only went up 2 points every
year, so it was an average of 10 points in 5 years, which wasn’t sufficient gain, so the
superintendent decided to reconstitute the school and give everybody an opportunity to
apply.
Another important reason behind the reconstitution was the negative culture of the
school. This negative culture included a history of violence, gang involvement, bullying, and
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 68

discord among stakeholders including parents and community members. The principal
referenced a video about a town hall meeting in the community that took place a few years prior
with candidates running for school board membership. One of the first questions posed by the
community was about the existing violence at Sunnyland School: “I’d like to ask the candidates,
what are you going to do about the violence at Sunnyland Middle School? I mean it’s off the
charts.” The principal described the video as:
The picture of what existed before we reconstituted and before we made all these changes
because since then, there’s been a dramatic shift and change in that kind of talk.
Community criticism has really dissipated because of the success we’re seeing as far as
the kids in the classroom and academics and rules that matter.
The principal stated that many of the parent and community stakeholders have lived in the
neighborhood, or went to the school themselves as children, as evidenced with the community
representative staff interviewed. They have seen the school go through the transformation and
can attest to the change in the school culture.
The principal described the tone and culture of the school when he first arrived, before
the reconstitution, and the relationship with parent and community stakeholders as “wild”,
“chaotic”, “violent” and “unsafe.” He explained:
It was really a bad situation…parents were outside picketing because of the violence,
because of the lack of growth…kids climbing the fence, community members … would
be very clear with me that they were excessively unhappy with the entire school and the
lack of growth … the amount of violence, the running around the streets.
The principal stated, “teachers would say they would walk to the classroom right after nutrition
(recess) and they would be pelted, they would be cussed at, it was just the Wild West as they say.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 69

That’s the kind of stuff that existed here.” The community/parent representative staff member
interviewed lived in the neighborhood and went to the school. At the time of this study, her
daughter was a student at the school. She provided a first-hand account of what she felt the
culture of the school was prior to the reconstitution. She said, “There were too many fights,
things were happening in the restroom and outside” and she ultimately began accompanying her
daughter to school daily because she feared for her daughter’s safety.
Teacher 1, who was new to the school since the reconstitution, described her
understanding that the parents and community were “unhappy with the school’s reputation of
having lots of problems” and that the biggest issue was that of the “culture on campus.” Safety
was the main issue and parents felt that it “was not safe and people thought their kids should not
come [to the school] and that developed this reputation as a school that did not deal very well
with issues, with differences, with bullying.” Additionally, Teacher 1 stated that the enrollment
of the school was very high at that time, with “over a thousand” students, which also made things
very difficult. She describes the school reconstitution and changes being made as “growing
pains” and felt that the school was making positive growth. Teacher 3, who lives in the school
neighborhood, did not want to work at the school because of its reputation for being a “rough”
and “dangerous” school with “students jumping the fence” and “setting trashcans on fire.” She
chose to work at the school after the reconstitution because she had worked with the principal in
the past and admired his leadership. Teacher 2 talked about the warnings he was given by
colleagues when he decided to apply for a position at the school and was told “don’t go there.
It’s a rotten place.”
As a result of the reconstitution, the administration at the school was charged with re-
staffing the remainder of open positions and building a vision and implementation plan for a high
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 70

performing middle school. Half of the faculty reapplied and only half of them were chosen. The
principal referred to this opportunity as “every principal’s dream” because they could envision
“the staff [they] wanted to create” that would align with the new vision of the school as a high
performing middle school. The principal placed a high value on the teachers at the school and
stated that they are, “your greatest resources, and they are the ones that are going to make the
change happen.” Both administrators worked as a team and agreed on an underlying philosophy
they would use to rebuild the school, “a reintegrative focus on instruction and the learning” and a
solid belief that:
Change starts in the classroom and what goes on in the classroom bleeds into everything,
so, if things are going well in the classroom, students are feeling successful academically.
Then, they are more likely to have pro-social behaviors outside of the classroom.
Administrators admitted that, prior to the reconstitution, the school faced many problems of
violence and bullying on the campus. After the reconstitution, they decided that, rather than
implementing any one type of an “anti-bullying program” to address the school’s issues, they
decided to strategically focus on safety and learning in the classroom. As a result of this focus,
they found that an anti-bullying culture at the school emerged. The assistant principal explained:
For us, it starts in the classroom, and it has sort of bled into all these other areas. We
don’t…have a specific anti-bullying program that we use, but we talk a lot about how do
we communicate with others, how do we engage with others, how do we talk positively
with others.
The reconstitution was a beginning to a process that would completely transform the
school environment and culture by making major, strategic, evidence-based changes at the
school. The administration collectively made major changes at the school as a result of the
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 71

reconstitution. Overall, the school has been affected, resulting in a positive school climate and an
anti-bullying culture. The reconstitution led the way for effective leadership to cultivate a new
vision for the school.
Leadership
Effective leadership is the most important component in fostering an anti-bullying culture
at a school. School leaders set the tone for the campus and determine the systems and structures
in place and develop procedures for their implementation and sustainability. The leadership at
Sunnyland School led the transformation and progress at the school by developing a collective
team, focused on stakeholders that worked together in implementing a school-wide, whole-
school approach to education.
Collective Team-Building. The leadership used the school’s vision and mission to drive
the message of the collective team and accountability for all students. The mission, “to create a
personalized learning environment that promotes college and career readiness and success using
21
st
century skills” is made available to the stakeholders and the community via the school’s
website, school documents and parent meetings. The vision is that “all stakeholders will work
collaboratively to cultivate independent and responsible students.” The mission and vision are
carried and lived daily by the staff, teachers and administrators who communicate high
expectations for students in the classroom and within individual interactions. Teacher 2 is the
newest teacher to the school and described how he feels about working as part of a team, which
is different from his experience at every other school he has been to. He described:
From beginning to end we're working for the same goals. We are in this together. Here it
just seems very uniform. What I realized is that it's almost organic. Here, I haven't felt
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 72

like, "Oh, you must do this. You must do that." I don't feel like I'm mandated to do X, Y
or Z, but, rather, that I'm trusted that I am doing the correct thing.
Teacher 2 feels a sense of being a part of a larger collective group and feels he is trusted as a
professional. He feels that everyone at the school has the same vision, or “beliefs” about what
working with students should look like.
The principal has done much to motivate and inspire the staff to ensure all work toward
the same goals and incorporate a similar vision for working with students. He incorporated video
and motivational pieces into staff meetings in order to emphasize this expectation to develop
relationships with students and develop buy-in in for this expectation. He used pieces such as the
“Rita Pierson- Every Kid Needs a Champion” TED talk and the story of “Ted Stoddard” about
the difference a teacher can make in the life of a student. Most importantly, the administration
focused on connecting with and developing buy-in from all stakeholder groups. The majority of
the participants agreed with the leadership theme.
When specifically referring to bullying on campus, the principal stated that “it is
everybody’s job” on this campus to be involved and intervene if they see or hear anything and to
be proactive with students. There is specific protocol that is followed with the teachers,
counselors and parents involved. The protocol first involves training and teaching students and
staff about what bullying is and what to do if they see or hear about it. They teach students
through interactive assemblies, constant discussions and messaging from the administration and
teachers regarding behavioral expectations on what is appropriate behavior, small group
presentations, and in advisory classes. The principal stated he tries to get his message across by
“overemphasizing” it to students consistently. Evidence of this message also serves as reminders
for students with multiple visual and colorful posters and signs around the school with messages
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 73

such as “bully free zones” and “Be a friend…don’t bully! Be safe, respectful and responsible,”
and “sexual assault and battery” awareness information. The walls are covered with consistent
positive messages and behavioral expectations. Teachers are taught to understand and identify
bullying as well as to respond and intervene immediately. All participants agreed that with any
potential bullying situations the staff “take action right away” and the counselor stated, “the
students know that.” Any acts of repetitive incidents that may be bullying that have already been
addressed by teachers through interaction and teaching are referred to the counselor. The
counselor stated that because they work as a collaborative team and all know what to do in
addressing potential bullying incidents, she feels confident that once a situation gets to her that
“the person (teacher or person referring) has already taken all the steps” necessary prior to that
point in time. The counselor works with the bully victim first, as well as with the perpetrator to
fully investigate the situation. Communication with parents and teachers is also made to ensure
that all are aware of the situation and expectations are explained. The counselor and teachers also
follow up with students involved continuously to assess that the incident is not re-occurring. In
situations where they may determine that there is in fact a repetitive and ongoing situation of
bullying, the principal is involved with all parties, including the parents. Regardless of whether
the situation gets to this level, the principal has asked to be notified of every bullying situation
that may take place at the school because ultimately the administration is responsible and,
depending on the situation and severity, there are also district protocols that may need to be
followed. The administration is transparent in their message to students and parents regarding
bullying and offers an open door policy for anyone to come in personally to the principal or
assistant principal’s office with any concerns.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 74

Stakeholders. The main stakeholders at Sunnyland School include students, parents,
community, and school staff members, including teachers and administrators. Sunnyland School
developed a cohesive collaboration among the stakeholders and utilizes a collective teamwork
approach to engage them all. There is a renewed commitment with stakeholders as a result of the
school reconstitution. The counselor, who has worked at the school for over 12 years, feels that,
after so many years, she finally sees all stakeholders working together. She explains:
School culture is up and rising now because we finally have the contribution of all three
main groups, which are the teachers, the parents, and the students. Throughout the years,
one of those subgroups had always been missing…for all teachers, students, and parents,
the culture has dramatically changed for the better.
The school counselor has experienced the most history with the school after being there
for 12 years, and she stated that all stakeholders’ working together has been a major part of
creating the culture of the school. The counselor further commented “students know that when
you come here you’re going to be accepted… you’re going to be approached in a positive
manner… and you will be welcomed by this school.” She stated that the “culture here has
changed for the better.” Further, the school counselor described her role as “joint effort... a group
effort… a collaborative effort… it’s just a sense that we are all on the same page… and the
parents, the teachers, the staff and the students know that…that they will get the same response
from either one of us.” The school counselor described that the school required a lot of initial
work in creating a collective team involving the different stakeholders and that this been the
foundational framework for the positive changes that resulted.
According to the principal, the most important piece to create a culture at a school is to
look to the classroom and work with your staff. He states:
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 75

I’ve seen schools where they’ll have a certain week of this or a certain week of that, but
in that classroom maybe kids aren’t valued or maybe the pedagogy isn’t there, or maybe
the teachers aren’t connecting, or maybe the relationships aren’t established… It’s
yearning to want to create a culture without looking at what the root issue is, which is
your staff.
The principal believes that what happens in the classroom is the starting point for creating
culture, and working with teachers is what must come first.
The teachers are a group of stakeholders who appear to be highly regarded by the school.
The principal attributes much of the success and transformation of the school to the teachers and
describes a certain trickle-down effect starting with the quality of teaching in the classroom. He
explained:
We got great teachers. We got great kids. We got great family support. But, really all of
that spews from the teachers because, if the teachers aren’t doing the job, then the
students aren’t going to be doing a great job and the parents aren’t going to sign onboard
and say, “I support that school.” So, it really is a lot of pressure on them to do the job and
do it well.
The administration has a belief that all “begins in the classroom” and places a high importance
on aligning with teachers.
The administration has a strong alliance with teachers and believes this is key to making
progress as a school. To some extent, the principal credits the reconstitution for being able to
“create” a staff that shares “the same types of [educational] beliefs about what was possible.”
The principal further stated that he does not, however, attribute the school progress to the
reconstitution, nor does he feel that reconstitution is “the solution.” The Principal stated that,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 76

after studying the many schools that have been reconstituted, “this is the only school that has
achieved at the level that is has” after reconstitution. The Principal described his staff as his
“greatest resource.” He explained:
These 40 teachers have taken up a leaf that we’re going to take ownership for these kids
in the classroom and really get them connected with the school, to make them start seeing
success in the school and maybe it’s success they’ve never seen before. Once kids start
seeing that success they get connected with what’s happening and feel a lot of pride.
He stated that teachers have made a difference in the school because they directly focus on
students by… “taking ownership, making connections and [helping students] to experience
success.” This idea was further supported through observations of teachers with students in the
classrooms and hallways and in the manner of their interactions.
Parents are an important stakeholder group at the school, as they are considered vital and
active partners. The principal reported that the parents are “always involved” and that he has a
regular and positive relationship with them. The community representative describes the
relationship between parents and the school as one “big family” here to work “all together on the
same page.” The community representative coordinates an active parent center. During
observations, there were handfuls of parents in the parent center working, organizing and
coordinating different activities and tasks for the school. Parents are involved in supporting the
teachers and the curriculum. Teacher 1 described the school’s parent center:
This parent center is the most involved and has the best parents that I have ever seen in
my life. You give them some stuff to copy, they will copy it. They will come and ask you
if you need anything else. They are really involved on the instructional part as far as
helping us be prepared.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 77

The parent center is described as an active and vital component of the school that works hard to
engage and connect parents to the school.
Another way that parents are engaged is a new policy on parent involvement. The
counselor explained that “a minimum of six hours of parent involvement with the school” was
added to their 8
th
grade culmination requirement.” She stated that this addition has actually been
well received by parents and students. She described students feel like “okay my parents care…
they are coming…they know that this is important to me.” This requirement of parent
involvement increased the parental involvement in the school, and they are finding that parents
actually are enjoying being able to visit the school and feel comfortable because it is a school
expectation that they be there. Parents feel good because they are able to play their part in
making sure their child culminates. The counselor explained that, although there are no
exceptions to the policy, they understand the unique needs of parents and are supportive and
flexible in the way that hours can be earned. Parent hours are given for attendance at parent
teacher conferences, open house and other school meetings in addition to any volunteering done
at events or work in the parent center. The requirement of parental involvement is focused on
supporting students in their education.
The students at Sunnyland are the focus of all efforts at the school. The structures put in
place, along with the detailed and strategic systems developed all revolve around the safety and
success of students. The importance of serving students was mentioned with every interview
participant, 66 times in total, and further evidenced by observations and artifacts at the school
site. References to students being part of a “collective” group and part of the “team” at the school
were made. Students are an active part of the school culture. The principal referenced that a
“huge disadvantage” at their school is they only have 7
th
and 8
th
grades which means that every
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 78

two years they lose a group of students. The administration feels that they have such little time
with students that if they had more time, for example if they had students for 6
th
- 8
th
grades, they
could yield even better academic results for students. The counselor further states the fact that
they only have students for two years in another reason why they cannot waste any time and
need to move forward and provide orientation and structure even before their first day at the
school through orientations and articulation (transition) meetings at their elementary schools so
they know what to expect when they get there. The counselor believes this is critical to having a
smooth transition into their highly structured school system.
Sunnyland School has been successful in creating a positive and supportive relationship
with their community stakeholders. As discussed, prior to the reconstitution, the school had
limited and strained relationships with stakeholders because of limited lack of academic progress
and culture of the school. Since the reconstitution, the school has been able to mend those
relationships, partnered with local businesses and community members, and earned the support
of their local Neighborhood Council as well. The principal describes the relationship with the
active neighborhood council:
The Neighborhood Council really has a lot of key players in the community and many of
them don’t even have kids here, but it’s their community. So, they want to see the school
do very well and they’ve been very impressed and supported by the recent change that
has happened in the last 3 years.
The school strengthened partnerships with the community and neighborhood council in the four
years prior to this study. In addition, the school also serves as a place for the community to come
and hold meetings, and community events, such as the recent community health fair that was
hosted by the school.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 79

In sum, the leadership at Sunnyland School focused on collective team building with
stakeholders in order to foster a climate and culture conducive to seeing through their vision and
mission. They prioritized the value of teachers and the classroom to fully focus on instruction
and relationships with students. They included all stakeholders, including parents and students,
by involving them in activities and participation opportunities at the school. The community is
taken into account by partnering and communicating regularly with active councils and groups.
Whole-School Approach
Sunnyland School utilizes a holistic, or whole-school, approach to foster an anti-bullying
culture at the school. The emerging theme was that not one specific component was more
important than the others, and that they all play a part in fostering an anti-bullying culture at the
school. This supports the research that shows the importance of a school-wide approach
predicated on the idea that bullying is best reduced by changing a climate that specifically
addresses the culture of bullying (Unnever & Cornell, 2003). The principal commented that “it’s
a package deal” and that no amount of posters, campaigns, spirit weeks, or clubs, will make a
difference because “that’s not really the important part. The important part is kids …” There
needs to be an integrated effort to have students at the center of everything that is done and they
need to “feel safe” and “be engaged.” Teacher 1 stated that she “takes a stand shoulder to
shoulder” with her colleagues and that “no one person can do this alone…No GSA [Gay Straight
Alliance Club] can do this alone.” She reiterated “there isn’t one most important part” for
developing an anti-bullying program, and stated if there was then it “wouldn’t be an effective
program.” More so, “it has to be something that is instilled in each of the students, administrators
teachers and the parents need to be aware of it.” Teacher 1 described how she felt the school
operates in terms of collectively working together on things. She explained,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 80

These are the things that we are going to practice…we are going to interact with one
another and there is no other way… We will help you, we will bring each of you to that
point if you are not there, but we are all going to get there somehow some way.
Teacher 1 felt that creating an anti-bullying culture at a school is more than a one program
approach, “it is everything” that a school does together, collectively, and “if you just pay
attention to one thing then you are not paying attention to the whole child.” She explained this
concept as, “We are going to use this piece, and this piece, and this piece…and GSA, and
teachers, and administrators, and the parents are going to be involved in this.” Teacher 2 also
felt that there is not one specific approach to take. What he described also supported the whole-
school approach by the school. He stated,
I don't think it's any one thing in particular… I think you have to approach it from the
administration, from the teachers, the counselors, and the parent component. You have to
involve everyone. It has to be a, ‘Let's try everything,’ approach. If there is one thing, it is
to try everything.
Teacher 2 emphasized that all stakeholders need to collectively work together and try
“everything” needed to help foster that culture at a school. Teacher 4 also elaborated “from
beginning to end, we are working on the same goals… we are in this together.” Further, the
community representative stated that everything they do is a “joint effort” and feels that “we’re
all on the same team.”
The principal reiterated on this focus of “everything.” The school does not adopt a
specific anti-bullying program to foster an anti-bullying culture, nor do they adhere to
publicizing campaigns, etc. The principal explained, “I don’t believe in having this week-long
anti-bullying or no name calling campaign. It’s got to be ingrained in your culture every single
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 81

day and I think that’s where schools miss out.” He added that it is so much more than having the
short-lived campaigns that are usually done to satisfy or fulfill a requirement. He said that it is
common for schools to say “Well I’m going to put this poster up… or I’m going to have that
[campaign] this week so we can check that off.” Rather, the school focuses on consistency, he
explained,
It’s really … what you do every day. It’s the details. It’s supervising every day. It’s
having expectations every day and it’s not just putting it off for this one week. We do a
lot of stuff around school pride and that has to be done year round.
It can’t just be a one-shot deal…

The principal believes that consistency, concerted detailed effort by all, sustained over long
periods of time is needed, instead of short fragmented campaigns.
Sunnyland School underwent a transformational process that allowed for new
opportunities. This process paved the way for new leadership to rebuild the school based on a
collective common vision, including all stakeholders, parents, students, community, school staff
and administration. The leadership utilized a whole-school approach working collectively with
all stakeholders to realize their vision for the school. As a result of the efforts, a positive school
climate that fosters an anti-bullying culture emerged as a by-product of rebuilding from the
bottom up, the very core of who they were and what they stood for. With this in progress, the
school began to make strategic changes to the organization and infrastructure at the school that
supported their vision.
School Organization and Infrastructure
The Sunnyland School is grounded in following district policy regarding anti-bullying
and has a solid foundation for other related policies in regards to discipline and positive behavior
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 82

support. The school developed internal school policies related to daily school operations and
infrastructure that coupled together have created a school system that flows well and has created
a positive school climate thus fostering an anti-bullying culture at the school.
The flow and consistency of daily school operations set the tone for the campus. The
school operations appear to be detailed, structured and well organized. The principal describes
his approach as not focusing on just one thing, such as bullying, rather “it’s a holistic approach to
everything from A to Z that you leave no stone unturned.” Teacher 1 described her feeling about
the school’s organization and infrastructure and stated,
I feel like at this school, there are lots of procedures in place, and routines that have been
practiced, and people who really understand kids. They get what kids need socially so
that most of the students are in a form of homeostasis. They are very…calm and they
know what’s expected of them when they come on to campus.
The procedures put in place are consistently implemented and followed which creates a sense of
order and structure for students and staff. Teacher 4 also commented “the fact that our
administrators are really good with operational and procedural things… and are very clear about
expectations is really helpful… they work as a team with us.” The school operations are clear,
consistent and demonstrated by the administrators.
The school has multiple components that provide the basis for their school organizational
and infrastructure plan. The systems and structures implemented all share a common focus: an
underlying focus on student safety and learning. Based on this underlying focus on student safety
and learning, three main systems and structures were put into place at the school: 1) a strategic
physical organization and school layout, and 2) a detailed system for campus supervision, and 3)
a coordinated method for student groupings/cohorts. Below is a description of the school focus
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 83

on student and learning and how the three systems and structures identified were used at the
school.
Student Safety and Learning
Due to the history and events leading up to the school reconstitution, safety is a priority
for the principal. He was aware based on what he walked into as an administrator on the campus
prior to the reconstitution, that all stakeholders were concerned with school safety. He knew that
if the school was going to make any kind of transformation, safety needed to be addressed first.
The principal is transparent and direct in his message to all stakeholders about what his priorities
are:
The number one issue is that kids need to feel safe in order to be successful. I tell them
there’s two rules, two rules only. We don’t complicate things. Number one, you’re safe,
and that requires us to get along with each other… Number two is your academic
program. That is it… and it’s in that order.
The teachers, counselor, and community representative said that the message of safety is
communicated to students in multiple ways, such as through daily PA announcements, while in
direct conversation with students, by modeling the behavior in front of students, and through
teachers that also carry the same message. The assistant principal also corroborated this priority
by stating that they have worked hard to make the focus on “safety and learning”, and they have
put a lot of “organizational” and “instructional” pieces in place that emphasize these. The
question that they ask themselves is “how can kids be safe and how do we make sure they
learn?” The answer to this, according to the administration, involves “every little detail” that
goes on at a school. To address some of these “details” they developed a plan for the physical
organization of the school.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 84

Physical organization and layout. To address the school’s two main priorities, safety
and learning, the physical organization and layout of the school was critically evaluated and
incorporated into the school plan. There is evidence that the school infrastructure and operations
is aligned with the physical layout of the school. Before developing detailed plans of school
operations, every aspect of the physical plant was evaluated and considered. The physical plant
was studied based on feedback and history of student safety, critical incidents, and student
population considerations. Building entry and exit locations as well as stairwells were identified
and staff and students are trained to use these in a specific manner to control hallway traffic and
increase safety during transition times.
When asked how they train the students to follow these procedures or school “norms” the
assistant principal stated that they physically stand in the areas and direct traffic in the first
couple months of school, reinforcing the norm for them. Eventually, she said that the students are
“amazing that by the time we’re a month or two into school, they get it. They just get it because
kids just start to pick up on that’s how things are done here. They just figure it out.” She stated
that they feel that student require and want a structured environment and explained:
[It is] everything from how students eat lunch, to how students enter the building, to
which stairwell they go up... It all creates this feeling of “I know exactly where I’m
supposed to be, I know exactly what I’m supposed to be doing”, and for kids and adults,
too—it makes you feel safe because you know what’s expected. There are no surprises,
and that really contributes to a sense of safety for kids.
The administration has worked hard to develop a structured environment for students and staff
that is consistent which they believe contributes to a climate of safety conducive for learning.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 85

A “stairwell system” was developed in that students may only go up or down specific
stairwells based on what rooms they are traveling to. The stairwells have clearly labeled signs
with listed room numbers on them to guide students. The “stairwell system” is described by the
assistant principal as follows:
There are four different stairwells to get upstairs and our classrooms are grouped into
cohorts by team, the kids really only need to go up one certain stairwell, so if their
classroom is near a certain stairwell, that’s the stairwell that they use.
She explained how this “system” was implemented and sustained by explaining how they train
students:
We train them at the beginning of the year…the teachers go over with them, “when you
leave my class, you will go down this stairwell. When you come to my class, you will
come up this stairwell.” There’s always a traffic pattern and usually it’s always going up
or coming down so we don’t have a lot of crisscrossing or students going around in
circles upstairs.
To further support these organized infrastructure, line dividers, similar to those in waiting lines at
amusement parks or movie theatres, are placed onto the walls of specific hallways blocking the
path as a visual reminder for students that they are not to walk in that direction and this filters
them through the correct stairwells. Lines have also been painted on the floors in certain areas to
remind students of the directions or paths to follow. Students are taught to walk through specific
walkways and ramps when outside or on their way to outside activities. This is reinforced by
supervision staff placed at those locations to serve as visual reminders for students.
A recent visible change to the physical layout of the school was the completion of a
construction and renovation project. Over the last four years, the school underwent a physical
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 86

renovation that included the addition of a new classroom building, a multipurpose room, and a
gymnasium. Consequently, the school has a “new” renovated feel to it. Students, staff and the
community feel that the school has been made beautiful and they feel different because of it.
Beautiful plants and greenery were planted at the school, with multiple benches and seating areas
for students to socialize as well as a large school garden area. Having a clean campus is of
utmost importance to the administration because they believe it adds to the feeling of school
safety and pride. According to the administration, they have had “close to 30 million dollars’
worth of renovations” and they focus on having the school continue to “look brand new” by
“taking a lot of pride” in the school and focusing on “cleanliness.”
Developing a sense of school safety and pride in students is important for the school
leadership, and they felt that they needed to instill this value in their students to be able to value
the new school renovation. The principal stated:
The kids… understand that this is something that was given to them that is supposed to
be here for the community and that we’re going to honor that by making sure that we use
it and leave it in the best possible shape. It has built a lot of pride in our school. It is an
important thing for kids to feel like they’re valued by the community. They think and feel
that somebody really cares about them.
The school underwent a transformation that included a physical renovation of the school. This
physical transformation created a sense of value, school pride, and a sense of safety for all
stakeholders that has contributed to the positive climate at the school.
For a middle school campus of this size, it is extraordinarily clean and well kept. Through
observations, the physical environment of the school was clean and well-kept and the climate felt
calm, despite the many students at the school. The campus is impeccable, with an absence of any
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 87

graffiti or tagging in or outside of the school. Hallway floors are clean and shine as one walks
through them. The walls are nicely painted with most exhibiting either beautifully kept murals of
school pride or bulletin areas featuring student work, accomplishments, or special programs.
Trash on the floor in or outdoors was rare. On the occasion that there was, staff members
walking by would pick it up and toss it in the trash. In addition, to keep the campus clean, the
students follow a “norm” for eating lunch in which they keep all of their food on their tray while
they eat to avoid spills and food or trash left on the tables. Being taught to keep their food on the
trays also helps remind students to clean up all of their trash by just picking up their tray and
throwing it all together in the trashcan. This system that they reinforce helps keep the campus
and lunch area clean and reinforces good habits in their students to clean after themselves by not
only telling them to do so, but teaching them an easy strategy on how to keep their area clean.
The faculty and staff at the school work together to reinforce and teach students the
infrastructure and norms of the school, but they also model the behavior they want to see in their
students, which is an invaluable piece to the system. The assistant principal stated that it takes
consistent work, but that students pick up on the structure easily:
Half of our population is less than 2 months [new students to school], yet,… they are all
working together and know the system and the expectations and go down this stairwell
and don’t leave their trash. It’s something we have to build and work on every single
year, but they get it.
The new students quickly learn the school norms because they are taught what they are and the
behavior is constantly modeled and reinforced. In essence, keeping the campus clean and safe
has become an integrated piece of the school culture.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 88

The administrator stated that main operations leaders from the school district have come
to observe their program and have been very impressed with what they have implemented. He
asserted, “They came and we walked classrooms and the school and we invited them out during
nutrition, and they were unbelievably impressed with what they saw and they continue to talk
about needing to bring other schools out to see it.” The administrators were very interested in
their perspectives and feedback because they specialize in school operations and organizational
structure. The administrator commented that:
They really see those things because that’s what their job entails. It was nice to have
someone who could see those details and see how they were enacted…They noticed how
kids walked, how we’ve trained them to [enter doors and use specific stairwells]…so all
those little details…and we continue to try to ask for constructive feedback to improve
our process.
The school leadership valued the feedback from the district operations because of their level of
expertise and experience. They knew that they would recognize the importance of the intricate
details, such as the stairwell system they implemented that has contributed to the positive culture
and safety at their school.
In order to consistently be available and provide this structure for students, staff must be
clearly visible and available to guide students. The administration developed a detailed campus
supervision protocol that is at the core of their school infrastructure to address student safety.
Campus Supervision
Another component that supplements their priority of safety at the school is their protocol
for campus supervision. Campus supervision at the school is an organized, strategic and
consistently implemented infrastructure. All participants interviewed mentioned campus
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 89

supervision protocol as being a major component to the positive climate at the school and
making it a safe campus. All participants spoke clearly in terms of their understanding of the
protocol, how it worked, and that it contributed to their calm campus. In observations, campus
supervision appeared to be a salient component of the daily activities at the school.
The administration team developed a multidisciplinary campus supervision team with
specific supervision points throughout the school. A total of 26 staff comprise the team,
including administrators, coordinators, counselors, parent center representatives, special
education aides, teacher assistants, campus aides, and a safety officer. Supervision is conducted
before and after school, during nutrition, lunch and all passing periods. Supervision is also
conducted around the school perimeter after school, including the cross walks to ensure all
students safely cross the busy intersection as well as the busy mini-mall across the street, with a
small busy parking lot, which houses several local food stores that draw students in for snacks
and food. All supervision staff members carry intercom radios and communicate with each other
by code number on anything that they may see. The principal alerts all supervision staff three
minutes prior to the bell and also alerts the team once he is on site at the position. The
supervision protocol is a consistent, major functioning system at the school. During interviews,
the radio announcement was heard alerting staff “three minutes” to supervision and asking all to
report to their positions. In observations, staff members were visible in their locations walking
certain areas.
In order to implement this strategic system of supervision, training was provided to the
team. A schedule is provided to all team members. In fact, the principal keeps a copy of the
schedule in his pocket on a daily basis to refer to it when needed and to ensure accountability of
all team members. The structure is set up so that all team members know their role and location
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 90

and they are trained on what quality supervision looks like. The administration established 18
guidelines, or norms, so that the supervision is consistent regardless of location. Table 5
describes the active campus supervision guidelines used at the school.
Table 5
School Campus Supervision Guidelines and Norms
School Campus Supervision Guidelines and Norms
“The more effectively we supervise, the less problems we will have.”
1. Be on active supervision. 10. Take pride in your work and area.
2. Move from group to group. 11. Have students keep their areas clean.
3. Remind students to throw their trash in
a trash can.
12. Students are not allowed to cross the
yellow lines.
4. Separate from other adults. 13. No food beyond ramp yellow lines.
5. Spread out. 14. Only students with a pass can enter the
building.
6. If you are out, it is your responsibility
to get coverage.
15. Ask for help.
7. Be on time. 16. We are a Team.
8. Talk to kids. 17. Follow radio protocol (learn codes).
9. Enforce no personal displays of
affection (PDA’s)
18. This is our school, our students, and our
job.

The main point of campus supervision guidelines and norms is that campus supervision
should be “active” supervision. The guidelines operationalize what campus supervision should
look like and focus on the main key points that they would like staff members to keep consistent.
Training on these guidelines provides for a consistency in how campus supervision is performed.
The supervision component is embedded into the school culture that teachers also provide
their own supervision component. As observed, during passing periods, teachers stand outside
their doorways somewhat monitoring the halls as students leave the classroom and walk to their
next class. Teachers do not appear to be doing a “job” or a required duty. They were natural and
positive in their stance. The assistant principal stated:
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 91

Our teachers are awesome at standing in that doorway [in a specific position], so that they
can see their classroom, and they can see the hallway at the same time, and so they can
control what’s going on in both locations… it’s super powerful.
In most cases, teachers were observed having social interactions such as greeting students and
having conversations with them while standing in the halls. Some students walked by and shook
a teacher’s hand or casually exchanged greetings with them. After talking with the
administration, it was explained that this is somewhat an informal supervision piece in that the
teachers were never required to do this. She stated, “We never really asked for that, and they did
it. I think that speaks to whom we hired and the type of people we were looking for when we re-
staffed the school.” More so, teachers just began doing it on their own as a way to engage with
students to create a welcoming and positive environment, but, at the same time, it served as a
safety piece in that they monitored and created a presence in the hallways. The assistant principal
described this “presence” created by teachers and asserted:
It is certainly a presence…and now we are able to comfortably say everyone’s expected
to be at their door because everybody does it, and there’s certainly a sense of group
responsibility and accountability to that. We’ve given a lot of praise and attention to it,
too, so that people know that it’s noticed, it’s appreciated, and it makes a huge difference.
This “presence” has become a part of the positive school culture and collectively classroom
teachers voluntarily contribute to the school campus supervision protocol by doing their part and
also monitoring the hallways in a positive manner while they greet and welcome students to
class.
The campus supervision team (consisting of 26 members; administrators, coordinators,
counselors, parent center representatives, special education aides, teacher assistants, campus
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 92

aides, and a safety officer) constantly re-evaluates their system based on observation and
feedback from team members. The assistant principal describes it as a “living document” in that
it changes in terms of supervision positions and locations based on the movement and changes in
the behaviors of students. For example, they may see more students finding a different place to
hang out or play, so they re-adjust the schedule accordingly as needed. For example, the assistant
principal stated they say, “Okay, let’s bring that back to the table and look at it and figure out
where we need to staff and where we need to have people based on this new information.” The
team understands that the dynamics of student groups and movement will change, and they are in
constant flux with these changes as they happen. Thus, they refer to their supervision as “active
supervision.” The campus supervision system is detailed in Appendix C.
Student Grouping/Cohorts
The process of reconstitution at the school challenged the administration and provided for
opportunities to dramatically change and re-structure the school in order to build a vision and
implementation plan for a high performing middle school. To address the component of
“learning” in the administration’s two main priorities for the school, safety and learning, they
looked at data and evaluated what has worked and not worked in terms of academics. Based on
their strong belief system that all students can achieve, they knew that they needed to intricately
study and disaggregate the data related to the chronic low performance at the school. In
analyzing the data, they found a tiered system in place at the school that was not engaging or
setting high expectations for all students. The administration team studied evidence-based
research on middle school reform and decided to completely change the academic structure of
the school. The first step was re-staffing their teaching faculty and creating a collective team
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 93

with the similar beliefs in student learning. Then, the administration looked at the structuring of
their academic program and master schedule.
The master schedule was created based on the two main priorities of the school, safety
and learning and required much coordination and strategic review of data in order to place
students in groups or teams. They created a model for their academic program that included
heterogeneous grouping of students. Student cohorts, or teams, were developed based on a
balance of high and low performing students, inclusive of all students: English Language
Learners, English Only, Gifted, and Students with Disabilities. The classes are equally balanced
so that each class has students who represent all areas, and are also equally balanced between
male and females. These groups were also matched with a group, or team, of teachers that all
work together with the same students. The classrooms for these teams are set up next to each
other, so teachers are logistically close to each other to be able to communicate frequently. In
addition, this physical arrangement allows students to not have to travel much between their
classes. The teacher teams work together to develop their curriculum uniformly and deliver the
same content to all students. The teachers interviewed similarly felt that this created a “sense of
smallness and culture” to the school. It has also added to the school safety because students
literally move together from class to class, which are physically located right next to each other,
with the exception of a PE or elective course. This model also reduced tardy behavior throughout
the school day because students travel with their groups and teachers stand in doorways
monitoring movement and maintaining the structure. The assistant principal described the
process further and stated:
They have five minutes to move from class to class and… their classrooms are right next
door to each other, so it doesn’t take long to move there. Then, our supervision is
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 94

phenomenal, so when they’re moving….from upstairs down to the PE area, we have
strategically placed people along the route to encourage the kids to keep moving, keep
walking.
The process described above has contributed towards improved attendance patterns at the school.
Teacher 3 also stated that there is an “8
th
grade hall and a 7
th
grade hall” and that all 8
th
graders
have PE together, at the same time. This means that all 8
th
grade students travel together out of
the building at the same time to the same location which helps with supervision and tracking
where students should be. Similarly, all students return together at the same time. It is natural
that the group “moves together.” The teacher stated that, in the event of a tardy, either the entire
group is tardy together, or it is a student who may have had a problem or an issue. If the same
student is repeatedly tardy, it is very easy to identify and also check in to see if this is a common
behavior with the other team teachers as well. Teachers are able to hold students accountable
because “30 other students in the same group that came from the same class all arrived on time,
so what actually happened on the way from the class right next door?” She also stated that this
system has been very helpful for some of her special education students which often need
additional guidance during transitions. These students can have difficulty following a course
schedule within a time frame often causing frequent tardy behavior. With this system, they are
able to feel organized and structured by following their class members because they all follow
the same schedule.
The academic schedule was also changed and an eight block schedule was implemented
that incorporated Math and English classes daily for all students, as opposed to every other day,
as most schools with an 8 block schedule adhere to. In terms of instruction, all teacher teams
follow the same curriculum and content consistently from class to class and grade to grade. In
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 95

addition, all 8
th
grade students take Algebra. This supplements their beliefs in high expectations
for all students. The principal takes pride in this and disagrees with the practice of many schools
that only place their gifted or proficient and advanced students into Algebra for 8
th
grade. The
school has had a lot of success with this and the principal believes that “having high
expectations” coupled with “pedagogy” has “really paid off.” The school has improved their
math scores and they are doing better in algebra than “many schools that have only 50% of their
students in algebra,” which, for the most part, are the most advanced students in the school that
have access to algebra courses. He stated:
We’re one of the few schools that have 100% of their 8th graders taking algebra. We
have combined…the proficient, the advanced, the basic, the below basic, and the far
below basic, all together heterogeneously and have put them all into algebra, which is
something really revolutionary!
The grouping of all 8
th
grade students heterogeneously into algebra courses is an example of how
the school is committed to high expectations for all students. Intervention for struggling students
who need extra help is also provided. A homogenous intervention class was implemented in
addition to having both subjects, Math and English, daily. With the exception of the homogenous
intervention class, for the most part, students spend the majority of their day in classrooms with
this coordinated mixture of students.
The school also implemented a daily advisory class that meets with students every
morning for 26 minutes per day. During this advisory class, teachers cover a multitude of topics
and focus on developing relationships and engaging with students. The advisory teacher stays
with the same group of students for the duration of their stay at the school, allowing two years of
a consistent, stable relationship with students and families. The advisory teacher also serves as a
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 96

case manager of sorts, reviewing their grades, attendance, and behavior for all classes, and works
with the teacher team in communicating regarding students. Currently, they adopted “breakfast
in the classroom” during this Advisory period and the class eats breakfast together during this
time. The advisory teacher receives a new group of students every two years, as the students
transition to high school. The counselors also travel with their students in the same way. One
counselor is assigned to 7
th
grade and another to 8
th
grade. They remain with their students until
they leave the school and transition to high school.
In sum, the school developed a model for school organization and infrastructure that
serves as the foundation of the school’s two main priorities, safety and learning. Within this
model, they implemented systems utilizing the physical environment and layout of the school,
including a “stairwell system”, protocol for entering and exiting buildings, using walkways, and
standing in line, as well as eating lunch and throwing away trash. They have a strategic and
deliberate campus supervision plan that focuses on a team approach with “active” supervision
performed by members. Lastly, they developed an incredibly detailed and coordinated approach
to grouping students and teachers together within contiguous space areas along with an
organized master and daily schedule that focuses on safety and learning. All of these components
lay the foundational structure that supports the development of a positive school culture and
allows for meaningful opportunities for student engagement.
Student Interactions
The third emergent theme is focused on interactions with students. Sunnyland School laid
the framework for a vision of a high performing middle school that began with systems and
structures for a strong school organization and infrastructure. With a focus on student safety and
learning, administrators looked at the level of student engagement and positive school culture at
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 97

the school. The administrators firmly believe that the engagement of students to school “begins
in the classroom and from there then you have trickle effect and it kind of goes into all these
other areas, but if you don’t have that core thing first then you don’t have anything.” They
wanted the core of their entire school model to stem from the classroom. Together, they worked
on implementing three key components to their instructional program to support their vision for
safety and learning by increasing student interactions with other students and with teachers,
further fostering a positive school culture and increasing academic outcomes. The two main
components are the implementation of a consistent cooperative learning model in every
classroom with a focus on student interactions and relationships, and teaching character building
and social skills to all students.
Cooperative Learning
The administration adopted a goal that was requested by their local district of “at least
50% of the voice, or talk, in the classroom be that of students, not teachers.” To reach this goal,
they knew that the organization and infrastructure was not enough, and that an integrated
instructional component consistent across all classrooms was required. After researching, both
administrators were familiar and had experience with cooperative learning principles, believed in
them, and felt confident that the cooperative learning structures were the key to student
achievement in their new school model. As a result, they adopted the Kagan Cooperative
Learning Structures for the entire school as a “norm” for all teachers, all classrooms. Most
importantly, the administration wanted consistency so that all students would have equal access
to classrooms with these implemented structures in them, ensuring that all students had access to
the same quality, effective teaching principles.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 98

The Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures implemented by Sunnyland School is
scientifically research based and supported by classroom evidence of a model that focuses on
student interactions and communication in the classroom. The central role of the model stems
from a belief that “it’s all about engagement” (Murie, 2004). Cooperative learning is a teaching
method that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to achieve a
common goal. The students work together to learn and are responsible for their teammates
learning as well as their own. Basic elements of cooperative learning include positive
interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation and simultaneous interaction
between students (Murie, 2004). The various structures utilized in the cooperative learning
model increase the interactions between students and teachers in the classroom which has an
overall positive effect on academic and social outcomes because students learn and practice
communicating with each other in a positive proactive manner (Murie, 2004).
In order to implement this model, the administration worked with teaching staff in order
to gain buy-in and build their vision for 50% student discourse in every classroom. The principal
reiterated his message and expectation with his staff by saying, “Remember, we want to see the
same thing in all rooms and these cooperative learning structures are what we want to see….” To
support the staff and provide the tools necessary for them to be successful, the staff participated
in a 10-day professional development session prior to the school year. Three of the most critical
days were spent participating in Kagan Cooperative Learning training as a staff. Staff reception
to the training and plan was “nothing less than exceptional” and everyone was on board for
implementation. The focus was that “exponential results would only yield from implementation
in every classroom.” After implementation, they followed up with an additional two-day training
in the spring so that teachers would have the support and resources needed to do an effective job.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 99

The assistant principal commented that creating “teacher buy-in” and “having a goal” is
important. She explained how they created this “buy-in”,
It is fruitfulness… they need to see that it is going to have an impact on instruction and
how students do. We were tasked with changing the culture here, and I think that our staff
bought into that from the beginning. Also…having that goal that our kids are talking 50%
of the time [is important]…It’s like having the goal and then giving them the tool to do
it…
Having a clear goal, a visible, measurable effect on student outcomes, and collective goal of
changing the school culture helped to create buy-in at the school. To further support and sustain
the implementation of this structure, the administration walked through every classroom on a
daily basis and continues to do so. Teacher 3 elaborated on the goal and how she feels that
experiencing some success has really moved the momentum forward. She stated:
The goal of the school is 50% students talking in a class room. That is huge. Sometimes,
I say “today we really did it in a math class, we had 50% talking in a math class!”, and
there are teachers out there that will tell you “That's crazy, that's ridiculous”, but if you
look at our math scores, that shows that it's working, because [students are] really
explaining the process.
Due to their successful model, the school has many visitors observing their process. The students
and teachers are accustomed to having visitors and observers in their classrooms and work
without much notice or change as a result. In fact, the students “feel proud” that so many people
are interested in the good work they are doing and, as a result, they want to do better.
Classroom teachers all consistently use the cooperative learning structures in their
classrooms. All students have access to the cooperative learning environment in every class. This
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 100

creates consistency and a sense of expectation for students when all teachers teaching in a similar
style. Upon visiting multiple classrooms, evidence of cooperative learning structures were in
action in every class. Students were observed in discussion of a topic, working on a project
together, figuring out a math problem as a group, or sitting together in small pods of four while
they learn. Teacher 3 described the cooperative learning seating structure in the classrooms as
being an important piece to the process. The physical set up of desks in every classroom was
similar with the desks in small groups of fours. She described the importance of the seating
structure for student interaction as follows:
[Students] are seated in groups of four across all their classes …and they are switching
seats every ten weeks. That's eight different groups across four different content areas
where they sit with the same students for ten weeks and really get to know them, get to
work with them either as their shoulder partner, face partner, or just table partner. You
really get to know people that way.
Teacher 3 stated that, “if they are seated in rows, they're just not talking to each other.” In
addition, the small groups of four are also strategically created by each classroom teacher and
team. The desk groups are heterogeneously balanced based on academic level from high,
high/medium, and medium/low to low students sitting together in one group. Teacher teams
review data and discuss students to strategically place them next to each other ensuring a balance
in every group. Teacher 3 stated that this is very “strategic” and takes a lot of time on the part of
the teachers, but that it is well worth it because it “eliminates behavior problems” and leverages
the academic learning in the class. Classrooms appeared interactive, not quiet, but under control,
and all students appeared to be engaged. A sense of positive energy was observed in the
classrooms, both on the part of the teacher and the students. No students were observed sleeping,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 101

or laying their heads down, disengaged from the class. The classrooms appeared busy, active,
and exciting with plenty of interaction going on at one time. Teacher 1 stated that the cooperative
learning structures are a “huge” component to the smooth functioning of their classrooms. She
further added, “it is the biggest component in preventing anything (behavior problems) from
happening… because they (students) have no time for anything else… no time for distractions…
they are constantly interacting and focused on doing something.” Classrooms were clean and
organized. The walls of the classrooms were busy with organized areas for displaying student
work and projects, and there was an overall sense of stimulation and a positive learning
environment.
The school administration and staff have been successful in implementing and sustaining
the cooperative learning structures consistently in every classroom. The principal wanted to
create a structure that yielded some quick visible results in order to create momentum for
teachers and students. He believes that the core of any school lies within the classroom. He
stated, “Once you have that success and you want to implement a program you’re 10 times more
likely to be successful because that structure has already been into place. So in my opinion, all
the success spews from the classroom.” The success of implementing cooperative learning
structures in the classroom provides the foundation, the framework, for the ability to focus on
student relationships and interactions.
Focus on Student Interactions
A strong focus on student relationships and interactions was evident at the school. The
model of cooperative learning in the classroom set the foundation for meaningful student
interactions to take place. Across the board, all interviewed participants felt that the cooperative
learning model in the classroom was key to not only the academic gains made by students, but to
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 102

the development of a positive school climate and anti-bullying culture at the school. This year, in
particular, the principal stated he set an expectation more than ever before for teachers to
increase their interactions with and develop positive relationships with students. He believes that
cooperative learning has set up the framework for this dynamic to take place in classrooms. He
explained:
What we do in the classroom has a lot to do with relationship-building, and I cannot
overemphasize the fact that in cooperative learning, where they work in pairs, or in fours
or are tasked with finding a partner… all these structures…really give an opportunity for
every kid to get to meet different kids that they wouldn’t normally meet.
With the model in place in all classrooms, regular student interaction has been established as a
“norm” for students at the school. The principal stated this model “gives them [students] the
chance to interact” and “getting kids talking to each other and getting to know each other so that
when they’re out at nutrition and lunch, they’re not strangers.” The assistant principal stated
“because there is a relationship…once people know each other, there’s less incidence of being
unkind to each other.” Teacher 3 believes this is a major part of what they are doing because they
are helping students form a “human connection” with each other instead of being judgmental and
saying "Oh, that weird kid that sits at the back by himself that doesn't talk to anybody." The
principal further stated:
It’s hard to insult someone, or to tease them, or bully them, when you had some type of a
conversation or interaction with them … when you worked on a problem together…
when you learned something about them. You don’t really bully someone if you know
them or if they’re helping you
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 103

The organizational structure of grouping of students allows for the development of
relationships among students. It eliminates the formation of “groups” or “clicks” because all
students, due to the balanced heterogeneous grouping, interact together regularly in class because
of the cooperative learning structures used by teachers. The principal believes this is a key
component, the heterogeneous grouping coupled with the cooperative learning that has shaped
their culture. He further explained:
Now they’re all working together and it’s because of the way we structured our
classrooms… you don’t have a class of gifted and a class of not gifted. You have a class
of equal amount of highs, mediums, and lows, and they’re all working together.
The overarching message given to teachers is that they are equally responsible for all students
regardless of ability. The principal believes that this type of grouping can move all students
forward academically. He explained,
Because your responsibility is everybody, it’s not just the gifted…the reality is I can give
a great teacher a gifted class and they can [move them forward quickly], or I can give
them a heterogeneous group and they can lift the whole class up.
The principal believes that heterogeneous grouping, coupled with cooperative learning,
reinforces student engagement and relationship building between students. He asserted,
The heterogeneous grouping with the cooperative learning is like the stars are aligned
because the advanced [students] are able to take almost an unrecognized leadership
role… they’re able to work with other kids…the best way to show that you’ve learned
something is to teach it and they do that that. It’s a great opportunity for everyone. It’s a
win-win situation …
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 104

The dynamics created in the class also help students form bonds together that help in creating an
anti-bullying culture at the school. Teacher 3 felt that the set-up “empowers students that
overhear something, to come and say what you know about it.” Students will feel comfortable
enough to tell the teacher that “So-and-so is having a bad day” or “something is wrong with this
student, they are upset or getting mean.” She described a sense of responsibility and camaraderie
for each other as students and that students want to “stick up for their group” if something is
wrong. Teacher 3 felt that the set-up also supports students’ standing up for each other because
of the relationships they develop and stated, “if they never had that connection, they would not
stand up for that kid” when something happens. Teacher 3 stated,
If creates a stronger knit community… someone feels responsible for them, and it is
harder to be that bystander that walks away, because they actually really know the person
now, on a deeper level than just the kid that is sitting back there in the corner.
The system in place empowers bystanders of any potential bullying to stand up for and take care
of each other.
The structure of grouping students coupled with the expected norm of frequent
communication allows teachers to be able to develop positive relationships with students. The
counselors are also able to develop strong relationships with their students and families as they
keep their students for the duration of their stay at the school. Due to the organization of space
and traffic, campus supervision team members develop relationships with the students in close
proximity to their areas while they are on “active” supervision. Advisory teachers develop
relationships with their students as they see them daily. Teacher 3 stated that the administrators
“know most of the students’ names” because they are out on the campus interacting with
students, and in classrooms every day, just as much as anyone else. Teacher 2 talked about
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 105

conversations, discussions and time spent at staff meetings discussing the expectations they have
for teacher student interaction. He explained:
We discuss proper etiquette…proper behavior, how you interact with students. As you
check someone's writing, we encourage you to say something positive. We don’t make
fun of anyone. We're very encouraging. I think that it comes down to… those
relationships.
The expectation by the administration is that interactions with students be as positive and
proactive as possible to “deal with things before they happen.” For example, the assistant
principal stated that “some teachers will have students sort of stand to the side just so they can
give them a little pep talk before they come in for that day” or “talking to kids before class so
that things will go right for that student that day” and “check in with kids” that you know are
going through some hard times.
The teachers, counselors, administrators and staff are dedicated and committed to the
school. The community/parent representative said that the teachers at this school “go far beyond
their time and help the children in any type of needs that they have, as in tutoring.” Because of
those relationships they “believe in the students” and the students “trust” in them. She also stated
that she thinks that “the children get a lot of help, more than what is expected maybe from the
school, because the teachers are very dedicated and go far beyond what is asked of them with
many staying longer hours and they are just around and available for kids.
The students become very connected with their teachers and the school because of these
relationships they develop. The community/parent representative stated “they have that
communication with kids, which is good.” She feels that, when teachers do this, “it really shows
kids that you're important and they care for you.” Teacher 1 stated that “it just takes little bit
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 106

more time to notice kids and we take that time to notice kids, we try our very best.” The
counselor stated that she really believes the culture they have has to do with “just interactions”
and “when students experience interactions with adults that are positive, they learn to trust and
they learn to trust from experience. They learn to trust from what other students say.” Teacher 1
stated, “our interaction with them is the biggest change… or the biggest impact that we could
have in their lives.” The majority of participants similarly placed a high value on establishing
positive interactions with students.
The community/parent representative discussed the difficulty many students have leaving
the school and transitioning to high school because of their strong relationships and connections
at the school. As a result, many of their alumni students come back to the school regularly to
visit with their teachers, help out, or participate in after-school or community events. She stated,
“They just feel safe and comfortable here and that’s why they keep coming back.” She felt that
the ability to have a walk-in policy where kids and parents feel comfortable and safe to go in and
talk to anyone, even the principal, is something important. Her personal approach, and one that
she shares with her colleagues in working with students as the community/parent representative,
is that she treats the students “as her own” so that “parents could go home feeling comfortable
that their children are going to be safe.” She believes having that connection between parents,
staff and students is the most important thing.
In addition to having student interactions, the school seems to have established a “way”
of interacting with students that is consistent school-wide. The manner in which students are
spoken to is similar to the way any human being would want to be treated. An underlying
message of caring is communicated in interactions with students. Teacher 1 elaborated on this:
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 107

All the adults here on campus really care. They know how to speak to kids that are this
age to where it is not abrasive …the worst thing is for someone to make [someone feel]
not human…not worthy. Not here, we speak to students with respect.
Teacher 1 also reinforced that this practice is consistent even when situations are difficult, such
as with discipline or having to address behavioral issues. She stated:
We are still stern when we need to be. We still hold the line, but they know that they can
come to us and we can talk it out calmly and sort of model how adult relationships could
be. This, knowing how to speak to kids… is something that everybody does on campus
here.
There is consistency in the manner of communications with students and a general consensus
that the interactions are to be productive, interactive and positive, even if providing discipline,
which is used as an opportunity for learning by the student.
There is a sense of ownership by staff at the school. This sense of taking ownership in all
areas for students is communicated by Teacher 1 in that “our interaction with them is the biggest
change or the biggest impact that we could have in their lives. In that time that they are ours,
they are ours… and we can help guide them and show them examples on how to interact with
one another.” She references the advisory class, as her “school family” and discusses the
importance of modeling caring behavior and “if the students realize that you are there to take
care of them, they will take care of one another.” Teacher 1 talked about developing
relationships with all her students, but she is “being responsible for these” referring to her
advisory group. In a sense, every student has a teacher who is “responsible” for him/her, who
checks in with him/her, who reviews their grades, behaviors, attendance, goals… and notices
when there is something not right with them or if they are not at school. This model of fostering
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 108

relationships with students appears to be school-wide, but Teacher 2 believes that the bar is set at
the top and the rest follows accordingly. He stated that interacting with students happens
genuinely by a desire to have a “human connection” with students. He explained,
I think here… you get it from top down and organically, from the administration and the
teachers. The admin will constantly remind us… “Remember, it's all about the
relationships that you build with the students.” You see it with the teachers… outside
greeting students. You see the interactions they're having… That's a connection. There's a
real human connection, that human element here.
Further, Teacher 1 added that what they do “has a lot to do with interactions… when students
experience interactions with adults that are positive, they learn to trust… from their experience
and from what other students say.” Interacting with students in a positive way has been
embedded into the culture of the school and is modeled by administrators, teachers and staff.
This sense of ownership is also instilled with their students. Teacher 2 stated that there is
a “real push at this school to connect students, to make them feel like “this is your school’… it is
not the school, it is your school.” Teacher 2 leads the Students Run LA club and has about 15
students whom he meets and runs together with regularly. He described this as a mentoring
relationship that lasts with these students. Teachers at the school are expected to interact with
students in meaningful ways and are allowed the creativity in which to do so. Teacher 2 stated
that the administration allows them the creativity and support and celebrates them in their efforts.
In addition to this, there are many other fun activities each month, most of which are student-led,
offer different and interactive ways of connecting with kids. One example that was evident on all
doors was putting “book door covers” on all classroom doors allowing students to decorate their
classroom doors with a scary book theme for Halloween. Teacher 2 talked about the positive
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 109

culture at the school and believes that it was created by getting “buy-in from students”, and
helping them feel safe, connected, and that school “is not just a place that I go to, it’s a second
home.”
Character Building and Social Skills
Character building and teaching social skills are fundamental principles that are a priority
for the Administration. These skills are infused into the culture in multiple dimensions,
beginning with the classroom, the daily school environment and culture as well as with specific
programs used.
They are incorporated into the school culture beginning with what happens in the
classroom. The assistant principal believes “it is about teaching them a way to express
themselves that’s socially and educationally acceptable that maybe they hadn’t been taught in the
past.” The cooperative learning model creates opportunities for meaningful interaction between
students, which allows for many teaching opportunities about “how” to interact with each other.
Teaching “how to engage and interact” is built into daily teaching. Teachers will work in “You
say thank you. You say you’re welcome” and have students repeat and model the social skills
during a lesson. They teach students what to say and have them practice saying it.
Teaching social skills and building character are evident in multiple areas as soon as you
walk into the school. This concept is infused by posters and signage on the walls, by bulletin
boards that focus on and celebrate achievements of students and staff as well as by what is heard
on the morning school-wide intercom announcements. Visible signs tell students to “Remember
the 6P’s: Prompt, Prepared, Productive, Polite, Participate, and Proficient.” Not only are
students told to remember them, but they are also taught what each of these mean and what they
look like. For example, “Prompt means be on time every day.” The principal believes that the
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 110

visible posters and signs do not serve as a measure of implementing character-building or
positive behavior support strategies, but that the true measure is whether students can
demonstrate them. This is the “ruler” that they use to determine whether they are doing a good
job or not. The assistant principal stated, “students will make mistakes.” They are expected to,
and those times are used as teaching moments for them always reinforcing character
development and good decision making. When problems arise, they use problem-solving and
conflict resolution to discuss the problem and come up with alternatives. Teacher 1 said they
teach these skills just by the structure of the school and their interactions with students. She
stated, “They know to expect announcements in the morning by the principal and that sometimes
he is going to talk about how to walk to and from school, how to be safe, how to dress
appropriately.” She further stated that these things are “set up and we practice all the time and
the kids know what is expected of them in their interactions with each other, in their interactions
with visitors on campus, the same with teachers and administrators…They know to speak to
people and say hello and it is just something that you build and you practice.” This was evident
as an observer while sitting on a bench on the nutrition yard; on several occasions students
waived, or said hello, and some offered a warm smile as they walked past me.
In addition, the school has implemented different programs that specifically address
character-building and social skills training. The school has used the Second Step Curriculum in
which teachers have a binder with various lessons on different topics focusing on “empathy,
character development, and a lot of character building for kids.” The Second Step was
incorporated into instructional time, including Advisory periods, and they have found a lot of
success with this program.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 111

Another active school club they have is the “GSA” or Gay Straight Alliance. The
principal spoke very highly in his support for this club and stated that they “really focus on
respectful treatment of all, regardless [of the situation].” It was evident that this group is active
on the campus, “very vocal and very public.” Beautifully colored posters and banners could be
seen hanging in various areas of the schools, including most classrooms. The principal stated that
the club has activities “during lunchtime” and will have “campaigns” for various things. He
further stated “it’s just a good way for kids to start to be exposed to what they’re going to be
exposed to in high school, which is some sort of social activism … to be able to defend and do
the right thing under pressure.” Teacher 1, who is also the coordinator for the GSA club,
described the activities of the club as student generated and led. She says that they use the clubs
as a “think tank” and “a lot of the ideas or things done on campus come from the kids.”
Examples would be special events done to “promote friendship and positivity”, or designing a
shirt that says GSA, friendship, or equality on it. All of these things are activities that kids take
on to initiate conversations with other kids about being kind, being a good person and treating
others equally and with respect. Another activity started this year with GSA is “ambassadors for
friendship and positivity,” which encourages club members to go out and “practice” what the
club fosters: friendship, positivity and respect for others. Students are challenged “find or make a
new friend” or “go say hello and introduce yourself’ to a person sitting by him/herself. Teacher 1
stated that this is really challenging students to not just sit and talk about things, but to really act
on these principles. She states the club’s focus is not just centered “around being gay, lesbian or
bisexual.” The focus is to have a safe space for students to “talk about those issues” if needed,
but for the most part, the main issues they deal with are how to promote “friendliness in middle
school, how to make friends and making sure everyone in the school is being treated equally.”
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 112

The school also has a partnership with a program called “WYSE”, Women and Youth
Supporting Each Other” at a local prestigious private university and they provide mentors for 10
to 15 female students. The mentors work with students after school and focus on character
development, peer pressure and “addressing key issues that can contribute to a woman’s
empowerment.” The principal stated that this partnership has been helpful in really connecting
some of their most vulnerable students with positive college female students for them to establish
an ongoing mentoring relationship with.
The school adopted another program called Project Wisdom. This program involves
adding daily broadcast messages, known as “Project Wisdom Words of Wisdom” to their
morning announcements. This activity is student-led and shares topics focusing on encouraging
others, self-responsibility, choosing what’s right, moral courage, and gratitude. Along with the
daily messages, brief lesson plans that are short and easy to implement are provided to teachers
to utilize during class time. An example of a lesson plan adopted is “how to stop the bullying”
that is premised on the key idea that “kindness in an antidote to bullying” and students are
challenged to “create a more caring school climate and lo ok for opportunities to be kind.” Many
other topics and lesson plans are used throughout the school year. The school set aside and
approved specific funding to adopt this program because it specifically targets character-building
and social emotional learning.
The focus on student interactions is a prominent theme found at Sunnyland School. There
is evidence of promising practices that focus exclusively on the development of student
interactions that contribute towards academic and social/emotional engagement of students to
school. The components used for this deliberate focus on student interactions include cooperative
learning, and the teaching of character-building and social skills. The combination of positive
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 113

school climate, school organizational and infrastructure components, along with the emphasis on
student interactions are the systems and structures that contribute towards the anti-bullying
culture at the school.
Chapter Summary
The findings show that three themes emerged that lay the foundation for the systems and
structures developed, implemented and sustained at Sunnyland School. First, the new leadership
at the school is focused on developing a collective team, including all stakeholders, that works
together in implementing a whole-school approach that transformed the school and resulted in a
positive climate and an anti-bullying culture. Second, the school developed a strategic school
organizational system and infrastructure that is at the foundation of the school’s daily operations.
This included a focus on student safety and learning with a strategic physical organization and
school layout, a detailed system for campus supervision, and a coordinated method for student
groupings and cohorts. Lastly, the school has a strong focus on fostering student interactions
through the implementation of a cooperative learning model in every classroom and the
development of positive interactions/relationships with teachers, and the teaching of character
building and social skills to students by way of curriculum and through daily adult interactions.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 114

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Bullying and student dropout have both emerged as prominent social issues affecting our
nation. In over 2,000 high schools in America, close to 40% of students drop out before reaching
their senior year (Balfanz et al., 2010). Over 30% of students have reported being involved in
bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). Involvement in bullying can have long-lasting effects on students
that contribute to their level of engagement to school. Dropping out consists of a slow process of
disengagement to school, and student engagement has been found to be a central component in
this process (Finn, 1989). Student dropout has been linked to bullying and the disengagement of
students from school. Student engagement is perceived to be a potential protective factor for
students who may be involved in bullying and at risk of dropping out of school. Examining
bullying prevention through the lens of student engagement, a main contributor to student
dropout, can be validated as a focused strategy in cultivating an anti-bullying culture, as well as a
school climate that protects students from the process of dropout. The purpose of this study was
to investigate the perceived systems and structures that contribute towards increased student
engagement and the prevention of bullying in K-12 schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate the systems and structures in place at K-12
schools that foster an anti-bullying culture while utilizing practices that increase student
engagement. The disengagement of students to school is common in both students involved in
bullying as well as students on the path to dropout, and involvement in bullying places a student
at higher risk for dropping out of school due to decreased levels of engagement. There is a
possibility that students who are in the process of dropping out from school have a history of
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 115

involvement in bullying of some form. In effect, student engagement can be understood as a
protective factor for both students involved in bullying as well as students at risk of dropping
out, as described, due to the high potential for overlap in this population. This study sought to
investigate the systems and structures in place at K-12 schools that focus on increasing student
engagement to foster an anti-bullying culture.
The study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to student engagement and
an anti-bullying culture in schools?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support student
engagement and an anti-bullying culture in schools?
This research involved a qualitative case study of one high achieving, secondary public school in
an urban region of Southern California. Three types of methods for data collection were utilized;
semi-structured interviews, observations and document analysis. Multiple sources were accessed
to allow for triangulation of data to increase the validity of the study’s results.
Despite the multitude of studies on bullying, bullying in schools is increasing. While
research identified the role of student disengagement as a key construct in student dropout,
students continue to disengage from school and drop out. While previous research on the topic of
bullying has been conducted, the research specifically focusing on the link between bullying,
student disengagement, and dropout is limited. Further, research is even more limited on the
specific practices utilizing student engagement as a targeted intervention simultaneously for
bully prevention and student dropout. A clear gap in the research exists on the use of student
engagement as a promising practice in preventing bullying. This study focused on this gap; in
this school, a concrete systemic model in place for bullying prevention utilizing student
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 116

engagement that works. This study aimed to provide a thorough examination of the role of
student engagement in school intervention models, identifying the specific systems and
structures in place that foster an anti-bullying culture.
Summary of the Findings
While many effective strategies have been researched and linked to the prevention of
bullying, this study focused specifically on student engagement, a key contributor to student
dropout, as a promising practice in preventing bullying in K-12 schools and fostering an anti-
bullying culture. In response to the research questions, there were a number of findings. Three
prevalent themes emerged from the data and clear, observable, concrete strategies were found to
be in place within each theme. The first theme was positive school climate. There were two main
findings related to this theme; leadership which involves collective team-building and use of a
whole-school approach involving all stakeholders. The second theme was school organization
and infrastructure. There were three findings related to this theme; student safety and learning
involving the physical organization and layout of the school, a campus supervision plan, and use
of student groupings or a cohort model. The last theme was student interactions. There were two
findings related to this theme: use of a cooperative learning model, and teaching character
building and social skills. The themes with their supporting strategies are depicted in the table
below. (Table 6)

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 117

Table 6
Findings: 3 Emerging Themes and Supporting Strategies
Theme Supporting Strategies
Positive School
Climate
Leadership Whole-School
Approach

School
Organization and
Infrastructure
Student Safety
and Learning
Campus
Supervision
Student
Groupings/
Cohort Model
Student
Interactions
Cooperative
Learning Model
Character Building
and Social Skills

Positive School Climate
The first theme, positive school climate, is supported by the findings found to be in place
at the school; leadership involving collective team-building and utilization of a whole-school
approach involving all stakeholders.
The first finding within the theme of positive school climate is leadership, which involves
collective team-building. Effective leadership is critical in fostering an anti-bullying culture.
School leaders are responsible for determining the systems and structures in place that make up
the adopted model for the prevention of bullying. The administrators at Sunnyland School, the
principal and assistant principal, worked collaboratively with the same goals in mind. Together,
they envisioned a plan for a high performing middle school. In their development, they focused
on the two most important as aspects of their foundation: student safety and learning and built
around that. As a result of the school reconstitution, the leaders built a school team around shared
educational values and belief systems; the shared belief that all students can learn if they feel
safe and cared about. This shared belief system fostered a cohesive group of educators
committed and accountable to their mission. The group was supported, guided, and empowered
to become change agents for their students. The school team internalized this idea, which
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 118

repeatedly emerged in interviews, of “it all starts in the classroom”. The sense that the students
were “theirs” and they were responsible for them as human beings, their learning, their behavior,
their social emotional growth changed the dynamics at the school. The fact that administrators,
teachers, counselors, staff, and volunteers all shared the same beliefs became a powerful message
to the students. In turn, students began to feel safe and cared about, and they responded with
increased levels of engagement, attendance rates, academic performance, and as members of a
school community committed to respecting each other. The leadership style of the principal and
assistant principal transformed and empowered the entire school and community. School
leadership is the integral component to developing, implementing and sustaining a systems-level,
whole-school approach.
The second finding within the theme of positive school climate is the use of a whole-
school approach involving all stakeholders. The findings suggest that the school effectively
utilizes a whole-school approach for all school operations. Clear evidence of connecting with and
involving all stakeholders with the school vision, mission, and operations was a main priority
along with formulating partnerships with and involving parents in their child’s education.
Stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, staff, and community members) were treated as
partners, welcomed, respected, and given the message that they are a necessary component to the
school family. Clear visual images and displays around the school further communicated a
welcoming message to all stakeholders and set a positive tone with high expectations for all.
Teachers at this school were highly regarded, celebrated, respected, and seen as the major change
agents. Teachers were provided training and guidance towards the mission and vision of the
school. Teachers and administrators worked together as partners, a team, in collaboration
towards the same goal.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 119

Whole-school approaches are supported by research as being an effective practice in the
prevention of bullying. Effective practices in preventing bullying require more than a “one size
fits all” approach. Sherer and Nickerson (2010) argue that strategies for the prevention of
bullying need to take place across five categories; system-wide, school staff and parent
involvement, educational approaches with students, student involvement, and interventions with
bullies and victims. Casebeer (2012) asserted that school bullying is a complex issue that calls
for a comprehensive approach based on the needs of each individual school culture. Thus, the
most effective method for the reduction and prevention of bullying involves a whole-school
approach unique for that school community. Klein (2012) emphasized the importance of school
climate as a protective factor, and Sherer and Nickerson (2010) discussed the most effective, yet
most under-utilized, approach to affect and change school climate as the use of system-level
interventions. Based on the findings, the school utilized a school-wide, whole-school, approach
that aided in developing a positive school climate.
School Organization and Infrastructure
The second theme to emerge from this study is school organization and physical school
layout. Within this theme, there were three main findings; student safety and learning
strengthened by a strategic physical organization and school layout, campus supervision, and a
model for student groupings/cohorts.
The first finding within the theme of school organization and infrastructure is a focus on
student safety and learning. The school demonstrated a commitment to student safety and
learning by focusing on strategic internal policies and operational infrastructure. An overhaul
and detailed plan for the physical organization and layout of the school was implemented. This
plan included strategic, but simple, logical solutions to common problems in schools that affect
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 120

student safety and learning. These common problems include traffic in hallways, stairwells,
lunch areas, entry and exit areas, and the routine trash and cleanliness problems that many
schools deal with. These problems are often seen as uncontrollable realities by schools that, in
effect, contribute towards a chaotic feeling, especially in larger schools. Sunnyland School
implemented a stairwell system to control the flow of student traffic during transition times and
line dividers to teach students where to stand in lines and what walk paths to follow when going
to certain areas of the school. A simple strategy for lunch and nutrition was implemented
teaching and reinforcing students to keep their food on their trays while they eat and to lift the
tray to throw their meal away resulting in the absence of any food remnants or wrappers on the
tables. This simple norm implemented keeps the campus clean. These norms in place serve the
function of maintaining the upkeep of a recent school renovation that revitalized the physical
look of the school. This project beautified the school campus and gave it a community feel with
plants and greenery, gathering benches in place for reading and socializing, multiple basketball
court and play areas, a large multipurpose room used for students, and a large school garden. It is
safe to say the school has undergone a literal transformation. The school norms and expectations
are taught and reinforced by all staff, including the campus supervision team.
The second finding within the theme of school organization and infrastructure is an
effective campus supervision protocol. Campus supervision is a simplified concept that all
schools utilize. Although, the campus supervision at Sunnyland School is an organized,
structured, goal-directed active form of supervision, members of the team are trained and held
accountable to quality supervision of students. The message is clear on the campus supervision
protocol that “This is our school, our students, our job.” The campus supervision system at the
school is a major consistent daily function of the school staff, including the administrators.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 121

Everyone works together for the safety and structure of the whole. This “active” form of
supervision requires staff to regularly be visible and provides consistency and ample
opportunities for interactions with students. The system is so embedded into the school culture
that teachers voluntarily supervise their hallways during transition periods without being asked
because they want to do their part. Monitoring the hallways becomes an integral part of being
visible and interacting with students. The students in specific hallways are consistently the same
due to the student groupings/cohort system model in place.
The third finding within this theme of school organization and infrastructure is their
system for grouping students utilizing a cohort model. The way in which students are grouped
together is a central component to the intricate infrastructure of the school. The grouping system
keeps students and teachers together in contiguous space areas. This grouping system of students
to teachers allows for a multiplicity of things to happen. Firstly, it allows for a large school to
feel like a relatively small school for a student, as s/he becomes a part of a smaller community
within his/her group. This creates a sense of “smallness” and increased opportunities for the
development of friendships, which increases the cohesiveness of the groups. Secondly, it directly
addresses safety in that students travel together from class to class in groups, albeit they do not
travel very far as their classes are right next to each other in the same hallway. This, with the
addition of their teachers outside in the halls during transition times, creates a safe and positive
climate in the hallways. This has also had a tremendous impact on tardy behavior. Due to the
groupings, the teachers are able to have closer relationships with students, know them all by
names and, since teacher teams work together, they have a sense of the needs of the different
students. Further, all teacher teams for the entire grade follow the same curriculum down to the
detail and to the day. Lastly, the advisory period serves as a “school family” and teachers take
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 122

ownership of those students. They take responsibility for their academic and social/emotional
well-being. This advisory period allows time for students and teachers to develop relationships
together and focus on non-academic content such as life skills, character development and
growing together as a class community. This time is also used to provide guidance as needed
when they are struggling with academic or home issues. The grouping system at this school
creates a sense of safety, community, equity, and access for all students.
Student Interactions
The third emerging theme in this study is that of student interactions. The first two
emerging themes, positive school climate and whole-school approach and school organization
and infrastructure, lay the foundation for meaningful student interactions to take place. The view
taken by the school is that increasing positive interactions and communication among students
will increase engagement to school. They focus on the positive interaction of students in the
classroom, within their class community, first. Their belief system is that students spend most of
their time in the classroom and engagement needs to begin there. Teaching and creating
opportunities for students to interact and communicate with each other in appropriate ways
fosters this engagement. Once engagement in the classroom is established, with their teachers,
with the academic content, with their class group, then other aspects of engagement to the larger
school, such as clubs, sports, would follow. Teachers are the first and most integral factor in the
process of student engagement. Consistent with this belief system, there were three findings
related to the interactions of students; a cooperative learning model, and teaching character
building and social skills to students.
The Kagan Cooperative Learning model allows for consistent integration of student
inquiry, dialogue, and interaction. Students are exposed to this model all day, every day,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 123

consistently in every class. The administration’s goal was that there should be “at least 50%
student talking” in every classroom. The school ensured that the teachers received intensive
training and support from the administration in order to implement the model in their classrooms.
The result was a change of dynamic in the class, a positive energy resulted as the classes were
fast-paced and active. Due to this, behavioral problems decreased because as one teacher stated
“there was just no time for it.” The structure didn’t allow for misbehavior. The school saw
dramatic increases in academic progress in all areas across all students. Teachers, students and
the administrative team felt the positive progress. This increased the sense of motivation by the
teachers, and the self-efficacy of students, and fueled them all forward. The success in
implementing the cooperative learning structures in the classroom provided the foundation for
increasing student interactions and opportunities to learn and practice to communicate in positive
ways.
The cooperative learning model allowed for a strategic focus on student interactions. The
very act of students’ talking together, discussing, questioning, working out a problem, is the
essence of student interaction. Within this, relationships between students are developed that
may have normally never flourished had they not been in an organized structure and made to
work together. The creation and guidance of meaningful interactions between students
contributes to the overall sense of collectiveness of students. Engaging with each other and
getting to know classmates as friends creates a sense of empathy towards each other in times of
difficulty or struggle. This, in itself, fosters an anti-bullying culture. Students are much less
likely to tease, hurt, or bully someone that has been kind to them or helped them on a problem.
On the contrary, students are much more likely to stand up for someone when they see them in
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 124

trouble or getting hurt if they have had a positive interaction with them, decreasing bystander
effect.
The development of relationships among students and teachers was also a main focus.
Due to the various systems and structures in place, the likelihood that students will have frequent
contact with teachers and other school staff and counselors is high. The campus supervision team
members develop relationships with the students that frequently play in their assigned location
areas. The teachers are focused on fostering student interaction, but also simultaneously
cultivating relationships with their students. This is even more evident in their advisory
classroom where they have specific time to focus on life issues and the development of character
and social skills. Further, students develop a consistent two-year relationship with their advisory
teacher and their counselor. The idea of having specific time set aside to interact together, share
breakfast together, discuss the current events or news of that morning cultivates a sense
community and a sense of belonging. Those students are connected to a positive, caring, adult
whom they have daily access to. This adult takes the time to know them, listen to them, and will
frequently have contact with their parents when needed. This adult knows when they are absent
from school. The student knows someone will notice if they do not show up.
Teaching character and social skills is the second finding supporting the theme of student
engagement. The development and fostering of character-building and social skills are focused
on daily through second step curriculum, advisories, and daily intercom announcements from the
principal and student leaders. They also happen in the classroom through cooperative learning
structures, with the active campus supervision model, through interaction with the counselors,
and through school-wide assemblies on various topics such as bullying, college preparedness,
self-esteem, and friendship. Further, the school provides a multitude of activities, most of which
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 125

are all led by teachers and student leaders. Many teachers run clubs after school and their own
students continue to spend time with them after school hours. Tutoring is also available for
students needing extra support. The most prominent club on campus is the Gay Straight Alliance
(GSA), which “focuses on respectful treatment of all.” Fun visual reminders and posters created
by students are seen all throughout campus and in every classroom. The teacher leader states that
the club is about “promoting friendship and positivity” and is an active club on campus. All of
these activities led by teachers are additional ways that create positive student interaction and
allow for the teaching of social skills and character building through their interactions. As
evident, student engagement is a prominent theme at Sunnyland School and is deliberately and
strategically cultivated on a daily basis by all. The resulting effect of all of the systems and
structures in place at this school is a positive school climate that engages students in all areas
during and after school.
In conclusion, three emerging themes found in place at Sunnyland School make up the
framework for a strategic, holistic, positive model resulting in a school-wide anti-bullying
culture. Significant findings supported each of these themes. Leadership involving collective
team-building and a whole-school approach were the findings that supported the development of
a positive school climate. Student safety and learning involving a physical organization and
school layout, a strategic campus supervision protocol and a system of student groupings/cohorts
supported the theme of a strategic school organization and infrastructure. Lastly, the cooperative
learning model and the teaching of character building and social skills were the findings that
supported the theme of student interactions. Based on these findings, this school model provides
strong evidence that there is not one clear cut solution to the problem of bullying on school
campuses. This model further demonstrates that not one single solution alone can have impact
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 126

the academic culture of a school. An infrastructure designed around a collective vision by all
stakeholders is the foundation. The principal stated, “it’s all in the details” of what is done daily,
consistently, in communicating the message that the most important thing is the safety of
students and learning, “in that order.” A concerted, deliberate, focus on relationships, and student
engagement, is the vehicle to realizing an anti-bullying culture and protecting against the slow
process of student dropout, which begins with students not feeling connected to school.
Findings and Theoretical Framework
The findings support the guiding theoretical framework used for this study,
Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems (1977, 1979). Social ecological theory has been
vastly studied and Barboza et al. (2009) and Rodkin and Hodges (2003) argue that bullying and
school violence are best understood using this framework. In some form, evidence of this can be
seen in the data obtained regarding the historical context of the school. The negative school
reputation, history of school and neighborhood violence, and poor school climate, had permeated
all levels of the system. It is unlikely that any other approach, other than a systems-level
approach, would have transformed this school environment and community as bullying and
violence are not diluted to one singe act, but occur within a system, and affect the entire system.
Further, research on systems level intervention in bullying states that changes must occur within
the upper reaches of school administration if there are going to be lasting effects (Espelage &
Swearer, 2004; Swearer & Doll, 2001).
The three emerging themes and respective findings; positive school climate, school
organization and infrastructure, and student interactions, support the social ecological
framework. Swearer et al. (2010) assert that the systems that directly affect children and
adolescents include families, schools, peer groups, teacher-student relationships, parent-child
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 127

relationships, neighborhoods, and cultural expectations. Further is the idea that interactions that
happen within a system also affect the entire system.
The main findings reflect strategies implemented by the school within these different
systems. Swearer and Espelage (2004) discuss the outer systems shaping the more immediate
level systems, which create a trickle-down effect onto the student. This is evident in the findings.
The outer level systems were focused on first, resulting in an overall indirect impact on the
student and system as a whole. A positive school climate was created through the use of effective
leadership, transformational in nature that involved collective team-building to move together
towards the vision. A whole-school approach was used that involved all stakeholders to engage
them with the vision and mission of the school. The school organization and infrastructure was
revamped by ensuring a focus on safety and learning involving strategic changes to the physical
organization and layout of the school. In addition, the school’s system for campus supervision
and student groupings/cohort model were important factors that affect the system as a whole.
Lastly, a concerted focus on student interactions using cooperative learning structures as well as
the teaching of character building and social skills was an integral component which reflects one
of the most important concepts within the framework, the mesosystem, which involves social
interconnections, linkages and processes taking place between students, teachers and peers
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). This framework focuses on systemic levels that influence and shape
individual attitudes and behaviors (Swearer & Espelage, 2004). The findings show support that
the promising practices implemented are system-level interventions that in effect, transformed
the entire school and community.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 128

Implications for Practice and Policy
This study focused on how promising practices focusing on student engagement can be
used to foster an anti-bullying culture at a school. The findings from this study have implications
that may be helpful for districts, schools, and educators, in improving how school leaders can
effectively develop school-wide, holistic approaches, specific to their school communities, to
foster an anti-bullying culture focused on engaging students. Additionally, this study may be
helpful to researchers in the dropout prevention field in improving intervention models that
prevent the dropout of students to school.
The problems of bullying and dropout are distinctly different, but they share a similar
construct: student engagement. The disengagement of students from school is found in both
students involved in bullying as well as students at risk of dropping out of school. School leaders
are charged with addressing and preventing bullying at their school sites. They are also held
accountable to their graduation and dropout rates. Schools should consider the potential effects
of addressing both of these important issues simultaneously with an integrated whole-school
approach that focuses on the engagement of students. A whole-school approach is recommended
to prevent bullying and student dropout at schools. Isolated programs and campaigns may create
awareness, but neither is consistent, long-term, or fully integrated into the vision and mission of
a school. It is this full integration into the belief systems of all stakeholders that is an important
element to the whole-school approach.
The main foundation to an integrated whole-school approach is belief systems. The belief
systems of educators at the school should be one that believes in children, all children. This
belief system is an important place for school leaders to begin. A concerted, deliberate effort,
towards creating a team of educators that truly share the same beliefs in working with children,
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 129

will propel a system forward. All educators at the school, from administrators, counselors and
support staff, to teachers, and paraprofessionals, should be included and have a shared vision. It
is the task of school leadership to create and guide this process. Northouse (2004) defines
leadership as a process where an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a
common goal and further describes varying styles of leadership that are effective (Northouse,
2004). School leaders are viewed as “change agents” and looked to for their vision and plan to
reach school goals and make positive change (Northouse, 2004). School districts and
organizations may consider focusing on leadership styles that engage all systems-levels when
tasked with a complete transformation of an institution.
To effectively create an anti-bullying culture, a systems-level approach is needed that
includes all stakeholders. Schools should consider the different possibilities of engaging all
system-levels and stakeholders. It is important for school leaders to look beyond the school
boundaries and include community leaders, businesses, and groups into partnership with their
school sites. School leaders can serve as advocates, speakers, and partners for the needs of their
schools and communities with local law enforcement and political representatives. Teachers,
students and parents should be a main part of the school teams. An assessment of parent
involvement is important and schools may consider having active and engaging centers or
representatives to invite and engage with parents. School leaders might consider the creation of
opportunities for students to be involved in the planning and implementation of school activities,
school governance, and leadership.
Schools leaders interested in creating an anti-bullying culture might consider a focus on
student engagement. One way to increase the engagement of students to school is to focus on
interactions between students and with teachers. Fostering relationships between students and
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 130

with teachers is a key component to making students feel safe, connected to school, and
increases their motivation to learn. This process also creates a sense of community in the
classroom and school. Students feel cared about, and, through modeling, learn how to care for
others. School leaders might consider the importance of cultivating a vision for a school that
leads educators to focus exclusively on interacting with and developing relationships with all
students in the process of learning.
The planning and development of a school system focused on student interactions and
relationships may require an overhaul of the school’s existing academic plan and organization.
Schools may consider an infrastructure conducive to a focus on student interactions, such as a
student grouping or cohort model. This study shows strong evidence for the effectiveness of a
grouping/cohort system for students and teacher teams. Further, counselors should also follow
groupings in that they should continue with the same group for the duration of their stay at the
school for continuity and building relationships with students and families. Strategic planning of
student groups, heterogeneously balanced by academic level and gender, may require additional
time on the part of the school team, but proves to be an effective model yielding positive
outcomes for students. School leaders may consider an assessment of physical structures and
layout of classrooms to create a plan for the movement of student groups in their contiguous
spaces.
Creating the physical environment of the school layout to match the pattern of movement
by students is important. This process creates a structured and organized transition for students.
It reduces student traffic in the hallways giving a sense of order and reduced chaos. This
improves tracking of students and locations by teachers who supervise, as they know which
students belong in the hallways because they travel in groups. Creating this type of physical
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 131

environment causing the synchronous movement of students also reduces tardy behavior and
provides structure to students needing additional support during transitions. Further, students
identify with their group/cohort and begin to collectively operate as a system together. The
grouping/cohort model is an integral piece to facilitating relationships between students. These
groups are together every day, all day, for the entire school year. They eat, learn, play, and move
throughout the school together. Students begin to identify with their group and a cohesive group
community emerges.
The classroom instructional component utilizing the cooperative learning model is a key
contributor to this sense of cohesion. The cooperative learning structures used in the classroom
require students to constantly be interacting and engaging with each other and the academic
content. It allows for the modeling, practicing and reinforcement of positive social skills daily.
This student interaction is structured and guided by the teacher, but allows for flexibility and
creativity. The cooperative learning model engages students academically because it uses student
interaction as the main component for learning. In effect, students become not only academically
engaged, but also socially engaged with their peers and the class as a whole. In addition, the
process of teaching students to work, discuss, challenge, and articulate their thoughts about
something together stimulates learning and fosters positive social relationships. School leaders
may consider incorporating the cooperative learning model to increase student engagement and
focus on student interactions within their schools. Important to consider is the option by teachers
to implement these structures. Based on this study, the effectiveness results when there is
consistency among all classrooms and teachers using the cooperative learning model. The
principal in this study reinforced this to his team by stating “it’s either all of us, or none of us.”
This consistency creates structure for students and teachers and builds on social interaction skills
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 132

being learned. This consistency, coupled with the relationships fostered between students and
teachers, creates a sense of safety for students. School safety outside of the classroom is an
important component that cannot be overlooked.
School safety is a top priority for school leaders. Ensuring the safety of students when
they are outside of the classroom is important for students to continue this sense of safety they
feel in their classrooms. A sense of safety comes from feeling that a school is organized,
structured, clean and well supervised. A sense of safety comes from consistency, knowing
exactly what to expect, from educators. School leaders may consider effective systems and
structures to put in place that will aid in creating this sense of safety for students when they are
outside of the classroom. This may look different for each school. Based on this study, some
simple but effective examples include painting walk paths for teaching and reinforcing student
traffic patterns, creating norms for eating and throwing away food, a stairwell system, teaching
students specific behaviors expected when entering and exiting buildings, walking down sides of
hallways, and modeling behavior wanted to see in students. A detailed plan for campus
supervision is important to maintaining safety. Campus supervision is most effective when the
team is trained, works together and shares a sense of purpose. Campus supervision should be
consistent, positive, constructive and “active.” The campus supervision team focuses on the
shared beliefs of the school and uses supervision as a time to focus and interact with students,
while being visible and maintaining the safety of their area.
Implementing the aforementioned systems and structures focusing on student
engagement and safety should aid in promoting an anti-bullying culture in schools. As evident,
creating an anti-bullying culture at a school requires much more than a campaign, or posters on a
wall. A detailed, comprehensive, school-wide plan is required for fully cultivating a culture that
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 133

prevents bullying. As the principal in this study stated, creating a culture that focuses on student
safety and learning is “about every detail… it is in the actual deed of what we do every day.”
Focusing every detail, every day, on student safety and learning, while utilizing student
engagement as a strategy, in effect will create not only a school culture that prevents bullying,
but one that protects for the disengagement of students to school, thus preventing student
dropouts.
Recommendations for Future Studies
The following recommendations for future research are based on what could be done to
better understand the role of student engagement in the promising practices for preventing
bullying at K-12 schools.
• The implications of a systems-level whole-school approach were elaborated upon
in this study. The focus on including all stakeholders, including students and
parents, was shared by participants. Although actual student and parent
perceptions were not included as a part of this study, including students and
parents as participants would present a different perspective on the systems and
structures in place that contribute to the prevention of bullying at a school.
• Sunnyland School had undergone a school reconstitution resulting in a unique
composition of almost an entirely new teaching staff and team to the school. This
is not a typical situation as most public schools are unable to selectively re-staff
their school and in essence “create” a school team with a common vision. It may
be of interest to study other reconstituted schools for the outcome effects as these
relate to an anti-bullying culture.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 134

• Further research should be conducted on comprehensive school models utilizing
student engagement to foster an anti-bullying culture and the relationship to risk
factors for student dropout such as academics, behavior and school attendance.
Effective comprehensive school-wide approaches that focus on the academic and
social/emotional engagement of students to school may not only contribute to an
anti-bullying culture, but may also simultaneously have the effect of addressing
student dropout.
• School leadership is a critical factor in creating effective institutional changes in
schools. Further research should be conducted on the relationship between
leadership styles and the prevention of bullying and school dropout. Further,
research should be conducted looking at the most effective leadership styles that
promote positive outcomes in reconstituted schools.
• The sustainability of systems and structures is a crucial element that is of concern
when there is a change or transfer of leadership. This study was limited in terms
of time. Studying a transformed system over the long term, in particular through
leadership changes is another recommendation. Being able to study whether such
school transformations that become embedded in the culture through the use of
systems-levels is enough to create sustainability of the model. If so, the culture
should sustain any change in leadership so long as the new leadership continues to
maintain the existing systems and structures. It would be important to look at the
systems and structures in place longitudinally to determine actual sustainability
through transition and change of leadership.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 135

• Relatedly, it would be instructive to conduct additional research on the replication
of the transformational change made at this school. Studying the systems and
structures in place at the school could lead to the replication of this model by
school leaders at another school setting and produce similar outcomes of
effectiveness. Further, research can examine whether different school leaders can
replicate this model and yield similar outcomes.
Conclusion
This study aimed to identify promising practices for the prevention of bullying in K-12
schools that utilized student engagement as a key strategy. Its findings identified specific systems
and structures in place that foster an anti-bullying culture in schools. Leadership is crucial in that
it provides for the implementation and sustainability of a school model. It is anticipated that
these findings will prove beneficial for current and aspiring school leaders and will inform
school districts and policymakers regarding the importance of using models that promote student
engagement to prevent bullying at schools and protect for the disengagement of students. This
research should supplement the existing literature on bullying, student engagement, and dropout
by demonstrating the role of student engagement in both bullying and student dropout, and
understanding how a specific focus on student engagement simultaneously can prevent and
cultivate both a culture that prevents bullying and keeps students connected to and in school.
This study reveals that building a comprehensive system that is focused on student interactions
and the engagement of students to school allows for students to feel safe and connected,
increases academic and social/emotional gains, and fosters a positive school culture that serves
as a protective factor for the prevention of bullying and factors related to student dropout.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 136

References
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of
Educational Research, 92(2), 86-99.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its
relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of adolescence, 32(3), 651-670.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective,
and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health,
79(9), 408-415.
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Moore, L. A., Fox, J. H., Enterprises, C., & Center, E. G. (2010).
Building a grad nation. Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout
Epidemic: Civic Enterprises, LLC.
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G.
(2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An
ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101-121.
Benbenishty, R., & Asṭor, R. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family,
school, and gender (pp. 154-155). New York: Oxford University Press.
Berger, C., Karimpour, R., & Rodkin, P. C. (2008). Bullies and victims at school: Perspectives
and strategies for primary prevention. In School violence and primary prevention (pp.
295-322). Springer New York.
Black, S., Weinles, D., & Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(2), 138-147.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 137

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Hodges, E. V. (2001). Toward a process view of peer rejection and
harassment. Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, 265-
289.
Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about
school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27-37.
Bradshaw, C. P., O'Brennan, L. M., & Sawyer, A. L. (2008). Examining variation in attitudes
toward aggressive retaliation and perceptions of safety among bullies, victims, and
bully/victims. Professional School Counseling, 12(1), 10-21.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press.
Bryn, S., 2011. Stop bullying now! A federal campaign for bullying prevention and intervention.
Journal of School Violence, 10(23), 213-219.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization:
Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children's classroom
engagement and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 98(1), 1.
Bullock, J. R. (2002). Bullying among children. Childhood Education, 78(3), 130-133.
Casebeer, C. M. (2012). School Bullying: Why Quick Fixes Do Not Prevent School Failure.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(3), 165-
171.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Suicide Prevention, Youth Suicide.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pub/youth_suicide.html
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 138

Chapell, M., Casey, D., De la Cruz, C., Ferrell, J., Forman, J., Lipkin, R., & Whittaker, S.
(2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence San Diego, 39(153),
53.
Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention, 2009. Policy Statement: Role of the
Pediatrician in youth violence prevention. Pediatrics, 124, 393-402. (from Stop Bullying
Now article)
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and
aggression in elementary school children. Personality and individual differences, 24(1),
123-130.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer
victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 376-385.
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Werner, N. E. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational
aggression, physical aggression, and children's social–psychological adjustment. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(2), 127-138.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school.
Journal of School Health, 73(5), 173-180.
Daniels, J. A., & Bradley, M. C. (2011). Preventing lethal school violence. New York: Springer.
Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2010). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2009. National
Center for Education Statistics.
Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. Handbook of
adolescent psychology, 2, 125-153.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 139

Epstein, A., & Kazmierczak, J. (2006). Cyber bullying: what teachers, social workers, and
administrators should know. Illinois Child Welfare, 2007(3), 41-51.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-
ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2008). Current perspectives on linking school bullying
research to effective prevention strategies. In School violence and primary prevention
(pp. 335-353). Springer New York.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2009). A Social-Ecological Model for Bullying Prevention
and Intervention. Handbook of bullying in schools: An International perspective, 61.
Fast, J. (2008). Ceremonial violence: A psychological explanation of school shootings. Overlook
Pr.
Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour and psychosocial
health among school students in New South Wales, Australia: cross sectional survey.
BMJ, 319(7206), 344-348.
Fox, J. A. & Burstein, H. (2010). Violence and security on campus: From preschool through
college. Santa Barbara, CA: Praege.
Gastic, B. (2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying victims. Educational
Review, 60(4), 391-404.
Garbarino, J., & deLara E. (2002). And words can hurt forever: How to protect adolescents from
bullying, harassment, and emotional violence. New York: The Free Press.
Gini, G. (2008). Associations between bullying behavior, psychosomatic complaints, emotional
and behavioral problems. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 44, 492-497.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 140

Glew, G.M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. (2008). Bullying and school safety.
Greene, M.B., Ross, R. (2005). The nature, scope and utility of formal laws and regulations that
prohibit school based bullying and harassment. Persistently Safe Schools 2005. The
National Conference on the Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence.
Hanewinkel, R. (2004). Prevention of bullying in German schools: An evaluation of an anti-
bullying approach. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools:
How successful can intervention be? (pp.81-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hardikar, A. (2012). President endorses two anti-bullying measures. LGBT Americans for
Obama. Retrieved from http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/president-endorses-
two-anti-bullying-measures/
Harris, S., Petrie, G. (2002). A study of bullying in the middle school. National Association of
Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 86(42).
Hutzell, K. L., & Payne, A. A. (2012). The impact of bullying victimization on school avoidance.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(4), 370-385.
Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence. (2012).
December 2012 Connecticut school shooting position statement. Journal of school violence,
(just-accepted).
Ivarson, T., Broberg, A.G., Arvidsson, T., Gillberg, C. (2005). Bullying in adolescence:
Psychiatric problems in victims and bullies as measured by the Youth Self Report (YSR)
and the Depression Self Rating Scale (DSRS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59(5):365-
373.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 141

Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The
strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112(6), 1231-1237.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying at school- an
indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence. 23, 661-674.
Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between bullying, school climate, and
student risk behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(3), 154.
Klomek, A.B., Marracco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I.S., Gould, M.S. (2007).
Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1):40-49.
Kim, Y. S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of
Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 133-154.
Langman, P. (2009). Why kids kill: Inside the minds of school shooters. Palgrave Macmillan.
Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Temple University Press.
Lederman, J. (2012). Anti-Bullying Ad Campaign Targets Parents, Obama Administration Vows
To a Make It a 'National Priority'. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/anti-bullying-ad-
campaign_n_1749158.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence:
Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202-214.
Limber, S. P., Flerx, V. C., Nation, M. A., & Melton, G. B. (1998). Bullying among school
children in the United States. Contemporary Studies in Sociology, 18, 159-174.
Limber, S., and Small, M.A. (2003). U.S. Laws and Policies to address bullying in schools.
School Psychology Review. 32, 445-455.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 142

Marr, Niel and Time Field. (2001). Bullycide: Death at playtime. Success Unlimited:
Oxfordshire, UK.
Merrell, K. W., Buchanan, R., & Tran, O. K. (2006). Relational aggression in children and
adolescents: A review with implications for school settings. Psychology in the Schools,
43(3), 345-360.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley
& Sons.
Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers' understanding of bullying.
Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 718-738.
Morrison, B. (2002). Bullying and victimisation in schools: A restorative justice approach (Vol.
219). Australian Institute of Criminology
Murie, C. (2004). Effects of Communication on Student Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan
Publishing.
Nance, J. P. (2013). School security considerations after Newtown. Stanford Law Review Online,
65, 103.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical
Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging Schools: Fostering
High School Students' Motivation to Learn. Committee on Increasing High School
Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 143

Newman-‐Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention
for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 82(3), 259-267.).
Nishioka, V., Northwest, E., Coe, M., Burke, A., Hanita, M., & Sprague, J. (2011). Student-
reported overt and relational aggression and victimization in grades 3–8. Issues and
Answers Report, REL, (114).
Nolle, K. L., Guerino, P., Dinkes, R., & Chandler, K. (2007). Crime, Violence,
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Discipline, and Safety in US Public Schools.
Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety. Waashington DC: Author.
O’Brennan, L.M., Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L. (2009). Examining developmental differences
in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully/victims.
Psychology in the Schools. 46(2d):100-115.
Olweus, D. (1991). Victimization among school children. Advances in Psychology, 76, 45-102.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge:
Blackwell. 384-437.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin
& J. B. Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness (pp. 315-341).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention
program. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190.
Patchin, J.W., and Sameer, H. (2010). Cyberbullying and Self Esteem. Journal of the School
Health, 80(12):614-21.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 144

Peskin, M. F., Tortolero, S. R., & Markham, C. M. (2006). Bullying and victimization among
Black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence, 41(163), 467-484.
Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Student engagement at school and
with learning: Theories and intervention.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools and what we can do about it. Melbourne: Acer.
Rigby, K. (1998). The relationship between reported health and involvement in bully/victim
problems among male and female secondary schoolchildren. Journal of Health
Psychology, 3(4), 465-476.
Rigby, K. (1998). Suicidal ideation and bullying among Australian secondary school students.
Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 15, 45-61.
Rigby, K. (1998). Gender and bullying in schools. Children’s peer relations, 47-59.
Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theory, and policy. The
Social Science Journal.
Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions
for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 384-400.
Roland, E. (2002). Bullying, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research.
44(1):55-67.
Sherer, Y.C., and Nickerson, A.B. (2010). Anti-Bullying practices in American Schools:
Perspectives of School Psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 47(3): 217-229.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to
early response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335-396.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 145

Smith, P. K., Morita, Y. E., Junger-Tas, J. E., Olweus, D. E., Catalano, R. F., & Slee, P. E.
(1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. Taylor &
Frances/Routledge.
Soriano (1999) Soriano, M., 1999. The family role in violence precaution and response. School
Safety, 12-16.
Stuart-Cassell, V., Bell, A., & Springer, J.F. (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies:
Washington DC: US Department of Education.
Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional
School Counseling, 10(3), 297-306.
Suicide Prevention Resource Ctr. (2011). Bullying and Suicide. Retrieved from
http://www.sprc.org/news-events/the-weekly-spark/research/bullying-and-suicide
Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 7-23.
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A Social-Ecological Framework of
Bullying Among Youth. In S.M. Swearer & E.L. Espelage (Eds.), Bullying in American
schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. , (pp. 1-12).
Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
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.
Ttofi, M., Farrington, D.P., Losel, F. (2012). School Bullying as a predictor of violence later in
life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies.
PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 146

Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report
and findings of the Safe School Initiative. Washington, DC: US Secret Service and US
Department of Education.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health,
45(4), 368-375.
Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber bullying and traditional bullying:
Differential association with depression. The Journal of adolescent health: official
publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 48(4), 415.
Zhang, J., Truman, J., Snyder, T. D., Robers, S., (2012). American Institutes for Research, &
United States of America. Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2011.

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 147

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
1. What is your role in this school?
2. How do you feel about the culture of the school?
3. Tell me what your school does to help students feel connected to your school.
4. What is your role or your involvement in promoting anti-bullying at your school?
5. What was the driving force behind the start, or inclusion of, anti-bullying efforts at your
school?
6. Tell me about the instances of bullying at your school in the past and currently.
7. Explain the basics of the anti-bullying efforts your school has in place.
a. What policies and preventive measures does your school have in place to prevent
bullying?
b. What other factors influence your school’s anti-bullying efforts?
c. Have these efforts changed? If so, how?
8. What is the process that occurs when there is a bullying incident?
9. What type of training is provided to the staff to identify and prevent bullying?
a. What offices or staff is involved in anti-bullying intervention training?
b. How prepared does your staff feel in relation to bullying?
c. How prepared do you feel to handle bullying?
10. How are teachers, staff and administrators involved in anti-bullying efforts?
11. How are students involved in anti-bullying efforts?
12. How are parents and/or other stakeholders involved in anti-bullying efforts?

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 148

13. What data do you use to evaluate your school’s anti-bullying efforts?
a. How is the data used to sustain and improve the efforts?
14. In your opinion, what are some of the most important pieces, or components, to have in
place at a school for fostering an anti-bullying culture?
a. How do you develop and sustain support from stakeholders in these efforts?

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 149

Appendix B
Observation Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Type of Observation:
_____________________________________________________

Participants: ______________________________ Materials: ____________________________

Researcher: ________________________________________________________

Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ___________

Environment
What are you looking for? Notes
Location:

What does the environment look like?

Physical setup:

How are the participants grouped?

Who is leading?
What is the agenda?

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 150

Interactions
What are you looking for? Notes
Context:

Noteworthy interactions:
• Students

• Parents

• School staff

• Community

Engagement of participants:

Overall tone:

PREVENTING BULLYING THROUGH STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 151

Appendix C
“Active” Campus Supervision Protocol
• Consist of a multidisciplinary team of 26 members
• Includes: administrators, coordinators, counselors, parent center representatives, campus
aides, safety officer, and teacher assistants and special education aides. *Aside from the
formal supervision team, teachers provide hallway monitoring during passing periods by
standing outside their classrooms in the hall or near their door.
• All team members carry an intercom radio
• A code system is created for intercom communication and each member is identified by a
code number to be used for all communication
• Times: Campus supervision in conducted before and after school, during nutrition
(recess), lunch, and all passing periods. The administrator will provide a warning
message to all radios alerting three minutes to supervision to allow for all members to
complete what they are working on and prepare to be in their assigned location at the ring
of the bell. Another radio message is sent by the administrator alerting all team members
that he/she is already at assigned location
• Locations: A map of the school contains the assigned locations of all team members. In
addition to locations throughout the school, before and after school, team members are
also assigned to the school perimeter, cross walks near the school, and an adjacent busy
business location and parking lot across the street that attracts many students for food and
snacks
• Training is provided for all team members by administration on “active” campus
supervision. Expectations are explained and the guidelines and norms are taught to the
team (see table below)
• The team meets on a regular basis to evaluate the current system, assess for changing
needs of the school environment, and/or to address issues in the functioning of the system

School Campus Supervision Guidelines and Norms
“The more effectively we supervise, the less problems we will have.”
1. Be on active supervision. 10. Take pride in your work and area.
2. Move from group to group. 11. Have students keep their areas clean.
3. Remind students to throw their trash in
a trash can.
12. Students are not allowed to cross the
yellow lines.
4. Separate from other adults. 13. No food beyond ramp yellow lines.
5. Spread out. 14. Only students with a pass can enter the
building.
6. If you are out, it is your responsibility
to get coverage.
15. Ask for help.
7. Be on time. 16. We are a Team.
8. Talk to kids. 17. Follow radio protocol (learn codes).
9. Enforce no personal displays of
affection (PDA’s)
18. This is our school, our students, and
our job.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Bullying and student dropout are prominent social issues affecting the United States, and the disengagement of students from school has been linked to both. Examining bullying prevention through the lens of student engagement, a main contributor of student dropout, can be validated as a focused strategy in cultivating an anti‐bullying culture as well as a school climate that protects students from the process of dropout. The purpose of this study was to determine promising practices at schools that promote an anti‐bullying culture utilizing student engagement. This study sought to identify the perceived systems and structures that contribute to student engagement and an anti‐bullying culture and how these perceived systems and structures are implemented and sustained. This qualitative case study consisted of seven semi‐structured interviews with a school principal, assistant principal, counselor, faculty and staff, and observations of classrooms, the school, and the community. School artifacts were also collected and analyzed to triangulate the data. The findings from this study indicate three prevalent themes that provide a framework for promising practices that contribute towards and an anti‐bullying culture in schools

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Promising practices of anti-bullying: safe and supportive environments for all students

PDF

Policies and promising practices to combat bullying in secondary schools

PDF

A case study of promising practices of anti-cyberbullying efforts in a middle school

PDF

A case study in promising practices in anti-hazing education training for fraternity advisors

PDF

Why culture matters: a case study to determine the promising practices in the prevention of bullying in K‐12 schools

PDF

Promising practices in the prevention of bullying: using social and emotional skills to prevent bullying

PDF

A case study of promising practices in the prevention of sexual assault in postsecondary institutions

PDF

Promising practices for building a college-going culture: a case study of a comprehensive high school

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

Pa’delante, la lucha continúa: resiliency among Latinx college students with past experiences of bullying

PDF

Promising practices for building a college-going culture for LatinX students: a case study of a large comprehensive high school

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

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

PDF

Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study

PDF

Building a college-going culture: a case study of a continuation high school

PDF

Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Promising practices: promoting and sustaining a college-going culture

PDF

Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals

PDF

Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

The role of student engagement in a certified Linked Learning school

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez, Emily Jo (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/22/2014

Defense Date 03/19/2014

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

Tag anti-bullying culture,bullying,bullying and dropout,bullying and student engagement,dropout prevention,OAI-PMH Harvest,preventing bullying,preventing dropout,student engagement,student engagement and dropout

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee chair), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email emily.hernandez177@calstatela.edu,emilyhernandezmft@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-382678

Unique identifier UC11297293

Identifier etd-HernandezE-2393.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-382678 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HernandezE-2393.pdf

Dmrecord 382678

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hernandez, Emily Jo

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