Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers
(USC Thesis Other)
The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE VORTEX OF HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING:
THE REPORTING BEHAVIOR OF TEACHERS
by
Monique Claire Datta
___________________________________________________________
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 2010
Copyright 2010 Monique Claire Datta
ii
DEDICATION
To Mother Earth
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would have never been able to finish my dissertation without the guidance
of my committee members, help from friends, and support from my family and
husband.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my committee chairperson,
Dr. Melora Sundt, whose brilliance, excellent guidance, caring attitude, and endless
patience provided me the support I needed to continue my research and complete this
academic endeavor.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr.
Mary Andres, who generously gave their time and expertise to better my work.
I would like to thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar, a statistics wizard, who assisted
me with all of the quantitative data analyses. Without his kindness and patience I
would have never been able to complete my final chapters.
Thank you to my mentor, Dr. Glenn Honda, who encouraged me to pursue
my doctorate and reminded me that perseverance would help me accomplish my
goal.
I would also like to thank my many friends who supported me throughout this
long journey. Thank you to Dr. Tim Lino who encouraged me to continue when I
was overwhelmed with frustration and self-doubt. A very special thank you to Dr.
Malia Smith who was my guiding light in the program and who showed me the true
meaning of friendship. Her amazing spirit and love for her daughter, Gabrielle,
reminds me that life is beautiful.
iv
I wish to thank my parents, Jean-Pierre and Lydia Pijanowski, who believe in
the importance of education and always give me unconditional love and support.
Their experiences, struggles, and triumphs remind me that anything is possible.
Thank you to my brother, Jean-Claude Pijanowski, who is the coolest person
on the planet. His intellect, humor, and radical thoughts provide great joy in my life.
And to his wife, Anjali, whose patience and kindness is greatly appreciated. A
special thank you to my nephew, Jean-Luc, who always makes me smile.
Finally nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of my doctorate
than my husband, Asoke. He supported me and lifted my spirits throughout this
doctoral process. His unconditional love, great sense of humor, and patience is what
helped me to complete my doctoral journey.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 18
Chapter 3: Methodology 48
Chapter 4: Analysis of the Data 58
Chapter 5: Discussion 82
References 96
Appendix: Survey Questions 105
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Analysis 57
Table 2. Respondents by Gender 59
Table 3. Respondents by Years of Experience 60
Table 4. Years of Teaching at Current School 61
Table 5. Respondents by Religious Affiliation 61
Table 6. Respondents by Grade Levels Taught 62
Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for the Outcomes of Different 63
Types of Bullying
Table 8. Grade Level Effects 65
Table 9. Age Effects 66
Table 10. Years of Experience Effects 67
Table 11. Intervention Effects (age) 67
Table 12. Intervention Effects (grade levels taught) 68
Table 13. Means and Standard Deviation for Intervention 70
Table 14. Means and Standard Deviation for Non-Intervention 70
Table 15. Grade Levels Taught and the Reporting of Bullying 71
Table 16. Age and the Reporting of Bullying 72
Table 17. Years of Experience and the Reporting of Bullying 72
Table 18. School Climate and the Reporting of Bullying 74
Table 19. School Climate and Harmful Effects of Bullying 75
Table 20. Homophobic Bullying Strategies 76
vii
Table 21. Sexual Bullying Strategies 77
Table 22. Racial Bullying Strategies 78
Table 23. Awareness of Strategies, Policies, and Programs Used to Address 79
Bullying
viii
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the population of intermediate and high school
teachers in the Hawaii Department of Education. The purpose of the study was to
determine the degree to which certain variables impact the reporting of homophobic
bullying by secondary teachers. The study examined if the type of bullying, a
teacher’s characteristics, and perceptions of a victim’s characteristics affect the
willingness to report bullying. The study also aimed to determine if teacher
perceptions of school climate impact the reporting of homophobic bullying by
teachers in secondary schools.
A survey was conducted and quantitative methods utilized to collect and
analyze the data. The analyses showed that statistical differences were evident in
regards to several different variables. There were significant findings in relation to
perceptions about different types of bullying and teacher characteristics such as
grade level taught, age, years of experience, and perceptions about the victim and
perpetrator. There was also a significant difference between the awareness of
strategies in relation to homophobic bullying. A large percentage of the teachers
were unaware of any strategies used to address homophobic bullying.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Violence is present in schools throughout the United States and can take on
many manifestations. One particular form of violence that is a prevalent, serious
social problem on school campuses is bullying (Ma, Stewin, & Mah, 2001). The
definition of bullying varies globally (Farrington, 1993), however, the U.S.
Department of Education generally defines bullying as:
Intentional, repeated, hurtful acts, words, or other behavior committed by one
or more children against another due to a characteristic the victim may
possess; the bullying may be physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual in nature.
Empirical studies confirm that bullying in U.S. schools is a serious problem
(Cowie, 1998). Bullies target approximately three million students in sixth through
tenth grade each year (Greenya, 2005). On an average school day three out of ten
American children are involved in bullying as perpetrators, victims, or bystanders,
and an estimated 160,000 students skip school to avoid being bullied (Greenya,
2005). Students who are victims of bullying experience greater physical and
emotional problems than peers who have not been victimized and are prone to
suicide, depression, addiction, and poor school performance (Rigby, 2003).
Moreover, bullying is problematic because of “its relation to crime, criminal
violence, and other types of antisocial behavior” (Farrington, 1993, p. 383).
One student population that is victimized by bullying is lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) students. Homophobic bullying
targets sexual minority youth through physical aggression, verbal taunts and social
2
isolation (GLSEN, 2008). A 2007 National School Climate Survey of 6,209 middle
and high school students found that nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students (86.2%)
experienced harassment at school in the last twelve months. Additionally, three-fifths
(60.8%) felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and a third (32.7%)
skipped a day of school in the past month because of safety concerns (GLSEN,
2008). Despite the prevalence of homophobic bullying on secondary school
campuses, research suggests that there are greater barriers to addressing bullying of
LGBT students than other student populations, and it remains an underreported
offense (Mishna, Newman, Daley, & Solomon, 2007). Victims often do not report
homophobic bullying because of fear and embarrassment (GLSEN, 2008). On the
other hand, student bystanders may not report bullying against LGBT students
because they are reluctant to break a perceived “code of silence” or they are afraid of
becoming victimized themselves (Greenya, 2005). Teacher bystanders, however,
may be especially hesitant to get involved because of a lack of support from
administration and parental objections (Mishna, Newman, Daley, & Solomon, 2007;
Lock, 2003). In addition, teachers may fail to get involved because they feel it is not
their responsibility (Astor, 1998; Meyer, Astor, & Behre, 2002; Lock, 2003).
However, when LGBTQ students continue to be victimized with little intervention
provided by bystanders especially teachers, it becomes important to determine why
teachers fail to intervene and report homophobic bullying.
3
Background of Problem
There are many forms of bullying that affect victims in various ways.
Moreover, bullying does not victimize one particular population exclusively, but can
affect a variety of people ranging from the victim to the bystanders. It is widely
accepted that bullying can have a long-term impact on victims, bullies, and
bystanders who witness acts of bullying that go unaddressed (Hafner, 2003). The
psychological implications of bullying include mental health problems, depression,
loneliness, aggression, and in extreme cases suicide or murder (Hafner, 2003;
Olweus, 1993). According to the American Medical Association, bullying is
considered a public health concern (Graham & Bellmore, 2007). However, despite
the negative consequences of bullying, it continues to be pervasive in U.S. schools.
Dan Olweus, the pioneer of bullying research, has often stated “it is a
fundamental democratic or human right for a child to feel safe in school and to be
spared the oppression and repeated intentional humiliation implied in peer
victimization or bullying” (Olweus, 2001, pp. 11-12). Similarly, Peter K. Smith, a
researcher on bullying in England contends that the increased interest in bullying
derives from the belief of human rights (Smith, 2000, p. 295). Nonetheless, no
federal legislation specifically prohibits bullying in schools even though it continues
to impinge on a student’s right for a safe learning environment. However, since 1999
at least 16 states have passed laws to address harassment, intimidation, and bullying
in schools (NCSL, 2009). School policy, prevention, and reporting requirements
vary among states and school districts. There is the concern, however, that school-
4
bullying policies will not be effective if teachers are unaware of the problem and
their responsibility for enforcing the policies (Clarke & Keselica, 1997; Rigby,
2002).
Despite the plethora of research about bullying in secondary schools, and the
availability and success of anti-bullying programs, there is limited research on
bullying against LGBT students (Poteat & Espelage, 2005). It is difficult to
determine the exact number of LGBT youth in the United States, but most
researchers believe that approximately 5% and 6% of youth in America identity with
one of these categories (Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008; Human Rights
Watch, 2001). There are roughly 2.25 to 2.7 million students in the United States
who identify as LGBT (Lamda Legal, 2002). In addition, approximately 16% of
America’s high school students have a gay or lesbian family member, and 72% know
someone who is gay or lesbian (GLSEN, 2004). However, despite the number of
sexual minority youth attending schools throughout the United States, LGBT
students are often viewed as an invisible minority within a school setting and are
frequently victims of physical and psychological bullying with little or no
consequence to the abuser (GLSEN, 2005).
LGBT students who experience bullying are three-to-seven times more likely
to commit suicide, five times more likely to skip school because they feel unsafe,
three times as likely to be severely hurt in a fight, and four times more likely to be
threatened with a weapon at school (Garbarino, 2005). LGBT students also have
5
greater drop out-rates, failing grades, substance abuse, family problems, and
depression (Lock, 2003).
If bystanders fail to intervene, serious consequences may occur for the
bullying victim because the victimization continues. The emotional and physical
health of LGBTQ students is jeopardized when homophobic bullying occurs. Thirty
nine percent of LGBT students report being physically harassed and 84% report
being verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation (NEA, 2006). Studies
have reported, “sexual minority adolescents experience more mental health problems
than other adolescents” (Ueno, 2005, p. 260). The findings of Espelage, Aragon,
Birkett, and Koenig (2008) suggest that sexual minority youth report higher levels of
distress and risky behavior such as depression and substance abuse.
LGBT students may also develop addictive behavior (Houbre, Tarquinio,
Thuilleir, & Hergott, 2006). The addictive behavior can lead to substance abuse.
Students who are harassed because of actual or perceived orientation are more likely
to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use marijuana (NEA, 2006).
Despite all the risks associated with homophobic bullying, the one of greatest
concern is suicide and murder. It has been reported that LGBT teens are three times
more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Hansen, 2007). In April
2009, an 11 year-old Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, hanged
himself after enduring daily taunts for being gay though he did not identify as being
gay (GLSEN, 2009). The findings confirm that LGBTQ students are particularly
vulnerable to bullying and harassment. However, even students who are not gay, but
6
perceived to be gay are also at risk. In recent years the murders of LGBTQ students
across the country have also evoked concern and attention to this student population.
Besides physical health, there are also learning deficits that develop when
homophobic bullying continues to occur because bystanders fail to intervene.
LGBTQ students face many challenges within the school setting which affect their
ability to learn, graduate from high school, and pursue higher education. LGBTQ
students who are frequently harassed because of their sexual orientation had grade
point averages that were more than 10 % lower than those who were not harassed,
they are twice as likely to say that they will not go to college, and 29 % of LGBT
students missed approximately two weeks of school per year because they feel
unsafe (NEA, 2006). For some LGBTQ students these series of events may
determine whether they continue in school or simply drop out. It is important to note
that students learn just as much from informal lessons as they do from formal lessons
and the informal lessons LGBTQ students learn through the messages and
experiences on campus can have life long effects (NEA, 2006). Many of these
messages may affect whether LGBTQ students remain in school.
In addition to health, safety, and learning concerns, civil rights and equality
are also threatened when bullying occurs. For example, the civil rights of LGBTQ
students become threatened when an institution fails to acknowledge homophobic
issues on a school campus. When the bullying continues it impinges on the right of a
student to fully participate in school activities and have a positive school experience.
The failure to address homophobic bullying also marginalizes gay issues and
7
reinforces the silences towards LGBT students (Robinson & Ferfolja, 2003).
LGBTQ students often become a silent minority within a school setting and lack the
support to advocate for equal rights. Furthermore, bullying that targets students
because of perceived sexual orientation or gender non-conformity is a human rights
issue (Sears, 2008). Moreover, bullying which targets any minority groups can
effectively “be challenged when the majority stands up against the cruel acts of the
minority” (Coloroso, 2005, p. 51). However, when bystanders ignore homophobic
bullying, it continues to “reinforce stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination”
(Coloroso, 2005, p. 50).
Despite the effects bullying has on LGBTQ students, it has been the financial
impact on schools that has exposed this type of violence. The economic costs to not
address or the failure to report homophobic bullying are evident in the lawsuits that
have been filed against schools and districts in which a student has been bullied,
harassed, and/or dropped out of school for being gay or perceived as being gay.
Many schools and districts have felt a direct impact from these lawsuits filed by
LGBTQ students. A landmark case in Wisconsin was Nabozy v. Podlesny (1996).
For four years Jamie Nabozy was a victim of antigay verbal and physical abuse by
students at a secondary school in Ashland, Wisconsin. Students urinated on him and
pretended to rape him in class. School officials knew of the abuse, but did nothing.
Nabozy attempted suicide several times and eventually dropped out of school and
ran away. He decided to sue the school, but the trial court dismissed his lawsuit.
However, his case was taken by Lambda Legal and brought before a federal appeals
8
court. There it was decided that a public school could be held accountable for not
stopping antigay abuse (Lambda Legal Defense, 2008). The Seventh Circuit
concluded that school administrators failed to protect Jamie Nabozy from continued
harassment and bullying from his peers because of his sexual orientation. In
November 1996, the district settled to a $900,000 settlement in Jamie Nabozy’s
favor.
The Nabozy lawsuit and the other lawsuits that have followed have
encouraged some schools and school districts to confront homophobic bullying and
find ways to address the issue. However, other districts continue to dismiss
homophobic bullying. In the past the belief was “kids will be kids”, but the
consequences of associated with homophobic bullying can now financially burden a
school. Homophobic bullying is detrimental to both victims and bystanders, yet it
has taken a lawsuit in order for schools to become more proactive against antigay
behavior. There are still schools that trivialize homophobic bullying due to personal
or conservative beliefs, however an increase in awareness of LGBT issues and
equality is gaining attention across the country (GLSEN, 2008).
Some schools and school districts have taken a proactive stance to support
the rights of LGBTQ students. In Massachusetts and Washington the Safe Schools
Project have been created to provide a safe learning environment for LGBTQ
students (Talburt, 2004). Each program provides support for students and
professional development training for teachers to become knowledgeable of LGBTQ
issues and concerns. Harvey Milk High School in New York and Project 10 in Los
9
Angeles offer educational and social services and support for LGBTQ students
(Talburt, 2004). Harvey Milk High School was founded in 1985 and was created to
provide a safe, alternative education program for LGBTQ students (NYC
Department of Education, 2009). Project 10 was founded in 1984 and is a Los
Angeles Unified School District onsite support program for LGBTQ students
(Project 10, 2009). Each program continues to provide assistance for LGBTQ
students though both have been met with support and criticism.
Even though some schools have addressed LGBTQ issues, homophobic
bullying is still present in schools throughout the United States. However, there is
limited research that links homophobia and bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2008).
Furthermore, the problems faced by LGBT students have not been specifically
addressed in bullying studies (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). It has been suggested
that U.S. based studies are minimal because of the conservative nature and beliefs of
American families and schools (Hillier & Rosenthal, 2001). In addition, “organized
political opposition from fundamentalist groups and others has made efforts to create
safer school climates for sexual minority youth and to conduct research on youth in
school and community settings more challenging” (Ryan & Rivers, 2003, p. 103).
Research suggests that school climate can “foster norms, values, and belief
systems that communicate rejection and intolerance to some students” (Nichols,
1999, p.505). Keeping schools free of homophobic remarks and biased language is
an important means to create safe and positive school environments for LGBT
students (GLSEN, 2008). However, when the school climate accepts homophobia it
10
promotes negative attitudes and behaviors toward sexual minority youth and creates
a hostile school environment (Lock, 2003). In addition, reporting rates of bullying
may also relate to teachers’ interest, willingness and skills to confront bullying, and
the culture that the school promotes (James, Lawlor, Courtney, Flynn, Henry, &
Murphy, 2008). Bystanders who fail to intervene may have personal or institutional
barriers that prevent them from taking action (Berkowitz, 2008), which allows the
victimization of LGBT students to continue whether in an educational or other social
setting. Savin-Wiliams (1998) contends that most schools fail to address abuse
towards homosexual teens and schools frequently fail to intervene because teachers
may lack knowledge, fear repercussions, or are simply ignorant of the problem.
There is a paucity of empirical research that answers the question of why
teachers fail to intervene when homophobic bullying occurs. Thus the theoretical
framework of bystander behavior developed by Bibb Latane and John M. Darley will
be utilized to guide this study. Latane and Darley (1970) contend that there are four
stages of bystander behavior that moves a bystander from inaction to action. The
framework will assist in the effort to have a clearer idea of the stages of bystander
behavior in relation to homophobic bullying and why or why not a teacher bystander
intervenes.
Statement of Problem
Homophobic bullying against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
questioning individuals is a problem found within most school settings and can
create a hostile school climate for all students (Poteat, Espelage, & Green, 2007).
11
Many school districts throughout the country have implemented anti-bullying policy
to reduce the incidents of bullying on school campuses. However, a majority of
school and district policies do not specifically address sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression (GLSEN, 2005). In addition, few schools have made attempts
to create a safe environment for LGBT students (GLSEN, 2005).
There are various internal and external factors in a school climate that may
contribute to the lack of addressing homophobic bullying. Studies suggest teachers
rarely or never intervene when sexual and homophobic harassment are accepted parts
of the school culture, teachers feel limited in their actions because of a perceived
lack of support from the administration and their colleagues, and some teachers feel
that they lack the skill or knowledge to address homophobic issues (Meyer, 2008).
These factors create barriers for the teachers who may want to report the bullying,
but feel unqualified and unsupported to take action.
Research suggests that many teachers are unaware of bullying and the serious
effect it has on students (Nicolaides, Yuchi, & Smith, 2002). Many LGBT students
report that teachers and administrators fail to intervene when the harassment occurs
(Stader & Grader, 2007). Numerous anti-bullying programs contend that the role of
the bystander is crucial in reducing the incidents of bullying (Greenya, 2005).
However, teachers and students continue to witness and often fail to report and stop
homophobic bullying (GLSEN, 2007). Studies have failed to disaggregate teacher
response by type of bullying specifically in relation to homophobic bullying. Studies
have broken down behaviors such as direct versus indirect bullying, but they have
12
failed to break down the targets of bullying. Overall, the continued lack of reporting
perpetuates a negative school climate and experiences for LGBTQ students or
students perceived to be LGBTQ.
Purpose of the Study
In order to decrease homophobic bullying in secondary schools, a study is
needed to determine the degree to which certain variables impact the reporting of
homophobic bullying by teachers. Specifically, this study will examine if the type of
bullying, teacher’s perceptions of the victim, and a teacher’s characteristics impact
the reporting of bullying. In addition, the study will explore if teacher perceptions of
school climate impact the reporting of homophobic bullying by teachers. The
theoretical framework of Bystander Theory by Latane and Darley (1970) has four
stages that have been used to explain bystander behavior from inaction to action,
thus this study will also explore if teacher perceptions about bullying relates to any
of the stages.
Research Questions
1. Are there differences in the willingness of teachers to report a bullying
incident based on the type of bullying, a teacher’s perceptions of the
victim, and teacher characteristics such as age, years of experience, and
religious affiliation?
2. What is the relationship between a teacher’s perception of a school’s
climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying of LGBTQ students or
students perceived to be LGBTQ in a secondary school setting?
13
Significance of the Study
The study is important to all stakeholders within a secondary school setting,
but especially to the victims of homophobic bullying. At a very basic level, the
problem of bullying can be considered a moral issue (Meyer, Astor, & Behre, 2002).
There is a “clear moral imperative on teachers and schools to act to reduce bullying
in schools” (Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004, p. 1). If teachers fail to report incidents of
homophobic bullying, the victimization of LGBTQ students will continue to be
pervasive in schools throughout the country.
This study will determine if one’s willingness to report bullying is based
upon the type of bullying, teacher characteristics, and perceptions about the victim’s
characteristics. In addition, the study will provide information about the relationship
between a teacher’s attitudes and experiences with bullying, and perceptions of the
school climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying. The results can inform
policy making at the school level in an attempt to quell the incidences of
homophobic bullying, provide equitable experiences for all students, and educate
teachers about issues related to LGBTQ students.
Methodology
The research design will be quantitative in nature and will strictly be guided
by the research questions. This study will use a non-experimental descriptive
analysis of the characteristics, attitudes, experiences, and perception of teachers and
the reporting of homophobic bullying. Utilizing a quantitative methodology, the
Teacher Reporting of Bullying Survey consisted of 61 number of items adapted from
14
various surveys and pilot-tested on a group of educational assistants. The survey will
be distributed to selected middle and high schools teachers (7-12 grades) in the
Department of Education on Oahu, Hawaii. Selection will be based upon the
agreement of the schools to participate. To examine the relationships between the
independent variables and dependent variable, this study will utilize the SPSS,
Version 17.0 software package to perform descriptive statistics that include
frequencies, means, standard deviations of variables as well as ANOVA (analysis of
variances) and Pearson Correlations.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made for this study: (a) participants were
capable of understanding and answering the questionnaire; (b) participants responded
to the questionnaire honestly; (c) participants responded to the questionnaire to the
best of their ability; (d) the measures utilized are reliable and valid indicators of
constructs; and (e) the measures were accurately collected and analyzed with
appropriate statistical methods.
Limitations
Due to the design of the study, there are a few limitations. First, the validity
of the study is dependent upon the reliability of the instrument used. Second, the
sample included public school teachers in middle and high schools on Oahu, Hawaii.
There are thousands of middle and high school teachers throughout the nation and
the sample may not be representative of all teachers from schools across the 50
states. Third, the study is limited to the subjects who agreed to participate
15
voluntarily. Finally, the study was limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the
time constraints to field the survey.
Delimitations
The data are delimited to one school district within the state of Hawaii and
does not include private institutions. The study is limited to public school teachers on
Oahu and may not reflect schools on the other Hawaiian Islands and in the
continental United States.
Definitions of Terms
Throughout the literature, the definition of bullying is dependent upon the
researchers and region where the studies are conducted. The words “bullying” and
“harassment” are often used interchangeable and sometimes they have distinct
definitions. “Bullying” is predominately used to describe behavior at the elementary
and middle school levels, while “harassment” is the term used at the high school
level. For the purpose of this study, the term “bullying” will be used to describe both
middle and high school behaviors.
There are many terms and acronyms used throughout the literature. The
following are definitions that relate to this study. The definitions will be used so that
the reader can have a clear understanding of the content.
Bullying - the intentional and repeated acts that occur through verbal,
physical, and relational forms in situations where a power difference is present
(Olweus, 1993)
16
Bystander - an observer to an event; one who has the ability to intervene in
emergency and non-emergency situations (Latane & Darley, 1970)
Bystander Theory - factors that determine whether an individual will respond
to an incident of violence (Latane & Darley, 1970)
Homophobic Bullying - the repeated psychological, verbal, and/or physical
abuse of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning person or a person
perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (GLSEN, 2008)
Homophobia – negative attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and stereotypes toward
individuals who are not exclusively heterosexual (Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999)
Homosexuality - sexual attraction to, and sexual relations with, members of
the same sex (GLSEN, 2008)
Organization of Study
This dissertation examines the degree to which a teacher’s willingness to
report homophobic bullying is related to the type of bullying, sexual orientation of
the victim, teacher characteristics, attitudes and experiences with bullying, and
perceptions of school climate. This chapter presented the introduction, background
of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions,
the significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, assumptions,
limitations, delimitations, and the definition of terms.
Chapter 2 is the review of the literature relevant to this study. It addresses the
following topics: who is available to report bullying on school campuses, the
understanding of bystander behavior through the framework of Latane and Darley’s
17
Bystander Theory, bystanders in secondary schools, the role of the teacher as
bystander, the relationship between bystanders and homophobia, and the
consequences of not reporting homophobic bullying.
Chapter 3 provides the methodology to be used in the study, including the
research design, population and sampling procedure, the development of the
instruments, information on validity and reliability, the procedures for data
collection, and the plan for data analysis.
Chapter 4 is organized by research questions and reports the findings of the
study. Each section includes a reflection on the findings and provides insights about
what the findings mean.
Chapter 5 provides a brief summary of the findings, implications for practice,
additional limitations of the study, and a discussion of future research
recommendations.
18
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There are numerous types of students who experience bullying, but students
identified as LGBT are bullied and harassed at much higher rates than their non-
LGBT peers (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2008). In a 2007 National School
Climate Survey, nine out of ten LGBT students (86.2%) experienced harassment at
school in the past year (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2008). In addition, half of the
principals surveyed felt bullying was a major problem at their school, only one-third
of secondary principals believed that lesbian, gay, or bisexual students feel safe at
their school and only one-quarter contended that a transgender student would feel
safe (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2008). Despite the fact that homophobic bullying
is present in schools throughout the United States, there is limited research that links
homophobia and bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2008). In addition, there are
currently only 11 states that legally protect LGBT students from being bullied
(Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2008).
Several reasons why homophobic bullying continues to be problematic in
secondary schools include teacher ambivalence towards homosexuality (Chambers,
Joost van Loon, & Tincknell, 2004), values and beliefs about homosexuality
(Greenya, 2005), and the lack of bullying policy that protects LGBTQ students
(Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2008). However, one viable reason why homophobic
bullying continues to plague schools may be the lack of reporting. If more
19
bystanders, especially teachers, would intervene and report homophobic bullying,
perhaps the incident rates would begin to decrease.
In an effort to understand the reporting of homophobic bullying in secondary
schools, the main purpose of this dissertation is to determine the degree to which the
type of bullying, sexual orientation of the victim, a teacher’s characteristics,
experiences and attitudes towards bullying, and perceptions of school climate
contribute to the lack of reporting of homophobic bullying by teachers. Therefore,
the following literature review will be divided into six sections to examine the
reporting behavior of bystanders and the nature of homophobic bullying: (a)
Bystander Theory; (b) Who is Available to Report Bullying in Secondary Schools;
(c) Bystanders in Secondary Schools; (d) Teacher as Bystander; and (e) Bystanders
and Homophobia.
Bystander Theory
A plethora of research has been conducted to explain bystander behavior and
why people don’t intervene (Berkowitz, 2008). Latane and Darley developed one
theoretical framework that has been used to explain the stages of bystander behavior
since the late 1960’s. In their framework they identified four stages of moving from
inaction to action (Latane & Darley, 1970). The stages include: notice the event,
interpret it as a problem, feel responsible for dealing with it, and possess the
necessary skills to act.
Notice the Event: The first thing a bystander must do is notice that something
is happening (Latane & Darley, 1970). While this may seem obvious, as earlier
20
research demonstrates many teachers and students do not notice bullying in their
midst (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001). Latane and Darley (1970) explain
this phenomenon as “A person pays only selective attention to his environment” (p.
32). For example, if a bullying incident occurs on a school campus, but the bystander
doesn’t acknowledge the incident, then the bystander will not intervene because he
or she perceives no problem has taken place. A teacher may be concerned only about
classroom behavior and choose to ignore behavior outside of the classroom.
Interpret It as a Problem: If the bystander recognizes that an incident has
occurred then the incident needs to be interpreted as “actionable” or as something
“wrong” for the bystander to consider intervening (Latane & Darley, 1970).
Interpreting a bullying encounter as “actionable” may be problematic in many
secondary school settings. A concern amongst researchers is that teachers and
students have differing definitions and opinions about the severity of bullying (Reid,
Monsen, & Rivers, 2004), and this affects whether a bystander will interpret a
bullying incident as “actionable”. It may be considered an emergency for one
bystander and normal for the other. This discrepancy impacts if and how bullying is
addressed at the school level.
Feel Responsible for Dealing with It: If a situation is viewed as an actionable
incident, then the bystander needs to determine their degree of personal
responsibility (Latane & Darley, 1970). Several variables that impact whether a
bystander will take responsibility include “whether the victim ‘deserves’ help, the
competence of the bystander, the relationship between the bystander and the victim,
21
and whether responsibility is shared among a number of bystanders” (Latane &
Darley, 1970, p. 33). These variables may directly impact the reporting of bullying
on school campuses. McLaughlin, Arnold, and Boyd (2005) found that if a bullied
student is deemed unpopular or is disliked, then there may be less chance of
bystander intervention. Furthermore, certain bullying victims may be expected to
fend for themselves because they are perceived to be strong. However, if the victim
has a strong relationship with peers or others stakeholders on campus, then
intervention may likely take place. An important factor to consider is if only one
bystander is present then assistance is limited to that bystander. However, if there are
multiple bystanders such as students or teachers, then responsibility is diffused
among the various bystanders. If only one bystander is present, he or she has the
responsibility for dealing with the situation and he or she may feel guilty if no action
is taken. However, if a group is present, then responsibility for intervention becomes
shared thus each person may be less likely to help (Latane & Darley, 1970).
Possess the Necessary Skills to Act: Once a bystander notices an incident,
decides it is actionable, and that he or she is personally responsible for dealing with
it, then the next step is to determine how to deal with it. A bystander can use “direct
intervention” which means the act is visible, direct, and obvious or a bystander can
use “detour interventions” which usually means reporting the emergency to an
authority who can deal directly with the situation (Latane & Darley, 1970). A
bystander needs to be able to recognize his or her own abilities and whether he or she
has the necessary skills to effectively intervene. The mode of intervention is
22
especially relevant in secondary school settings where a diverse population of
students and faculty affects how to effectively confront a bullying episode. It is
important that both teachers and students possess the self-efficacy and skills to
appropriately intervene when bullying occurs at school. Studies have found that
teachers with greater self-efficacy were more likely to intervene if they saw bullying
compared with teachers who had low self-efficacy (Bradshaw, Sawyer, &
O’Brennan, 2007).
Latane and Darley (1970) contend that important reasons for the lack of
intervention from a bystander are social norms. Norms are often conflicting and
contradict one another resulting in little to no intervention from bystanders. For
example, in American society we are taught to “respect the privacy of others”, yet at
the same time we are taught to “help thy neighbor”. These conflicting messages can
affect whether a bystander will intervene in a crisis. If the social norm on a school
campus accepts bullying as a part of adolescence and believes it should be expected,
then bullying will remain prevalent at the school. Even if a bystander may want to
intervene, he or she may not because of the school’s social norms.
There is also evidence that confirms that “the social context has a powerful
influence on whether bystanders act responsibly as ‘defenders’, remain neutral as
‘outsiders’, or behave as ‘reinforcers’ for the bullying behaviour” (Cowie, 1998, p.
109). If a school’s social norms reflect a lenient viewpoint towards bullying, then
bystanders may lack the self-efficacy and confidence to report the bullying. There
may also be perceived risks involved for reporting the behavior (Oliver & Candappa,
23
2007). Bystanders may fear retaliation, isolation, or the perceptions of being a
tattletale.
A more recent theory that supports Latane and Darley’s Bystander Theory is
Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of the Moral Self. In his framework,
Bandura refers to eight different mechanisms through which moral conduct or
control can be disengaged. Two of these mechanisms include displacement and
diffusion of responsibility (Bandura, 2002). These two factors directly relate to
Latane and Darley’s step for “dealing with the situation”. Though Bandura does not
specifically discuss bystander behavior, he does contend that one’s moral control can
be influenced by group actions. Thus if an incident occurs such as bullying, one may
not intervene because the group remains inactive. As stated, “When everyone is
responsible, no one really feels responsible” (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, &
Pastorelli, 1996, p. 365).
Who is Available to Report Bullying in Secondary Schools
Types of Bullying
The way an individual assesses bullying in terms of whether it is considered
to be a serious or minor incident greatly influences how one copes with bullying and
bystander behavior (O’Brien, 2007). However, in order to report a bullying incident,
one must first be able to accurately identify what is bullying and recognize its
different manifestations. The signs of bullying come in two different forms: direct
bullying that includes physical and verbal attacks and indirect bullying that causes
deliberate social exclusion or isolation (Olweus, 1993). Indirect bullying is
24
problematic to address because it is often hard to recognize (Rivers, 2001).
Moreover, some teachers may consider direct bullying more serious and therefore
may not intervene when indirect bullying occurs (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, &
Wiener, 2005), and many teachers are unclear about what is considered bullying
(Boulton, 1997). Teachers may feel responsible for bullying incidents that are easily
recognizable, but fail to intervene when the bullying is not obvious. Indirect bullying
is often one student’s word over another thus making it difficult to determine if the
bullying occurred and if so, to what degree. In addition, teachers may choose not to
intervene because “they do not believe it is their professional role as an academic
teacher to intervene (Behre, Astor, & Meyer, 2001). It has also been found that
teachers have a tendency to underestimate the frequency of bullying (Reid, Monsen,
& Rivers, 2004). Teachers may perceive that bullying is not problematic on campus
even though students feel that the issue is a serious concern.
A 2006 study concluded that how teachers define bullying impacts the
willingness of teachers to stop the bullying (Naylor, Cowie, Cossin, de Bettencourt,
& Lemme, 2006). A total of 51 secondary schools in the United Kingdom with 225
teacher and 1,820 students participated in the study. The implications of the study
suggest that the definition of bullying needs to be consistent among students and
teachers in order for the bullying to be addressed in an effective manner. Teachers
and students had varying definitions of bullying and this discrepancy impacted the
reporting of bullying.
25
A similar study was conducted to determine the ability of educational
professionals to differentiate between bullying and other forms of conflict (Hazler,
Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001). A total of 209 teachers and 42 counselors were
asked to judge the severity of 21 different scenarios to determine what is considered
bullying. The locations of the schools or grade levels taught were not included in the
study. The results confirmed that verbal and social/emotional confrontations were
less likely than physical confrontations to be identified as bullying. The teachers who
did identify verbal and social/emotional abuse to be bullying recognized the danger
of this type of bullying. The study suggests that if verbal or social bullying is not
identified, then it will continue to occur in schools with little to no intervention by
teachers.
Direct and indirect bullying can affect all student populations on a school
campus. However, LGBT students are victimized at higher rates than their non-
LGBT peers (GLSEN, 2008). Homophobic bullying takes on many forms and is
evident in both types of bullying. It includes name-calling, teasing, public ridicule,
rumors, social isolation, the theft of belongings, and sexual assault (Rivers, 2000). It
is important for teachers to recognize the various types of bullying so that it can be
reported and intervention can effectively occur.
Victims and Bystanders
When either direct or indirect bullying occurs on a secondary school campus,
it is either the victim or a bystander that reports the incident. In many situations, the
victim often fails to report being bullied (Olweus, 1993). A 2004 study conducted in
26
six public middle schools in Roanoke, Virginia determined that some of the reasons
that inhibit a bullied student from reporting victimization include the chronicity and
type of bullying, the school climate, and student demographics (Unnever & Cornell,
2004). Victims are especially less likely to report a bullying incident if they feel that
the school tolerates bullying or if they believe teachers will do little or nothing to
stop the bullying (Unnever & Cornell, 2004).
Can the factors that influence victim reporting also impact bystander
reporting of bullying? In a school setting there may be a variety of bystanders who
witness an episode of bullying. The bystanders may be an adult or a child and they
may be either alone or in a crowd when the bullying occurs. It is important to
consider the various types of bystanders present on a secondary school campus and
the type of bullying that is observed in order to discuss bystander intervention. A
child may be more likely to report one type of bullying whereas an adult may be
more apt to report a different type of bullying.
Bystander Reporting
In comparison to victim reporting, there is a paucity of research that
investigates bystander reporting of bullying. In this study the focus will be on
bystander reporting because “Beyond gender and age, there has been little attempt to
identify variables that may affect the way in which bystanders respond to bullying
situations” (Rigby & Johnson, 2006, p. 427). Bystanders are present in
approximately 85% of bullying incidents (Craig & Pepler, 1995); therefore there is a
need to have further research to learn about bystander behavior. Bystanders can
27
encourage bullying, take part in it, remain silent, or they can try to stop and report it.
Thus it is of great importance to consider the role of bystanders in bullying incidents
and whether the bystanders can effectively contribute to the decrease of bullying and
the victimization of those being bullied.
Both victims and bystanders have various reasons for reporting or not
reporting incidents of bullying. The victim’s decision to report an incident often is
dependent upon whether there is someone on campus the student trusts, the age of
the victim, and peer relations (Unnever & Cornell, 2004). Are student and teacher
bystanders similar or do they have different reasons for reporting or not reporting
bullying?
Bystanders in Secondary Schools
Student Bystanders
Bystanders of bullying in secondary schools range from students to faculty,
staff, administrators, and parents. However, students are often present when bullying
occurs in and outside of the classroom and many studies have focused on student
bystander behavior. Craig and Pepler (1997) found that many student bystanders do
not intervene because (a) it is difficult to support a classmate because of peer
pressure; (b) the notion of responsibility diffuses in a crowd; (c) they are concerned
about their own safety and retaliation; and (d) they don’t understand bullying and
don’t have the proper knowledge and skills to effectively intervene. All of these
factors contribute to the prevalence of bullying in schools throughout the world.
Moreover, these factors support Latane and Darley’s Bystander Theory. Specifically,
28
a bystander needs to feel responsible for dealing with the situation and possess the
necessary skill to effectively intervene (Latane & Darley, 1970). In this study, both
factors contributed to the lack of intervention by students.
When students do intervene it is often because they have received formal
training about how to challenge bullying (Cowie, 1998). However, most students
have not been taught how to effectively address and report bullying. A study
conducted in the United Kingdom found that when schools had peer support services
for students, bystanders were more willing to intervene and report bullying (Cowie,
1998). However, the study is limited because of the small sample of participants and
because only one intervention strategy was reviewed. The peer support format may
have worked at the school in this study, but it may not work in other school settings
with different demographics.
The 2005 International Bystander Project coordinated in Australia conducted
studies in Australia, Bangladesh, England, Israel, and Italy to determine the factors
that influence the behavior of students as bystanders. The researchers in each country
agreed to use common definitions and similar methods of data collection (Ball,
2008). In England they found that the type of bullying, empathy towards the victim,
and the characteristics of the bystander influence what action would be taken
(McLaughlin, Arnold, & Boyd, 2005). In addition, students in primary grades were
more likely to report the bullying to a teacher compared to secondary students who
either supported the bully, especially in sexual harassment incidents, or simply
ignored the behavior.
29
In Israel there was a strong influence of bystander intervention in elementary
and junior high school students in relation to whether the bystander had prior
involvement as a bully or had been a victim of bullying in school (Rolider &
Ochayon, 2005). Students who identified themselves as bullies were least likely to
support a victim of bullying and more likely to support bullies. It also found that
older bystanders were more apt to ignore bullying behavior even though they had
positive attitudes towards intervening. The study suggests that it is important for
schools to have adult supervision on campus to monitor and reinforce appropriate
behaviors for bystanders (Rolider & Ochayon, 2005).
Similar to the studies conducted in Israel, the bystander behavior of Italian
students was dependent upon their prior involvement with bullying and victim
experiences as well as whether they were bullies (Baldry, 2005). However, in Italian
middle schools it was found that boys are generally more likely to encourage the
bullying whereas girls supported the victim. The study suggests that gender can
influence bystander behavior of bullying in school settings.
Overall, the preliminary results of all five studies indicate that (a) most
students are continually confronted by how to act when they witness bullying, and
(b) student bystanders of school bullying are heterogeneous and individuals react in
different ways and have different reasons for their reactions (Ball, 2008). The
limitation of the international project is that the studies reported only on what
students said they would do and it does not provide evidence of the actual behavior
30
in a bullying situation. Therefore, the results of the studies can guide future research,
but cannot accurately define student bystander behaviors.
Teachers as Bystanders
Lack of Understanding of Bullying
There is a dearth of research about teachers as bystanders though there is
evidence that suggests that teachers fail to recognize the severity and frequency of
bullying on secondary school campuses (Reid, Monsen, & Rivers, 2004). Perhaps
teacher intervention is inadequate because of teachers’ interests, ability and
willingness to manage bullying, and the culture of the school (James, Lawlor,
Courtney, Flynn, Henry, & Murphy, 2008). A major concern, however, is that
underestimating the harm caused by bullying can lead a teacher to respond
inappropriately and worsen the situation (Astor, 1995).
A 2006 study at 75 elementary, 20 middle, and 14 high schools in a large
Maryland public school district examined the discrepancy between the perceptions
and attitudes of staff and students toward bullying (Bradshaw, Sawyer, &
O’Brennan, 2007). The results indicated that teachers underestimated the number of
students involved with bullying. The study suggests that if teachers do not recognize
bullying, then bullying often is not reported because it hasn’t been acknowledged. In
addition, staff self-efficacy determined whether one could effectively handle a
bullying situation. Recognizing an incident and self-efficacy support Latane and
Darley’s theory that bystanders may not get involved because they fail to notice the
event and they feel they lack the appropriate skills to intervene. The findings also
31
showed that staff and students associated bullies with popularity, which goes against
the accepted belief that bullies are outsiders. A limitation of the study, however, is
that it is unclear whether staff and students had the same definition of bullying and
the survey was administered in several formats which could have affected the
outcomes (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007). Further studies would need to
be conducted to confirm the results of this survey. School demographics vary
throughout the country, thus it would be crucial to consider the school population,
teacher experiences, and any relevant training the teachers have had in relation to
bullying. All of these factors can have an impact on the final results of a study of this
nature.
In a 2005 study of four urban public schools with diverse student
demographics, it was found that many teachers were unaware that students were
being bullied (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005). Student and teacher
perceptions of bullying varied; some students considered a situation a bullying
incident, but the teacher did not. In addition, if a teacher had little to no empathy for
a student who had been bullied, then the teacher was unsympathetic and did little
about the incident (Mishna et al., 2005). The study suggests that teachers may not
report an episode of bullying if the teacher does not like the victim. Thus if a teacher
is opposed to homosexuality, then the likelihood of reporting an incident of
homophobic bullying may be reduced because of the characteristic of the victim.
Basically, if a teacher does not recognize the problem of homophobic bullying, then
little to no action will occur.
32
School Policy and Teacher Reporting of Bullying
It has been reported that systematic problems within a school culture can
affect the level and frequency of school violence; the specific problem found within
many school settings is teacher avoidance of school policies (Marachi, Astor, &
Benbenishty, 2007). There may be several reasons why there is a failure by teachers
to follow school policies. Teachers may be unaware of a certain policy, thus it fails
to be enforced. Furthermore, teachers may not understand the policies in place or
simply choose to ignore them because the policies are not enforced school wide. All
of these factors correspond to bystander theory (Latane & Darley, 1970) in which a
bystander must first recognize an incident or in this case a policy if action will take
place.
In a 2007 study conducted in Israel it was found that there is a strong
relationship between teachers’ perceptions of the goals stressed in the overall school
climate with their teaching strategies and their beliefs about their role about caring
about students’ emotional well-being (Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2007).
Consequently, the researchers state, “when teachers perceive that violence
prevention in their schools is a priority, they are less likely to avoid dealing with
violent events as they arise” (Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2007, p. 509). Thus, if
the school culture does not adhere to school policies, then teachers may lack the
initiative to follow school policies and intervene when violence takes place including
bullying. However, the results of the Israeli study may be limited in relation to
33
American schools and faculty because of the diverse values and traditions found in
the United States in comparison with those found in Israel.
The Locations of Bullying
Bullying occurs throughout a school campus though different levels of
bullying take place in different areas on campus (Rivers, 2000). Bullying usually
takes place in predictable locations and times on a school campus (Benbenishty &
Astor, 2005; Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999). On school campuses there are undefined
public spaces (e.g., hallways, playgrounds, cafeterias) that are perceived to be
anyone’s responsibility (Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999). This factor of responsibility
directly relates to bystander theory (Latane & Darley, 1970), which contends that a
bystander needs to determine their level of personal responsibility in relation to the
situation. One study found that hallways during transition periods accounted for 40%
of the reported violence, but teachers did not believe it was their professional duty to
monitor these hostile locations or intervene to stop violence in these locations (Astor,
Meyer, & Behre, 1999). The results suggest that there may be a lack of teacher
confidence to successfully intervene in violent situations or teachers may be
apathetic to the safety of certain student populations, thus affecting the reporting
rates for these violent offenses.
It has also been found that a teacher’s willingness to intervene no matter the
location on campus was an important aspect of what students consider to be a caring
teacher (Astor, Meher, & Behre, 1999). Students felt that “caring teachers saw their
role as transcending the walls of the classroom to all areas of the school” (Astor,
34
Meher, & Behre, 1999, p. 34). If students perceive teachers as caring then there may
be greater opportunities for victims and bystanders to report incidents of bullying
and feel confident that action will take place. If teachers are perceived as uncaring,
then there may be little incentive for students to report bullying behavior.
A 2001 study conducted in seven elementary and middle schools located in
low-income neighborhoods in two small towns in the Midwest of the United States,
confirmed the hypothesis that the location of a violent offense can determine whether
teachers intervene or not (Behre, Astor, & Meyer, 2001). Forty six percent of middle
school teachers said that the location of a violent incident impacted their opinion of
who should intervene whereas only 13% of the elementary teachers indicated that
location would impact their decision to respond. The data suggests that the age of a
student and the type of violence that occurs may impact teacher intervention. An
elementary teacher may have more self-efficacy to effectively intervene while a
secondary teacher may be hesitant to get involved because of the size of the students
and the nature of the incident.
Bystanders and Homophobia
School Climate
Homophobic bullying is present on secondary school campuses across the
country. In a 2007 National School Climate Survey it was found that LGBT students
experienced significant rates of direct bullying in secondary schools settings
(GLSEN, 2008). The sample included 6,209 LGBT students ranging from ages 13-
21 from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It was found that 86.2% of the
35
students were verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation; 44.1% were
physically harassed and nearly 25.1% reported being physically assaulted (GLSEN,
2008). The numbers suggest that schools have failed to reduce the incidents of
homophobic bullying on school campuses. The survey, however, is limited because
it did not survey teacher perceptions about homophobic bullying or about reporting
behaviors of faculty and staff. In addition, the study only sampled students who had
a connection with the LGBT community, thus students who were uncomfortable
with identifying their sexual orientation were not surveyed.
Research indicates that teachers are less likely to intervene in homophobic
bullying than any other forms of bullying and harassment in schools (Harris
Interactive 2001, California Safe Schools Coalition 2004; Kosciw & Diaz 2006). The
way teachers understand and perceive homophobic bullying will determine if and
how they will intervene when they witness an incident at school (Meyer, 2008).
Therefore, if the institution shuns homosexuality or if teachers have little knowledge
about gay issues, teachers may fail to report bullying against LGBTQ students
because of the controversial nature of homosexuality. Teachers may be unwilling to
risk their reputation as well as personal and professional status in the community to
defend the rights and equality of LGBTQ students especially if there are no policies
in place that specifically address the needs of this student population. The failure of
many schools to recognize homophobic bullying and to take responsibility for
dealing with the issue directly relates to Latane and Darley’s Bystander Theory. In
order to take action against an issue or situation, first acknowledgment and
36
responsibility need to be determined, but homophobic bullying is often ignored and
trivialized with no action taken.
There may be a lack of reporting of homophobic bullying because most
schools do not have anti-bullying policy against LGBT students (GLSEN, 2008).
Many bullying programs have been adopted by schools throughout the country, but
anti-bullying programs that seek to reduce the incidents of bullying towards LGBTQ
students are receiving opposition from the conservative Christians who claim the
programs “promote homosexuality and impinge on Christian students’ freedom of
speech” (Greenya, 2005, p. 105). Another argument is that by protecting the rights of
LGBT students, schools advocate that homosexuality is acceptable (Horn, Szalacha,
& Drill, 2008). Schools play a role in socializing adolescents into adulthood, thus if
gay rights are enforced some conservatives believe that there is the chance that
students may explore homosexuality. Conservative values, which often stem from
religious beliefs, are central to the debate of whether LGBT students should have
policy in place to protect their rights (Horn, Szalacha, & Drill, 2008). Latane and
Darley (1970) stress the importance of determining whether an incident is actionable
or not and then take appropriate action to confront the situation. In the case of
LGBTQ rights, the issues are controversial and many school districts feel that these
issues are not actionable because of the conflict between district policies and widely
held religious beliefs within the community.
Benbenishty and Astor (2005) contend that schools that establish a climate
that utilizes both effective and preventive policies and teacher support of students
37
can reduce levels of violence. However, most secondary schools lack specific
policies that address the victimization of LGBT students (GLSEN, 2008), and when
homophobic bullying occurs many teachers feel isolated and unsupported because
there is no system in place to support the reporting of the incident (Meyer, 2008).
Many others are fearful to seek help because of the stigma associated with
homosexuality (Norman & Galvin, 2006). If a teacher is perceived to be friendly
towards gay issues, then there is the possibility that colleagues may believe the
teacher is gay and isolate him or her from the school community.
A recent Canadian study suggests that both external and internal factors of a
school culture influence if and how teachers will intervene when homophobic
language and behavior occurs (Meyer, 2008). Insufficient support from
administration and other teachers as well as the lack of clear policy and consistency
in reporting and responding to homophobic bullying were significant obstacles
teachers faced in their school culture (Meyer, 2008). However, the study is limited
because it only interviewed six teachers who all taught within the same district. The
small sample size hinders whether the results can pertain to large, urban school
settings throughout the United States. Nonetheless, it is important to consider this
study and whether American teachers have similar experiences.
An exploratory study was conducted in a major city in the Southeast to
determine perspectives regarding bullying of gay, lesbian, and questioning (GLQ)
students (Vargas et al., 2007). The study was voluntary and involved interviews at 16
school and community service providers. The results of the study were broken down
38
into three primary categories (responses, barriers, and facilitators). It was concluded
that administrators, teachers, counselors, psychologists, and parents can all acts as
barriers in addressing bullying of sexual minority students (Vargas et al., 2007).
Additionally, it was found that religion plays an important role in how people view
homosexuality, though schools and service providers felt that religious leaders could
act as a resource for homosexual students (Vargas et al., 2007). An open-minded
religious leader may be able to provide guidance and understanding that is not
judgmental and does not deny the student the opportunity to discuss and understand
his or her sexual identity.
Personal Beliefs and Values
Many teachers are ambivalent towards gay issues or have anxieties about
supporting and protecting gay identity (Chambers, Joost van Loon, & Tincknell,
2004) even though sexual minority youth experience a greater hostile peer
environment than their heterosexual peers (Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig,
2005). These teachers fail to recognize the issue, which directly corresponds to stage
one of bystander theory (Latane & Darley, 1970). A bystander must first notice an
event before it can be interpreted as a problem. If the event goes unnoticed, then no
action will occur.
Teachers may not acknowledge LGBTQ concerns because homosexuality is
an uncomfortable issue for many people including educators. However, faculty and
staff may be faced with the moral dilemma to either adhere to their own convictions
or act to reduce homophobic bullying even if it conflicts with their beliefs. For many
39
educators the “judgment to intervene or not to intervene may be based on multiple
issues, including moral, organizational, or pragmatic considerations” (Behre, Astor,
& Meyer, 2001, p. 132). Many people contend that homosexuality is a moral issue
and one that goes against personal or religious convictions. Herek and Capitanio
(1996) reported that many heterosexuals who identify with fundamentalist religious
denominations and frequently attend religious services often display higher levels of
sexual prejudice than do non-religious people and members of liberal denominations.
This moralistic intolerance threatens sexual choices and leads many towards silence
(Mosher, 1989). This silence may take the form of not reporting homophobic
bullying.
One study conducted in Southern Australia examined if teachers’ moral
perceptions predict responses to bullying (Ellis & Shute, 2007). The sample included
127 primary, middle, and high school teachers from five schools. However, the
study did not specifically address homophobic bullying. The center of the study
looked at the justice and care moral orientations and whether a particular orientation
predicted how a teacher responds to bullying. It was found that “a higher justice
orientation predicts a higher level of rules-sanctions response and a higher care
orientation predicts a higher level of problem-solving response” (Ellis & Shute,
2007, p. 659). This information suggests that more research needs to be conducted to
determine if a teacher will adhere to school policies if the policies are more closely
aligned with a teacher’s moral orientation (Ellis & Shute, 2007). If social justice and
equity are not present for LGBTQ students on a school campus, then it may be
40
beneficial to further investigate the relationship between one’s moral orientation and
the reporting of homophobic bullying.
Kohlberg’s Moral Development
A person’s moral development may need to be considered in relation to the
problem of homophobic bullying in secondary schools. Perhaps this type of bullying
continues because of the moral development of school personnel. Kohlberg’s theory
of moral development involves six moral stages that are grouped into three stages:
pre-conventional (stages 1 and 2), conventional (stages 3 and 4), and post-
conventional (stages 5 and 6) (Kohlberg, 2005). In Kohlberg’s model there are also
four moral orientations that frame decision-making: normative order, utility
consequences, justice or fairness, and ideal-self. Justice fairness may directly relate
to homophobic bullying.
Homophobic bullying may be prevalent on school campuses because school
personnel find themselves within the lower stages of Kohlberg’s model. Perhaps
their moral development is insufficient to recognize the problem of homophobic
bullying and they are unable to transcend to a higher level of moral reasoning. There
may be others who recognize that homophobic bullying is morally wrong, but refrain
from any action to address the issue. A dilemma might exist between their moral
thinking and moral action. A person may witness homophobic bullying, recognize it
is wrong, but fail to act because it conflicts with their personal belief about
homosexuality.
41
In the discussion of homophobic bullying, it may also be important to
consider Kohlberg’s justice moral orientation, which occurs at the higher levels of
moral development. In Kohlberg’s justice orientation a person is concerned with
fairness and rules (Elis & Shute, 2007). Kohlberg (1987) states, “Principles are
universal principles of justice: the equality of human rights and respect for the
dignity of human beings as individual persons” (p. 489). There might be an
assumption in secondary schools that fairness and equity is given to all students, but
this may not be true for all student populations especially LGBTQ students. The
question then arises if educational institutions can be effective without social justice.
Berkowitz (2008) argues that institutional and system barriers often
perpetuate social injustices. If a school adheres to discriminatory actions toward
LGBTQ students then a bystander may refrain from reporting homophobic bullying.
However, institutions are made up of individuals thus it is necessary for bystanders
to engage in social action to bring forth change. Social and political change is
feasible if groups of individuals are willing to challenge social injustices (Berkowitz,
2008).
The problem of social justice may commence for educators even before they
begin employment. Robinson and Ferfoja (2001) contend, “social justice issues
generally are perceived by many per-service teachers as irrelevant to classroom
teachers for several reasons” (p. 125). Pre-service and novice teachers are concerned
about teaching strategies and classroom management, thus social issues are ignored
or deemed unimportant (Robinson & Ferfoja, 2001). However, this also applies to
42
experienced teachers who may still deny or ignore social issues such as homophobic
bullying. If change in the school culture is to occur, then social justice and equity
issues need to be addressed throughout the institution (Ouelett, 1996). It is a right
that all students feel safe on campus. Safety should not be limited to the dominant
culture. Thus it is important to review stage one of Latane and Darley’s (1970)
bystander theory to determine how to assist teachers to recognize the problem of
homophobic bullying.
Cognitive Moral Development of Teachers – Justice Moral Orientation
School personnel who struggle with morality and ethical behavior may have
not reached an advanced level of moral maturity. It is believed that “moral maturity
requires recognizing the social and historical relativity of moral judgment” (Mosher,
1989, p. 496). It can be argued that moral reasoning is used every time an educator
is confronted with the choice to respond to a bullying incident (Ellis & Shute, 2007).
If a teacher’s moral or religious beliefs are opposed to homosexuality, then perhaps a
teacher will be hesitant to confront homophobic bullying. A teacher may not believe
it is his or her responsibility to intervene because of the nature of the bullying, thus
the teacher fails to interpret the event (homophobic bullying) as a problem (Latane &
Darley, 1970).
Values of Dominant Group – Heterosexual by Default
In the United States heterosexism is the value of the dominant group
(Norman & Galvin, 2006). The influence of heterosexism is found throughout
American culture, but it may especially have an impact on LGBT students who find
43
themselves in schools where administration and teachers fail to address any issue
associated with homosexuality (Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008).
Homosexual issues at the school level are often marginalized or ignored due to the
controversial nature of the topic (Goldstein, 1997).
When bullying continues to be ignored or trivialized, the victim sometimes
becomes violent. School shootings have been linked to homophobic bullying
(Vossekuil, Reddy, Fein, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2000). It has been found that out of
the school shootings that occurred in the United States, many of the shooters had
been harassed or called gay because they did not fit the male stereotype, were
considered weak, or simply did not fit the norms of “ hegemonic masculinity”
(Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). Being gay and being perceived as gay can lead to
violence for the victim and abuser.
The 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student, was the
first prominent murder of a gay student. The most recent incident of violence against
an openly gay student occurred on February 12, 2008 when Lawrence King, an 8
th
grade student at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California was shot in the
head at school because of his sexual orientation and sexual expression (GLSEN,
2008). King had publicly come out as gay weeks before the murder. This crime has
many concerned about the safety of LGBTQ students, and it has also brought up the
question of who is responsible for the safety and well being of students. The King
family has filed a lawsuit against the school district because the district did not have
44
in place a specific dress code for students. Lawrence King wore feminine clothes and
jewelry on campus and this is said to have led to his death.
Studies suggest that there is a pattern in the boys who committed school
shootings (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). The shooters were not gay, but were perceived
as being different from the other boys and were often called “gay”, “queer”, “homo”,
“faggot”, and were continually picked on, teased, and bullied (Kimmel & Mahler,
2003). Dylan Klebold, one of the shooters at Columbine High School, said in the
videotape made the night before the shootings that he had been ridiculed for years
with homophobic slurs. The Columbine school newspaper had also published a
rumor that Klebold and Harris, another shooter, were lovers (Kimmel & Mahler,
2003). It has been suggested that “being constantly threatened and bullied as if you
are gay as well as the homophobic desire to make sure that others know that you are
a ‘real man’ – plays a pivotal and understudied role in these school shootings”
(Kimmel & Mahler, 2003, p. 1449).
Further studies need to be conducted on school shootings to confirm if there
is a direct relationship between school violence and homophobic bullying. Early
research suggests that the victims were bullied for several months prior to the school
shootings and no intervention occurred at the school level. If a bystander had
reported the bullying, perhaps these tragedies could have been avoided.
Acceptance of Biased-Language in School
Rivers (2001) contends that the majority of bullying at secondary schools
consists of name-calling that is homophobic in nature and Kosciw (2004)
45
documented that approximately 92% of LGBT students reported hearing
homophobic comments at school. However, many students who are victims of
homophobic epithets are not gay, but are perceived to be gay because they do not fit
the stereotypical gender role expectations (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). The reaction
by peers and teachers to homophobic pejoratives may influence a school climate that
is unsupportive to LGBT students (GLSEN, 2005) or students who don’t fit the
social norms of masculinity.
A 2005 study conducted at a central Illinois middle school found that the use
of homophobic language was highly associated with bullying towards middle school
students (Poteat &Espelage, 2005). The researchers assert that the use of
homophobic content is highly associated with aggression towards LGBTQ students.
The study also suggests that homophobic bullying is more prevalent with male
students and there is a high correlation between the use of homophobic content and
delinquent behaviors. However, the findings are limited because the study was
conducted in one middle school and students used self-report measures. The results
may differ in other middle schools depending upon the school culture and values.
The values of a school and all its stakeholders can impact how homophobic
bullying is addressed on school campus. An Irish study that explored the attitudes
and experiences of 125 students, parents, teachers, and principals about homophobic
bullying found that the acceptance of homophobic language on secondary school
campuses was pervasive (Norman & Galvin, 2006). The data suggests that many
teachers and parents accept this language as part of normal behavior and teachers
46
choose to let the behavior continue without reporting it. The failure to stop
homophobic language directly relates to stage two of bystander theory (Latane &
Darley, 1970). Nothing will change if the situation is not interpreted as a problem.
Heterosexual values are considered the social norm and to go against them would
lead to name-calling and exclusion. Silence is how people in the study chose to
confront the issue (Norma & Galvin, 2006). The study is limited because of the
strong influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland and its teachings against
homosexuality. However, many areas in the United States have similar religious
influences and beliefs, thus the result of this study may apply to American schools as
well.
Conclusion
There are many types of bullying present in secondary schools throughout the
nation with an array of bystanders that witness the victimization of students.
Research suggests that victim and bystander characteristics can impact bystander
intervention. Furthermore, research documents that teachers often do not intervene in
physical and verbal bullying because of the location of the bullying, the school
climate, and personal perspectives about bullying. However, there is a dearth of
research that specifically targets homophobic bullying in U.S. schools.
Despite the evidence that confirms the victimization of LGBTQ students in
secondary schools throughout the United States, there is little to no research that
specifically examines why teachers fail to report homophobic bullying. It is a fact
that many schools lack policy against the victimization of LGBTQ students and that
47
homophobic language is common in secondary schools, but do these factors directly
relate to the lack of reporting of homophobic bullying? Are the reasons for the lack
of teacher reporting the same for all forms of bullying including homophobic
bullying? From the studies reviewed, it is reasonable to conclude that there may be
several factors that contribute to the failure of teachers to report homophobic
bullying in secondary schools. The lack of reporting may include teacher
characteristics including one’s beliefs and morals about homosexuality, teacher
experiences and attitudes toward bullying including homophobic bullying, and
teacher perceptions about school climate. A study is needed to examine the degree to
which these variables contribute to the lack of reporting of homophobic bullying by
secondary teachers.
48
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Even though there have been countless studies on the presence of bullying in
secondary schools in the United States, there continues to be very little attention
given to the victimization of LGBT students on school campuses (Benbenishty &
Astor, 2005). Furthermore, in recent years increased bullying and violence have been
directed toward LGBT students with deadly consequences for some victims
(GLSEN, 2008). In addition, some schools have been found liable for failing to
intervene when the bullying was reported to school administration (Swearer, Turner,
Givens, & Pollack, 2008). To prevent continued homophobic bullying towards
LGBTQ students and students perceived to LGBTQ, greater attention must be given
to the reasons why teachers often fail to intervene when homophobic bullying
occurs. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine what factors impact the
reporting of homophobic bullying in secondary schools. The study examined the
degree to which teacher characteristics, types of bullying, experiences with bullying,
attitudes about homophobic bullying, and teacher perceptions about the school’s
climate influence the reporting behavior of teachers. This chapter presents the
research questions and a description of methodology, including the sampling
procedures and population, instrumentation, and procedures used for data collection
and analysis.
49
Research Questions
The research questions for this study focus on the barriers to reporting
bullying, but specifically how and if those barriers change when the issue is
homophobic bullying. Specifically, the research questions explore the relationship
between teacher characteristics and the reporting of bullying and if teacher
perceptions of school climate influence reporting behaviors. Two specific research
questions were developed to guide this study:
1. Are there differences in the willingness of teachers to report a bullying
incident based on the type of bullying, a teacher’s perception of the
victim, and teacher characteristics such as age, years of experience, and
religious affiliation?
2. What is the relationship between a teacher’s perception of a school’s
climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying of LGBTQ students or
students perceived to be LGBTQ in a secondary school setting?
Research Design
The three types of advanced research designs include qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods. The distinction between qualitative and
quantitative designs is often framed in terms of the language used. The use of words
is associated more with qualitative research while the use of numbers is more
quantitative in design. In addition, the use of closed-ended questions is quantitative
whereas open-ended questions are qualitative (Creswell, 2009). Mixed methods
research incorporates both types of research designs.
50
For the purposes of this study quantitative methods were best suited because
of the nature of the research questions. Quantitative research is a means to examine
the relationship among variables (Creswell, 2009). This study used a non-
experimental design to examine the degree to which independent variables such as
school climate, teacher attitudes and experiences relate to the dependent variable of
the reporting of homophobic bullying in secondary public schools in the Hawaii
Department of Education. Specifically, quantitative methods were used in the study
because it is possible to field surveys with a limited number of items to a large
sample of participants, thus allowing a comparison and statistical aggregation of the
data and provide broad and generalizable findings (Patton, 2002). In addition, the
research is descriptive because the data retrieved was organized to describe the
characteristics of the collection of data (Salkind, 2008). Descriptive research also
assesses the relationship between the independent and dependent variables using
various forms of non-experimental statistical analysis such as descriptive statistics
and ANOVA (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Thus quantitative analysis was the
appropriate format to use in this research project.
The dependent variables are scores on the willingness of teachers to report
homophobic bullying as presented in Instrumentation below. The independent
variables include the following barriers to reporting: types of bullying, teacher
perceptions of the victim, teacher characteristics, teacher experiences with different
types of bullying, teacher attitudes about homophobic bullying, and teacher
perceptions of school climate.
51
Population and Sample
The Hawaii Department of Education is unique because unlike other states
where there are multiple school districts, there is only one statewide school district in
Hawaii. However, each geographic area is divided into local district branches. For
the purposes of this research project the data for this study was drawn from three
public middle schools, one public high school, and one public alternative school
(grades 7-12) located on Oahu, Hawaii. It was the researcher’s objective to have
schools located in the Windward, Central, Honolulu, and Leeward District Branches
participate in this project. The researcher was unable to find a school in the Leeward
District to participate in the study, but schools from the remaining districts agreed to
participate in the study. The Windward district is rural, services a large native
Hawaiian student population and many of the students are eligible for free and
reduced lunch. The Central and Honolulu districts are urban and service a larger
middle class student population.
It was the intention to field the surveys to both middle schools and high
schools in the different districts on Oahu in order to have a diverse group of
participants who service a wide range of students. The average number of faculty at a
middle school in Hawaii is approximately 30-40 and the average size of a high
school faculty is 70-85. The objective was to field the survey to at least 400 teachers
to ensure that at least 100 surveys would be accurately completed and could be used
for the research project. To protect the privacy of the participating schools and each
individual participant, all schools have been given a pseudonym that was used
52
throughout the research project. It is also a DOE requirement that all middle schools
be grouped together and all high schools and multiple grade alternative schools be
grouped together for the data analysis to protect the privacy of the participants.
Kai Intermediate School and Lava School in the Windward District and
Plumeria Middle School in the Central District were convenience samples because
the researcher and two colleagues work at the schools, thus these were the first three
schools to participate in the study. Convenience sampling is not the best means of
gathering data (Patton, 2002), but for the purposes of this study it was needed so that
a large enough sample would be available to analyze. The researcher then randomly
selected schools within the three district branches by numbering schools one through
three and contacted every third school. The researcher called each school and left a
message for the principal and the researcher sent an email as well. The researcher
received no return phone calls though two schools did write an email and stated they
did not want to participate in the study. The researcher then decided to send emails to
other schools. There was no method of selection. If the researcher knew the location
of the school, then an email was sent to the appropriate administrator. Three schools
declined to participate in the study, but another three schools agreed to take part in
the study. With each administrator the researcher discussed the research project, the
method for data collection, and answered any questions pertaining to the study.
The researcher was unable to distribute surveys in a uniformed way at every
school. Each principal requested a different way to distribute surveys because of
multiple school schedules and other school commitments. At three schools the
53
researcher was able to distribute surveys at the end of a faculty meeting while the
remaining schools requested that the researcher leave the survey in teacher
mailboxes and have teachers submit completed surveys in a box located in the school
office. At each participating school the researcher distributed the survey to all
certified teachers (grade levels 7-12). Every teacher at each school was afforded the
opportunity to participate in the survey. The participants were tenured and
probationary teachers who teach at the designated schools.
Instrumentation
Survey instruments are often used in quantitative research (Best & Kahn,
2003). The survey that was used in the study was partially developed by doctoral
students at the University of Southern California EdD program (Hawaii and Los
Angeles cohorts). To ensure the credibility and reliability of the content and structure
of the survey, it was decided to adapt as many tools as possible to incorporate into
the survey. Selected items were used from the following surveys: The Ontario
Ministry of Education School Safety Survey About Bullying, the First National
Climate Survey on Homophobia in Canadian Schools, and the GLSEN School
Climate Survey. Items from the surveys were used to create the instrument to study
the barriers of reporting homophobic bullying in secondary schools. The researcher
looked at previously used surveys such as the Culture of Bullying Scale (Unnever &
Cornell, 2003), and the Effective School Battery Student Survey (ESBSS) (G.D.
Gottfredon, 1984.1999), but found that they did not specifically address the research
questions in this study thus the scales were not used. However, since the researcher
54
created some of the research questions and these proposed questions have not been
previously used, a pilot test was given to educational assistants at Kai Intermediate
School. The researcher discussed the questions with each participant to determine if
the questions were understandable and made sense to the participants.
The instrument for this study consisted of 61 items some of which were on a
5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). It contained questions
about teacher demographics, attitudes about bullying, experiences with different
types of bullying, and perceptions about school climate (Appendix A). Section 1 of
the survey consisted of questions about demographic characteristics, including the
participant’s age, ethnicity, religion, years at the institution, years of teaching, and
grade levels taught. These questions were used to determine specific teacher
characteristics. Section 2 focused on experiences with bullying with items such as
“Homophobic bullying is a serious problem at our school” and “I am most likely to
report the following types of bullying to school administration”. Section 3 focused
upon the participants’ attitudes about bullying with items such as “The following
types of bullying are harmful to students”. Section 4 focused on the school climate
with items such as “ Does you school have a policy for reporting incidents of
bullying?” and “This school is a safe place for all students”.
Data Collection
The researcher proposed the use of one instrument to collect data for this
study related to the research questions: teacher surveys. The surveys were distributed
to the designated schools from October 2010 through November 2010 with approval
55
by each school administration. In order to obtain approval to field the surveys, the
researcher first met IRB requirements from both the University of Southern
California and the Hawaii Department of Education in October 2010. Once the IRB
process had been finalized, the researcher called each designated school to speak to
the administrator about fielding the survey at the school. Many administrators did not
return phone calls, thus the researcher emailed the administrators. For the
administrators who contacted the researcher about the study, the researcher discussed
the purpose of the study and rationale for fielding the study to the administrators
wherefore each school decided whether or not to participate in the study. Once
permission was granted, the researcher discussed how the surveys would be
distributed at each school.
The researcher distributed surveys during faculty meetings at Kai
Intermediate School and Wave High School during the months of October and
November of 2010. During the presentation the researcher discussed the objectives
of the study and the important implications they have for the school. After the
presentation, the surveys were immediately distributed and participants had
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the survey. The researcher provided an 8
1/2 x 11 envelope so that each survey, whether completed or not, could be placed
inside the envelope to protect the privacy of the participants. A box labeled “survey”
was placed in the back of the designated room so that participants could drop off the
survey before leaving. Participation was voluntary and no incentive to complete the
survey was offered. The surveys at Plumeria Middle School, Lava School, and
56
Waterfall Intermediate and High School were placed in teacher mailboxes during the
middle of October and collected the second week of November. The researcher
offered to return to each participating school to share the results of the survey and the
implications for the school.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis phase of the research project, the researcher used SPSS
17.0 software to run statistical analyses to answer the research questions. There were
several steps followed in order to complete the analysis. It was first necessary to
conduct an exploratory data analysis and compute a series of descriptive statistics,
which included frequencies and means. The next step was to run ANOVA to assess
whether the reporting of different types of bullying relates to the independent
variables. Pearson Correlations were also performed to determine if a correlation was
present between teacher perceptions of school climate and the reporting of
homophobic bullying.
Descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions, group means,
percentages, and standard deviations for each comparison group were computed. To
begin the analysis the research ran the frequencies for the whole sample.
The analysis was then divided into five parts. The five parts of the analysis
include: Part 1) means and standard deviations for the outcomes of different types of
bullying for the whole sample; Part 2) a simple one-way ANOVA test to determine if
there were any mean differences between teacher characteristics and the perceptions
of different types of bullying being a problem on campus; Part 3) a simple one-way
57
ANOVA test to determine if there were any mean differences between teacher
perceptions of the victim, perpetrator, self and the likelihood to intervene when
bullying occurs; Part 4) Pearson Correlation was performed to determine if there was
a significant correlation between teacher perceptions of school climate and the
reporting of homophobic bullying; and Part 5) Chi-Square was performed to
determine if there was a relationship between teacher knowledge of bullying
strategies, programs, and policies on campus and teacher beliefs about bullying.
Table 1. Summary of Analysis
Dependent Variables Independent Variables Tests Items
Perceptions of
Different Types of
Bullying
Overall participants Frequency
Distribution
Teacher Characteristics ANOVA Section 2: 1-9;
Section 3: 1A-1G
Perceptions of Victim,
Perpetrator, Self
Teacher Characteristics ANOVA Section 2: 1-9;
Section 3: 6,7
The Reporting of
Homophobic Bullying
Teacher Perceptions
about School Climate
Pearsons
Correlations
Section 3: 8
Section 5: 1A-1H
Teacher Knowledge of
bullying strategies,
programs, and policies
Chi-Square Section 5: 2-4
58
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the findings of the study in response to two research
questions. The study seeks to determine the degree to which certain variables impact
the reporting of homophobic bullying by secondary teachers in the Hawaii
Department of Education on Oahu. This study examines if the type of bullying, a
teacher’s characteristics, and perceptions of a victim’s characteristics affect the
willingness to report bullying by teachers. Finally, the study aims to determine if
teacher perceptions of school climate impact the reporting of homophobic bullying
by teachers in secondary schools.
Data were analyzed using the SPSS v 17.0 statistical program. Descriptive
and inferential statistics were used to report the findings. The first section of the
chapter describes the criteria and process used for the selection of viable data sets.
The second section of the chapter presents the findings of the research questions.
Description of the Sample
The participants of this study were certificated secondary teachers employed
in the Central, Honolulu, and Windward geographical districts on Oahu, Hawaii. The
survey was administered at participating schools from October through mid-
November in 2009. Surveys were presented and distributed after faculty meetings at
Kai Intermediate School and Wave High School. Surveys were placed in teacher
mailboxes at Plumeria Middle School, Lava School, and Waterfall Intermediate and
High School. A total of 312 surveys were distributed. At the completion of the 5-
59
week period, 151 working surveys (N=151) were collected from the participants. The
overall total response rate was 48%. The researcher omitted four surveys because the
participants were not certificated teachers.
To answer the two posed research questions, the researcher ran
crosstabulations and frequencies for the whole sample. The frequency distribution
analysis provided the researcher the opportunity to provide a concise representation
of the data and an accurate breakdown of the sample population. According to
Thorne and Giesen (2003) frequency distribution is a straightforward way to
summarize large amounts of numerical information in a methodical way and it
allows for additional computation of other statistics. Tables 2-5 explicitly display the
data for the sample population. Table 2 illustrates the distribution of survey
respondents based upon gender. Table 3 shows the years of experience of the
respondents. Table 4 provides information about years of teaching at current school
and Table 5 shows the religious affiliation of the participants.
Table 2. Respondents by Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 66 44%
Female 85 56%
Total 151 100%
60
As described in Table 2, there was a higher percentage of female than male
teachers who participated in the study though the difference was only 12%. The U.S.
Census Bureau estimates that roughly 79% of elementary and intermediate teachers
are female and that 59% of high school teachers are female, thus the percentages are
reflective of the national statistics.
Table 3. Respondents by Years of Experience
Years of Experience Frequency Percentage
Less than 1 year 4 2.6%
1-2 years 1 .7%
3-5 years 26 17.2%
6-10 years 37 24.5%
Over 10 years 83 55.0%
Total 151 100%
Table 3 shows that the majority of teachers (55%) who participated in the
survey had over ten years of teaching experience. If combined with teachers who
have 6-10 years experience (24.5%), then nearly 80% of the teachers have more than
six years experience.
61
Table 4. Years of Teaching at Current School
Years at Current School Frequency Percentage
Less than 1 year 7 4.7%
1-2 years 11 7.3%
3-5 years 37 24.5%
6-10 years 38 25.2%
Over 10 years 58 38.4%
Total 151 100%
Similarly, the largest group of teachers from the study has been at their
current schools for over 10 years (38.4%). The second largest group was teachers
who have been at their schools for 6-10 years (25.2%). Thus when combined nearly
60% of the teachers have been teaching at their current school for over six years.
Table 5. Respondents by Religious Affiliation
Religion Frequency Percentage
No Response 4 2.8%
Buddhist 11 7.7%
Catholic 21 14.7%
Christian 35 24.5%
Episcopalian 3 2.1%
LDS 12 8.4%
Presbyterian 1 .7%
Protestant 10 7.0%
No Affiliation 38 26.6%
Other 8 5.6%
Total 151 100%
62
There were many different religious groups though the largest group was the
participants who have no affiliation (26.6%). The second largest religious group was
Christian (24.5%).
The researcher divided the respondents into three separate population groups.
Table 6 shows the distribution of survey respondents based on grade levels taught.
The groups include high school teachers, intermediate teachers, and a combination of
intermediate and high school teachers who teach at both levels.
Table 6. Respondents by Grade Levels Taught
Grade Levels Taught Frequency Percentage
Intermediate 72 47.7%
High School 63 41.7%
Intermediate/High School 16 10.6%
Total 151 100%
There was a relatively even distribution of participants from the intermediate
and high school levels. Forty seven percent of the participants work at the
intermediate level and 41.7% of the participants teach at the high school level. The
smallest group that totaled 10.6% was the teachers who work at schools that service
students from grades 7-12.
Findings Related to Research Question One
Research question one asks if there are differences in the willingness of
teachers to report a bullying incident based on the type of bullying, teacher
63
characteristics such as grade levels taught, age, years of experience, religious
affiliation and teacher perceptions about the victim. To begin the analysis, means
and standard deviations were performed on survey item 10 to determine the levels of
which different types of bullying are viewed to be problematic on school campus.
The survey item was on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5). Table 7 illustrates the outcomes for the survey item.
Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for the Outcomes of Different Types of
Bullying
Type of Bullying Mean Std. Deviation N
Verbal 3.68 .978 150
Psychological 3.32 .973 149
Physical 3.08 .893 139
Degree of Bullying 3.08 .969 146
Racial 3.02 .937 150
Homophobic 3.01 .930 150
Sexual 2.83 .833 149
There was no significant difference among the various types of bullying
though the respondents rated sexual bullying lower (M=2.83, SD=.833) than the
others. Overall, the respondents felt neutral about bullying on school campus
(M=3.08, SD=.969). The results suggest that teachers may or may not be aware of
bullying on campus.
64
The data was first disaggregated and analyzed by teacher’s grade level.
ANOVA analysis was performed to find if there was any significant difference
between grade levels taught and how teachers rate if certain types of bullying are a
problem on campus. The survey item was on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) and asked the respondents to indicate how much
they agree or disagree with the following statements about different types of bullying
being a problem on campus. See Table 8. The results reveal that there are significant
differences between grade levels taught and how teachers perceive if different types
of bullying are a problem on campus. The one exception was sexual bullying F(2,
126)=1.43, p=.246 where there was no significant difference thus the null hypothesis
cannot be rejected. Sexual bullying was not considered to be a problem. Overall,
intermediate teachers rated bullying as a bigger problem at school in comparison to
the other grade levels though all types of bullying were rated neutral except for
verbal and sexual bullying. Verbal bullying F(2, 147)=12.04, p=.000 was rated as a
concern on campus and had the greatest difference among grade levels. However,
homophobic bullying F(2, 147)=5.73, p=.004 though more of a concern for
intermediate teachers was still rated as neutral.
65
Table 8. Grade Level Effects
Type of
Bullying
Intermediate
(N=67)
High
School
(N=57)
Inter/High
School
(N=15)
F
Obs.
p.
Physical 3.28 2.82 3.13 4.29 .016*
Verbal 4.06 3.29 3.56 12.04 .000**
Psychological 3.57 3.05 3.25 5.11 .007**
Sexual 2.93 2.70 2.94 1.42 .246
Homophobic 3.27 2.79 2.69 5.73 .004**
Racial 3.20 2.79 3.13 3.30 .039*
Note. *p<.05; **p<.001
To determine if there was any significant difference between age and
recognizing the problem of different types of bullying, the researcher used ANOVA
to run the analysis. A total of 26 respondents did not answer survey item 7 (How old
are you today?). The results show that there are significant differences between age
groups and perceptions about different types of bullying problems on campus. See
Table 9. There were significant differences among the age groups (20-29), (30-39),
(40-49, (50-59), and (60-69) with the various types of bullying thus the null
hypotheses can be rejected. The results reveal that for physical bullying the
differences between groups were F(5, 133) = 2.588, p=.029; verbal bullying F(5,
144)=2.346, p=.044; psychological bullying F(5, 143)=3.36, p=.007; sexual bullying
F(5, 143)=1.336, p=.252; homophobic bullying F(5, 144)=2.306, p=.047; and racial
bullying F(5,144)=.778, p=.567. All had statistically significant differences except in
regards to sexual and racial bullying where there was no significant difference. The
66
analysis also indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the
60-69 age range and the other groups about the different kinds of bullying. From the
analysis it seems clear that the (60-69) age range does not view bullying as being a
problem at school whereas the other age ranges scored the degree of bullying higher.
Table 9. Age Effects
Type of Bullying
20-29
(N=15)
30-39
(N=26)
40-49
(N=32)
50-59
(N=31)
60-69
(N=10)
F Obs. p.
Physical 3.53 2.96 3.16 3.10 2.30 2.59 .029*
Verbal 3.78 3.63 3.85 3.88 2.80 2.35 .044*
Psychological 3.44 3.23 3.55 3.53 2.30 3.36 .007**
Sexual 2.72 3.00 2.88 2.94 2.30 1.33 .252
Homophobic 2.78 3.07 3.24 3.18 2.30 2.30 .047*
Racial 3.06 3.03 3.15 3.06 2.50 .778 .567
Note. *p<.05; **p<.001
ANOVA analysis was used to determine if there was a significant difference
between years of experience and being aware of different types of bullying on school
campus. The results indicate that there is no significant difference between years of
experience and recognizing that some forms of bullying are a problem on school
campus except for physical and racial bullying. See Table 10. The results show that
the only significant difference among the groups was physical bullying
F(3,135)=2.83, p=.041 thus the null hypotheses can be rejected. The teachers who
67
have more years of teaching experience view physical bullying as less of a problem
than the teachers who have fewer years of teaching experience.
Table 10. Years of Experience Effects
Type of Bullying
0-1
(N=4)
1-2
(N=1)
3-5
(N=26)
6-10
(N=36)
Over 10
(N=83)
F Obs. p.
Physical 4.00 3.00 3.33 3.15 2.94 2.83 .041*
Verbal 4.25 3.00 3.65 3.75 3.64 .541 .706
Psychological 4.00 4.00 3.31 3.39 3.24 .776 .542
Sexual 3.50 3.00 2.88 3.03 2.70 1.764 .139
Homophobic 3.25 3.00 2.96 3.14 2.95 .332 .856
Racial 2.50 3.00 3.08 3.39 2.87 2.36 .056
Note. *p<.05
ANOVA analysis was used for questions 15 and 16 to find if there was a
significant difference between age and perceptions about victim, perpetrator, and
self. The survey items were rated on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). Table 11 displays the ANOVA results.
Table 11. Intervention Effects (age)
Likely to Intervene
20-29
(N=18)
30-39
(N=30)
40-49
(N=33)
50-59
(N=33)
60-69
(N=10)
F Obs. p.
Know victim 4.61 4.43 3.73 3.82 4.00 2.32 .047*
Know perpetrator 4.56 4.43 3.76 3.97 4.00 1.85 .106
Like victim 4.06 4.07 3.25 3.25 3.11 2.35 .044*
Like perpetrator 4.06 4.03 3.25 3.00 3.11 2.92 .016*
Note. *p<.05
68
There was a statistically significant difference for items 15a, 15c, and 15d
thus the null hypothesis has to be rejected. The test results for all the other items
suggest that the null hypothesis has to be accepted as there is no significant
difference between the groups. The statistical significance for the survey items are as
follows: 15a (I intervene if I know the victim) F (5, 144)=2.32, p=.047; item 15c (I
intervene if I like the victim) F (5, 139)=2.35, p=.044; and item 15d (I intervene if I
like the perpetrator) F (5, 139)=2.92, p=.016. The 40-49 and 50-59 age ranges are
less likely to intervene if they know the victim in comparison to the other age
groups. The 20-29 and 30-39 ranges are more likely to intervene if they know the
victim. The 50-59 group is least likely to intervene if they like the perpetrator.
ANOVA analysis was also used to determine the relationship between grade
levels taught and perception about victim, perpetrator, and self for survey items 15
and 16. See Table 12.
Table 12. Intervention Effects (grade levels taught)
Likely to
Intervene
Intermediate
(N=71)
High
School
(N=63)
Inter/High
School
(N=16)
F
Obs.
p.
Know victim 4.17 4.11 3.38 3.16 .045*
Know perpetrator 4.23 4.13 3.38 3.78 .025*
Like victim 3.66 3.58 2.69 3.39 .037*
Like perpetrator 3.60 3.50 2.69 2.92 .057
Note. *p<.05
69
The results reveal that there is a statistically significant difference between
grade levels taught and the intervention of bullying in regards to perceptions about
the victim and perpetrator. The significance for the survey items are as follows: 15a
(I intervene if I know the victim) F (2, 147)=3.16, p=.045; item 15b (I intervene if I
know the perpetrator) F(2, 146)=3.78, p=.025; item 15c (I intervene if I like the
victim) F (2, 142)=3.39, p=.037; and item 15d (I intervene if I like the perpetrator) F
(2, 142)=2.92, p=.057. The data reveals that intermediate teachers are more likely to
intervene than the other grade levels if they know and like either the victim or
perpetrator. The teachers who teach both at the intermediate and high school levels at
a 7-12 school setting are least likely to intervene whether or not they know the victim
and the perpetrator.
To gain a clear understanding of the mean and standard deviation for the
items, the researcher also performed a descriptive analysis. The use of this analysis
helped the researcher interpret how the perception of the victim, the perpetrator, and
self relates to bullying. Table 13 shows the mean and standard deviation for when the
respondent will most likely intervene in a bullying situation. The data reveals that
the respondents were overall more likely to intervene if they knew the victim
(M=4.06, 1.177) or the perpetrator (M=4.09, SD=1.147). The respondents were
neutral about intervention if they liked the victim (M=3.52, SD=1.385) or perpetrator
(M=3.46, SD=1.384).
70
Table 13. Means and Standard Deviation for Intervention
Likely to Intervene Mean Std. Deviation N
Know the victim 4.06 1.177 150
Know the perpetrator 4.09 1.147 149
Like the victim 3.52 1.385 145
Like the perpetrator 3.46 1.384 145
Table 14 illustrates the likelihood of non-intervention. The data reveals that
the respondents highly disagreed to not intervene if they disagree with the victim’s
lifestyle (M=1.56, SD=.764) thus a teacher is willing to intervene no matter the
lifestyle of the victim. The items also reveal that teachers disagree to not intervene if
they do not know how to handle the situation (M=2.24, SD=1.205). The data
suggests that the respondents believe that they have the necessary skills to intervene
when bullying occurs.
Table 14. Means and Standard Deviation for Non-Intervention
Likely to Not Intervene Mean Std. Deviation N
Person deserves it 1.66 .821 144
Disagree with person’s lifestyle 1.56 .764 144
It’s none of my business 1.74 .923 141
Do not know how to handle
Situation
2.24 1.205 146
Someone else can handle it better 2.24 1.190 144
71
ANOVA analysis was used to find if there were any statistically significant
differences between grade levels taught and the reporting of bullying. The findings
show that there was no significant differences thus the null hypotheses must be
accepted. Table 15 illustrates the mean scores of how participants rated the reporting
of different types of bullying. Though not statistically significant, high school
teachers were least likely to report the three different types of bullying to
administration.
Table 15. Grade Levels Taught and the Reporting of Bullying
Type of Bullying
Reported
Intermediate
(N=71)
High School
(N=62)
Inter/High School
(N=16)
Sexual 4.32 4.02 4.31
Homophobic 4.13 3.93 4.13
Racial 4.16 3.95 4.19
To determine whether age of a teacher and years of experience relate to
reporting different types of bullying an ANOVA test was performed on survey item
17 which asked each participant to rate on a 5 point Likert-scale what types of
bullying they are most likely to report to administration. The results showed that
there was no significant difference between age ranges and the reporting of sexual,
homophobic, or racial bullying. See Table 16. The 20-29 age range is the least likely
to report homophobic bullying whereas the 40-49 age group were the most likely to
report this type of bullying. To further understand the results of the analysis, the
72
researcher grouped the ages into two larger groups (20-39) and (50-69) to determine
if this grouping would yield different results. The results showed no significant
difference. A possible explanation of these results could stem from students curbing
their behavior in front of teachers who are considered older and more experienced.
Perhaps the students are more apt to bully in front of younger teachers who may be
viewed as non-threatening and inexperienced.
Table 16. Age and the Reporting of Bullying
Type of Bullying Reported
20-29
(N=18)
30-39
(N=30)
40-49
(N=33)
50-59
(N=33)
60-69
(N=10)
Sexual 4.06 4.20 4.36 4.21 4.10
Homophobic 3.78 4.07 4.28 4.03 3.90
Racial 3.94 4.07 4.28 3.94 4.10
Table 17 illustrates years of experience and the reporting of different types of
bullying. Teachers with over 10 years experience were least likely to report
homophobic bullying and racial bullying though it is not statistically significant.
Table 17. Years of Experience and the Reporting of Bullying
Type of Bullying
Reported
Less than 1
year
(N=4)
1-2
years
(N=1)
3-5
years
(N=26)
6-10
years
(N=36)
Over 10
years
(N=82)
Sexual 4.00 5.00 4.19 4.44 4.09
Homophobic 4.00 5.00 3.96 4.31 3.95
Racial 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.36 3.96
73
The researcher also conducted an analysis using ANOVA to determine if
there was any significant difference between the reporting of bullying and religious
affiliation. Again, no significant difference occurred thus the null hypothesis cannot
be rejected.
Findings Related to Research Question Two
Research question two asks what is the relationship between a teacher’s
perception of a school’s climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying of
LGBTQ students or students perceived to be LGBTQ in a secondary school setting.
In order to answer this research question, the researcher used Pearson correlations
between perceptions of school climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying.
The Pearson correlations are shown in Table 18. The table also includes the reporting
of sexual and racial bullying so that a comparison of the reporting of three types of
bullying can be shown. The results indicate that there is a positive correlation
between school climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying, but not at a
significant level of .05.
The researcher also used Pearson correlations between perceptions of school
climate and how teachers view the harmful effects of different types of bullying. The
analysis may give a clearer understanding of why there was no significant correlation
between school climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying. In order to
complete the analysis, the researcher correlated school climate with individual
survey items. An analysis was conducted for survey item 18 that asked the
respondents to rate how harmful different types of bullying are to students. The
74
survey items were rated on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Pearson correlations are shown in Table 19. The correlations are
significant at the .05 level. The correlations are positive and are in the direction
expected thus the data reveals that how the participants responded to the climate
items mirrors how they view the harmful effects of bullying. The only two types of
bullying that showed a significant correlation were physical bullying p<.035 and
racial bullying p<.044. There was no significant correlation between perceptions of
school climate and homophobic bullying thus it affirms why there may be no
significant correlation between school climate and the reporting of homophobic
bullying.
Table 18. School Climate and the Reporting of Bullying
The Reporting of Bullying Statistics Climate
Sexual Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.013
.878
147
Homophobic Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.086
.301
146
Racial Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
-.014
.872
145
75
Table 19. School Climate and Harmful Effects of Bullying
Harmful Types of Bullying Statistics Climate
Physical Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.173
.035
149
Verbal Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.153
.063
149
Psychological Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.160
.051
149
Sexual Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.149
.069
149
Homophobic Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.138
.094
149
Racial Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.165
.044
149
Frequencies were run to determine teacher perceptions about strategies used
on campus to address homophobic bullying. See Table 20. The frequencies reveal
that 43% of the respondents were unaware of any strategies used on campus to
address homophobic bullying. The data suggests that there is a discrepancy between
teacher perceptions about what kinds of strategies are used to deal with homophobic
76
bullying. Teachers are no less likely to report it when it occurs, but they do not know
if any school policy exists to protect LGBTQ students.
Table 20. Homophobic Bullying Strategies
Strategies Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Teacher training 33 21.9% 100% 100%
School policy enforced 30 19.9% 100% 100%
Bullying program
enforced
22 14.6% 100% 100%
Bullying program not
enforced
11 7.3% 100% 100%
Anti-bullying policy not
enforced
21 13.9% 100% 100%
Aware of no strategies 65 43.0% 100% 100%
Other 7 4.6% 100% 100%
The frequency results for strategies to address sexual bullying reveal that
35.8% of the participants attended a teacher training session to address this type of
bullying, which is a larger percentage than teachers who attended teacher trainings
for homophobic bullying. See Table 21.
77
Table 21. Sexual Bullying Strategies
Strategies Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Teacher training 54 35.8% 100% 100%
School policy enforced 38 25.2% 100% 100%
Bullying program
enforced
38 25.2% 100% 100%
Bullying program
not enforced
18 11.9% 100% 100%
Anti-bullying policy not
enforced
33 21.9% 100% 100%
Aware of no strategies 39 25.8% 100% 100%
Other 10 6.6% 100% 100%
The frequency data for racial bullying shows that 39.1% of teachers are
unaware if any school policy is in place to address racial bullying. Though the
percentage is lower than teachers who are unaware of strategies to address
homophobic bullying, the results are still considerably larger than sexual bullying.
Table 22 illustrates the frequencies for strategies implemented to address racial
bullying.
78
Table 22. Racial Bullying Strategies
Strategies Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Teacher training 34 22.5% 100% 100%
School policy enforced 28 18.5% 100% 100%
Bullying program
enforced
27 17.9% 100% 100%
Bullying program not
enforced
15 9.9% 100% 100%
Anti-bullying policy not
enforced
24 15.9% 100% 100%
Aware of no strategies 59 39.1% 100% 100%
Other 4.0% 100% 100%
A Chi-square statistic was calculated for the strategies implemented on
school campus to address homophobic bullying. The test showed that the observed
differences in teacher awareness of strategies used on campus to combat homophobic
bullying was significantly different, x2(2, N=141)=13.064, p=.001. However, there
were no significant differences for sexual and racial bullying. Table 23 illustrates the
results of the analysis. A total of 65 teachers were unaware of any strategies,
policies, or programs to address homophobic bullying and 30 teachers knew of
strategies being implemented, but felt that the strategies were inconsistent. The
results suggest that since teachers are unaware of any strategies, policies, or
programs at school to address homophobic bullying, then they may be apt to be
indifferent towards this type of bullying on campus. If teachers are unaware of
policies and programs, then they may be neutral about homophobic bullying because
79
the school does not actively inform the faculty about strategies, policies, and
programs used to address this form of bullying.
Table 23. Awareness of Strategies, Policies, and Programs Used to Address
Bullying
Sexual Bullying
strategies, policies,
procedures
Homophobic Bullying
strategies, policies,
procedures
Racial Bullying
strategies, policies,
procedures
Chi-Square 4.417
a
13.064
b
4.746
c
df 2 2 2
Asymp.
Sig.
.110 .001 .093
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5.
The minimum expected cell frequency is 46.3.
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5.
The minimum expected cell frequency is 47.0.
c. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5.
The minimum expected cell frequency is 47.3.
Summary
Through descriptive statistics and various statistical analyses used to measure
the sample items, the researcher aimed to address the research questions. At the
beginning of the study, the researcher determined that even though there were no
significant differences between the reporting of bullying and specific variables, it
was found that statistical differences were evident in regards to perceptions about
different types of bullying and teacher characteristics such as grade level taught, age,
years of experience, and perceptions about the victim and perpetrator. Thus the
researcher found it essential to incorporate the findings into chapter 4.
80
Overall, there were no statistical findings regarding the reporting of different
types of bullying including homophobic bullying. Teachers say that they observe few
incidents of bullying on campus, but when they do they are willing to report it to
administration. However, they are also unaware of strategies used to address the
different types of bullying on campus. A deficient of strategies may stem from a lack
of training within the school system though younger teachers may be more aware of
strategies because many teacher education programs at the university level now
require classes that discuss social issues and diversity.
Despite the lack of findings in relation to the reporting of homophobic
bullying, there were other significant findings. The first statistical significance found
was between perceptions of bullying and grade level taught. Intermediate teachers
rated bullying as a larger problem at school in comparison to the other grade levels.
The second important finding suggests that older teachers view bullying as being less
of a problem on campus compared to younger teachers. There was no significant
difference between years of experience and perceptions of bullying except for
physical bullying, which novice teachers found to be more problematic. Another
important finding was that there were significant differences between teachers’
perceptions of victim and the perpetrator and the likelihood to intervene when
bullying occurs. Intermediate teachers are more likely to intervene if they know or
like either the victim or the perpetrator. Furthermore, the 40-49 and 50-59 age ranges
are less likely to intervene if they know the victim while the 20-29 and 30-39 age
ranges are more likely to intervene if they know the victim. The 50-59 group are
81
least likely to intervene if they like the perpetrator. Lastly, it was found that there is a
significant difference between the awareness of strategies in relation to homophobic
bullying. A large percentage of the teachers were unaware of any strategies used to
address homophobic bullying.
In the next chapter, there is a discussion about the findings of the study in the
context of the literature in regards to teachers and the reporting of bullying. Finally,
recommendations are made for future research.
82
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
There are copious amounts of research about bullying in secondary schools,
but research is limited on bullying against LGBTQ students (Poteat & Espelage,
2005) even though LGBTQ students experience greater incidents of bullying
compared to their heterosexual peers (Hansen, 2007). Despite the prevalence of
bullying in secondary schools, bystanders continue to witness and often fail to report
and stop homophobic bullying (GLSEN, 2007). Thus the purpose of this study was
to determine the degree to which certain variables impact the reporting of
homophobic bullying by teachers. The findings of this study provide information that
may help educational professionals become more observant and aware of the
different types of bullying specifically homophobic bullying on school campuses.
Summary of Findings
Perceptions of Different Types of Bullying
The results from research question one affirm from existing literature that
teachers undervalue the presence of different types of bullying on secondary school
campuses. Respondents felt neutral about bullying being a problem (M=3.08,
SD=.969) thus suggesting that teachers may or may not recognize bullying on
campus. The results directly relate to stage one of Latane and Darley’s Bystander
Theory (notice the event). Teachers may find that they are situated in stage one and
are unaware of the incidents of bullying. Consequently, then the teachers fail to
address bullying when it occurs. The findings reflect that teachers often
83
underestimate the severity and frequency of bullying (Reid, Monsen, & Rivers,
2004). Additionally, the impartial views of the teachers can impact reporting rates.
Grade Levels Taught and the Different Types of Bullying
A 2003 study conducted in both U.S. urban and rural districts of over 400
students found that 24% of students in grades 7 and 8 experienced bullying though
the incidents decreases with age (Seals & Young, 2003). Thus it is reasonable to
suggest that teachers at the intermediate level witness more bullying than at the
upper grade levels. The findings of the current study reveal that there are significant
differences between grade levels taught and how teachers perceive different types of
bullying. Intermediate teachers rated bullying as a bigger problem than the other
grade level teachers though they still rated most types of bullying as neutral. The
findings reflect previous studies that have determined that intermediate students
experience higher rates of bullying (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007).
Another study found that bullying peaks around the ages of 9-13, but victimization
declines as the students grow older (Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999). These studies
affirm that intermediate teachers may view bullying as being more problematic on
campus and are willing to intervene when it occurs because it is witnessed far more
often than at the upper grade levels.
The only type of bullying that was perceived to be a problem at any of the
grade levels was verbal bullying in which intermediate teachers rated this type of
bullying to be a problem (M=4.06). In addition, it should be noted that intermediate
teachers rated homophobic bullying higher (M=3.27) than the other groups. High
84
school teachers rated homophobic bullying as not a problem (2.79) as did
intermediate/high school teachers (2.69). The one kind of bullying that was viewed
to not be a problem at all grade levels was sexual bullying. The question then arises
of why sexual bullying is viewed to not be a problem in comparison to the other
types of bullying.
Teacher Age, Experience and Different Types of Bullying
The data revealed that older teachers in the (60-69) age range viewed
bullying as not a problem at school in comparison to the other age groups. However,
it is important to note that the other age groups rated all different types of bullying as
neutral. The data results were a surprise since prior research suggested that it is the
younger, novice teachers who may not get involved with social issues such as
bullying because of the demands that they face with learning teaching strategies and
dealing with classroom management (Robinson & Ferfoja, 2001). However, it
remains unclear why older teachers fail to acknowledge bullying as a problem. The
reason may stem from a generational gap. Younger teachers may have more diverse
friendships and know people from various backgrounds thus have a greater
awareness of issues that affect individuals. Moreover, younger teachers may have
also attended a wide array of education classes that were unavailable in previous
years. Also, students may not bully other students in front of older, more
experienced teachers while they may feel that bullying in front of a younger teacher
may be met with fewer or no consequences.
85
In terms of years of experience, the only significance between years of
experience and teacher perceptions of bullying being a problem at school was in
relation to physical bullying. Teachers with more years of experience (10 or more
years) rated physical bullying as not a problem on campus. It is interesting that years
of experience do not more closely mirror the results for the age groups.
The Intervention of Bullying and the Perceptions of Victim, Perpetrator, and
Self
In a 2005 study it was found that when teachers have little empathy for a
bullied student, the teachers will do little to confront the bullying (Mishna et. al.,
2005). However, to the contrary, the results from this study suggest that teachers say
they will intervene no matter their relationship or attitude towards the victim or
perpetrator though there are differences found within the different age groups and
teaching levels. The differences in age groups reveals that the (40-49) and (50-59)
groups are less likely to intervene if they know the victim and the perpetrator
whereas the younger age groups and the (60-69) age group are more willing to
intervene. It is interesting to note that the (60-69) age group did not find bullying to
be a problem on campus, but they are willing to intervene if they know the parties
involved. The findings also reveal that the younger teachers (20-29) and (30-39) age
groups are more likely to intervene when bullying occurs if they like the victim and
the perpetrator. The other age groups felt neutral.
In terms of grade levels taught the data illustrates that intermediate teachers
and high school teachers are more likely to intervene when bullying occurs if they
86
know the victim and the perpetrator compared to teachers who teach in the 7-12
school setting. Teachers who work in a 7-12 grade setting are the least likely to
intervene. One possible reason for this may be that the teachers have more grade
levels to service, thus they have more teaching lines to prepare for on a daily basis.
The increased workload may deter teachers from getting involved with issues not
related to teaching content. On the other hand, it is still apparent that teachers at
grades 7 and 8 are the most likely to intervene if they know and like the parties
involved. This may occur because bullying is more prevalent at the middle school
level compared to the upper grades. Thus there is a greater opportunity to witness its
occurrence. However, this may not account for why 7
th
and 8
th
grade teachers are
more apt to intervene when they witness bullying. Perhaps they have greater access
to workshops and trainings that deal with bullying issues compared to high school
teachers, have closer relationships with their students because of smaller class sizes,
and so forth. On the other hand, why do teachers who teach at the intermediate and
high school levels report that they are least likely to intervene if they know and like
the students?
A victim’s lifestyle choices proved to be an interesting finding. There was no
significant mean difference between the groups, so overall the data suggests that
teachers will intervene no matter whom the victim is and what kind of lifestyle the
student leads. Previous research implies that teachers are ambivalent or are anxious
about protecting gay students (Chambers, Joost van Loon, & Tincknell, 2004).
However, the teachers who participated in this survey strongly disagree about not
87
intervening if they do not approve of a student’s lifestyle. Though the survey item
did not specify what kind of lifestyle choices, the title of the study and survey
implied that the item was geared towards LGBTQ issues. Hawaii is more liberal
towards the gay community in comparison to other states and this may be reflected
in the data. For example, the concept of mahu is common in some parts of Polynesia
including Hawaii. For instance, Kim Coco Iwamoto is mahu (dual gender) and holds
a seat on the state’s board of education. Perhaps the data is divergent from mainland
studies because the people of Hawaii are more accepting of diversity.
Bullying and Religious Affiliation
The most revealing information from all of the data collected was that there
were no significant differences in the reporting of homophobic, racial, and sexual
bullying and a teacher’s religious affiliation. Herek and Capitanio (1996) suggest
that people who identify with certain religious groups are less tolerant towards
sexual minorities, but this study implies otherwise. In fact, this study shows that
teachers who have no religious affiliation are a little less likely to report homophobic
bullying (M=3.68) than teachers who identify with a religion whether western or
eastern in nature (M=4.27). The results of this study may be due to social
desirability. Social desirability is a common source of bias affecting the validity of
survey research questions because the respondents may reply in a manner that will be
viewed favorably by others (Nederhof, 2006). Thus, there may be the overreporting
of good behavior and underreporting of bad behavior in this study. These findings
88
need to be furthered explored to determine why there is such a discrepancy between
previous research and the finding of this study.
School Climate and the Reporting of Homophobic Bullying
The study surprisingly revealed that there was no significant correlation
between perceptions of school climate and the reporting of homophobic bullying.
Previous studies conducted by GLSEN in 2008 found that school climate does affect
the reporting of homophobic bullying. Furthermore, Meyer (2008) found that a lack
of clear policy impacted the teacher responses to homophobic bullying. However,
this Hawaii based study revealed otherwise. Even though a high percentage of the
participants in this study did not know if the school had any policies in place to
protect LGBTQ students, the participants say that they report homophobic bullying
when it occurs on campus. As previously stated, Hawaii is more liberal than other
states thus the results may reflect a more accepting culture towards diversity.
However, there is no evidence that can clearly explain the relationship between the
lack of awareness of school policy in regard to LGBTQ students and the reporting of
homophobic bullying.
Implications for Practice
It is difficult to recommend policy until further research has been conducted
to get a better sense of what is occurring in Hawaii public schools in relation to
bullying. The results of the study produced more questions than solid answers.
However, prior to more research being done, there are some significant findings that
surfaced from the study. The findings of the study produce several important
89
recommendations for the Hawaii DOE and school administrators, as well as
implications for future research. The research study acknowledges that secondary
teachers in Hawaii feel neutral about bullying on school campus. Not one specific
type of bullying, including homophobic bullying, stood out as being problematic in
secondary schools. The results suggest that perhaps school bullying is not a problem
in Hawaii public schools, teachers notice bullying but are inundated with other
responsibilities and commitments that bullying is not an issue on their immediate
agenda, or teachers fail to notice bullying. If the latter is the case, then teachers
identify with stage one (notice the event) of Latane and Darley’s Bystander Theory.
If teachers fail to notice the event then the reporting of bullying will be minimal.
However, the study goes on to show that teachers who do witness bullying report it
to school administration, which is the last stage of Bystander Theory (possess the
skills to act). Thus even though teachers rated bullying as neutral, they still overall
feel responsible for dealing with it (stage two) and report it to school administration.
The question does arise if teachers actually report bullying or think they report it.
One survey instrument cannot accurately conclude if the information retrieved is
completely accurate.
The only significant results found in the study were differences between
teacher age groups, grade levels taught and how they view bullying. The older age
groups feel bullying is not a problem on school campus as opposed to the younger
teachers. Unfortunately, the study was unable to extort why older teachers have a
90
more relaxed view towards bullying. It may be beneficial to find out why this
difference exists and how to inform all teachers about the effects of bullying.
Another important result from the study is that the majority of teachers are
unaware if there is any school policies that protect LGBTQ students or students
perceived to be LGBTQ. It would be beneficial for district and school level
administrators to review what types of school policy and procedures are in place for
LGBTQ students. If no policy and procedures exists, then it may be important to
develop guidelines to protect this school population. If policy and procedures are
already in place, then it is crucial that the information be shared with teachers and
other staff members at the school level. If schools are to protect students’ rights, then
faculty need to be aware of policy and procedures and be mandated to follow the
policy and procedures.
It is curious that there was no relationship between the reporting of
homophobic bullying and perceptions of school climate. Previous research implied
that there would be a significant relationship, but the study revealed no significance.
The nature of the survey items did not disclose why there was no relationship thus
further studies would need to be conducted to unmask the reasons for the lack of a
significance.
Limitations
A serious limitation of the study was the fact that the researcher was unable
to discuss and distribute the surveys personally to all of the teachers who participated
in the study. The researcher believes that the lack of information provided to the
91
teachers who simply received their surveys in their teacher mailboxes may have
affected the degree of accuracy in the responses. Even though the researcher
provided a letter stating the purpose and criteria of the study, the researcher
questions how focused the respondents were when they completed the survey. Did
the participants thoroughly read each question? Did the participants rush through the
survey? Were questions answered honestly due to the topic of the study? All of these
concerns may have limited the validity of some of the responses that were collected.
In addition, the researcher was unable to procure a larger number of schools
to participate in the study. Due to the mandates of NCLB and schools striving to
achieve AYP, many administrators were adamant about not wanting to task their
teachers with additional work that did not directly relate to classroom instruction.
Many other administrators did not return phone calls and/or emails to the researcher.
A few delimitations were related to the methodology used. Upon reflection
the researcher believes that the survey was not the most polished instrument to have
collected the needed information thus the data gathered was below the researcher’s
expectation. The researcher hoped to have acquired a greater wealth of information
that could have more clearly and concisely answered the two research questions.
However, when the analysis began, the researcher realized that certain variables were
not clearly represented in the survey and it made it difficult to assess and thoroughly
answer different facets of the research questions. In addition, the researcher failed to
consider the types of measures needed to run the appropriate analysis on SPSS. The
confusion in regards to nominal, ordinal, and interval measurements made the
92
analysis problematic and required the researcher to manipulate the data in SPSS in
order to retrieve viable data that could be analyzed.
Future Research
This study provided insight into the relationship between the reporting of
different types of bullying and the characteristics of secondary teachers in Hawaii
public schools on Oahu. Furthermore, the study showed the relationship between the
reporting of homophobic bullying and teacher perceptions of school climate. Future
research using a longitudinal model with access to more secondary schools on the
mainland would be the optimal way to determine the reporting behavior of teachers
in relationship to homophobic bullying. Also, the use of a mixed method approach
would yield more information that would provide a better understanding about the
reporting of different types of bullying and if there is a causal relationship between
the reporting of homophobic bullying and perceptions of school climate. It would be
necessary to conduct qualitative interviews with teachers to understand what teachers
are actually observing in regards to bullying. A survey can answer general questions
whereas information yielded from an interview will provide a more detailed
description of teacher experiences, attitudes, and perceptions. Moreover, it would be
necessary to not only interview teachers and administrators to discuss their
perceptions about bullying, but it would be crucial to retrieve school disciplinary
reports to accurately determine who is reporting what types of bullying to school
administration. The information would provide data to assess the reporting behavior
93
of teachers. However, one cannot solely rely on disciplinary reports because these
documents may be limited and incorrect information may be recorded.
In order to accurately measure the problem of homophobic bullying in
secondary schools, it would also be helpful to survey the students in order to
determine their perceptions of bullying towards LGBTQ students. Teachers may
have a very different perception of the problem in comparison to the students. The
students may find this type of bullying to be a problem, but the teachers feel
otherwise. Studies conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network
(2008) report that secondary students consider homophobic bullying to be a problem
on campus.
It would also be beneficial to conduct research on the perceptions of bullying
in relation to teacher ages. There is no research that specifically addresses the
relationship between a teacher’s age and the perceptions and reporting of different
types of bullying. It would be curious to determine the reasons why this study found
a significant difference between age groups and the perceptions of bullying. Are the
results unique to this study or does it transcend to other districts and states?
Conclusion
The results of this study strongly suggested that there are no statistical
significance between teacher characteristics, perceptions of school climate, and the
reporting of homophobic bullying. It appears that homophobic bullying is not an
issue in Hawaii public schools as found from the results of the study. However, there
are significant differences between age, years of experience and the perceptions of
94
how problematic certain types of bullying are at school. Furthermore, there is a
relationship of how teachers perceive the victim, perpetrator, and self and whether
they will intervene when bullying occurs. Although there was no statistical
significance between perceptions of school climate and homophobic bullying, it was
revealing that a large percentage of the teachers were unaware of any school policy
or procedures in place to protect LGBTQ or students perceived to be LGBTQ.
This study had certain limitations and future research could address a few of
these issues. The participants were limited to only five public schools on Oahu and
were only surveyed once. Future studies should focus on a larger teacher population
from both the public and private school sectors and not be limited to the Hawaii
DOE. In addition, a longitudinal study that includes qualitative interviews could
provide more reliability to the findings.
Overall, this study may help district level leaders, school administrators, and
teachers understand the importance of recognizing and addressing bullying on school
campus. This study revealed that there are varying perceptions about bullying and
that specific teacher characteristics can affect whether teachers intervene when
bullying occurs. It is essential that teachers are consistent in how they approach
bullying on campus and the results of this study affirm that conflicting perceptions
do exist among different groups of teachers. Nonetheless, more research needs to be
conducted to clearly understand teacher perceptions and why certain teacher traits
affect the intervention and reporting of homophobic bullying.
95
Homophobic bullying is a type of violence that resides in a vortex of masks
and misconceptions. It continues to be caught in a whirl of controversy from
opposing forces with no solution yet found at the core of the problem. Until
homophobic bullying is acknowledged as a problem in secondary schools and
actively discussed in an open forum, it will continue to be caught in a vortex of
swirling contention and controversy.
96
REFERENCES
Astor, R.A. (1995). School violence: A blueprint for elementary school
interventions. Social Work in Education, 17(2), 101-115.
Astor, R.A., Meyer, H.A., & Behre, W.J., (1999, Spring). Unowned places and
times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. American
Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 3-42.
Baldry, A. C. (2005, June). Bystander behavior among Italian students. Pastoral
Care, 30-35.
Ball, S. (2008). Bystanders and bullying: A summary of research for anti-bullying
week. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk.
Behre, W.J., Astor, R.A., & Meyer, H.A. (2001). Elementary – and middle-school
teachers’ reasoning about intervening in school violence: An examination of
violence-prone school subcontexts. Journal of Moral Education, 30(2), 131-
152.
Benbenishty,R. & Astor, R.A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture,
neighborhood, family, school, and gender. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Berkowitz, A. (2008, August). “Response Ability” Transforming value into action by
fostering bystander interventions to promote health and social justice.
www.beck-company.com.
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (2003). Research in Education. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Boulton, M.J. (1997). Teachers views on bullying definitions, attitudes and ability to
cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 223-233.
Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L., & O’Brennan, L.M. (2007). Bullying and peer
victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school
staff. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 361-382.
California Safe School Coalition. 2004. Consequences of harassment based on
actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and steps
for making schools safer. Davis: University of California.
97
Chambers, D., van Loon, J., & Tincknell, E. (2004, November). Teachers’ views of
teenage sexual morality. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(5),
563-576. Retrieved September 28, 2008 from JSTOR.
Clarke, E.A., & Kiselica, M.S. (1997). A systematic counseling approach to the
problem of Bullying. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 5, 310-
326.
Coloroso, B. (2005, April). A bully’s bystanders are never innocent. Education
Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70(8), 49-51.
Retrieved October 23, 2008 from ERIC.
Cowie, H. (1998). Perspectives of teachers and pupils on the experience of peer
support against bullying. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(2), 108-
125.
Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: An
observational study. Exceptionality Education Canada, 5, 81-95.
Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the
school years. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 2, 41-60.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ellis, A.A., & Shute, R. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral
orientation and seriousness of bullying. The British Psychological Society,
77, 649-663.
Espelage, D.L., Aragon, S.R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B.W. (2008). Homophobic
teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school
students: What influence do parents and schools have? School Psychology
Review, 37(2), 202-216.
Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2008). Addressing research gaps in the
intersection between homophobia and bullying. School Psychology Review,
37(2), 155-159.
Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice,
17, 381-458.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational Research: An Introduction
(7
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
98
Garbarino, J. (January 2005). At issue: Do anti-bullying programs promote
homosexuality? The CQ Researcher, 117.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (2005). From teasing to torment:
School climate in America. Retrieved September 22, 2008 from
www.glsen.org.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (2008). School climate survey.
Retrieved September 22, 2008 from www.glsen.org.
Goldstein, T. (1997). Unlearning homophobia through a pedagogy of anonymity,
Teacher Education, 9, 115-124.
Graham, S., & Bellmore, A.D. (2007). Peer victimization and mental health during
early adolescence. Theory Into Practice, 46(2), 138-146. Retrieved October
23, 2008 from ERIC.
Graziano, K.J. (2003, Winter). Differing sexualities in singular classrooms.
Multicultural Education, 11(2), 2-9.
Greenya, J. (2005, February 4). Bullying: Are schools doing enough to stop the
problem? The CQ Researcher, 11, 101-124.
Hafner, L. (2003). Bullying report: How are Washington state schools doing? The
Safe School Coalition. Retrieved September 26, 2008 from
www.safeschoolscoalition.org.
Harris Interactive. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual
harassment in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University
Women Educational Foundation.
Harris Interactive & Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (2008). The
principal’s perspective: School safety, bullying and harassment. A Survey of
Public School Principals; Executive Report. Retrieved September 22, 2008
from www.glsen.org.
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D.L., Carney, J.V., & Green, S. (2001, Summer). Adult
recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research, 43(2), 133-
146.
Herek, G.M. & Capitanio, J.P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup
contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.
99
Hillier, L., & Rosenthal, D.A. (Eds.). (2001). Gay, lesbian and bisexual young
people [Special issue]. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 1-4.
Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006). Bullying among
students and its consequences on health. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 21(2), 183-208.
James, D.J., Lawlor, M., Courtney, P., Flynn, A., Henry, B., & Murphy, N. (2008,
May). Bullying behavior in secondary schools: What roles do teachers play?
Child Abuse Review, 17, 160-173.
Kimmel, M.S., & Mahler, M. (2003, June). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia,
and violence: random school shootings, 1982-2001. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439-1458.
Kohlberg, L. (2005). Chapter 40: Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-
Developmental Approach. In Wilson, M. E., & Wolf Wendel, L. (Eds.).
(2005). ASHE reader on college student development theory. Boston, MA:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Kosciw, J.G. (2004). The 2003 national school climate survey: The school-related
experiences of out nation’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.
New York: GLSEN.
Kosciw, J.G., & Diaz. E. (2006). The 2005 national climate survey: The experiences
of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New
York: gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (2008). Nabozny v. Podlesny. Retrieved
November 28, 2008 from www.lambdalegal.org.
Lock, J. (2003). Violence and sexual minority youth. Journal of School Violence,
1(3), 77-89.
Ma, X., Stewin, L. L, & Mah, D.L. (2001). Bullying in school: Nature, effects and
remedies. Research Paper in Education, 16(3), 247-270.
Marachi, R., Astor, R.A., & Benbenishty, R. (2007). Effects of teacher avoidance of
school policies on student victimization. School Psychology International,
28, 501-518.
100
McLaughlin, C., Arnold, R., & Boyd, E. (2005, June). Bystanders in schools: What
do they do and what do they think? Factors influencing the behavior of
English students as bystanders. Pastoral Care, 17-22.
Meyer, E.J. (2008, November). Gendered harassment in secondary schools:
Understanding teachers’ (non) intervention. Gender and Education 20(6),
555-570.
Meyer, H.A., Astor, R.A., & Behre, W.J. (2002). Peer victimization and
posttraumatic stress in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
27, 815-821.
Mishna, F., Newman, P.A., Daley, A., & Solomon, S. (2007). Bullying of lesbian
and gay youth: A qualitative investigation. The British Journal of Social
Work, 1-17.
Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ understanding of
bullying. Canadian Journal of Education 28(4), 718-738.
Montana Healthy Schools Network, & Office of Public Instruction Division of
Health Enhancement and Safety. (2005, June). Bullying, intimidation and
harassment prevention school policy. Retrieved January 6, 2010 from
http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/safeschools/BullyingPolicy.pdf
Mosher, D.L. (1989, November). Threat to sexual freedom: Moralistic intolerance
instills a spiral of silence. The Journal of Sex Research, 26(4), 492-509.
Retrieved September 28, 2008 from JSTOR.
Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446, 450-52 (7
th
Cir. 1996).
National Education Association (2006). A school employee’s guide to gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender issues (2
nd
edition). Retrieved November 10, 2008
from www.nea.org.
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006).
Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 553-576.
Nederhof, A.J. (2006, February). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A
review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263-280.
New York City Department of Education (2009). Harvey Milk High School.
Retrieved September 20, 2009 from www.nyc.gov/schoolportals/02/M586
101
Nichols, S.L. (1999, May). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: Understanding
diversity and promoting tolerance in schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 99(5), 505-519.
Nicolaides, S., Yuichi, T., & Smith, P.K. (2002). Knowledge and attitudes about
school bullying in trainees teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 105-118.
Norman, J., & Galvin, M. (2006, January). Straight talk: An investigation of attitudes
and experiences of homophobic bullying in second-level schools. Dublin City
University, Dublin.
O’Brien, C. (2007, September). Peer devaluation in British secondary schools: young
people’s comparisons of group-based and individual-based bullying.
Educational Research, 49(3), 297-324.
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007, February). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling’.
Oxford Review of Literature, 33(1), 71-86.
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues.
In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 3-20).
New York: Guilford.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Oulett, M. (1996). Systematic pathways for social transformation: Multicultural
education, and LGBT youth. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity,
1(4), 273-293.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3
rd
. ed. Rev).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Poteat, P., Espelage, D.L., & Green, H. (2007). The socialization of dominance: Peer
group contextual effects on heterosexist and dominance attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1040-1050.
Project 10 (2009). A brief history. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from
www.project10.org
Reid, P., Monsen, J., & Rivers, I. (2004, September). Psychology’s contributions to
understanding and managing bullying within schools. Educational
Psychology in Practice, 20(3), 241-258.
102
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Rigby, K., (2003, October). In Review: Consequences of bullying in schools.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583-590.
Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006, June). Expressed readiness of Australian
schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being
bullied. Educational Psychology, 26 (3), 425-440.
Rigby, K., Smith, P.K., & Pepler, D. (2004). Working to prevent school bullying:
Key issues. In P.K. Smith, D. Peper, & K. Rigby (Eds.). Bullying in schools:
How successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rivers, I. (2000). Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support
for Learning, 15(1), 13-18.
Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-
term correlates. Educational & Child Psychology, 18(1), 32-46.
Robinson, K.H., & Ferfolja, T. (2001, March). “What are we doing this for?”
Dealing with lesbian and gay issues in teacher education. British Journal of
Sociology of ducation, 22(1), 121-133, Retrieved September 28, 2008 from
JSTOR.
Rolider, A., & Ochayon, M. (2005, June). Bystander behaviours among Israeli
children witnessing bullying behavior in school settings. Pastoral Care, 36-
39.
Ryan C., & Rivers, I. (2003, March/April). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
youth: Victimization and its correlates in the USA and UK. Culture, Health
& Sexuality, 5(2), 103-119. Retrieved September 27, 2008 from JSTOR.
Salkind, N.J. (2008). Statistics for People Who Hate Statistics (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Savin-Williams, R. (1998). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of
lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Association with school problems,
running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide. In R.E. Muuss &
H.D. Porton (Eds.), Adolescent behavior and society: A book of readings (5
th
ed., pp. 299- 312). New York: McGraw-Hill.
103
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and
relationship to gender, grade, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression.
Adolescence, 38, 735-747.
Sears, J. T. (2008). ‘Preface’, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 19(3), ix-
xvii.
Smith, P.K., Madsen, K.C., & Moody, J.C. (1999). What causes the age decline in
reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks
of being bullied. Educational Research, 41(3), 267-285.
Smith, P.K. (2000). Bullying and harassment in schools and the rights of children.
Children and Society, 14, 294-303.
Swearer, S.M., Turner, R.K., Givens, J.E., & Pollack, W.S. (2008). “You’re so
gay!”: Do different forms of bullying matter for adolescent males? School
Psychology Review, 37(2), 160-173.
Talburt, S. (2004, Spring). Constructions of LGBT youth: Opening up subject
positions. Theory Into Practice, 43(2), 116-121.
Tharinger, D.J. (2008). Maintaining the hegemonic masculinity through selective
attachment, homophobia, and gay-baiting in schools: Challenges to
intervention. School Psychology Review, 37(2), 221-227.
Thorne, M.B., & Giesen, J.M. (2003). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (4
th
ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ueno, K. (2005, September). Sexual orientation and psychological distress in
adolescence: examining interpersonal stressors and social support processes.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(3), 258-277.
Unnever, J.D., & Cornell, D.G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who
reports being bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373-388.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003-2004). Facts for Teachers. Washington, DC: U.S.
Census Bureau
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Preventing Bullying: A Manual for Schools
and Communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
104
Vargas, K., Graybill, E., Mahan, W., Meyers, J., Dew, B., Marshall, M., Singh, A., &
Birckbichler, L. (2007, December). Urban service providers’ perspectives on
school responses to gay, lesbian, and questioning students: An exploratory
study. Professional School Counseling, 11(2), 113-119. Retrieved September
26, 2008 from ERIC.
Vossekuil, B., Reddy, M., Fein, R., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2000). U.S.S.S.
safe school initiative: An interim report on the prevention of targeted school
violence in schools. Washington DC: U.S. Secret Service, National Threat
Assessment Center.
Wackerfuss, A. (2008). Homophobic bullying and same-sex desire in Anglo-
American schools: An historical perspective, Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 19(3), 139-155.
Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (October, 2005). Peer
victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority
adolescents. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 34(5), 471-482.
Wright, L.W., Adams, H.E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation of the
homophobia scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
21, 337-347.
105
APPENDIX
SURVEY QUESTIONS
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study investigates the population of intermediate and high school teachers in the Hawaii Department of Education. The purpose of the study was to determine the degree to which certain variables impact the reporting of homophobic bullying by secondary teachers. The study examined if the type of bullying, a teacher’s characteristics, and perceptions of a victim’s characteristics affect the willingness to report bullying. The study also aimed to determine if teacher perceptions of school climate impact the reporting of homophobic bullying by teachers in secondary schools.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior
PDF
Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students
PDF
The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions
PDF
Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations
PDF
How successful high school students cope with bullying: a qualitative study
PDF
Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors
PDF
Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom
PDF
The inconsistency of teachers reporting and intervening in bullying situations: an evaluation study
PDF
The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program
PDF
Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools
PDF
Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system
PDF
The relationship between school factors and the prevalence of bullying amongst middle school students
PDF
Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India
PDF
A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer
PDF
How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study
PDF
Reporting differences among sexually assaulted college women: a cultural exploration
PDF
Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School
PDF
Teacher hiring: "working backwards" to discover how great teachers are hired
PDF
Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples
PDF
Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices
Asset Metadata
Creator
Datta, Monique Claire
(author)
Core Title
The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
03/24/2010
Defense Date
02/05/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
homophobic bullying,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
Hawaii
(states),
islands: Oahu
(geographic subject)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sundt, Melora A. (
committee chair
), Andres, Mary (
committee member
), Brewer, Dominic J. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
eheleanae@aol.com,mdatta@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2876
Unique identifier
UC1287836
Identifier
etd-Datta-3566 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-293231 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2876 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Datta-3566.pdf
Dmrecord
293231
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Datta, Monique Claire
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
homophobic bullying