Introduction

The case for action to reduce bullying in schools is indisputable. Over the last 20 years evidence-based knowledge of the prevalence of bullying in schools around the world has been continually increasing, together with evidence of associated serious negative mental and physical conditions among peer-victimized students (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Bogart et al., 2014; Rigby, 2003). Over this period, modest reductions in bullying prevalence in a number of countries have been achieved (Rigby & Smith, 2011). The prevalence of bullying in its various forms continues to be considered unacceptable and requiring continued sustained effort to reduce it.

There is evidence that bullying in schools can be reduced. According to leading researchers in the field of bullying in schools, Farrington and Ttofi (2009), antibullying programs can be effective in reducing bullying and victimization (being bullied). Their meta-analysis of outcomes from 44 published studies indicated that on average bullying behavior decreased by 20%–23%, and being victimized by 17%–20%.

Interventions: proactive and reactive

Interventions have been categorized as proactive or reactive. By proactive is meant taking action in order to prevent the occurrence of bullying behavior. Reactive intervention implies taking action when cases of bullying have been identified in order to prevent the bullying from continuing and causing harm. The two forms of intervention are best conceived as complementary and may act in tandem. Insofar as proactive steps are effective in reducing the number of cases of bullying that occur, resources can be concentrated on addressing the fewer cases that are not prevented. Moreover, effectively dealing reactively with actual cases of bullying, especially when the intervention results in improved relationships among those involved, can help to produce a social environment in which bullying is less likely to occur. Both proactive and reactive approaches to bullying are needed, each increasing the potential effectiveness of the other.

This view that both proactive and reactive approaches are required in countering bullying in schools is reflected in various frameworks and programs that have been developed and utilized in schools. Examples include Australia’s National Safe Schools Framework in Australia, which recommends a multitiered approach to addressing bullying (Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (2004/2011). The Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS) initiative (Bradshaw, Pas, Debnam, & Johnson, 2015) and the Friendly School Plus program (Cross, Thompson,& Erceg, 2013, Cross, Waters, & Thompson, 2014) provide practical applications of how schools can employ a comprehensive approach to tackling bullying, both traditional and cyber (Slee, Spears, Campbell, & Cross, 2011). More recently, the Handbook of Australian School Psychology (Thiekling & Tergesen, 2017) has provided advice and instruction on the integration of international research, practice, and policy in addressing school bullying (Nickersen & Rigby, 2017).

Griffiths and Weatherilt (2012) demonstrate how the creation and implementation of well-thought through and connected antibullying strategies can provide the basis for student support and well-being (Fig. 2.1).

Differences arise over what particular intervention strategies in addressing bullying are most appropriate and effective. These relate as much to ideology or philosophy as to evidence. For example, some educators have taken a legalistic stance arguing that that undesirable behavior needs to be punished and may serve as an effective deterrent. Others with a more humanistic approach emphasize the importance of understanding the motivation of the perpetrator(s) and encouraging them to act positively in their relations with others. Neither approach has been shown unequivocally to produce better results.

One study conducted in Finland compared the effectiveness of the two approaches in addressing cases of bullying (Garandeau, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2014). Schools were randomly allocated to one condition in which a confronting (legalistic) approach was employed, while other schools employed a nonconfronting (humanistic) approach. The researchers reported that the two approaches produced similar outcomes. It is unclear, however, whether this conclusion would apply in culturally diverse countries.

What is sometimes ignored in generalizing about the comparative effectiveness of interventions is that bullying can differ widely in nature and severity. Thus, one case of bullying may involve relatively mild and occasional disparagement of another student, and another severe and sustained physical abuse. Bullying may be provoked or unprovoked. Bullying may involve groups of students picking on one student or only a single perpetrator and target. Children may be targeted using cyber technology and/ or traditional means. Arguably different forms of intervention may be applied depending on the actual case. Similarly, what can be done proactively may differ from school to school, depending upon the school context and resources, including, lesson time available to the teacher. Hence, it is considered doubtful whether any one intervention method is appropriate and effective in all cases and in all schools.

The idea that there is more than one way of dealing with bullying runs counter to what may be called the traditional approach to bullying in schools. This may be illustrated by reference to the well-known novel Tom Brown’s School Days (Hughes, 1857; Rigby, 1997). This book is centered on the school days of Tom Brown at an English public school where as a new boy he was continually bullied, both verbally and physically, by a senior boy known as Flashman. The preface to the book discusses at length the public outcry that followed and examines the views expressed as to what should be done to deal with the bullying. The prevailing view was that sadistic children like Flashman should be taught a lesson. Bullying was seen as a consequence of an individual’s personality. Very little attention (if any) was given to school climate, which might conceivably give rise to such behavior. The answer to the problem was seen as lying in the administration of harsh discipline or, in some cases, the valorous actions of those children who decided not to take it anymore. In the story the problem is solved by Tom and his friend, East, goaded beyond measure, one day rushing at the malevolent Flashman and knocking him out! The moral of the story was that that you must meet force with force—and in reality the bully is a coward.

In recent years, the understanding of bullying behavior and how it can be addressed has changed radically. It is now generally recognized that given the social nature of bullying and the complex interactive factors, it is vital to take account of the student’s unique individual and the socioecological factors involved in being persistently bullied. It is expected that interventions and support needs are tailored to meet the unique needs of those students and their family, as well as the peer dynamic involved in the bullying. The promotion of positive bystander and peer support is an element in such a multitiered approach (Bradshaw, 2015; Swearer, Wang, Berry, & Myers, 2014).

The use of disciplinary action as the stock response to bullying has become much less accepted (Bradshaw, 2015). As noted, bullying is now widely understood to be the result of a complex interplay between individual, relationships, community, family, and societal factors (Cornell & Bradshaw, 2015; Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Schott & Søndergaard, 2014). Accordingly, attention is commonly directed toward developing a sociocultural climate in which students are no longer motivated to bully one another. In practice, this requires teachers, administrative, and counseling staff to work with children, especially, but not exclusively, in classrooms to inculcate desirable social attitudes and healthy prosocial behavior. How this can be done has become the subject of numerous proposals and an important component of many antibullying programs, each of which makes use of both proactive and reactive strategies.

Proactive interventions

1. Working with students
One of the earliest educationalists to recognize the importance of influencing the way students relate to each other was Swedish psychologist, Olweus (1993). He advocated regular classroom meetings between teachers and students to discuss issues relating to bullying. He proposed that teachers invite students to discuss the sort of rules they saw as important in governing the way they treated each other, and to provide an agreed-upon list that could be used to remind themselves of how they felt they should behave. Examples of the kinds of rules that might be agreed upon included: we will not bully other students; we will try to help students who are being bullied; we will try to include students who are left out. Importantly, the rules were to be generated through student discussion rather than imposed by teachers.
Subsequently, numerous strategies have been developed and utilized by schools to engage students constructively in promoting antibullying initiatives. These have included the creation of antibullying committees in which students and teachers can meet to share ideas on how they can work together (Petersen & Rigby, 1999). Various peer-support schemes have been developed and implemented, in some schools taking the form of student to student mentoring and befriending, advice-giving, peer mediation, and counseling (Smith & Thompson, 2014). Central to such schemes has been the need to provide student-helpers with basic skills such as active listening, empathy, problem-solving, and supportiveness and also to provide ongoing supervision and support. Peer-support schemes are thought to contribute to the quality of the school climate and to promote positive relationships that are incompatible with bullying behavior. According to results from the evaluation of such a scheme in England, this approach can raise the self-esteem of peer-supporters and impact upon the perceptions of bullying in a school. Less clearly, however, is its effectiveness in changing the prevalence of actual bullying behavior (Houlston & Smith, 2009).

2. Promoting positive bystander behavior
A further strategy designed to reduce the likelihood of bullying in a school is the encouragement of students to become positive rather than ineffective as bystanders when bullying is taking place. It is known that student bystanders are usually present when bullying occurs at school, especially when it is in the playground (Pepler & Craig, 1995). Evidence suggests that students are less likely to bully if bystanders object to what is happening. Unfortunately, student bystanders are often reluctant to speak up to try to stop the bullying or to intervene. The problem is to motivate students to take positive action, without putting themselves at risk. The KiVa antibullying program employed in 90% of schools in Finland has provided a demonstration of how this can be done (Garandeau et al., 2014). Through classroom work, teachers seek to promote greater affective empathy for victims of bullying and inculcate antibullying attitudes. It is further recognized that student bystander behavior is strongly influenced by perceived beliefs about bullying held by teachers and students. Hence, the need for teachers to act as role models in relation to bullying and also to raise awareness of the positive actions that students are actually taking to discourage bullying. In a longitudinal study conducted in Finland, decreases in both self and peer-reported bullying perpetration were related to improvements in student attitudes toward bullying and to positive appraisals of how teachers and students were seen as acting to discourage bullying (Saarento, Boulton, & Salmivalli, 2015).
The Finnish study emphasized the need for schools to influence the attitudes held by individual students as well as the way students in general view how their peers behave. Whether students are more strongly influenced as bystanders, by teachers, or by peers may vary across cultures. In Australia, for instance, student reports suggest that the views and actions of other students carry more weight (Rigby & Johnson, 2005). These researchers have argued that the direct influence by teachers through telling students how they ought to behave as bystanders is likely to be relatively ineffective. Enabling students to discuss how they think they should act as bystanders in hypothetical situations and the listening to their suggestions was seen as much more likely to lead to positive bystander action. The use of scenarios as a tool for students and their peers to provide opportunities to problem solve in order to establish appropriate and comfortable ways to respond as bystanders was seen as much more likely to lead to positive bystander action.

3. Promoting Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
The promotion of social and emotional learning (SEL) has been seen as an effective way of developing so-called life skills among schoolchildren and in countering school bullying. According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), the peak body supporting evidence-based SEL programs in schools, SEL is a process through which students can acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (see http://www.casel.org). Many schools have been persuaded to include content in their curricula consistent with this approach. For example, within the Australian Curriculum it is stated that expectations are that “personal and social capability skills are addressed in all learning areas and at every stage of a student’s schooling.” These include the ability “to understand themselves and others, and manage their relationships, lives, work and learning more effectively” including their ability to “resolve conflict and reach positive outcomes” (ACARA, 2013, p. 2).
It has been claimed that the application of the Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) programs significantly reduces bullying (Smith & Low, 2013). Given the importance that has been ascribed to this initiative, it is desirable to examine the available evidence critically. Three studies have examined possible links between social and emotional learning and bullying as distinct from antisocial behavior or delinquency. A randomized controlled trial of the effects of a SEL program was undertaken with 1296 students attending 33 elementary schools in the United States (Brown, Low, Smith, & Haggerty, 2011). Significant reductions in physical bullying perpetration were found; however, no changes were found for nonphysical bullying perpetration, or for being victimized. A similar outcome was reported by Espelage, Low, and Polanin (2015) following a SEL program applied to 47 middle-school students with disabilities; that is, bullying perpetration reduced but victimization did not. A further relevant study has been reported by Espelage, Rose, and Polanin (2015) in an evaluation of the Second Step program. This was undertaken in 36 schools drawing on results of an intervention with 3658 students in Years 6 and 7. Over a 3-year period, no direct effects on either bullying perpetration or being victimized were found. There was, however, a reported reduction in delinquent behavior, which in turn was related to reduced bullying This suggests that SEL programs can have some significant effect on bullying behavior, of a delinquent kind: that is involving criminal behavior, which makes up a relatively small proportion of bullying. In the UK, evaluations of the SEAL program (a British adaptation of SEL) in secondary schools undertaken by Humphrey, Lendrum, and Wigelsworth (2010), one of the assessed outcomes was “behavior problems.” On this broad category of behavior, which included bullying, no significant effect was found. Explanations have been suggested for the limited success of SEL in its impact on bullying. These include inadequate involvement on the part of school leadership, a failure to employ programs and content best suited the local context, an absence of whole school planning and a lack of appropriate training for teachers (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Humphrey, 2013; Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012). Schools may be assisted in selecting and applying an appropriate SEL program by following step-by-step process detailed by the Australian Department of Education (2016).
Critics of the use of SEL and similar programs in schools have suggested that, based on psychotherapeutic conjecture, their content is inappropriate and cannot be taught effectively by teachers who are untrained in the area, and that its inclusion in school curricula comes at the expense of more relevant academic content (Ecclestone & Hayes, 2008). Whether SEL or similar programs will remain an orthodox approach to preventing bullying in schools is currently uncertain. Further evidence on how this approach can be implemented effectively is needed.

4. Circle time
Circle time refers to meetings held periodically with students in class time in which the participants are enabled by the teacher to share and discuss experiences or matters of personal concern. Circle time can be used as a means of improving the classroom climate, promoting mutual respect between students, and providing opportunities for group problem-solving (Collins, 2013). If done well, this strategy can help prevent conflict from festering and potentially restore relationships that have started to break down (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2010). However, if the process is not handled well by the facilitator, the process can also have an underlying retributive element (Leach & Lewis, 2013). More research is needed to ascertain its scope and the extent of its effectiveness as an antibullying strategy (Glazzard, 2016).

Reactive interventions

What has sometimes been understood as “reactive” is the application of sanctions or punishments designed to deter perpetrators of bullying or would-be perpetrators. This view of reactive interventions is still held by some educators. However, this is not the only way in which a school may react to cases of bullying. In fact, there is now a wide range of reactive strategies that may be used, sometimes in conjunction with a proactive approach. Typically, they are embedded in a whole school approach and are considered more effective within a school climate that fosters dialog about relationships and gives students the confidence to seek help from teachers when it is needed (Perren et al., 2012) The following is a summary of various intervention strategies developed to address identified cases of peer victimization in schools. Some schools may make use of more than one method.

1. The use of direct sanctions
Direct sanctions involve the use of negative sanctions imposed on the perpetrator(s) of bullying. Typically, schools outline in their plans that bullying behavior is unacceptable and contrary to school rules. Depending on the severity of the incident, an appropriate form of sanction is applied, for example, a verbal reprimand, withdrawal of privileges, detention, internal exclusion in a special room, school community service, meetings with parents, suspension or exclusion from school. The rationale given is that the application of sanctions is likely to reduce the likelihood of further victimization being committed by the offender, as well as by others who have become aware of the actions taken by the school. Its effectiveness depends, in part, on whether the offender (and others) believes that subsequent acts of bullying will be detected by the school authorities and that the possible consequences will be severe and that this will act as a deterrent. To be effective, schools need to be consistent rather than arbitrary so that they avoid generating anger and resentment among students. Employing this intervention method requires careful monitoring of its effectiveness, a task that can be difficult to achieve.
In some schools, elected students have been involved in deciding upon what action should be taken in dealing with cases of bullying. These students are constituted as a tribunal or “bully court.” They are empowered to hear evidence and to advise the school on appropriate sanctions or punishments. At one secondary school community in England, this method was seen as effective in reducing bullying (Mahdavi & Smith, 2002). Arguably, judgments made by fellow students may be more acceptable to other students than those made by school authorities. At the same time, misgivings may be raised as to whether members of the bully courts have sufficient maturity and detachment to make appropriate decisions, especially in cases of severe forms of bullying.

2. Strengthening the victim
This approach aims at strengthening the victimized student so that he or she is able resist or cope with the bullying behavior. Training may involve instruction in physical skills such as martial arts or, more commonly, in the use of appropriate social skills, including assertiveness training and techniques such as “fogging” (Rigby, 2011). The technique can be taught to some students. It aims at discouraging would-be aggressors by adopting a nonchalant attitude, agreeing that they may believe what they are saying without showing any particular concern. Its use is limited to low-level forms of verbal bullying for which there are reasonable expectations that the targeted child can acquire and employ the necessary social skills through the help of a school psychologist or counselor (Smith & Thompson, 2014). These methods need to be used judiciously, depending on the skills and aptitudes of the student and the type of bullying involved.

3. Mediation
Mediation involves a meeting facilitated by a mediator—a staff member or trained student—with students who have agreed to be present to see if the conflict in which they are involved can be resolved to their mutual satisfaction. Importantly, this process requires the unforced cooperation of all concerned; at any stage individuals are free to leave. A difficulty in applying this method is that schools are generally committed to taking action to stop cases of bullying from continuing, especially bullying that is considered severe. Allowing bullying to continue may be seen as not an option. At the same time, if a mediator can help students to come to a negotiated agreement that leads to a cessation of the bullying, the outcome is likely to be more sustained than would be obtained through an imposed solution (Tyrrell, 2002).

4. Restorative practice
Restorative Practice is an approach for dealing with “offenders,” which seeks to resolve a problem by leading the perpetrator of the bullying to reflect upon his or her unacceptable behavior, experience a sense of remorse, and act to restore a damaged relationship. Its application may take place at a meeting arranged by the practitioner with the identified perpetrator(s) and targeted student(s). In some cases, the method is employed by practitioners working with a group or class of students or at a “community conference” attended by those involved in the bullying plus significant others such as parents. It is considered important to enable a sense of genuine remorse in the perpetrator to arise without undue pressure or consequent stigmatization, and to make it possible for the “offender” to become reintegrated in the school community (Sullivan, 2012).

5. The support group method
This is a nonpunitive approach to bullying developed in England by Robinson and Maines (2008). The target of the bullying is interviewed first to discover what has been happening, what effects the bullying has had, and who have been responsible. Next the perpetrators are confronted at a group meeting with and provided with evidence of the target’s distress. Those present at the meeting also include a number of students who have been selected because they are expected to be supportive. The targeted students are generally not present. It is impressed upon everyone that they have a responsibility to help. Each student is required to say what he or she is prepared to do. The practitioner continues to monitor the situation and keep in touch with group members. This approach has been combined with Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SBFT), which focuses on personal strengths and successes as well as providing and strengthening peer support for victims of bullying (Kvarme, Aabo, & Saeteeren, 2013).

6. The method of shared concern
This is also a nonpunitive approach, sometimes known as the Pikas Method after its originator (Pikas, 2002; Rigby, 2011). It is used for working with groups of students who are suspected of bullying someone. The process involves a number of stages. It begins with the identification of a number of students who are suspected of bullying someone. The practitioner interviews each of these students in turn and shares a concern over how the target may be feeling, and elicits suggestions on how things may be improved. Having secured some commitment on what actions the suspected bullies are prepared to take, the targeted student is then interviewed to discover his or her perception of what has been happening. At this meeting, the possibility is raised that the target may have provoked the bullying. Progress is then monitored through further meetings with individual students. Once it has been ascertained that some positive actions have taken to support the target, a meeting is held with the suspected bullies as a group to plan how the problem might be permanently resolved. Finally a joint meeting is held, including the targeted student, at which the practitioner helps to bring about a mediated and sustainable solution. As this method can be time consuming, it is generally justified only in cases of at least moderate severity in which groups of students are involved. Some applications of the Method dispense with group meetings after individual suspected bullies have promised to be cooperative. This shortening of the process greatly weakens its effectiveness, which depends largely on practitioners engaging with groups of students, that is, not solely with individuals (Rigby & Griffiths, 2011).

7. Motivational interviewing
Motivational interviewing (MI) as a tool for working with resistant clients to address behavioral and health issues is a promising approach in being applied to reduce or stop persistent bullying behavior (Juhnke et al., 2013). Motivational interviewing involves three phases:

1. Expressing empathy: by allowing students who bully to talk without condemnation.

2. Rolling with resistance: by having ongoing conversations about the topic (of bullying others) with no judgment so that the student feels understood.

3. Developing discrepancy: by asking questions, active listening, and providing opportunities for students to identify their own reasons for change and the necessary support to make those changes (Juhnke et al., 2013).

Further research on this approach is underway by the Telethon Kids Institute in Western Australia on the efficacy of MI as a tool for reducing bullying through a project entitled Beyond Bullying: Testing a comprehensive targeted intervention to reduce student bullying (www.telethonkids.org.au).

A note on interventions in cases of cyberbullying

A distinction is often made between traditional and nontraditional bullying, by which is meant bullying that makes use of electronic technology: in other words, cyberbullying. Advice on what to do about cyberbullying has become increasingly available as the prevalence and harmfulness of this practice has become more widely recognized. For example, in Australia, the Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner’s website (https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-the-office) provides information on resources and a complaints system to help children when they experience cyberbullying. It is sometimes presumed that nontraditional cyberbullying needs to be addressed exclusively using nontraditional methods, as distinct from the methods described and discussed here. Certainly there are technological means of preventing some cyberbullying, for example, by blocking messages from known perpetrators. Also knowledge of how to be safer in using cyber technology can be taught to reduce the number of potential victims. However, it has been found that to a considerable extent the students involved in cyberbullying are also the ones that are involved in what has been called traditional bullying (Cross et al., 2009; Levy et al., 2012). Both forms of bullying can usefully be viewed as relationship problems that typically manifest in both cyber and noncyber space (Olweus, 2012). In Australia, some 77% of students who reported engaging in cyberbullying also reported engaging in face-to-face bullying (Cross et al., 2009) Whatever can be done to change behavior in one area of interaction is likely to affect behavior in another. Hence, traditional forms of intervention can be relevant to addressing cyberbullying. In terms of perpetration, the proportion of students in an Australian study who reported they cyberbullied others and also bullied face-to-face was 77% (Cross et al., 2009); in a US study by Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) the corresponding figure was 94%. This high level of behavior transfer strongly suggests that Information and Communication Technology provides another means to experience/deliver “virtually” the same types of bullying behavior. Thus, if schools and families have effective strategies in place to prevent and manage young people’s face-to-face bullying, these may also be effective to reduce the likelihood of cyberbullying behaviors.

A feature that sets cyberbullying apart from other forms is that there can often be ignorance or uncertainty of who the perpetrators are. Sometimes there are suspicions only. However, in a large number of cases, it is possible to identify the probable perpetrators of the bullying. When this is done, schools can be informed and investigations proceed, leading to the identification of individuals who are engaged in traditional bullying at school as well as cyberbullying. The application of one or more of the methods of intervention employed in face-to-face meetings can then be undertaken.

An important question is whether schools are prepared to accept some responsibility for addressing cases of cyberbullying. Commonly, the bullying behavior is initiated from outside the school in nonschool time. It is not always the case that students who are being victimized in this way are being bullied by children from their own school. Arguably, schools can wash their hands of it, claiming that it none of their business. However, many schools do feel motivated to act when a case of cyberbullying is reported to them. In an Australian survey of 25 government schools, 24 indicated that they encourage students to report to them if they experience cyberbullying (Rigby & Johnson, 2016).

The question may be raised as to which of the methods of intervention should be used when cyberbullying is involved. This may differ according to legal requirements in different places. If the law says that offences regarded as cyber crimes are to be subject to prosecution, then nonpunitive forms of intervention may be difficult, or impossible, to apply. However, there is some evidence that cases of cyberbullying can be effectively handled by nonpunitive approaches; for example, the Method of Shared Concern has been successfully applied in resolving a case of cyberbullying to the satisfaction of the students involved and the parents of the victimized student (Rigby & Griffiths, 2011). The extensive review of online bullying research funded by the Australian Government (Keeley, Katz, Bates, & Wong, 2014) did not nominate specific appropriate approaches, instead highlighting the need to consider a response appropriate to each situation. Prevailing circumstances, the policy and practices of the school, and the attitudes of stakeholders such as parents may play a crucial part in deciding what steps may be taken. However, knowledge of the options that are available for addressing cases of bullying, including cyberbullying, may determine precisely what is done and how effectively a case is tackled.

Discussion

As indicated, a variety of methods of intervention have been developed and applied by schools in seeking to prevent bullying and/or stop cases from continuing. Generally it is agreed that a whole school approach is needed to maximize the chances of success in reducing bullying and that both proactive and reactive methods should be employed in a complementary manner. As yet there is limited agreement on the effectiveness of particular methods of intervention. For instance, although the use of SEL programs is regarded as the current orthodoxy (Humphrey, 2013), the limited success of their use in repeated studies in reducing peer victimization suggests that improvements, especially in the implementation, of such programs is needed.

Much has been said and written about the importance of schools employing only “evidence-based” intervention methods. There is an assumption here that some methods are “evidence-based” and others are not, and that an examination of the peer-reviewed literature enables one to make an informed decision. In practice, it is often not possible to identify precisely what actions taken by a school have led to significant changes in bullying behavior. For example, the best known antibullying program employed in schools in the United States, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, is sometimes regarded as effective because of its use of rules and direct sanctions to deter bullying behavior. However, as noted earlier, it also includes other important features designed to promote student engagement in proactive peer-related behavior. Further, while considerable success in the use of this program has been reported in studies in some countries, for example, in Norway, failures have been reported in evaluative studies of the program in the United States and elsewhere (Bradshaw, 2015). Generalizations about the effectiveness of methods may ignore the crucial role of social or cultural context.

Where evaluations of methods are concerned with how successfully cases of bullying are addressed, as distinct from changes in bullying prevalence, conclusions may be more focused and arguably more reliable, although even here their success or otherwise may be due to what else is being done. Comparisons between the effectiveness of intervention methods have been reported with respect to (i) the use of sanctions (ii) restorative practice and (iii) the support group method based on reports provided by schools in England by Thompson and Smith (2011), as in Table 2.1.

Results in Table 2.1 suggest that the use of direct sanctions may be the least successful way of stopping cases of bullying from continuing. Notably, the least commonly used approach, the Support Group Method, appears to be the most successful, especially in primary schools. In a similar study conducted by Rigby and Johnson (2016) in Australian schools (N = 23) using a 5-point rating scale from very negative to very positive, Restorative Practice with those directly involved in the bullying was rated highest (mean = 4.14) followed by the Support Group Method (mean = 3.92) and Direct Sanctions (mean = 3.77). These findings suggest that direct sanctions, though successful in reportedly stopping bullying in more than half the cases, are not more effective than other nonpunitive approaches. It should however be recognized that sometimes more than one method of intervention is employed by a school and that the choice of method may depend on the nature and severity of the case.

It is emphasized that the results showing the percentage success rates in Table 2.1 are as perceived by schools and largely reflect teacher judgments. Reports from students tend to provide lower estimates of the percentages of cases that are stopped as a result of school interventions. For example, results obtained from 331 students in the Australian study indicated that a much lower success rate of 29.3%.

It is clear from school reports in the English and Australian studies that some methods are used much less frequently than others. For instance, Thompson and Smith reported the Support Group was used in around 10% of schools in England and the Method of Shared Concern in less than 5% of schools. Empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of the Method of Shared Concern suggests that this method may be greatly underused (Rigby, 2012; Rigby & Griffiths, 2011). One popular way of tackling cases of bullying is to seek to strengthen the victim. In the 23 schools surveyed in the Australian study, all of them used this method of intervention and rated it positively (mean rating 4.04). As well, all the schools claimed to be using “mediation.” Understanding of this term varied, with some schools in the study believing that mediation could be made compulsory.

It is evident that there is no one best practice supported by empirical studies that schools should use to counter bullying. Various factors may determine the choice of method. These include the following:

1. Whether the school is familiar with the proposed methods. There is evidence that many schools are not aware of the nature, rationale, and reported effectiveness of some methods of intervention, including some that have been shown to achieve a substantial degree of success. These include the Support Group Method and the Method of Shared Concern. Most teachers in the Australian study reported that they received very limited relevant preservice instruction or training in the use of these methods.

2. Whether the school community approves of their use. Where less familiar methods are considered by schools—and by parents—schools may err on the conservative side and be averse to employing methods that may produce controversy. As many educators have pointed out, a whole school approach is vital to the success of an antibullying policy.

3. Whether the school is sufficiently resourced and has the necessary expertise. Some methods of intervention, whether proactive or reactive, require considerable time and effort devoted to training. Generally, relevant antibullying education must be provided through sessions organized within staff time.

4. Whether the strategy used is the most appropriate for the case in point. It is not enough to know about the methods of intervention and how they can be implemented. The choice of method needs to be appropriate to particular cases. These may provide different challenges; some cases are severe or criminal; some relatively mild; some involving groups of students as perpetrators, others involving single individuals; some a consequence of provocation; some perpetrated by students who become genuinely remorseful; some are strongly resistant to change. It is therefore unreasonable to prioritize any one method. It is better for schools to consider what they believe would provide the best course of action for each case.

Conclusion

A variety of alternative and supplementary methods of intervention are being employed in schools with a dual aim: proactively, to prevent cases of bullying from actually occurring, and reactively to stop cases of bullying from continuing. These can operate in a complementary manner. Until relatively recently, the emphasis has been on reacting to cases of identified bullying, typically through the use of direct sanctions. Currently, proactive methods of addressing school bullying are prioritized through the use of a school curriculum that promotes social and emotional learning and encourages prosocial behavior, such as peer support and positive bystander action. Cases of bullying are currently being addressed using a range of approaches, most commonly through the use of direct sanctions and restorative practices. At the same time, schools may seek to assist targeted students in acquiring relevant social skills to cope more effectively and employ nonpunitive methods of changing the behavior of students who bully others. These include the Support Group Method and the Method of Shared Concern. Empirical studies suggest that the different kinds of intervention methods can achieve some success in preventing bullying from continuing. Such success may depend upon how well the chosen method matches the case to which it is applied and the knowledge and skill of the practitioners.

Finally, it is vital that schools have sound systems of support in place across the whole school, targeted groups, and individual cases. Although there is emerging research pointing to more restorative approaches to counter bullying, the more severe cases may require disciplinary measures. Schools need systems in place to ensure that a staff member is assigned to incidents of bullying to ensure that the best outcome possible can be achieved for all parties involved in bullying incidents. Cases of bullying can become an opportunity for schools to review their plans, increase preventative measures, and for students to restore and improve relationships.