By Greg McInerney

In the present school system, bullying is regarded as the single greatest behavioural problem facing authorities, and numerous studies and programmes have failed to halt the growth of the modern bully. With the creation of the technological age and the escalation of chat pages and mobile phone use, the further dimension of cyber bullying has been added to an already invidious problem. Young people have adapted to online communication far faster than teachers, and control of their behaviour in this mode has not kept pace with developments.

According to a survey on Discipline in Schools¹ carried out by the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI) in 2006, “74% of teachers... taught classes in the current school year in which some students engaged in continuous disruptive behaviour and 82%... stated that a small group of students were responsible for disruption in their classrooms”.

Deutsch² says that this misbehaviour occurs when “incompatible activities appear”. However, conflicts in school are inevitable given the fact that students spend six hours a day on average in a classroom setting, in relatively large groups. When you add to this the psychological, physiological and, in some cases, cultural changes that youths are experiencing throughout teenage years, the classroom becomes a potential battleground for misbehaviour.

By its very nature, youth creates its own sub-culture and young people have needs and interests to share within that culture. These needs - named by Glasser³ in his book ‘Control Theory’ as belonging, power, freedom and fun - all contribute collectively to the way that young people identify with their sub-culture in a school context.

The question of course is why are some youths more prone to misbehaviour, or indeed bullying, than others? By analysing needs, and especially the desire for power, can we come closer to an understanding of why youths behave or misbehave within the context of their sub-culture?

Power is referred to by Koestenbaum & Block⁴ as pure desire to control others and not as a need, while Diamond⁵ identifies psychological needs as: “identity, security, vitality, and community”. He notes that “prejudice, misunderstanding and conflict within and among groups stem from these four basic needs”.

To understand the misbehaviour of young people in a school context, it is therefore necessary to identify with their needs, especially belonging and security, along with the need for identity as part of that sub-culture. The school as a community is a powerful and long-term bonding ground with which students can easily identify.

Power, however, is an aspiration and must be seen as destructive within the group. Too much power and individuals assume positions of authority. Koestenbaum & Block⁴ states: “Power can also be used as a basis upon which an individual superimposes aggressive, hostile, sadistic and masochistic tendencies and behaviour”. The Anti Bullying Centre⁶ refers to power as being associated with “coercion, injustice and sometimes force. In a schools context, this power can manifest itself into a bully”.

While the response in dealing with this presumption of power lies within the individual, it is my contention that this aspiration to power should actually be dealt with by the peer group.

In the context of schools, bullying originates if an individual perceives that he/she can dominate a weaker person who in turn ‘hides’ this conflict for fear of further intimidation. It is within the context of the youth sub-culture that this hostile, aggressive behaviour must be dealt with.

With creative restorative programmes, a great deal of this misbehaviour can be eliminated. In all interactive groups, there are unwritten expectations for each of the members and failure to adhere to such expectations results in that member being disassociated from the group. In the school sub-culture, expectations can be tailored for youths to take greater responsibility for fellow members and apply peer group pressure on anybody failing to keep within expectations. This is the foundation of a conflict management programme. After careful application of conflict resolution techniques, aggressive and intimidating behaviour is removed.

In a conflict transforming school, the ethos must be one of encouragement of the victim(s) to speak up without fear of reprisal and allowing teachers the opportunity to deal with the offender(s) in a dignified manner that demonstrates truly restorative processes for victim and bully. For the process to be restorative, the vulnerable victim must face the bully, and those who caused the harm must be prepared to acknowledge responsibility.

Belinda Hopkins⁷ suggests that offender and victim are similar in that each has needs and everybody in the conflict is accountable:

“It is often the case that people who engage in bullying activities are, or have been, the victims of bullying themselves. This is in no way to excuse or mitigate the impact of their actions on others. What it does highlight is that an impartial mediator, using empathy and treating everybody with respect, may be able to identify strategies that can prevent bullying recurring by meeting the needs of all the parties. We need to remember that the needs of those who have been harmed and the needs of those who have caused the harm are very similar.”

Young people will not always communicate directly after being bullied, preferring instead to deal quietly with the issue themselves. However, behavioural changes or mood swings can be signs of conflict. It is therefore encumbering on parents and teachers to listen carefully, with sympathy, and investigate thoroughly any issues that relate to bullying. It is only through early exhaustive investigation that this psychological assault on youths can be resolved.

1.  “School Matters” Task force on student behaviour in 2nd Level schools (appendix 7 ASTI).  Dept. of Education & Science Dublin 2006.
2. Deutsch, M. (1973); the Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Restrictive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3. Glasser (1984); Control Theory. New York: Harper Collins.
4. Koestenbaum. P. & Block. P (2001); Freedom and Accountability at Work: Applying Philosophic Insight to the Real World.  San Francisco: Jossey Bass/Pfeiffer. Deutsch, M. (1973); The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Restrictive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Diamond. L. (1994); Beyond Win/Win: The Heroic Journey of Conflict Transformation. (Occasional paper no.4) Washington DC: Institute of Multi-track Diplomacy.
6. Anti-bullying Centre. Research centre.  School of Education Trinity College Dublin.  www.abc.tcd.ie
7. Hopkins, B (2004); Just Schools: A Whole School Approach to Restorative Justice.  London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Greg McInerney has been teaching and coaching rugby in Newbridge College, Co Kildare, for over 30 years.  During that time he has acquired "enormous tolerance" for conflict situations. He has recently completed a post graduate diploma in Conflict Resolution.

NEXT ISSUE:
Procedures for dealing with perpetrators of bullying and their victims

RELATED ARTICLES
Conflict in Education
A better way to resolve conflict