Bullying and children with disabilities.

According to a 2001 study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development about 3 in 10 children are affected as bully, victim, or both. However, the knowledge base pertaining to the relationship between bullying and students with disabilities is relatively new and somewhat sparse. This paper defines the terms bully and bullying and discusses the bully/disability dyad. Commercial programs and school interventions designed to decrease bullying in the schools are also addressed. Inference to an interagency collaboration of various stakeholders is suggested as a means of addressing the concerns presented by this pervasive threat to the safety and well-being of all children.

**********

In recent years the general public has become increasingly aware of school violence, in large part because of intense media coverage of high profile, sensationalized tragedies that have occurred in public schools across the nation. One result of this focus on school violence has been increased attention on bullies and their victims. Recent statistics reveal that 160,000 children skip school in the United States each day because of intimidation by their peers (Coy, 2001; Lumsden, 2002). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003) approximately 25% of elementary and high school students and 40% of middle school students report being bullied at least once per week.

Research pertaining to school bullies in general is not a recent phenomenon (Olweus, 1978). It is understandably viewed as a growing public health concern (Feller, 2004). According to a 2001 study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development about 3 in 10 children are affected as bully, victim, or both. However, the knowledge base pertaining to the relationship between bullying and students with disabilities is relatively new and somewhat sparse.

According to Whitney, Smith, and Thompson (1994) students with disabilities have a greater likelihood of being bullied than non-disabled students. At the same time, Olweus (1993) notes that bullies may have bad tempers and come from distressed family situations where parents are distant, exhibit inconsistent discipline and use physical violence as punishment. Characteristics such as these are indicative of children with conduct-disordered patterns of behavior. In cases of this nature, the student with a disability is more likely to be a bully, or both bully and victim.

Definition(s)

Before looking more closely at the bully/disability dyad a working definition of the terms bully and bullying should be established. Areview of the related literature reveals several descriptions of a bully or bullying behavior. Craig, Henderson, & Murphy (2000), point out that different cultures have varying terms to describe bullying, and at the individual level there is much subjectivity in characterizing this behavior.

One definition of the term bully is "a blustering browbeating person; especially, one habitually cruel to others who are weaker" (Merriam-Webster On-Line, 2004). According to Olweus, a noted expert on the topic of bullying, "bullying exists when students are 'exposed repeatedly or over time to a negative action on the part of one or more students'" (as cited in Berthold & Hoover, 2000, p.65). Smith (2000, p. 295) defines a bully as a person who demonstrates repetitive aggressive behavior that purposefully hurts another person and ultimately results in a "systematic abuse of power." Regardless of the source, most definitions of the term "bully" incorporate three distinct attributes (Coy, 2001; Hoover & Oliver, 1996; Simanton, Burthwick, & Hoover, 2000). First, the harassment of the victim occurs over an extended period of time. Second, the intent behind the harassment is meant to cause harm either mentally or physically to the victim. And finally, an imbalance of power is apparent.

Profile

Numerous studies have recognized characteristic behaviors associated with bullies, enabling a generalized profile to be developed. However, factors such as age, gender, and environment preclude treating a compilation of characteristics as a checklist for purposes of identification.

Research has found that more males than females are bullies and same-age peers often perpetrate bullying. Bullies are more likely to come from unsafe neighborhoods, which increases the chance that they will model negative peer behavior. There is a greater likelihood that a bully will drink alcohol, use tobacco, abuse other drugs, cheat on tests, and bring weapons to school (Simanton, Burthwick, & Hoover, 2000). Bullies usually accost others in common areas such as playgrounds, hallways, or bathrooms where adult supervision may be lacking (Smith, 2000).

Bully/Disability Dyad

Although there is a substantial body of literature on bullies and victims, relatively little attention has been focused on how this problem relates specifically to children and youth with disabilities. A growing concern in special education is that hostile school environments may harbor a small, but troublesome number of students likely to prey on children with disabilities ("New Insights on Special Education Practice," 2002).

Children with mental retardation are prime candidates for being bullied. They tend to have low self-esteem, look to others for cues or guidance, and lack the awareness to realize that potentially dangerous situations are developing. Moderate to low functioning children with mental retardation are more likely to have motor skill deficits, or physical and health impairments that make them easier marks for bullies seeking weaker victims.

Children diagnosed with specific learning disabilities may be victims, bullies, or both. The combination of characteristic behaviors of the individual and the cultural milieu surrounding the child will be determining factors. Children with learning disabilities who have poor social skills and are ostracized by their peers are more likely to be victims of bullying. However, as Cullinan (2002) notes, children with learning disabilities have a greater likelihood of behavior problems than nondisabled peers. If this tendency leads to aggressive, anti-social behavior the learning disabled child may bully others.

The special education category of emotional and behavioral disorders should yield the greatest number of bullies. Multiple attributes that contribute to bullying behavior may include a genetic predisposition toward violence and environmental factors such as a dysfunctional family, negative role models, or fewer and poorer friendships (Schonert-Reichl, 1993). However, it should be noted that children labeled emotionally disturbed or behavior disordered are also likely to be victims of bullying. Students considered anxious-withdrawn or described as having a personality disorder have low self-esteem, may be timid or shy and suffer from pervasive unhappiness (Heward, 2003). Children that fit this pattern of behavior are possible targets for bullies.

Children with certain physical impairments may move slower, have less stamina, have an unsteady gait, and in severe cases are non-ambulatory. These conditions may be viewed by bullies as signs of weakness, and precipitate verbal or physical abuse.

With each category in special education the characteristics of the children involved in social interactions and the influence of environmental factors will affect the disposition of the bully/disability dyad. The most pressing issue for parents, teachers, and administrators is the appropriate manipulation of these variables to insure the safety of children with disabilities in the school setting.

Discussion

The literature is replete with suggestions for commercial programs and various school interventions designed to decrease bullying in the schools. Schwartz (1999) describes several commercial programs geared toward specific grade levels (Second Step), specific ethnic groups (BrainPower), and programs that emphasize social/emotional competencies (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies PATHS and PeaceBuilders). In addition, literally hundreds of thousands of Internet websites related to bullying exist.

The most common suggestion cited throughout the literature for decreasing bullying involves the establishment of a school intervention program or policy. Lickona (2000) identified thirteen suggestions for preventing peercruelty at school. Suggestions included adoption of a schoolwide character education program; allowing children to establish rules; social skills training; and parental involvement. These same components were identified as crucial elements by others (Lumsden, 2002; Peterson & Skiba, 2001; Schwartz, 1999). Cantu and Heumann (2000) were even more specific in identifying procedures to handle harassment based on disabilities. The establishment of a policy and procedures to decrease harassment were delineated.

Despite the various commercial programs and antiviolence school interventions identified in the literature, incomplete implementation (Vernberg & Gamin, 2003), ineffective staff training, or lack of whole school participation (Glover, Gough, Johnson, & Cartwright, 2000; Houndowandi & Pateraki, 2001) often render these attempts to decrease bullying ineffective. According to Wessler (2000, p.28), "no magic solution or program exists." The effectiveness of any attempt to decrease bullying in the schools, particularly in regard to students with disabilities, may depend in part on the demographics of the school community, the administration, and parental support.

A growing concern pertaining to bullying in schools exists and educators seem ill-prepared to adequately address this issue at present. It will doubtless take a multi-faceted approach to meet this challenge. Evidence of progress on this front is seen in a recent announcement that the federal government is planning a $3.4 million campaign to combat bullying, drawing support from more than 70 education, law enforcement, civic, and religious groups (Feller, 2004). This type of interagency collaboration is needed to bring the combined perspectives and expertise of various stakeholders together. A problem as complex and pressing as bullying will not succumb to a fragmented, inadequately prepared approach.

References

Berthold, K. A., & Hoover. J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among intermediate students in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International 21, 65-78.

Cantu, N. V. & Heumann, J. E. (2000). Memorandum on harassment based on disability. (Clearinghouse Report No. EC308035). Washington, D.C. US: Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445431)

Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers" attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21, 5-21.

Coy, D. R. (2001). Bullying. (Report No. EDO-CG-01-06). Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED459405)

Cullinan, D. (2002). Students with emotional and behavioral disorders: An introduction for teachers and other helping professionals. Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Feller, B. (2004, January 6). The bully pulpit. The Post and Courier, pp. 1D-2D.

Glover, D., Gough, G., Johnson. M., & Cartwright, N. (2000). Bullying in 25 secondary schools: Incidence, impact and intervention. Educational Research, 42, 141-156.

Heward, W. (2003). Exceptional Children: An introduction to special education. Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Hoover, J, H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The bullying prevention handbook: A guide for principals, teachers, and counselors. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Houndowandi, A., & Pateraki, L. (2001). Bullying and bullies in Greek elementary schools: Pupils' attitudes and teachers'/parents' awareness. Educational Reviews, 53, 19-26.

Lickona, T. (2000). Sticks and stones may break my bones AND names WILL hurt me. Thirteen ways to prevent peer cruelty. Our Children, 26, 12-14.

Lumsden, L. (2002). Preventing Bullying. (Report No. EDO-EA-02-02). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Eugene. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463563)

Merriam-Webster On-Line (2004). Dictionary entry for "Bully". Retrieved January 19, 2004, from (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Nonfatal student victimization--student reports, 6. Bullying at school. Retrieved January 19, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/6.asp?nav=1

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2001). Bullies. victims at risk for violence and other problem behaviors. Retrieved January 19, 2004,from (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/new/releases/bullying.cfm)

New insights on special education practice. (2002, August). CEC Today, 9(2), 1.9,11,15.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. New York: Wiley.

Olweus (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell: Oxford.

Peterson. R. L., & Skiba, R. (2001). Creating school climates that prevent school violence. Clearing House, 74, 155-163.

Schonert-Reichl, K.A. (1993). Empathy and social relationships in adolescents with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 189-204.

Simanton, E., Burthwick, E, & Hoover, J. (2000). Small-town bullying and student-on-student aggression: An initial investigation of risk. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, (Winter/Spring), 4-10.

Smith, P. K. (2000). Bullying and harassment in schools and the rights of children. Children & Society, 14, 294-303.

Schwartz, W. (1999). Preventing violence by elementary school children (Report No. EDO-UD99-9). New York: Institute for Urban and Minority Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED436602)

Vernberg, E. M., & Gamin, B. K. (2003). Resistance to violence prevention interventions in schools: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 125-138.

Wessler, S. L. (2000). Sticks and stones. Educational Leadership. 58(4), 28-33.

Whitney, I., Smith, F. K., & Thompson, D. (1994). Bullying and children with special needs. In F. K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 213-240). London: Routledge.

Samuel W. Flynt, Ed.D. and Rhonda Collins Morton, Ph.D., Professors of Special Education, School of Education, Auburn University Montgomery. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Samuel W. Flynt, School of Education, Auburn University Montgomery, P.O. Box 244023, Montgomery, AL 36124-4023; Email: [e-mail].