Bullying can be defined as a deliberate hostile act intended to harm, induce fear, and create terror through physical abuse, verbal attacks, and relational control (O’Rourke, 2008). Mills and Carwile (2009) further describe the blurred definitions of bullying used in school settings that obscure and hinder prevention efforts. They assert that bullying, cruel teasing, and other forms of teasing are distinguished by their intent to harm or control those with less power. They propose that some teasing serves positive social functions and should not be discouraged. As defined by Olweus and Limber (2010), bullying stems from relationships where an imbalance of power exists and causes harm over time through a repeated pattern of interaction. Physical bullying may be the easiest to spot, but verbal and other relational forms of bullying (social exclusion, spreading of rumors or withholding friendship) can be just as damaging and are more prevalent in older student populations (Mills & Carwile, 2009).

Teasing, on the other hand, may reflect either negative or positive communication, and has confused school districts with its definition. Aggression may not be intended but is received by the other’s interpretation, thus complicating interventions by teachers. Furthermore, not all acts of aggression are bullying. Assessments of the situation should instead rely on the response of the teased person to direct appropriate measures (Mills & Carwile, 2009). Mills and Carwile (2009) help make intentionality more distinct by describing positive teasing as accompanied by winking, smiling, or some other “element of play” combined with challenge and ambiguity. Teasing becomes cruel and a form of bullying (more prevalent in females) when the challenge and not the “play” becomes the focus, when there are visible power differences in age, size, ability, etc., and when there is a pattern over time (Mills & Carwile, 2009). “I was just teasing” is not an acceptable excuse for deliberately cruel acts (Mills & Carwile, 2009). Students and schools in the midst of bullying prevention programs and statistical analyses may have difficulty measuring and addressing the blurred lines between teasing and bullying, thus skewing results. With these factors in mind, schools must develop a clear and concise definition of what they consider bullying vs. teasing and share this message with students and parents.

Nearly one in five students in an average classroom is experiencing bullying in some way (Klomek, Sourander, & Gould, 2010). A positive correlation exists between bullying victims and suicide-- girls more strongly affected than boys. There are now 45 states with laws against cyberbullying (a form of verbal abuse using the Internet), physical bullying, and emotional bullying (Klomek et al., 2010). According to research cited by Susan Swearer (2012), engaging in bullying behaviors at age 14 foretold violent convictions between ages 15 and 20, drug use by the late 20s, and an unproductive life at age 48. Many schools are tightening their rules and enforcing them more strictly.

Seventy percent of bullying is in the form of verbal abuse. One third of students in the U.S. are involved in bullying as a perpetrator or a victim; both are more likely to be victims of crime and sexual abuse (Arehart-Trichel, 2010). Recent studies have shown that verbal abuse in bullying can lead to lasting emotional and physical damage to the corpus callosum of the brain and corpus callosum damage in turn can increase the risk of psychological problems in the future (Arehart-Trichel, 2010). Bullying victims show more signs of depression and loneliness, are at a higher risk for suicide, avoid school, and become targets for abuse in subsequent relationships. Those that bully are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors such as conduct disorder and delinquency, which may lead to adult crimes and abusive behavior in their future relationships (O’Rourke, 2008).

Cultivation Theory. George Gerbner (as cited in Griffin, 2009) believed that mass media was the most powerful influence in shaping modern society. With virtually unlimited access to TV throughout our nation, these TV stories become a common thread of society—demonstrating what is important, what exists, and what is right. Through an extensive thirty-year study, he found that “over half of prime-time programs contain actual bodily harm or threatened violence” (as cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 350). Adult dramas and children’s programming average 5 to 20 violent incidents per TV hour (Griffin, 2009). Gerbner also discovered that the elderly and children were victimized on TV at a much greater rate, even though they are minimally represented in TV dramas. “The chance of a poor, elderly black woman avoiding harm for the entire hour is almost nil” (as cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 351). Not only are children portrayed as victims, but viewers are shown repeatedly that it’s “almost always all right [to hit someone] if you are mad at them for a good reason” (as cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 353). He proposes that the saturation of violence present in television, video games, and other media creates a “social paranoia”-- a feeling that the world is mean and scary. The tendency toward paranoia secludes people from the positive influence of others, affects their political views, self-esteem, and decreases their overall satisfaction in life. Gerbner asserts that television has become “society’s institutional storyteller” (as cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 349), and as such, sways the development of societal norms. Until broadcast media came into play, the stories of society that projected a vision of what is important and what is right were held by family and religious institutions. Today, television dominates the environment of symbols. People “now watch television as they might attend church” (as cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 349).

Social Learning Theory. Whereas Gerbner was concerned that television violence would create a false sense of fear, Albert Bandura’s theory of Social Learning warns that television may create a violent reality worth fearing (as cited in Griffin, 1994). Bandura believed that most individuals come to “war-or-peace decision points” by developing behavioral responses (as cited in Griffin, 1994, p. 367). These tendencies or “acquired behavioral dispositions” are learned best through observation, which Bandura calls modeling. Although this theory is typically applied in behavioral science, Social Learning Theory can also help us to understand the effect mass media can have on: attitudes, emotional responses, and the development of new behaviors by high exposure to TV, films, video games, and Internet videos. “Social learning theory postulates three necessary stages in the casual link between television violence and actual physical harm to another: attention, retention, and motivation” (as cited in Griffin, 1994, p. 369). Newly modeled violent behaviors are imprinted onto memory through first observation (TV viewing of violence), then mental categorization/organization (associating that violent act to a real situation), mental imagery/fantasy (thinking of yourself participating in the violent act), and finally through action (moving that fantasized act into a real situation). Bandura “isn’t worried about the bad guys glorifying violence. It is the aggression of the good guys that troubles him” (as cited in Griffin, 1994, p. 372). If children model violent behavior, could it also be true that they might model good behavior to overcome the effects of television through positive interpersonal communication?

If the theories of Cultivation and Social Learning are applied to the problem of bullying, it becomes clear that bullies perceive themselves as victims. They indeed may be affected by a dizzying display of messages received from television, video games, and movies. If those experiences are not balanced by positive and supportive family and community stories, but instead reinforced by domestic violence or neighborhood crime--no child will feel safe. Some will internalize their fears and withdraw while others lash out. Both groups may suffer increased stress, brain damage, mental illness, and risk of violence.

Research shows that isolated efforts are ineffective in changing bullying behavior. Prevention and intervention programs that provide a continuum of services within a building are likely to be more effective than programs with a more general building-wide approach (Conoley & Goldstein, 2004). Many schools have responded to an increase of school violence and/or bullying by establishing “zero-tolerance” policies or by attempting to adopt a pieced together plan for bullying prevention. Findings indicate that severe punishment for bullying, such as exclusion, may have a chilling effect on students. Students that bully their peers are more likely to participate in other antisocial and criminal behaviors. Students that bully are in need of positive role models, including adults and students in their school that demonstrate effective social and relationship skills (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). Suspension does not alter future behaviors and often places students back in a home situation that lacks adequate support.

Schools must respond through effective intervention when incidences of school bullying do occur. While teacher in-service training, PTA meetings, school-wide assemblies, or lessons taught by individual teachers are important first-steps in raising awareness about the problem or in the adoption of bullying prevention efforts, they will not significantly reduce bullying on their own (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). Furthermore, research conducted by Farrington and Ttofi (2011) for the U.S. Department of Justice found that the most important program elements associated with a decrease in both bullying and victimization were parent training/meetings, disciplinary methods, and the length and intensity of the program for children and teachers. It is important for schools to provide a safe environment for students—without it, learning is greatly diminished. Without question, the preventative piece is the most significant part of any school program that is focused on eliminating school bullying and reducing incidences of bullying. The reality is that even with effective preventative measures in place, bullying will still occur. Prevention efforts must be paired with a proven and thoughtful response.

Espelage and Swearer (2004) found that one of the most significant obstacles in the adoption of successful anti-bullying programs in schools is the lack of awareness and commitment by adults (teachers, administrators, and parents). It is important that educators and parents be effective communicators, both empathetic and skilled in active listening and identifying nonverbal cues that may indicate antecedents to violence. Many of the causes of school issues of aggression and violence are beyond the power of the teacher to control. In order to best help students, educators and parents need to be able to recognize and respond to outside causes that may be precipitants (such as abuse at home, issues on the bus, hunger, etc…). Teachers must focus on creating a caring and more tolerant classroom climate before any gains can be made at preventing issues of bullying and changing behavioral norms (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). A more effective and comprehensive approach requires a school-wide effort of educating the community of stakeholders regarding the issues of bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). This approach is a long-term climate change and not an easy, quick-fix solution. “Schools can either prevent bullying, respond appropriately, or deal with it through lawsuits” (Harris & Petrie, 2003, p. 65).

How do we start the conversation in the school community regarding bullying? The Communication for Social Change Model may provide some answers. This model focuses on the process by which participatory dialogue relates to collective action (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, & Rani, 2002). The model describes an interactive process of dialogue among and between various stakeholders, beginning with a “catalyst” that sparks the discussion. This catalyst (a person, event, tragedy) leads to valuable community storytelling and conversation that when effective, leads to collective action and eventually a solution. The model describes Community Dialogue and Action as a sequential process or series of steps that can take place within the community, some of them simultaneously, and which lead to the solution of a common problem. Literature and real-life practice indicate that if these steps are completed, action is more likely to be successful for community benefit (Figueroa et al., 2002). Education is everyone’s business. Involving all stakeholders in understanding issues in education is a more effective approach at improving student success. School violence reflects a societal issue-- a general lack of acceptance for the differences of others. Violence is a significant factor because it is found that “schools with lower levels of bullying have higher levels of academic achievement” (S. Swearer, presentation at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, May, 2012).

What would an alternative solution to school bullying look like? Two key program elements are necessary: it needs to be based on an active model of stakeholder communication that describes the process of dialogue, information sharing, mutual understanding, and collective action. Second, it needs to include clear and specific social and individual outcomes (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, & Rani, 2002). Pairing communication skills with effective steps addressing the personal and relational needs of students are especially critical in preventing bullying. Harris and Petrie (2003) indicate that for the best possible student learning to occur, peers must learn to deal with conflict in real and meaningful ways through schools that encourage peer-mediation or conflict resolution.

Recommendations based upon research conducted by Farrington and Ttofi (2011) for the U.S. Department of Justice endorse anti-bullying programs based on newer theories, one of which is Restorative Justice. The Time Dollar Youth Court (TDYC) model offers an interesting restorative justice approach in the high school setting and is an alternative worth considering. TDYC is built around empowering older students to use dialogue, critical thinking, empathy, and perspective to solve school problems related to bullying and student discipline. The goal of restorative justice is to mend damaged relationships by bringing together all those involved (bullies, victims, and bystanders) and utilizing respectful methods to address wrongdoing. Similar to the philosophy of restorative justice, TDYC considers acts of bullying and school violence to be harm done to the individual(s) involved and also to the greater school community. The important element of TDYC is how it encourages offenders to take responsibility for what they have done wrong and take action to make it right. Offenders are given an opportunity to hear from those they have harmed with the belief that if given the opportunity to repair the damage they caused, they are less likely to re-offend. Furthermore, TDYC can also give those directly impacted by the wrongdoing an opportunity to be involved in deciding what restorative actions should be taken by the offender to make things right.

Schools that understand how to emphasize leadership, responsibility, communication, kindness, collaboration, and critical thinking create affirming school and community climates that nurture young people and prevent bullying behaviors (Harris & Petrie, 2003). Schools often equate discipline with punishment; however, non-punitive approaches to reducing violence are proven more effective (Swearer, 2012). The TDYC in Washington, D.C., serves as a diversion program for first-time juvenile offenders and offers a model for social change. Offenders who successfully complete the TDYC program have their criminal records expunged and serve as peer jurors for incoming offenders. According to its founder, Edgar Cahn, youth jurors are given power by the Superior Court to hand out sentences of their own design--ranging from restitution and community service to jury duty. This program saved the city over $7 million in 2009, by diverting troubled youth away from incarceration and further damage from the penal system.

Recidivism data collected in 2003 supports the success of the Youth Court model. According to this research,

TDYC cut recidivism by more than half in its first three years of operation and has continued to positively impact city youth with innovative, community-based methods of respect, reciprocity and accountability.

Time Dollar Youth Court is part of TimeBanks USA, a nonprofit model of community time-based exchange. TimeBanks USA has affiliations to time banks in over 100 communities in the U.S. and more internationally. Members of all ages and backgrounds earn and spend “Time Dollars” based on the rate of one Time Dollar per hour, trading their time to accomplish personal and community goals of all forms. All services are valued equally in a time bank; youth may find tangible rewards mentoring another student while receiving guitar lessons, for example. They learn that everything they offer has value and that they are an equal asset to the community. If they have done something wrong-- they can use their skills to make it right (S. Jacobsohn, personal communication, March 2011). Time banks are based on the following five core values: assets, redefining work, reciprocity, respect, and community (http://timebanks.org/about).

In the Youth Court and Time-Banking Models as alternatives to anti-bully programs, students would be given opportunities to use authentic dialogue and peer relational skills in the presence of adult guidance. These real-life opportunities provide modeling as the flip-side to the exposure of violence through television and video games. In the application of the youth court concept to bullying, bullies and their victims would find equal ground in a safe, structured conversation based on principles of empathy and respect. Instead of adults instructing children as to proper conduct, peers themselves decide what should be done. Students could form their own councils to deal with bullying and respond at a commensurate level. Even on the playground, peer mediators could enable settling of disputes without adult interference and the resulting magnification of what might be just a small problem. Community members could also participate (such as retired seniors volunteering to monitor play areas) and provide an alternative to school involvement and punishment.

Secondary education should be a time of developing interpersonal skills through relationship building. As the story below demonstrates, TDYC provides students with the authentic practice of these essential 21^st century life skills that can lead to opportunities in higher education, future employment, and successful citizenship.

Omar completed the program and the required jury duty. He eventually became a Youth Court jury volunteer. During his senior year, Omar received full scholarship offers to attend Princeton University, Hampton University, Salisbury College, and Rutgers University. He plans to attend Princeton University and earn a dual degree in Engineering and Criminal Law (http://besttimebank.org/Links/Time%20Dollar/Youth%20at%20Risk.htm).