Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Bullying ... · Education Support...

Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Bullying and Prevention: Contrasting 2010 and 2012 Survey ResponsesCatherine P. Bradshaw, Ph.D., M.Ed.Tracy Evian Waasdorp, Ph.D., M.Ed.Kate Figiel, Ed.M.

National Education AssociationCenter for Great Public SchoolsBill Raabe, Senior DirectorResearch DepartmentStacey Pelika, Ph.D., Director

Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Bullying and Prevention:Contrasting 2010 and 2012 Survey ResponsesCatherine P. Bradshaw, Ph.D., M.Ed.Tracy Evian Waasdorp, Ph.D., M.Ed.Kate Figiel, Ed.M.

National Education AssociationCenter for Great Public SchoolsBill Raabe, Senior DirectorResearch DepartmentStacey Pelika, Ph.D., Director

ii

The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organi-

zation, representing more than 3 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher edu-

cation faculty, education support professionals, school administrators, retired educators,

and students preparing to become teachers.

Reproduction: No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without per-

mission from NEA Research, except by NEA-affiliated associations and NEA members.

Any reproduction of this material must contain the usual credit line and copyright notice.

Address communications to Editor, NEA Center for Great Public Schools, Research

Department, 1201 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-3290.

Copyright © 2012 by the National Education Association

All Rights Reserved

iii

The National Education Association has a long history of involvement in bullying preven-tion efforts. In the mid-1990s, NEA membership mandated that the Association create a training program for its members on student-to-student sexual harassment and bul-lying. NEA developed and subsequently updated training curricula on these topics and has continued to conduct such training since that time. With more than 3 million mem-bers nationwide, NEA is in an ideal position to both address the critical issue of bullying through its existing programs and promote research on staff members’ perceptions of and involvement in bullying prevention and intervention efforts.

This study of Education Support Professional (ESP) staff members’ perceptions of bully-ing revisits several important topics first examined in the 2010 NEA Bullying Survey and advances our understanding of the perspectives of ESPs on bullying and bullying preven-tion and intervention efforts. As such, the study helps to elucidate the needs and views of this important group of adults who work in schools across the country.

We hope these findings will inform the creation of district policies, professional develop-ment, and training materials aimed specifically at education support professionals and, as a result, further enhance bullying prevention efforts in our nation’s schools.

Dennis Van Roekel John C. Stocks President Executive Director

v

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Data Sources and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Concluding Comment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sample Demographics for the Current Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Unique Perspective of ESPs on Student Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ESPs’ Involvement in School Anti-bullying Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendix A

Parallel Questions from the 2010 and 2012 NEA Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix B

Job Titles from the 2010 and 2012 NEA Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Sample Breakdown by Ethnicity and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Sample Breakdown by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3. Sample Breakdown by Level of School Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

List of Figures

Figure 1. Job Category of the Weighted Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2. Perceived Problem of Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 3. Perceived Problem of Bullying, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 4. Observation of Students Bullying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 5. Observation of Students Bullying 2 or More Times a Month, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 6. ESPs and Bullying Prevention and Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 7. School District Bullying Policy, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 8. Received Training on Implementation of District Policy, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 9. Involved in Prevention Programming Policy, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 10. Had a Student Report Bullying, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 11. Have Effective Intervention Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 12. Have Effective Intervention Strategies, by Job Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 13. Perceptions of Safety at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 14. Perceptions of Safety at School, by Job Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 15. Their Job to Intervene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 16. Their Job to Intervene, by Job Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

vii

Executive Summary

Purpose

• TheprimarypurposeofthecurrentreportistocomparetheresponsesofEducation Support Professionals (ESPs) across two NEA surveys on a series of items related to bullying.

Data Sources and Sample

• TheoriginalNEABullyingSurveywasadministeredto2,901ESPsinApril,2010.

• ThecurrentESPSurveywasadministeredto4,870ESPsinMarchthroughMay,2012.

Analyses

• Descriptivestatisticswereconductedandchi-squaretestswereperformedtocompare responses across the 2010 and 2012 surveys. Sampling weights were included in the analyses.

Results

• Overall,ESPsreportedthatbullyingwasmoreofaproblemin2012thanin2010;this shift in perception was statistically significant among paraeducators and transportation workers.

• But,whileESPstendedtoperceivebullyingtobemoreofaproblemin2012,overall,theydidnotreportobservingmoreinstancesofbullyinginthatyear;infact, staff in some job groups—custodial and maintenance services, health and student services, and technical services—actually observed less bullying in 2012.

• StudentsweregenerallylesslikelytoreportbullyingtoESPsin2012thanin2010,and this difference was found to be statistically significant for staff working in custodial and maintenance services and in food services.

• Accordingtothesesurveydata,schooldistrictsweremorelikelytohaveabullying policy in 2012 than in 2010, but, overall, ESPs were less likely to be involved in bullying prevention efforts in 2012. This reduction in involvement was found to be statistically significant for security services workers and food services workers. Only technical services workers reported more involvement in bullying prevention programs in 2012 than in 2010.

viii

• InthecaseofESPsemployedindistrictswithabullyingpolicy,fewerthanthreein five reported that they received training on how to implement the policy in bothsurveyyears;onlyparaeducators,healthandstudentservicesstaff,andtransportation services staff reported receiving significantly more training in 2012 than in 2010.

Conclusions

• Thefindingssuggestlowerincidenceofbullying(basedonESPs’observationsandstudents’ reports), but an increased awareness of the problem by ESPs over time.

• Therewasanincreaseintrainingondistrictpoliciesforsomejobcategories,but,overall, involvement in prevention programming has declined over time.

• Itisimportanttokeepinmindlimitationsofthestudy,asthetwosurveysdifferedin administration procedures, sampling approaches, and weighting.

Implications

• ESPsfrequentlyobservebullyingthemselves,receivereportsaboutbullyingfromstudents, and recognize that bullying is a problem in schools and in school-related areas.

• MostESPsbelievethatbullyingpreventionispartoftheirjobandincreasinglyreport that their districts have bullying policies, but training in anti-bullying strategies has increased for only a few job categories and there has been an overall reduction in ESPs’ involvement in bullying prevention and intervention programs.

• Thesefindingspointtoaneedformorepreventionandinterventionprogrammingthat involves all categories of ESPs.

Concluding Comment

• Thisstudysuggeststhatbullyingisasignificantconcerninschools,andthatteachers are not the only employees who are concerned about bullying or witnesses to it. ESPs also receive reports about bullying, observe bullying behaviors, and are very concerned about the impact of bullying on both students and the school environment.

1

Background

A lthough the rates of several forms of school violence have decreased over the past decade, the self-reported rates of student bullying have remained relatively stable (Dinkes, Kemp, and Baum 2009, Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, and Hamby

2010). Nationally representative studies indicate that bullying affects nearly 30 percent of school-aged youth on a monthly basis (e.g., Nansel et al. 2001, Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie 2007). Furthermore, it is estimated that most students will have some type of exposure to bullying by the time they graduate from high school. For school-based bul-lying prevention and intervention efforts to be effective, considerable coordination and involvement is needed among all members of the school community, including students, teachers, and education support professionals (ESPs), which latter group includes the cat-egories: paraeducators, clerical services, transportation services, food services, custodial and maintenance services, health and student services, skilled trades, technical services, and security services (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, and O’Brennan 2011, Espelage and Swearer 2008, Orpinas and Horne 2006).

Given the number of ESPs who are members of the National Education Association, it is important to consider the role they play within bullying prevention and intervention efforts. ESPs have historically comprised approximately 33 percent of the total education Ps are rarely given a central role in prevention of or intervention with bullying behaviors. There has been a dearth of research on the perspectives of ESPs on bullying and the process of preventing bullying at school (Bradshaw et al. 2010).

To address these gaps in the research, the NEA worked with researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Abacus Associates to conduct the NEA Bullying Survey, which was launched in Spring 2010. The overarching goal was to collect information to inform the next stage of NEA work on bullying prevention and intervention. The findings from the survey would identify training and resource needs among NEA members, with an emphasis on teachers and ESPs. The original NEA report summarized key findings from the 2010 NEA Bullying Survey and provided some recommendations with regard to the next phase of the NEA’s bullying prevention and intervention work (see Bradshaw et al. 2011).In2012,anNEAsurveyofESPswasbeingconducted;thereforeselectitemsfromthe 2010 NEA Bullying Survey were added to the ESP survey for the purpose of con-trasting responses across the two time points (see Appendix A, page 29, for survey items administered at both time points).

2

Purpose

The primary purpose of the current report is to compare the responses of the ESPs across the two NEA surveys: the original survey was administered to ESPs and professionals/teachers in 2010, and the second survey was administered to only ESPs in 2012. We focus on the data collected from the ESPs across the two time points in the current report. Readers are referred to the original NEA report (Bradshaw et al. 2011) for further review of the data collected from professionals/teachers through the 2010 survey. We describe the patterns of responses across the two time points to identify areas of change. First we profile the ESPs surveyed, then examine their perception of bullying at their school and their ideas about their role and level of preparedness in preventing and intervening in bullying situations. We also examine the major ESP job categories and differences in their responses across the two time points.

3

Method

Procedure

Overview of the 2010 NEA Bullying Survey. The NEA Bullying Survey was developed by the Johns Hopkins research team in close collaboration with NEA colleagues and members of the NEA Surveys Committee. Bullying was defined on the 2010 survey as “…intentional and repeated aggressive acts that can be physical, such as hitting, verbal, such as threats or name-calling, or relational, such as spreading rumors or influencing social relationships. Bullying typically occurs in situations where there is a power or status difference.” The 127 items on the survey were derived from a variety of research-based measures in order to address the primary research aims. Appendix A (page 29) reports the nine survey items examined in the current report. Additional information regarding the scales, scale/item sources, and psychometric properties of the full measure are provided in Bradshaw et al. 2011.

Overview of the 2010 NEA Bullying Survey Data Collection Procedure. In an effort to survey a representative sample of NEA professionals/teachers and ESPs, both a telephone survey (63%) and a web survey (37%) were used. The data were collected between April 5 and 28, 2010, by Abacus Associates. The original unweighted sample was 5,064 (n = 2,163 professionals/teachers and n = 2,901 ESPs). A total of 1,601 professionals/teachers and 2,142 ESPs completed the telephone survey, whereas 562 professionals/teachers and 759 ESPs completed the web survey. For additional detail regarding the data collection and sampling procedures see Watts 2010. As noted above, the current report is restricted to analysis of the 2,901 ESPs from the 2010 NEA Bullying Survey.

Overview of the 2012 NEA ESP Survey. The NEA ESP Survey was developed by the NEA and included a subset of nine questions on bullying issues. As with the previous survey, bullying was defined on the 2012 survey as “…intentional and repeated aggressive acts that can be physical, such as hitting, verbal, such as threats or name-calling, or relational, such as spreading rumors or influencing social relationships. Bullying typically occurs in situations where there is a power or status difference.” Appendix A (page 29) reports the nine survey items examined in the current report.

Overview of the 2012 NEA ESP Survey Data Collection Procedure. A random sample of 3,000 NEA ESP members was interviewed by phone in the first stage of the survey. The full sample of ESP members was 4,870 after oversampling of both small regions and job groups. The data were collected between March 23, 2012, and May 31, 2012, as a part of a

4 Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Bullying and Prevention

larger NEA survey focused on issues related to ESPs. As noted above, the current report is restricted to analysis of the bullying items on the NEA ESP Survey.

Sample Demographics for the Current Report

Approximately 83.6 percent of the 2012 sample were females and 16.4 percent were males. This was relatively similar to the 2010 sample, where 80.1 percent were females and 19.9 percent were males. The majority of both the 2010 and 2012 samples were White (see Table 1, below) for additional details regarding race/ethnicity). The mean age of ESP respondents in 2012 was 51.75 (SD = 10.13), whereas in 2010 the mean age of ESP respon-dents was 55.08 (SD=18.85;seeTable1,below,foradditionaldetailsregardingage).

Table 1. Sample Breakdown by Ethnicity and Age

Ethnicity N % N %

White or Caucasian 1662 51.2 3703 77.3

Black or African American 190 6.0 464 9.6

Asian 11 .6 39 .9

American Indian/Alaska Native 32 1.1 43 .7

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 0.0 8 .2

Hispanic 90 3.7 168 2.8

Multiracial 4 0.1 14 .3

Other N/A N/A 12 .3

Don’t Know/Refused/Missing 919 37.4 419 7.9

Age N % N %

18–24 20 2 50 1

25–34 66 6 290 6

35–44 173 13 662 13

44–55 355 27 1546 31

55–65 237 21 1689 34

65+ 40 3 307 6

Don’t Know/Refused/Missing 302 27 408 8

Note. N/A indicates parallel option was not given in that survey year. The Ns are the true sample size and the %s are weighted.

Across both surveys and consistent with the NEA membership, nearly half the ESPsamplewereparaeducators(seeFigure1andTable2,nextpage);specifically,48.7percent of the respondents in 2010 were paraeducators as were 49.3 percent in 2012. There was some slight variation in the exact proportion of participants across the different job categories;thisislikelyduetotheminorshiftsintheNEAmembershipacrossthetwotime points and slight variation in the sampling strategies used for the two surveys. It is also important to note that there were some differences in the wording of the job catego-ries used for the two surveys (see Appendix B, page 30, for details).

2010 2012

Contrasting 2010 and 2012 Survey Responses 5

Figure 1. Job Category of the Weighted Samples

Note. † indicates parallel option was not given in that survey year.

Table 2. Sample Breakdown by Job Category

ESP Role N % N %

Paraeducators 979 48.7 1771 49.3

Clerical Services 495 10.2 531 14.5

Transportation Services 466 10.4 419 10.7

Food Services 423 6.9 408 7.6

Custodial and Maintenance Services 268 14.0 426 8.1

Health and Student Services 66 1.9 417 5.1

Skilled Trades N/A N/A 339 1.4

Technical Services 40 1.7 401 2.1

Security Services 20 0.7 156 1

Other 122 0.2 2 5.5

Note. N/A indicates that the parallel option was not given in that survey year. The Ns are the true sample size and the %s are weighted.

The ESPs in the 2012 survey were employed on average for 12.72 years (SD = 8.16, range = 0–48 years). Approximately 82.7 percent were working full time, whereas 17.3 percent were working part time at the time of the survey. The ESPs in the 2010 survey were employed on average for 9.63 years (SD = 8.05, range: 0–77 years), with 76.9 percent working full time and 23.1 percent working part time.

2010 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

OtherSecurityTechnicalSkilledTrades†

HealthServices

CustodialFoodServices

Transpor-tation

ClericalPara-educators

Percentage

10.2

14.5

48.7 49.3

10.4 10.7

6.9 7.6

14.0

8.1

1.9

5.1

1.4 1.7 2.10.7 1.0

5.5

0.2

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


Among the ESPs in the 2012 survey, 70.8 percent lived within the boundaries of the school district where they were employed at the time the survey was administered. Among the ESPs in the 2010 survey, 65.1 percent of the ESPs lived within the boundaries of the school district where they were employed at the time the survey was administered.

In 2012, 34.8 percent of ESPs worked in elementary schools, 14.1 percent worked in junior high/middle schools, 18.6 percent worked in high schools, 21.2 percent worked in multiple school levels, and 7.5 percent worked in pre-schools or kindergartens (see Table 3, below, for additional locations). In 2010, 30.4 percent of ESPs worked in elemen-tary schools, 14.0 percent worked in junior high/middle schools, 18.2 percent worked in high schools, and 2.3 percent worked in pre-schools or kindergartens.

Table 3. Sample Breakdown by Level of School Placement

Work Site N % N %

Pre-school or kindergarten 61 2.3 288 7.5

Elementary school 1004 30.4 1518 34.8

Junior high or middle school 414 14 636 14.1

Senior high school 518 18.2 905 18.6

School district or Central office N/A N/A 242 3.5

Multiple levels N/A N/A 1258 21.2

Other 912 35.0 15 0.3

Note. N/A indicates parallel option was not given in that survey year. The Ns are the true sample size and the %s are weighted.

Overview of the Analyses

Descriptive statistics were conducted and chi-square analyses were computed to com-pare responses across the 2010 and 2012 surveys. Sampling weights were included in the analyses. All of the overall analyses include the full samples of participants at both timepoints;however,foranalyseswhichcontrastthespecificjobcategories,the“Other”participants were excluded due to having a small number of participants (i.e., 2) in the 2012 sample. Therefore, the “Other” participants’ data are not reported on the category-specific figures.

2010 2012


Results

In 2012, when ESPs were asked how much of a problem they thought bullying was at their school, 45.8 percent reported that they thought it was a major or moderate problem, whereas 54.2 percent reported that they thought it was a minor problem or not a prob-lem. In 2010, 37.6 percent reported that they thought it was a major or moderate problem, while 62.4 percent reported that they thought it was a minor problem or not a problem (see Figure 2, below). Chi-square analyses of the dichotomized variable (i.e., minor/not at all compared to moderate/major) indicated that in 2012 bullying was perceived as more of a problem than in 2010 [χ2 (1) = 20.39, p <.001].

Figure 2. Perceived Problem of Bullying

How much of a problem do you think bullying is at the school where you work?

0

10

20

30

40

50

Not a ProblemMinorModerateMajor

Percentage

8.610.3

29.0

35.5

46.244.2

16.2

10.0

ESP Responses

2010

2012


When broken down by job category, transportation services staff, followed by security services staff, were most likely to report that they thought bullying was a sig-nificant problem at their school in 2012. Custodial and maintenance services staff and food services staff were least likely to report that they thought bullying was a significant problem (see Figure 3, below). Chi-square analyses comparing within category by year indicated that transportation services staff [χ2 (1) = 10.33, p =.001] and paraeducators [χ2 (1) = 13.20, p =.001] reported that they thought bullying was more of a problem in 2012 than in 2010.

Figure 3. Perceived Problem of Bullying, by Job Category

Note. **p<.01, ***p<.001, †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

How much of a problem do you think bullying is at the school where you work?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SecurityTechnicalSkilledTrades†

HealthServices


Transpor-tation**

ClericalPara-edu-cators***

Percentage

40.3

45.2

35.5

44.7

41.2

58.9

38.239.9

41.139.6

50.048.4

43.3 44.441.8

40.0

52.7

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


In 2012, when asked how often within the last month the ESPs observed bullying, 50.7 percent reported observing bullying 2–3 times or more a month. Similarly, in 2010, 53.2 percent of ESPs reported observing bullying 2–3 times or more a month (see Figure 4, below). A chi-square analysis of the dichotomized variable (i.e., 2–3 times or more com-pared to 1 time or less a month) indicated that there was not a significant difference in the ESPs’ report of observing bullying (2–3 times or more a month) between 2010 and 2012.

Figure 4. Observation of Students Bullying

During the last month, how often have you seen students being bullied within the school building, on school grounds, or on the bus?

0

10

20

30

Not at AllOncea Month

2–3 Timesa Month

Oncea Week

Several Timesa Week

Daily

Percentage

15.1

13.3

8.7 9.0

11.6 11.9

17.816.5

27.6

21.1

19.2

28.2

ESP Responses

2010

2012


Based on the 2012 data, the ESP categories most likely to have observed bullying 2 or more times a month were security services staff, paraeducators, and health services staff. Again, based on the 2012 data, the categories of ESPs who reported observing the lowest levels of bullying per month were skilled trades, custodial and maintenance ser-vices, and technical services (see Figure 5, below). Chi-square analyses comparing within category by year indicated that custodial and maintenance services [χ2 (1) = 9.23, p =.002], health and student services [χ2 (1) = 8.73, p =.002], and technical services staff [χ2 (1) = 7.01, p =.005] reported observing less bullying per month in 2012 than in 2010.

Figure 5. Observation of Students Bullying 2 or More Times a Month, by Job Category

Note. **p<.01, †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

During the last month, how often have you seen students being bullied within the school building, on school grounds, or on the bus?

0

20

40

60

80

SecurityTechnical**SkilledTrades†

HealthServices**

Custodial**FoodServices

Transpor-tation


Percentage

49.346.2

53.556.6

52.353.9

46.4

40.9

50.5

28.5

75.0

54.0

28.2

55.6

36.0

66.7

58.1

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


On the 2010 survey, 35.3 percent of ESPs indicated that within the past month a student had reported being bullied to him or her. The percentage of students reporting bullying to the ESPs decreased in 2012 to 29.7 percent. A majority of ESPs (83.3% in 2010 and 96.8% in 2012) reported that their school district had a policy for dealing with bul-lying. Of those who reported that their school district had a policy, 54.1 percent in 2010 and 57.7 percent in 2012 reported that they received training on how to implement the district’s bullying policy. Approximately 26.8 percent of ESPs in 2010 and 20.8 percent in 2012 reported that they were currently involved in the bullying prevention and interven-tion efforts at their school.

With regard to potential differences across time, the chi-square analyses indicated that, in 2012, ESPs were more likely to report that their school district had a bullying policy [χ2 (1) = 9.10, p =.001] as compared to ESPs in 2010. Further, in 2010, ESPs had more students report being bullied to them as compared to 2012 [χ2 (1) = 11.49, p =.000], and they were more likely to report being involved in prevention and intervention efforts [χ2 (1) = 10.45, p =.001] (see Figure 6, below). However, chi-square analyses indicated that there were no significant differences in ESPs’ reports of their training in district policies between 2010 and 2012.

Figure 6. ESPs and Bullying Prevention and Intervention

Note. Percents represent those who responded “yes” to the question. **p<.01, ***p<.001.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Involved inPrevention Efforts**

Received Trainingon Implementation

District hasa Policy***

BullyingReported***

Percentage

83.3

96.8

35.329.7

54.157.7

26.8

20.8

ESP Responses

2010

2012


Similar to what was found in 2010, over 80 percent of ESPs in 2012 across all job categories reported that their school district had a policy on bullying. In 2010, all security services (100%) respondents reported having a district policy, whereas technical services respondents (80.8%) were least likely to report knowledge of a district policy. In 2012, nearly all of the ESPs in the clerical services (98.2%) reported knowledge of a district policy, whereas those in health and student services (95.6%) were least likely to report knowledge of a district policy (see Figure 7, below). Chi-square analyses indicated that there were no significant differences within ESP categories on reports of their knowledge of a district policy between 2010 and 2012.

Figure 7. School District Bullying Policy, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who responded “yes” to the question. †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

20

40

60

80

100


HealthServices


Transpor-tation


Percentage98.5 98.2

96.1 96.3 96.3 96.793.9

96.9 96.6 97.3

87.5

95.697.8

80.8

96.9100.0

97.9

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


There was some variation in the percentage of ESPs in different job categories reporting having received training on implementation of district policies. In 2010, security services staff (75.1%) were most likely to have been trained on implementation of the district policy followed by transportation services staff (56.6%) and paraeducators (50.5%), whereas technical services staff (28.6%) were least likely to have been trained. In 2012, security services staff (75.1%) were most likely to have been trained on implementa-tion of the district policy followed by transportation services staff (70.8%) and paraeduca-tors (68.5%), whereas custodial and maintenance services (30.8%) and skilled trades staff (32.4%) were least likely to have been trained. Chi-square analyses comparing within category by year indicated that health and student services staff [χ2 (1) = 6.26, p =.008], paraeducators [χ2 (1) = 6.00, p =.010], and transportation services staff [χ2 (1) = 3.79, p =.037] were more likely to report training in district policy in 2012 than in 2010 (see Figure 8, below).

Figure 8. Received Training on Implementation of District Policy, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who responded “yes” to the question. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

20

40

60

80


HealthServices**


Transpor-tation*

ClericalParaedu-cators***

Percentage

33.3

41.3

50.5

68.5

56.6

70.8

33.3 33.6 33.330.8

35.7

54.3

32.428.6

39.9

80.0

75.1

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


In 2010, security services staff (50.0%) were most likely to be involved with bul-lying prevention programming, whereas food services (14.3%), custodial and mainte-nance services (11.3%), and technical services staff (0%) were least likely to be involved in bullying prevention at their school. In 2012, health and student services (30.9%) and security services staff (30.7%) were most likely to be involved with prevention program-ming, whereas skilled trades (3.3%), custodial and maintenance services (4.9%), and food services staff (5.7%) were least likely to be involved in prevention programming at their school (see Figure 9, below).

Chi-square analyses comparing within category by year indicated that security services [χ2 (1) = 7.00, p =.005] and food services staff [χ2 (1) = 3.21, p =.04] reported less involvement in bullying prevention programming in 2012 compared to 2010. However, technical services staff [χ2 (1) = 12.31, p<.001] reported more involvement in such pro-gramming in 2012 compared to 2010.

Figure 9. Involved in Prevention Programming Policy, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who responded “yes” to the question. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Security**Technical***SkilledTrades†

HealthServices

CustodialFoodServices*

Transpor-tation


Percentage

20.5

17.3

32.2

24.0

19.5

10.9

14.3

5.7

11.3

4.9

33.330.9

3.3

0.0

13.2

50.0

30.7

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


In 2010, health and student services (53.3%) and security services staff (50.0%) were most likely to indicate that students had reported bullying to them, whereas techni-cal services (10.0%) and custodial and maintenance services staff (20.7%) were least likely to indicate that students had reported bullying to them. In 2012, health and student services (43.4%) and security services staff (41.6%) were most likely to indicate that a stu-dent reported bullying to them, whereas custodial and maintenance services (9.0%) and skilled trades staff (4.4%) were least likely to indicate that a student had reported bullying to them. Chi-square analyses comparing within category by year indicated that custodial and maintenance services [χ2 (1) = 4.63, p =.02] and food services staff [χ2 (1) = 3.72, p =.04] were less likely to have a student report bullying to them in 2012 than in 2010 (see Figure 10, below).

Figure 10. Had a Student Report Bullying to ESP, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who responded “yes” to the question. *p<.05, †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


HealthServices

Custodial*FoodServices*

Transportation


Percentage

43.5

35.636.8

33.4

37.9

29.226.3

14.4

20.7

9.0

53.3

43.4

4.4

10.011.3

50.0

41.6

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


In 2012, 89.4 percent of ESPs reported that they strongly agreed or somewhat agreedthattheyhadeffectivestrategiesforhandlingabullyingsituation;thisisaslightincrease over the percentage of 86.7 percent in 2010. Less than half of ESPs in 2010 and less than 60 percent in 2012 felt that they were well equipped to deal with bullying (see Figure 11, below). Chi-square analyses on the dichotomized variable (i.e., somewhat dis-agree/not at all compared to somewhat agree/strongly agree) indicated that, in 2012, ESPs reported having more effective strategies for handling a bullying situation than in 2010 [χ2 (1) = 6.16, p =.01].

Figure 11. Have Effective Intervention Strategies

To what extent do you agree or disagree: You have effective strategies for handling a bullying situation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeNot at All

Percentage

10.1

5.13.2

5.4

38.5

31.4

48.2

58.0

ESP Responses

2010

2012


There was variation by job category in the percentage of ESPs who felt they had effective intervention strategies (see Figure 12, below). For example, in 2010, techni-cal services staff were the least likely to report having effective intervention strategies (66.7%), whereas security services (100%) and transportation services staff (92.9%) were the most likely to report having effective intervention strategies. In 2012, skilled trades staff (68.7%) were, again, the least likely to report having effective intervention strategies, whereas security services (97.7%) and transportation services staff (93.1%) were, again, the most likely to report having effective intervention strategies. Chi-square analyses indicated there were no significant differences within ESP categories or reports of having effective strategies between 2010 and 2012.

Figure 12. Have Effective Intervention Strategies, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

20

40

60

80

100


HealthServices


Transpor-tation


Percentage

84.687.088.4

93.5 92.9 93.1

85.2

78.3 76.7 76.581.2

91.0

68.766.7

75.7

100.097.7

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


In 2010, 95.8 percent of ESPs reported that they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they felt safe at their school. In 2012, 97.1 percent of ESPs reported that they strongly/somewhat agreed that they felt safe at their school (see Figure 13, below). Chi-square analyses on the dichotomized variable (i.e., somewhat disagree/not at all compared to somewhat agree/strongly agree) indicated that there were no significant dif-ferences between 2010 and 2012 on reports of perceptions of safety.

Figure 13. Perceptions of Safety at School

To what extent do you agree or disagree: You feel safe at your school.

0

20

40

60

80

100


Percentage

3.0 1.71.1 1.3

16.1 14.1

79.783.0

ESP Responses

2010

2012


In both 2010 and 2012, there was little variation in which categories of ESPs felt safe at school, with at least 90 percent of ESPs across all categories reporting that they felt safe. Although in both years the overall percentage of ESPs feeling safe was very high, in 2010, custodial and maintenance services staff tended to feel the least safe at their school. Chi-square analyses comparing within category by year indicated that there were no significant differences in reports of perceptions of safety in 2010 compared to 2012 (see Figure 14, below).

Figure 14. Perceptions of Safety at School, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who agreed or strongly agreed to the statement. †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

20

40

60

80

100


HealthServices


Transpor-tation


Percentage

97.0 96.996.5 97.2 95.397.6 96.4 97.2

93.595.5

100.096.1 97.7

100.0 98.4 100.0

94.8

ESP Job Category

2010

2012


In 2012, the majority of ESPs (93.2%) reported that they strongly agreed or some-whatagreedthatitistheirjobtointervenewhentheyseebullyinghappen;thisisaslightincrease from 91.6 percent in 2010. Chi-square analyses on the dichotomized variable (i.e., somewhat disagree/not at all compared to somewhat agree/strongly agree) indicated that there were no significant differences between 2012 and 2010 on ESPs’ reports of feel-ing like it is their job to intervene (see Figure 15, below).

Figure 15. Their Job to Intervene

To what extent do you agree or disagree: It is your job to intervene when you see bullying happen.

0

20

40

60

80


Percentage

3.8 2.74.5 4.1

16.4 15.5

75.277.7

ESP Responses

2010

2012


In 2010, most ESPs felt like it was their job to intervene. Fewer technical services staff (70%) agreed with this statement, whereas all of the security services staff (100%) and nearly all paraeducators (96.9%) and transportation services staff (96.6%) agreed (see Figure 16, below). Similarly, in 2012, most ESPs felt like it was their job to inter-vene. Skilled trades (71.1%) and technical services staff (75.9%) were the least likely to agree with this statement, whereas nearly all security services staff (99.2%), transporta-tion services staff (97.3%), paraeducators (96.9%), and health and student services staff (96.4%) (see Figure 16, below) agreed. Chi-square analyses indicated that there were no significant differences within ESP categories on reports of feeling like it was their job to intervene between 2010 and 2012.

Figure 16. Their Job to Intervene, by Job Category

Note. Percents represent those who agreed or strongly agreed to the statement. †Skilled trades was not an option given in the 2010 survey.

0

20

40

60

80

100


HealthServices


Transpor-tation


Percentage

80.6

88.4

96.9 96.9 96.6 97.3

78.2

86.6

77.5

82.9

88.2

96.4

71.1 70.0

75.9

100.0 99.2

ESP Job Category

2010

2012

23

Conclusions

Unique Perspective of ESPs on Student Bullying

The current study found that 80.8 percent of ESPs in 2010 and 71.8 percent of ESPs in 2012 had observed bullying at least monthly. It is unknown why the level of observed bullying seemed to decrease over time across the surveys, but it may indicate a decrease in bullying incidents. Despite fewer ESPs observing bullying in 2012, there was an increase in the number of ESPs who reported that bullying was a major or moderate problem at their school relative to the 2010 data. This may suggest that ESPs are taking bullying more seriously, although observing fewer incidents of bullying. It is also possible that increased national attention to bullying has raised ESPs’ awareness of bullying as a concern at their school.

Security services staff were most likely to have observed bullying across both years, and they, along with transportation services staff, were also most likely to report that bullying is a major problem at their school. Custodial and maintenance services and food services staff were most likely to report that bullying was not a major problem (see Figure 3, page 8). Skilled trades, custodial and maintenance services, and technical ser-vices staff did not report having observed as much bullying as other ESPs (see Figure 5, page 10). This may suggest a need for additional training for these groups of ESPs.

The findings suggest that students are seeking out ESPs for support when they are bullied (Bradshaw et al. 2011). In fact, a large portion of ESPs indicated that, within the past month, at least one student had reported a bullying incident to them. Specifically, health and student services (43.4%) and security services staff (41.6%) were most likely to receive such reports of bullying, whereas those in skilled trades (4.4%) were least likely to receive student reports of bullying. The overall percentage of ESPs reporting this experi-ence decreased from 35.3 percent in 2010 to 29.7 percent in 2012. Given that ESPs also reported a decrease in their observations of bullying, this decrease in the number of ESPs indicating that students had reported bullying to them may suggest that the percentage of bullying incidents has actually decreased. Although we interpret this finding with great caution, it would be generally consistent with some national data, suggesting either a stabilization or slight decline in the national rates of bullying over the past few years (Finkelhor et al. 2010).

ESPs’ Involvement in School Anti-bullying Policies

Awareness of district policies. Most ESPs reported that their school district had an anti-bullying policy, and that number increased between 2010 (83.3%) and 2012 (96.8%). Given that ESPs have generally not been involved in bullying prevention and intervention efforts,


it is useful to learn that they are aware of the issue of bullying as well as districts’ efforts to address it. All categories of ESPs had high levels of awareness of district policies, espe-cially in 2012.

Training in district anti-bullying policies. The data showed that just over half of ESPs received training in their district’s anti-bullying policies. While the percentage increased from 2010 to 2012, there is still room for improvement. Certain categories of ESPs, such as security services (75.1%) and transportation services staff (70.8%), were most likely to have been trained in the district policy. Paraeducators (68.5%) also tended to receive training, whereas custodial and maintenance services (30.8%) and skilled trades staff (32.4%) were least likely to have been trained. Interestingly, these last two groups also reported observing bullying less often than other groups. There may be a connection between staff receiving training and actually identifying bullying incidents.

Inclusion in bullying prevention and intervention programming. There also continues to be considerable room for improvement in the number of ESPs being included in bullying prevention and intervention programming. The number of ESPs reporting involvement in committees or programs was just 26.8 percent in 2010 and actually decreased to 20.8 percent in 2012. This corresponds to the finding by deLara (2008) that most ESP workers feel they are not included in their district’s school safety planning efforts (Bradshaw et al. 2011). In 2012, security services staff (30.7%) were the most likely to be involved with bul-lying programming, whereas skilled trades (3.3%), custodial and maintenance services (4.9%), and food services staff (5.7%) were the least likely to be involved. Although these latter groups have somewhat limited contact with students, this contact may occur at timeswhenothersupervisionisnotavailable;therefore,schoolsmaywellbenefitfromtheir inclusion in such programming.

Strategies and preparedness. Although the vast majority (93.2%) of ESPs believed it is their job to intervene when they see bullying, the number of ESPs expressing confidence in their ability to deal with bullying was considerably lower. Specifically, just 58 percent in 2012 and 48.2 percent in 2010 felt well prepared to intervene in bullying situations. Although the percentage who felt equipped to effectively manage bullying situations appeared to increase between 2010 and 2012, it still remained below 60 percent. There was wide variation across ESP job categories in which staff felt they had strategies for intervening in bullying. For example, skilled trades staff reported the least confidence in theirstrategiestointervene;thisfindingisconsistentwiththeirreducedparticipationintrainings and bullying prevention and intervention programming. In contrast, the vast majority of security services staff (97.7%) reported receiving training, and were among the most likely to report having at least some effective prevention and intervention strate-gies. We are, however, cautious in our interpretation of this finding because there were relatively few security services staff sampled in the survey. Taken together, these find-ings signal a clear need for more ESP staff training and involvement in formal bullying prevention and intervention efforts (Bradshaw et al. 2012).

The role of ESPs in bullying prevention and intervention. Although there are relatively few ESP-inclusive anti-bullying programs currently available, ESPs appear to be ready and willing to participate. A high percentage of ESPs (91.6% in 2010 and 93.2% in 2012) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their job to intervene in bullying. In particular, in


2012, the vast majority of security services staff (99.2%), transportation services staff (97.3%), paraeducators (96.9%), and health and student services staff (96.4%) reported that they believe that bullying prevention and intervention is a part of their job in 2012.

Limitations

It is important to note some limitations when interpreting these findings. For example, thedataareallself-reported;therefore,weareunabletoensuretheirvalidity.Forexample, some participants may have provided answers that they thought the interviewer wanted to hear in order to make themselves appear as if they were more responsive to bullying than they truly were (i.e., social desirability bias, whereby people have a ten-dency to answer questions in a more favorable way). This bias may have been stronger for the phone survey than the web survey, as people often feel more comfortable report-ing sensitive information on web-based surveys (Wang et al. 2005). The 2010 survey was administered via phone and web, and weights were included to adjust for mode of administration. However, only a phone survey was administered in 2012. Different weights were used at the two different time points. There also were some minor wording differences in some of the survey items across the two administrations. This was particu-larly true of the job categories. Refer to Appendix B (page 30) for additional information on the job categories.

The data are cross-sectional, and different participants responded to the two sur-veys. Therefore, we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the changes over time;anychangesovertimecouldbeduetothesampling.The2010surveywasfocusedspecificallyonbullying;the2012surveywasfocusedonbroaderissuesaffectingESPs.Inthe case of both surveys, not all potential participants agreed to complete the survey. It is possible that there was differential selection based on the focus of the two surveys. For example, it is possible that staff more involved in bullying prevention and intervention efforts or those who observed more bullying were more likely to agree to participate in the NEA Bullying Survey than in the more general ESP Survey. Finally, some of the ESP job categories were relatively small. Specifically, we did not include the “Other” category on the detailed figures because it was particularly small in size (i.e., 2) at the 2012 time point. The security services category was also small, and findings pertaining to this group should thus be interpreted with caution.

27

Selected References

Bradshaw, C. P., T. E. Waasdorp, and L. M. O’Brennan. 2010. Whole-school Approaches to Bullying Prevention: Engaging Teachers and Education Support Professionals in the Prevention Process. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Bradshaw, C. P., T. E. Waasdorp, and L. M. O’Brennan. 2011. Findings from the National Education Association’s Nationwide Study of Bullying: Teachers’ and Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

deLara, E. 2008. “Bullying and Aggression on the School Bus: School Bus Drivers’ Observations and their Suggestions.” Journal of School Violence 7: 48–70.

Dinkes, R., J. Kemp, and K. Baum. 2009. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008 (NCES 2009–022/NCJ 226343). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Espelage, D. L., and S. M. Swearer. 2008. Current Perspectives on Linking School Bullying Research to Effective Prevention Strategies. In T. W. Miller, ed., School Violence and Primary Prevention. Secaucus, NJ: Springer Press.

Finkelhor, D., H. Turner, R. Ormrod, and S. L. Hamby. 2010. “Trends in Childhood Violence and Abuse Exposure: Evidence from 2 National Surveys.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 164: 238–242.

Nansel, T. R., M. Overpeck, R. S. Pilla, W. J. Ruan, B. Simons-Morton, and P. Scheidt. 2001. “Bullying Behaviors among U.S. Youth: Prevalence and Associations with Psychosocial Adjustment.” JAMA 285: 2,094–2,100.

Spriggs, A. L., R. J. Iannotti, T. R. Nansel, and D. L. Haynie. 2007. “Adolescent Bullying Involvement and Perceived Family, Peer, and School Relations: Commonalities and Differences across Race/ethnicity.” Journal of Adolescent Health 41: 283–293.

Wang, Y., C. Lee, C. Lew-Ting, C. K. Hsiao, D. Chen, and W. J. Chen. 2005. “Survey of Substance Use among High School Students in Taipei: Web-based Questionnaire versus Paper-and-pencil Questionnaire.” Journal of Adolescent Health 37(4): 289–295.

Watts, M. 2010. An Experiment and Analysis in Web, Phone, and Multi-modal Surveying of NEA Members. Abacus Associates. Northampton, MA: Abacus.


Appendix A

Parallel Questions from the 2010 and 2012 NEA Surveys

Parallel Bullying Questions Response Options

1. How much of a problem do you think bullying is at the school where you work?

Major Problem; Moderate Problem; Minor Problem; Not a problem

2. During the last month, how often have you seen students being bullied within the school building, on school grounds, or on the bus?

Daily; Several times a week; Once a week; 2 or 3 times; Once

3. During the last month, has any student reported to you that he or she was bullied at your school?

Yes/No

4. Does your school district currently have a policy dealing with bullying?

Yes/No

5. Have you ever received training on how to implement your district’s bullying policy?

Yes/No

6. Are you currently involved in any bullying prevention efforts at your school such as school teams, a committee, or a prevention program that deals with this issue?

Yes/No

7. To what extent do you agree or disagree… It is your job to intervene when you see bullying happen.

Strongly Agree; Somewhat Agree; Somewhat Disagree; Not Agree at all

8. To what extent do you agree or disagree… You have effective strategies for handling a bullying situation.


9. To what extent do you agree or disagree… You feel safe at your school.


Note. All of the answers had a “Don’t know” and a “refused to answer” option. There were some minor wording deviations between the 2010 and 2012 surveys.


Appendix B

Job Titles from the 2010 and 2012 NEA Surveys

Official ESP Job Categories 2010 Survey Job Titles

2012 Survey Job Titles

Label in Narrative

Label in Tables and Figures

Paraeducators

• Instructional and non-instructional assistants

• Teachers’ and program aides

• Library aides, technicians, and assistants

• Preschool caregivers

• Building, bus, and playground monitors

• Crossing guards

Paraprofessional

• Paraprofes-sional

• Classroom or library aide

• Assistants

• Monitors

Teaching Assistants

Paraeducators Paraeducators

Clerical Services

• Secretaries

• Administrative and office assistants

• Data entry, payroll, and general office workers

• Bookkeepers and accounting and financial assistants

• Registration, records, and attendance technicians

• Receptionists and telephone operators

• Typists, word processors, and stenographers

• Couriers

• Non-managerial office supervisors

Clerical

• Secretary

• Clerical

• Office assistant

• Administrative services

Administra-tive, Clerical, Secretarial Services

Clerical Services

Clerical

Transportation Services

• Bus drivers

• Truck and van drivers

• Vehicle mechanics

• Garage workers

• Transportation maintenance workers

• Non-managerial supervisors

Bus Drivers

• Transportation officer

• Bus driver

• Vehicle mechanics

• Delivery

Transporta-tion Services

Transporta-tion Services

Transporta-tion

Food Services

• Cooks and food preparation workers

• Dietitians and dietary technicians

• Food service workers

• Cashiers


Food Services

• Food service staff

• Cafeteria worker

Food Services Food Services Food Services


Official ESP Job Categories 2010 Survey Job Titles

2012 Survey Job Titles

Label in Narrative

Label in Tables and Figures

Custodial and Maintenance Services

• Building and grounds mainte-nance staff

• Custodians and housekeepers

• Mechanics (except vehicle) and repairers

• Laborers, helpers, and ware-house personnel


Maintenance

• Building and grounds worker

• Custodian

• Maintenance

Custodial Services

Custodial and Maintenance Services

Custodial

Health and Student Services

• Licensed practical nurses

• Nurses’ and health aides

• Health technicians

• Family and parent services aides

• Community welfare services workers


Health Services

• Health and student health service worker

• Nurse

• Health staff



Health Services

Skilled Trades

• Electricians

• Carpenters

• Painters and glaziers

• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanics and specialists

• Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors

• Printing services personnel


Not an option/group given this year

Skilled Trades or Crafts

Skilled Trades Skilled Trades

Technical Services

• Audiovisual, language, science, mechanical, and electrical technicians

• Computer operators and programmers, systems analysts, and data processing specialists

• Media and public relations spe-cialists, writers, and editors

• Designers, photographers, and graphic artists

Technical

• Technical service worker

• Technicians

• Computer programmers

• Media

Technical Services

Technical Services

Technical

Security Services

• Security workers

• Guards

• School resource officers


Security

• Security services

• Services

• Student safety

• Officer

• School police

Security Services

Security Services

Security

32

About the Authors

Catherine Bradshaw is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mental Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Johns Hopkins School of Education. She is the Associate Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence and the Co-Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention and EarlyIntervention.Herresearchfocusesonbullyingandschoolclimate;thedevelopmentofaggressiveandproblembehaviors;andthedesign,implementation,andevaluationof prevention programs in schools. She collaborates on federally supported randomized trials of school-based prevention programs, and she is the recipient of a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers from the United States Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Tracy Evian Waasdorp is research faculty in the Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a clinical research associate at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She holds a master’s degree in counseling from the University of Pennsylvania and a doctorate in human development from the University of Delaware. Her research focuses on bullying prevention and intervention, relational aggression/victimization, coping, and parent-child relationships.

Kate Figiel is an education specialist and research assistant with the Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence. She completed a master’s degree in educa-tion at Harvard University and has expertise in educational interventions and teacher supports. She is currently an Assistant Director of Service Learning at Loyola University Maryland.

NEA Center for Great Public Schools1201 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-3290www.nea.org 12777 1012 hls

Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Bullying ... · Education Support...

Documents

Transcript of Education Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Bullying ... · Education Support...