Lori Flatland Moscow School District White Paper

7/30/2019 Lori Flatland Moscow School District White Paper

1/20

1

School Violence and Relational Aggression:

A Pedagogical Approach

Lori Flatland

University of Idaho

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the existing practices of the Moscow School District

regarding harassment, relational aggression, and bullying, while posing the hypothesis that using

teaching strategies and methods that encourage positive student choice, respect, self-worth, and

harmony can reduce relational aggression, bullying, and more overt forms of school violence.

This paper includes an overview of the policies and programs involving harassment, relational

aggression and bullying in the Moscow School District, including free interviews with key

personnel. Relational aggression and bullying are defined using the Moscow School District

policy and current literature, and the effects on victims and aggressors are discussed. Effective

anti-bullyingprograms in other schools and districts are compared to Moscow School Districts

and suggestions made to improve student experience and academic achievement in the Moscow

School District by using student choice pedagogical strategies.


2/20

2

Introduction

Violence in all its forms continues to be one of the most serious problems in American

schools today. In an effort to reduce these dangers, the depth and breadth of violence in schools

must be understood by examining the types of violence, the perpetrators and victims, as well as

school environments and current interventions. There are a wide variety of philosophies,

theories, methodologies, and practices that have been used in a diversity of settings with clear

and measurable results in areas of student achievement and violence prevention. Several

different types of intervention programs have been evaluated for success at increasing student

morale, reducing violence, or both. With this background, broad conclusions can be drawn as to

what a safe, successful, secure school can look like and what teaching strategies can be used to

minimize violent tendencies in a classroom and maximize affirmative student behaviors and

learning.

With this paper I will attempt to uncover the best practices for promoting student agency

and channeling it into positive personal power, thus reducing students likelihood of seeking

power in destructive ways. Because I have students at Moscow High School, I am narrowing my

focus to high school aggression. These methods have interest not only for students but also for

teachers, administrators, and parents, as the goals of developing holistic classrooms benefit the

entire school community here in Moscow, Idaho. This white paper will address how teaching

strategies and methods that encourage positive student choice, respect, self-worth, and harmony

can reduce relational aggression, bullying, and more overt forms of school violence.

To achieve this goal, an understanding of relational aggression and bullying is first

needed. The literature is reviewed on methods that encourage student choice in the classroom,

and existing programs for schools and districts to address bullying issues are examined. Then,


3/20

3

information on current policies and practices of the Moscow School district is obtained, along

with opinions of key staff. Finally, a discussion is had on the results of the information gathered,

and recommendations made on those results.

The Moscow School Districts policy on harassment, intimidation and bullying is quite

comprehensive and well written. It went through a substantial revision in 2010 to encompass

cyberbullying, which has become a much more serious issue in recent years. Policy 5061.00

states in part:

A. Harassment, intimidation, bullying, or cyberbullying is defined to include any act

(verbal, written, graphic, or physical conduct) that substantially interferes with a students

educational benefits, opportunities, or performance that takes place on school grounds, at

any school-sponsored activity, or on school-provided transportation, and that has the

effect of:

a Physically harming a student or damaging a students property.b Knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm to the student or

damage to the students property.

c Creating a hostile educational environment.d Unreasonably interferes with an individuals educational performance.e Otherwise adversely affects an individuals educational opportunities.

There are several things about this policy that are worth pointing out. The first is that it defines

bullying and harm as any actwhich interferes with a student or students property. This is

important in identifying behaviors that otherwise may be overlooked or misinterpreted. The next

important point is that after these acts have been identified, they are deemed malicious because

of theireffects. So one behavior, like laughing, that has no ill effect on students in one setting,


4/20

4

can be harmful and a bullying behavior in another setting. These are important distinctions.

Other studies on relational aggression and its effects on both the aggressor and the victim have

revealed some interesting conclusions.

New studies by Young, Nelson, Hottle, Warburton, and Young (2011) show that

relational aggression is as much or more damaging than physical aggression among youth. It is

often overlooked because physical violence is more obvious and better understood. Relational

aggression causes depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem. Anxiety and fear cause victims to

avoid social situations, and they dont initiate peer interactions as frequently as nonvictims.

Victims have higher levels of conflict and exclusivity within their friendships, especially when

they are victimized by close friends (Young, et al., 2011).

Victims can easily become aggressors if appropriate action isnt taken to intervene and

teach new skills. Aggressors experience negative outcomes as well, such as depression and social

isolation, and are also rejected by their peers. Aggressors, like victims, have poor quality

friendships, marked by conflict and exclusivity. Aggressors have poor life satisfaction, negative

and unsatisfying relationships, and emotional instability over time. They engage in other types of

self-destructive behaviors, experience maladjustment problems, and possess poor impulse

control and anger management skills (Young, et al., 2011).

In light of the damage relational aggression and bullying can cause to both victims and

perpetrators, it is vital that educators look for effective ways to reduce these behaviors and

mitigate their effects on students. As a parent and prospective high school teacher I am partly

interested in anti-bullying programs that might be implemented at a school, but my main focus is

what I can do in the classroom. I believe that there are instructional strategies, based on sound

pedagogical research, which can improve how students feel about themselves and the choices


5/20

5

they make. I think that if a student can exercise a measure of self-determination in the classroom

then he or she will be less likely to seek power and control over other students in a hurtful way.

Methods

While relational aggression and bullying are truly national problems, I have children in

the Moscow School District, specifically, that attend Moscow High School, so I am interested in

how this district and that school deal with these problems. I conducted interviews with three

Moscow High School staff members for this paper: the first with Diana Hicke, the sophomore

counselor (See Appendix C); the second with Charlie Gerke, the Safe and Drug Free Schools

program coordinator (See Appendix B); and the third with Dina Espy, a Spanish teacher (See

Appendix A). I did not have a set list of questions for my interviews. I went in to each interview

sensitive to the position of the person I was interviewing, and tailored my questions to his or her

sphere. Their interviews gave me valuable insight into the way our high school deals with

relational aggression and bullying, both from an individual and institutional perspective.

In addition to his knowledge and opinions, Mr. Gerke provided me with several materials

that I found valuable in my research. The Moscow School District has administered a survey

published by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory to middle and high schoolers every

two years since 1998. Mr. Gerke gave me materials on the Moscow Mentors program and the

Moscow School Districts flyer on Bullying and Harassment Prevention. These primary sources

provide a well-rounded picture of the way the secondary students, high school faculty, and

school district as a whole view bullying.

Results

Although the main focus of this paper is high school bullying and aggression, it is

productive to review the interventions and programs that are used by the district at each grade


6/20

6

level. This information was shared with me by Mr. Charlie Gerke, the program coordinator for

the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program for the Moscow School District. He serves at both the

high and middle schools and runs a number of school, district, and community programs aimed

at reducing student violence and lowering student risk behaviors. His program goals are twofold:

reduce the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by Moscow area youth; and contribute to the

development of a school climate that is safe and supportive for all students (Gerke, 2013).

Elementary:

At the elementary level, the District offers two different parenting classes. Both are

designed to help parents connect with their children, teach positive communication skills, and

reinforce appropriate rules and respect for authority. At this time, Mr. Gerke starts placing

Moscow Mentors with children that have been identified as needing extra guidance and support.

Moscow Mentors are volunteers that have been screened, trained, and matched with a child to

provide at least one hour of one to one time with that child at school per week. Mentors are

trusted friends, role models, tutors, and guides for their young charges. Optimally, Mentors and

their mentees are together for more than one year, as the student sets personal, academic, and

family goals. In addition, Moscow High School provides Bear Buddies, high school students

who have also been screened and trained to be tutors and helpers to elementary students (Gerke,

2013).

Middle School:

At the middle school level, programs become more intense and focused on students

behaviors and choices. Mr. Gerke still has Moscow Mentors at the middle school, but the district

has also added more staff to increase individual student support where needed, and to supervise

lunch daily. In addition, all students in middle school are taught the 2nd Step program at some


7/20

7

point during their PE classes. It is co-taught by the PE teachers and counselors for about 20

minutes per week over a few months. It provides lessons on what bullying is, how to not be a

victim, and how to develop positive relationships with peers. By this time, Mr. Gerke has been

administering the Substance Use and School Climate Survey. The survey has been given every

other year since 1998 and is given to 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grades (Gerke, 2013).

High School:

At the high school level, programs diversify to focus on specific targeted issues and

challenges. Designed as a program to ease the transition from middle to high school and to stop

problems before they start, the all-day Youth Empowerment program uses team-building

exercises and positive self-affirmations to help students connect in a positive way, find friends,

and build self-esteem. There are now three mentoring programs: Moscow Mentors, Bear

Buddies, and Natural Helpers, made up of high school students that have been trained as mentors

to help their fellow high school classmates. The Natural Helpers attend Youth Empowerment and

are introduced as safe peers for the freshmen to approach if they are having trouble. Mr. Gerkes

other programs include Sober Graduation and Idaho Drug Free Youth, while continuing to

administer the Substance Use and School Climate Survey to the 10th and 12th grades (Gerke,

2013).

My interview with Diana Hicke, the sophomore counselor at Moscow High School, gave

me more information on policies and procedures for handling bullying at the high school. Hicke

related that the school has no formal referral process for bullying. Any student can come in if

they feel they have a problem. A student can report if they feel uncomfortable with the way

another student is being treated, or that they have heard another kid complain about being

bullied. All reports are confidential. Initially, the problem child is brought in for a discussion. If


8/20

8

the problem persists, parents or the resource police officer may be called in for further

disciplinary action. There can be suspensions or expulsions with grounds. In some cases,

transcripts of text conversations can be ordered to substantiate harassment claims. The staff also

scans Facebook to check on student problems and rivalries. While the school can only intervene

in behavior that happens during school hours, kids usually bring out of school conflicts and

issues with them to school (Hicke, 2013).

The Moscow High School staff has yearly inservice training that helps them understand

bullying and how to deal with it at school. They are trained at recognizing the warning signs,

how to effectively intervene, and how to create safe classrooms. Moscow High has a zero

tolerance, no bullying policy (5061.00), and has several programs aimed at maintaining the

school as a safe zone. (Hicke, 2013).

Finally, Ms. Hicke shared with me some of her observations about the school climate.

Hicke reported that Moscow High School has had a rough year so far. This is the first year that

9th graders are attending the high school, so they have increased the amount of relational

aggression and bullying reports that staff has had to deal with. Hicke feels these numbers are up

because 9th graders dont have quite the maturity the rest of the high schoolers do, and so

misbehave more. She noted the differences in how boys bully versus girls; boys are prone to

posturing and intimidation while girls tease, belittle, and ignore. Students are not only aggressive

to each other, they are also rude and insubordinate to staff (Hicke, 2013).

Lastly, Mrs. Espy, a classroom Spanish teacher, gave me her thoughts and opinions on

her students and bullying. She has been teaching here for eight years, and four of those years

were also teaching at Moscow Middle School. She stated that she thought bullying was more

prevalent in middle school than in high school because of the maturity level of the kids, but that


9/20

9

high school kids did their share. She thought boys bullied more than girls did. Boys were more

overt, but girls were more subversive about it. She said she knew she wasnt seeing every

instance of bullying her students were dealing with because of the amount of time the kids spent

in the halls, at lunch, and after school, but that she tried to do her best to identify if a kid needed

help. She felt she could handle most incidents by herself in her class, but was very comfortable

calling in reinforcements from the counselors and principals if need be (Espy, 2013).

Conclusion

To sum up, the philosophy of the Moscow School District would seem to be to address

family issues and provide individual student support during elementary ages, and as the students

grow, to continue to provide as much support as is needed, while implementing a small middle

school program to address some bullying attitudes and behaviors. The high school has the more

diverse programs, but not as much emphasis on bullying per se. Looking at the way other schools

and districts attack the same problem can give some insight into ways to improve students

experiences in the Moscow School District.

Since the problem of bullying and relational aggression is serious and widespread, many

districts and schools around the country have adopted various types of violence prevention

programs. They range from targeted bullying prevention programs (Good, C. P., McIntosh, K., &

Gietz, C., 2011), to changing the entire school climate (Garrity, C., & Jens, K., 1997), to altering

the curriculum and academic profile of the school (Dietrich, A. P., & Bailey, E. L., 1996), all

with measures of success. They all share key components.

First, they all establish and clearly communicate rules and expectations of behavior.

Bullies need to be confronted and told clearly that their behavior will not be tolerated within the

school environment (Garrity, et al., 1997, pg. 5). However, that does not mean reacting to


10/20

10

bullying behaviors with increasingly punitive measures. That invariably backfires. The solution

is to create a caring environment that communicates, We treat others kindly at our school

(Garrity, et al., 1997, pg. 2).

Second, they all maintain consistent responses to inappropriate behavior. In some

instances it is a simple, step by step response to bullying behavior that the students are taught.

They may stop, count to three, take a deep breath, and then walk away. If those steps are not

sufficient, they contact an adult for further help (Good, et al., 2011). When incorporated with

redirecting bullies into a prosocial way of behaving with their peers, and working with special

populations to reduce victim behaviors and attitudes, consistent, positive responses to bullying

behaviors reduce contentions (Good, et al., 2011).

Third, the staff is cooperative, involved, and responsive. The administration and staff take

personal responsibility for the students in their charge. The faculty feels an obligation to see that

rules are enforced to maintain a positive learning environment (Dietrich, et al., 1996, pg. 19).

Principals are highly visible in hallways and in classrooms, know their students names and

praise their work. Respect for students is a high priority, and respect for the staff is expected in

turn (Dietrich, et al., 1996). Once prosocial programs are implemented, most teachers feel they

have fewer discipline problems and happier students, which creates more academic environments

(Garrity, et al., 1997).

Lastly, the school environment is considered the responsibility of the students to keep and

maintain. While bullying may be a significant problem in any given school, a majority of

students in the school are not bullies or are being bullied. They make up the caring majority of

a school and the creators of its culture. When this majority is given positive control of the school,

bullying can be marginalized or eliminated (Garrity, et al., 1997). When the need for student


11/20

11

ownership in the school culture is recognized and validated, not only does bullying decrease but

learning increases (Garrity, et al., 1997).

Lets take this a step further and discuss what happens in a classroom when the teacher

gives the students some measure of choice. In a 2009 study, C. P. Niemiec & R. M. Ryan posit

that when a student feels an intrinsic value in what he is learning, he learns better, faster, and

deeper. This intrinsic motivation comes from a feeling of control, or autonomy, over what he is

learning, and therefore when he learns well, feels competent in his learning. Thus the cycle of

success can be perpetuated, as long as the student feels that he has a measure of control over

what he is learning. Not all things learned are felt to be of intrinsic value, however. Things that

are deemed by the student to have little intrinsic value can be learned well if the student feels a

sense of connectedness and belonging to his teacher and learning environment. This is called

Self-Determination Theory (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).

When I discussed the concept of self-determination with Mrs. Espy, the Spanish teacher,

she balked. She said she didnt feel that giving students more choices in her classes would be a

positive methodology. The thing that had surprised her most about teaching was the attitude

students had about their learning. Espy said she had students that were bright and capable but

refused to work up to their potential and worse still, didnt care to. She felt that giving students

more autonomy would simply give them more opportunities to fail (Espy, 2013).

An answer to this would be an invitation to succeed. In his seminal work,Inviting Student

Discipline (1985),William Purkey explains that students resist control because it restricts

individual freedom and personal choice (pg. 256). In other words, no one likes to be told they

cant do what they want to do. The opposite approach is much more, well, inviting. It is based on

four principles: optimism, intentionality, respect, and trust. Optimism provides the teacher with a


12/20

12

positive vision of human existence, namely that people are valuable and capable of self-

direction. Intentionality means that all activity is purposeful and intended to produce something

of benefit. Educators should behave in an intentionally inviting manner. Respect is an

appreciation of civility and common courtesy, as well as an attitude of shared power and

equality. These build a foundation for trust and human interdependence.

In conclusion, while I believe the Moscow School District has many fine and dedicated

people that work hard to counsel and support their students, and there are programs available at

all grade levels that can identify those children in need of help and support, additional training in

more pedagogical methods would be helpful. While taking a systemic approach to school

violence and bullying may have limited success, long-term outcomes are best achieved by

strategies that strengthen individuals.


13/20

13

References

Dietrich, A. P., & Bailey, E. L. (1996). School Climate: Common-Sense Solutions to

Complicated Problems.Nassp Bulletin, 80, 576, 16.

Espy, D. (2013, April 3). Interview by L Flatland [Personal Interview]. Interview with a high

school teacher.

Garrity, C., & Jens, K. (1997). Bully proofing your school: Creating a positive climate.

Intervention In School & Clinic, 32(4), 235.

Gerke, C. (2013, March 5). Interview by L Flatland [Personal Interview]. Interview with a

program coordinator.

Good, C. P., McIntosh, K., & Gietz, C. (2011). Integrating Bullying Prevention Into Schoolwide

Positive Behavior Support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(1), 48-56.

Hicke, D. (2013, February 20). Interview by L Flatland [Personal Interview]. Interview with a

school counselor.

Moscow School District #281. (2010).Definition of harassment, intimidation, bullying.

(5061.00). Moscow, ID. Moscow School District Board of Trustees

http://msdweb.msd281.org/wordpress/board-of-trustees/msd-board-policy/section-v-

students/5050-5099-student-conduct/5061-00-definition-of-harassment-intimidation-

bullying/

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the

Classroom: Applying Self-Determination Theory to Educational Practice. Theory and

Research in Education, 7, 2, 133-144.

Purkey, W. W. (1985). Inviting Student Self-Discipline. Theory into Practice, 24, 4, 256-259.


14/20

14

Young, E. L., Nelson, D. A., Hottle, A. B., Warburton, B., & Young, B. K. (2011). Relational

Aggression Among Students.Education Digest, 76(7), 24-29.


15/20

15

Appendix A

Interview with Dina Espy by Lori Flatland

April 3, 2013

Dina Espy is a Spanish teacher at Moscow High School. She has been teaching here for

eight years, and for four of those was also teaching at Moscow Middle School. Though she is a

young teacher with two small children, she has a lot of experience in dealing with teenagers.

When I explained the premise of my research paper, Dina said she didnt feel that giving

students more choices in her classes would be a positive thing. The thing that had surprised her

the most about teaching was the attitude students had about their learning. She said she had

students that were bright and capable but refused to work up to their potential and worse still,

didnt care to. She felt that giving students more autonomy would simply give them more

opportunities to fail.

When I asked her about her experiences dealing with bullying in her classes, she told me

that she saw many more boys bully than girls. Boys were more overt, but girls were more

subversive about it. She did say that she felt bullying was more prevalent in middle school than

in high school, because of the maturity level of the kids, but that high school kids did their share.

She said she knew she wasnt seeing every instance of bullying her students were dealing with

because of the amount of time that the kids spent in the halls, at lunch, and after school, but that

she tried to do her best in identifying if a kid needed help.

Dina said that she was grateful for a supportive administration. She tried to handle most

incidents in her classes herself, but if she couldnt resolve an issue, she knew she could call in

reinforcements from the counselors and the principals if need be. She felt that the school had a


16/20

16

safe atmosphere and that kids knew there were plenty of people they could turn to if they needed

help with a bullying problem.

Mrs. Espy can be reached at [email protected].


17/20

17

Appendix B

Interview with Charlie Gerke by Lori Flatland

March 5, 2013

Charlie Gerke is the program coordinator for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program for

the Moscow School District. He serves at both the high and middle schools and runs a number of

school, district, and community programs aimed at reducing student violence and lowering

student risk behaviors. He has to fight for funding most every year. I interviewed him right

before he was going to ask the school board to give him the Tobacco Tax funds for the 2013-14

school year so he could continue to run his programs. The funds werent going to go towards

staffing, just resources and materials. He let me see the proposal he was going to give the board,

outlining the number of programs he administered. I was amazed at the scope of his job. His

program goals are twofold: reduce the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by Moscow area

youth; and contribute to the development of a school climate that is safe and supportive for all

students.

At the high school, Mr. Gerke has several things that indirectly contribute to reducing

relational aggression for both victims and perpetrators. One is the Youth Empowerment program.

He has two mentoring programs, one at the high school, Natural Helpers, and one at the

elementary staffed by high schoolers, Bear Buddies. Starting in 6th grade, he gives the Substance

Use and School Climate Survey, which has 45 questions, 5 of which deal with violence at

school. The survey is given every other year, ending with 12th grade. It was first given in 1996,

and over the years this survey has given the district a lot of data on student drug use, age of first

drug use, weapon use, and student perceptions of resources available to them.


18/20

18

At the middle school, Mr. Gerke has another mentoring program and a program for

monitoring lunchtime, which is very important. The more kids are supervised the fewer

opportunities they have to misbehave. There is also a 2nd Step program given during PE class

for all middle school kids, delivered by the teachers and counselors. It is only 20 minutes per

week, but it teaches kids about bullying, how to not be a victim, and how to develop healthy

relationship skills with peers.

Moscow School District doesnt have a formal anti-bullying curriculum or systematic

program in place, but a hodgepodge of programs and one dedicated coordinator that tries to keep

everything together.

Mr. Gerke can be reached at [email protected].


19/20

19

Appendix C

Interview with Diana Hicke by Lori Flatland

February 20, 2013

This is the first year with 9th graders at Moscow High School, so there have been more

reports of eye rolling, snarky comments, and other behaviors this year because of the age and

maturity of the student body. There has been an increase in mean girl behaviors as well. Boys

are prone to more aggressive posturing and intimidation. Hicke said that bullying seemed to

come in waves, and this year included students being insubordinate to staff.

The Vice Principal knows the counselors, the teachers know the counselors, and the

whole staff know they are available to help, but in some instances it is difficult to catch. No one

is dismissed if they have a concern, even if it is only that something doesnt feel quite right.

There is no formal referral process. Kids can come in by themselves, or come in if they

feel another kid is being mistreated or they feel uncomfortable with the way a kid is being

treated. They can be anonymous if they choose. Teachers can refer kids too. The reports seem to

be pretty balanced between those incidents of bullying that are seen or witnessed and those that

happen to the student that comes in.

Teachers can take care of things in the class, but if that is not sufficient to stop the

behaviors, then the counselors can call kids in for a talk. Then parents can be called, and

disciplinary action is taken from there if necessary. There is a resource police officer that is at the

school during the school day, and he is ready to detain kids if there is reason to do so. In some

cases, transcripts of text conversations can be ordered to substantiate harassment claims. The

staff also scans Facebook to check on student problems and rivalries. While the school can only


20/20

20

intervene in behavior that happens during school hours, kids usually bring out of school conflicts

and issues with them to school.

In the fall, all freshmen go through a day long Youth Empowerment day devoted to team

building with the kids Natural Helpers. The new kids get to spend time with older high school

kids that have been trained as Natural Helpers, peer mentors. The day helps diffuse worries and

stresses that the freshmen have about high school and gives them someone they can go to with

problems and questions in the future. This is one program that may help curb bullying.

The Moscow High School staff has yearly inservice training that helps them understand

bullying and how to deal with it at school. They are trained at recognizing the warning signs,

how to effectively intervene, and how to create safe classrooms. Moscow High has a zero

tolerance, no bullying policy, and has several programs aimed at maintaining the school as a safe

zone.

Ms. Hicke can be reached at [email protected].

Lori Flatland Moscow School District White Paper

Documents

Transcript of Lori Flatland Moscow School District White Paper