Lesson 5: Bullying Prevention and Pupils with SEND

It is estimated that in excess of 5% of Children or Young people (CYP) aged from birth to 14 have a disability by The World Health Organization in its World Report on Disability (WHO, 2020). There has been an ongoing policy emphasis on including CYP with disabilities within mainstream school settings and supporting inclusive and approach practice across school practices (Buchner et al, 2021; NCSE, 2016). This means that children with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) are accessing education in mainstream school setting with increasing frequency in recent decades and have greater contact with the general pupil population. CYP who can be categorised as presenting with SEND or fitting within this category can diverge or differ greatly from each other. The category of SEND itself is very broad and includes individuals who have a wide range of diagnosed learning differences or disabilities.

5.1. Categories of Special Education Need & Disability

In Ireland, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act (GoI, 2004) defined Special educational needs as:

… a restriction in the capacity of the person to participate in and benefit from education on account of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or learning disability, or any other condition which results in a person learning differently from a person without that condition.

The EPSEN Act was clear that, while a disability may lead to a CYP presenting with support needs or a special education need, this may not always be the case. It is also important to understand that a child can have a disability but not have any special educational needs arising from that disability which require additional supports in school.

The ESPEN Act further outlined four different areas of disability from which special educational needs may arise :

• physical

• sensory

• mental health

• learning disability

These broad categories of disability which can lead to additional areas of support need are also referenced in the UKs 0-25 SEND Code of Practice (2015).


These broad categories were further divided within the UK School Census categories of special educational needs include:

- Specific learning difficulties (SpLD);

- Moderate learning difficulty (MLD);

- Severe learning difficulty (SLD);

- Profound and multiple learning difficulty (PMLD);

- Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN);

- Social, emotional and mental health (SEMH);

- Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD);

- Visual impairment (VI);

- Hearing impairment (HI);

- Multisensory impairment (MSI);

- Physical disability (PD);

- ‘SEN support’ but no specialist assessment of type of need (NSA)


Importantly, the UKs code of practice (2015) emphasises how such categories of disability can be used to support the inclusive educational practices within schools in the following manner:

‘The purpose of identification is to work out what action the school needs to take, not to fit a pupil into a category. In practice, individual children or young people often have needs that cut across all these areas and their needs may change over time... A detailed assessment of need should ensure that the full range of an individual’s needs is identified, not simply the primary need.’ (section 6.27)

This approach emphasises the role of assessment in identifying the individual profiles of CYP who may present with SEND. These profiles are then advised to be used to allocate resources or supports to ensure the CYP receives the support they may require.

Such an approach is particularly important given the complexity of profile that is common among CYP with SEND. The reality is that the diagnostic frameworks which guide the identification of discrete categories of SEND are increasingly viewed as overly simplifying the complexity of many children’s presentations (Embracing Complexity Coalition, 2019; Gillberg, 2010). In the case of the range of diverse neurodevelopment conditions which commonly contribute to SEND diagnosis, there is commonly significant overlap across conditions (Embracing Complexity Coalition, 2019) and co-occurring diagnosis. For example, in the case of Autism, one study found that 70% of Autistic children had a comorbid psychiatric presentation, and 41% had two or more (Simonoff, Pickles, Charman, Chandler, Loucas,& Baird, 2008). Rogers (2019) points out that between 22% and 84% of autistic children and 35% to 77% of adult’s report anxiety, with 50% of children describing this as impacting on daily life. The incidence of autism within the population of Ireland is currently estimated to be 1 in 65 (HSE, 2018), while to assessed prevalence of the same condition in Northern Ireland is 4.6% of the population. The figure below indicates the level of overlap across the range of Neurodevelopmental differences in CYP with disability, emphasising the need for individualised profiling and assessment of children. 


Figure 1. Neurodevelopment differences and their overlap. 


5.2 Bullying and CYP with SEND

There is an increasing awareness among the public and within policy development of the phenomenon of bullying and/or cyberbullying involving school-age CYP (Carrington et al., 2017; Cross, Epstein et al. 2011; Cross, Monks et al. 2011; Murray-Harvey and Slee 2010). There is a large literature indicating that CYP with disabilities are more vulnerable across a range of power imbalances or risk factors contributing increased experiences of bullying (Álvarez-García et al., 2015). Indeed, Rose & Espelage (2012) suggest that CYP with SEND are twice as likely to experience peer victimization relative to their non-disabled peers while other studies have estimated that they are 2 to 4 times more likely to be bullied (Hartleyet al., 2015). In the US Blake et al. (2012) reported 24.5% of elementary, 34.1% of middle school, and 26.6% of high school of CYP with SEND met the profile of bully-victims. 

A complex picture emerges regarding bullying which may involve those with SEND which is not limited to greater vulnerability to being targets of bullying from others. While some research indicates that CYP with SEND do experience elevated levels of bullying victimization relative to rates among nondisabled peers, other studies found CYP with disabilities displayed higher levels of bullying perpetration or aggression than their nondisabled peers (Marsh, 2018). Some researchers have suggested that CYP with more externalising behaviours are more likely to be targets or to also engage in bullying behaviour while those whose disability involves a more obvious intellectual or physical disability are more vulnerable to being targeted by peers (Farmer et al., 2015; O’Brennan et al., 2015).  Indeed, students with physical disabilities constitute “easier targets” for bullies, who tend to persecute the most vulnerable. Due to the lack of understanding of their disability, they tend to be more easily excluded in the playground, as well as not considered in the school environment. Consequently, bullying for students with physical disabilities adds to their feeling of exclusion and low self-esteem, which in turn can worsen their mental health and lead to depression, increased anxiety, or even suicidal thoughts. 

Autistic CYP experience particularly high levels of bully victimisation (Horgan et al., 2022: Cook et al., 2018; Humphrey & Lewis, 2008a; Saggers, 2015). Klin et al., 2000, (p.6) described autistic young people as “perfect victims” for bullying. Studies from the US found 90% of Autistic participants reported experience of regular bullying (Carrington et al., 2017), echoing  UK finding reporting 75% of school aged students experienced bullying, rising to 82% of secondary aged students. Recent studies exploring the perspectives or experiences of autistic students attending mainstream schools reported that they reported physical abuse occurred with ‘alarming regularity’ (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008a), with the young people recalled being pushed, squashed behind a door, tackled and punched. Worryingly, many studies found that, while they were regularly the victims of bullying or were excluded by their peers, autistic students regularly chose not to report episodes of bullying or verbal harassment ‘as long as they don’t do anything physically harmful to me, there’s no point’ (Saggers, 2015, p.39).

Hand in hand with elevated incidences of bullying among Autistic CYP, social exclusion is also a significant issue. Research from the UK found autistic students are more rejected and less popular than their non-autistic peers (Jones & Frederickson, 2010) and also than students with other forms of disability (Symes & Humphrey, 2010). Autistic students  also report significantly lower levels of social support from parents, classmates, and friends (but not teachers) than other students (Humphrey & Symes, 2010), report fewer friends (Cairns & Cairns, 1994) and more limited social networks (Chamberlain et al, 2007). They are also among the most likely to be excluded from school (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007) or placed on reduced timetables than their non-autistic peers (AsIAm, 2019). 

While there may be commonality from the existing literature relevant to bullying involving Autistic CYP, the profile of autism differs significantly from that of other forms of disability.  It would be inadvisable to make generalisations across the spectrum of CYP with SEND given these well-documented differences in strengths and support needs. This has obvious implications for interventions to support CYP with SEND who are experiencing bullying in school settings.

5.3 Individualised Inclusion and Universal Design for Learning

In order to benefit from any bullying prevention program or intervention for students with disabilities, accommodations or modifications to school social inclusion and school anti-bullying programmes will be required.  This is particularly important given the profile of social exclusion and heightened experience of bullying that are common for CYP with SEND. 

In designing inclusive and appropriate bullying prevention programmes it may prove beneficial to analyse some of the key components of bullying prevention programs and the characteristics and special needs of students with disabilities to ensure that the programme is ‘fit for purpose’.  In many instances, there will be a need for accommodations or modifications, much like what is sometimes necessary for academic content and classroom instruction (Sipal, 2013).

The need to adapt an anti-bullying programme with reference to the individual profile of particular children or young people with disabilities, school setting, or pupil population characteristic will mean planning for a diversity of approaches across schools and education systems. Teachers will be important factors in understanding their students, classes and schools, with a partnership approach that emphasises empowerment being advisable. The emphasis within the teacher’s resources will be on developing capacity among participating teachers to work collaboratively with pupils in the development of engaging and appropriate anti-bullying programmes within their shared school settings.

Approaches to adapting school programmes and policies such that they are accessible for all students, including CYP with SEND are vital. One such framework to guide differentiation of approach is Universal Design for Learning (UDL: CAST, 2018). UDL is a framework organised according to a set of principles, in written and spoken communication, which aim to encourage transparent, inclusive, and community-driven learning and to ensure access to all within learning cohort through flexible and individual design. These guidelines are designed to support improved accessibility within curriculum design and delivery in the sphere of education and to reflect the reality that diversity of preference, ability or support needs was common among learners in many settings. It emphasises the need for schools and teachers to adopt a flexible and appropriate stance in the design of accessible and appropriate programmes to support participation across the full pupil groups.

 In summary, UDL advocates for multiple means of engagement to stimulate motivation and learning, multiple means of representation by presenting information in different ways, and multiple means of action and expression by offering differentiated ways of expressing knowledge and understanding to ensure accessibility (represented in figure 2. below). 

These principles can guide school leaders and teachers in adapting or differentiation of Anti-Bullying programmes or processes within their schools. In adopting a UDL informed approach, access and flexibility can be frontloaded into the design process based on informed understanding of pupil profiles or preferences. Such an approach is vital given the diversity of profiles or presentations among cohorts of pupils, inclusive of CYP with SEND. It emphasises the importance of fostering an inclusive and flexible medium for engaging these pupils within Anti-Bullying programmes, and in the social life occurring within schools.

The development of flexible and appropriate communication mechanisms across the education community, including parents, will be of utmost importance in supporting access for students with SEND. Matching the communication form used to the profile of the participating students, allied including their perspectives and interests as part of the process of differentiation of the anti-bullying programmes are effective in supporting participation. 



Universal Design for Learning - Impact of Special Needs

Figure 2. Principles of Universal design for learning


The below detailed considerations aimed at fostering inclusion of the needs of pupils with SEND within school-based bullying prevention programmes may be useful in guiding schools/teachers (Sipal, 2013).


It is essential for teachers and intervention leaders to link with “gate-keepers” before commencing any intervention to gain access to: 

This information is essential in developing a detailed profile of the CYP with SEND in order to identify their particular areas of strength, interest and areas of support need. This is essential in informing the design of the School-based Bullying Prevention intervention, what roles to roles to given specific CYP within the process and the design of appropriate communication approaches. 

When considering the design of the intervention, the materials to be used and the role to be allocated to the CYP, it is important to tailor the degree of participation in a manner appropriate for the pupils preferences or areas of strength. Access and flexibility are key considerations within the design and planning process for the anti-bullying intervention from the outset. Such considerations are, fundamentally, based on informed understanding of participant’s profiles or preferences.


Figure 3. Levels of participation


Details of how the profile of strengths, interests or areas of support can inform the development of the bullying prevention programme include; 

In line with a UDL framework, planning for inclusive school-based anti-bullying interventions clear and understandable materials are required which communicate the aims of initiative appropriately.  Accessibility considerations within the design and selection of written communication relevant to groups of CYP with SEND is, obviously, a vitally important consideration. These factors are important for two reasons: 

  1. they may affect a participant’s ability to comprehend information that is relevant to their decision making and consent, and 
  2. effective and appropriate written communication can enhance recruitment and engagement with the initiative 

The use of a range of concrete, visual and accessible resources such as from visual timetables or image-based cards familiar to students to convey information or communicate responses can support participation from less verbally developed CYP with SEND. Use of sign language symbols or visual symbols to accompany text can support comprehension of information. In addition, the use of video or vlog based communication can be appealing and attractive to some cohorts of pupils with SEND. Such adaptations and focused flexibility is reflective of the UDL principle of providing multiple means of representation, providing information and content in a variety of ways in order to support understanding.

It is also advisable to consider how to co-develop an agreed coda of ground rules or principles which all participating pupils agreed to adhere to when they engage with each other during the initiative. This can be effective in fostering shared understanding and trust among the group and can support the CYP with SEND to disclose their areas of support needs or other important considerations. 


Accessible methods to supporting participation in School-Based Bullying interventions

While planning carefully for flexible and inclusive practice is of vital importance, it is also important to consider UDL informed approaches to support participation during the intervention. How to engage, motivate and encourage participation from diverse groups of pupils which include CYP with SEND is important. There are a range of considerations which can help guide teachers or facilitator in developing inclusive School-Based Anti-Bullying campaigns, which will be discussed below: 

Key gatekeepers such as support staff, special news assistants or parents are an important source of information to supporting planning for inclusive interventions. Facilitators should liaise with these gatekeepers in order to ensure that venues, communication, information and transport are appropriate and accessible (National Disability Authority, 2002). These gatekeepers can also advocate or act as translators for the communication intentions or wishes of the pupils with SEND. 

Visual representation throughout the data process it is essential to support engagement and empower pupils to express their opinions or contribute to the process. Written texts that use dense or complex language may be simplified and reinforced using social stories, photographs and pictures. Using symbols or cue cards such as ‘stop’, ‘break’ and ‘pass’ can help to alleviate frustration and guesswork by providing a visual means for participants to end the interview, take a break or skip a question (Goodall, 2020).  

Adapting verbal language and communication style is essential where processing speed, working memory, verbal and non-verbal comprehension may be compromised, and will inform the way in which information is presented during the initiative or meetings. In their book Is That Clear? Effective Communication in a Neurodiverse World, Gaynor, Alevizos and Butler (2020) outline some considered approaches to using accessible language.  These include techniques such as:

 Alternative and augmentative communication systems (AAC): 

 Inclusive school based programmes should also be flexible in accommodating the needs of non-speaking or less verbally sophisticated CYP with SEND. Some considerations include providing interview questions in advance to allow time for reflection and composition, posing fewer questions, and acknowledging the need for extended wait time for response (Ashby and Causton‐Theoharis, 2009).  The inclusion of AAC communication systems that area already used by some CYP with SEND can support their participation within school-based initiatives. Facilitating communication preferences (Paterson and Carpenter, 2015) requires familiarity with the mechanics of AAC; hardware devices use software based on alphabet boards or picture / symbol grids that allow users to combine these to form phrases or sentences.

5.4. Inclusive Activities and Approaches

Individuals with SEND may require adapted and engaging methods to support them in participating and feeling confident to contribute within school based anti-bullying initiatives. Developing engaging activities and workshops that are supportive in eliciting opinions are vital. Rather than depending upon groups settings or meetings with involved pupils, the use of inclusive elicitation techniques allows the teacher to incorporate multiple modalities which may be more accessible to CYP with SEND with limited language or use alternative ways of communicating.

A range of examples of activity-based approaches to supporting engagement will be discussed below.

 

Elicitation techniques, sometimes referred to as participatory tools or methods (Clark, 2005; Goodall, 2018), can be described as tasks that encourage participating pupils to discuss their ideas or contribute their perspectives (Johnson and Weller, 2002). These usually comprise activity based scaffolds or physical resources which encourage engagement. They can include visual, verbal or written material or objects as useful alternatives to direct questioning or instructions (Barton, 2015). 

Their use has the potential advantage of supporting transparency, pupil comfortable and authentic communication. It may also give pupils a greater voice in order to equalize potential power imbalances between the teacher and pupils (Barton, 2015). In addition, they can support pupils confidence, easy and mitigate anxiety or fear. 

Examples of elicitation approaches include, for example, activity-based tasks, photo elicitation/photovoice activities, drawing activities, ranking activities, collage making and walking interviews. Examples will be outlined below: 


Activity oriented interviews: A study by Winstone et al., (2014) explored the perspectives of young autistic people about their sense of self-identity through interviews that included a number of concrete and engaging activities. Two weeks prior to the interviews, students engaged in drawing tasks exploring self-identity during an Art class (for example, Figure 3).  Students were given a small mirror and asked to describe how they felt and what they thought other people would see; students were also invited to discuss the artwork they had produced. Thus, through the use of activity-oriented interviews, students were able to explore a complex concept from their own point of view and articulate their perspectives in multiple ways. 

Figure 4. A student drawing of what they would like to be in the future (Winstone et al., 2014, p.198).


An alternative approach was used in a study by Goodall (2018) which explored the perspectives of a group of autistic young people regarding their own school. The drawing activities asked students to describe a good teacher and a bad teacher by adding drawings and text to two generic outlines of a figure. Pupils were also invited to design their own school activity through drawing, and some also produced a drawing of themselves in school with added annotations (Figure 5); subsequently, pupils were asked to orally describe each of these works. 


Students also participated in a ‘diamond ranking’ activity (Figure 6) whereby aspects of school life were ranked from most important to least important. Additionally, students took part in a ‘beans and pots’ activity (Figure 7) by placing a personalised polystyrene ball into True, False or Unsure pots in response to a number of statements (Goodall, 2018, 2019, 2020). 


Figure 5. Student drawing from the drawing activity ‘Me at school’ (Goodall, 2019, p.21).


Figure 6. Diamond ranking aspects of school (Goodall, 2019, p.17)

 

Figure 7. ‘Beans and pots’ activity (Goodall, 2019, p.17).

5.5. SEND and A Whole Education Approach to School-Based Bullying Prevention

Research, however, indicates that programmes related to bullying prevention are most effective when they are located as part of a wider Whole Education Approach (WEA) that is communicated effectively at student, school staff and parent level. What constitutes effective communication will differ according to the profiles of students involved and will need to be identified in collaboration with students and teachers on a school-by-school basis.

A WEA to prevention of school-based bullying emphasises the importance of recognising schools operate within the communities within which they are located, which have values and norms of behaviour which impact school initiatives. A WEA ensures that local school initiatives recognise the importance of the interconnectedness of the school with the wider community including education, technological and societal systems, values and pressures, all of which can influence the prevalence and type of bullying and cyberbullying that occurs in a school.

A WEA comprises nine components which are considered to be interlined and interconnected within a holistic systemic framework. These components are outlined in figure 3 below and include legal and policy influence that are beyond a whole-school approach. This approach contributes to the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is especially the case for SDG4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education, and SDG16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies. This approach aims to foster a more inclusive and participatory education system which would be to the benefit of SYP with SEND in schools. 


https://tacklebullying.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cc-e1605190364935.png

Figure. 8: A Whole Education Approach to School-Based Bullying Prevention


The impact of school based climate and culture has been shown to have a significant impact on social inclusion and school-based bullying prevention. Whitted & Dupper, (2005) identified three key areas of focus in designing bullying prevention interventions in school settings, which include;

These were further codified in work by Sipal (2013) who outlined a range of stratified and detailed considerations regarding how schools can develop inclusive Anti-Bullying Policies and practices.

School-level components 

1. Questionnaires are utilized to assess the nature and extent of bullying and raise awareness. 

2. The principal shows good leadership skills in implementing the program. 

3. Anonymous reporting procedures are established in schools. 

4. All areas of the school territory are well supervised. 

Classroom-level components 

1. Regular classroom meetings are held to discuss bullying. 

2. Students are involved in developing rules about bullying. 

3. The concept of bullying is integrated into the curriculum. 

4. All school staff model positive interpersonal skills and cooperative learning and do not set a bad example by exhibiting dominating or authoritarian behaviour with students. 

5. Adults respond swiftly and consistently and are sympathetic to students who need support. 

6. Adults encourage students to include all students in play and activities. 

7. Adults send clear messages that bullying is not tolerated. 

8. Parents are encouraged to contact the school if they suspect their child is involved in bullying.

Student-level components

1. Pupils experiencing bullying are taught social skills (i.e., assertiveness skills) and problem-solving skills. 

2. A support system is established for students who are the targets of bullies. 

There are a range of guidelines and specific consideration available to support schools, teachers, and school leaders in bringing about positive change in their school setting, focusing on social inclusion and participation for pupils with SEND. One example of comprehensive whole school guidelines for developing differentiated and inclusive school-based bullying prevention procedures that consider the needs of CYP with SEND is the below framework developed by the New Jersey Coalition for Bullying Prevention and Awareness (2012)

Key actions for school leaders, staff, Parents and community stakeholders