Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing bullying among students has become a major goal of schools in modern world, yet little progress is being made and bullying is said to be a growing problem. Several metanalyses of research on school anti-bullying programs have shown that these programs have little benefit and often make problem worse. The purpose of this article is to explain reason for unimpressive results of our anti-bullying efforts: we have been taking a legal/law enforcement approach to problem rather than a scientific/psychological approach.April 20, 2013 marked 14th anniversary of Columbine shooting, event that woke our nation to problem of bullying. Since then, almost all of our 50 states have passed school anti-bullying laws, holding schools responsible for getting rid of bullying. The US Dept. of Education has declared that school funding will be cut for schools that don't address every complaint of bullying. This development has been a great boon for government bureaucracy, for purveyors of anti-bullying programs, as well as for school mental health professionals, whose positions are often first to be cut when school funds are limited. In order to comply with laws, schools need these services more than ever.School administrators have been as eager as rest of population to have anti-bullying laws enacted. However, these laws have put schools in a bind. How can they comply with requirement to eliminate bullying when research has been showing consistently that most highly regarded anti-bullying programs are not particularly effective? In Dec. 2004 issue of School Psychology Review, a team of researchers led by Canadian School Psychologist David Smith published a study on whole-school anti-bullying programs (Smith, J., Schneider, B, Smith, P., Ananiadou, K., 2004). They had conducted a metanalysis of published research on whole-school antibullying programs to see how they were working. They discovered that 86 percent of published studies showed that anti-bully programs had no benefit or made problem even worse. Only 14 percent of published studies showed that program produced a minor reduction in bullying. Not one program produced a major reduction. Subsequent metanalyses by Vreeman and Carroll (2007), Merrell and Isava (2008), and Ttofi, Farrington and Baldry (2008) have had similar lackluster findings. Oddly, when these researchers find that most intensive programs resulted in a reduction of 20-23 percent, they consider it a great success. The bar for success in bullying prevention is apparently very low.The most highly revered and widely used bullying prevention program is Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), often referred to as the gold standard. This is a highly time-and-energy-intensive program that requires everyone in school community to be involved in combating bullying. The most massive study ever conducted on OBPP (or any bullying prevention program) was completed in December, 2011, at a cost of $19 million dollars and paid for by Highmark Foundation in Pennsylvania. After two years of rigorous implementation, results were a mere 12 percent reduction in number of students who said they were bullied twice or more per month (Schroeder, et.al, 2012). The study did not even report on children who are bullied daily, population that should be focus of concern, for these are kids who are truly suffering. Assuming, though, a 12 percent across-the-board reduction in number of children who are bullied, what do we tell parents of 88 percent of children who were not helped by world's most highly revered program?Some researchers have hailed as successful programs that resulted in an increase in bullying because there was a somewhat higher increase in bullying in control schools. One such study was of Positive Behaviors and Interventions (PBIS), conducted by Johns Hopkins University, at expense of $13 million (Grens, K. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".