School Interventions for Chronic Bullying and Behavior Problems

Reducing Bullying and Harassment in Schools: The Role of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions for Chronic Behavior Problems

Abstract

Bullying and harassment negatively impact school climate and student outcomes. Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports framework allow for targeted, intensive strategies to address the needs of students exhibiting chronic behavior problems related to bullying and harassment. This paper reviews evidence-based Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions to reduce bullying and improve school climate at the selected and targeted levels. Recommendations are provided for implementation of small group interventions, mentoring programs, restorative practices, and function-based support plans. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Introduction

Bullying and harassment are persistent issues in K-12 schools that contribute to mental health problems, absenteeism, and poor academic performance for victims (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2021). Studies indicate 10-15% of students report moderate or frequent involvement in bullying as the perpetrator, victim, or both (Bradshaw, 2015). Bullying involvement is associated with suicide ideation, anxiety, depression, and diminished self-esteem (CDC, 2021).

A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework allows schools to provide targeted interventions based on students' level of need. Within MTSS, Tier 1 represents universal supports for all students, Tier 2 represents selected supports for students at-risk, and Tier 3 represents targeted supports for students with chronic problems (Eagle et al., 2019). This paper will focus specifically on implementing Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions to address the needs of students with ongoing engagement in bullying and harassment.

Tier 2 Strategies

Students requiring Tier 2 supports for bullying perpetration and victimization can benefit from small group interventions. Groups utilizing cognitive behavioral techniques, mindfulness, and social-emotional skill building can reduce aggression and improve perspective-taking and coping (Gaffney et al., 2019). Mentoring programs that match at-risk students with caring adults also provide Tier 2 support through forming a supportive relationship and modeling positive behaviors (Jent & Niec, 2006).

An emerging Tier 2 strategy is restorative practices. Restorative circles and conferences allow both perpetrators and victims to share feelings, understand perspectives, and agree on resolutions to repair harm (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). A meta-analysis found restorative practices have moderate effects in reducing school bullying and victimization (Gaffney et al., 2019). This approach aligns with calls for bullying interventions to be more relational versus punitive in focus (Garandeau et al., 2014).

Tier 3 Strategies

Students unresponsive to Tier 2 supports require individualized Tier 3 interventions. A crucial first step is conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) to identify the triggers and motivations for chronic bullying or victimization behaviors (Ross & Sabey, 2015). The FBA informs a function-based behavior intervention plan (BIP) outlining strategies to modify antecedents, teach replacement behaviors, provide appropriate consequences, remove rewards for problem behavior, and monitor progress (Ingram et al., 2005).

For frequent bullies, function-based BIPs may include social skills instruction, positive reinforcement systems, self-monitoring strategies, and restitution activities (Ross & Sabey, 2015). Plans for frequent victims may incorporate assertiveness training, buddies or mentors, and methods for reporting bullying incidents (Sullivan et al., 2005). To be successful, Tier 3 BIPs require schoolwide coordination, consistent implementation, and continuous data-based monitoring (Ingram et al., 2005).

Implications for Research and Practice

Further research should continue evaluating restorative practices as a Tier 2 intervention for bullying and harassment. Additional longitudinal studies on function-based BIPs are also needed at the Tier 3 level. Limitations of current research include small sample sizes and lack of consistent outcome measures between studies.

School leaders play a key role in adopting MTSS frameworks and allocating resources to fully implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. Adequate staffing, ongoing professional development, and district or state policies supporting MTSS are critical factors. With sustained commitment to data-driven, targeted interventions, schools can create safe, supportive climates and improve outcomes for all students.

Conclusion

Bullying and peer harassment issues require strategic interventions within an MTSS framework. For students unresponsive to Tier 1 universal supports, small group, mentoring, and restorative approaches offer Tier 2 selective supports. Students with chronic bullying perpetration and victimization benefit from individualized Tier 3 interventions informed by FBAs and function-based BIPs. Further research and continued practice improvements will allow schools to effectively address bullying problems and improve school climate.

Here is an example of a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and corresponding behavior intervention plan (BIP) for a hypothetical student:

Functional Behavior Assessment for Student A

Background Information:

- Student A is a 12-year-old 6th grade student 

- Exhibits disruptive behaviors including yelling out during class, throwing items, and refusing to follow teacher instructions

- Behaviors occur most often during math class, especially during independent work time

Antecedents:

- Difficulty with math concepts and skills

- Asked to complete math worksheets independently

- Seated near peers who frequently talk and joke around 

Behaviors:

- Yelling out random words/phrases during quiet work time 

- Throwing pencils, paper, erasers

- Refusing to complete assigned work

Consequences:

- Teacher stops instruction to redirect Student A

- Peers laugh and give Student A attention

- Removed from classroom for timeout 

Hypothesized Function:

- Student A engages in disruption to obtain peer attention and escape difficult academic tasks.

Behavior Intervention Plan for Student A

Goal: Increase task engagement and work completion; decrease disruptive behaviors.

Strategies:

- Provide academics at instructional level

- Increase opportunities to respond and gain teacher praise 

- Implement self-monitoring checklist 

- Establish classroom reward system

- Provide sensory tools during independent work

- Schedule breaks contingent on on-task behavior

- Assign preferential seating away from peers

- Teach replacement behaviors (e.g. raising hand, asking for help)

Progress Monitoring:

- Frequency data on target behaviors

- Work completion rates

- Teacher/student satisfaction ratings 

Special education teachers can conduct Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs). Other people who can perform FBAs include:

• School psychologists
• School social workers
• School counselors
• Assistant principals
• Principals
• Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs)
• Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs)
• Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts (BCaBAs

References

Bradshaw, C.P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039114

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). Preventing bullying. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/bullyingresearch/fastfact.html

Eagle, J.W., Dowd-Eagle, S.E., Snyder, A., & Holtzman, E.G. (2015). Implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M.M., & Farrington, D.P. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001

Garandeau, C.F., Lee, I.A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Differential effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and unpopular bullies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.10.004

Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007050070040401

Jent, J.F. & Niec, L.N. (2006). Mentoring youth with psychiatric disorders: The impact on child and parent functioning. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 28(3), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v28n03_03

Ross, S.W., & Sabey, C.V. (2015). Check-in/check-out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(4), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715578916

Sullivan, K., Cleary, M., & Sullivan, G. (2005). Bullying in secondary schools: What it looks like and how to manage it. Paul Chapman.

Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practices in schools: A practical guide to transforming school communities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.