BRIDGEWATER STATE COLLEGEMassachusetts Aggression-Reduction Center (M.A.R.C.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Summary of Outcome Data 2004-05 Academic Year Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center K-12 Anti-Bullying Program
The MARC K-12 Anti-Bullying Program consists of Administrative recommendation and policy help, faculty and support staff training, student programming, and parent presentations. The program was developed during the 2004-05 year and for that reason, not all faculty and support staff received the same training and not all schools participated in all elements of the program. Policy help for administrators was not developed until Spring 2005 and so is not included in the data below. Twenty-one schools in total were interviewed for this data.
The outcome data below is delineated by service type, since all schools did not choose to receive all services. It reflects surveys completed in September, 2005, by schools who received services in academic year 2004-05.
Types of MARC Anti-Bullying Services offered in 2004-05:
Ø Faculty and support staff training Ø Student programs; primarily consisting of the use of BSC Student Facilitators to train high school and middle school students to identify their own school’s problems and to formulate student-led programs to address these problems Ø Parent presentations; primarily consisting of educational presentations to parents during PTO meetings
Discussion & Summary:
The data above indicate that the MARC program in its first year was very positively received and is perceived as having had a significant impact upon bullying in the schools in which we worked. The survey summarized above dealt with the perceptions of school guidance personnel and administrators, and not with “hard” data about bullying incidences (e.g., changes in the number of bullying reports). Nevertheless, subjective perceptions of improvement can be quite valuable and telling, and more objective measures can be misleading. As an example, an increase in reports of bullying incidences can indicate an improvement, not a deterioration, of a situation, since reporting of bullying generally should be expected to increase if schools make reporting more comfortable and accessible for students. For such reasons a school’s subjective sense of improvement or deterioration can be important and reflects, at the very least, the psychological state of mind, which would be expected to impact any reality.
Faculty and support staff training was clearly perceived as very helpful and very practical. Likewise, the program seems strong in training faculty to encourage student reporting and in helping faculty and staff learn better how to cope with and prevent bullying episodes. The weakest area in the faculty training was the perception of a long-term impact upon behaviors. This criticism is frequently found in school trainings or programs that have little follow-up. This year, the program is utilizing a continuing faculty program, consisting of readings, tip sheets, and supplementary trainings, which will presumably address the long-term impact by keeping the issue “fresh” and “current.”
MARC’s approach to student programming through the use of BSC students as trained Facilitators in the MARC program has emerged as one of the most innovative and interesting aspects of the program. The MARC Facilitators travel to schools, discuss bullying problems that exist in those schools with the students, and then train students to formulate student-led programs and efforts designed to change their own schools. Anecdotally the response has been extremely positive. The data above do also indicate that both students and faculty found this part of the program helpful and that the student-run programs did seem to make an impact upon the school climate. Keeping the student groups active was problematic for a few schools; we address this issue now by discussing with schools in advance practical issues such as who will coordinate the student group, how often they will meet, whether or not the group will be a club, a for-credit course, etc.
Of the three areas surveyed, the parent presentation data is the least useful, primarily dealing with the communications between PTO and school administration. However, the one question on efficacy reveals the lowest level of effectiveness found so far in the MARC program. (Nevertheless I would argue that 75% of an audience finding a presentation “useful” constitutes a success.) The MARC parent presentation may require more refinement, although it was substantially altered over the summer of 2005. For example, the parent-education component of the program has been expanded to include a student-conducted parent survey on bullying (to increase parental participation). The MARC parent presentation was originally geared towards helping parents cope effectively when their child reported being bullied; but it emerged over the initial year that other issues were present, such as communication problems between parents and schools, and parental expectations regarding the school’s control over bullying.
Regarding the type of data used for this survey, several important caveats are in order. The data above can be taken as an indication that the program has positive aspects and may be quite effective, but it should not be taken as definitive proof that the MARC Anti-Bullying Program is entirely effective in reducing bullying in schools. First, the program was developed during the 2004-05 year – the year in question – and changed substantially from start to finish, although some common elements were present all year. Faculty training, for example, in October was different from faculty training in April. Thus one prime rule of research has been violated – the standardization of experience across subjects.
Second, the MARC program is intended to change school climate, which cannot occur overnight, and certainly not within a few months. For this reason, even if all other variables were held constant, one would not expect definitive data at the end of a single year of services.
Third, the data in question is vague and only summarizes the impact of the program. Retrieving information from schools emerged as difficult, as schools were not consistently forewarned that we would be expecting to complete outcome measures. For that reason a tactical decision was made to gather brief data and to set up more systematic and meaningful research for the second and third years (when other variables would also be more consistent and thus more meaningful). Last Modified: January 2, 2009 |