"Bullying among special education students with intellectual disabilities" - A Critical Review

Bullying has become one of the glamour issues in education in recent years. The often sensationalised reporting of school bullying incidents in the media has led some to believe that its the latest moral panic (Wood, 1997). Others, such as eminent bullying researcher, Peter K. Smith (1999, p3) view this media hyperbole as a necessary evil that complements research, thus generating strong political interest and, subsequently, additional funding for research and intervention work. However, beyond the drone of populist sentiment lies a very serious issue that needs to be addressed by all educators, given the wealth of research to support both the short and long term negative effects of bullying. Such effects include low psychological wellbeing, poor social adjustment, psychological distress, physical unwellness (Rigby, 2003, p.584) and, in extreme cases, suicide. Justifiably, bullying is no longer just an accepted part of the social dynamic. It is recognised that what happens between children at school matters here and now and in the future (Rigby, 2007, p.13). Additionally, the prevalence of bullying in Australian schools (and similar trends, globally) warrants concern, with one child in every six or seven being bullied on a weekly basis, or more often (Rigby & Slee, in Smith, 1999, p326). But what is bullying, exactly? It is largely accepted that bullying is a subset of aggressive behaviour (Olweus, 1999, as cited in Smith & Ananiodou, 2003, p.189) that can be defined as repeated oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful person by a more powerful person or group of persons (Rigby, 2007, p.15). The key elements that differentiate bullying from other forms of violence are repetition and imbalance of power. Olweus (1987, as cited in Raiter & Lapidot-Lefler, 2007, p.174) found that bullies gain power over their victims by exploiting their physical, emotional and/or social weaknesses. This exploitative factor has serious implications for students with special needs, and indeed there is evidence to show that these students are at increased risk of bullying when they are mainstreamed or participate in remedial classes, compared to students without special needs (Martlew & Hodson, 1991; OMoore & Hillery, 1989). Nabusoka & Smith (1993, as cited in Raiter & Lapidot-Lefler, 2007, p. 176) state that stigmas and inadequate protection in an inclusive environment may contribute to students with special needs becoming victims. Alternatively, they may react aggressively and become bully-victims that is, students who respond to bullying with bullying, rather than passive inaction or internalisation (a usual victim response). There has also been much research around the roles in bullying and the traits associated with these roles. The standard participants, as derived from questionnaire and peer nomination data are: Bully, Victim, Non-Involved (neither a victim nor a bully) or a Bully-Victim (Smith & Ananiadou, 2003, p.191). Additionally, there has been a raft of studies largely based in regular school settings designed to construct typologies of each participant, with varying degrees of concurrence. However, there has been little research specifically targeting bullying in special education settings (Mishna, 2003), which is why it is promising to find the article Bullying Among Special Education Students With Intellectual Disabilities:Differences in Social Adjustments and Social Skills (Raiter & Lapidot-Lefler, 2007). In this article, Raiter & Lapidot-Lefler investigate the differences between bullies, victims and bullyvictims in terms of social adjustment and social skills, and attempt to tease out particular typologies for each participant in the bullying dynamic, in the context of special education settings. The research sample consisted of 186 students between the ages of 12 and 21 with mild developmental and intellectual disabilities. The students were drawn from two special education schools in Israel. The sample is potentially problematic as the gender balance was uneven (56.5% were males, 26.3% were females which leads one to wonder what gender the other 17.2% of respondents were). This gender discrepancy may well have influenced the finding that bullies exhibit more challenging behaviours, given that males are more likely to participate in overt forms of bullying whilst girls participate in more covert forms (Smith & Ananiodou, 2003) which may not manifest themselves as challenging behaviours.

Data was collected through a series of questionnaires. One questionnaire, the Harassment/Bullying Questionnaire, was formulated for the students, based on a questionnaire developed by Olweus (1991). It was not stated if the questionnaire was conducted anonymously. The questionnaire was adapted to cater for the needs of students with physical, cognitive and communication disabilities (the authors do not detail how this was done) and some additional questions were added to broaden the scope of the study. One area of concern is that the original Olweus questionnaire was translate into Hebrew then back into English to ensure that the Hebrew version was similar to the English one, however, this does not eliminate the potential that some key elements may have been lost in translation. The other three questionnaires were given to teachers. One targeted aggressiveness of students in terms of violent behaviour and whether students were quarrelsome, brutal, impertinent, insolent, badtempered, aggressive, unruly or had temper tantrums. The second questionnaire dealt with students social skills such as ability to give compliments or volunteering to help peers in classroom activities. The final questionnaire focused on social adjustment, and assessed hyperactivity, challenging behaviour, interpersonal relations with peers and emotional problems, however the authors fail to define what is specifically meant by these terms. On the surface, it seems that such a high reliance on questionnaires is a flawed methodology, given the opportunity for personal interpretation (for example, differing opinions of what constitutes challenging behaviour from teacher to teacher) as well as a possible reluctance to admit to bullying behaviour or perhaps being blind to it. However, the authors stated that there was a high correlation between self-reporting bullies and teacher responses (Reiter & Lapidot-Lefler, 2007. p.178) and this agreement between internal and external sources is somewhat of a trend when using questionnaires in bullying research, according to Rigby (2007, p32). The results of these surveys showed that there were no significant differences between bullies, victims and bully-victims in terms of social skills. The authors offer an interesting explanation for this result that most students with disabilities experience forms of abuse beyond the school walls, essentially meaning that all students in special education settings experience the role of victim at some point in time (p. 179). In terms of social adjustment, the study found significant correlations between being a bully and violent behaviour, hyperactivity and behaviour problems. Conversely, being a victim correlated with emotional and interpersonal problems. But again, these terms remain undefined and open to personal interpretation, offering little to the reader in terms of concrete examples. One noteworthy finding from the study was that of the students involved in bullying incidents, 31.5% were identified as bully-victims (compared to 50% bullies and 18.5% victims). This seems a significant amount, and it would be interesting to see how this compares to mainstream settings. Unfortunately, the authors didnt make this comparison. Overall, this article contributes some small snippets of interest to the growing knowledge base about bullying in special education, but nothing of major significance. The authors acknowledge their failure to determine prototypical behaviours of bullying participants in special education settings and suggest additional research in this area. Meanwhile, their assertion that bullies exhibit significantly higher levels of challenging behaviours whilst victims experience emotional and interpersonal problems is providing educators with little more than an empirically-based reinforcement of their own classroom observations. REFERENCES Martlew, M., & Hodson, J. (1991). Comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers attitudes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 355-369. Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 (4), 336-347.

OMoore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1989). Bullying in Dublin schools. Irish Journal of Psychology, 10, 426441. Reiter, S., & Lapidot-Lefler, N. (2007). Bullying among special education students with intellectual disabilities: Differences in social adjustments and social skills. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 174-181. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools : and what to do about it. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 48(9). 583-590. Rigby, K. & Slee, P.T. (1999). Australia. In P.K. Smith (Ed.), The nature of school bullying: A crossnational perspective. (pp. 324-339) . New York:Routledge. Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. New York: Routledge. Smith, P. K. and K. Ananiadou (2003). The Nature of School Bullying and the Effectiveness of SchoolBased Interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 5(2): 189-209. Wood, M. (1997, April). Moral Panics. Retrieved 20th March, 2009, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/mtw9403.html