Exploring the role of school psychologists/counsellors in addressing bullying: Current practices and suggested future directions

Abstract

Bullying is widely accepted as a significant issue confronting schools across the globe. The potential short and long-term consequences of bullying for involved students include negative academic and mental health impacts. It is known that a whole-school approach is required to effectively manage bullying. As such, school psychologists and counsellors are well-placed to play an important role in the prevention of and response to bullying in their workplace schools. By virtue of their training and skill-set, school psychologists and counsellors could be involved in the training of other staff, educating and collaborating with stakeholders, and counselling the involved students utilising methods such as motivational interviewing. In order for these staff members to play an effective role in bullying prevention and intervention, they require professional development on bullying, a supportive leadership team and a workplace that provides a clear delineation of their role.

Introduction

School psychologists/counsellors (SPCs) play a vital role in schools. School counsellors ‘assist students, teachers, parents, and school communities to enable students to reach both educational and social-emotional outcomes through proactive and reactive strategies’ (Campbell & Glasheen, 2017, p. 31). School counsellors in this paper refer to those who work in elementary (primary) and high (secondary) schools with students from 4 years of age to 18 years of age. While the exact nature of the duties they perform differs from country to country, state to state and even school to school, as well as over time, one vital role they have is to influence a positive school climate and to prevent harm to students. One such harmful event and one of the most prevalent that can occur at school for students is being involved in bullying. However, there is scant research on what is best practice for SPCs in assisting schools to prevent and intervene effectively in this behaviour.

Prevalence of bullying in schools

Reported prevalence rates of bullying vary widely due to inconsistent definitions, different instruments used to measure bullying, and the multiple time periods explored (Smith, 2016). Some studies have found that one child in three is being bullied by other children at school (Rigby, 2020; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO], 2018). One Australian study found that over a year time span for school-aged children, the prevalence of bullying victimisation was 15.7% and perpetration was 5.27%, with the lifetime prevalence for traditional bullying victimisation at 25.13% and perpetration at 11.61% (Jadambaa et al., 2019). Despite decades of emphasis on this issue, and the utilisation of a variety of anti-bullying programs and interventions, the problem does not appear to be decreasing (Richardson & Fen Hiu, 2018; UNESCO, 2018).

Regardless of the differences in reported prevalence rates, it would appear that there is a high prevalence of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying among school students in Australia and across the world (Jadambaa et al., 2019; Rigby, 2020; UNESCO, 2018). This is of concern as the following section details and shows how important it is for school psychologists and counsellors to be involved in both the prevention and intervention of such behaviour in schools.

Consequences of bullying

There is a significant body of research on the potential consequences of being involved in bullying in childhood and adolescence (Copeland et al., 2013; Dowling, 2018; Lund et al., 2012). Some of these consequences are short-term and some can continue into adulthood (Copeland et al., 2013). The impacts of bullying can be seen on school attendance rates and academic results, and have also been found to be apparent in substance abuse concerns and mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide ideation (Copeland et al., 2013; Lund et al., 2012; Slee, 1994). One study concluded that bullying was a modifiable risk factor for mental illness (Scott et al., 2014), and others have suggested that 25% to 40% of mental health problems in young adulthood could be largely attributed to bullying in childhood (Bowes et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2012). Given the large numbers of individuals impacted by bullying in their childhood and youth, and the potentially serious adverse consequences for them as a result, bullying may be considered a public health issue (Nixon & Linkie, 2023; O’Brien et al., 2024a). Due to the potential consequences of bullying, it is important for researchers to consider where bullying is likely to take place and target these environments. As schools are one of the main locations where bullying in childhood and adolescence occur, all school staff, including SPCs have a social responsibility to work towards preventing, reducing and ideally stop bullying.

Which staff in Australian schools handle bullying?

In Australian schools bullying behaviour is seen as a discipline problem. Problems around discipline are usually handled by deputy principals (Williams, 2012), and thus bullying may be likely to be handled similarly. A recent Australian study seemed to agree, finding that bullying was considered primarily to be a disciplinary matter and therefore those staff members tasked with managing discipline in the school took carriage of bullying matters (O’Brien et al., 2024a). SPCs were only found to be involved in bullying cases on some occasions and were not the primary staff involved. This is in accordance with the American Ethical Standards for School Counselors where school counsellors do not engage in disciplinary action but they provide support services to victims and perpetrators (ASCA, 2016a).

Research to date about the role that SPCs have been shown to play in addressing bullying

While it has been recommended that SPCs play a role in reducing bullying, there is limited literature on the actual role of school counsellors in relation to bullying (Swank et al., 2018). Across school, staff differences have been shown to exist in intervention approaches to bullying. Bauman et al. (2008) compared teachers’ and school counsellors’ approaches to handling bullying, by analysing which of five different strategies they were most likely to use. The five strategies were – ignoring the incident, working with the bully, working with the victim, enlisting other adults and disciplining the bully. The quantitative study found that on all scales, except for working with the student who bullied, school counsellors and teachers had significantly different scores (Bauman et al., 2008). As Bauman and colleagues explain, these results are not surprising, as school counsellors are trained to be listeners and to express empathy, and they have specialist knowledge and skills in the personal/social domain and counselling. Due to this training, as discussed in the study, school counsellors are more sensitive to bullying, more likely to identify it and less likely to ignore it. This was particularly reflected in their ‘work with the victim’ scores, where the counsellors were found to be more likely to work with those who had been victimised than teachers (Bauman et al., 2008).

Similar results have been suggested by other researchers using Bauman and colleagues’ approach. Power-Elliott and Harris (2012) undertook a study exploring school counsellor use of these same five strategies as Bauman and produced similar results. This study found that school counsellors were most likely to enlist other adults to discipline the student who bullied and were unlikely to ignore the incident (Power-Elliott & Harris, 2012). Another study concluded that SPCs were more likely to recognise the negative impacts of bullying, and more likely to recognise relational bullying as being of serious concern (Lund et al., 2012).

What SPCS could do about prevention and intervention in bullying

SPCs are in a key position to take on the leadership of their schools’ approach to bullying given their training and expertise, and to coordinate anti-bullying programs in their schools (Bauman et al., 2008; Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007). They could provide training to school staff, information to parents and counselling to the students involved (Bauman et al., 2008; Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007). School counsellors have been described as ‘systemic change agents’ in respect to developing and delivering programs that focus on the academic, career and social/emotional development of students (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2012; Swank et al., 2018). SPCs therefore could take the lead in co-ordinating a whole school approach towards combating bullying.

Whole school approach

The literature indicates that a whole school approach is required to effectively tackle bullying (Bauman et al., 2008; Clarke & Kiselica, 1997). It has been suggested that SPCs working in collaboration with key stakeholders, such as parents and teachers, is essential in order to implement effective strategies to manage bullying (ASCA, 2012). This collaboration within a whole-school approach could involve not only school staff but also stakeholders from the wider community such as mental health practitioners and relatives of students. SPCs could plan events to inform and educate stakeholders about bullying and about the school’s strategy to tackle the problem.

Having all stakeholders involved would build ownership of programs and strategies. It has been suggested that such an approach should use a variety of different aspects, including policies, curriculum activities to develop appropriate interpersonal skills, playground surveillance and school staff engaging with parents (Bauman et al., 2008; Olweus, 2013; Sullivan, 2000). Such an approach would require a philosophical shift in respect to school staff’s tolerance for coercive behaviours (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997). It would additionally require education of staff about bullying and bullying interventions, consistency in regards to implementing school bullying policies and procedures, increased numbers of staff supervising students, a primary prevention focus on developing the social skills of students, assessment of the extent of the bullying problem in the school and a supportive counselling and training component (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997).

Provision of in-service to the school

One way that SPCs can assist in the reduction of bullying in schools is to provide in-service about identifying bullying in the environment. While most people think they know the definition of bullying, previous research has shown that there are different views among various stakeholders, students, parents, teachers and SPCs regarding this definition (Ey & Campbell, 2020, 2022; Lee, 2006). For anti-bullying strategies to be effective stakeholders must have a shared understanding of what constitutes bullying behaviour.

Researchers generally agree that bullying fits three key criteria; it is intentional; it is usually repetitive and there is an imbalance of power between the involved parties, that is that the person who is victimised cannot get it to stop, thus is powerless and requires intervention from others (Olweus, 2013; Smith et al., 2012). However, the different views of stakeholders can hamper efforts to reduce the behaviour. For example, teachers often feel that parents over-report bullying which would reflect that parents may consider an incident to be bullying when the student and teachers do not (Ey & Spears, 2018). Teachers themselves have been found to have difficulty distinguishing between bullying and fighting (Ey & Campbell, 2022). An older seminal study found that pre-service teachers additionally have difficulties recognising bullying, as while recognising the intentional aspect of the behaviour, many do not recognise the repetitive or power imbalance aspects (Bauman & Del Rio, 2005). School counsellors are more likely to identify bullying in-line with researcher definitions than teachers (Bauman et al., 2008).

These differences in explaining what the behaviour of bullying is, leads to difficulties in schools with teachers in general reporting lower prevalence rates of bullying as opposed to student reports (Holt & Keyes, 2004). For example, in one study it was found that most teachers were not aware of any bullying or only recognised bullying as a justifiable reaction to provocation, whereas the students reported that they witnessed and/or experienced bullying on a regular basis (Khanolainen et al., 2021).

All these different understandings of what bullying is would most likely lead to inconsistent responses from teachers, school administrators, SPCs and other school staff. Such inconsistency could further exacerbate the problem of bullying in a school, leading to issues with preventing, reporting and responding to bullying incidents. It is crucial that stakeholders have a definition of bullying that is clear and agreed upon by all parties in each school.

Other in-service topics that could be led by SPCs could include what is not effective or desirable when addressing bullying, such as how mediation, when there is a power imbalance between the parties, is not desirable, that ignoring any bullying is not desirable or that having group counselling for the students who have been doing the bullying is not good practice (Bauman et al., 2008). Mediation can be very problematic if there is a significant power imbalance between the parties. As previously discussed, an imbalance of power is a key defining characteristic of bullying. In mediation, the more powerful student may dominate the process leading to outcomes that reinforce the existing power dynamics rather than resolving the issue (Narine, 2017). It may not be appropriate as it can sometimes exacerbate the situation by giving the individual who is doing the bullying more opportunities to manipulate the process (NCES, 2018). Ignoring the bullying is another strategy that is not desirable. When bullying is ignored, it can escalate and become more severe, leading to further peer victimisation (Burger et al., 2022; Mucherah et al., 2018). Additionally, it promotes bullying by way of role-modelling demonstrating to the student who is doing the bullying that there is no consequence for their negative behaviour (Burger et al., 2022; Mucherah et al., 2018). Proactive intervention is crucial in preventing and mitigating the effects of bullying (NCES, 2018). Another example of an ineffective strategy to address bullying is group counselling for those who are doing the bullying. It has been suggested that group counselling can reinforce the negative behaviours among this group of students. Group interventions may inadvertently provide bullies with a platform to gain social reinforcement from peers, which can perpetuate and even escalate their negative behaviours (Swearer et al., 2020).

New strategies

Two new promising approaches which are both well suited to school psychologists/counsellors is the treatment of chronically bullied students with trauma-informed intervention and motivational interviewing for students who bully others.

Trauma-informed intervention

We know being victimised by bullying very frequently leads to many mental health and learning problems, as mentioned earlier. Some researchers have now argued that chronically bullied students could actually be experiencing trauma (Idsoe et al., 2021). Jenkins et al. (2023) contend that victimisation and trauma are similar as the definitions are similar, the consequences of both overlap as do the theoretical frameworks for bullying victimisation and trauma. Trauma informed educational practices are now being practised in schools (Dorado et al., 2016). Trauma-based cognitive behavioural therapy and cognitive behavioural intervention for trauma in schools are two therapies which counsellors could use with chronically bullied students (Jenkins et al., 2023).

Motivational interviewing

One technique which looks promising for SPCs to use with students who persistently bully others is motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing is a relational and confirming method that shows promise for promoting meaningful behaviour change among teenagers who bully others (Cross et al., 2018; Pennell et al., 2020). Originally this method was used for working with individuals who were resistant to changing their behaviour, namely those addicted to drugs and alcohol. It is a counselling method that strengthens an individual’s commitment to change, reducing resistance and resolving ambivalence. As bullying behaviour has a positive function for the person bullying, usually a social goal, then punishment or talking about empathy might not stop the behaviour (Cross et al., 2018). Motivational interviewing is best practised by individuals with skills and backgrounds which are aligned with counselling, so SPCs are a good fit for the role in a school.

Collect data

Being in a position where they are able to collect and utilise data to inform prevention efforts gives SPCs an advantage over other school staff in terms of prevention and intervention in bullying (Bauman et al., 2008; Rossen & Cowan, 2012). This would enable a clear picture of the bullying issues within the school, and assist in designing and implementing an effective intervention to address these issues (ASCA, 2012).

Implement programs

In respect to effective approaches to tackle the problem of bullying, it has been found that decreasing bystanders reinforcing the person who is doing the bullying, generally by standing by and not intervening, can be effective for reducing bullying in schools (Salmivalli et al., 2011). With their expertise, SPCs could develop and implement bullying prevention programs to promote the prosocial intervention of bystanders in bullying incidents by explicitly instructing on bystander attitudes and behaviours (Salmivalli et al., 2011). They could conduct workshops and seminars to educate students about the impact of bullying and the importance of bystander intervention. SPCs could additionally implement programs aimed at empowerment and skill-building for those involved in bullying, including assertiveness training and conflict resolution skills. Programs for parents could be developed and run by SPCs to reinforce anti-bullying messages at home.

Some difficulties to overcome for effective SPC intervention

Although SPCs are in a prime position to tackle bullying and implement intervention strategies, numerous factors impact on the ability of SPCs and their ability to effectively intervene in bullying at their schools. These factors include a complex mix of school policies, programs, training and systemic factors (Power-Elliott & Harris, 2012).

As Power-Elliott and Harris (2012) have pointed out, to achieve excellent outcomes with an anti-bullying program, schools need to have a strong commitment to the program and to have a staff member responsible for coordinating the program with the support of a strong administration. If SPCs are to be this responsible staff member, there needs to be clarity about their role. Swank et al. (2018) suggested that attention must be paid towards how school counsellors define their role in respect to bullying as opposed to how their principal and other school staff define their role. A shared and agreed upon understanding of what role SPCs will play in the school as attempts are made to prevent, reduce and stop bullying is vital. The aforementioned study, however, found that on more than half the items, school counsellors reported that there were differences between their own perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in respect to bullying and their beliefs in their principals’ expectations (Swank et al., 2018). The school counsellors in this study expressed they should be more involved in direct bullying interventions, such as providing lessons or psychoeducational resources to students on relevant topics, responsive services and assessment (Swank et al., 2018). They felt that their principals, however, did not think they should be more involved in such ways as they felt principals tended to see bullying as a disciplinary matter (Swank et al., 2018). This is of concern as other studies have found that school counsellors’ role in direct services (e.g. conducting lessons) is crucial for the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs (Goodman-Scott et al., 2014; Swank et al., 2018). Without buy-in from the school administration, practitioners may feel pressure to revert to existing policy responses (e.g. disciplinary sanctions alone). This is likely exacerbated by the time pressure in schools. Implementation of approaches such as motivational interviewing may require an explicit process of negotiating in how to fit it alongside – and not in place of – schools’ existing responses to bullying. To enable the successful introduction and uptake of trauma informed practices and motivational interviewing in future school applications, effective executive leadership support for it needs to be integral.

It has additionally been suggested that school counsellors do not see the same students every day and would therefore find it difficult to detect patterns of exclusion or ridicule (Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007). Teachers are the staff members who see students every day and therefore are better placed to detect these issues. However, SPCs, as outlined previously, could provide training to teaching staff to assist them identify patterns of bullying behaviour.

Gaining the consent of both those students and their parents who are victimised and those who are doing the bullying has been seen by practitioners as another barrier to responding to bullying. It has been found that issues such as those who bully being reluctant to admit to their behaviour for fear of punishment or social repercussions, and those who are victimised having fear of retaliation if they are known to be engaging with staff about the issue, have been identified (Lamont-Mills et al., 2018). All parties involved in bullying might be concerned about the confidentiality of their sessions, fearing that their peers or teachers might find out and that this will lead to further negative repercussions (Lamont-Mills et al., 2018). Parental consent is often required. Parents of bullies might be in denial about their child’s behaviour, while parents of victims might be concerned about the stigma or emotional impact on their child (Lamont-Mills et al., 2018).

It has been found that many school counsellors do not have access to in-service training in respect to bullying and that the training some do receive is often not specific to the individual school or school district environment (Bauman et al., 2008). Swank et al. (2018) discovered that nearly 40% of their research participant school counsellors had not had the opportunity to be trained specifically in bullying prevention. SPCs have themselves expressed a need for more extensive education on the topic of bullying and bullying prevention (Lund et al., 2012). Jacobsen and Bauman (2007) found that when staff are adequately trained they are more likely to identify bullying and to intervene appropriately as there is a clear relationship between the training of school counsellors and their perspectives on and attitudes towards bullying (Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007). As SPCs have themselves expressed a need for more extensive education on the topic of bullying and bullying prevention (Lund et al., 2012), this is of concern.

It is widely accepted that all school staff face time pressures in terms of finding the time to meet all the demands, often conflicting demands, of their roles. SPCs are no exception. While trauma informed intervention for those students who have been victimised and motivational interviewing to work with students who victimise others are exciting new ways to work with students, there are barriers. A barrier to the effective utilisation of these methods has been found to be time pressures, along with administrative expectations, school roles and system limitations, and preconceptions and the stigma of bullying (Pennell et al., 2020).

Principals often ‘set the tone’ of their school and influence the roles of their staff, including SPCs. It is therefore crucial that SPCs develop strong working relationships with their principals in order that a shared understanding of their role in addressing bullying can be developed, that they are able to effectively advocate for their roles, and that they can share decision-making in respect to bullying prevention and intervention (Clemens et al., 2009). Clemens et al. (2009) found that when SPCs perceive their relationship with their principal to be strong, then there is a narrower gap between how they are implementing programs and how they feel they should ideally be implementing programs. A strong relationship also results in better use of SPCs advocacy skills (Clemens et al., 2009). A strong and positive relationship has unsurprisingly been found to impact on SPCs feelings of job satisfaction and their rates of burnout (Clemens et al., 2009). It is therefore clear that a priority for SPCs needs to be the establishment and maintenance of a strong and positive relationship with their principals in order that they be granted opportunities to take leadership roles in respect to strategies to manage bullying in their schools and to ensure these strategies are likely to be effective. Obviously whether school principals are equally willing to actively foster positive relationships with their SPCs will determine whether the relationships are productive.

Conclusion

Being involved in bullying during childhood, either as the person who is being bullied or as the person perpetrating the bullying, can potentially have long-reaching and severe consequences. Despite much research and the implementation of numerous programs and policies, the issue remains of significant concern. There has been a scarcity of research into the role that SPCs play in bullying responses, despite the fact that these professionals are well-suited, by virtue of their training, to playing a key role. It has been argued in this paper that SPCs could be positioned to be involved in a whole school approach to the problem, to train other staff, to educate parents and the wider community, and to collaborate with others around the issue of preventing and reducing bullying. In order to play such a role, SPCs require training themselves on bullying, and need to have the support of the school leadership with a clear understanding of what role they play agreed by all parties. It has been suggested that the relationship between SPCs and their principal needs to be a focus in order for them to be involved in bullying responses.