Interactions Between Bullying and High-Stakes Testing at the Elementary School Level

Abstract

Bullying, a prevalent form of school violence, threatens development and learning. This article reports the findings of a qualitative study conducted in an elementary school, designed to gain an ecological understanding of bullying perceptions of this school community. The three research questions were: (a) How do individuals and groups within this community define school safety and violence? (b) How do concepts of school safety and violence affect behaviors? and (c) How might this community increase the safety of its children? Emergent from the data were the adults' preoccupation with improving results on the state-mandated high-stakes achievement test in contrast to the children's identification of largely unchecked bullying and its negative impact on their school experience and learning. Suggestions for future inquiries into bullying in an era of high-stakes testing are given.

Keywords:

• bullying
• elementary schools
• high-stakes testing
• qualitative research
• school safety
• school violence

Interactions Between Bullying and High-Stakes Testing at the Elementary School Level

A safe school has been defined as “… one that guarantees the opportunity for development in the physical, social, and academic realms” (Morrison, Furlong, & Morrison, 1994, p. 241). A prevalent form of school violence that has been shown to threaten development is bullying (Elinoff, Chafouleas, & Sassu, 2004). This article provides an ecologically-oriented consideration of the possible interplay between bullying and high-stakes testing through a review of the literature and presenting data from one elementary school.

Ecological Perspectives on Elementary School Bullying

Bullying in schools has not been studied as much in the United States as in most other industrialized countries. Estimates of bullying rates vary, but research suggests that between 24%–49% of U.S. students are regular victims of bullying and 19%–31% bully others regularly (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O'Brennan, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001). Bullying has been defined as a repeated behavior intended to harm, intimidate, or exclude someone of lesser power (Olweus, 1997). However, researchers have found that malicious behaviors need not be repeated to be perceived as bullying (Bosacki, Marini, & Dane, 2006; Land, 2003; Mishna, 2004) and that the goal of bullying may be to achieve or enlarge power imbalances (Varjas et al., 2008). A (desired) power imbalance and malicious intent seem to be critical features of bullying relationships (Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006; Doll, Song, & Siemers, 2004). Bullying is often an individualized attack on a person with an attribute that places him or her in a nondominant group. For instance, 11-year-old Scottish children who were less physically attractive, overweight, or performed poorly in school were the targets of more bullying than peers (Sweeting & West, 2001). In the United States, elementary school children reported that a student's appearance, speech, or clothing could single him or her out for bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Bullying of an individual is a reflection of social systems that permit, encourage, or are helpless to challenge violence toward their less powerful members. Bullying is an expression of intolerance that perpetuates discrimination and power imbalances.

Theorists have argued that bullying is contextually moderated (Power, 2007; Swearer & Doll, 2001; Swearer & Espelage, 2004). The finding that some schools and classrooms have more bullying than others, even after controlling for individual and school variables (Roland & Galloway, 2002), lends support for this perspective. The most effective interventions to reduce bullying would be provided in primary grades or earlier because propensities for peer-directed aggression and the forming of aggressive peer-groups are evidenced in these settings (Astor, Pitner, & Duncan, 1996), aggression in the primary grades is predictive of later aggression (Tolan, Guerra, & Kendall, 1995), many elementary school victims of bullying are victimized for multiple years (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006), and the number of peers interceding to defend victims declines in the upper elementary grades (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004).

Classroom Influences on Elementary School Bullying

At the elementary classroom level, teacher and student behaviors may substantially influence the amount of bullying that occurs. In a Norwegian study, increased structure and management was correlated with decreased bullying (Roland & Galloway, 2002). The classroom structure, as assessed by the teacher, included the social cohesion among students, students' concentration on learning tasks, and students' prosocial, academically-focused beliefs. Management, as assessed by the students, included the teacher caring for the students, being competent in teaching, monitoring behaviors, and effectively intervening when a student exhibited inappropriate behaviors. Henry et al. (2000) demonstrated that elementary students were less likely to show an increase in aggression over time if they had been in classrooms where both teachers and peers discouraged aggressive behaviors. In a review of research on how classroom ecologies support or discourage bullying, Doll et al. (2004) identified classroom relationships and human agency as important contributors. Classroom relationships that discouraged bullying included peer inclusion, warm and responsive teacher-student relationships, and informed and consulted parents. Human agency was comprised of self-efficacy (a student's beliefs about his or her ability to learn and be successful in the classroom) and self-determination (a student's ability to be autonomous and self-directed in decision making). Increasing students' human agency through classroom activities, routines, and norms combined with strong, respectful classroom relationships empowered classroom members to change or maintain their behavior in ways that optimized outcomes for all and reduced bullying. Curriculum and teaching methodologies affect classroom management, classroom structure, and students' experience of human agency. Therefore, pedagogical practices can encourage or discourage bullying.

School-Wide Influences on Elementary School Bullying

Less is known about schoolwide than classroom influences on elementary school bullying. Bullying is more common on playgrounds and in cafeterias than classrooms (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001; Bradshaw et al., 2007; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000). Some out-of-classroom bullying occurs between classroom peers; however, some bullying crosses class boundaries and grade level differences can increase power imbalances. One schoolwide study of bullying found that 12% of students were responsible for 69% of victimizations, many crossing classroom and grade boundaries (Chan, 2006). A Norwegian study of cultures in elementary schools with high and low rates of bullying found that schools with high rates of student bullying had more teacher stress regarding school leadership, less professional cooperation, and less adult consensus compared to schools with lower rates of student bullying (Roland & Galloway, 2002). It may be that these faculty variables impact teacher (and teaching) behaviors, as well as schoolwide student expectations. More studies are needed of the mechanisms by which school-based variables interact with children's bullying behavior (Card & Hodges, 2008; Elias & Zins, 2003), especially in relation to classroom instructional and management practices.

High-Stakes Testing and Its Possible Impact on Bullying

Academic achievement should be a top priority of any elementary school. Further, the best behavioral intervention is a strong, appropriate academic curriculum and focus; reciprocally, high achieving schools are safe schools (Barton, 2003; Scott, Nelson, & Liaupsin, 2001). The federally mandated student achievement assessments (often referred to as high-stakes testing) were designed to promote proficient academic achievement across all groups of children.

States have latitude in how they sanction districts, schools, teachers, and students based on test results. Nationally, states have implemented high or low consequences for teachers, schools, and districts, and high or low consequences for students (Pedulla et al., 2003). Teachers in states with high consequences for professionals and low consequences for students reported narrowing academic focus. Of the 550 teachers surveyed in states with high consequences for professionals and low consequences for students, 72% reported that the testing program led them to teach in ways that contradicted their ideas of good educational practice. Field trips, organized play, and class enrichment activities were reported to have decreased. The survey did not include questions regarding classroom discipline, student behaviors, or bullying. A study that surveyed Texas teachers regarding the impacts of high-stakes testing concluded that many aspects of students' social-emotional development would be neglected (Gordon & Reese, 1997). Studies have documented increased student, teacher, and school-level stress in response to high-stakes testing (Kruger, Wandle, & Struzziero, 2007; Triplett & Barksdale, 2005). If there are inadequate adaptive mechanisms to cope with the stress, increased destructive and violent behaviors (including bullying) could be the result. Another hypothesis is that the increased emphasis on test results, and the underlying assumption that all students should be able to evidence the same skills in the same standardized format, leads to a narrowed definition of adequate and inadequate. As bullying is an expression of group intolerance for differences, then the high-stakes testing effects of a narrowed definition and judgment of competency could encourage bullying.

Purpose of This Study

This study contributes to the ecological understanding of school factors that can impact bullying by qualitatively studying one U.S. neighborhood elementary school. The three initial questions were: (a) How do individuals and groups within this community define school safety and violence?; (b) How do concepts of school safety and violence affect behaviors?; and (c) How might this community increase the safety of its children? The study focused on the fourth-grade level. Previous research identified third or fourth grade as the level at which school attitudes become evident (Christenson, Sinclair, Lehr, & Hurley, 2000) and that 4th graders have the cognitive and social sophistication to reflect on bullying (Bosacki et al., 2006; Mishna, 2004). To gain an ecological perspective, administrators, mental health providers, teachers, and students were interviewed. Emergent was the contrast between the adults' preoccupation with academic instruction compared to the children's identification of largely unchecked peer bullying and its negative impact on their school experience and learning.

METHOD

This study was conceived, the data were collected, and the analysis was conducted by the author. However, she received input and feedback from colleagues regularly throughout the process.

Participants

Setting

This study was conducted at a U.S. suburban, intermountain neighborhood elementary school, Wilder Elementary (pseudonym). In accordance with the No Child Left Behind legislation, the district annually assessed students' achievement in Grades 3–12. Although test scores were not used to determine children's academic progress, schools and districts that did not meet the standards or show adequate progress toward those standards could be dissolved by the state department of education. On the state assessment report of school performance, Wilder was ranked at Level 2 on a 4-level scale.

Participant groups

There were four participant groups: (a) fourth-grade students, (b) fourth-grade teachers, (c) administrators, and (d) psychologists. Confidentiality was provided to the participants by asking the adults to select pseudonyms and identifying the children only by their sex. There were 4 fourth-grade classes. On average, 9 children per class of 23 students had parental participation consent. To increase diversity, targeted sampling was utilized in which each fourth-grade teacher selected 4 or 5 children from the possible pool who represented a cross-section of their class: boys and girls, with a range of academic and social skills. All selected children assented to the interview. All recruited adults consented to participate in the study: the 4 fourth-grade teachers, Erica, Francis, Fred, and Jane; the administrative staff, Principal Denise and Assistant Principal Bridget; the part time school psychologist, Jeanne; and Consultant Kay, hired to design and consult on the affective education curriculum.

Interviews

The primary research technique was interviews. Most data were obtained during one spring semester; however, member checking occurred later. The interviews were unstructured and open-ended. District and school procedures for crisis planning and response, charters and mission statements, and the weekly local paper were analyzed to formulate initial interview questions. See Table 1 for sample interview questions and prompts. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. In total, 17 interviews with 27 participants were conducted.

TABLE 1 Sample Interview Questions and Prompts

Participants	Sample questions and prompts developed prior to interview and asked	Sample questions and prompts asked in response to a participant's comment
Administrators and psychologists	Please define elementary school safetyPlease define elementary school violenceHow do concerns about school safety impact your behavior?What is your philosophy of education?	How do you make the children, the teachers, and the parents feel safe?Do you think [the affective curriculum] can address bullying or do you think there is something else that is needed?[After participant brought up pressure on teachers and students due to high-stakes tests] Does it add pressure to your role?[After being told that the affective curriculum wasn't being implemented consistently due to academic pressures] So, you think the teachers' priorities are more on the academics?
Teachers	Please define elementary school safety.Please define elementary school violence.How do concerns about school safety impact your behavior?What are the supports to school safety here?	[After a teacher brought up students' reports of not feeling safe outside the classroom] So, some of the feelings of safety in your classroom are affected by what happens before and after, going to and from, class?[In follow up to the above] Do you think it impacts the classroom?[After they brought up the high-stakes testing] Is there a lot of pressure around those?[After being told that they made little use of the affective curriculum] What is your system of classroom management and discipline?If you had a magic wand, what would you give your kids?
Students ^a	What did you think of the drawing assignment?Tell us about your picture, (name of student).	The teacher is important to how safe you feel?Have you ever been bullied?How do you handle being bullied?What do you do when you see someone being bullied?What do you do to keep yourself safe during recess?Are there some places you feel like you can't go because it's not safe?When you don't feel safe, does it cause problems for learning?
^aAll student questions asked in response to a student comment were asked of the general group after an individual student had brought up the topic.

Adult interviews

Adults were interviewed individually and in small groups. The first interview was either individual or with a like-position partner (i.e., principal with assistant principal, teacher with teacher), by participants' preference. Subsequent interviews were arranged to best access the information wanted. Interviews lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. The transcriptions were provided to participants for their comments or alterations. Only minor edits were made. Member-checking interviews were conducted with the principal, two teachers, and the consulting psychologist; unfortunately, the other adult participants were no longer available. In these interviews, the participants confirmed the interpretations of the researcher and made no substantive changes.

Student interviews

The students were interviewed with their participating classmates. Each child drew a picture of a safe and unsafe elementary school. Then the children discussed their drawings, as well as answered questions. The discussion period was audio-taped and transcribed. Interviews lasted 45 to 60 minutes. Due to their age, transcriptions were not provided to the children nor were member-checking interviews conducted.

Data Analysis

For the data analysis, Altas-5 software (Muhr, 2004) was utilized. The data were managed through daily memos, summary memos, and case summaries. In total, the researcher wrote 146 daily memos, 12 summary memos, and 8 case summaries. In each daily memo, the day's activities as well as insights, hypotheses, plans, and questions were recorded. The summary memos were a review of daily memos, written at organic transitions in the research. The case summaries provided the transitions from data management to data analysis. The data analysis included formative analysis and summative analysis.

Formative analysis

Utilizing a constant comparative grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), data analysis was conducted concurrently with data collection. The case summaries summarized the case data and plans for future data collection. Further data collection was designed in response to the on-going analysis. For instance, the teachers first mentioned that the academic day model and emphasis on improving state standardized achievement test performance were impediments to attending to students' affective needs. The researcher then asked the administrators and psychologists about the impact of one on the other. Matrices and networks (Miles & Huberman, 1994), written summaries, and drawings (McNiff, 1998) were used to catalogue and provide differing understandings of the data, which then provided the foundation for the coding.

Summative analysis

The summative analysis was based on ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). The first level was a descriptive analysis of each participant group. From these descriptions, emergent codes were developed. The next level was a descriptive analysis across groups. The original coding structure was pruned and expanded to capture the overlaps and differences between the groups. Emergent from the across-group analysis were the themes of bullying and socioemotional needs contrasted with academic achievement as defined by state-mandated testing. The techniques of daily memo writing, member checking, searching for disconfirmatory evidence, and developing alternative explanations were utilized to enhance trustworthiness (Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

RESULTS

The results highlight the interaction of bullying and high-stakes statewide standardized achievement testing. The findings may be summarized as a recursive sequence: (a) across-class bullying was reducing students' sense of safety at school; (b) schoolwide and classroom attention to students' emotional and safety needs were limited due to adults' academic focus; (c) adults compartmentalized students' emotional and safety needs from their academic obtainments; and (d) due to unmet emotional and safety needs, students were less able to engage in academic tasks.

Across-Class Bullying Was Reducing Students' Sense of Safety at School

Each of the student groups spoke and drew about bullying. The children identified recess as when bullying most frequently occurred, with most bullying perpetrated by older children against younger children. A boy in Francis' class stated that it was good that the lower grades were not at recess with the upper grades as they, the fourth graders, were better able to protect themselves from the fifth and sixth graders than the younger children would have been. His final assessment was, “If everybody went out at the same time, we'd have blood, ouch, carnage.” Although this comment was dramatic, all children agreed that most bullying occurred between older aggressors and younger victims.

The teachers' perceptions of the amount of bullying that was occurring were much lower than the students' reports. Further, the teachers did not see a role for themselves in bullying that occurred outside their classrooms. For instance, Teacher Jane said, “So whatever is happening must happen more before they get to school or on the way home and so maybe they talk about that with their parents.”

School-Wide and Classroom Attention to Students' Emotional and Safety Needs Were Limited Due to Adults' Academic Focus

The adults' focus was on improving scores on the state-mandated standardized achievement tests. The school had academic priorities that the teachers tried to uphold, and this had led to a narrowing of activities that the teachers thought were appropriate for class time. Teacher Erica lamented, “I felt guilty today for doing these [pointed to Valentine's bags]. I spent all afternoon and I loved it and so did they. They loved it.” Teacher Fred said that he hopes an administrator or literacy coach doesn't walk in to his class when he is engaged in a “brain break” as this would lower his or her opinion of Fred and his teaching abilities. Both Fred and Erica stated they had trouble sleeping due to the stress of trying to meet the district expectations versus their belief that it was in-depth and fun activities that made children bond to teachers and led to meaningful learning.

The emphasis on performing well on the state standardized tests created stress at multiple levels. Teacher Francis explained, “We're so focused on writing. And, third grade's been so focused on reading. It's continuous up the ladder of nonstop pressure. It's endless.” Teacher Jane expressed that this created stress on the students, as well as herself, “They really get burned out on it. There's so many skills that I've got to cover with them before they take that test … So that we just hit it so that they know it well enough to take that test.” Preparing the students for the test itself as well preparing them for the test content was a stressor. Teacher Francis stated, “We're spending so much time preparing for the test or teaching how to fill in a bubble or whatever. That's taking away more instructional time, which is adding even more stress.” Teacher Erica explained, “We have to cover way too much in a very short amount of time. And the children can't absorb it all. They just burn out after awhile.” Francis summarized the general opinion, “So, we're afraid we're not—that we're just covering and we're not teaching.”

The administrators expressed ambivalence between preparing for the state assessment and meeting children's needs. Principal Denise acknowledged the difficulty of attending to the emotional and behavioral needs of students given the academic pressures and the subsequent time constraints:

There are times when I'm so focused on something that I need to get done in the office and a child shows up for some discipline problem and there's a part of me that wants to say, “I don't have time to deal with you right now. I'm too busy with my stuff.”

Assistant Principal Bridget stated:

My hope is that in the near future that some of this money that is connected to [name of state achievement test] scores and accountability reports would ease off a bit and we can get back to educating the whole child and their social skills and getting along with the world.

She continued, “But the standardized, high-pressure, high-stakes tests aren't going away so we have to live with them.” The adults acknowledged that the narrow focus on academic content led to superficial learning for children and stress for both adults and children but they felt powerless to make changes.

Adults Compartmentalized Students' Emotional and Safety Needs From Their Academic Obtainments

The teachers and administrators in this study stated that, given the pressure to spend specific quantities of time on academic subjects with the ultimate objective of increasing scores on the annual state achievement tests, they were not able to attend to children's social-emotional needs as fully as they would have liked, or as they had in the past. Teacher Francis said that she held weekly class meetings to address academic and affective concerns, but Teacher Jane stated she had eliminated class meetings and daily morning check-ins to increase academic time. Teachers Erika and Fred did not have structured times to discuss personal, peer, or classroom issues. In contrast to their lack of structured attention to students' social and emotional development, the teachers stated that teaching social skills was needed. Teacher Francis said, “I do think we need to do something. I just don't know how we're going to do it because of the lack of time. Because everything needs to be done when they're little.” Although the teachers viewed teaching social skills as critical, they also viewed them as separate from academic instruction.

The affect curriculum had been designed to “involve both reading and writing so that they could be easily worked into some type of literacy activity” (school psychologist Jeanne). Teachers were expected to implement the curriculum weekly in their classes. Due to time pressures and priorities, the fourth-grade teachers reported utilizing the curriculum from once a month to once that year. Discussing the lack of utilization of the affect curriculum, school psychologist Jeanne stated:

I don't necessarily think it would be because they wouldn't want to or wouldn't see the need so much as I don't know where it would fit into their day. I think that would be the main objection, sort of viewed as, “one more thing we have to do.”

The curriculum was to run from September through April, but Principal Denise discontinued it in February, stating that the state standardized test pressures were just too great.

Due to Unmet Emotional and Safety Needs, Students Were Less Able to Engage in Academic Tasks

The children stated that feeling unsafe due to bullying, which was occurring largely outside the classroom and class peer groups, was affecting their ability to attend in class and learn. All student groups mentioned that being bullied had led to an inability to concentrate in class. When students from Erica's class were asked if feeling unsafe caused problems for their learning, a girl answered, “Sometimes, because you can't concentrate on what you're learning,” and a boy concurred that if you had been threatened at recess it would impact you during class because “You'd be all tense.” Another girl added, “And all tremble-y.” The other member of the group, a boy, said, “With bullies that bully you every day, sometimes you don't even want to come to school to even learn.” The first girl then said:

When I was threatened by a sixth grader when I was only in 1st grade, I got really scared and when the teacher gave us some work, I couldn't concentrate on it because I didn't want to go outside the school. I wanted to stay in the classroom where I was safe and all I was thinking about were his words. They kept replaying in my mind.

As well as interfering with their ability to concentrate in class, bullying had led some of the fourth graders to wish to avoid school. A child from Fred's class said:

If you're feeling scared and tense it's going to have an impact, “I don't want to go to school. What am I going to do?” And if you tell on them, then he or she said they will beat me up. And you don't know what to do.

One girl in Fred's class said she had faked a stomachache so that her mother would let her stay home. However, most children who wished to stay home stated they were unable to do so.

Teacher Jane summarized the impact that the teachers observed, “I'm finding I'm spending more time on discipline than I'd like to. That it keeps stopping the lessons, if you're having to stop and deal with somebody who's having problems behaving.” Safety consultant Kay noticed ecological impacts, “The teachers are usually not out on the playground but have to address the consequences in their classrooms.” Ultimately, students' unaddressed needs reduced instructional time but the teachers didn't see how they could attend to these needs in their already overextended day.

DISCUSSION

This study found that outside of classroom bullying was negatively affecting students' ability to concentrate in class. Adults estimated lower rates of bullying than the children reported and evidenced little awareness that out-of-class bullying might affect a student's ability to learn academic content. Adults were concerned with increasing academic obtainment of the students, as measured by the state achievement assessment. This focus narrowed the use of classroom time, which led to fewer affective supports for students.

Across-Class Bullying Was Reducing Students' Sense of Safety at School

Similar to many other studies (Astor et al., 2001; Bradshaw et al., 2007; Craig et al., 2000; Hughes, Middleton, & Marshall, 2009), the children identified recess as when bullying most frequently occurred. The students in this study reported that most bullying was perpetrated by older children against younger children. The unique finding of this study was that outside-of-class bullying affected these children's abilities to concentrate in the classroom, even when the bully was not in their class.

Teachers reported much less bullying than the students. Other studies have found teachers to underestimate rates of bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Craig et al., 2000). In this study, the teachers reported being unaware and not responsible for outside-of-classroom bullying This suggests that bullying locations may, at least in part, explain the differences in estimates. However, the students' self-reports of bullying may not have been accurate or comprehensive. The assessment of bullying is fraught with challenges (Cornell et al., 2006) and reports from multiple sources can best identify all students who would benefit from supports (Branson & Cornell, 2009). Systematic schoolwide evaluations of bullying were lacking at this school. Evaluation of school social contexts and school-wide program implementation has been shown to be critical for understanding and reducing bullying (Astor, Benbenishty, Marachi, & Meyer, 2006; Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Unnever & Cornell, 2004).

School-Wide and Classroom Attention to Students' Emotional and Safety Needs Were Limited Due to Adults' Academic Focus

This school was in a state with high consequences for teachers, schools, and districts and low consequences for students (Pedulla et al., 2003). Similar to other findings (Gordon & Reese, 1997; Pedulla et al., 2003), the faculty reported that the emphasis on improving high-stakes test scores had led to a narrowed curriculum, increased stress on teachers and students, and reduced teachers' attention to other aspects of students' development. In this study, teaching methods and classroom management strategies had both been narrowed. This suggests less inclusive classroom environments, which could create a school climate more tolerant of bullying behaviors.

Adults Compartmentalized Students' Emotional and Safety Needs From Their Academic Obtainments

Other studies have found elementary teachers to believe that they did not have the time to cover both the academic curriculum and deal with bullying behaviors (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005) and to view intervening in bullying as a low priority (Harris & Willoughby, 2003). Although the teachers in this study only identified outside pressure as responsible for their lack of attention to students' emotional and safety needs, prior findings suggestion that role definition and comfort level may also have encouraged these teachers' narrow focus on academic development.

Due to Unmet Emotional and Safety Needs, Students Were Less Able to Engage in Academic Tasks

Studies have documented that students worry about bullying and that frequent victims of bullying worry most about bullying (Hughes et al., 2009); however, the linkage to how bullying impacts the academic learning of cohorts has not been made. Most elementary school level bullying-academic achievement research has focused on how being a bully or victim affects individual academic achievement. For instance, studies have found that being a victim of bullying, especially chronic peer exclusion, can have a detrimental effect on academic achievement (Buhs et al., 2006) and that socially sophisticated bullies are often academically successful (Woods & Wolke, 2004). Extrapolating from studies of the impact of class- or school-wide variables on achievement and behaviors known to correlate with bullying suggests that bullying has a negative impact on students' achievement, even for students not directly involved (Barth, Dunlap, & Dane, 2004). This study suggests that bullying outside of the classroom negatively affected academic attentiveness for most students.

Limitations

This case study contributes a picture of one suburban, neighborhood elementary school. The three main limitations of the study are those common to qualitative research: (a) scope, (b) data collection choices, and (c) researcher lens.

The scope of the study extended to one neighborhood elementary school, focused at the fourth-grade level, during one year. Further, the pool of student participants was limited to the children of parents who consented to their participation (although targeted sampling was employed to get a cross-section of students from this group). As with any school, the demographics of this school were specific and dissimilar to many other schools.

Second, the study was limited by data collection techniques. Multiple interviews were conducted to get the participants' perceptions. As member perceptions were what were sought, interviews were not augmented with other data collection methods, such as observations. Student interviews occurred in groups with classmates to provide them with greater comfort in meeting with an unknown adult. The content of the conversations suggest that the students' interactions led to frank discussions about bullying. However, as bullying is a peer behavior, having classmates present may have limited what they were willing to disclose or affected how they tried to present themselves.

Finally, personal biases may have affected interpretations. The goal of the study was to explore systemic linkages and explanations for the social phenomena of bullying. This means that individual bully and victim characteristics were not explored. Member-checking substantiated the interpretations made but does not eliminate the possibility of other plausible interpretations.

Suggestions for Bullying Interventions and Further Research

This study suggests that a lack of school-wide safety and bullying interventions can decrease students' ability to focus on academic content. Both for a greater understanding of promoting students' sense of safety and academic achievement, more inquiries in to school-level bullying prevention are needed. As much of bullying occurs outside classrooms and class groups, school-wide interventions that address schools' less safe environments need to be considered. Establishing common behavioral expectations and supporting teachers in teaching social skills appears critical to promoting student safety, but must be augmented with outside-of-classroom supervision.

Building from the classroom management literature, the results of this study suggest that in order to optimize academic learning and achievement, time needs to be regularly spent on attending to children's social-emotional needs and building a safe and inclusive environment. Findings from this study and other cited studies suggest that not spending regular time attending to peer interactions and social skills may negatively impact students' academic engagement. Certain teaching methods promote or suppress inclusion of all students. A greater understanding of elementary classroom characteristics that discourage bullying is needed, especially as they interact with the school context and academic achievement.

In this study, a recursive cycle was found where adults' preoccupation with improving state-mandated standardized achievement tests led to a compartmentalization of students' needs and lack of attention to aspects of development not assessed by the state tests. This, in turn, created an unsafe environment for the students, which decreased their ability to attend to academic content. Studies that consider children's integrated biopsychosocial development and help schools to interpret and make research-substantiated curricular decisions based on that information are greatly needed.