Introduction
According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 16, children with disabilities have the right to freedom from exploitation, violence, and abuse. As a result, effective bullying prevention and intervention efforts are imperative to ensuring the protection of these rights. However, research indicates SWD are disproportionately victimized compared to non-disabled peers (Blake et al., 2012; Rose & Gage, 2017). 1 Rose and Gage (2017) reported that longitudinally SWD experience more victimization and bully others more than their peers without disabilities. Blake and colleagues (2012) reported that victimization rates are highest in middle school (34.1%), with comparable rates in elementary (24.5%) and high school (26.6%) for SWD. Specifically, the National Center for Education Statistics determined that almost 22% of youth aged 12–18 report being bullied within the past year (NCES, 2019).
While the measurement and definition of SWD often differs across reports, K-12 SWD can be grouped as being served by: 1) an Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or 2) a 504 plan under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Forber-Pratt et al., 2020a; Zirkel & Weathers, 2015). 2–5 Overall, students with IEPs (15% of students (NCES, 2022, 13) and 504 plans (1.48% of students (Zirkel & Weathers, 2015) represent approximately 16.48% of SWD in US schools.
SWD in General Education Classrooms and Bullying Prevention
Students aged 6–21 years served under IDEA receive the majority of special education services (more than 80% of the time) inside general education classes (NCES, 2022). This number increased from 47% in 2000 to 66% in fall 2020 (NCES, 2020). The percentage of students served under IDEA who received a majority of services inside general classes was highest for students with speech or language impairments (88%), followed by students with specific learning disabilities (75%), visual impairments (68%), other health impairments (67%), developmental delays (69%), and hearing impairments (69%; NCES, 2022). In contrast, 19% of students with intellectual disabilities and 15% of students with multiple disabilities spent 80%+ the school day in general education classrooms. For the 1.48% of students with 504 plans, the main goal is to attend class in a general education classroom with necessary accommodations (Zirkel & Weathers, 2015). To best support this goal for SWD, teachers and counselors must be equipped to address bullying and victimization among SWD. Yet, disability-related content and professional development (PD) is, on the whole, lacking for general education professionals highlighting an unmet need from a critical disability and social justice perspective. Social justice in education strives to recognize the complex identities and systems that work for and against an individual’s ability to thrive in the educational environment and must include disability (Gabel & Connor, 2009). As Connor (2014) states, “Understanding disability as part of the broad spectrum of social justice issues means that it can be integral to all aspects of teaching [. . .] to teach against limited and oppressive understandings of disability and toward human diversity” (p. 120). Kulkarni and colleagues (2023) highlight the importance of addressing disability-related content for all teacher educators and emphasize unique considerations for those who are multiply marginalized.
SWD are twice as likely to be victimized (Rose et al., 2012), starting in Pre-Kindergarten (Son et al., 2012) and persisting over time (Rose & Gage, 2017). Bullying exposure is associated with negative psychosocial, psychosomatic, behavioral, and educational outcomes (NASEM, 2019). Childhood bullying survivors face lower educational and financial attainment, higher health risks, and difficulty maintaining social relationships (Takizawa et al., 2014; Wolke & Lereya, 2015). A recent Meta-analytic review found that school-wide bully prevention programs reduce bullying perpetration by around 20% and victimization by 15% (Gaffney et al., 2019). Anti-bullying initiatives with teacher training components, enhancing self-efficacy and prevention skills, show promise (Van Verseveld et al., 2019). Focusing on social skills, targeted programs decrease bullying involvement and improve teacher abilities (Espelage et al., 2015). Further, Espelage and colleagues (2015) found that programming with a direct focus on youth with or at risk for disability identification produced a clinically and statistically significant decrease in bullying involvement, while refining teacher competencies in recognizing and addressing classroom bullying.
Educator Definitions of Bullying
Both general and special education teachers are pivotal in creating a safe learning environment for students (Oder & Eisenschmidt, 2018). They need to recognize and address peer aggression effectively to prevent bullying (Preast et al., 2020). However, teachers often do not receive comprehensive PD on bully prevention specific to SWD (Yell et al., 2016). A shared bullying definition is necessary, yet parents and teachers struggle to identify and define bullying behaviors accurately (Harcourt et al., 2014; Purcell, 2012). Their perceptions differ from students, who view bullying as more prevalent (Eriksen & Huang, 2019; Holt et al., 2008). Demaray et al. (2013) found discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of victimization, underscoring the importance of understanding teacher views on bullying and how they influence recognition and response.
Teachers’ definitions of bullying are less comprehensive than students’, focusing more on direct forms (verbal, physical) and less on indirect forms (social exclusion, rumors, or threats) which are increasingly common (Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015). When pre-service educators think of bullying, they often envision “traditional” classroom-based verbal bullying (Rose et al., 2018). Teacher beliefs on the motives behind bullying, both in physical and online environments, also differ (Compton et al., 2014), leading to inconsistent responses. Thus, it is critical to collaborate with teachers and provide them with support in developing a comprehensive anti-bullying plan inclusive of SWD.
Educator Perceptions of Bullying
Teachers’ perceptions of bullying can aid researchers and educators in devising training to enhance their efficacy in tackling bullying and reducing risks for students. Personal experiences shape teachers’ views and reactions (Yoon et al., 2016). Teacher responses affect the school climate’s stance on bullying (Marshall et al., 2009). Intervention decisions hinge on factors like the perceived seriousness of the situation, the type of bullying observed or reported (direct or indirect), the victim’s perceived level of distress, empathy for the victim, and self-efficacy in response strategies (Craig et al., 2000; Dedousis-Wallace et al., 2014; Sokol et al., 2015). Some teachers might not label non-physical incidents as bullying, leading to lower intervention rates (Craig et al., 2000). For example, teachers tend to prioritize interventions targeting physical bullying, yet outcomes related to physical, verbal, and relational/social are similarly detrimental for youth (see Rose et al., 2018 for review). However, a majority of youth with disabilities receive special education services within the general education environment (NCES, 2022), but some subgroups of youth report higher rates of victimization within these settings (Espelageet al., 2015). Consequently, empathy influences intervention; teachers intervene more to sad victims (Sokol et al., 2015), tied to factors like the victim’s race and socioeconomic status (Marshall et al., 2009).
Empathy affects incident seriousness, requiring teachers to be attuned (Norwalk et al., 2016). Higher attunement links to increased school belonging and intervention confidence (Norwalk et al., 2016). Building teachers’ confidence in bullying prevention is crucial, as high self-efficacy increases intervention in both direct and indirect bullying (Fischer & Bilz, 2018). Surprisingly, high self-efficacy does not always correlate with classroom experience or knowledge (Maynes & Mottonen, 2017). New teachers may overestimate their abilities despite limited knowledge. Comprehending how experiences, beliefs, knowledge, and self-efficacy shape teachers’ responses is key to informing school-wide prevention strategies.
Role of School Counselors
Elementary school counselors play a key role in addressing bullying, particularly for SWD, although this role lacks thorough study (Bauman, 2008). Within the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) ethical standards (A.11), counselors must report bullying incidents, understand policies and laws, and promote a safe school environment (ASCA, 2016). When trained, counselors consider relational bullying more seriously (Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007), often being the first contact for bullying cases. Assigned as anti-bullying specialists, they face role conflicts and ambiguity, especially in disciplinary matters (Hannon et al., 2019). Counselors in schools with anti-bullying programs are more active in intervening across bullying types (e.g., physical, verbal, relational; Jacobsen and Bauman 2007). Counselors’ involvement in bully prevention is supported, making them important stakeholders alongside teachers (Bialka & Havlik, 2020; Taub, 2006), particularly in elementary schools (Whiston & Quinby, 2009).
Current Study
Given the high bullying rates and increased SWD inclusion in general education, it is vital to assess educators’ understanding of bullying involving SWD. Two focus groups were conducted with 17 elementary educators, including general and special education teachers and counselors. The study aimed to explore knowledge gaps in bullying perceptions and interventions involving SWD to then enhance educator readiness for preventing and addressing SWD-related bullying incidents. This study sought to answer the following research questions:
Methods
Two focus groups were conducted in spring 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, using an approved semi-structured protocol by the Principal Investigators’ Institutional Review Board and in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics (APA, 2017). The research team aimed to explore the competencies teachers considered necessary for recognizing and responding to bullying and to provide real-world bullying examples for upcoming professional development. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose and their rights, actively consented, and received a $100 gift card for participation.
Participants and Setting
Two focus groups were conducted in person at two schools in a southeast urban district. As of 2016–2017, approximately 9% of the participating districts’ student population received special education services; bullying incidence rates were not available. Total participants included 17 educators: 16 identified as female and one male, whose primary positions were either: general education teachers, special education teachers, or school counselors. Additional demographic information was not collected from the educators for two reasons: to prevent adverse employment consequences and due to both our agreement with the Institutional Review Board and our Memorandum of Understanding with the school district. The first focus group lasted approximately 90 minutes and had nine participants, including five general education teachers, two special education teachers (one was chair of exceptional student education), and two school counselors. The second focus group lasted approximately 65 minutes, and had eight participants, including four general education teachers, three special education teachers, and one school counselor. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Two members of the research team co-facilitated each focus group, and 2–3 members of the research team took observational notes related to intonation and facial expressions to aid in the interpretation of the transcripts.
Design
This exploratory study was situated within the paradigm of constructivist inquiry, suggesting that reality is subjective, multiple, and context-dependent and therefore best understood qualitatively (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because of the interest in how K-5 educators viewed bullying and SWD, it was imperative to include a variety of stakeholder voices and focus group sessions were utilized to explore unknown territory (i.e., SWD and bullying). Patton (1990) clarifies that participants for intentional qualitative designs ought to be a relatively homogeneous group of people who are asked to reflect on questions asked by the interviewers. Participants get to hear each other’s thoughts and give additional feedback beyond their initial responses as they hear what other people have to say. It is rare for general education teachers, special education teachers, and school counselors to all have a focused conversation about SWD and bullying, so these multiple perspectives yielded fruitful dialogue. This reflects the exploratory nature of qualitative investigation and captures the differing nuances across focus groups.
Research Team
The research team is diverse with varied clinical and research experiences. Forber-Pratt, a project co-PI and lead qualitative researcher, trained graduate assistants in interviewing, coding, and analysis. With extensive experience in focus groups and disability research, she identifies as a brown disabled woman. Espelage, the project’s lead PI, is a white heterosexual non-disabled woman with significant focus group experience. She is the senior researcher on the project, responsible for the Institute of Education Sciences grant. Forber-Pratt and Rose, together with co-PIs, contributed to data collection and conceptualization. Rose, a white heterosexual non-disabled man with special education training, has broad experience with educators. Hanebutt, Woolweaver, Robinson, Ingram, and Sheikh, graduate research assistants and primary coders, aided in data collection. Hanebutt is a white cisgender heterosexual non-disabled woman and doctoral student. Woolweaver, a lab coordinator, is a white cisgender heterosexual non-disabled woman. Robinson is a Latina doctoral student in the School of Psychology. Ingram, a white cisgender woman, contributed to data collection and coding. Sheikh is a white Palestinian cisgender woman and graduate student in counselor education.
Focus Group Protocol and Analysis
Questions focused on participants’ definitions of bullying, warning signs for bullying, experiences with bullying (specifically including students at risk or with disability identification), school bullying policies, and their perception of professional development in this context (see Figure 1). Questions were developed by the grant PIs with input from existing bullying and disability literature. Focus groups were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Field notes from researchers who observed the focus groups provided additional insights for theme development and analysis. Our analysis began using Hamilton’s Rapid Assessment Process (Beebe, 2001). This intensive, team-based qualitative inquiry uses triangulation, iterative data analysis and incorporation of additional data collection (in this case observation notes) to quickly develop a preliminary understanding of a situation from the insider’s perspective (Beebe, 2001). This was done first to guide us to the most salient stories from each individual focus group. Using this process, the following four steps were completed: 1) creation of a neutral domain name that corresponded with each open-response question from the semi-structured interview guide; 2) creation of a summary template for use by the team; 3) use of the summary template for the first transcript and notations to assess its usability, relevance etc. and refinement as needed for use for the second transcript; and 4) the team of summarizers from group (four members of the research team) then compared summary documents and consolidated into one summary document to ensure consistency for each of the two focus groups.
After familiarizing ourselves with the summary documents, we shifted to the focus group transcripts. Using MAXQDA software version 20.1.1 (VERBI Software, 2020) initial structural codes as outlined by Saldaña (2015) were used for the first round of coding followed by versus coding (i.e., student without disability vs. student with disability, bullying vs. not bullying vs. other aggression). The coding system, both structural and versus coding, is displayed in Figure 2. The research team met regularly to discuss any disagreements that arose during the coding process and used digital forms of memoing within MAXQDA to resolve disagreements and enhance transparency in their thought processes (Maxwell, 2013).
Results
Definitions of Bullying
In accordance with traditional definitions of bullying, participants seemed to agree that bullying behavior is repetitive, consistent and includes some type of power dynamic. Many also mentioned that it might be targeted toward one person, based on an aspect of identity or difference, and that the nature of it may change as children age through developmental stages. In general, focus group participants seemed to suggest that the presence of cruelty, by their observation, decides if an incident should be classified as bullying. One educator shared that they will not name an aggressive behavior as bullying, “Until I see a constant behavior of you [a student] going after a person for a reason to make them feel less than” (FG1). Additionally, some participants felt that the true meaning of bullying is lost or unclear – for both younger and older kids – because students seemingly view every conflict as bullying. Participants explained misinformation about bullying was also true for parents, who tend to make assumptions and demand investigations even for instances that may not be bullying. Multiple participants in focus group 2 shared, “They’re very uneducated”. or “They [are] getting very sensitive”. “That every little thing to them is oh my god it’s bullying”. or “They’re hypervigilant”. Or finally, “I think the parents have the misconception, maybe not the students, of what bullying is with everything that has happened in society with the media and all the shootings and the killings” (FG2).
Participants also commented on the communication process between students and parents that seem to perpetuate the misinformation leading to overidentification of true instances of bullying. One educator suggested that their students describe interactions with peers to their parents, who react by, “Tell[ing] their child, ‘Oh you’re being bullied’. When it might’ve happened one time, and then they start putting that in their head and the kids don’t really understand what is bullying” (FG1). During elementary school, most students are in a developmental stage where information from parents is highly salient. Further, receiving conflicting messages from parents and school staff about what constitutes bullying may be contributing to the lack of both individual and community-wide clarity.
Observations of Bullying and Involvement of SWD
Many of the examples of bullying mentioned during the focus groups focused on identity-related issues (i.e., disability, sexual orientation, language ability). Specifically, SWD or those at risk for disability identification, many of the anecdotes mentioned were directly or tangentially related to the characteristics associated with their disability, or factors that place students at risk for disability identification. One teacher provided an example of how misinformation about disabilities perpetuates disability-based bullying. She shared,
We had an instance where someone was like the word was “prescription” and her sentence was I have a prescription for my ADHD. Automatically one of my other kids goes “oh you have this huge mental disorder” and I was like “woah woah woah woah” let’s go through like what that means, and his understanding of what ADHD was and what mental disorder is, was completely off (FG2).
This statement also speaks to teachable moments, where teachers recognized the importance of addressing bullying immediately after it occurred, especially among youth with disabilities. For example, one respondent stated,
A normal student will laugh at something an ESE student does that’s not even a funny matter but they find it funny cause it’s not [a] norm to them but as soon as you put a stop. to it it’s fine [. . .] it could develop into bullying eventually (FG2).
These statements highlight the importance of intervention, and the need for increased teacher response skills. Many instances of bullying described also involved underlying issues of interpersonal relationships, social communication, identity differences, and/or other insecurities across the developmental timeline, where youth without disabilities seemed to lack a general frame of understanding actions that deviated from their perception of the norm. For example, a conversation ensued:
Educator: “If they are stuttering, they will get picked on”.
Educator: I have a kid who stutters. He’s also ESOL. He’s very new to the country, so he likes to read, but in the beginning of the year there was an incident because he’ll read the words but sometimes he won’t pronounce them correctly [because of] the stutter plus the accent [. . .] One of the kids literally called him a dumbass because he couldn’t read [. . .] when we came back and started reading again, he didn’t want to read (FG2).
Participants also shared multiple examples of bullying as a result of apparent differences, including perceived learning disabilities; one of the many warning signs of bullying and aggression noted by participants. One common theme addressed in the focus group regarding apparent differences is the visibility or observability of a disability. For example, one participant stated, “I think the more hidden the disability, the more they might pick on the person, or that person might pick on somebody else” (FG1).
Yet, another described, “We have a program here at the school for students who have intellectual disabilities [. . .] I think the students in that program are typically really respected and cared for by the other kids”. Another interjected in agreement saying, “They look out for them in a certain way, see them as like, younger and want to care for them when they see them down the hall and things like that”.
While recognizing the characteristics of a disability is important to reducing bullying among SWD, some respondents also overgeneralized the predictive nature of certain disability characteristics. Specifically, one respondent stated, “The similarities that I’ve noticed between them [those involved in bullying] is that they’ve all been diagnosed with ADHD, and they have been very oppositional and very defiant toward all authority” (FG1). Therefore, the theme of understanding differences, and the impact that perceived differences have on bullying involvement, was relatively apparent throughout the focus groups.
One of the most interesting themes identified regarding bullying involvement among SWD is the reciprocity of behaviors within groups of youth with disabilities. A few respondents suggested that, while youth with disabilities are victimized more than their peers without disabilities, they are also engaging in bullying behaviors. For example, one teacher stated,
So, within their own circle, they bully themselves, even if they have a disability. They’ll pick on each other even [though] they’ve been together for years (FG2).
Therefore, it is imperative to include SWD in these conversations too, both in school and at home. Oftentimes they are excluded from these types of anti-bullying programming, for various reasons. Some educators provided insight on this issue of SWD bullying each other:
We have two students who are autistic and they’re in the same class together and one of the little boys would always you know pick on the other autistic student [. . .] the repetitive behaviors that one of the autistic boys had, the other autistic student didn’t like it [. . .] it bothered him like he’s like I don’t like way I feel when he does those faces. So, I’m like okay it has to go with his disability, he’s autistic [. . .] he’s very sensitive, and perhaps maybe the noises that the other student is doing [. . .] it bothers him [. . .] I don’t really think that he kinda understood so much that that was, what he was doing was bullying. He just didn’t like what the other kid was doing (FG2).
Another dialogue in FG1 explained the layers of this complexity. One educator started, “Who gets bullied in our school? Let’s say the kids that have a learning disability, but they also bully”. Another educator responded, “Yeah, there are two sides”. Related to the visibility of disability, another educator responded,
You know, the kids that, to me, it’s the ones that have the hidden disability or the high-functioning ones. The very high-functioning autistic kids. That sometimes you can’t tell [which side] [. . .] and one-on-one, their heart is broken. They are crying. They’re like, “I’m going to change. I want to change”. You can relate. You can talk and [. . .] And a week passes and they’re right back at it (FG1).
This reciprocity matters for special education services and educational placement, requiring students to acquire social skills for diverse environments. It is also crucial for identifying and addressing bullying warning signs, particularly for those most at risk for bullying involvement.
Warning Signs of Bullying and Aggression
The most common warning signs, or indications of potential bullying involvement, mentioned during focus group sessions were related to the home environment. Participants referenced unstable home structures (i.e., homelessness, divorce, violence at home), as well as students learning anti-social or problematic behaviors at home from caregivers and/or activities outside of school with peers, including social media. One counselor and several educators illustrated the latter point by explaining,
There are these incidents and these words that are being said that I know a child in kindergarten wouldn’t say to another child so for sure a lot of it does come from home, from what they watch [. . .] stuff they should not be watching (FG2).
The educator responded,
Some things are just out of my control. And then somehow, it becomes my problem. Like, the thing with the social media drives me crazy because, they do it at home, not on my time. I can’t monitor them (FG2).
One educator interrupted saying: “But then it comes into your time”. The original teacher speaking responded:
But then they come into my room, and then I’m stuck. Like, now I’m in it. And then somehow, it’s my fault because it’s happening in my room. And that – that’s something I have issues dealing with ‘cause I don’t know where to cut that line. You know? And then I spend my class time talking about the advantages and disadvantages of social media [. . .] I can’t stop everything (FG2).
Warning signs also encompassed: identity or appearance disparities, such as body size; aggressive personalities; vulnerability due to sensitivity, age, or insecurities; and group dynamics driving bullying. Gender played a role, with girls exhibiting clique-based aggression in response to differences. One-fifth grade educator explained, “I would say for the girls who were the ones who are the aggressors in that group, so they just look for the ones that are quieter, more, they don’t think they won’t stand up for themselves” (FG2). Participants mentioned that risk factors like isolation, poor social skills, and difficulty in making friends may elevate the chance of being bullied and/or becoming a bully. Participants also named stereotypes and stigmas regarding any differences, especially identity-related to be key within most bullying dynamics. This is especially relevant for SWD, who are bullied or stigmatized based on an aspect of their disability as well as other students’ misconceptions of their disability.
Existing Intervention Landscape
Participants discussed interventions at individual classroom, school, and district levels for bullying prevention. Various classroom-level strategies were used, such as educating about disabilities, resolving conflicts through open forums, and addressing misconceptions. Notable school-level interventions included educator and counselor professional development, reporting mechanisms, and school-wide anti-bullying programs (“Not letting anyone eat alone” Sandy Hook programming and “Do the right thing”). A district-level policy of providing a mental health-focused counselor to each school was also mentioned as an existing intervention strategy. It is important to note, however, that interventions addressing bullying prevention specifically regarding SWD were not mentioned.
Classroom-Level Strategies
Participants discussed diverse classroom-level strategies for preventing and intervening in bullying involving SWD. They highlighted the significance of lessons that educate (and re-educate) students about disabilities (i.e., ADHD), to dispel stigmas. Addressing misconceptions collectively was emphasized by most to reduce bullying. One participant said, “We try to talk to all the students and explain to them that everybody’s different. We’re not all the same and because of that it’s okay to be different and it’s okay if he starts laughing hysterically for no reason” (FG2). Although this participant may have been well-intentioned in their intervention, the use of “laughing hysterically” is problematic given the definition of hysteria.
Classroom-level strategies used by participants were typically tailored to their grade level. For example, some teachers were using a buddy/pair system to encourage inclusion and social skills for students in younger grades. Another participant demonstrated an example of an upstream bullying prevention strategy she had used to cultivate a sense of belonging in the classroom. As a class, students celebrated their peers for “doing good” and in turn all students had the chance to feel valued. For example, one educator stated, “Years ago, when I used to have this little [. . .] cute mailbox and I would incorporate the writing, and the kids would have to write notes catching [peers] doing good” (FG1). Participants who worked with older children expressed the importance of explicit programming to teach students how to create healthy relationships and boundaries with their peers. For example, one teacher holds a discussion for students to resolve conflicts in front of the class.
I call [it] open forum; we talk it out. And I let them say like whatever you need to say, say it say it however you want it, curse whatever I don’t care. But I need you to understand everyone’s point of view and then look at it from their side cause the student that made the comment isn’t the ideal child either (FG2).
Another teacher detailed their experience with one-on-one assignments regarding biases and fears about differences (i.e., physical and learning disabilities, sexual orientation) for students.
Let’s say they were bullying someone because they belong to the [LGBT] community, for example [. . .] we’ll talk, we’ll see what the fears are that I usually give them an assignment that they need to return will be like, for example, in Florida, there’s a law, the ruling that was enacted because of the students that got teased for being gay, and he killed himself and had him look that up and then come back with a report what it was about, what did they do to contribute to this and how are they going to change (FG1).
Participants demonstrated a diverse set of strategies for bullying intervention and prevention among SWD at the classroom level, conveying the importance of inclusion and cultivating a sense of belonging in the classroom. When participants witnessed peer aggression, they indicated using restorative and educative interventions to address the behaviors directly.
School-Level Strategies
Participants also expressed school and district-level strategies that are implemented for bullying intervention and prevention. Participants discussed different professional development programming and certifications for educators and counselors, but none mentioned receiving specific training related to bullying involvement with SWD. Counselors detailed the different strategies they use at the school-level from preventing bullying to intervening. Focus group participants from one school said they were successful at implementing bullying prevention programming through groups that encourage prosocial behavior (i.e., friendship group) because they had a lot of administrative support. They also described counselors’ willingness to have lunch with students and cultivate a space where they feel safe and to be available to counsel students in need. For example, an educator stated:
I think in a less curriculum way. We have our two counselors who are very good about having [groups] with kids. So, aside from curriculum, like I know that that we’re gonna have like the friendship groups or play groups or if they want to come and have lunch in her office like a friend then can [. . .] different groups for different things (FG1).
One educator interjected and directed to the counselor: “You have a million groups. You have a million groups” (FG1). Another educator was clear: “We were able to do that because we have a very supportive administration that allows us to do counseling” (FG1). While reporting mechanisms can vary school to school, one educator described the process in this district as having a no-bullying process which triggers an administrator investigation and if it is determined to continue puts in a bullying code which might lead to a referral stamp to determine if it’s founded or not founded that might lead to a referral for counseling.
A lot of times a teacher will come to me and say you know what? I just had a parent-teacher conference, and the parent is concerned because the child doesn’t want to come to school because they’re having an issue with another student and they’re claiming it’s bullying. So, then I’m like okay let me talk to the student. “Let me see what’s going on after talking to the student” [then the parent says] “Oh no, they’re friends. They just had an incident the day before”. So, I’m like, “okay, this is more of a counseling issue [. . .] just a one-time incident that it’s not really bullying” (FG2).
Another educator interjected to this comment, “But at the same time, you also have to be very careful [. . .] You know? What about if it’s okay, fine, it just happened one time. But what about if it continues to happen? So it’s something you have to monitor also” (FG2). This participant detailed their decision-making process when investigating a bullying-related report and the need to continue to monitor reports of bullying even if they are perceived to be a conflict between friends. Besides handling reports, counselors help to implement school-wide anti-bullying programs and curricula.
District-Level Strategies
District-level strategies were also mentioned as being helpful for the implementation of school-wide bullying prevention. For example, a counselor explained,
Especially at an elementary level. We’re spread so thin, cause our role is very, big [. . .] so the district has started an initiative [. . .] they’re providing each school with a counselor that’s just doing counseling.
An educator interjected for clarification, “[. . .] this person is a mental health coordinator [. . .] and they’re just doing counseling but to qualify for that you need to be what they consider a tier 2 to a tier 3 student” (FG2).
This discussion between participants described the helpfulness of a district-level policy of additional mental health-focused counselor to support the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) at each school as an existing intervention strategy for tier 2 or tier 3 students needing ongoing additional support due to more complex behaviors. Districts also provide curriculum and other resources to assist with the implementation of school-wide strategies. Participants expressed an appreciation for curricula that alternate and allow for flexibility when implementing to include a variety of school staff. One participant said:
There’s also the bullying prevention curriculum for [school district] County. The way that we do it is that we run it once a month, there’s a lesson and they’re specific to each grade level and we have different teachers do it so maybe one month it will be like the Reading teacher the next month they might be like the Spanish teacher then a bit of math teacher, right. So it’s not always the same person doing it (FG1).
Participants explained the school-level and district-level bullying prevention strategies used and how they function. All participants had received some formal programming and/or certification for bullying prevention in general, but it was not specific to working with SWD or those at risk of disability identification. Counselors were most often responsible for implementing school-level strategies and did so in a variety of ways to ensure that all students felt physically and psychologically safe. According to participants, school and district-level support was fundamental to the implementation and adoption of bullying prevention efforts.
Discussion
The themes derived from the two focus groups provided a rich context by which teachers and counselors who serve elementary students with and without disabilities perceive, understand, and address bullying within their school and classroom environments. Even though teachers report high levels of bullying intervention, research on student perspectives tells another story; one where teachers and other school staff are not doing enough to prevent bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Some students fear that teachers will not be able to protect them, while others worry that reporting an incident will exacerbate the victimization (Athanasiades & Deliyanni-Kouimtzi, 2010). This reality further illustrates the importance of intentional and systematic educator-focused programming tailored to the knowledge and skills to effectively recognize, respond to, and prevent bullying, especially among SWD (Yoon & Bauman, 2014; Yoon et al., 2016).
Moreover, these focus groups exemplify the value of involving educators in discussions about their self-efficacy in addressing bullying and the overrepresentation of SWD in bullying dynamics. As demonstrated, focus groups can capture not only how teachers and counselors define, witness, and intervene in bullying incidents, but also what their perceived needs and competency gaps are related to professional development. This supports the recommendation that training regarding teachers’ responses to bullying should be connected to their classroom experiences, including within the context of classroom management (Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Collaborative efforts among general and special education teachers, school counselors, parents, and SWD are vital, with the role of school counselors as advocates highlighted (Taub, 2006). Programs must be accessible and resource-rich, while parental engagement is stressed. to reinforce skills outside of school, at home.
This collaboration also increases shared understanding and responsibility for bullying prevention work, including ensuring that families and school staff have a similar understanding of what is and what is not bullying along with efforts that destigmatize disability identification. Specifically, concerning the infantilizing of SWD (Brigham et al., 2019; Robey et al., 2006), or treating SWD like children despite their age mentioned by a participant, school staff and families must interrupt this pattern to ensure that SWD feel empowered by their own strengths and self-determination. From a critical disability lens, the study shows how SWD can be overlooked and further marginalized in schools when their disabilities are not adequately addressed in anti-bullying efforts (Liasidou & Ioannidou, 2021). This study underscores the importance of education stakeholders consciously considering the perspectives and needs of SWDs in developing more inclusive and effective anti-bullying programs.
Implications and Limitations
Group discussions involving general education teachers, special education teachers, and school counselors all highlighted diverse experiences related to bullying and SWD. Participants expressed enthusiasm for rare cross-role and cross-grade level dialogues, given the typical school day’s busyness. This aligns with the principles of inclusive education – which emphasizes the importance of collaboration. Some sought practical, interactive education, while others wanted support for coping skills, social-emotional competencies, and mental health counseling related to bullying and SWD. Reinforcing these skills beyond school through parent education was also emphasized (Rose et al., 2023).
Study limitations include difficulty in distinguishing participants’ roles and grade levels due to the focus group method’s continuous crosstalk. Both groups were from the same district, providing shared rich experiences but limiting generalizability. These snapshots represented just two schools in a large district.
Conclusion
The literature on bullying shows the need for school-based prevention and intervention programs, focusing on at-risk students (McCree et al, 2022). Compared to peers without disabilities, SWD have higher bullying involvement (Rose & Gage, 2017). The inclusion of SWD in general education is increasing, but many educators lack the skills to address their bullying issues. A team approach involving special educators can aid general educators and counselors in tackling these challenges. Professional development is vital for teachers and counselors dealing with at-risk student groups.
Findings from this work have the potential to inform research and practice efforts for bullying prevention among SWD. Specifically, the current study calls for research and practice to better prepare general educators and school counselors to identify and appropriately respond to bullying with SWD, a clear social justice issue. Successful inclusion of SWD and their access to an equitable educational experience relies on the ability of their general education teachers and school counselors to foster physically and psychologically safe classroom spaces with help from colleagues trained in special education.