Research has acknowledged that bullying cases and ill-treatment are connected with injurious emotional and educational impacts for children. Consequently, policies to counter bullying are becoming progressively extensive; from 2006, 19 States had reenacted anti-bullying statute law (Epstein & van Voorhis, 2010). Given confirmation that bullying intervention programs can minimize bullying, some of these state legislations reveal the advantage of enforcing such parental programs within schools (Lee, 2011). From a research viewpoint, the most successful parental programs are ones that assume a multi universal viewpoint under which manifold groups are aimed at anticipation attempts, from learners, to educators, to parents (Epstein & van Voorhis, 2010). This is coherent with the social-ecological theory of bullying which states that bullying participation is decided by the manifold systems in which children are implanted (Lee, 2011). Since parents have the power to manipulate their child’s bullying contribution, they should be incorporated in preclusion attempts, and, therefore, more requires to be realized about parents’ mindsets toward effective tackling and consciousness of bullying. This knowledge is necessary for parental elements of bullying programs to be modified to parents’ wants. Specifically, it may be significant to study the relationship between parent and child accounts of children’s bullying prevention.
Youngsters learn by example and replicate the perception and manners of their parents/guardians. Predicaments in the household setting may enhance the possibility of bullying. For instance, exposure to family disagreement, parental usage of drugs and intoxicant, family fighting, and child mistreatment is associated with a bigger possibility of bullying others and as well being bullied by colleagues (Epstein & van Voorhis, 2010).
A latest research on bullying involvement programs affirms for social-ecological model, where parent participation regarding child molesting manners is perceived as vital in precluding school-based harassment. School teachers can apply the forms of parent participation described in Epstein and van Voorhis (2010) framework, comprising parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and cooperating with the society, in collaborating with parents and households in the work of advancing anti-bullying involvements and scheduling in school structures. However, various roadblocks hamper effective partnership between parents and teachers in dealing with bullying incidents.
Georgiou’s (2008) recent research of the bullying preclusion literature disclosed that parent bullying preclusion programs generally minimizes the incidence of bullying by 25 percent and 20 percent of children confessing that they are victims. In particular, these investigators established that parent conference and teachings, and guardian-instructor discussions were related to cutbacks in molestations at schools. Ayers, Wagaman, Geiger, Bermudez-Parsai, and Hedberg (2012) support the findings that guardian-instructor meetings were one of only two school-oriented corrective interventions that minimized the frequencies of recurrence in molestation and violent behaviors. Due to the impact that guardians and parents have on the manners and actions of their youngsters, and their concern and accountability for their safety, caregivers play vital roles in precluding and handling molestation. The primary socialization theory is a comparatively novel model created to explicate unusual activities among children, in particular, drug and alcohol abuse. The ideas included in primary socialization model are neither novel nor exceptional to the theory. In the development of primary socialization theory, the researchers, in fact, borrow greatly on accessible social science theories. Coherent with the bio-ecological theory and the social learning theory, primary socialization theory states that actions formulate as a task of both individual-rank and social background impacts (Ayers et al., 2012).
Goals and Objectives of Bullying
Research has established that parental participation in bullying enhances elements of children’s education, for instance, school attendance, intellectual and social attainment, behavior and mind-set, self-belief, and enthusiasm. Since parents impact their child’s molesting prevention, they should be incorporated in deterrence endeavors; hence, more should be realized on caregiver approaches towards the understanding of harassment. Information on bullying is important for parental elements of harassment programs to be best adapted to guardian needs. It is significant, particularly to inspect the need for parental involvement in addressing bullying behaviors. The level at which parents are conscious of their own children’s harassment contribution is indistinct, and if parents are to be concerned in deterrence endeavors, it is vital to establish their responsiveness. Additionally, extensive proof implies that households’ characteristics relate to harassment involvement, but the majority of studies have depended on only child or only parent accounts. Applying a mixture of parent and child accounts may result in a wealthier comprehension of these relationships. This research boosts the literature on harassment through evaluating parent positions toward and consciousness of harassment, assessing guardian-child cooperation in harassment involvement, and exploring family attributes related to bullying and peer.
Description of Families and Community
Parents and the community are significant contributors to the improvement of their children’s social relationships, through both expressly (for instance, assisting adolescents grow peer relationship abilities) and indirectly (for instance, guardian attitudes) (Georgiou, 2008). It is, therefore, apparent that caregivers are expected to have some impact over their children’s harassment contribution. As explained in school literature, several theories explain how the family setting impacts children harassment contribution, from the attachment theory, social learning model and family systems model. Additionally, results emerging from these academic models have constantly established variations in family attributes between children without considerable harassment involvement and youth recognized as bullies, preys, those who both harass others and perpetrate harassment. With regard to the children who harass others, harassment conduct is related to low motherly and fatherly connection (Ayers et al., 2012). Especially, youngsters who spend ample time without grown-ups are expected to harass peers (Georgiou, 2008).
Additionally, bullies are expected to originate from households with demanding guardians who excuse retaliation (Georgiou, 2008). Households of bullies have as well been depicted as lacking kindness and composition, having low family unity, and being involved in frequent disagreement. With respect to household constitution and income, a study of students in California established that while children from broken households reported more bullying there was no link between income and bullying. Outcomes from another research of United States middle school students established no connection between family composition and harassment manners. Lastly, there is considerable proof that harassment manners can be conveyed across generations; one research established that parents who had harassed their peers at school were prone to have children who harassed their colleagues. Exceptional set of household features is apparent for families of harassment victims. Households of victims frequently show high levels of unity. Additionally, victims are expected to have less commanding parents and live in households where there are no negotiations and high degrees of disagreement (Lee, 2011). The evidence implies that household composition and income are related to being mistreated by peers. Specifically, in a survey of children living in a single-parent household and having a low socioeconomic status were related to improved probability of being harassed (Lee, 2011). Moreover, research indicates that there seem to be certain family attributes of victims that differ by the child’s sexual category. For example, while male victims frequently have excessively close relations with their mothers, female victims are expected to have mothers who take away adoration.
A successful structure of parental participation has been presented by Epstein’s theory. The theory explains how children study and grow through three overlapping areas of impact: household, school, and society. These three aspects should build partnerships to achieve the wants of the students (Epstein & van Voorhis, 2010). The theory describes several forms of participation based on the associations between the household, school, and society: volunteering, studying at home, upbringing, communicating, decision making, and cooperating with the society. Epstein emphasizes that these forms of participation need to be incorporated to have thriving relationships. An additional efficient form of participation presented in the literature comprises outside school collaborations and school-oriented actions with parents and children. Researchers argue that when parents participate in their children’s activities (attending to school occasions and assisting them with assignment) children’s education is enhanced. These gains include understanding, abilities, and self-belief.
Reflection and Assessment
Caregivers, instructors, and peers are perceived to significantly influence a child’s manner, and consecutively, being influenced by the child. No particular individual or environmental background is considered as contributory; individuals and environments are perceived as prospective contributors to elusive behavior, and, therefore, are appropriate for intervention. The ecological theory has affirmed that manifold embedded components, which comprises the school colleagues, parents, school, community, and cultural backgrounds, impacts a child’s conduct. Children do not grow in seclusion, but rather, are influenced by several interrelating environments (for instance, society, peers, community, and family). Outcomes of several studies establish that the normative contexts of households, colleagues, and schools are important pointers of bullying instigation and have implications for preclusion and involvements. Interventions that aim at amendment in these contexts demonstrate to be a successful key preclusion strategy. Particularly, prospective intervention approaches could work with households and target the components of parental demandingness and awareness in an attempt to enhance parenting approach and to assist the parent-child relationship process.
Furthermore, parental involvements could probably deal with disagreement within the household and assist households to discover means to determine disagreement without fighting and hostility. Families and caregivers may encounter several problems and chances in dealing with bullying with their children in their society. A latest research of bullying prevention programs presents backing of the social-ecological theory, where parent participation dealing with child bullying actions is perceived as significant in precluding school-oriented bullying. School teachers can apply the forms of parent participation described in Epstein and van Voorhis (2010) framework, comprising upbringing, volunteering, studying at home, problem solving, and cooperating with the society, in collaborating with parents and households in the work of advancing anti-bullying involvements and scheduling in school structures. However, various roadblocks hamper effective partnership between parents and teachers in dealing with bullying incidents. The majority of children and adolescents are often hesitant to divulge bullying to their parents and teachers. Hence, parents, guardians, and teachers should be observant for potential warning symptoms a child may be molested. Due to shifting dynamics of a child’s peer association, parents should design to have continuing discussions with their children regarding bullying. Parents’ should check in regularly, pay attention to their distress, recognize their peers, inquire about the school, and aspire to identify with their concerns.
Another challenge is that children are not automatically protected from bullying at home. Children may take part in or be vulnerable to online harassment through laptops, phones, and other communication gadgets. Parents, teachers, and administrators should, therefore, institute comprehensible regulations for their child’s interrelating online and with their phones, teach them about the proper technology application, and check their child’s activities (Lee, 2011). Partnering with schools and other society groups can assist in achieving these objectives. Even though the majority of school staff welcomes parental participation in their bullying preclusion attempts, some teachers may not understand how to tackle bullying or collaborate with parents.
This research paper signifies a significant initial step in expanding the understanding of parent positions toward and understanding of bullying, parent understanding concerning bullying contribution, and family attributes associated with peer ill-treatment and bullying perpetration. Research underscores the significance of working to improve parent-student communication on bullying incidents at school and continuing to train parents concerning the vital role that they should play for bullying deterrence programs to be successful. The information on parental involvement is necessary for understanding parental elements of bullying programs to be modified to parents’ wants. The research paper boosts the literature on harassment through evaluating parent positions toward comprehension and consciousness of harassment, assessing guardian-child cooperation in harassment involvement, and exploring family attributes related to harassment. The importance of parental involvement model has been supported by several theories discussed in this paper, including the bio-ecological theory, the social learning theory, as well as the primary socialization theory.
Ayers, S. L., Wagaman, M. A., Geiger, J. M., Bermudez-Parsai, M., & Hedberg, E. C. (2012). Examining school-based bullying interventions using multilevel discrete time hazard modeling. Prevention Science, 13(5), 539-550.
Epstein, J. L., & van Voorhis, F. L. (2010). School counselors’ roles in developing partnerships with families and communities for student success. Professional School Counseling, 14(1), 1-14.
Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 109-125.
Lee, C. (2011). An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle school students in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1664-1693.