They were images that shocked a national television audience: Images of a slight 12-year-old boy being taunted, hit and kicked by three boys while on his school bus.

Twelve-year-old Casey Woodruff, a sixth grade student in Eugene, Ore., was just one of approximately 282,000 students who are physically attacked in secondary schools every month. Adults witness few of these incidents, and even fewer are ever caught on videotape, but a surveillance camera installed on Casey’s school bus to deter unsafe and inappropriate behaviors captured the entire incident. It wasn’t the worst attack Casey had experienced in school, far from it. He and his family had been reporting serious bullying problems for more than a year -- starting in fifth grade at his elementary school and continuing at his middle school -- but there was never any resolution. This time, however, aided by the videotape, Casey’s parents demanded action. For the twin city community of Eugene and Springfield, Ore., the media frenzy over the video, which ultimately made its way to national newscasts, was a bit like déjà vu all over again.

In 1998, the community of Eugene-Springfield made national news when a 15-year-old Springfield student, Kip Kinkel, killed his parents at home, then went to school and squeezed off as many shots as he could before being student tackled by another student. In all, 25 students were wounded and two were killed. It’s chilling to note that Kinkel’s high school is located just a few miles from Casey Woodruff’s middle school and, like Casey, the small, un-athletic boy had been ridiculed, bullied and reportedly felt ostracized at school.

Though there is nothing to indicate that Casey Woodruff will follow in the destructive footsteps of Kinkel, important lessons can be learned by examining the similarities in such cases and by examining recent research about both bullying and school shooters.

Bullying Lessons
In the late 1990s, the United States Secret Service, in cooperation with the Secretary of Education, interviewed school shooters to learn more about the patterns of planning, thinking and behavior that preceded the shootings. Kip Kinkel was one of 41 attackers interviewed.

In their report issued last May, the Secret Service concluded that fully two-thirds of the school shooters interviewed indicated they had felt tormented, bullied, attacked or injured by others. They also said their attacks were motivated by a will to seek revenge, not just those students who had persecuted them, but teachers and administrators, too. Some students even single out administrators. In April of this year, a 14-year-old boy, armed with three handguns, shot and killed his junior high school principal before fatally shooting himself in the head.

The chances that some students might begin to feel dejected and angry are increased in situations where there is a history of ongoing bullying and alienation during the adolescent years. This is particularly true in schools where the teachers and the administration either aren’t aware of the bullying or, worse, don’t take reports of bullying seriously. According to the Secret Service, each school shooting was the end of an escalating process that each student had experienced. They were frustrated and angry and saw no other way out. If these children have access to guns, the possibility for danger is even higher.

“It is reasonably clear,” writes Elliot Aronson in his book Nobody Left to Hate, “that a major root cause of the recent school shootings is a school atmosphere that ignores, or implicitly condones, the taunting, rejection, and verbal abuse to which a great many students are subjected.”

The sad fact is, according to Aronson, a great many teenagers are unhappy in school. They feel excluded, taunted and lonely. They become anxious and depressed; their schoolwork suffers; their self-esteem plummets and a small percentage act out in horrific ways.

Though most bullying does not result in serious violence, this potential for “horrific” violence has prompted nearly every state to pass laws requiring schools to develop anti-bullying programs within the next few years. Colorado, home to Columbine High School, now requires all state school districts to develop anti-bullying programs. Oregon will require the same by 2004.

But changes in laws are often easier than changes in attitudes and behavior. The creation of policies against bullying doesn’t mean that they will be appropriately enforced are even interpreted consistently. What one teacher may consider bullying may seem like innocent horse play to another. What’s more, most programs mandated by lawmakers target changing student behavior. Equally, if not more important, is changing attitudes about bullying among teachers, administrators, bus drivers and other school staff.

Too many parents and educators still believe that bullying is just “boys behaving badly.” They assume it’s a normal part of childhood, “character building” or a passing problem of little importance. Even where anti-bullying policies and education exist, if the policies are not consistently enforced, a climate that allows bullying may develop. A climate that can leave emotional and physical scars on children and inadequately prepare them for the workforce where such behaviors are not tolerated.

“If adults did the kinds of things to adults that children often do to children, they would be in jail for it,” says Gaye Barker, coordinator of the National Education Association’s Bullying and Sexual Harassment Prevention/Intervention Program. “So, it’s not a normal part of growing up. Kids have to be taught that that’s not the way you treat people.”

Aronson agrees. “It is astonishing to me that we permit children to be victimized by the kind of verbal violence that adults would not tolerate in their own workplace,” he writes. “Indeed, in many instances, adults subjected to such harassment would sue not only the perpetrator, but also their employer for allowing such an intolerable work environment.”

Page 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7