Anti-bullying program focused on bystanders helps students who need it most

"Could that be because the efforts have focused on having students, mostly those not subject to bullying, stop the bullying?"

The article didn't go into a whole lot of detail on the other less effective programs. But it did talk about how this program was effective precisely because it focused on students instead of focusing on punishment[1].

[1] I realize punishment isn't the only way to get teachers and administrators involved, but it does seem like programs focusing on punishment would have to get teachers and administrators involved.

> Haven't you just confirmed that in your opinion, the problem is that the teachers and administration can't or won't do anything, so they're doing "bullying theater", and handing off the problem to all the pencil-necked bystanders, who really have no business intervening, and lots of motivation not to intervene?

Oh, totally agree. The end result is awful, regardless of the reasons.

> Personally, I don't even believe the "fear of lawsuits" thing. I was in middle school in the mid-70s, in Missouri. The crustier teachers still gave out "swats" as punishment. No fear of a lawsuit there.

This ain't the 70s. Such a teacher's ass would get fired very quickly. And it's not just lawsuits—parents can and will go to the media, and sometimes they print what they say, especially if something can be framed (justly or not, doesn't matter) as racism.

> Bullying was more or less winked at, depending on who was getting bullied. You don't have to believe me, but I saw a PE "teacher" walk in on a football player banging a poor kid's head into the wall, repeatedly. The "teacher" checked to see who was getting beaten, then walked away quietly.

I'm sure this happens—I've seen too many accounts of it to believe otherwise. As with things like e.g. the power of teacher's unions to protect bad teachers, I have a feeling the facts-on-the-ground for this issue vary greatly across the country, and even district-by-district and school-by-school.

I doubt many teachers have a desire to preserve some power structure that involves bullying, though some might—usually they'd rather the bullies be removed from their class entirely. They're no fun for teachers, and their parents are usually even less fun. Mostly they want to go home feeling like the kids learned well that day, and bullies and other troublemakers are a leading obstacle to that. Effective responses to bullying aren't even available, though. Send 'em to the office, maybe a detention. Take away some recesses in lower grades. Talk to their parents, but their parents usually back them up and just get pissed off at the teacher (typically accusing them of racism when possible) so that's just tons of fun and so productive. That's about all they've got, and all it does is buy them (and the kids) a few hours at best.

From what I recall of highschool here in Australia, students are deliberately rotated and mixed up as much as possible to prevent cliques and long-term rivalries from forming. A teacher once told me this makes it easier to assert control.

While I would have preferred the other way back then as a student, I wonder what the statistics say, in terms of outcomes. My gut feeling is that it reduces the outliers in student relationships (long-term sexual relationships, cycles of revenge, etc) that cause the school expensive problems.

What you refer to as cliques - are actually friendships. Friendships and socializing, are hugely important.

When you keep having to make new friends every year - you only learn to develop shallow relationships.

This is a huge problem with consequences no anti-bullying campaign or work-etiquette pamphlet is ever going to solve.

As for rivalries and cycles of revenge - can you give an example of what that'd look like? I personally haven't experienced either.

Honest, critical feedback. I can't put it any other way. Based on reading multiple posts by you over the past few days.

You're not nearly as quality of a communicator as Alan Watts, not nearly as good of a thinker, not nearly as insightful as he.

Since you're still green, I recommend just making a new name, and then continuing to do the internet forum philosophizing you do under some other name. That's my best honest recommendation, not trying to say you're bad at communicating, thinking, or being insightful, when compared to everyone else in general.

Just it bugs me to see someone posting regularly, philosophizing, under that name. So let your content exist, but under a new name. While you're still green.