Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Nov 2003

Vol. 1 No. 26

Bullying in Schools: Presentation.

We will hear the presentation by Dr. Mona O'Moore of Trinity College Dublin on measures to prevent and counter bullying in schools. We will then have a presentation by representatives of the South-Eastern Health Board on the issue of suicide in an educational context, with special reference to the recent programme run by the Kilkenny Education Centre concerning suicide awareness in schools.

On behalf of the members I welcome Dr. Mona O'Moore from TCD and, from the South-Eastern Health Board, Mr. Sean McCarthy, regional suicide resource officer, and Dr. Neville de Souza, public health specialist. The name of Ms Agatha Lawless is on my list but she is not present.

Dr. Neville de Souza

Unfortunately she has the flu.

Mr. John Kennedy, training and development officer, is also present. I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I suggest we hear presentations of approximately ten to 15 minutes from Dr. O'Moore and Mr. McCarthy. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Mona O’Moore

I thank the distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the committee for allowing me to share my views as to how we might prevent, reduce and counter bullying in our schools. I do not know if the committee members have already received a copy of a paper I presented, but it is from this I shall draw information for this presentation. I am hoping to go through the bare details, and committee members can then look at the paper at a later stage for more detail.

The paper gives the rationale for being proactive in finding measures to prevent and deal with bullying in schools. Aggression, bullying and violence are significant problems for schools and we have established that they have serious ill effects for health and educational achievement. A nationwide study I conducted in 1993-1994 showed how widespread the problem was. It was estimated then that something like 26,000 primary school and 8,500 post-primary school children were involved in frequent bullying, which is what we regard as serious. That amounts to something like 5.3% of primary and 2.3% of post-primary children.

According to the European Commission there is an increase in violent crime in almost all European societies, and I think the committee will agree that Ireland is not an exception. It is imperative, therefore, to focus on the early signs of anti-social behaviour, and bullying is one of the phenomena that contribute to the development of anti-social and violent behaviour patterns. Investing in tackling bullying in schools should produce enormous dividends, resulting in a reduction in anti-social and violent behaviour not only in the short-term but in the long-term.

There is an urgency, therefore, in implementing a national campaign against school bullying and in my paper I outline the results of an anti-bullying programme I conducted in County Donegal with a view to it being a pilot for what could be a national programme. Comparing the results of that Donegal project with other programmes that have been evaluated internationally, the results are far better. There are significant reductions in the level of victim-bully problems as a result of that project. The details are in the paper but in terms of the overall reduction for victims, it was 21.5% but in terms of frequent victimisation, the figure was reduced by 50%. Equally, for bullying others there was a reduction overall of 24% and in frequent bullying there was a reduction of more than 60%. There was greater vigilance and intervention on the part of teachers, which was reported by the pupils, with an increase of 30%. Peer support, which is essential, increased by 40% and, equally, the pupils themselves showed a resistance to joining in bullying other children. There was an increase of 28% in the level of empathy. Those positive results suggest that if schools were encouraged to implement the Donegal model, for example, or equivalent, Ireland would see a more caring and non-violent schoolgoing population and it would also have far-reaching benefit for society in general in that we would have more tolerant, caring and non-violent adults.

The impact of the Donegal result had far-reaching effects. I do not know how aware the members are of this but it has influenced Norwegian policy in terms of the programmes it is pushing out nationally. The Donegal project was based on a Norwegian model. Norway did not have results from any evaluation and the Donegal result being so positive allowed the Norwegian Government to promote this model, which they now call "Zero" in Norway, as a national programme.

On the model, we trained a network of professionals, predominantly teachers, over a period of 12 weekends. When they were fully confident and trained they then took on board an entire school. All the staff came to an in-service day and they also took in all the parents in an evening. The teachers were then inducted into how to develop the school's policy and, equally, how to work with the pupils. All the pupils were given awareness training and they worked towards creating a school policy and an awareness week, which involved bringing in everyone in the school community and the parents. A parent information leaflet was distributed, which is essential as it gives the parents an indication of the signs and symptoms, how to deal with the school, how parenting can help to prevent violent behaviour and so on.

Essentially, the anti-bullying programme in Donegal exploded the myth that bullying is a normal part of growing up. Instead, as research evidence indicates, it can actually damage a child's education and have effects that last into adult life, that is if they survive because we know there are suicides associated with school bullying. Neither the victim nor the bully escapes, therefore, and this is the important aspect. We tend to put a great deal of emphasis on the victim but there is longitudinal research which shows that children who bully in school and who are not challenged end up involved in crime in later life. There is an opportunity, therefore, to stop the development of violent behaviour. The message was strongly sent out that to counteract bullying is the responsibility of the entire school community and it needs to be addressed at school, class and the individual level. There are some papers attached to the document which give details of these particular aspects. Extending the whole programme into the family and the community is also important.

The recommendations I propose would be that there should be a national anti-bullying programme. Fortunately, the Donegal programme will be funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, IRCHSS, which will allow that model to be used throughout Ireland. Approximately 168 schools will be involved in this programme which means we will have a resource of approximately 54 trainers. That is an invaluable resource for Ireland to have if we decide to go for a full-scale national programme.

I am not suggesting the country should go with one model alone because, as has been shown in other countries, as long as the model is approved by the state's department of education, the schools can have a choice of models. Members may be aware that the North-Eastern Health Board operates the cool schools programme which is currently being evaluated in post-primary schools. In a sense, one could have the best of two worlds by either merging schools or eventually allowing schools to have a choice but it is important that we go with the national programme. We should not dilly-dally any longer.

In addition, we should reissue our national guidelines on countering bullying in schools. The fact that they are currently out of print sends the wrong message to the effect that the Department of Education and Science does not regard bullying as a serious issue. There should be a module on bullying in pre-service training of all teachers. I know this was recommended in the national guidelines in 1993, although I am not sure about the uptake. All I can say is that the student teachers graduating from Trinity College get an awareness raising course on the subject of bullying. Equally, there should be training for career guidance counsellors in schools. It might be worth considering also establishing posts of responsibility for teachers in schools who can help in the day-to-day management of victim-bully problems. There should also be greater professional support from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children to complement school-based intervention because schools cannot do it all. They need that extra professional support, perhaps from the school psychological service. Also, there should be financial support for research initiatives. I am sorry to say that, to date, there has been a tardiness on the part of the Department of Education and Science to commit itself to supporting research and the level of funding it gives indicates that it does not identify strongly enough with curbing the level of bullying and violence in schools or society.

The anti-bullying centre, which I founded and co-ordinate, fulfils a national need and it could do so much more if it was given some sort of funding and recognition that it is a centre of excellence. Currently we are carrying out much of the work, yet there is no funding to do that work. That is worth considering also. I will end on that note. I thank the committee.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for inviting us to present the work in which the South-Eastern Health Board is engaged in trying to address the issue of suicide and suicide prevention in an educational context. Before dealing with the paper, it is important to say that the programme we are delivering in the education centres is very much targeted at the teachers and the people working within the schools. It is not targeted at the students in the schools because there can be difficulties in doing stand-alone suicide prevention work just for students.

The World Health Organisation's 2002 world report on violence and health stated that health care facilities alone cannot meet all the needs of young people and that schools must be able to act as a medium for suicide prevention. The 1998 report of the national task force on suicide recommended that teachers at all levels be supported in respect of the psychological and social dimension of their work through undergraduate and continued professional educational courses.

The South-Eastern Health Board did some survey work on that and we found that the vast majority of teachers working in schools had not received either undergraduate or post-graduate education in the area of suicide and suicide prevention. The task force also recommended that guidance counsellors should be available in all schools; the psychological services delivered to schools by the Department of Education and Science be extended so that the needs of all students can be met without undue delay; the social and personal health education programme in primary and secondary schools be implemented throughout the school cycle; the social and personal health education programme should include modules on depression, awareness and anger control; and a programme should be initiated to teach children about positive health issues, including coping strategies and basic information about positive mental health, at an early stage.

A further report in 2001, A National Study on Suicide Behaviour in Ireland, recommended that training in suicidal behaviour, recognition and management should be available to community groups, parents associations, youth groups, health care staff, schools and relevant voluntary agencies and professional groups. It also recommended that that training should be adequately resourced and made available in a systematic and ongoing manner. The report also recommended that life skills education programmes, which would include coping skills in an emotional context, negotiating skills, assertiveness, resilience building, self-esteem programmes, should be further developed as part of the curriculum in all schools.

Since the publication of the task force report in 1998, 539 young people under the age of 24 have been registered by the Central Statistics Office as having died by suicide. This figure includes data from 1998 to 2002, inclusive. The cohort includes those young people in mainstream education at primary, secondary and third level.

In its 2001 report, the National Parasuicide Registry, which is conducting research in all hospital accident and emergency departments throughout the country, states that in the 15 to 19 age range, the rate of suicide among men is 18.7 per 100,000 and 4.4 per 100,000 among females. However, within the same age range for parasuicide among men and females the picture is rather different. The rate for men is in the range of 268.2 per 100,000 and for females it is 712.7 per 100,000. The significant aspect of that is that those are just the figures for hospital treated parasuicide, the parasuicide definition being a non-fatal act which an individual deliberately undertakes knowing it may cause them physical harm or even death. It includes acts involving varying levels of suicide intent, including definite attempts at suicide and acts where the individual had no intention of dying. If that is the level of those who are presenting to hospitals to be treated for parasuicide, the actual rate is much higher than that. A recent study undertaken by Professor KeithHawton in Oxford University would indicate that that is possibly in the region of 12% of the total number of people who engage in self-harm and parasuicide.

On the process the South-Eastern Health Board became involved in to address this problem, in March 2001 the deputy chief executive officer of the South-Eastern Health Board convened a working group from health and education backgrounds to examine the task force recommendations on schools. The group had eight representatives from the health and education background. They would have included staff from the regional suicide resource office, health promotion and public health specialists. From the education area we would have had the social, personal and health education co-ordinators from within the education system but also from within the health promotion unit, the director of the Kilkenny Education Centre, a school principal and a representative of the National Educational Psychological Service.

The contributions from all the members of the working group were invaluable and the terms of reference of the group were to review the Irish Association of Suicidology guidelines for schools which had been distributed by the association to all schools within the region; make recommendations on the implementation of a training programme for suicide prevention in schools; make recommendations regarding regional guidelines for schools on suicide prevention; and report back to the regional advisory group of the South-Eastern Health Board.

The initial discussions explored the role of teachers in suicide prevention and how suicide prevention was being addressed in schools. Following considerable discussion, it was decided to develop both a training programme in suicide prevention awareness for teaching staff and also to develop a resource pack to support that training. I brought a number of resource packs with me to be distributed which are used within the training programme. All the teachers attending the programme get these resources but only those who attend the programme get the school pack because it is very much part of the training programme. The pilot area for the training was the Kilkenny Education Centre and the training took place in February 2003. The group met 12 times over a two year period to discuss the progress of the work and the group disbanded in June of this year, having addressed its terms of reference.

A review of the Irish and international literature informed the development of the programme and resource pack. The resource pack was entitled Suicide Awareness - An Information Pack for Post-Primary Schools. It contains eight inserts covering the areas of prevention, intervention, postvention and also included a contact list of local services.

The intention of the resource pack is to briefly provide guidelines to schools so that they are best able to respond when students present to school staff for help with suicidal thoughts and feelings and when a student has died by suicide. Since 1999, our experience has been that when schools meet with a crisis or where somebody has died, it is then that they come to the resource office and the health services looking for support. It was very much a reactionary response. The pack can also provide a framework for the development of a policy to address the issue of suicide prevention and mental health. The information pack is not intended to be used as a stand alone document; the pack is used only in conjunction with training. On completion of the training, teachers are encouraged to set up a critical incident team within the school to lead the response to an incident in the school. They are also encouraged to identify local services that can help with having a prompt response in the case of a sudden death or a suicide.

The training programmes were developed by the working group and delivered by the training and development officers from the suicide resource office. The suicide resource office wrote to all schools in the south east region and 33 of the 84 schools responded. Each school was asked to send a minimum of two staff members as a means of support because of the sensitive and difficult nature of the training.

The course aims to improve the knowledge and competency of designated school staff in the recognition and management of potentially suicidal young people. It also aimed to develop staff members' ability to access support for staff and students in the event of a death by suicide or sudden death.

The course also had a number of learning objectives. The participants would gain insight into their own attitudes and beliefs about suicide; recognise the risk factors and warning signs for suicide; have improved competency in identifying students in distress and encourage them to seek help; and outline the resources available to support young people at risk.

The programme was directed at school staff who were willing to be part of a team that would lead the response to a student in distress or in the event of a suicide/sudden death in the school. The school staff could include principals, deputy principals, guidance counsellors, teachers involved in pastoral care and social, personal and health education, year heads, school liaison teachers and other interested teachers.

As regards the programme content, in week one the participants were given an overview of suicide in Ireland, the influencing factors and possible risk factors for suicide. In week two the issue of bereavement and the understanding of loss were addressed. Weeks three, four and five covered the main issues regarding prevention, intervention and postvention, while in the final week information about the National Educational Psychological Service was given.

As well as receiving the information pack for post-primary schools to supplement the training, participants also received a range of resources developed by the suicide resource office, which we have distributed.

The initial group that attended training agreed to meet after six months so that we can offer ongoing support. Since delivering the pilot suicide training programme for teachers in Kilkenny, we have, on reflection, made a number of changes to the original format. This was based on participant feedback and done in consultation and agreement with the original working group.

Due to the large response and the demand for the training programme, a second programme has now been rolled out, which began on Tuesday, 4 November last, delivered to the Education Centre in Enniscorthy, County Wexford. It is our hope that we will be able to deliver it to the three education centres in the south east from now on.

The programme has not been evaluated as of yet but we are in negotiations with the National Suicide Research Foundation to carry out an external evaluation of the programme.

I thank Mr. McCarthy and Dr. O'Moore. It is important that the committee has an opportunity to hear about your pioneering work in an area that is very significant. I have, as I am sure have other members of the committee, come in contact with families who have suffered the effects of bullying. I have also had direct contact with a suicide awareness group and it is extremely important that we get the message out to the wider community as to the work being done. You are both pioneers in this area and it is particularly encouraging to hear that the pilot programme referred to by Dr. O'Moore has had such positive results. Our purpose today is to inform the committee but also to inform the wider community in respect of both these areas which are interconnected. I invite members of the committee to ask questions.

I welcome the representatives. It is a coincidence that they are here today because on 6 November last year I called on the Minister for Education and Science to update the anti-bullying guidelines and put a more mandatory obligation on schools to deal with this issue. Unfortunately, it appears from the presentation we have been given now a year later, we have not made much progress.

I wish to raise an issue which was not raised by either representative. I am almost reluctant to raise it because every time I do so, there is a raft of letters to the editors of local papers throughout the country. I refer to the stay safe programme. It is an important programme from the point of view of reducing the vulnerability of children to both child abuse and bullying. This is not compulsory in all schools. Perhaps we could have a comment on the prospects for the programme. It is a non-evasive way of teaching children to deal with these issues. Only 75% of schools are currently implementing the programme. There is a reluctance in some parts of the country to implement it. Even though just 75% of schools are implementing the programme, 90% of teachers did in-service training. Many parents attended classes on the programme.

I am aware of the Donegal and cool schools programme. Dr. O'Moore said the programme would be set up in 168 schools throughout the country. How are the schools selected, who is involved and what role, if any, did the Department of Education and Science play in this regard? What was the level of parent participation in the Donegal programme? Was it very good or how did it work? How were students chosen to participate? When I asked the Minister last year about assessing the amount of bullying taking place in schools his response was that it was not that easy to do so. How can it be done and so on? May we have information on how the programme worked in Donegal? What would be the viability of setting up such a programme on a nation-wide basis? Were the 168 schools chosen because of a prevalence of bullying in the schools? I do not think that is the case as there are no statistics on what is happening throughout the country.

It should be mandatory for all schools to have anti-bullying policies in place. Perhaps the representatives will comment on the structures within the school system and when the problem arises from a management, teacher and parent perspective. Are the structures unsatisfactory in many instances in trying to communicate the problem either to the home, the principal or whatever? My experience is that there are difficulties in this regard.

The guidelines which were published in 1994 have not been updated. Last year the anti-bullying section in Trinity College defined a new phenomenon, namely e-bullying. This has arisen largely because of the increase in mobile phone ownership among young people. With access to the web, e-mail and texting bullying is becoming a more serious problem. The fact that it is easier to access the person being bullied highlights the need to put in place more mandatory policies. I would like the representatives to comment on this aspect.

I was interested in Mr. McCarthy's presentation. As he represents the South-Eastern Health Board, he is not in a position to comment on the other health boards. There is a suicide prevention officer attached to the Midland Health Board who has done a great deal of work in the region. There has been a spate of suicides, so to speak, where he has become involved. Do all health boards have programmes like the South-Eastern Health Board or is it a pilot programme? Who is making the decisions on the implementation of both types of programmes throughout the country? Obviously, in Mr. McCarthy's case, it is a Department of Health and Children issue. Perhaps he will comment on the role, if any, being taken by the South-Eastern Health Board in the schools and education system.

Unfortunately, some of our members were not able to be present today. Senator Minihan had to speak in the Seanad. I propose to ask other members who wish to ask questions to do so first and we will then have responses. Following that members will probably have another opportunity to put questions.

There is a certain element of delay in this area. I note Deputy Enright's comment that it is a year since she raised certain matters. Perhaps if the Minister was not inundated with parliamentary questions, which are frequently repetitive and come from all the Opposition parties, he might have more time to deal with the serious issues raised here. If we want to be political about the matter, we should be fair also. It is very disturbing to hear that 539 young people have died since the publication of the 1998 task force report and nothing was done until March 2002. This is not entirely the fault of the Government, which is not the point.

I received Dr. O'Moore's report this morning so I have not had an opportunity to read through it. One of the questions I would like to ask is, what is bullying? I am not clear what exactly it is. It appears to be an ongoing thing. A comment to a person is entirely different if made on a continuous basis and by numbers of people. It is very difficult to define bullying. How does it affect the figures arrived at? The programme which was put in place in Donegal appears to have had a superb effect. I am not surprised that other countries have taken a leaf out of our book if the programme has been that effective. I wonder if Dr. O'Moore has any knowledge of how effective the programme has been in Norway, where it has been implemented to some extent. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say on the issue.

There is a suicide awareness post-primary pack. Is this available in primary schools? There is a lot of emphasis on children's physical health but the development of the mental health of a child is very important, and perhaps more so in primary schools. I am aware that Dr. O'Moore's report is based on national schools in Donegal. There are many landmarks during childhood which can damage the health of a child and lead to problems which may not manifest themselves until the child is in his or her twenties or thereabouts. I hope the health boards will concentrate on national schools to the same extent they are doing in post-primary schools.

I wish to raise a couple of points concerning the report. It appears that 63% of children are involved in bullying, which is a huge number. The problem surrounding the issue is partly due to a lack of reporting. It is interesting that of 100 schools in Donegal only three had more than 200 pupils. Perhaps if schools are smaller it is easier to monitor if bullying is taking place.

I attended a recent launch by the Combat Poverty Agency of its document, Against All Odds. The document referred to family life on low income and pointed out that people from a disadvantaged background, particularly children, were more likely to be bullied. The pattern is the same in the United States and Britain. How can we combat this phenomenon? The document referred to children being picked on because of the clothes or shoes they wore. A large number of children who were interviewed feared being picked on. Will the programme appeal to children who suffer this type of bullying?

I do not know if the programme will succeed in larger schools where it will be more difficult to monitor what is happening. Given the number of small schools throughout the country, it is an issue that should be dealt with. The document also referred to the fear parents face in their communities and the fact that children carry this fear into school.

People talk of low self-esteem among those who are bullied, but what of the bullies? Who is bullying the bullies, and is that where it is coming from?

I welcome the delegates and thank them for their submissions. I recognise the good work being done. In response to Deputy Andrews, I was a guidance counsellor in a second level school for a number of years, and I had personal experience of dealing with children, teachers, parents and families who had encountered bullying either as victims or bullies. I also knew families who had experienced suicides.

Suicide is a very difficult and sensitive issue, and for me a very emotional one. Thankfully no child died by means of suicide while I was teaching, but after I left, a number of former students of mine committed suicide in later life. Not only is suicide an issue in schools but it is a lifelong issue. Where bullying is concerned, people's school experiences can come back to them 20 or 30 years later and affect them, their families and children in turn. That is something we must recognise. The Minister for Education and Science, having formerly been a guidance counsellor, is also familiar with the issue of suicide.

Our job here is to reinforce the message that much more needs to be done nationally. It is only relatively recently that these issues have come to the fore. It is the job of all of us on this committee to bring to the notice of the Government that many more resources are needed, because the suffering and the pain being experienced by people in school, among their families and throughout the community, is incalculable. It is immense.

I have a number of questions I wish to put. Is bullying a learned behaviour? Page three of the submission states: "Little can be gained from introducing children to core values such as respect for the rights of others to hold contrary opinions when those in authority do not apply the principles of democratic deliberation. How many children are shouted at daily by adults, at home or at school, and are never given the opportunity of presenting their side of the story?"

The witnesses seem to be saying that the way we interact with children in schools as teachers and as parents presents a role model, so to speak, and that much improvement could be made in school classrooms. I would like some elaboration. The presentation also notes the following: "There was also a very strong message that a school policy on bullying can be effective only if everyone within the school committee shows respect and tolerance and safeguards the dignity of others. The onus is on the adults in particular to set the climate of dignity, respect and tolerance of individual differences." I agree with that and I read it out to emphasise the importance of bringing it home.

Mr. McCarthy's submission was extraordinarily interesting and I look forward to reading it later in the Official Report of these proceedings. He raised the issue of male versus female suicide and noted that parasuicide was more prevalent among girls. In my experience it is more difficult to deal with bullying among girls than among boys. Perhaps Mr. McCarthy has noted that too. Dr. O'Moore said that in her view the Department of Education and Science does not take bullying seriously. What does she think should be done?

As I thought things had changed, I was a little alarmed at Mr. McCarthy's statement that no training on suicide and bullying awareness is carried out in teacher training colleges at graduate or undergraduate level, or amongst teachers. He may correct me if I am wrong. Teachers are going into classrooms, dealing with youngsters who may have emotional problems. Are they not being told how to identify these problems, help the children, and interact with them, or is it that teachers' reactions to these issues may even be causing more problems? The teachers might in good faith react in a wrong way.

I would like the witnesses' views on the scale and rate of depression among schoolchildren, and its bearing on bullying and suicide. It is anecdotal, but is also seen in research, that some children act out the role of victims and attract bullying because in some way they are different, and stand out. The bully then isolates the victim by telling people not to talk to him or her, so that the victim then has no support. I would like to know what role depression plays in people being perceived to be different, and then perhaps attracting bullying behaviour. On a related issue, what role does depression play among schoolchildren where suicide is concerned; how prevalent is such depression, and what can we do about it?

The use among schoolchildren of drugs such as cannabis and alcohol is growing. In the witnesses' view, what role does that play in bullying and suicide? I understand that where drugs are being used or sold in schools, a drug culture exists, and that the person selling the drugs will very often build a network around himself or herself, and can become quite aggressive and unco-operative in the school. Others can be hurt because of that.

Are there clusters of suicides around the country, and has any research been carried out in this area? Some colleagues tell me there are towns where many suicides occur. Is that the case, and do we know enough about it? Do we need more research? If it is the case, do we know why?

As for copycat suicide, does such behaviour exist; is it very prevalent and is it something we should be concerned about? If a suicide occurs in an area, should the health boards, schools and so on be on alert for others who may copy the suicide, or is copycat suicide merely anecdotal? I also welcome parents' involvement, but are parents sufficiently aware of bullying, and how can we involve them further?

Youngsters who are involved in sports and games and who experience success and higher self-esteem very often do not have bullying or suicide problems. Should we encourage these activities? Finally, are there enough guidance counsellors in schools to assist in prevention and postvention, and are the guidance counsellors sufficiently trained to deal with bullying and suicidal behaviour?

Unfortunately I have another commitment at 1 p.m. and may have to leave before I hear the witnesses' responses. I will be interested in reading the responses later in the Official Report of the proceedings.

We will go to the responses now. My colleagues have asked the witnesses a very wide range of questions covering almost every area, but I will add a supplementary concerning two areas. One mentioned by Deputy Stanton concerns parents. Parents feel very ill-equipped in respect of the issues of bullying and suicide. They would welcome the opportunity to be more informed on how they can resource their own children in these areas. To what extent can parents' associations in schools bring parents together to deliver information on working with their own children?

This question is directed at Mr. McCarthy. We do not want every health board being forced to reinvent the wheel. Mr. McCarthy has done a great deal of work in this area, and to what extent can that expertise and experience be passed on to other health boards who may not be so advanced in that area? This is related to Deputy Enright's question. Perhaps Dr. O'Moore could respond before the other gentleman?

Dr. O’Moore

Am I to respond to the parent issue or to all of the questions?

To all. I am sorry; it is a very wide range of issues.

Dr. O’Moore

Forgive me if I am not as sharp as I might be. I am a victim of influenza at present.

To address Deputy Enright's remarks on the stay-safe programme, I have no problems with that programme. All the programmes have a valuable role to play. The problem is that there may not be enough effort to try to look at all the different models and get the best out of them. We are introducing this and that model, whereas one should get the professionals together to see what is the best we can make out of this and proceed to make significant recommendations.

Stay-safe tends to start very early; there is a difficulty about the whole issue of telling. That is the most difficult nut to crack, and yet stay-safe tends to address the issue of learning to tell. Therefore, unless that is followed through in a clever way, it may possibly have certain disadvantages. It could be worked on, as it is playing a valuable role.

In terms of the IRCHSS, which is the source of the funding that we have to extend the Donegal project, it was a lucky break. It can be very frustrating when trying to seek funding from the Department of Education and Science, and the funding is not provided. Even though Ireland has the advantage of being pioneering, with expertise, and could be leading the field internationally, one feels very held back.

On that project, the 168 schools have not been chosen yet. The whole idea is that we will have another nationwide effort to create a baseline which will address the incidents once again. To address the question on the definition, the definition that was in the guidelines for 1993 is an excellent one and I was part of the guideline process. Essentially, the definition is repeated aggression, verbal, psychological or physical, conducted by an individual or a group against others. They go on to say that isolated incidents of aggressive behaviour which should not be condemned can scarcely be described as bullying. However, when the behaviour is systematic and ongoing it is bullying. That is the definition that is given to children when one seeks to discover the incidents level.

There is a whole area here that we have to look at again. I have written a paper for the European Union. The problem with redefining bullying is that if one is trying to educate children about bullying, and yet it is repeated aggression, where then are all the opportunities to catch them when they are involved in aggressive acts which are totally inappropriate and unacceptable? Here is where children and teachers could say that it is not bullying and does not need to be addressed. In a sense, we should widen the net and talk about aggressive, violent behaviour. We should possibly be looking at a redefinition to catch all aggressive behaviours. We would then have the opportunity to educate children in what is inappropriate behaviour and not just focus on what is, perhaps, repeated aggressive behaviour.

The whole idea of extending the Donegal model through Ireland is to target each of the education centres, of which there are 22. We would seek, through advertising, to have potentially two trainers from each of those areas, one each from primary and post-primary. We will then have a network of 44 trainers, each of whom will be given the responsibility of doing in-service work with four schools, which will increase the total to 166 schools.

This is a big issue. We have all the information and are now working on updating our packs for parents and teachers. What this country and this project badly needs is a video that the teachers can use as an ice breaker when creating awareness in their classroom. Some teachers are not comfortable when approaching these subjects. They need a video which is skilled and professional. Windmill Lane Studios is standing ready to do this but I cannot get approval from the Department of Education and Science. If the Department would only tell me that it is not giving me the money I could organise a flag day or a coffee morning and get the money, perhaps through private sponsorship, to develop what is critical to a very good programme. That is what was lacking in the Donegal model; there was no video with Irish voices that the teachers could use.

The Donegal model will be extended into post-primary schools and primary schools and be re-evaluated. At the end of this project we will have a very good result on which to base a full scale national project. I am desperate. If any of the members of the committee have any influence it would be useful to help us get the go-ahead on this video. It is not costly and the budget is with the Department. That might explain the 166 schools.

Carrying out a new nationwide survey will get us a new register of incidents, which will be ten years further on, and should prove interesting. Our earlier nationwide effort was 1993 to 1994. We will now have the new one produced, so we will be getting the list of incidents and be basing it on the more repeated definition. It is not that it is going to gain the children; one will get the sense that this is repeated violence.

Deputy Enright mentioned the structures of management and how they deal with victim and bullying problems. Through the anti-bullying centre we hear a lot of sad stories. We hear from parents, in particular, who have tried desperately. We hear from teachers too, because school is a workplace and bridges the gap between school bullying and workplace bullying. I find it is unnecessary to take a defensive stance. There is something to be said for nipping the problem in the bud and dealing with it. We are not all perfect and none of us is an angel all the time. If there is an understanding and a readiness to address the issues, people are often just looking for an apology for a mistake. This openness and readiness to deal with the problem will only come with that further education and awareness that takes the shame out of it and deals with it as a problem.

E-bullying is a real issue. It is one of the ways in which children are now getting at each other. Even on the Internet, they can put up a child's name and somebody can simply send all the hurtful messages. In terms of our education package and the Donegal model, which we will extend, it will become one of the awareness raising issues that will be incorporated for the teachers to work with. The teachers will have every opportunity to try to develop an understanding amongst the children.

I have, perhaps, addressed Deputy Andrew's question on the nature of bullying. The programme that is now running in Norway which they have named "zero", because it is essentially zero tolerance, has not got any figures yet, as they are now carrying out the evaluation that we have done in Donegal. It is our positive results that allowed them to move with their zero programme. It is originating from what is called the behavioural research centre at Stavanger university college. They are very heavily funded - which is different from our situation - and the government is funding them to deliver this programme nationally, as a result of the Donegal result, which has already hit the headlines over there.

Deputy Crowe raised the issue of the participants role. It is important to have a national programme that allows every child, parent and teacher to have the basic understanding of what is involved. We must work on the whole area of peer pressure and self-esteem. Finnish research has shown that children with good self-esteem are not bullies. They can stand up and be helpful to victims and perhaps intervene in some form. Our research in Ireland has been ground-breaking because we have shown that the children who bully have feelings of inadequacy. I know that legislators are not prepared to readily accept the idea. We must recognise that bullies are unhappy and displace a lot of emotion. They often need a psychological approach to their problem which should be more rehabilitative rather than a punitive one. All professions need a lot of understanding if they are to get the problem sorted. Prevention is better than a cure. Children need assistance when they are young and during their formative years. If one had to choose at what level to introduce a national programme then we would target the very young so that we reach young children and their parents. Education would move along. We would prefer to deal with soft cases rather than hard ones. A programme would have the greatest impact at primary level.

There is not a greater risk of bullying in smaller schools. The nationwide study in 1993 showed that, if anything, it was the smaller post-primary schools that had the greater problems. International literature would support this finding. There is no such thing as the idyllic rural school. At post-primary level there is a greater opportunity for children to be set apart. In larger schools there is an opportunity for social groups. If a child is a swot or the so-called nerd they will find similar groups in large schools. Children in small schools can feel more isolated. The same applies in rural Donegal. Children can be set apart and made to feel different.

Disadvantaged children and anyone different is more at risk of victimisation. Anybody can be targeted but it is how we deal with it that matters. Again, there will be children who are more at risk.

In programmes like the Donegal one there is an element of having to build on the need to develop tolerance, respect of individual differences and empathy. If we did that then all minority and at-risk children would be covered. This work is part of the whole package.

Building self-esteem is so critical and it is very important. We try to get that message through to our student teachers. At all times they must be conscious of the self-esteem of their pupils in all their dealings at all levels, particularly in the classroom. Again, the children will not display unhappiness outside of their classroom. If children leave the school gates happy they will not be elsewhere looking to see who they can get at. Self-esteem is critical for education. There is a greater acceptance and awareness of it at teacher training level. Perhaps we will see more caring and positive teachers in the future.

Deputy Stanton asked whether there were any long-term effects of victimisation. We must bear in mind that once a child is a victim they are not always a victim. There is research that shows that bullying has an adverse effect on children. One can pinpoint the children who are bullies and are unchallenged. Research can demonstrate that if these young offenders had somebody to take them aside and challenge their negative, inappropriate and bullying behaviour they would not have ended up as they did. It is recognised that most children who are young offenders engaged in bullying behaviour but did not have significant intervention. Stark statistics show the ill effects of allowing children to go through school bullying other children and thinking it is normal behaviour. They are being set up to be anti-social in adulthood. It is a vicious cycle because it also leads to domestic violence and the breakdown of families. Again, early intervention should take place and prevention is better than cure.

A victim's identity is totally damaged and low self-esteem is a major problem. Victims are left hearing negative inner voices which last a lifetime. If they hit a vulnerable patch they may suffer something equivalent to post-traumatic stress disorder and suffer flashbacks. It can push people over the edge and some have committed suicide. Victimisation is not the only reason for suicide but negative childhood memories can hit people very hard. If these same people meet negativity in adulthood it just adds to their problems.

Bullying is learned behaviour and that is the tragedy. Parenting programmes are equally critical. We have SPHE and CSPE. However, I believe that if we gave a parenting and psychology course to teenagers around transition year, or at the age they can become parents, it would help them to identify critical issues. They would have an opportunity to reflect on the practices they have been shown and they could modify them when they become parents.

There is enough written evidence to show that hostile-aggressive behaviour emanates from the home. However, the finding does not allow teachers off the hook. Again, if teachers reinforce inappropriate behaviour in the school then it does not counteract the negativity that some children experience in the home. We must examine parenting courses. My organisation has prepared leaflets on parenting and sent them to the parents participating in the Donegal project. It gave tips on parenting and helped participants understand how they could safeguard their children by giving them self-esteem and coping mechanisms that would withstand bullying and prevent their children becoming bullies. Equally the leaflets advise parents not to adopt a defensive stance because it does not do children any good by denying them the opportunity of getting professional help. This action would prevent long-term difficulties and prevent anti-social behaviour in adulthood.

Self-esteem is very important and we should concentrate on it. All of the things that I have mentioned are built into my organisation's information pack for the Donegal model. They are also built into the cool schools programme. Two good models should not compete with one another. If we can only proceed with one model then we will take the best from both of them and work together as professionals in a positive forward looking way.

There is a generation of guidance counsellors that are unaware of bullying and we need to provide them with in-service training. At present my education department at Trinity College is developing an in-service division. We hope all the trainers who are to be part of this extended Donegal model will ultimately receive accreditation in the form of a diploma in aggression studies. It is available to anybody. Equally, I strongly recommend that a group so critical in schools as career guidance counsellors should have an in-service facility, but provision should also be made for a pre-service facility.

What role does depression play in bullying? Again, it is a vicious circle because if one is depressed one will be vulnerable. Research shows that bullying causes depression because it involves a loss of self-esteem and confidence. One ends up in a black tunnel, particularly if one feels nobody will help one. Shame is also a factor. All the focus is on the victim but it should be on the perpetrator because if there were no perpetrators there would be no victims. There is no doubt that bullying leads to depression, and we know depression can lead to suicide. However, this is not to say there are no other factors involved. The depression due to victimisation, quite apart from what happens in the home or the neighbourhood, could be enough to tip one over the edge. If we can remove some of the factors we will make huge progress. I could dig up statistics on the extent to which children suffer from depression but we know there are significant differences in the depression levels of children who are bullied and those who are not.

What role do drugs play in bullying? Children might feel they are not part of a group and that they will not belong unless they take drugs or drink. In other words, it is a form of extortion. It is in the nature of bullying to force children to engage in many forms of anti-social behaviour. It is not just that bullies seek their victims' money or precious belongings but that they seek certain forms of behaviour from them. If they do not elicit this behaviour they threaten their victims. Kids who get caught up in drug abuse, etc., can be introduced to it as a form of bullying. The children who bully, because of their anti-social behaviour, can easily get involved themselves. The victims feel very vulnerable and if they can drown their sorrows in alcohol and drugs, they might do so. This again demonstrates the vicious circle and shows that any child can be targeted. Essentially, one's self-esteem is very damaged if one is bullied and if one is carrying the label that one is not liked, unless one has very strong parents and a very strong educational programme that teaches that the problem lies with the perpetrator rather than the victim.

The parent councils are doing considerable work and they invite speakers. Again, one of our problems is that we cannot meet all the needs that exist. My one plea to the Department of Education and Science is that it second teachers to us, particularly those who have been trained in this area and who can meet all the demands on the centre in terms of awareness raising. They could help to do outreach work. We receive telephone calls every day from teachers who want to increase awareness among pupils. This involves dealing with a class at a time and the staff room. However, we do not have enough staff to do this to the extent we desire, although we would love to be able to do so.

I hope I will be able to address some of the questions as extensively as Dr. O'Moore has done. Deputy Enright asked a number of questions. Many of our responses are reflected in what Dr. O'Moore has said because the two subjects are so similar. Certainly, programmes such as the stay safe programme, the social and personal health education programme and the health promoting schools programme put a very good structure in place in the school system in terms of preventing suicide. We always advocate the health promoting schools concept in our work on suicide prevention.

On the delivery of training and the programme we are delivering in the south east, we are probably very fortunate that we have two training and development officers in the region working full-time on the development of resource material and the delivery of training. Ours is the only health board with such staff. We are probably in the forefront in that we prioritised this issue in our service plans. The need for awareness training was highlighted forcefully in the national task force report. We have the necessary resources in place and are therefore able to deliver on the recommendations on training.

Much of the work we are doing on training is being piloted in the south east because of our resources. All the reports and evaluations carried out will be forwarded to the national suicide review group, which was convened by the chief executive officers to examine the issues surrounding suicide prevention and how it is being addressed in the country. The group makes recommendations on the way forward to the chief executive officers of the health boards.

Deputy Andrews raised the issue of the availability of the packs at primary school level. We have not had any great demand from this sector for the training of primary school teachers, although we have raised the issue. It is our intention to make the programme available to them. We are currently trying to address the issue in the post-primary school sector, where there is certainly a huge demand for the training. We have prioritised the second level schools because of the way in which they have been affected by deaths by suicide and by self-harming behaviour of pupils. Not only is it our intention to roll out the programme in the primary schools sector, but also at third level in the south east. This would cover Carlow Institute of Technology, Waterford Institute of Technology, Kildalton Agricultural College, based in Piltown in south Kilkenny, and the Tipperary Institute in Clonmel.

Reference was made to the amount of work done since the publication of the national task force report. Considerable work has been done throughout the country since 1999, with fairly scarce resources in place. Most of the suicide resource offices have one person working with them, although much work on suicide prevention is being done by other professionals.

We have been doing presentations in schools on an ongoing basis. Whole-school training, involving an awareness training programme of two or three hours, was done as schools requested it. We are very much waiting for schools to become proactive and therefore we have tried to use a strategic perspective by delivering the programme through the teacher education centres. Teachers prefer to access the programme from these centres.

Deputy Stanton raised a number of issues, including that of the post-graduate and undergraduate training of teachers in the area of suicide prevention. In surveying those involved in education in the south east, we found that few of them had received formal training in the area of suicide prevention. They required the delivery of training from us and this is why we have made it available in teacher education centres.

The issue of clusters and copycat suicide was also raised. The phenomenon of clusters exists and has been noted around the country. There was an unfortunate cluster in November 2002 in the Wexford area and we have put in place a specific response to it. As a result of this, we are using a new methodology of addressing the whole area of suicide by including people outside of the health service. Wexford County Council's county development board has addressed this and is developing an action plan for suicide prevention in the county involving voluntary community groups and local administrators.

Research has also shown that copycat suicides can happen and have done so from time to time. What we call "postvention" is important in trying to reduce the number of such suicides. It relates to what we do after a suicide has occurred and how it is managed within a school, community or family. What is carried out in "postvention" becomes prevention. Research indicates that the likelihood of dying by suicide is increased by 80% to 300% if one has experienced it within one's family or close network. Work carried out after a suicide in schools and in the community is critical to reducing the copycat effect. The media also has a role to play in ensuring copycat suicides do not occur. The Irish Association of Suicidology and the Samaritans have published guidelines and these provide a good framework for reducing copycat suicides.

Dr. de Souza

Deputy Andrews mentioned the 539 suicides between 1998 and 2002. We do not mean to give the impression that if things are sorted out in the schools that these would have been prevented. Schools are still protected with regard to suicide. The majority of suicides among young people take place amongst early school leavers, those who have had little education and those who are unemployed. Although we need to concentrate on the programmes we are carrying out in schools, there are other factors that must also be taken into account.

Life skills education is included in the senior cycle at primary school level. However, it is more concentrated on physical education while issues such as depression are dealt with at secondary school. The main problem with the SPHE is the implementation of this across all schools. Although it is part of the curriculum, it is not always delivered with interest and enthusiasm and we need to examine this further.

Deputy Stanton asked about depression. We do not have figures for Ireland. However, it is reckoned that about 10% of the school population suffers from anxiety and depression. Although it was suggested that it might be higher among males than females, it is vice versa. The reason for higher rates of suicides among males in that age group is that males are reluctant to talk about their problems. Incidence of parasuicide is higher among females than males. The epidemiology of parasuicide is somewhat different from suicide and much of it is a cry for help. However, many people who committed suicide tried to do so before. We must take into account that any parasuicide might be a suicide and deal with it accordingly. Males also use more violent methods of committing suicide and this also accounts for the higher incidence among them. If one hangs or shoots oneself there is no comeback, however an overdose of tablets can be sorted out.

I thank the delegation for its presentation and for answering our questions. It has been an important and absorbing session. This committee will do everything it can to promote the work the delegation is doing.

We apologise for the small number of members that have attended this meeting. The Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill is currently being debated and this is the reason some members could not attend this meeting.

Dr. O’Moore

I thank the committee for meeting with us.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.05 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20 November 2003.
Barr
Roinn