l In today society the topic of bullying has grown in rapid cession with everybody from athletes to major stars all the down to politician’s showing their stance on bullying. While some states have laws against bullying most states do little to enforce It, prompting most people to have vary views on anta-bullying programs and their effectiveness to help cease the rapid rise of bullying. In his article Proof. Fox explains why anta-bullying programs fail. ” Despite the range of promising tools for bullying oppression, there are significant hurdles to their successful application in school settings.
Most of all, the school climate must be amenable to changing norms surrounding intimidation and aggression. Intolerance for acts of bullying must be the perspective widely embraced and shared by both faculty and students, not something merely imposed upon students by administrative decree. ” Proof. Fox article on anti-bullying programs counter acts in a way with my own assumptions on why anti-bullying programs will if not end bullying but will help reduces the number of cities that are bully. Proof.
Fox’s assumption on anti-bullying programs is that regardless of the approach to prevention and enforcement, It remains extremely difficult to convince bullies that their actions are disadvantageous for themselves, besides being Injurious to the targets of their abuse. Even with threats of punishment, some students see bullying as a positive thing, and that how the American culture of today such as in sports and corporate America we admire aggressors and pity pushovers. Another Article on anti-bullying programs is written y Fox, Hahn Bryan, Barrington, David P. , Tofu, Maria M.. ND their work from the University of Fielded and takes the collective stance that” bullying prevention programs have been shown to be generally effective in reducing bullying and factorization. However, the effects are relatively small in randomized experiments and greater in quasi-experimental and age-cohort designs. Programs that are more intensive and of longer duration (for both children and teachers) are more effective, as are programs containing more components. Several program components are associated with large effect sizes, including parent training or meetings and teacher training.
These results should Inform the design and evaluation of anta-bullying programs in the future, and a system of accreditation of effective programs” (International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 201 2, volume 6, issue 2, pages 273-282). In Proof. Fox article, he use varies examples to help his stance on why anti-bullying programs just as the 1 5-year-old Phoebe Prince, a high school student in South Hadley, Massachusetts, is but one of many episodes of senseless tragedy apparently precipitated by bullying and harassment.
Eric Moat of Mentor, Ohio, was harassed so mercilessly that when a one of his tormentors said out loud in class, “Why don’t you go home and shoot yourself, no one will miss you,” he did Just that. And Luke Woodman who killed two classmates and wounded seven others In Pearl, Mississippi, wrote In what was meant as a seclude note, “l am not insane! I am angry. I kill because people Like me are mistreated every day. I do this to show society?push us and we will push back. I have suffered all my life. No one ever truly loved me. ND with those examples he stated that sometimes schools often responded to reports of they were somehow responsible for their own factorization, if only because they failed to stand up for themselves so in those cases the anti-bullying programs the in schools fails to show support for the victims or teaches the bully in question on why bullying is wrong, and that the widespread adoption of various school-based anti- bullying curricula, the empirical evidence with regard to their preventive value is somewhat disappointing and that the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs as modest at best, and mostly impacted knowledge and attitudes rather than actual bullying behavior.
In the other reference I use their argument is in favor of anti- bullying programs and the examples they use is that program implementation features, such as the duration and intensity of the program for children and teachers, are related to a reduction in both bullying and factorization. They Justify their argument by using charts and analysis data to support their theory. The final conclusion of their argument is that these findings indicate that anti-bullying orgasm work, as the combined effect of the various program designs, implementations, and components is shown to decrease bullying and factorization by an average of 17 to 23 percent.
With that said both articles gave valid reasoning on their views and why they stand by their argument, using data and charts and valid sources. The sources they gave were accurate and were easy to find and understand. In Proof. Fox article, his stance is Justified in a way that the examples he use gave detailed points on why some anti-bullying programs that some schools have in place ail in a sense that the programs the school use do not put emphasis on the cause and effects of bullying and how it sometimes places the blame on the victim making them feel like somehow they are somewhat responsible for their own factorization, if only because they failed to stand up for themselves.
It doesn’t put blame or give the bully or bullies in question any consequences for their actions. It also doesn’t teach the parties involve that all forms of bullying are harmful to the bully, the victim, and to witnesses, because the effects can last well into adulthood. One example is the bullying scandal going within the Miami Dolphin’s organization involving Archie Incognito and John Martin. The article Proof. Fox wrote didn’t anger me but gave me a better understanding on how some people see the lack of how in some cases the programs in place fails to help the parties involve. And in the latter article the authors stance was Justify by using charts and data.
Implementation of the programs is very important, with greater duration and intensity for children and teachers yielding better results for both bullying and factorization. Similarly, including parent and teacher training as program components was found to be highly effective for bullying, while parent training, but not limited to teacher training was found to be a significant predictor of effectiveness for factorization. The total number of program components is also shown to be important to a program’s ability to reduce school bullying. This article was informative and it fascinating me on programs that can curb bullying and if not stop it help reduce the number of cases reported. In Proof.
Fox article why anti-bullying programs fail shows that his stance on anti-bullying programs is against my stance on anti-bullying prevention programs as his assumption on anti-bullying prevention programs was modest at best, and mostly impacted knowledge and attitudes rather than actual bullying behavior. In the Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2012, volume 6, issue 2, pages 273-282) their stance and my stance on anti-bullying programs is on the same page. So in my own words are saying that even with the low results in helping the victims of bullying and helping the bully reform themselves anti-bully programs have in way have help reduces if not curb the act of bullying.