Evaluation of the
Kia Kaha Anti-Bullying Programme
for Students in Years 5-8

A report prepared by Juliana Raskauskas, College of Education, Massey University

for New Zealand Police, April 2007

First published in April 2007 by

New Zealand Police
PO Box 3017
Wellington
New Zealand

© Crown Copyright

ISBN 0-277-02973-6

Contents

List of Tables

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people and institutions: First, Massey University for providing partial funding for this evaluation through the Massey University Research Fund (MURF). Second, it is important that I thank Dr. Janet Gregory for her assistance in data collection and synthesis, and for her support throughout this research. Third, the participation of schools and students involved in this research was greatly appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank Owen Sanders and the New Zealand Police for inviting me to evaluate the Kia Kaha programme and for providing principal funding for this project.

Biographical Statement

Dr. Juliana Raskauskas is a Lecturer in Human Development at Massey University, College of Education. She has a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of California, Davis, USA. Dr. Raskauskas has conducted research on bullying for seven years in both the United States and New Zealand. Her research interests include anti-bullying policy and programme evaluation, child and adolescent development, fostering resiliency, and electronic/text-message bullying. She is part of a research team recently awarded a Marsden Grant from the New Zealand Royal Society to examine the relationship of emotional intelligence to bullying behaviour.

Executive Summary

This report describes an evaluation of the Kia Kaha Anti-bullying programme for students in years 5 - 8.

Kia Kaha is an Anti-bullying programme developed by the New Zealand Police and originally released in 1992. The programme utilises a whole-school approach to improve the culture of schools and reduce bullying. The programme is delivered by teachers and Police Education Officers (PEOs) through classroom curricula and activities with the students.

49 schools (31 who had done Kia Kaha in the past 3 years and 22 who had not) participated in this evaluation. Schools were drawn from the lower North Island and upper South Island. The design of this evaluation included matched programme-comparison school analyses, student and teacher individual level comparisons, as well as teacher and PEO feedback. The methodology used surveys for students and teachers, as well as classroom discussions for year 5/6 students and in-depth interviews for teachers and PEOs.

Survey data were collected from 3,155 students and 67 teachers. Interviews or classroom discussions were conducted with a subset of those students, teachers, and all PEOs who delivered the programme to the participating schools.

Analyses compared schools who had implemented the Kia Kaha curriculum in the past 3-years with matched-comparison schools that had not participated in Kia Kaha. Student individual level comparisons on relevant variables were included in the analyses along side school comparisons. Teacher level analyses were also conducted. Interviews and classroom discussions were examined for themes and used to support findings from the statistical analyses.

Below is a summary of key findings reported from this evaluation. This summary shows that the Kia Kaha programme appears to be meeting its objectives:

1. Overall Kia Kaha schools reported less bullying than matched comparison schools. Students at schools that have used Kia Kaha in the past 3 years report significantly less victimisation by bullies than students at schools that have not used Kia Kaha.

2. Kia Kaha had a positive effect on school climate which was related to less bullying. The programme also increased self-esteem and attitudes toward victims among students. This was done, at least in part, by creating a safe environment for reporting bullying.

3. The whole-school approach is an important part of Kia Kaha. Kia Kaha uses the whole-school approach to create a supportive school climate.

4. In participating schools Kia Kaha was implemented according to the guidelines. Students and teachers were very positive about the programme and it was found to lead to knowledge gain among students.

5. PEOs played a vital role in delivering the programme. They provided support and training for teachers and students felt safe reporting bullying to them.

6. Strengths of Kia Kaha include the flexibility of the programme and the support provided by the PEO.

7. Challenges of the programme include (1) turn-over of staff and students, and (2) schools not wanting to be stereotyped as schools with a bullying problem.

Suggested improvements from teachers, PEOs, and researchers, based on the findings of the evaluation, are provided below.

Suggested Improvements

Overall, the Kia Kaha programme was shown to be associated with lower levels of bullying and peer victimisation. Teachers, students, and PEOs were very positive of the programme and its effectiveness; however, some suggested improvements were identified during this research.

Teachers suggest that:

• The Kia Kaha materials and videos be updated to include a diverse spectrum of students.

• Information for parents encourage them to reinforce strategies taught in the programme and encourage them not to give conflicting advice to students.

• More PEOs be employed so they can visit schools more often.

PEOs suggest that:

• Materials be updated to be visually appealing to parents and students.

• Materials incorporate new forms of bullying such as text-message and internet bullying.

• A booklet of extra activities be developed for primary school and added to the materials.

Researchers suggest that:

• Evaluations for teachers and students be built into the programme.

• External rewards or certificates for students who and schools that have completed the programme be provided.

• Guidelines for teachers and schools explain that an initial increase in reporting of bullying is expected as awareness of what constitutes bullying increases and a telling environment is created.

• Reviews for new students should be added for between offerings of Kia Kaha. The programme is carried out in a 2-year cycle at most schools so it would be helpful if Kia Kaha provided different activities to reinforce concepts in alternating years.

Introduction

This report describes an evaluation of the Kia Kaha Anti-bullying Programme as it is used for students in years 5 - 8 in New Zealand. Kia Kaha was developed by the New Zealand Police to help schools create environments in which everyone feels safe, respected and valued, and where bullying is not tolerated.

The Programme

Kia Kaha was originally released in 1992 and since then has been implemented in many schools across the country, although the exact number of schools who have used the programme since 1992 is unknown. The programme is provided free of charge to schools in New Zealand. In the Māori language “kia kaha” means to stand strong. The name is used here to represent the need for the whole-school community to stand strong to prevent bullying. The objective of the programme is to help students, parents, caregivers, and teachers work together to create a safe learning environment. A safe learning environment is one that recognises that bullying is unacceptable and where policies are adopted to ensure it does not flourish.

Kia Kaha adopts a whole-school approach with components for educating parents, teachers, students, and school administrators about bullying. The programme is comprehensive, covering a range of important issues such as peer relationships, identifying and dealing with bullying, making personal choices, developing feelings of self-worth, respecting differences, and working co-operatively to build a safe classroom environment. The programme is also flexible in that it can be adapted to the needs of individual schools or students. The programme is designed for use with students in junior primary through secondary school, covering school years 0 - 10.

The curriculum and resources come in an attractive boxed set. The resources include a teacher’s guide with an overview of the programme, instructions for planning and implementing lessons, a video cassette (for year 7/8), and information to be sent home to parents. The student and teacher components are delivered through the classroom curriculum and the accompanying resource kit. Within the classroom students are provided with facts about bullying and opportunities to learn and practise responses to bullying while building their interpersonal skills. The programme gives students the freedom to discuss and share experiences. It also provides activities to build understanding and tolerance while teaching situational problem solving. Students are taught to take steps to defuse bullying situations: Stop, Think, Consider Options, Act, Follow up. Situation cards provide bullying scenarios intended to get students to identify workable solutions to bullying. The video for Years 7 and 8 includes five bullying situations that provide the basis for discussing both what is happening and what can be done.

Although Kia Kaha was designed as an anti-bullying programme it also meets the requirements of two essential areas within New Zealand’s curriculum framework: social sciences and health/physical well-being. Therefore, some schools adopt the programme to meet those requirements. The positive effect on bullying within and beyond the school is an additional benefit.

Police Education Officers (PEO)

Police Education Officers (PEOs) are police officers trained as educators who are involved in youth education in New Zealand. PEOs visit schools and introduce them to the programmes offered by the Police including Kia Kaha, Keeping Ourselves Safe (KOS), Road Safety, and Dare to Make A Choice (D.A.R.E.).

The PEOs play a vital role in the application of Kia Kaha. They introduce and encourage principals to adopt the whole-school approach, train the teachers in the programme, host a parent night, teach up to 4 lessons of the curriculum, and provide maintenance at least once every 2 years so that new cohorts of students and new teachers can be introduced to the programme. When the PEO initially visits the school he or she discusses the need for the school to think about its organisational structure and to make sure that the school has an anti-bullying policy in place. If the school does not have a policy in place the officer can provide advice in developing a policy.

Purpose of this Report

While the Kia Kaha programme has received positive feedback from participating schools since its introduction in 1992, the New Zealand Police thought an empirical evaluation of its effectiveness was needed. As Kia Kaha’s content validity and use in secondary schools has been established by prior research (Sullivan, 1998, 2005), its effectiveness for late primary and intermediate age students was the primary focus for this research. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the Kia Kaha programme for Years 5 -8 and to address the following questions based on the programmes’ design and objectives:

1. Do schools that use the Kia Kaha programme report less bullying?

2. Does Kia Kaha positively affect school climate?

3. Is the Kia Kaha programme being implemented according to guidelines?

4. What is the role of the PEO in Kia Kaha schools?

5. What are the strengths of and challenges to Kia Kaha being implemented in schools?

These questions will be addressed through a full-scale evaluation using school comparisons, surveys and in-depth interviews with participants and stakeholders in this programme.

Background Research

What is Bullying?

Bullying is defined as deliberate and hurtful behaviour that is repeated over time. An act is bullying when (a) it is difficult for those who are bullied to effectively defend themselves and (b) those who bully have, and exercise, power over the victim. It is also difficult for those who bully to learn new social behaviours. Bullying can be present in all schools regardless of their size or decile rating. Bullying takes a number of different forms:

• Physical violence (i.e. hitting, kicking, shoving, etc.)

• Emotional and verbal (i.e. name-calling, exclusion, taunting, threatening, coercion, etc.)

• Damage to property (i.e. taking lunches, destroying schoolbooks, etc.)

• Technological (i.e. text-message harassment, etc.)

All forms of bullying can be damaging to both the person being bullied and the bully. Kia Kaha emphasises the identification of bullying behaviours as opposed to labelling individuals as bullies. This strategy enables both bullies and victims to develop and adopt more positive behaviours and ways of relating to others.

Bullying in New Zealand

It has been well documented that bullying is a pervasive phenomenon during the school years and that it can have many damaging effects on students (see Olweus, 2001; Sullivan, 2000). In terms of the prevalence of bullying in New Zealand, Adair (1999) indicated that the rates of bullying in New Zealand are similar to those in other Western nations, that is:

• 20-30% of primary school children have an ongoing problem with bullying;

• 75% of students report being bullied at least once in a twelve month period;

• Most incidents happen in classrooms, playgrounds, and toilets.

Further research by Adair and colleagues (2000) with a sample of 2,066 year 9-13 students found that 58% reported being victimised and 44% admitted to bullying others. Of their sample, 11% reported being victimised once a week or more and 8% of students reported bullying others once a week or more. No differences were found between the number of boys and girls who had been victims of bullying; however there were gender differences such that boys reported committing more bullying than girls. Maxwell and Carroll-Lind (1997) reported that students in year 7 and year 8 ranked being physically or emotionally bullied by other children as one of the worse things that could happen to them.

Students victimised by bullies is a major concern for educators and policy makers because bullying negatively affects the academic performance of some children and can lead to school avoidance among other students (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Furlong, Sharma, & Rhee, 2000). Research consistently finds that negative academic and emotional effects of bullying on victims occur soon after being bullied and longitudinally over time (Bond et al., 2001; Olweus, 2001). In short, students who are being bullied are denied their right to learn in a safe environment and the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Those who bully also report negative effects. Children who bully are four times more likely to have criminal convictions in adulthood than their non-bullying peers (Olweus, 1992; 1993). The relationship of bullying to later delinquency and offending is due to the fact that without intervention bullies learn that using aggression is an acceptable way to get what they want. Bullies may suffer peer rejection, academic failure, and/or low self-esteem (Sullivan, 2000).

School-Based Interventions

School is where children spend most of their time which is why bullying prevention programmes are most often school-based. The most effective programmes are those that utilise a whole-school or whole-community approach (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004).

One anti-bullying programme that is similar to Kia Kaha in method and objectives is the Friendly Schools Project used in Australia. The Friendly Schools Project is a school-based intervention with primary school students (8-10 years old), their teachers, and parents. The intervention focuses on reducing bullying and enhancing students’ social skills by using a whole-school approach, which includes the following:

1. The Friendly Schools curriculum comprised of learning activities for students taught by trained teachers. The learning activities are designed to promote:

   • Understanding of what behaviours constitute bullying and why bullying is an unacceptable behaviour;

   • Students’ ability to talk about bullying with each other and adults;

   • Responses to bullying known to reduce bullying, including responding assertively, reporting bullying, and seeking support;

   • Peer and adult support for students who are being bullied.

2. Home activities to raise awareness of bullying in families through:

   • Links to the classroom-learning activities;

   • 16 skills-based newsletters sent home.

An evaluation of the project conducted by Cross, Hall, Hamilton, Pintabona, and Erceg in 2004 found that the programme was successful in reducing reports of bullying among Australian school children. In their evaluation, 29 schools matched for size were randomly assigned to two groups: comparison (N = 14) and intervention (N = 15). Baseline data was collected at the beginning of the intervention then followed up 1 and 2 years later. At the final data collection more comparison students than intervention reported increases in being bullied. While students in the intervention group had significantly increased odds of reporting bullying they had witnessed than comparisons on the post-test.

This evaluation has similarly examined the effectiveness of the Kia Kaha programme in creating a climate associated with less bullying and increased reporting. The success of the whole-school approach of Kia Kaha is examined in this report.

The Whole-School Approach

Prior research indicates that the most effective way of eliminating bullying is for the whole-school community (students, teachers, Board of Trustees, parents and the wider community), to confront the issue and work together to establish a safe environment for students (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004). A whole-school approach is one in which the school community and especially teachers and parents become aware of the prevalence and seriousness of the problem of bullying and develop a coordinated effort to reduce it. Mobilising all students, teachers, administrators and parents to be involved in the anti-bullying efforts is crucial.

A whole-school approach is generally done through the development of anti-bullying policies. Good policies define bullying and the school’s position against it and outline procedures to discourage bullying and help victims (Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004). Kia Kaha asks schools to commit to a whole-school approach before they will deliver the Kia Kaha programme. The success of schools in implementing the whole-school approach and challenges to it are included in this evaluation.

Report Structure

This report is structured as follows: First, the methodology used is described along with a descriptive summary of the sample of schools and students who participated. This is followed by a discussion of findings pertaining to each of the research questions. Next, formative feedback from students, teachers, and PEOs is presented. Finally, a series of suggested improvements based on the findings of this research and the researchers’ wider studies of anti-bullying research both in New Zealand and internationally are presented.

Methodology

The evaluation utilised a mixed method approach, including quantitative surveys with teachers and students who had and had not done Kia Kaha and qualitative interviews with teachers and PEOs who had participated in the programme. First, the sample is described, including the schools and the individuals who participated. Then the methods and procedures are described.

Schools

Forty-nine (49) schools participated in this research. The schools were evenly distributed over deciles 1 through 10 with 17 of the schools being low decile (1-3), 15 schools being medium decile (4-7) and 17 schools who were high decile (8-10). The participating schools represented rural, suburban and urban locations in both the North and South Islands.

Twenty-seven (27) schools were recruited from the pool of 101¹ schools who had completed Kia Kaha in the past 3-years in the central (North Island) and Tasman (South Island) regions. Comparison schools that had not done the programme were identified from the Ministry of Education school list and recruited. Eighteen (18) schools who had not done the Kia Kaha programme (comparison schools) agreed to participate. Therefore, in the findings these 18 comparisons schools and their matched Kia Kaha schools will be compared. These matches will be referred to as Kia Kaha-comparison school comparisons or analyses.

For recruitment comparison schools were matched with Kia Kaha schools on size, region, decile and orientation (contributing primary, full primary, or intermediate). Since Kia Kaha and comparisons schools were matched on decile, there is not a notable discrepancy between the two groups by design. Kia Kaha schools had an average decile of 5.9 and their matched comparisons schools had an average of 5.8. However, there is a small difference when looking at the student-level analyses because more Kia Kaha schools than comparison schools participated in the end. The Kia Kaha students had a slightly higher average decile for student level analyses (Mean = decile 6.5) than the students at comparison schools (Mean = decile 5.7).

In addition, there were four schools that had not used Kia Kaha but were to do it during the time of this evaluation. These schools were visited and survey instruments (see Appendix A for descriptions) were administered directly before (pre) doing Kia Kaha and after (post). In the findings the responses on pre-surveys are compared to the post-survey. These comparisons are referred to as pre/post school comparisons and the schools are described as follows:

School 1 was a rural decile 3 school with 72 students from the Manawatu region. Of 27 students enrolled in years 5-8, 19 students completed the pre- and post-programme surveys.

School 2 was a suburban decile 3 school with 70 students from the south Taranaki region. Of 30 students enrolled in years 5 - 8, 25 students participated in the pre-programme questionnaire and 24 in the post.

School 3 was an urban decile 8 school with 195 students from the Tasman region. Of 105 students enrolled in years 5 - 8, 91 students completed the pre-programme surveys and 86 completed the post.

School 4 was a rural decile 1 school with 209 students from the north Taranaki region. This school was a contributing primary school with students up to year 6. Of the 50 students enrolled in years 5 - 6, 42 students completed the pre-programme surveys and 34 the post-programme surveys. These four pre/post schools count as both Kia Kaha and comparison schools and will be compared separately from the 18 Kia Kaha-comparison school comparisons. A breakdown of school characteristics is reported in Table 1.

Table 1: Distribution of students and school across school orientation (N = 3,155)

Participants in the Evaluation

Only students in years 5-8 at each school were invited to participate in this research. Across the schools 3,155 students (48% female, 52% male) completed the survey, 1,572 students had participated in Kia Kaha and 1,583 had not.. This represents 82% of eligible students. Students ranged in age from 8 - 13 years (Mean = 10.6 years, SD = 1.17). There was an equal distribution across students’ year in school: 27% were year 5, 28% year 6, 21% year 7, and 24% year 8 students. 50% of the students had been exposed to the Kia Kaha programme while 50% had not.

All teachers were invited to complete surveys. Sixty-seven (67) teachers elected to participate and completed the teacher survey (63% Kia Kaha, 37% comparison). Teachers were 66% female and 34% male. 84% of teachers self identified as Pakeha, 8% as mixed ethnicity, 6% as Māori, and 2% as Pacific Islander. The majority of teachers had been working as teachers for several years with a range from 1 to 35 years (Mean = 13 years, SD = 10.4).

The formative component of the Kia Kaha evaluation included in-depth interviews and additional information collected from a selection of students, teachers, and PEOs who had been exposed to the programme. Year 7 and year 8 students who had completed Kia Kaha in the last 2 years answered additional items on a one-page survey about the programme (n = 429). A classroom discussion was conducted with students in years 5 - 6 who had done Kia Kaha within 12 months of the research visit.

A random selection of the Kia Kaha teachers were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Ten (10) teachers (7 female, 3 male) completed in-depth phone interviews about their experiences with the programme. Nine (9), or all the PEOs who had administered the programme to participating Kia Kaha schools (4 female, 5 male), completed phone interviews. This information is summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: The number of participants completing surveys and interviews

What We Did

Descriptions of the procedures used in this evaluation are detailed in the remainder of this section. See Appendix A for a full description of measures and Appendices B and C for survey and interview instruments. A brief description of surveys and interviews is included here.

Primary data collection was completed in school terms 2 - 3. Students’ parents were posted consent forms and passive consent for participation was obtained from parents prior to the visit to the school site. Passive consent gives parents the option of withdrawing their child if they do not want them to participate as opposed to opting them into the research. Passive consent is favoured for this type of research because bullying is a matter that directly physically and emotionally impacts children. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have the right to speak out on matters that directly affect them (Carroll-Lind, Chapman, Gregory, & Maxwell, 2006). Children’s reports of their own experiences are vital, especially in light of the fact that many parents are unaware of the extent of their children’s involvement in bullying (Ma, 2001).

One visit was made to each school site to conduct the anonymous surveys with students in years 5 - 8. Surveys were conducted with all students in the classroom at once. In classrooms with year 5 and 6 students the survey was read aloud to overcome potential readings difficulties. In year 7 and 8 classrooms students were allowed to complete the survey independently unless teachers identified students who were in need of assistance. Survey responses were anonymous and confidential to encourage honesty in reporting. The student classroom survey was the same for Kia Kaha and comparison schools. It asked about students’ experiences with bullying, knowledge about bullying, reporting of bullying, strategies for dealing with bullying, attitudes toward bullying, and perception of the school climate.

Classroom teachers completed their teacher surveys at the same time as students. Their survey asked about bullying at their school, students reporting to them, strategies for dealing with bullying, and how Kia Kaha had affected the incidence and prevalence of bullying at their school. Comparison teachers received the same survey without the Kia Kaha items.

Schools that had done Kia Kaha in 2005 and 2006 (including pre/post schools) provided information about the programme directly following the survey. For years 7 and 8 students this involved an additional one-page survey. For students in years 5 and 6 a classroom discussion was conducted at Kia Kaha schools who had done the programme in the past 12 months. Students were asked questions about bullying and the programme by the researcher. Teachers were not present in the room during the discussions.

Kia Kaha questions for both the written survey and the class discussion asked about the students’ relationship with the PEO, their experiences in the programme, and how Kia Kaha had affected their knowledge about bullying and what they could do about it, as well as how Kia Kaha had affected the level of bullying at their school.

Kia Kaha teachers were invited to volunteer for an in-depth interview. At the time of the classroom survey, teachers who volunteered completed a consent form with contact information. Teachers were then contacted by phone to complete the 20-30 minute interview. Teacher interviews included questions about their relationship with the PEO, their experiences with delivering the programme, and how it had affected their students and school community. Teachers were also asked for suggestions for ways the programme could be improved.

PEOs who worked with participating schools were contacted by email and invited to participate in a telephone interview. Interview times were arranged so PEOs could be contacted. The telephone interviews took approximately 20-30 minutes. In the interview the PEOs were asked to rate each school on how closely they had followed the Kia Kaha guidelines. PEOs reported on the challenges to getting the programme into schools, the degree of success of the whole-school approach, and ways in which Kia Kaha could be improved. The PEO’s relationship with students and their willingness to report bullying to them were also included in their telephone interview.

The next section reports the results of the evaluation in response to the research questions identified in the introduction.

Findings

Before answering the research questions, the nature of peer victimisation and bullying behaviour in school is examined. The correlation matrix below compares victimisation by bullies, bullying behaviour, gender, age, attitudes to bullying, and school climate.

Table 3: Correlation matrix comparing peer victimization and bullying behaviour to key variables

*p < .05, **p < .01

While several of these correlations show relationships statistically significant at a probability of less than .05, the large sample size may be inflating the probabilities. Only correlations above .20 have a large enough effect size to warrant discussion (Huck, 2004). In the matrix above, victimisation did not differ significantly by age or gender for the whole sample. However, victimisation was related to bullying behaviour. There is a special subgroup of victims who consistently score high on aggressive behaviour and these may be the students captured by the correlation between frequency of victimisation and bullying (Ma, 2001; Olweus, 2001).

The frequency of bullying others was related to attitudes that support bullying behaviour and to a lower perception of the supportiveness of their school climate. A supportive school climate was associated with attitudes that were less supportive of bullying and more supportive of victims.

In the following sections the findings from schools and students will be compared with regard to the following evaluation questions:

1. Do schools that use the Kia Kaha programme report less bullying?

2. Does Kia Kaha positively affect school climate?

3. Is the Kia Kaha programme being implemented according to guidelines?

4. What is the role of the PEO in Kia Kaha schools?

5. What are the strengths of and challenges to Kia Kaha being implemented in schools?

Question 1: Do schools that use the Kia Kaha programme report less bullying?

To examine question 1, Kia Kaha students and schools were compared with comparison group students and schools on their reports of victimisation by bullies (peer victimisation), bullying behaviour, and reporting of bullying.

Peer Victimisation

At the individual level, comparing the percentage of students who self identified as having been bullied (peer victims) in the current school year shows that more students from comparison schools (62%) than Kia Kaha schools (53%) were victims at least once during the current school year. A t-test was used to compare the frequency of victimisation across schools. Students at comparison schools, on average, reported a higher frequency of peer victimisation (M = 1.03, SD = 1.18) than Kia Kaha students (M = .84, SD = 1.10), t(3109) = 4.641, p < .001. Table 4 compares student responses to the frequency of peer victimisation for Kia Kaha and comparison schools.

Table 4: Student reports of frequency of peer victimization across Kia Kaha and comparison schools

More students at Kia Kaha schools say they were not victims of bullying during the current school year than comparison schools. A smaller percentage of Kia Kaha students reported being bullied frequently (“Once A Fortnight” or more). This is important because according to existing literature (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Solberg & Olweus, 2003) students who are bullied frequently are more at risk for negative outcomes.

School level comparisons indicate that the Kia Kaha programme is associated with lower levels of bullying. Repeated-measures t-tests comparing the Kia Kaha and matched comparison schools on the frequency of victimisation and percentage of victims showed that Kia Kaha was successful in reducing bullying. On average, frequency of victimisation at Kia Kaha schools (M = .92, SD = .26) was lower than at comparison schools (M = 1.06, SD = .23), t(17) = 2.267. Examining this relationship at the school level, the average percentage of students who have been victims of bullying this year was significantly lower at Kia Kaha schools (M = 57%) than at comparison schools (M = 66%), t(17) = 2.289, p < .05. This finding is similar to the trend reported at the student level in Table 4.

Year 7 and 8 students reported on the frequency of different forms of peer victimisation they encountered this year. The Kia Kaha programme had the largest effect on verbal bullying such as teasing and name calling. Students who had been peer victims at Kia Kaha schools (M = 1.35, SD = .84) reported significantly less verbal bullying than victims at comparison schools (M = 1.49, SD = .93) according to t-tests, t(695) = 2.06, p < .05.

Year Level

The Kia Kaha resource packets are slightly different for the participants in years 5 - 6 and 7 - 8, therefore these two groups were compared on average frequency of peer victimisation. Year 5 students consistently reported higher frequency of victimisation than students in years 6-8 (ANOVA F(3,3973) = 11.275, p < .001). Overall, at Kia Kaha schools, year levels 5-8 reported lower frequencies of victimisation than were reported at comparison schools. However, both Kia Kaha (ANOVA F(3,1528) = 6.552, p < .001) and comparison (ANOVA F(3,1441) = 5.452, p < .001) schools showed the same trends with year 5 students scoring significantly higher on peer victimisation than other years. See the chart below for an illustration of these trends.

This graph shows the frequency of victimization by year in school overall,

and at Kia Kaha versus comparison schools.

School Deciles

For comparison schools the decile rating of the schools was related to the level of bullying. Students level analysis showed that students at low decile (1-3) schools (M = 1.18, SD = 1.19) reported significantly more peer victimisation than students at medium decile (4-7) schools (M = .96, SD = 1.16) and high decile (8-10) schools (M = 1.07, SD = 1.18), ANOVA F(2, 1554) = 4.171, p < .01. For students at Kia Kaha schools there was not a significant difference between frequency of peer victimization for students at low, medium, and high decile schools. This indicates that the Kia Kaha programme may be effective in reducing the bullying associated with low decile schools.

Perceived Effect of Kia Kaha on Victimisation

Students who had completed the programme in the past two years thought it served to reduce bullying. In fact, 65% of year 7 and year 8 students in their Kia Kaha surveys specifically reported that the programme had reduced bullying at their school. Forty-three percent (43%) of Kia Kaha teachers felt that bullying at their school had decreased since the programme was introduced, while 57% felt that it had remained the same. The reasons for teachers’ responses were explained by their comments in interviews. Several teachers were clear that they felt the programme had been successful in reducing bullying. Some examples of teacher statements are given below:

Kia Kaha was chosen by the school as a preventative measure to keep bullying from becoming a problem and it has done that.

Kia Kaha has reduced bullying - when we are doing the programme the students become more vocal and talk more about it.

Using Kia Kaha has reduced bullying, especially the minor name-calling and put downs. The awareness is what makes them think about bullying and then they try to stop it.

Other teachers felt Kia Kaha reduced bullying, but felt that the entry of new students to the school after the programme had been completed hindered the efforts of Kia Kaha at their school. New students were often reported by the teachers who had said that the level of bullying had stayed the same at their school. Some comments were that:

Kia Kaha has reduced bullying - but every new year children come in because of calving season so the principles need to be repeated and reinforced to keep levels low.

Kia Kaha reduced bullying among the children who did it; however new children contribute to increases in bullying. Bullying is not static, it seems to change with different students.

Last term 10-15 new kids came who did not get Kia Kaha and there was a lot of bullying.

One teacher said “I don’t think Kia Kaha has reduced bullying, but it makes people more aware and teaches them to stand up for themselves when they see it.” So while they didn’t feel it had affected the amount of bullying out-right, Kia Kaha had had a positive role in helping students stand up in the face of bullying.

Bullying Behaviour

Rates of bullying behaviour were also examined. T-tests comparing students’ self-reports of bullying behaviour at Kia Kaha (M = .45, SD = .75) and students at comparison schools (M = .53, SD = .85) showed significantly less bullying by students at Kia Kaha schools, t(3079) = 2.824, p < .005. One teacher observed that “Kia Kaha has led to fewer time outs of students. Students have been better to each other.”

School level Kia Kaha-comparison school analyses showed no significant difference in the average frequency or percentage of bullies. This may be because overall only a small number of students self identified as bullies (37%). It is important to bear in mind when interpreting these data that bullying behaviour is often under-reported. On average, 40% of students at comparison schools and 36% at Kia Kaha schools admitted bullying during the year. The nearly equal numbers of students identified as bullies may be the result of two conflicting effects. First, students at Kia Kaha schools, despite lower frequency of bullying behaviour, may be more willing to admit their involvement due to increased awareness of the definitions of bullying. Second, self-reports of bullying are always lower than teacher or peer reports because in many cases bullies don’t recognise that what they are doing is bullying. Therefore, levels of bullying may be under-reported at comparison schools if students are unaware of the definitions of bullying. The number of students admitting to low-level bullying at Kia Kaha schools may also reflect the development of a supportive culture where students are more willing to admit bullying.

Reporting Bullying

A lot of bullying that goes on in schools is not reported to staff. However, 73% of students said they had told an adult last time they were bullied. Kia Kaha teaches students to take action against bullying and to get help from an adult if needed. In the teacher survey, forty-four (44%) of Kia Kaha teachers said that more students are reporting bullying since Kia Kaha was introduced. Most teachers said in their interviews that Kia Kaha had increased student reporting. Increase in reporting shows that students are getting help when they need it. Some specific examples are given below:

When students started reporting bullying more then we knew the programme was working.

More than reduce bullying it increases reporting of incidents. Bullying has always been there but now they report it.

The programme opens up the students. It empowers them to tell us and they know we will listen. They know that we will listen and that comes through the Kia Kaha.

At first I thought that Kia Kaha wasn’t working, that it was increasing bullying, but in reality it was just increasing reporting of bullying.

Question 2: Does Kia Kaha positively affect school climate?

To examine question 2, Kia Kaha and comparison students and schools were compared on perceived school climate, self-esteem, the witnessing of bullying, the reporting of witnessed bullying, and attitudes toward bullying behaviour.

School Climate

Students in year 7 and year 8 at Kia Kaha and comparison schools were compared on a standardised measure of school climate. A t-test at the student level showed that students exposed to the Kia Kaha programme (M = 1.96, SD = .61) reported a more supportive school climate than students at comparison schools (M = 1.88, SD = .62), t(1470) = 2.250, p < .05. An interaction between school climate and victimisation was found such that victims (M = 1.83, SD = .59) at Kia Kaha schools reported significantly worse perceptions of school climate than their non-bullied classmates (M = 1.94, SD = .63), t(657) = 2.292, p = .02.

Teachers felt that Kia Kaha had positively affected the school climate. Below are examples of how Kia Kaha had changed the school climate:

The whole tone of the school has improved.

It has made everyone more aware. It has made this a school that will not tolerate bullying. Even peer mediators say that after Kia Kaha they have less to do on the playground. The playground is a happier place. Doing the whole programme made the difference.

It has given students a label to put on what is happening to them. It has raised awareness.

Kia Kaha is about teachers too and has changed some of the teachers’ attitudes toward bullying at our school.

The school climate has changed but not just because of Kia Kaha, but as a result of a number of things we are doing including social skills, surveys, etc.

The PEOs interviewed said that schools select Kia Kaha to create a positive school climate. Some examples from the PEO interviews are:

Kia Kaha helps to establish routines with creating positive classroom climate.

Schools use Kia Kaha to establish rules and be consistent on right and wrong behaviour.

Schools use Kia Kaha to establish their school expectations and behaviour plans.

The relationship between school decile and peer victimisation was mediated by school climate. When the school climate was taken into account (ß = -.10, p < .001) decile was no longer a significant predictor (ß = -.04) of peer victimisation in linear regression, F(2, 1452) = 6.861, p < .001. This indicates that the lower levels of bullying found in Kia Kaha low decile schools than comparison schools may be due to the positive effect the programme has on school climate.

Self-esteem

Kia Kaha teachers highlighted the fact that Kia Kaha activities improved self-esteem. The shield activity where students identify good qualities about themselves was specifically mentioned by teachers as building self-esteem. In accordance with teacher views, student level analysis of surveys indicated that students at Kia Kaha schools (M = 2.58, SD = .84) had significantly higher levels of self-esteem on a standardised measure than students at comparison schools (M = 2.47, SD = .86), t(2971) = -3.524, p < .001. Repeated-measures t-tests indicated that, on average, Kia Kaha schools had school climates characterised by higher self-esteem (M = 2.54, SD = .17) than comparison schools (M = 2.36, SD = .35), t(17) = -2.095, p < .05. In fact, in the overall sample a positive school climate was related to higher self-esteem among students (r = .32, p < .001).

International literature has shown that having a high self-esteem is related with being bullied less and suffering fewer effects of bullying when it does occur (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1993). In this study, linear regression showed that self-esteem (ß = -.22, p < .001) predicted frequency of peer victimisation, F(1,2950) = 145.84, p < .001. Higher self-esteem was related to lower frequency of peer victimisation. This is important since the Kia Kaha programme was associated with higher self-esteem among students.

Witnessing and Reporting

A positive school climate is supposed to be one that creates a safe environment for students to report bullying and take action to stop bullying they see. T-tests were used to compare Kia Kaha-exposed students and comparison students on the frequency of witnessing bullying. The findings showed that students exposed to Kia Kaha (M = 1.50, SD = 1.23) reported seeing less bullying at school than students at comparison schools (M = 1.74, SD = 1.31), t(3097) = 5.435, p < .001. Table 5 shows the frequency of witnessing classmates being bullied during the school

year.

Table 5: Student reports of the frequencies of witnessing classmates being bullied across Kia Kaha and comparison schools

Kia Kaha students were asked what they did when they saw someone being bullied. A series of possible strategies were provided for the students. The percentage of students at Kia Kaha schools who endorsed each strategy is reported in the following table.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Kia Kaha teachers said that students’ reporting the bullying of others had increased since the programme had been introduced. Students’ views of whether they felt safe reporting and whether they felt they were believed by staff when they reported incidents of bullying were examined. To the item “Adults at my school don’t believe me when I report bullying” 44% of students at Kia Kaha schools said that this statement was never true, that adults always believed them. This is one way in which Kia Kaha can affect school climate, by creating a supportive “telling” environment. However, students at Kia Kaha and comparison schools did not differ significantly on their answers to these questions.

Table 6: Students at Kia Kaha schools who report using each anti-bullying strategy

Note: Students could indicate more than one answer so the percentage total is greater than 100%.

Similarly, on the item “Kids who report bullying are telling tales or narking”, 42% of students at Kia Kaha school said that this statement was never true. Students should be assured that telling is not “narking” or “telling tales”. Narking is telling to get someone in trouble, where telling is getting help for someone in need - telling shows compassion for victims of bullying.

Attitudes Toward Bullying Behaviour

Differences between Kia Kaha programme schools and matched comparison schools in reporting and taking action may be a function of changing attitudes. Students at Kia Kaha and comparison schools were compared on Rigby’s Attitude Toward Victim Scale. Higher scores indicated more supportive attitudes toward bullying behaviour while lower scores show a more supportive attitude to victims. Kia Kaha students (M = .30, SD = .28) reported less support for bullies and more support for victims than comparison school students (M = .32, SD = .28), t(3084) = 2.702, p < .01.

School level comparisons using repeated-measures t-test, t(16) = 1.97, p = .05, showed Kia Kaha schools, overall, had better attitudes toward victims (M = .30, SD = .08) than comparison schools (M = .35, SD = .09). Year 5 and year 6 students were asked in classroom discussions what Kia Kaha was about and what they had learned from it. Their answers included:

Be strong, stop bullying.

Learned to stop fights.

Learn to care about people - to look after victims.

Try to stop bullying you see at school.

Think before you say it.

Tell someone if you are being bullied.

Don’t run away.

The picture below is one classroom’s “stop light” activity where the class identified what they had learned. Attitudes and behaviours about bullying are discussed and recorded on the levels of the stop light.

Pre/Post School Comparisons

Findings from the 4 pre/post schools were considered separate from the other school comparisons because they exhibited different trends. These four schools were sampled directly before and directly after the Kia Kaha programme was administered, which may have affected the results.

Unlike school comparisons that showed Kia Kaha schools had a lower frequency of victimisation than comparison schools, all 4 pre/post schools reported a higher frequency of victimisation at the post-test. It is believed that this is a result of the initial increase in awareness following the programme. Many intervention programmes show a slight rise in reporting of bullying after educating students on bullying and creating a telling environment (Olweus, 1993; 2001). This may not reflect a true increase in bullying but rather recognition that pre-existing experiences are considered bullying. This is supported by the fact that the Kia Kaha schools which had completed the programme more than 12 months before the survey showed a lower frequency of bullying than the matched comparisons. A follow-up with the pre/post schools at a later date would be expected to show a decline in the reported frequency of bullying from the pre-test levels.

Pre/post schools also showed mixed results regarding bullying and school climate. Two (2) of the 4 schools reported less bullying at post-test and 2 of 3 schools (the contributing primary school did not complete the school climate items) showed an increase in perceptions of supportive school climate from before to after Kia Kaha. Three (3) of the 4 pre/post schools showed more supportive attitudes to victims less support for bullies at the post-test than at the pre-test. These trends are promising since changing school climate and attitudes is how Kia Kaha reduces bullying.

Students at pre/post schools were very positive about the programme. Eighty-two percent (82%) liked having the PEO come to their school and wanted them to come back again, and 51% felt that the programme had reduced bullying at their school.

It is our belief that the timing of the assessments of the pre/post schools may have affected the findings. The schools had just completed the programme and the school climate was still in flux. In these schools the Kia Kaha programme was delivered over a compact period of time so assessment directly following the end of the programme might not have been able to detect the changes in attitudes and behaviours that had been learned but were just beginning to be put into practice. The fact that at post-test, most schools were showing increases in supportive attitudes to victims of bullying and a climate that was more supportive of telling indicates that the programme was effective and a follow-up at a later time should show similar trends to those found in the Kia Kaha-comparison school analyses.

Question 3: Is the Kia Kaha programme being implemented according to the guidelines?

Question 3 was examined by comparing students and schools on the whole-school approach, implementation, programme materials, and knowledge gain. Most schools learned about the programme from PEOs. PEOs reported that many schools approached them to find out about the programme, but that they also introduced schools through meetings with staff or principals and through advertisements.

Whole-School Approach

The effectiveness of the whole-school approach was examined in interviews with teachers and PEOs. Teachers were asked about the degree of whole-school commitment to the Kia Kaha programme. Most teachers felt that their school was committed to the whole-school approach. Comments are listed below:

Definitely there is a whole-school commitment when it is offered every two years.

All teachers across all classes adopt the Kia Kaha philosophy.

With the social skills programme we are able to integrate bullying in to other lessons as well.

Most staff deliver the programme uniformly, so you know that all students are getting pretty much the same thing.

The whole-school did Kia Kaha at the same time for constancy.

Other teachers also commented that the whole-school approach is an important and valuable component of the Kia Kaha programme:

Whole-school approach is the best way, staff need to be consistent with what they say and do about bullying.

We planned together - the staff and the PEO. We used a whole-school approach with the lessons standardised between classrooms so it is more effective.

It is run every two years as a whole-school. It is really good as it reinforces the no bullying message.

In a school I was before we couldn’t have all classes doing the programme at the same time because of scheduling so different classes did it at different times. The scatter-gun approach was not effective - it should be whole-school at the same time.

Similarly, PEOs were asked in their interviews whether it was difficult to get schools to agree to or to implement the whole-school approach. Their responses indicated that most schools were keen to adopt the whole-school approach, but there were factors that influenced its degree of success. Some of their responses are provided below:

I have had problems with syndicates who do not want to work together - the programme is not for schools that are fractured. I won’t do it in schools where teachers are fighting.

I tell them Kia Kaha will not work as well without the whole-school approach.

It’s easier at the primary level to get the whole-school approach. Secondary schools find it more difficult to implement the whole-school approach.

Whole-school approach can be hard because school curriculums are so full.

There is a danger that schools will run the programme once or in only one year level then say they have done it and not keep up maintenance.

Some schools only want year levels where they have had high incidence of bullying to do the programme and not implement a whole-school approach.

Implementation

Teachers and PEOs reported on how well the programme was implemented in the Kia Kaha schools. PEOs on average taught 3 - 4 lessons at each school. Kia Kaha for years 4 - 6 includes 4 modules with 4 activities each (n = 16). On average year 5/6 teachers taught 7 activities without the PEO (range 1 - 15). Kia Kaha for years 7 - 8 includes 4 modules but only a total of 10 activities. On average 7/8 teachers taught 5 activities without the PEO (range 0 - 10).

Teachers reported on their implementation of the programme. Specifically teachers were asked how closely they followed the manual in lessons taught without the PEO. Thirty-four (34%) of teachers said they followed the manual “very closely”, 50% “closely”, 16% “somewhat closely”, and none of the teachers said “not closely.” Several teachers credited the ease of the materials as the reason why they followed the materials closely. Three of the PEOs specifically stated in their interviews that they insist that schools follow the materials closely and would remove the programme from a school if it was not being implemented correctly.

Below is a table outlining the percentage of teachers who reported 3 or more (followed closely) on a 5-point scale of how closely they followed guidelines for the different components of Kia Kaha. Table 7 shows that the majority of teachers implemented the programme the way it was written.

Table 7: Teachers who reported closely following the guidelines when implementing the components of Kia Kaha (N = 39)

“How often” the Kia Kaha lessons were taught was related to the amount of peer victimisation at the schools. Using teacher reports it was found that when Kia Kaha activities were done frequently (once a week or more) schools tended to have lower frequency of victimisation (r = -.43, p = .05). Most teachers reported that the programme was taught once every two years.

Other programmes being used along side Kia Kaha were more commonly the Cool Schools or Values programmes. These programmes also used a whole-school approach and targeted school climate. Almost all of the Kia Kaha schools were doing Keeping Ourselves Safe and/or DARE with the PEO at different times during the school year. This is why year 5 and year 6 classroom discussions were limited to students who had done Kia Kaha in the past 12 months to reduce confusion with other programmes. Even then some students were confused about which components belonged to Kia Kaha and which were from Keeping Ourselves Safe.

PEOs reported in their interviews that teacher training made the programme easier for teachers to use. They also felt that teacher training contributed to teacher buy-in to the values and principles of the programme.

Materials

Kia Kaha programme materials include a teacher’s guide, picture cards, activities and a video for year 7 and year 8 students. Teachers’ perceptions of the teacher’s guide and Kia Kaha resource kit were assessed in the teachers’ telephone interviews. The majority of teachers were very positive about the course materials:

The teacher’s guide was absolutely wonderful - so good - excellent even.

Programme is easy to follow - good in the sense that the students were able to understand and contribute to the discussion questions.

The booklets are thin and are easy to read over and plan a lesson.

It is good that you can pick out activities. Each activity stands alone.

Activities gave me flexibility. I could choose the ones suitable for my students.

Students relate really well to the stories in the booklet.

I enlarged and laminated some of the information and cards from the programme and hung them up around the classroom to remind students.

Materials are very useful - resources, ideas, videos, and pictures all useful.

Video is good.

I really like the way Kia Kaha points out the different types of bullying with examples and then students add their own examples.

One teacher who had used the programme several times over the years had this to say:

The teacher’s guide is easy to follow and I like it for that reason. I have done Kia Kaha in several schools and it has been effective in all of those schools. The school where I have been doesn’t want bullying in their school - it helps kids recognise what bullying is and makes them look at their behaviour.

Other teachers felt the course content was very relevant and meaningful:

Some activities are very emotional. It got students emotionally involved. I got emotionally involved. It was hard to read some of them.

Not all of the scenarios are appropriate for all classes. Some are too close to students experiences - teachers need to be sensitive to individual students.

Year 5 and year 6 students talked about the Kia Kaha activities in class discussions. Several students responded with general endorsements such as “Games were fun” or “I liked what we did.” Other students identified specific activities as their favourites. The Kia Kaha anonymous reporting box was by far the most commonly identified as a favourite activity. The waka activity, which included the class working together to create a waka representing their classroom moving forward together, was also popular among students. Students enjoyed the activities involving role playing, and enjoyed the games and activities they could do with other kids. Below is a picture of one school’s waka activity:

Teachers also reported on their favourite activities. They agreed that the Kia Kaha reporting box was very useful and most kept the box going all year. “Kids felt quite safe with the box and knew that we would respond,” one teacher said. Other activities positively identified by teachers were:

Activities to do with self-esteem, accepting others, recognising differences are best.

The picture cards are good but need a lot more people of different backgrounds, the students had to rank them as to what they think they are doing - what they found really surprised them and raised awareness.

The students and I love the drama and role playing.

It is fun. The different activities are all good - the more variety the better.

Discussions were great - it was nice to have the opportunity to talk with children about bullying and how to put strategies into practise.

Discussions opened up doors for some students so they could talk about bullying.

PEOs identified similar activities to those identified by students and teachers when asked what components of Kia Kaha were most popular:

Planet Kia Kaha

Baking - working as a team.

The Waka Activity

Marking safe areas with balloons.

Crocodile and the bag on the roof.

Module stressing rights and responsibility.

Talking about bullying and identifying what it is.

Kids enjoy the stories in the books.

Role playing.

Confident kids approach.

Panel with parents - one parent actually cried while recalling her experiences with bullying

Photos that allow students to match occupations with pictures (year 7 and 8), is a good way to discuss stereotypes.

Knowledge Gain

The Kia Kaha curriculum is designed to teach students about bullying and what they can do about it. Students at Kia Kaha schools reported more knowledge of and confidence in dealing with bullying than students at comparison schools. T-tests comparing key items showed these differences:

1. On the item “I know who to talk to if I am being bullied”, Kia Kaha students (M = 2.33, SD = .90) reported more agreement than students at comparison schools (M = 2.24, SD = .94), t(2075) = -2.864, p < .01.

2. For the item, “I know how to make someone who is bullying me stop,” students at Kia Kaha schools (M = 1.60, SD = 1.01) reported significantly more agreement than students at comparison schools (M = 1.47, SD = 1.02), t(3060) = -3.613, p < .001.

3. Kia Kaha students (M = 1.80, SD = .89) agreed significantly more with the statement “I tell bullies to stop when they are being mean to other kids”, than students at comparison schools (M = 1.72, SD = .91), t(3075) = -2.557, p < .05.

Retrospective pre-post is a measure of knowledge gain used at the end of a programme (Goedhart & Hoogstraten, 1992; Pratt, McGuigan, & Katzev, 2002). Using retrospective pre-post items students reported on how much they knew before Kia Kaha and after the programme on several items. Students reported significant gains on identifying and dealing with bullying. Findings are reported in the Table 8.

Table 8: Student reported knowledge gain on bullying items from pre to post assessment (N = 429)

**p < .01

These data include students at pre/post schools. Pre/post school students showed similar trends in knowledge gain to students at other Kia Kaha schools.

MANOVAs predicating mastery of bullying content at the completion of the programme found an interaction with the total number of Kia Kaha lessons taught with PEO and without, as reported by teachers. Classrooms exposed to more lessons with a PEO reported higher knowledge gain on: What bullying is, F(21, 407) = 2.766, p < .001; What bullying looks like, F(21, 353) = 5.491, p < .001; How to stop bullying, F(23, 351) = 2.892, p < .001; and Who to talk to if they are being bullied, F(18, 358) = 3.632, p < .001.

Strategies

Kia Kaha students in years 7 and 8 were asked what they would do if they were being bullied. Students could write in as many strategies as they wanted to. Most students identified more than one strategy. The most frequently identified strategies for students who had completed the programme were:

1. Tell a teacher or trusted adult (40%). Examples from students included “I would get a teacher to help” or “I would walk away and tell a trusted adult later.”

2. Walk away or leave the situation (27%).

3. Ask the bully to stop (23%). For examples, students said “Tell them to stop” or “Say how I feel about it, ask why they are bullying me, go and tell someone I trust.”

4. Ignore the bully (21%). For example, some students wrote in “I would ignore them, ask them to stop, and then get an adult.”

5. Defend or stand up for myself (12%). An example offered by many students was “I would stand up for myself” or “I would stand up for myself then get a teacher.”

6. Bully or fight back (11%). Several students indicated that they would respond to bullying with aggression. For example “I would give them the bash or fight back” or “I would tell the bully to stop and if they didn’t I’d punch them.” Other students indicated in their answers that they had learned not to use aggression, “Fighting doesn’t solve anything.”

7. Get a friend to help (6%). Students said things like “I would ask nicely for them to stop and if they didn’t I’d get help from my friends.”

Question 4: What was the role of PEOs in Kia Kaha schools?

PEOs teach the modules of the programme and support schools’ efforts, but they are more that just educators. “Staff and students know the PEO well. The police uniform is important. It impresses the students that a police officer cares and comes to their school,” one teacher said in their interview. PEOs have a presence in the school and as one PEO recalls, “The principal noticed a difference in the behaviour of students after I started coming and begged me to stay.” PEOs reported on their role in schools:

We are constantly in the schools as role models.

I am in classrooms and do teacher trainings.

I also conduct the parent meetings.

Teachers also described the role of the PEOs in their interviews. They see the PEO’s role as more than just delivering Kia Kaha:

PEO does many programmes in the school including road patrol, road safety, DARE, and Keeping Ourselves Safe. [They] know how to relate with the students and talk at their level.

Did parent night and gave a presentation. Did a waka activity for the whole-school so parents could come and see it.

In their interviews teachers had a lot to say about their relationship with their school’s PEO:

I have a good relationship with our PEO. Our PEO is wonderful. She has good rapport with students.

PEO is very approachable.

PEOs work with teachers to deliver the programme.

PEO really knows his stuff and students know him. He is a very nice guy.

PEO is a good resource and is available for more than just Kia Kaha. Provides support for schools.

One teacher said, “Teachers can do Kia Kaha themselves, but we would definitely use the PEO’s more if they were available.” In this case the teacher reported that the PEOs are very busy and need to be booked two years in advance.

To establish the perceived expertise of the PEOs, year 7 and 8 students were asked how much they thought the PEO knew about bullying at their school. Students’ answers are summarised in Table 9.

As you can see the majority of students thought that PEOs were well informed about bullying in their school and that they could relate to what the PEOs said.

Table 9: Student perceptions of how much PEOs knew about bullying at their school

Reporting to PEO

Students were asked if they had reported to the PEO if they were being bullied. Eighteen percent (18%) said yes they had told the PEO, 38% said that they had wanted to but did not, and 44% said no they did not tell. Of the students who said that they wanted to but did not report bullying to the PEO, 32% said it was because the PEO was not there when it happened and 68% said they were scared to tell.

In their interviews, PEOs were asked whether students had disclosed incidents to them. All of the PEOs had students who had disclosed. In fact one PEO said, “Students do disclose. They talk about the bullying at school and where you can’t play. Sometimes kids are too scared to talk about it, but I’m able to deal with that.” When asked why students disclosed to them, all of the PEOs said it is because the students knew them and trusted them. “Kids often come up and talk about their own personal experiences and ask for advice,” one PEO explained. When students disclosed, it “Usually came up in the class discussions in Kia Kaha,” or was told in confidence. Other reasons PEOs give for why students disclose:

I am someone they trust. They feel comfortable. I’m in the right place at the right time.

I have good rapport with kids, so they feel comfortable talking to me.

A lot of students say they tried to report, but nothing was done so now they are telling me.

They tell me because I am a figure of authority.

They tell because Kia Kaha creates a “telling environment.”

When asked why more students did not disclose PEOs offered the following reasons:

Because they are scared to.

PEO is not there all the time.

Some students said they had tried reporting bullying to the school before but nothing had been done so they did not report any more. One student told a PEO, “I told them and they won’t do anything about it.” An example of the attitude of students is revealed in this example from a PEO interview:

Students do not want to be called a “nark” and worry that bullying might get worse if they tell. For example, a 3rd former told me he would buy a Moro bar then walk around the corner and 7th formers would say “give it to me or I’ll knock your head off.” I asked if he wanted me to do something about it and he said no - that someday he will be a 7th former.

Question 5: What are the strengths of and challenges to Kia Kaha being implemented in schools?

In the formative evaluation strengths and challenges were identified by students, teachers, and PEOs.

Strengths

Many strengths of the programme were identified. The flexibility of the programme was identified more often by teachers and PEOs as a strength related to success. Other strengths include:

Overall the programme is non-threatening. Kids felt quite safe reporting to the box and knew that staff would respond.

Kia Kaha box makes it safe to report. It is important that students know that you follow up and resolve the issues when they have reported to the box.

Once teachers have been trained, it is an easy programme to “run with,” it has good activities and has all the values.

It teaches about the different types of bullying with examples that the students can relate to.

Breaks down stereotypes. A real eye-opener to students at our isolated Decile 10 schools. The ideas and activities in the programme seem to fit for all different types of schools.

A proactive programme that sets up rules to keep students healthy and safe all year. It promotes teamwork and creates a safe physical and emotional environment.

Great programme with a great message that gives students tools to deal with bullying.

Parents’ and teachers’ guides are user-friendly.

Offers programme for Years 0 - Senior

Provides opportunities for discussions about bullying outside the emotional bullying situation - creates teachable moments.

Challenges

Challenges with the programme were also identified by teachers, PEOs, and students. These included:

[There are] so many programmes in schools. Schools are reluctant if they already have programmes in place to add another one. Kia Kaha has to be set apart from other programmes in marketing. Kia Kaha is not just an anti-bullying programme it is about appropriate behaviour.

Time commitment is a concern for schools.

Reputation - schools do not want to be branded as a school with a bullying problem; in need of an anti-bullying programme.

Creating a telling environment can create more work for schools because raising awareness increases reporting.

At times I thought students were just telling me what they thought I wanted to hear. They would come to me for the small things but closed up on the big things and would not report.

While 97% of teachers said they will continue to teach the principles and reinforce the messages and skills of Kia Kaha after the initial lessons, turn-over of staff and students was seen to affect success. Many Kia Kaha schools had principals, teachers, or students who had not been exposed to the programme at the time of this evaluation.

Students in Year 5/6 classroom discussions identified challenges to the programmes success. While 65% of year 7/8 students felt Kia Kaha had helped reduce bullying at their school, only 41% of year 5/6 students felt it had reduced bullying. When the year 5/6 students who said it had not reduced bullying were asked why, the most common answers were:

Because there is still some bullying at this school.

Kids don’t care and don’t listen to Kia Kaha.

Kids make it a joke.

This is a picture drawn by a student at one school who was concerned that students say what teachers want to hear then continue to bully others.

One student expressed the opinion that the programme materials could give students ideas on ways to bully others. No other students expressed this opinion. However, along this vein, a teacher suggested that more connection between what had been learned and behaviour in the “real world” was needed. They suggested that a year-long rewards or recognition programme for students demonstrating the skills and behaviours taught in the programme during break times or in the classroom might strengthen the link between ideas discussed in class and behaviour exhibited at school.

Summary of findings

Below is a summary of key findings reported from this evaluation. This summary shows that the Kia Kaha programme appears to be meeting its objectives:

1. Overall Kia Kaha schools reported less bullying than matched comparisons schools. Students at schools that have used Kia Kaha in the past 3 years report significantly less victimisation by bullies than students at schools that have not used Kia Kaha.

2. Kia Kaha had a positive effect on school climate, which was related to less bullying. The programme also increased self-esteem and attitudes toward victims among students. This was done, at least in part, by creating a safe environment for reporting bullying.

3. The whole-school approach is an important part of Kia Kaha. Kia Kaha uses the whole-school approach to create a supportive school climate.

4. In participating schools Kia Kaha was implemented according to the guidelines. Students and teachers were very positive about the programme and it was found to lead to knowledge gain among students.

5. PEOs played a vital role in delivering the programme. They provided support and training for teachers and students felt safe reporting bullying to them.

6. Strengths of Kia Kaha include the flexibility of the programme and the support provided by the PEO.

7. Challenges of the programme include (1) turn-over of staff and students, and (2) schools not wanting to be stereotyped as schools with a bullying problem.

Below is a poem written by a group of students about Kia Kaha. This poem was given to a PEO by the school in recognition of her contribution to the school climate. It summarises the benefits of Kia Kaha to schools.

Kia Kaha Poem

Kia Kaha is what we learn

We like to play and take our turn

We are special because we care

We also like to play fair.

We are a class who are polite

Other classes think we are such a delight

Being different is Okay

We like to have our say.

Our class is special and unique

We like to play hide and seek

Co-operating is our game

We do not like to lay the blame.

Hand in hand go rights and responsibilities

We are all different in our abilities

Together we are brave and strong

We know how to get along.

Our class likes to share

We don’t like to shed a tear

We don’t like to make people cry

Even when they’re way up high.

Kia Kaha is fun, fun, fun

We like to play with everyone

No bullying at our school

Because we are cool, cool, cool!

Participants Suggested Improvements

Recommendations based on these findings and suggestions from teachers and PEOs are provided in this section. Students where asked about possible improvements but did not have any ideas.

Teacher Suggestions

Teachers identified suggestions for improving the programme in their interviews. Their recommendations are listed below:

1. Keep materials up to date in formatting. The picture cards are good but they need more people - specifically different cultures of people. Both teachers and PEOs made this suggestion.

2. Update videos using child actors and a wider variety of bullying (i.e. text-bullying, verbal without physical bullying). Add a video for years 4-6.

3. One teacher said, “Time to look at different stories. I have done the programme many years and need updated stories about text-bullying and what’s happening now. Kids need to discuss how to cope with how bullying looks today.”

4. “A video like a documentary of kids who are older telling their story when they were bullied would be nice. Students in the video could tell their story then there could be a break for a class discussion then start again to hear about how they coped or responded,” another teacher suggested.

5. Parent buy-in is needed. Teachers said that parents need to reinforce strategies taught in the programme and not give conflicting advice to students. This need for parents to reinforce concepts is included in the letter for parents and caregivers sent home by teachers but some teachers felt that parents do not do this. Other bullying programmes have sent home forms that parents have to sign agreeing to reinforce strategies. The Australian P.E.A.C.E. Pack, for example, prepares parents for involvement by inserting a letter in the school diary that explains the school’s bullying policy, warnings signs of being bullied, and what the programme encourages students to do in response. Parents are required to sign and return this form (Slee, 2001).

6. In the present evaluation, two teachers suggested that reinforcing newsletters, like those that accompany the Friendly Schools Project, could be added to the box set. Newsletters are a common component of anti-bullying programmes used to try and increase home-school collaboration (Limber, National, Tracy, Melton, & Flerx, 2004; Olweus, 1993).

7. One teacher suggested that a statement be put in the materials marketing the programme that teachers and principals must support the programme and model the Kia Kaha ideas and strategies for it to be successful. “Perhaps have them sign an agreement before starting the programme,” she said. International research by Hanewinkel (2004) indicates that having a head of school or principal who is motivated about the programme and encourages the staff’s use of the programme is an essential prerequisite for a successful anti-bullying programme.

8. Teachers felt that more PEOs and more PEO visits are needed.

PEO Suggestions

In their telephone interviews, PEOs suggested the following recommendations. Some of these suggestions were also identified by teachers:

1. Pamphlets are boring and have too much writing to market to p