On cyberbullying and teen suicide

The social lives of children and youth are both complex and confusing for them and for the adults who observe, care for, and study them. Despite what many parents and educators believe, or want to believe, most children view their social lives as a central part of their school life. It is incumbent for us, the adults, to understand and appreciate this social world. Where, a central aspect of is the struggle to achieve and maintain social status; in this dynamic and vital social world, bullying and victimization play a central role. Youth harassment and victimization is always centered around stronger children (either physically, socially, or psychologically) using coercive methods to either improve their social status either by demonstrating their power and prowess or by reducing the social capital of other children, or both. Peer harassment is usually done by a group (different type of perpetrators and a lot of bystanders whose silence is thunderous) and focuses on three types of harassment: physical, relational, and sexual.

Electronic media (such as Facebook) is an integral part of the social lives of children. For us, the adults, this new and exciting world is separate and adjunct part of our regular face-to-face social world. For children, who were born into this new world, there is no seam between the face-to-face world and the virtual world. Facebook IS the social world for our children and provides aspects that the face-to-face world does not: it is asynchronous, allowing responses to linger in the ether (a sort of electronic graffiti) and it provides instant feedback (such as “likes”) to how popular we are. For all of us, these are important tools for measuring and gauging our social lives; for children who have difficulty in integrating their social worlds or in self-regulation, these benefits are crucial. Just as we want to know who are children’s friends are, we must also know who their virtual friends are. Just as we should be speaking to our children about their face-to-face friends, we should be speaking with them about their virtual friends. Just as there are dangers inherent in the face-to-face world, there are dangers in the virtual world.

Suicide is a leading cause of death among young people, and stress from the social world is a major risk factor, for both bullies and their victims, and especially for girls. We need to speak with our children, and watch for signs of distress or depression, loss of interest, inability to sleep, talking about death and dying, saying goodbye to people, giving away possessions, and claiming and that the world would be better off without them.  As difficult as it is to speak with adolescents (for both sides), we need to remember that the virtual world is not virtual for our children. It is their world.

The Curious Case of Jerusalem

Jerusalem, the conflicted city, is in constant turmoil.

As a 4000 year old city, Jerusalem has its earliest roots in distant antiquity. Jerusalem is the Holy or Noble city to the three Abrahamic religions and has been besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. It is the central focal point of ancient Jewish tradition and became the first monotheistic city during the time of David and Solomon and featured at its center the Holy of Holies: the First and Second Temple built on the Temple Mount. Jerusalem has been coveted and conquered by the Israelites, the Greeks, the Romans (who renamed it to Aelia Capitalina), Byzantines, the Arabs, the Persians, the Crusaders, the Arabs again, the Mamelukes, the Turks, the British, the Jordanians, and now the Israelis. The central point in Jerusalem is the ancient Jewish Solomonic Temple (built in 957 BC and destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians) and the Second Temple (built and renovated by Herod and hence is also called Herod’s Temple) in 19 BC and destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

By the first century, AD, Jerusalem achieved significance for a wider community: the Holy City was now home to both Jews and early Christians. From the time of the advent of Islam, Jerusalem once again became a Holy City, as the Prophet Mohammad visited Jerusalem during his night journey and ascension to Heaven. Both religions view it as the place where Adam was formed, where Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered scarifies to God, where Abraham showed his willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and where Jacob had his dream.

On this small parcel of land (35 acres or 141,610 square meters), the Muslim Ummayad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan constructed the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa mosques (built in 691AD and 705AD, respectively). Jews call this area the Temple Mount and Muslims refer to it as the Hara mesh-Sharif (The Noble Sanctuary).

In 1947, Jerusalem was declared an international (Corpus Separatum) city by the United Nations according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, later reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948. These partition plans, however, were never implemented as they were rejected by the Arab population and the Arab world, and so Israel annexed west Jerusalem and Transjordan annexed East Jerusalem. Between 1948 (the Israeli War of Independence) and 1967 (The Six Day War), Jerusalem was divided into two discrete sections: the Israeli (western) part of Jerusalem and the Jordanian (eastern) part of Jerusalem. Following the 1967 conflict, the border which ran through Jerusalem was removed, and Jerusalem became a united city under Israeli sovereignty with military occupation of the eastern part of the city. In 1980 the Knesset  passed the “Jerusalem Law” formally annexing east Jerusalem. UN Security Council 478 and the entire international community condemned the annexation; it has never been recognized by any country other than Israel. The Palestinian National Authority has consistently stated that East Jerusalem is the site of the capital of the future Palestinian state; Jerusalem remains a central issue in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

As the perennial flashpoint in the relationship between Israeli and Palestinians, it is worth studying the educational system in general, and the special educational system, in particular. Jerusalem, as a case study, further exemplifies the splintered aspects of Israeli society, while also focusing on the never-ending competition of the two separate national narratives – that of the dominant and powerful Israeli national policy towards Arab citizens of the city vis-à-vis their fellow Jewish Jerusalemites. We begin by examining the difficult conditions under which the educational system in East Jerusalem operates.

            We can and must examine Jerusalem through a demographic lens as the political battle being waged in the city is geared to maintaining the demographic advantage of one group. Indeed, when looking at the population increase in Arab East Jerusalem, we see that the birth rate among this population is higher than for the Jewish secular population. The municipality of Jerusalem has changed its municipal border frequently in order to maintain a Jewish majority in the city; the last episode in this fight for Jewish demographics was headed by the “Separation Fence” which blocked different communities from being included in East Jerusalem through the construction of an up to eight meter high concrete wall.

Of bullies and their victims

Schoolyard bullies have certain characteristic which set them apart from other children. They are both physically and psychologically stronger than their victims; they have a good sense of their strength and are not afraid to use it and are often indifferent to the suffering of their victims. Bullies often have both a warped perception that they are being constantly attacked. This inability to feel empathy, combined with their strength and a constant feeling of imminent danger can create someone who will easily release the reins of moral behavior in order to wreak havoc on his victim. Indeed, the bully is defined as one who engages in repeated acts of aggression, over time, against his weaker victim. Despite the different characteristics of the bully, he has one purpose: to enhance his own status at the expense of the victim. Once the victim acquiesces, the bully will leave him in peace – mission accomplished.  Problems often arise, however, because the bully and the victim often do not agree on the definition of the term “surrender.” The victim may be certain that he “sincerely” surrendered but the bully disagrees and therefore continues, or vice versa.

Does Israel fit this description? Israel, as a country with superior economic and military strength has been engaged in the long-term and repeated control and aggression towards the Palestinian people in general and Hamas in particular. Other psychological similarities abound. In Israel we have a constant and pervasive feeling of an existential threat (whether real or imagined) as well as the feeling that there is a symmetry between the terror of eight years in the south of the country (less than 10 deaths  and approximately 1700 rockets) and the approximately 650 dead and thousands wounded and the tons of bombs and the flattening of Gaza and towns in the Strip. This distortion of reality is common among bullies as they knowingly or unknowingly exaggerate their perceived threat and therefore morally justify their actions and is well documented in the scientific literature. The lack of empathy for the thousands of wounded and the hundreds of dead are blatant in Israel. For example, in the popular Israeli television satire show “A Wonderful Country” the war in Gaza was presented as a sporting event: Israel: 3, Hamas 350. If Germany would do this during the Shoah (Germany 100,000: Jews 9,000,000), we would all be up in arms about the lack of empathy that such a “joke” shows to the victims. Additionally, we often hear statements such as: “they deserve what they get” or “they are bringing this upon themselves.” Such comments are well documented in the school bullying literature. Lack of sympathy causes dehumanization, and bullies always dehumanize their victims. But it’s all about status, isn’t it? As former Prime Minister Olmert said: once they stop the rockets (agree to our terms) everything will stop.

Victims of bullying, on the other hand, are divided into several groups. One of the most disturbing groups is known as the “provocative victim.” This type of victim refuses to defer to the bully and does not acknowledge the bully’s superior power and status despite the havoc that the bully can cause to the victim’s life and limb; often the “provocative victim’s” aggression is more extreme and frightening than that of the bully. He simply refuses to back down and will incur the increasing wrath of the bully and will therefore continue to fight back despite the fact that it is clear that he cannot win. Research has consistently shown that this “provocative victim” has very low social status: everyone dislikes him. This type of victim claims that if the bully would leave him alone, he would stop his violent reactions; however, research shows us that this is often not the case. Even when left alone, the “provocative victim will often remain violent. This is, therefore, one of the reasons many people look at this type of victim and say: “he got what he deserved

Hamas is the typical “provocative victim.” They are the victim that everyone loves to hate. As in the schoolyard, the “provocative victim” does not know how to turn the situation around, does not know how to get what he wants; he knows only how to react. The “provocative victim” is not sophisticated enough to be proactive and to create a new social situation; therefore, he is locked into the same cycle with his bully – a sad symbiosis. The “provocative victim” wants, and needs, status – but has no idea how to achieve it. Here too, Hamas behaves as a typical “provocative victim” through their declarations that once the borders are opened, there will be no more rockets.

I’ve spent much of my career studying issues of coercion, bullying, and victimization. I’ve found that the formula is always the same. As each side tries to break the will of the other, the opposite side will resist and retaliate. Coercion begets coercion. Retaliation begets retaliation. Dehumanizing begets dehumanizing. The only way to break the cycle is to guarantee that both sides are ensured status via a lack of coercion.

Israel’s relationship with the Hamas can be seen as a classic bully-victim relationship. But, as in the schoolyard, there is another actor that we have not examined. Most children are neither bullies, nor are they victims. They are bystanders. They are enablers. By their silence, they accede to the wishes of the stronger players by their passivity. As in the schoolyard, they choose not to see, not to be involved, not to care, not to show empathy. These bystanders know what is happening and they simply stand by. They work hard to put themselves in the wonderful position of being able to say latter on: “I didn’t know, I didn’t see.” But we know, don’t we?

Different types of bullying

Traditionally, the study of emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) has focused on identification, study and treatment of children and youth who have been formally identified as requiring special educational services by virtue of a primary diagnosis based in some form of externalizing or internalizing psychopathology (Forness, 2004) leading to placement in some form of special educational framework. However, with increasing current global emphases on keeping and treating children with EBD in general education frameworks, there appears to be more inclusion of children with externalizing problems in general education classrooms and it appears that some of these children may not be formally identified as requiring special education services. A clear example of this phenomenon is the study of school aggressors and bullies and their victims, the study of which has often remained outside of the purview of traditional special educational and EBD inquiry despite a growing body of research showing that this distinction may be unwarranted (Gumpel & Sutherland, 2005). The recent past has seen a tremendous growth in both basic and applied research in the study of school bullying as public attention has been captivated by extreme stories of victimizing and victimization behaviors (for example, see Marshall & Hagman, 2000).

Studies of bullying and school-based violence originated in Scandinavia in Olweus’ early work (1978) and focused on the systematic mapping and description of bullying behaviors in Norway. Data showed that bullying was a prevalent phenomenon in Norwegian schools with approximately one in seven children exposed to bullying in elementary or middle school. Approximately 10-20% of children self-reported being victimized and between 7-13% self-reported acting as bullies (1993). Data from more recent studies collected in other countries show the stability of the phenomenon both internationally and cross-culturally (in Israel, Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; in the US, Berthold & Hoover, 2000; in Greece, Kalliotis, 2000; in Italy, Menesini et al., 1997; in Australia, Rigby & Slee, 1991; and in the UK, Whitney & Smith, 1993) with emphasis not solely being placed on bullying behavior, but on the more general phenomenon of school-based violence (Goldstein & Conoley, 1997). Additionally, there is mounting evidence as to the stability of the phenomenon across certain school characteristics (e.g., rural vs. suburban vs. urban schools), and school and class size (Sharp & Smith, 1994; Whitney & Smith, 1993); for a detailed examination of this topic, see Smith and Brain (2000).

The school violence literature has primarily been interested in externalizing behaviors in the form of direct physical bullying (Olweus, 1993) which is a form of proactive aggression intended to achieve, demonstrate, or maintain social dominance (Griffin & Gross, 2004; Pellegrini, 1998; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999) and may include hitting, kicking, or taking money or belongings (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). Bullying, defined by Olweus (1999), includes aggressive and repeated behaviors where an asymmetry between bully and victim exists (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Olweus, 2001). Despite the fact that the empirical differentiation between bullying and aggressive behavior is at times unclear, a large body of research has conceptualized bullying as a subset of general youth aggression (Boulton, 1999) even though this differentiation is not always clear in applied settings. In general, it appears that intentionality may be a relevant and defining feature (Arora, 1996; Gumpel & Meadan, 2000): bullying is intentional and instrumental (Crick & Dodge, 1996). In the present context, physical bullying is a subset of physical aggression, where all bullying is aggressive, but not all aggression is bullying.

Recently indirect, relational, or social bullying has been discussed in the professional literature (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001; Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Underwood, 2003; Wolke et al., 2000). This complex construct has been variously described by different researchers. Lagerspetz and colleagues (Björkqvist et al., 1992; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988) who used the term “indirect aggression,” defined an aspect of such aggression is the aggressor’s desire to remain unidentified in order to avoid recriminations. Crick and Grotpeter (1996) described aspects of relational aggression as acts which rely on social relationships in order to hurt the other person. Methods include spreading rumors, threats of social ostracism, or making friends with another child as “punishment” for behavior deemed “unacceptable” (Pellegrini, 1998). Underwood (2003), has expanded the use of the term relational aggression to social aggression in order to include both verbal and nonverbal behaviors, In this study, we use the term “relational bullying” since such bullying can be either direct or indirect (or overt or covert), and we feel that the verbal/nonverbal distinction is not relevant to our present study of school-based aggression; hence we use here the term “relational bullying.” Despite the fact that physical aggression seems to be more prevalent among boys, both as aggressors and victims; relational aggression appears to be more prevalent among girls (Schwartz, 2000).

A third aspect of school-based violence is that of sexual aggression, also known as sexual harassment (Lacasse, Purdy, & Mendelson, 2003; Stein, 1995). Sexual aggression or harassment is also characterized by the aggressor’s dominance, and his or her ability and intention to adversely affect the victim’s social, academic, or economic status, through the use of sexual, and not necessarily physical, behaviors (Charney & Russell, 1994; Lacasse et al., 2003; McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002). As with direct or relational aggression, sexual aggression also includes aspects of asymmetry between aggressor and victim and is instrumental.

The most comprehensive study of sexual harassment in the schools to date was conducted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW, American Association of University Women, 1993) which surveyed 1,632 school-aged children in the US. The study found that sexual victimization was more prevalent among girls than boys. Approximately 25% of the girls who responded to the survey reported missing school because of sexual aggression at school (American Association of University Women, 1993), a finding supported by Fineran and Bennett (1977, 1999) and Roscoe and colleagues (Roscoe, Strouse, & Goodwin, 1994). In a later study (American Association of University Women Educational, 2001), the AAUW definition of sexual harassment was widened to include a larger subset of behaviors (from eight to eleven). Lee et al. (Lee, Croninger, Linn, & Chen, 1996) reexamined the AAUW data and also found a significant relationship between sexual aggression in the school and gender; despite the fact that boys also suffered from unwanted and unsolicited sexual attention in school (60%), girls experienced significantly more of this type of unwanted attention (83%).

Special education in Israel: One step forward, two steps backwards

The Israeli education system in general and the special education system in particular face very complex challenges. Israel is a highly complex society, fractured into different sectors where each sector unabashedly pushes its own agenda and dictates government policy. Israel is also an immigrant country with a large indigenous population and is engaged in an ongoing political, national, and military conflict with enemies without and competing national narratives within. It would be inconceivable that these monumental stresses would not impact on society’s greatest instrument of socialization, social control, and homogenization: the educational system. The provision of special services to children with special educational needs is a civil and human rights issue, and so these fractures in Israeli society are amplified in the special educational system.

All national educational systems, Israel included, develop through the interplay between larger socio-historical, national, demographic, and bureaucratic requirements. Of course, this is also true if we examine challenges, the structure and future trajectories of special education in Israel. This small country faces a series of challenges which are unique to the Israeli context, as well as other challenges which are common to other ethnically diverse nations. As a country facing both real and perceived existential threats, while simultaneously occupying the Palestinian Territories, the Israeli educational system faces additional challenges. Some of these issues relate to professional and bureaucratic aspects of the system; however, other challenges stem from the ongoing ethnic and national conflicts.  As an example of the convergence of national, ethnic, and political considerations, and how they can influence both general and special educational policy, we can examine the special education system in Jerusalem, arguably, the most complicated city in the world.

Regardless of legal requirements to include children with special needs in general education classrooms, this has not occurred. Only a small percentage of children are actually included in the general educational system. Most children continue to be served in segregated schools or special day classes, and it appears that this is not changing. The only group consistently included in the general education system is students with diagnosed learning disabilities (LDs).

During the 2009-2010 school-year, the Israeli educational system included 3,652 schools (including schools for children with special needs) (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009) and 2,468,700 children (32.7% of the entire population). Of this population of children, 69.4% were Jewish, 24.1% were Muslim, 1.7% were Christian, and 1.9% were Druze; the only growing demographic group of these four was the group of Muslim children (which increased from 20.2% in 1995, Zionit et al., 2009). The state-run bureaucratic system is divided into two main sectors: The Jewish education division and the Non-Jewish system, each system is then subdivided once again (Jewish secular, Jewish religious, Jewish Ultra-Orthodox, Arab, Druze) (Gumpel & Nir, 2005; Gumpel & Sharoni, 2007). The system faces constant growth; the number of pupils enrolled in the educational system increased by more than 16.5 fold over a period of 50 years, from 108,131 pupils in 1948 to close to 2.5 million pupils in 2010. The number of immigrant pupils is also increasing (about 1.5% in 1991 to approximately 11% in 1996) (Ministry of Education – Culture and Sport, 1996), as is the number of immigrant teachers (1,950 teachers in 1992 to 5,150 in 1996). The annual dropout rates for pupils in upper secondary education is about 4.8% in Jewish education and 11.8% in Arab education (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Israel boasts a high literacy rate of 91.8% among those over the age of 15 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2008). National expenditure on education places Israel among the highest investing countries in public education in comparison with other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the educational system is how to deal with the disparity between educational achievement and enfranchisement for different sectors of Israeli society. Since achieving independence, the country’s leaders have repeatedly declared that a primary goal of the educational system has been to reduce the socioeconomic gaps between different segments of the population on an inter-ethnic level (i.e., Jewish vs. Arab allocations in education) and an intra-ethnic (Ashkenizim vs. Mizrachim, religious vs. secular) level. These “gaps” exist on a myriad of economical, cultural, and legal levels.

Disparity in educational performance exists between the primary Jewish groups (Gumpel & Nir, 2005) and between Jews and Arabs (OECD, 2009). These gaps are visible between different socio-economic groups, between Ashkenazim and Mizrachim, between old-timers and new-immigrants, and between different towns, cities, and villages (National Taskforce for the Advancement of Education in Israel, 2004). In 2009, 68% of all Jewish high schools students were eligible for their high school matriculation diploma, as compared to a 49.2% rate for Arab high school students; 46.6% of Muslims and approximately 60% of Christian and Druze youth. These numbers have remained fairly stable since 1995.

The Special Education System

In the 2008 – 2009 academic year, 109,511 children (5.76%) were identified as having special educational needs, 16.97% studied in segregated schools, and 22.42% studied in general education schools with 56.99% of these studying for the majority of the school day in special day classes (50.90%) (Zionit et al., 2009).

All of the problems and challenges facing the general education system in Israel confront the special education system as well. Indeed, we can make that claim that as the special education system tries to integrate itself into in the general education system (as in a time of increased inclusion); it will become more vulnerable to the inadequacies of the larger system. Despite the fact that discussion of integration and inclusion began during the 1950s, it only began to gain momentum following legislation of the Special Education Law (SEL) and the implementation of the law in the early 1990s, as many children who previously received services in segregated settings began to receive services within the general education framework (Avishar & Layser, 2000; Comptroller’s Office, 2001; Margalit, 1999).

Despite much legal and legislative movement over the last two decades, the question remains as to how much the policy of inclusion has trickled down from the decision makers in Parliament and the courts to the school system and the actual inclusion of children with special educational needs. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the current state (2008-2009 academic year) regarding the placement of children with special educational needs for both elementary and secondary school children. These two figures show that inclusionary practices may be available to different groups of children; however, in reality general education placements are implemented primarily among children with learning disabilities (LDs) (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010).

Note: Disability categories represented are mandated by the Ministry of Education for data collection purposes.

Regardless of legal requirements to include children with special needs in general education classrooms, this has not occurred. Only a small percentage of children are actually included in the general educational system. Most children continue to be served in segregated schools or special day classes, and it appears that this is not changing. The only group consistently included in the general education system is students with diagnosed LDs.

However, despite the increase in the number of children being identified as having learning disabilities, in order to better understand the two decade official push for inclusion, an examination of the trends over the last decade show a different picture (see Figure 2). If we examine these trends, we can clearly see that not only are inclusionary placements not increasing since the passage of the correction to the SEL, they appear to be decreasing. Inclusive education in Israel is on the decline, whereas placement in special day classes in the general education system and placement in segregated special education schools both remain stable over time. We can see that the Israeli school system reflects Israeli society as a whole along with its historical and cultural legacies.

Changes in inclusionary practices over time.