Is this normal for a bullying policy?

[OneDayIWillLearn]

My 8 year old son has been experiencing some unpleasant behaviour at school which I think fits the description of bullying. It’s not the first time it’s happened and I’ve talked to the head about it before but nothing much seems to be done. There was a really nasty incident on Friday which I am going to talk to the head about tomorrow. When preparing myself yesterday, I looked at the school bullying policy and was a bit surprised by some of what was in there, specifically defining what is ‘not bullying’ and saying there is a such a thing as a ‘provocative victim’. Screenshot attached.

Is this kind of thing normal to find in a primary school bullying policy?

A school is actually using the term 'provocative victim'?! With the knowledge of the local authority?!

That really surprised me but it’s the policy that’s on their website. I was wondering if it’s actually an accepted term but my first thought was that it’s completely outrageous.

I think that they're trying to stamp out the annoying children who find it enjoyable to wind up others due to their lack of social skills, and then complain when their behaviour causes them to be socially isolated and generally disliked.

I think it comes from a lack of self esteem or security, but there are some kids who interact with others by being silly as if they think interacting as their true self isn't enough in some way. It's like attention seeking.

The terminology is outrageous but the point is reasonable. If a child is consistently fucking annoying then they will be regularly ignored and left out of games - that will come across as bullying, but actually isn't. And the next bit is just saying one offs happen and aren't necessarily a big deal.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4548415-provocative-victim-in-school-anti-bullying-policy

Ok that’s interesting, so it’s the exact same wording on that post. So either it’s the same school or it’s a standard form of words somewhere that they are using.

I do totally understand that the dynamic is not always simple - I was a teacher in secondary school for a decade and agree it is rarely straightforward and perhaps it is fair to try and include more nuances in the policy.

I suppose it strikes me as coming up with an awful lot of ready-excuses for bullies. One of my issues with the school is that they seem to accept a lot of very physically rough behaviour at playtimes. I’m sure some children find that fun but my son doesn’t and finds it intimidating and scary as he isn’t particularly physical. But when I saw that phrase about the ‘normal rough and tumble of playtime’ I thought, well that probably fits with their general view of what is normal then!

‘Provocative victim’ just seems such an awkward phrase too - it made me wonder what they had based their policy on and whether their training on handling bullying is up to date.

Yes.

i used to work in a primary school.

it was very common, especially with year 4/year 5 girls to have parent A saying their child was being bullied by child b and parent B saying their child was being bullied by child a.

usually they were both falling in and out on an hourly basis and were best friends and then horrible to each other.

it was a nightmare to deal with because you’d say to the parents well well separate them and then the next morning they’d link arms and refuse to be split up.

there’s a lot of parents out there who shout bullying at the slightest thing.

Some children deliberately wind up others then tell their parents they're being bullied. For example they kick and shove other children in the playground to get a reaction. Or call them names.

I don't like the term provocative victim but some children absolutely wind others up deliberately in a bid to prompt a reaction, then complain when they get the consequence of said reaction. I also think the rest is fine.

I don’t like the phrasing of “provocative victim”.

But I’m wondering what you find wrong with the things listed as not bullying?

I kind of think it's to protect themselves from crazy parents who believe that their child can do no wrong and is always being wronged! (Not saying that OneDayIWillLearn is one of these by the way) For example

• The parent of X who insists he/she was bullied by Y because Z and X chose to do different activities and Y happened to want to do the activity that Z chose not the one that X chose.
• Those parents who believe small clumsy kids in a crowded playground will NEVER run into another kid unless they WANT to hurt them....
• Or the ones that think when you can barely read your own name and pick up a bag that looks exactly like yours but belongs to another child, you are stealing from said child...

I've seen kids that would certainly apply to and have felt really sorry for them as they clearly lack the understanding of how their behaviour is causing their friends or potential friends to recoil from them. It's hard to really help them too as positive social behaviour is learned through observation and positve experiences rather than being easily teachable through words during school hours.

So i do see what the policy is going for, although it doesn't sit quite right either. I can imagine it being easy to brush lots of bullying under the carpet using it.

The ones I particularly don’t like are choosing not to play with someone and ‘the normal rough and tumble of playtime’. While I totally understand the sentiment, it feels to me that ‘go away you’re not allowed to join on’ could be interpreted as just not choosing to play with someone if you’re minded to find excuses for not dealing with certain behaviour.

The rough and tumble point I’ve already addressed.

The phrase is used in a research report commissioned by the department of education.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b26ade5274a34770e9c57/DFE-RR098.pdf

While I think the phrasing is difficult, a 'provocative victim' perfectly fits a primary environment IMO. The child that goads (whether deliberately or accidently by being repeatedly annoying - I have one like this!) and verbally picks away at another child who then due to immaturity lashes out, where an older child/adult would know to walk away or deliberately ignore.

Yeah I do understand the sentiment. I guess I am really interested in whether this is the kind of wording you’d find in the policy of a primary school which had good, up to date training on handling bullying.

I’ll probably just stick to the facts of what happened in the most recent incident rather than getting into any debate about the wording of their policy tomorrow. But I have a wider question of whether this is a school that really has a handle on how to deal with bullying.

Thank you 🙏

It’s a really common phrase used in these situations and usually just means a child that goes out of their way to get a response from another child.

I haven’t seen it in a bullying policy before, but actually I quite like it. Some children just push and push (metaphorically) until finally another child cracks and acts in a way that is then seen as bullying.

I meant to add: https://www.google.com/search?q=provocative+victim+meaning&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB1170GB1170&oq=provocative+vict&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=provocative%20victim%20meaning

The ‘choosing not to play with someone’ is likely put in there to counteract the complaints of ‘Flossie won’t play with me’ etc that playground staff get EVERY BREAKTIME, and then you get the parents in saying that their their child Emmaline is being bullied because other children are leaving them out. It usually turns out to be that Emmaline wants Flossie to leave the game she’s happily playing with other children and play with her. Or she doesn’t want Flossie to have other friends, or…..

We did often have to explain to children that other children are allowed choices in what they play and who they play with. If there is obvious ‘leaving out’ or repeated shunning for malicious reasons then of course that is dealt with, but a child simply choosing to play something different with other friends is really common and very much allowed.

I think that the "choosing not to play with someone" isn't so much stopping someone joining in, but stopping a child insisting their friend must ALWAYS play with them.

I don't think it's "I don't want to play with Jonny and I want to play football with Peter so, even if football with Peter is what Jonny usually does, he can't today."

I think it's more that normally I play football with Peter, and today I want to play football with Peter again. But today Peter wants to play skipping with Jonny, I can't say Peter not wanted to play football is him bullying me.

All the primary schools I've worked in have defined bullying as being 'several times on purpose' (STOP). This is to avoid children saying they're victims of bullying when in fact they have been involved in a trivial or random incident.

Some schools also teach the distinction between behaviour which is or 'mean' versus 'bullying'. This doesn't mean that mean behaviour isn't sanctioned; it just means it's not bullying.

Primary children completely naturally have little sense of perspective - everything is egocentric at that age so small things loom large; explicitly teaching children these distinctions helps them to keep things proportionate, and I think it's the right approach.

I'm not familiar with the term but there is a child that immediately springs to my mind that fits it! There was a boy that struggled with anger and would lose control and lash out. It always seemed to be the same classmate getting the brunt of it even when generally he was doing much better. Closer observation showed that classmate was constantly needling him, taking things off him or saying things that would wind him up, then he'd end up getting kicked and crying to the teacher. His mum constantly emailed the teacher about him being bullied. Obviously reacting with violence isnt ok and that would still be dealt with, but if anything the one getting kicked was more of a bully because he knew and was in full control of what he was doing!