Introduction
This is a medium-sized primary school employing twelve teaching staff and one part-time support teacher. Pupils come from a restricted catchment area in the centre of a large town. A fairly large proportion of pupils come from single parent families, and unemployment in the area is higher than the town's average.

A questionnaire survey of the entire school showed almost half the pupils had been bullied 'sometimes' or more often, and about a quarter reported they had bullied, in the current term. These high figures alarmed the head teacher and so bullying became a key issue he wanted addressed.

A special meeting of teaching staff in late 1995 was led by the coordinating teacher and an invited anti-bullying researcher.  A consensus was that a whole-school policy should be the key response and that other more specific actions should follow and link up with the policy. It was decided to offer lunchtime supervisors the chance to attend a whole-day training course, to train teachers how to work with pupils involved in bullying, and that teachers would tackle bullying in class.

As part of the awareness-raising exercise and as a way of including all people connected with the school, a series of meetings were held in 1996. The head teacher also arranged for a special meeting to which parents were invited but few actually attended. Teachers and pupils fed their ideas to the coordinating teacher who then, in collaboration with the head teacher, produced a first draft. This provided a definition of bullying, a statement that made clear why bullying would not be tolerated in the school, what sanctions would follow if a pupil was found to be bullying, and guidelines on what action should be taken if someone experienced bullying. It was circulated to all pupils and teaching staff and to parents with requests for comments and suggestions. These views were considered by the head teacher and the coordinating teacher and a final version produced in May 1996. The policy was announced at an assembly and copies posted on every classroom wall and throughout the school. Each class discussed bullying and the policy in the launch week.

From the launch of the policy through to the end of that school year, all class teachers reported that they had raised bullying as an issue with their pupils. Some continued to do so when reports of bullying came to their attention. In the following academic year, some teachers, especially of the older grades, carried out more systematic work that included the Quality Circle approach, story writing, drama, and literature (such as Roald Dahl's Rhyme Stew and The Twits).

Part way through the 1996/97 school year the coordinating teacher was approached by some of the school's lunchtime supervisors who expressed concerns about 'being left out' of the anti-bullying work. They complained that the head teacher had informed them some time ago that they were to have an opportunity to attend a training course but that they had heard nothing since then. The coordinating teacher also reported that several teachers believed that the lunchtime supervisors sometimes acted in ways that were inconsistent with the stated policy about how the school would respond to bullying. It became clear that the lunchtime supervisors felt devalued in the school and that they wanted to play a more active role in the school's anti-bullying initiatives. At a meeting with the head teacher it was agreed that the training course would run early in the following school year.

The lunchtime supervisors attended a one-day training course and shared and acquired basic knowledge about bullying.  The facilitator challenged some myths about bullying and how it should be responded to, and this led some of the supervisors to change how they defined bullying. 

Other activities focused on preventive strategies (such as regular patrols of 'bullying hot spot', and keeping a close watch on pupils known to be vulnerable to being picked on) and how bullying and playful fighting could be distinguished.

The head teacher was very impressed with the lunchtime supervisors' role in helping to prevent and respond to bullying. He reported a fall in the number of pupils sent to him for misbehaving during lunch breaks. The supervisors attributed this to their greater confidence in dealing with bullying. One said that, 'I no longer let the children hide behind the excuse that they were only playing. I now have ways to convince myself that this really is or isn't the case'.

The questionnaire survey has been repeated twice. Despite a slow reduction in bullying at the start of the project, the final survey suggested that the figures had reduced to about one in ten pupils for both bullying and being bullied. Although still high, most of these cases involved 'low level' bullying such as disputes between friends that are quickly resolved. Moreover, there has been a huge decrease in levels of physical bullying (down from 46% in the first survey to 5% in the final survey).

Problems and solutions
	The coordinating teacher left the school at the end of the 1996-97 school year. No other teacher was willing to take up this role.  However, the head teacher recognised the benefits that the actions taken so far had brought about and so decided to 'lead from the front'.
	A failure to include the lunchtime supervisors during the early part of the project alienated them, and their lack of knowledge about the policy compounded the problems faced by teachers. However, when steps were taken to make them feel included and valued, and after some systematic training, they were quickly able to make a vital contribution.
	The second survey, about 18 months after the first, showed a reduction in being bullied (down to 38%) and bullying others (down to 18%) - still very high. Moreover, many pupils reported a shift in being bullied from the school premises to the journey home in the afternoon. When the head teacher became aware of this shift, he arranged for it to be raised as an issue in assemblies and in the classroom. Further, it led to a change to the wording of the whole-school policy to make it clear that all bullying was unacceptable among its members regardless of where this took place.
	The coordinating teacher had been due to tell colleagues what she had learned through attending training courses. However, she left the school before being able to do so. The head teacher was unable to fund this type of training for the remaining staff, so the school was not able to add this type of intervention to its list of actions.

	before intervening, very high proportion of pupils involved in bullying, particularly physical assaults and intimidation.
	range of actions taken including developing a whole-school policy, curriculum/classroom work, and training of lunchtime supervisors.
	intervention suffered loss of momentum when coordinating teacher left school.
	head teacher continued to support anti-bullying activity.
	large reduction in incidence of bullying, especially physical bullying.
© Crown copyright  Courtesy of the DFES