Bullying is common and harms all involved, yet there is no clarity regarding factors that influence bullying and victimisation for adolescent samples. This meta-analysis aims to synthesise the literature and identify reliable risk and protective factors to adolescent bullying and victimisation. A systematic search of the literature using databases; PsycINFO and Scopus, was undertaken to identify relevant publications from 1985 until July 2014. Inclusion criteria included longitudinal data, an adolescent sample and a focus on predictive factors of bullying or victimisation. From 4698 articles identified, 18 were included. Four predictors of victimisation (prior victimisation, conduct problems, social problems and internalising problems) and four predictors of bullying (conduct problems, social problems, school problems and age) were identified. The literature provides little consistency in predictors assessed and replication is needed for clarification, however, social problems and conduct problems are consistent risk factors and a potential focus for future interventions.

The present study investigated the stabilities of and interrelationships among traditional (i.e., face-to-face) bullying, traditional victimhood, cyber bullying, and cyber victimhood among adolescents over time. About 1,700 adolescents aged 11-16 years at Time 1 self-reported levels of both bullying and victimization in four contexts (in school, outside of school, texting, and on-line) annually for 2 years. Results indicated that all four dynamics were moderately stable over time. The following variables were found to bidirectionally reinforce and predict each other over time: traditional bullying and traditional victimization; traditional bullying and cyber bullying; and traditional victimization and cyber victimization. These results indicate that bullying and victimhood in both face-to-face and cyber-based interactions are related but not identical interpersonal dynamics.

Research has identified a subset of young people who feel unable to engage in mainstream education. Given the hard-to-reach nature of this group, their views on what has caused their isolation from others have received little focus in previous literature. The present study aimed to explore the experiences and views of a subset of young people seen within an inner London Pupil Referral Unit who were extremely socially withdrawn and unable to attend mainstream education. They were asked what they believe led them to their current situation, the impact of isolation, how their life is going and what they value. Key themes identified were the role of anxiety in withdrawal from education and the protective capacity of social contact, even via social media, in preventing negative outcomes of withdrawal. Sleep, health, education, family and social contact were identified as risk and protective factors and were also things participants identified as values. This research provides insight into potential ways to support young people in returning to mainstream education as well as ideas for preventative measures that may protect future generations from such extreme isolation. This research was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, but lessons learned bear relevance in current times.

This study looks at the local context, describing quantitative data from a subset of young people seen within the inner London Tower Hamlets Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) that are extremely socially withdrawn and unable to attend mainstream education. The core aim of this research was to examine the views of professionals who work with and for these young people. Qualitative group interviews were used to gain a deeper understanding of the needs of these young people, what might contribute to their withdrawal from school and what needs to be done to help them reintegrate. Professionals reported that these young people were highly complex in terms of their needs and presentation and that there is a lack of clarity around what causes these young people to withdraw. They agreed that a more intensive multilayered intervention was required to meet their needs. Interventions that include gradual socialization, parental involvement and which address the role of technology were indicated. However, more research is needed to clarify how to effectively intervene.

Aim:Educational practitioners are increasingly aware of trauma experiences in students as a factor in child disturbance and schooling problems. This discussion paper aims to clarify definitions of trauma and differentiate them from other adverse childhood experiences (ACE), describe trauma impact in terms of clinical outcomes (PTSD, emotional and behavioural disorder) and how attachment factors mediate risk and discuss the challenges and ethics of identifying and enquiring about trauma experience in a school setting.Rationale:Schools are increasingly required to be ‘trauma sensitive’ and to intervene where possible, with government requirements of improving mental health in schools. However, this poses a real challenge for educationalists given the barriers due to ethics, stigma/secrecy, referral implications and measurement availability for whole school approaches. Universal screening may provide a framework that helps schools recognise, measure and treat trauma.Findings:A conceptual model clarifying trauma exposure, trauma impact and mediating factors is identified to aid understanding for teachers. Use of technological screening methods for whole school monitoring of trauma impacts, including mediating risks, are outlined.Limitations:A full literature review of trauma or school-based interventions is not provided. Nor are biological impacts of trauma at different developmental stages described.Conclusion:Teachers would benefit from having a psychological understanding of trauma models and their component parts in order to identify what lies within the remit of schools for identification and intervention.