”Enlighten about the good and blame the bad!” – Can you imagine a better guide-line for a whole-school-programme?

There exists a market for so called ”Whole-school-programmes” against bullying sold by entrepreneurs. When asking about their central theme one finds this: First a demonstration of how bad bullying is, then discussions that confirm the verdict of all students. If cases of bullying appear, teachers are encouraged to have "serious talks" with the bullies.

All this is similar to dealing with a school subject. The educator demonstrates by words and pictures what students should do and not to do.  How can such a simple method be sold as an "action programme"? The answer is that the salesman of the programme says that the effects of it are "scientifically investigated" and the customer seldom dares to ask how the "scientific figures" are obtained which demonstrate the alleged diminishing of bullying. If the buyer possibly asks such a question he will discover that the salesman cannot refer to objective observations about such a diminishing. The researcher can only refer to what the students thought about the occurrence of bullying before and after the programme. But this is something else than an occurrence objectively stated.

In order to state objectively a no-occurrence of bullying, an invisible observer must watch all corners in the schoolhouse. As this is impossible but the decision makers still need quantitative evidence, the programme constructor takes his resort to questionnaires. He asks students if they have seen or participated in bullying. The figures on the questionnaire are compared with the answers preceding the programme. And look! The figures indicating the occurrence of bullying have diminished.

But does this prove that there is less bullying now than before? This change in figures may just prove a change of the students’ conception of what is bullying. Suppose that they before the programme considered rather small taunting as bullying. After they had seen the severe scenes of bullying in the programme they have understood that bullying is something more serious as they thought befor. The change of the figures demonstrates, thus, a  change of a perception. About the factual diminishing of bullying the researcher has no evidence, just guesses. But if we would believe, like the researcher himsef. that the questionnaire-figures may be reflecting credible observations,  we have to accept that they tell that 30-50 % of bullying still remain after the programme has been applied. Who are these remainign perpetrators? It is not reasonable to guess that these reflect innocent teasing. They are most probable deeds of real bullies who are not affected by the enlightment against bullying.  They have, instead, got new ideas from that programme how to assault their victims.

The above is founded on experience I have acquired about teenagers’ way of thinking while treating bullying cases. It may be possible to express them in hypotheses applicable in investigations.  But at present I see more anxious tasks in developing methods for treating cases that contribute to prevention. Research for its own sake would in our field become a game that steals force from tasks provided from the reality itself.

This website is a step out of the phantom evidence that the magic of figures offers. Our evidence in the forthcoming pages will become understandable to them who have tried methods that are similar to ours: to approach bullying as a conflict between parties and enter as mediator who is searching a shared solution.

Read on and you will see how this is possible and get acquainted with the results Shared Concern method is providing!