Nothing new in bullying

Like many parents in Slovakia, I have recently received a notice from our school that they are updating the school rules according to the new directive 1/2025 on bullying published by Slovak Ministry of Education. The changes are again only formal and insignificant, but I want to take this opportunity to write about why this doesn't work. While some details in this article are specific to Slovakia, most of the content is applicable everywhere in the world, because education systems are surprisingly similar to each other.

No measurable goals

Perhaps the most important observation is that the directive does not establish any quantitative or qualitative goals. It doesn't matter if bullying at the school has completely spiraled out of control. No principal will be fired for that. What matters is that the school diligently implements the entire bureaucratic process.

The directive serves as legal cover for the school, so-called CYA - cover your ass paperwork. "We are following the Ministry of Education's directive" are words that reliably absolve the school and teachers of all responsibility.

Passivity

The directive does not require proactive detection of bullying, proactive conversations with vulnerable students, or building relationships that encourage students to seek help without hesitation. The directive assumes that suspicion of bullying already exists and only defines the procedure to follow thereafter.

But where will that suspicion come from?

• Victims typically don't want to talk about anything, often not even with parents.
• Perpetrators aren't so stupid as to bully someone right in front of a teacher.
• Classmates usually see it as someone else's problem.
• Parents are almost completely excluded from school premises.
• For teachers, it’s easier to see and hear nothing—this way, they don’t have to deal with it. No one wants to trigger the bureaucratic process defined by the directive.
• External oversight of school operations is practically non-existent.

Without active detection of bullying cases, even the most dangerous school can claim that no bullying is occurring.

To be fair, the accompanying materials for teachers on the ministry's website encourage various types of monitoring, even though the directive itself largely ignores detection. However, it’s questionable how many teachers will be willing to implement this and how effective it will be—especially when many teachers themselves engage in bullying. The directive emphasizes prevention, but in practice, that mostly means anti-bullying lectures (we had one, too), and I very much doubt that lectures will change anything.

Heavy artillery

The aforementioned bureaucratic process resembles police investigation. It is very formal, and given the number of people involved, it can have unpredictable and extensive impact on student's social world. It's heavy artillery. The directive does not define lighter alternatives for minor cases. The authors made sure the investigation itself sounds intimidating.

The problem is that if it is presented to students this way, chances are it won’t scare off perpetrators—it will scare victims into staying silent and not seeking help.

Teachers will likely interpret the directive as something meant only for extreme cases (bloodshed, criminal charges, lawsuits) and not applicable to anything less serious. As a result, subtle bullying can continue unchecked.

"One-time" incidents

Speaking of less severe cases, the directive explicitly excludes one-time events from its definition of bullying. This is highly problematic. It gives teachers an excuse to label everything as "a one-time or impulsive act of violence or aggression." Yet, such "one-time" acts can and do repeat.

Another issue is that these "one-time acts" permanently change the relationship with the victim into a power relationship. This power dynamic persists long-term, but the directive does not classify it as bullying unless accompanied by aggressive behavior from the perpetrator. Aggressive behavior repeats only when the victim resists, which doesn't happen often, so teachers can dismiss it as another "one-time act of aggression."

Punishment is either brutal or none (usually none)

Even though the investigation of suspected bullying may resemble police work, there are no punishments with corresponding severity. A warning is usually the only punishment awaiting the perpetrator. A typical bully isn't bothered by a warning at all. They might even brag about it.

At worst, there’s the possibility of a lower behavior grade. But if the perpetrator doesn't care, the school is powerless. Dangerous students cannot be transferred to homeschooling or specialized schools.

The problem exists at the other end of the spectrum, too. A lower behavior grade is heavy artillery because anything other than grade 1 can effectively block admission to high school. Teachers are therefore reluctant to give even grade 2 (grades range from 1 to 5 in Slovakia) for behavior, so everything is handled with warnings. There are no intermediate punishments between a warning and a lower behavior grade, such as compensating the victim or transfer to homeschooling for a few days.

Self-defense

Victims often cannot or do not know how to defend themselves. Not everyone has the temperament or physical condition for effective self-defense, not to mention that physical confrontation is dangerous even when the victim has the upper hand. Even verbal pushback requires certain communication skills and stress resilience—qualities that are far from universal. The perpetrator can always escalate verbal confrontation into a physical one. Self-defense therefore rarely goes smoothly, and victims make mistakes in the process.

The directive generally penalizes self-defense. Unlike the Criminal Code, it does not include an exception for self-defense. If a student fights back, they are also classified as a perpetrator. The exclusion of "one-time" incidents from the definition of bullying encourages waiting until the situation escalates to the point where the perpetrator can play the victim or at least claim it's mutual. Schools welcome this because, from their perspective, it's easiest not to investigate anything and punish both the victim and the perpetrator equally. I personally witnessed this at my high school: the school ignored bullying until blood was shed, and then, when it could no longer be ignored, they expelled the victim along with the bully.

Justifying bullying

I don’t like to nitpick wording, but if the Ministry of Education wants to emphasize prevention, they could start with clear communication. The terminology used in the directive is jarring.

The directive calls pretexts for bullying "reasons." This legitimizes bullying and shifts the blame onto the victim. Perpetrators, of course, have no reasons. They have pretexts and excuses. They target vulnerable classmates who have no protection.

It's also problematic to rename bullies, aggressors, or perpetrators as "bullying students" and victims as "bullied students." The two terms differ in only a few characters and can't be distinguished at a glance. Officially, the goal is to prevent labeling, but in practice, it prevents clear communication and lumps victims together with perpetrators.

This terminology, which justifies bullying and confuses victims with perpetrators, is now being adopted by schools in their school rules and presented to students.

How should it work?

First of all, students from certain age are literate enough to learn on their own. They don't need school for learning as such. The entire added value of the school is in creating an environment that enables more effective learning.

Classmates are an essential part of this environment. Schools that want to fulfill their mission must therefore ensure that students not only benefit from a productive environment but also contribute to it. They don't all have to be friends, of course. Think instead of a well-functioning workplace: politeness, respect, and cooperation.

Such a class does not form naturally because there will always be someone who poisons it. Nor is it realistic to expect parents to ensure appropriate behavior of their children. For one thing, unlike teachers, they don't have eyes and ears in schools, but more importantly, many parents themselves encourage predatory behavior in their children. Children, however, understand that each environment has its own rules. In school, these rules should be optimized for effective study, which includes constructive cooperation with classmates.

Teachers must proactively identify any animosity or injustice that would undermine cooperation between students, long before it could grow into bullying. The resolution of disputes and correction of injustices is, of course, ultimately the responsibility of the students. If someone doesn't care or even feels entitled to harass classmates, they don't have to attend school. Class is a privilege for those who deserve it, not a hunting ground for predators. There's no need to hesitate with giving problematic students time-outs, first for a few days or weeks, and if that doesn't help, permanently.

If deteriorating relationships aren't caught in time and the problem grows into bullying, it's better to permanently transfer the perpetrator to another school or to homeschooling, because damaged relationships are unlikely to be ever repaired, which would make constructive cooperation in the class impossible. If the dignity or relationships of the victim have been damaged to such an extent that it's better for the victim to change schools, then the victim must be given a choice of several comparable schools where they can transfer without exams or other obstacles. In such serious cases, the bully or their parents should be required to adequately compensate the victim.

All of this, of course, depends on the quality of teachers. It's true in this case, as in others, that it's better to have fewer teachers if it means getting rid of the worst ones. Currently, the situation is such that many teachers bully students themselves, join in bullying initiated by students, or deliberately create conditions for bullying or directly encourage it. Other teachers usually know about this but hesitate to intervene against a colleague. Personally, I see no solution other than cameras monitored by an independent organization. Some people don't like cameras, but in my opinion, schools are public spaces anyway, and without cameras, children would never be safe there.