Charlotte’s death is an opportunity for schools to reflect on the way in which they manage risk and conduct investigations into peer-on-peer bullying. Australasia’s education sector has been rocked by the suicide of the 12-year old from Santa Sabina College in Sydney. Charlotte’s family says her death was due to bullying that was swept under the carpet by the school. The school says the family’s allegations are inconsistent with their records. There are potentially other factors at play. A lot of the online discussion has been unhelpful. Accusations that Santa Sabina College staff don’t care. Wild allegations aimed at independent schools, religious schools or even Roman Catholic schools in particular.
The purpose of this post is not to apportion blame, but to highlight a very real issue. And to try to identify learnings for schools across Australia and New Zealand. The spotlight is once again focussed intently on schools and their bullying investigations. The way you investigate bullying really matters.
Crisis
Many schools are lost and simply don’t know what to do when considering how to investigate bullying. Dr Rachael Murrihy describes the crisis like this: schools don’t know “what level of seriousness should trigger an investigation, who should investigate, and how the victim and bully should be managed before anything [is] proven.” They also don’t know where to get evidence-based advice.
Some have justifiably questioned the integrity of the media and the “pop psychologists” making comments like this in the media. But Dr Murrihy’s assertion is supported by the conversations I’m having with principals. Risk assessment is not a major component of their leadership training. There is very little support. And very few experts in this space.
Triage
For some, the confusion sets in the moment a bullying complaint is raised. Every complaint needs to be assessed. You must decide whether it can be resolved at a low level or whether an investigation needs to be completed. This means risk assessment. If you’re not going to investigate, you must be prepared for the worst possible outcome. And be prepared to be criticised for not investigating. On the other hand, it’s simply not practical to conduct a full-scale investigation into every complaint that’s made.
One part of the solution is clear policy and procedure. This should include risk matrices to enable sound risk evaluation. Without something to guide decision-making, it’s far too easy for bias to affect the process. The cognitive load you carry in these situations is significant. And when there’s mental pressure, heuristics kick in. Those mental shortcuts our brains like to perform to make life easier. Only, in this case, shortcuts aren’t a blessing. They’re a curse.
Bias
Let’s take a quick detour to consider some of the heuristics or biases that can affect decision-making in these situations.
Availability heuristic
This is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater “availability” in memory. This can be influenced by how recent or vivid those memories are. Recent or vivid incidents of school bullying might be more easily recalled. Depending on how they were handled and what the outcome was, this can lead to an overestimation or underestimation of the current risk. Instead of considering the matter at hand on its merits, you make decisions based on memories of other similar events.
Optimism and negativity biases
You can be prone to optimism bias – the tendency to believe that one is less likely to experience a negative event compared to others – and negativity bias – the tendency to give more weight to negative experiences or information compared to positive ones. These biases can lead to the “that-would-never-happen-here” mindset. It can also lead to an overestimation of the severity of the situation.
Confirmation bias
This bias is almost impossible to avoid. Everyone has preexisting beliefs about the students involved or the prevalence of bullying in their school. There’s a tendency to look for information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs and eliminate anything contradictory. This can affect decisions about how seriously to take an allegation.
Anchoring bias
When the allegation is initially made, the anchoring bias can influence your judgement. This is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information obtained (the “anchor”) when making decisions. You let down your “anchor” and ignore subsequent information received, even if it’s more relevant.
Bandwagon effect
You’ll be familiar with the bandwagon effect. The tendency to adopt beliefs, follow trends, or engage in behaviours, just because others are doing it. For schools, this is a real risk. I can name several principals who have developed quite the public reputation for the way in which they handle bullying allegations. They either take a “zero tolerance” or “hard line” approach with a disregard for the principles of natural justice. Or they deny there are any bullying issues in their schools despite clear evidence to the contrary. Because of these extreme responses they attract the bulk of media attention and water-cooler discussion. Personalities like this have the potential to influence you to get on board and follow suit.
Dunning-Kruger effect
I suspect some of the principals I have just mentioned are susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect. A cognitive bias in which people with limited knowledge or expertise in a given domain overestimate their own knowledge or ability. Some teachers have a legal background. Very few have an investigative background. Many overestimate their ability to handle allegations of bullying, only to find out when it’s too late that perhaps they should have sought a second opinion.
Reporting
Many reports come in via parents. Often there is a request for anonymity and confidentiality. The “snitches get stiches” mentality is still alive and well in schools. This creates a dilemma. The principals of natural justice, which should guide investigations in schools, make it clear that the accused is to be fairly informed about the allegations. Anonymity makes an investigation impossible unless the circumstances are exceptional. It becomes a risk management exercise. Reducing risk to the students targeted without really knowing what’s happened. All the while, the reporting parents demand to know why you haven’t taken more action.
It’s a similar dilemma, albeit on a different level, to law enforcement receiving sensitive information. I once received intelligence indicating a threat to a government building. The credibility of the information couldn’t be accurately assessed. The source of the information had to be protected. There were limited lines of enquiry. I couldn’t really investigate. All I could do was mitigate the risk.
Legal challenges
On the other side of the coin, the parents of students accused of bullying are sending in lawyers to contest allegations and investigations. This is happening across New Zealand and Australia. It means the investigations you do conduct have to be high quality.
Independent investigations
Many schools are turning to external investigators to conduct inquiries into allegations of bullying. This is a valid option, but only if the investigator is appropriately qualified. Many schools utilise the services of lawyers. But this is not always the best option.
The investigator needs to be a specialist. If investigation is just one service they offer among many, it’s unfair to expect them to deliver something your community will be happy with. They need to have experience interacting with children and young people in the context of an investigation. They need to know how to conduct a sound investigative interview. As Dr Murrihy points out: “you’re handing this over to a lawyer with potentially no adolescent expertise to handle a traumatic incident”. You need to think carefully about the experience and capabilities of the investigator you engage.
Timeliness
Efficiency in an investigation is key. It’s a battle for schools to manage the target of the bullying and the accused while the investigation takes its course. Natural justice principles limit the amount of action that can be taken until factual findings have been made. You cannot pre-empt the outcome of an investigation. Ensure your investigator has the capacity to investigate quickly before committing.
Professional learning
In many cases, the outsourcing of investigations can be avoided altogether by investing in your internal capabilities. I’m regularly speaking to schools about creating “standard operating procedures” (SOP’s) and “desk files” to guide staff in their investigations. Equip your staff with an understanding of the legal and ethical principles that underpin investigations. Give them the tools to assess and manage risk, avoid bias, plan and document investigations, and conduct good quality investigative interviews.
Charlotte’s death is a call for change. Don’t allow another heuristic – the status-quo bias – to prevent you from seeking change. Review your policies and practices. Take action if necessary.
If you need support in risk management, triage, selecting an investigator, or you don’t know where to get advice, we can help in the following ways:
