A history of anti-bullying

Before bullying became a subject of research, people were already writing about power, humiliation, ridicule, fear, exclusion and the treatment of those with less power. From ancient Mesopotamia and Mozi to Ibn Khaldun and Victorian school stories, the chapter traces familiar questions about cruelty, hierarchy and resilience while warning against simply imposing modern definitions on the past. It also follows the changing meaning of the word bully, showing that both language and ideas about bullying have evolved over time.

Bullying became a distinct field of study during the twentieth century as researchers began trying to define, measure and compare it systematically. From Heinemann’s use of mobbning and the work of Dan Olweus to the Sheffield Project in Britain, research increasingly examined repetition, power, school climate and intervention. But as measurement became more precise, disagreement over what counted as bullying became more visible. The chapter also traces an important shift from studying young people as subjects towards involving them more directly in the response.

As anti-bullying work developed, young people began moving from being mainly the subjects of research to becoming part of the response. Peer support, pupil counselling, mediation and projects such as Acland Burghley showed that trained young people could help notice, listen and support without replacing adult responsibility. The chapter follows this development into external peer support, youth-led conferences and work created with young people, while drawing an important distinction between simply taking part and having genuine influence.

As anti-bullying work expanded nationally, young people became more visible not only as participants but as contributors to campaigns, films, conferences and public debate. The chapter follows examples including Making the Difference and the Actionwork I Power I conference, where ideas raised by young people helped reach Parliament through two Early Day Motions that together attracted 129 MP signatures. It also shows how national anti-bullying activity became increasingly supported by public funding, bringing greater reach and influence while raising questions about priorities, resources and who shaped the direction of the work.

As bullying research developed, the familiar image of a stronger child targeting a weaker one became increasingly inadequate. The chapter traces how attention widened to relational bullying, exclusion, reputation, peer group behaviour and the wider school environment. Research by Christina Salmivalli and others helped show bullying as a group process, while approaches such as Kia Kaha emphasised whole school culture. The chapter also explores how identity, discrimination, context and changing roles complicated simple labels such as bully, victim and bystander, before leading towards the growing challenge of online bullying.

As schools increasingly accepted responsibility for addressing bullying, attention shifted from asking how young people should cope towards asking what adults and schools should do. The chapter traces a range of responses, including the Method of Shared Concern, the Support Group Method, the Sheffield Anti Bullying Project, KiVa and wider whole school approaches. It shows that anti-bullying work can make a difference, but that results depend on context, implementation and the people involved. The central lesson is that there is no single solution: schools need more than one possible response and must check not only whether action was taken, but whether the bullying actually stopped and stayed stopped.

As mobile phones, messaging and online communication became part of everyday life, bullying was no longer confined to physical places or school hours. The chapter traces how cyberbullying emerged within research and government guidance, raising new questions about repetition, audience, anonymity, evidence and responsibility. It shows that many underlying behaviours were familiar, but digital technology changed their reach, persistence and scale. The result was not simply bullying in a new place, but a shift in how quickly harmful material could travel, how long it could remain and how difficult the boundary between school and home could become.

As bullying became more visible, the law increasingly shaped how schools, governments and other institutions were expected to respond. The chapter traces the development of legal duties in the UK, from harassment and communications law to school behaviour responsibilities, equality law and the different approaches taken across the four nations. It also looks internationally at contrasting legal models, including school duties, statutory definitions, rights to a safe environment and specific offences. The central point is that bullying does not have one legal meaning or one legal response: the same situation may involve school discipline, safeguarding, discrimination, harassment or criminal law at the same time.

As expectations on schools increased, teachers were being asked to recognise and respond to increasingly complex forms of bullying, but specialist training did not always keep pace. The chapter traces how young people at the I Power I conference called for anti-bullying training to become part of teacher preparation, how that demand reached Parliament, and how the 2007 Education and Skills Committee concluded that there was insufficient focus on bullying in teacher training. It also shows why general behaviour management is not the same as anti-bullying training, particularly as schools faced discriminatory, relational and online forms of bullying. Nearly twenty years later, bullying is now explicitly included within England’s national minimum framework for trainee and early career teachers, although the wider question remains: are teachers being given enough preparation for everything we expect them to do?

As anti-bullying work expanded, it became a professional field involving charities, researchers, trainers, specialist organisations, government contracts and substantial public funding. The chapter traces how this growth increased expertise and capacity while also concentrating influence within a relatively small number of national organisations. It explores the risks of dependency and financial fragility through the collapse of BeatBullying, and shows how the field broadened into areas such as mental health, identity, online safety and relationships. The central question is whether greater professionalisation, funding and activity have actually led to less bullying, especially when definitions, recording practices and long-term measurement still remain inconsistent.

By 2026, anti-bullying work had become firmly established within schools, policy, research, legislation, professional practice and national campaigns, yet some of its most basic questions remained unresolved. The chapter reviews what has changed, including wider recognition of different forms of bullying, stronger legal and professional responsibilities, digital developments and the growth of specialist support, while asking what has not changed, particularly around definition, measurement and whether bullying has actually decreased. It places the 2026 theme Break the Silence within that history, arguing that responsibility cannot rest only on young people speaking out but also on whether adults and institutions are prepared to listen and act. The chapter ends by returning to the central question running through the site: do we make anti-bullying work for young people, or with them, and who gets to shape what happens next?