Rethinking School – Issues with bullying

Week 8 of our Rethinking School Series

Last week, we looked at another reason many families leave mainstream education: the school environment itself. Strict rules around identity, the push for uniformity, and an overemphasis on conformity often create exclusion rather than the inclusion they aim for.

This week, we turn to a group of home schoolers who left mainstream schools over safety concerns, primarily linked to bullying. We’ll explore the different forms bullying can take—and how schools have responded, for better or worse.

Some pupils struggle to move safely around school, facing “accidental” bumps that send them into walls or door frames. Toilets and stairwells can be unsafe to use alone. Others encounter classmates flaunting knives, selling drugs, or, for female students, dealing with misogyny. Disability-related harassment and homophobic taunts are often overlooked. For these students their home, not school,  becomes the only safe place.

Paula Rothermel’s 2003 study, republished in Evaluation and Research in Education (2008), found that 25% of parents cite bullying as their main reason for homeschooling—a figure likely underestimated. Our experience shows bullying cuts across all categories.

Let’s start with a definition of what bullying is: the UK curriculum has no legal definition, bullying is generally seen as repeated behaviour intended to cause physical or emotional harm, often targeting race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. It can take many forms; physical assault, verbal abuse, threats, name-calling, or cyberbullying via phones, social media, email, and messaging apps.

Motives vary but often include the desire for dominance, low self-esteem, lack of empathy, unaddressed anger or jealousy, social difficulties, or being a victim themselves.

If your child is being bullied, the first step is to document everything—email the school so there’s a written record—then meet with the class teacher or head of year. If nothing changes, escalate to the deputy head, principal, and ultimately the governors.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: bullies are often vulnerable themselves. Schools may know their backstory but can’t share it, leaving victims and parents feeling the response is shallow and ineffective. And so it’s usually the victims, not the bullies, who leave. Parents won’t gamble with their child’s safety.

Many of our learners walked away from mainstream school after being forced into “impact meetings” with their bully. The theory - If the bully understands the harm, they’ll stop. The reality - It gives them new ammunition to use out of sight of staff.

Case Study 1

A boy from one ethnic group was harassing another from a different background. When the families met with the Head, they were told it wasn’t “racist” bullying because neither child was white—just “colour-on-colour” conflict. The victim took up boxing and eventually fought back after another bullying incident. At the next meeting, his parents argued that if the Head wouldn’t call the bullying: racism, he couldn’t call the fight back: assault - it was self-defence.

Case Study 2

At Orchard Training, we have many students with red hair—and we’ve learned that while schools will act on skin-colour discrimination, hair-colour bullying is often ignored.

One boy, with striking ginger hair, endured relentless abuse from Year 7. His family repeatedly reported it, yet the school did nothing. By October of Year 8, the bullying had become a daily reality. In one lesson, his tormentor spent the entire hour taunting him while the teacher did nothing. Eventually, he snapped, defended himself, and was immediately excluded.

The case went to police. Because the bully’s father was an officer, an independent station handled the investigation. Nearly 30 classmates confirmed the bullying was long-term, severe, and that staff failed to protect the victim. The investigating officer even called the school’s inaction “appalling.” Yet the boy was still made to attend anger management, punished for finally standing up for himself, while the bully faced no consequences.

The school had clear evidence, from the police, the parents and their own students of over a year of unchecked abuse. Their response: exclude the victim and protect the perpetrator.

Case Study 3

One of our young men with special educational needs recounted an incident where he experienced distress at his school due to the arrival of a new student. This individual engaged in inappropriate and sexually suggestive behaviour towards him, causing him significant embarrassment and intimidation. He would blush and eventually flee the vicinity whenever confronted. The bully consistently targeted him, causing him to leave the classroom, lunch hall, or playground areas whenever she desired. She subsequently demanded money and favours from him, threatening to accuse him of touching her in inappropriate areas. The situation escalated to the point where she even asked him to commit criminal acts. In an attempt to escape one day, he collided with and accidently hitting a teacher and was subsequently excluded from school for two weeks. Remarkably, despite the severity of her behaviour, the school failed to take any appropriate action to address her conduct.

Case Study 4

One of our learners shared her experience of overcoming bullying at her previous school. Despite her parents’ repeated attempts to resolve the issue with school staff, the bullying continued. After transferring to a new school and settling in for six months, she was shocked to find her former bully had also transferred there. Within a week, the bully resumed isolation tactics; within two weeks, this escalated to online harassment. By the third week, she was completely ostracised—no friends, no group partners, and no classmates willing to interact with her. Once again, her parents raised their concerns with the school, but these were ignored.

How are we doing it differently

Fortunately, bullying is rare at Orchard Training. This may be because many of our students have personally experienced bullying in the past. Our policy is to listen carefully to the person reporting bullying and understand what outcome they would like to see. If there is sufficient evidence that bullying has taken place, the bully is immediately asked to leave.

We make it clear that bullies do not get a second chance. However, there was one case where a victim asked us not to expel the bully, as they had once been friends. The victim requested that we work with the bully to help them understand and change their behaviour. In response, we ensured complete separation between them: the bully’s lessons were delivered in isolation, and there was no further contact with the victim.

Once the victim left Orchard Training to attend college, the bully was gradually reintroduced to some group activities. They are currently receiving support from CAMHS. Recently, they had a disagreement with another peer, but this time, they managed their behaviour appropriately and repaired the friendship—something made possible by the support they received.

This experience taught me that, in some cases, even a bully may benefit from a second chance. Our rule now is simple: unless the victim agrees otherwise, the bully must leave.

This week, we delved into another reason why many families opt to leave mainstream education: we have examined bullying and the lack of support and response by the school for the victim and we have looked at the reason why schools look ineffective.

Next week, we will focus on a group of home schoolers who are finding it hard to receive an education due to disabilities issues in our blog called SEN, SEND and those who are not quite SEN enough.