Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Sciences & Humanities Open

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-sciences-and-humanities-open

Regular Article

Does the type of school matter in preventing bullying? Knowledge,

experience, and readiness to face bullying by students enrolled in public
and private schools in the Philippines
Jose Rene M. Sansait *, 1, Giabelle Flecila Aguiling-Saldaña , Pilar Mercedes A. Retiracion

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As the Philippines is historically endowed with a number of private schools and is the only predominantly
Bullying at school Christian nation in Asia, it is conventionally expected that students enrolled in these institutions will have
High school education distinct campus experiences from those enrolled in public institutions (De Guzman, 2011; Arcilla, 1972; Cruz,
Parental guidance
2014; Palma, 2012; and Lasquety-Reyes, 2018). However, bullying is a significant impediment to a nurturing
Bullying prevention
environment in today’s schools, necessitating that it be adequately explored and represented in academic
literature. In this regard, a total of 765 students were randomly selected from public and private secondary
schools and surveyed about their preparedness to face bullying. Specific variables investigated included the
advice they received on bullying, their attendance at religious services, their attendance at meetings and sem­
inars on bullying, their awareness and knowledge of the law on bullying, their sources of information, their
experience of bullying at home, people they could rely on in the event of bullying, and the types of bullying they
perceived at school.Results revealed that students in public schools have received more advice and have more
people to rely on when bullied compared to those in private schools. Additionally, students from private schools
rely more on friends than teachers or parents when bullied, and more of them have attended meetings and
discussions regarding bullying. Meanwhile, students from both types of schools reported at least one incident of
verbal abuse at home, limited knowledge of RA10627 (the 2013 Philippine Anti-Bullying Law), and concern
about being bullied by teachers. Finally, while snobbery and malicious rumors were the most common forms of
bullying experienced, physical bullying remains a reality for some.

1. Introduction use by one or more students of a written, verbal, or electronic expres­

Bullying has been identified by both medical and social researchers
as a major source of trouble, if not trauma, in schools during the first
decade of the twenty-first century, leaving a negative imprint on the
lives of the victim, the bully, or both (Rettew, D. C., & Pawlowski, S.
2016; Eleni, 2014; and Beckman & Svensson, 2015). The passage of
Republic Act No. 10627, also known as the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, is
a great relief to many parents and to the community as a whole, who had
hoped for a legal framework for a variety of undesirable behaviors
among youths that had been largely ignored in the past (Anti-Bullying
Act. 2013). This is not intended to replace Republic Act 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice Welfare Act, which may be invoked for conduct that
results in physical injuries or death (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006) (Republic Act No. 9344, 2006).
The Anti-Bullying Act defines bullying as “any severe, or repeated
sion, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at
another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the
latter in a reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to
his property; creating a hostile environment at school for the other
student; infringing on the rights of another student at school; or mate­
rially and substantially disrupting the education process or the orderly
operation of a school … (Anti-Bullying Act of 2013)." Similarly, it rec­
ognizes that bullying can happen outside the campus as well as can be
not only physical, but also verbal, social, and relational. The most
remarkable aspect of this law is that it acknowledges the need to pay
attention to both the perpetrators and the victims, as each is a product of
their environment. In addition, the audience or witnesses play a role in
the production of a bullying phenomenon, as their complicit or tolerant
presence or silence reflects the society’s response to violence.
Months after the promulgation of Republic Act 10,627, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jmsansait@up.edu.ph (J.R.M. Sansait).
1
The authors are all faculty members of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100530
Received 12 October 2022; Received in revised form 18 April 2023; Accepted 18 April 2023
Available online 27 April 2023
2590-2911/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
Department of Education issued the Anti-Bullying Act Implementing
Rules and Regulations. It directed schools to adopt measures and pro­
grams to mitigate bullying, including the training of teachers, the revi­
talization of guidance offices, the establishment of disciplinary
committees, and the provision of mechanisms and procedures to
promptly resolve each bullying case. In the Philippine city of Iloilo,
recognizing the need to continually search for ways to better serve the
learning and growing up years of students, the cases of bullying have
become a necessary issue to be addressed by the school administrators,
teachers, and parents, as well as by the community as a whole. Part of
this is obtaining empirical knowledge about this phenomenon across
genders and year levels – whether the violence is physical, verbal, or
relational. As situated within the Ilonggo value system, it is also desir­
able to document relevant experiences, whether they be those of victims,
perpetrators, or audiences, as this will provide teachers, parents, and
guidance counselors with functional of information for preventing
bullying incidents. Consequently, this documentation and compilation
of information regarding the phenomenon of bullying may suggest
measures that could be fully integrated into the school curriculum and
that will enhance the positive learning experiences of students in each
school type.
2. Bullying in literature
Literatures on bullying are unanimous about the prevalence of this
behavior in almost all facets of students’ lives at school – be they the
victim, the observer or bystander, or the bully (Ba et al., 2019; Coloroso,
2002; Shaw & Cross, 2012). While no description or measurement can
ever fully capture the harrowing experience of a victim, researchers
have attempted to map out its likely occurrence and offer programs to
help parents, schools, and students understand and prevent this un­
welcome victimization of those who have no desire or power to hurt
someone. One important finding is that a negative psychosocial back­
ground and early exposure to violent environments may predispose
children to bullying behavior (Jetelina et al., 2019; Wong, Lok, Lo, &
Ma, 2008). Similarly, Lee (2010) learned that students who have been
bullied in the past are more likely to bully others, and their motivation is
always the desire for gratification. He also found out that parents and
teachers have moderating influences on the ability of mild (non-chronic
type) to moderate groups of bullies to hurt their classmates. Thus, he saw
a need for a serious intervention that could put an end to the trans­
mission of victimization at schools for chronic bullies - those who can
seriously afflict their peers (2010).
In Cyprus, Charalampousa et al. (2018) found that while parental
style may provide students with needed support, but peers’ influence
still modifies their child’s behavior. According to Soimah, Hamid, and
Daulima (2019), family support is critical in the recovery of any child
who has been bullied. This was previously noted by Eliot and Cornell
(2009), who documented that a lack of strong parental support for
students in their emotional need (to counter aggressive behavior in
children) increased the cases of bullying in a sample of 110 sixth grade
students. Specifically Sapouna (2008) realized that physical bullying
affects younger boys the most, while emotional distress caused by ma­
licious rumors affects younger girls the most in the study of 1758 Greek
primary and secondary students. In a broader sense, the research of
Erginoz et al. (2013) suggests that bullying is almost cultural, with a
pervasive lack of family, social, and economic support for children, for
example, seen to sustain bullying in Turkey.
To illustrate one mode of bullying, the research of Moon and Alarid
(2014), from a sample of nearly 300 youths, suggested that students
with low self-control and in hostile school conditions are likely to
physically and psychologically bully. Further, Moon and Jan (2014)
from a sample of 296 middle school students in a southwestern state of
the United States, support the view that negative emotions, like anger
and depression, among students are likewise contributory to bullying.
On the other hand, the research of Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse, and Neale
2
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
(2010) among grade 4–11 students in Canada who had witnessed
bullying noted that senior students are less likely to report cases or to
help victims of bullying, pointing to the fact that the immediacy of the
threat is less felt by the former. In contrast, the research of Wei and Chen
(2011) indicates that peer acceptance is more important than a rigid
adherence to rule-following when it comes to factors associated with
antisocial bullying behavior.
Peer pressure, according to Horowitz et al. (2004), who conducted
focus group research with 11–14 participants from Massachusetts, New
Mexico, and Mississippi, may obscure the line between teasing and
bullying. Also, they found that differences in physical appearance are
frequently the catalyst for a victim’s distress, which is frequently exac­
erbated by repeated unkind remarks. Behind the observer’s perspective,
however, the authors assert that it is up to the students to assign
meanings to their experiences, which means that behavior that appears
harmful can be interpreted as harmless taunting. This latter observation
was supported by Chen and Cheng (2013), who asserted that the in­
tentions and interpretations of bullying acts differ between bullies and
bystanders, and that it is the responsibility of educators and researchers
to assist students in clarifying their motivations and avoiding actions
that harm their peers.
Interventions are commonly viewed as an immediate response to
bullying, and according to Wong, Cheng, Ngan, and Ma (2011), funda­
mental to this is to increase the self-esteem and empathy of students
among themselves and to encourage teachers to reach out to those who
have lost interest in attending school due to the trauma they have
experienced (Hutzell & Payne, 2012). According to Dresler-Hawke and
Whitehead (2009), for interventions to be effective, they must consider
the larger context of the behavior, such as the local community and the
country’s defining characteristics. This implies that the school envi­
ronment will always bear the weight of the larger milieu from which the
child continuously receives behavioral cues. Regarding this consider­
ation from a broader perspective, Lee (2011) emphasizes the need to
map out and comprehend the various interconnected influences that
predispose a child’s behavior, so as not to be myopic when assisting a
child. According to Richard et al. (2011), a positive school climate is
created when there is a sense of safety, confidence, and trust between
students and instructors, and when instances of bullying are reduced. In
particular, Bowes, Marquis, Young, Holoway, and Isaac (2009) found
that, based on the results of process evaluation in 41 schools, it is
beneficial to increase the physical engagement of students at school, as it
not only prevents inactivity and bullying but also promotes students’
emotional and physical development.
At schools where bullying occurs, support systems are essential. Choi
and Cho (2012) noted, based on a sample of 238 Korean-American and
Korean students studying in the United States, that when teachers in­
crease the level of empathy and sense of responsibility of students to­
ward their classmates, the bystander mentality is mitigated and cases are
therefore easily prevented. In fact, according to DeSouza and Ribeiro
(2005), any warm and supportive behavior of a teacher can mean a great
deal to students, just as a fair and friendly atmosphere can reduce in­
stances of bullying. This was also confirmed by Murray-Harvey and Slee
(2010) in a study of students in grades 5–9 in 621 South Australian in­
stitutions, where open communication has increased the likelihood of
students reporting instances of bullying. The same holds true for
establishing trust and confidence, as Konishi, Hymel, Zumbo, and Li
(2010) discovered in their study involving 27,212 15-year-old students
and 1087 principals as respondents where cases of bullying are drasti­
cally reduced due to teachers’ concerned attitudes. This is further sup­
ported by Sterrett and Shifflett (2005), who conducted a pilot study at
Lincoln Middle School in Virginia and found that programs that teach
students how to recognize, avoid, and prevent bullying significantly
increased students’ confidence.
Furthermore, Yoon et al. found that those who have received training
in bullying prevention are better equipped to deal with this behavior.
Moreover, according to Cross et al. (2011), where school anti-bullying
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
programs are insufficient, regular, sustained teacher training should be
implemented, particularly for managing bullying of a covert nature.
However, Lee & Song’s (2012) research revealed that in addition to
teachers, parents are also highlighted as having a significant impact at
the school level, as their participation could be of great assistance in the
management of differences in students’ orientation and personality. In
this regard, according to Brown et al. (2013), schools and teachers could
provide parents with specific responsibilities because, in the absence of
such recognition and participation, many parents would prefer to
transfer their children to other schools without having at least attempted
to reduce bullying incidents.
Since bullying in this study occurs in an educational setting, this
paper explored the experiences of private and public school students,
along with their perceptions of threat and confidence in their ability to
overcome bullying. This indicates that, although bullying is a personal
experience, it could be effectively mitigated by school policies and
practices that reorient students’ behavior toward mutual respect and
comfort (Llorent et al., 2011; Nikolaou, 2017). In addition, since there
are a substantial number of private (faith-based and non-sectarian)
secondary schools with a sizeable number of students, perceptions and
experiences gained from them would likely be useful in developing a
targeted strategy for the prevention and management of bullying (Jia,
2021; Jimenez & Sawada, 2001; and Cruz, 2014).
The private and public school categories stem from the country’s
unique history, which dates back to the Spanish era, when education
was deemed necessary to service the church and colonial administra­
tions (Arcilla, 1972; and Palma, 2012). With the arrival of American
colonizers, a public school system was introduced to make education
accessible to all, in addition to religious-led private schools, not to
replace the latter but to meet the population’s literacy requirements
(Cruz, 2014). Currently, public schools are more numerous than private
schools, but the latter continue to thrive and in demand, as their com­
plementary position within the state’s educational goals for its citizens is
fully recognized (Acidre, 2019). Moreover, by noting the preeminent
history of private schools, it could be inferred that the majority of the
nation’s heroes and leaders were products of religious schools, which
lends credence to the need for the continuation of private schools to
accommodate the rising number of students each year relative to the
growth of the population (Coram International, 2018; Palma, 2012).
There is currently no empirical research that investigates the dif­
ference between private and public institutions in terms of the society’s
immediate and future economic, political, scientific, and cultural re­
quirements. Meanwhile, private schools in the country, similar to those
in other nations, charge higher tuition and have a significantly lower
student-to-teacher ratio than public schools (Jimenez, Lockheed, &
Paqueo, 1991; Lindenberger, 2019). In effect, wealthy and conservative
families favor these institutions for their children due to the latter’s
historical prestige and commitment to Christian values. Consequently,
private schools have the ability to perpetuate the image of exclusivity
and recruit and select their students based on the high tuition fees they
charge. (Jimenez et al., 1991; Guerrero, 1990; Rimando, 2019; and Tan
and Ducanes, 2013). This simply demonstrates that going into school is
about more than just grades or the assurance of a job after graduation; it
is also about satisfying psycho-social aspirations that are fostered and
reinforced in Philippine society (Trinidad, 2020; and Lindenberger,
2019; Garcia and de Guzman, 2020).
Given the unstable economic situation in the country, as evidenced
by high unemployment and crime rates, it is likely that parents, if given
the choice, would select a school for their children that not only provides
them with intellectual training but also allows them to acquire middle-
class values at a young age (Jia, 2021). For private schools, parents who
have been able to find jobs outside the nation, known as Overseas Fili­
pino Workers (OFW), and who, although separated from their children,
yet have sufficient finances on hand to pay high school tuition, are a
preferred market (Iso, 2017). Usually because of their financial impor­
tance, when private educational institutions consider raising tuition
3
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
prices, it is common practice to solicit the feedback of these parents
(Sunstar Philippines, 2010).
3. Objectives and methodology
This study was carried out to determine how prepared Iloilo City
high school students are to face bullying given their experience and
orientation in public or private schools. Knowing this, preventive mea­
sures can be designed to meet the psychosocial needs of students as they
grow. The decision to collect data from both private and public schools is
relevant because, in the local educational setup, public schools are
perceived to be more crowded, with a higher student-to-teacher ratio,
yet the required fees are lower. As a result, wealthy parents may choose
to send their children to private schools, where they will receive a more
“quality” education as well as better mentoring and supervision from
their teachers. Enrolling in private schools also allows children to so­
cialize with those from wealthy families, serving as a sort of investment
for parents in their children’s future career and family life. Thus, by
addressing the need to understand the factors that predominate in each
type of school, this study can contribute valuable knowledge that can be
used to reduce bullying incidents.
The research data were drawn from a larger study aimed at
describing the incidence, forms, and experience of bullying in the
elementary and secondary schools in Iloilo City, Philippines. Given the
magnitude and scope of the time required to meet bureaucratic re­
quirements and schedule students to be surveyed in each school, it was
decided to cut the calculated sample size in half (78/2 = n, rounded to
40). The selection of the samples up to the reduction to a manageable
proportionate rounded number (at a 2:3 ratio) were all done through the
fishbowl technique, which allowed this study to have 16 high schools (9
public, 7 private), with the rest belonging to elementary schools.
Furthermore, for each chosen school, the grade level, the sections, and
the proportionate number of students (vs the population size in each
school) were pre-selected using the same fishbowl technique. Out of
these selected schools, 765 students were recruited to participate in the
survey, of whom 488 were from the public schools and 277 from the
private schools (see Appendix A). Only upon arrival at each school
selected did the researchers forward or make available the list of the
names of the pre-selected students. With the assistance of a guidance
officer or a head teacher, these students were asked in a separate room to
simultaneously fill out the prepared and pre-tested questionnaire upon
the cue of one research enumerator.
As regards the geographic and socioeconomic realities of schools in
Iloilo City, the city has a land area of 78.34 square kilometers, but being
a type of urban area in a third-world setting, its secondary schools are
congregated within a less than 8-km radius, and some schools are found
even less than a kilometer from each other (philatlas.com Philatlas,
2023). Under the Philippine laws, all basic education is a responsibility
of the state, hence the predominance of public schools in both the
elementary and secondary levels. As regards the private schools, they
are seen as partners with complementary roles in recognition of their
positive contribution since colonial times (NSO, 2000). Unlike public
schools, which are well-funded by the state, private schools have to fund
their management, teaching personnel, and maintenance mainly
through the fees of their students.
Since private schools often incorporate religious teachings, many
parents who want to keep or pass on their shared values to their children
choose this institution at a price they nonetheless could afford. In effect,
in due time, it becomes justified to regard private schools as institutions
for the wealthier class since they self-select their students from finan­
cially capable families (Acidre, 2019). Likewise, with the increasing
economic constraints, these public or private schools, nonetheless, are
able to maintain their perceived status, regardless of location, since
families wishing to send their children to school will soon become
content with the comparative quality of their chosen school. Further­
more, among public schools, the differences in subject contents and
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
teaching strategies are nonetheless tapered down since school heads and
teachers are regularly given similar requirements, teaching tools,
training, and criteria of evaluation for their instruction standard and
progress.
The same is true of private schools, whose fees are regularly expected
to increase each year as a reflection of economic inflation and may, in
part, act as a determining factor for student recruitment. Although seen
as expensive, the differences between these schools will, in time, become
minimal among those who could afford them (Moneymax.ph). Again, in
the latter type of school, in spite of the high price, many parents are
willing to pay the fees given some non-economic considerations like
emotional ties, the perceived safety of their children, and other shared
values that private school education promises. The overall reality,
however, is that regardless of the perception and preferences of parents
who send their children to private schools, the state remains unable to
raise sufficient funds to put schools and pay all necessary personnel for
all students in the country (Lasquety-Reyes, 2018). Thus, by necessity,
private schools will remain to influence students as a recognized part of
the educational infrastructure and so become a relevant category in this
study addressing the psychosocial needs of each pupil in the region.
Since the topic is knowledge about bullying and competency to deal
with it, the relevant contexts and approaches that each of these schools
imparts on students could likely be reflected in the latter’s responses.
These, however, require exploration, and hence this research, which invite
serious or deeper concerns about how to make schools not only a source of
knowledge for pupils but also a space for them to grow holistically.
Furthermore, this is not to pit private from public schools, but rather, the
study was in part to make the topic relevant by showing a continuous need
to keep schools armed with research-based information on issues affecting
the psychosocial health of their pupils. The study thus, would like to
decipher what are some learning opportunities that may be explored to
lessen bullying experiences, in which schools have a great role to play.
Below are the variables sought from students relevant to issues and
discussions as regards mitigating violence or threats to human dignity.
For this paper, students’ awareness, knowledge, and basic experiences
before the threat of bullying were selected on the assumption that
anyone armed with positive characteristics associated with the selected
variables below would be in a better position to counter bullying. In
other words, a student who is aware, knowledgeable, has received
advice, and has some of the other characteristics sought by the variables
below is better prepared to face bullying than those without these
qualities. Specifically, the variables are.
A. Advice on bullying increases personal awareness and in­
creases confidence indirectly on the view that someone is
concerned about his or her welfare. This means that a student
who has received advice on bullying will likely recognize
early scenarios of the threat and can behave accordingly in
case bullying happens (Van Velsen, Beaujean, van
Gemert-Pijnen, van Steenbergen, & Timen, 2014; Steers,
Elliott, Nemiro, Ditman, & Oskamp, 1996; and Hash, 2003).
B. Attendance at religious services may reinforce knowledge and
confidence as well as measure the differences in awareness
and knowledge between students in private and public
schools, given that private schools are mostly run by religious
institutions. Further, it provides positive socialization to
children, which would likely lead one to be able to handle
interpersonal relationships and so avoid or handle bullying
circumstances (Dill, Burdette, Ellison, & Musick, 2006; Takyi,
2003; and Levin & Vanderpool, 2008).
C. and D. Bullying at home and the types and intensity of
bullying at home assume that this experience will result in a
serious consequence for the child. Anyone who had this
experience will likely either become insensitive to future
bullying having been used to it or, on the contrary, may
become a bully to other students, passing on the violence
4
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
(Moylan et al.; Ohene, Ireland, McNeely, & Borowsky, 2006;
and UNICEF, 2006). In either case, such experiences will have
a lifelong effect, which the school must take serious notice of,
and so knowledge of these variables has a preventive value.
E. Bullying as a term is a generic one, for it assumes that
everyone would have encountered this knowledge all along.
Knowledge of the term, however, does not guarantee simi­
larity of knowledge and experience, and so it may mean
conceiving a term as a simple idea that could be further
enhanced (Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008). All other fac­
tors being equal, possessing this term is preferred to those
without it.
F. and G. News about bullying and access to media refer to the capacity
of each student to retain or pay attention to information, as
well as whether each has access to knowledge that is impor­
tant to their lives (Saunders & Goddard, 2002; and Hay,
Coups, Ford, & DiBonaventura, 2009). It might happen that a
student has been exposed to information about bullying but
has not felt any need to pay attention to it, but in any case, he
or she would still have the occasion to encounter messages
about the behavior. Further, circumstances may dictate that
some students may not have newspapers or television at
home, thus failing to encounter a message. On the other hand,
information obtained from their responses could reveal which
media have been successful in delivering knowledge to stu­
dents. Thus, by extension, access to media is important.
H. Persons to rely on give students more confidence to face trouble
than those without any person to confide their experiences in
(Harvey & Alexander, 2012; Schurya et al., 2017; Studer et al.,
2017; Mitchell, Billings, & Moos, 1982; and Wang, Pbert, &
Lemon, 2014). Here, it is said that bullying is not a personal
reality, but a social one because the vulnerability of the self
reflects a lack of social supports for the person to rely on. This
reinforces a better position in the face of bullying, whether they
are a reliable ally or not, considering that the benefit of having
someone to talk to is indeed a big boost to the self, especially for
those in their growing-up years.
I. Discussions or programs about bullying attended at school are
the actual circumstances wherein the school is actualizing its
basic function against bullying. It is assumed that a student
exposed to a number of programs is more aware and more
confident than those without one (Baker, Arnold, & Meagher,
2011; & Hooven, Walsh, Willgerodt, & Salazar, 2011). Look­
ing at the bigger picture, when such programs are for all,
anyone else, including those inclined to bully, may be
enlightened or motivated to participate in maintaining a
bully-free school.
J. Perceived type of bullying existing at school was asked in order
to identify not a particular bully but likewise to understand
from the point of view of the student which type of bullying is
common at their school. This is added data since it could
suggest that students are not only aware of bullying but could
likewise identify which types actually exist at school (Glanz
et al., 2008). In this case, the school and parents may tailor
programs to address their students’ need.
K. Knowledge about RA10627, or the “Anti-Bullying Act of
2015,” was sought to obtain not their actual comprehension of
the content of the Republic Act 10627 but to have a view of
their estimation of their own awareness regarding the law.
The data could indirectly reveal how many of the respondents
have the confidence to claim positive knowledge as well as
how many want to know more about the law.
To visualize how these variables are related, Fig. 1 is presented
below. Simply, it depicts that students’ assumed competency is a
consequence of knowledge, experience, and access to information
J.R.M. Sansait et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

related to bullying. In other words, students who have some cognitive

Table 1
recognition about bullying would be recognized as having a workable
Respondents’ profile per type of school.
capacity against bullying. While experience may be affected by knowl­
edge, it likewise may influence confidence, but at the same time it be­ Profile Type of High School
comes a source of vulnerability if such is not given due attention. Access Public Private Total
factors are the reinforcing sources of knowledge and confidence, and so f % f % f %
they may confirm additional support for knowledge or awareness that
Gender
can improve a positive attitude or help protect the self from abuse.
Male 238 48.8 130 46.9 368 48.1
Lastly, the type of school is an important component in recognizing the Female 242 49.6 144 52.0 386 50.5
intellectual and behavioral roles that these institutions play in building LGBTQA 8 1.6 3 1.1 11 1.4
confidence in the students. With the goal set towards enhancing stu­ Total 488 63.8 277 36.2 765 100
dents’ competency, this paper thus endeavors to appraise their experi­ Number of Siblings
ence, knowledge, and access to information as enrolled in public or 1–3 232 47.5 210 75.8 442 57.8
private schools. Thus, any relevant information that might be gathered 4–5 161 33.0 52 18.8 213 27.8
6–10 93 19.1 14 5.1 107 14.0
here could be an additional input for schools dealing with the psycho­
More than 10 2 0.4 1 0.4 3 0.4
social health of their clients. No Response 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
In all, the listed variables above are more than enough to describe the
Rank Among Siblings
knowledge, experience, perception, and confidence of students in Iloilo 1–3 373 76.4 239 86.3 612 80.0
City on the issue of bullying. The analysis and discussion to follow will 4–5 84 17.2 30 10.8 114 14.9
be further refined by comparing the data of students enrolled in private 6–10 29 5.9 7 2.5 36 4.7
schools with those in public schools. To guide analysis and discussion More than 10 2 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.3
No Response 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.1
towards satisfying the aim of this research, a general null hypothesis was
given: that the types of school will not matter to the students’ responses Attendance to Religious Services
0–1 rarely 152 31.15 53 19.13 205 26.80
as regards the variables enumerated (in general, reject No if p < .05).
2–3 occasionally 204 41.80 108 38.99 312 40.78
This expectation assumed that in both types of schools, administrators, 4–5 regularly 117 23.98 107 38.63 224 29.28
guidance officers, and teachers do exert equal efforts in complying with 6 – above frequently 15 3.07 9 3.25 24 3.14
the anti-bullying law and providing a holistic environment to their pu­ Parents’ Sources of Income by Occupation
pils. Nevertheless, it is equally fair to expect differences among students’ Fathers’ Occupation
responses. If the latter case has been found, this new information would Non-Earners 89 18.24 34 12.27 123 16.08
hopefully result in the enhancement of policies and practices for the Low Earners (Drivers, Local 310 63.52 39 14.08 349 45.62
Contractual Workers)
good of everyone at school.
Average Earners (Rank and 50 10.25 129 46.57 179 23.40
The choice of these variables was driven by the practical goal of this File Employees, Businessman,
study, which was to advance and explore important instrumental con­ OFWs)
cepts for policy makers and administrators to guide intervention pro­ High Earners (Seafarers, 39 7.99 75 27.08 114 14.90
grams against bullying (Le Menestrel, 2020; Ttofi & Farrington, 2012). Accountants, Lawyers)
Mothers’ Occupation 488
The literature cited after each variable points out how valuable these are Non-Earners 319 65.37 132 47.65 451 58.95
as factors in any health promotion program. The variables in the con­ Low Earners (House helpers, 77 15.78 29 10.47 106 13.86
ceptual framework might be a select few, but for example, people’s Vendors)
received advice and attendance at religious or community activities are Average Earners (Rank and File 85 17.42 106 38.27 191 24.97
Employees, Teachers, OFWs)
known to increase confidence against health threats just as information
High Earners (Managers, 7 1.43 10 3.61 17 2.22
and experience of bullying reinforce beliefs about life’s capacities Accountants, Nurses Abroad)
against this threat (CDC, 2023; WHO, 2022). Thus, as these variables
have been factored into various health promotion programs, they too are
expected to be of great help in other allied concerns, like the promotion belong, the majority came from smaller families in both groups (Table 1:
of holistic psychosocial experiences at schools. public, 47.5%; private, 75.8%; Table 2, mean = 3.60, SD = 1.90).
Further, the majority belonged to the first three siblings of the family
4. Results (public, 76.4%; private, 86.3%). As regards their attendance at religious
services, the majority participate two or three times a month (Table 1,
Of the surveyed respondents coming from the high school level in total = 40.78%; Table 2, mean = 2.51, SD = 1.71). Noticeable however
Iloilo City, Philippines (Table 1, n = 765), 63.8% were from public is that there were more students who rarely attended from the public
schools, 50.5% were females, and the overall mean age is 14.53 schools (31.15%), whereas those who attended on a regular basis were
(Table 2). As to the number of siblings in the family to which they from private schools (38.63%).

5
J.R.M. Sansait et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530

Table 2 Table 3
Statistical analysis of respondents’ profile per type of high school. Selected bullying variable and type of high school.
Profile Type of High School Total Bullying Variables Chi Square Test Statistic df p-value

Public Private Advice Received on Bullying 8.790 1 0.003c

Attendance to Religious Services 22.834 3 0.000044
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Bullying at Home 7.520 1 0.006c
Age 14.63 1.42 14.34 1.22 14.53 1.36 Types and Intensity of Bullying at Home
Number of Siblings 4.00 1.96 2.88 1.55 3.60 1.90 Physical, Masakit nga Pangamot 1.306 1 0.253
Rank Among Siblings 2.63 1.71 2.09 1.34 2.43 1.61 Verbal, Panghambal 0.406 2 0.816
Attendance to Religious 2.32 1.72 2.84 1.65 2.51 1.71 Emotional, Pamahug 0.279 2 0.870
Services Bullying as a term Encountered 1.52 1 0.228
News about bullying 0.861 1 0.353
Media Accessed on Bullying
As regards their family’s economic capacity, the parents’ sources of Radio 6.258 1 0.012b
Internet 25.726 1 <0.001c
income are highly informative. By looking at the total score, in general,
TV 0.671 1 0.413
fathers belong to low income earners and mothers are in the non-earners Newsletter 0.410 1 0.522
categories (45.62% and 58.95%), but at closer look, those fathers with Comics 2.711 1 0.100
children in the private schools far outnumber those in the public schools Movies 1.544 1 0.214
as average earners and as high earners (46.57% and 28.08% vs 10.25% Bulletin boards 11.207 1 0.001c
Person to Rely when Bullied 7.633 1 0.006c
and 7.99%, respectively). As regards the mothers, it is obvious again that Discussion Regarding Bullying 37.162 1 <0.001c
parents in the private school category earn more than those in the Attended at School
average and high earner categories (38.27% and 3.61% vs 17.42% and Perceived Type of Bullying Existing at School
1.43%, respectively). Furthermore, more than half of fathers and Physical 2.135 1 0.144
Social/Emotional: Insult 1.187 1 0.276
mothers in the public schools are in the low earners and non-earners
Snubbed 10.841 1 0.001c
categories, respectively (63.52% and 65.37%). Rumors 7.730 1 0.005c
In general, the average respondent’s age is 14.53 ± 1.36 years old Ridicule 0.951 1 0.329
(Table 2), with 3.60 ± 1.90 siblings, 2.43 ± 1.61 rank among siblings, Scare 0.025 1 0.875
and 2.51 ± 1.71 attendance to religious services a month. Furthermore, Knowledge about RA 10627 1.995 2 0.369
Confidence to face bullying
students in public high schools are older on average, have more siblings, When done by schoolmates 12.385 5 0.0299
and are not the first or second siblings as those in private high schools. In When done by teachers 7.190 5 0.2069
addition, students from private high schools have, on average, a rela­ Confidence to report bullying
tively higher rate of religious attendance than those from public schools When done by schoolmate 12.83 3 0.005
When done by teachers 6.98 3 0.073
(2.84 vs 2.32).
Parents’ Sources of Income by Occupation
As regards the variables, the chi-square test scores found in Table 3 Father 241.43 3 0.00001
grant support to five relationships with the school types (advice on Mother 47.53 3 0.00001
bullying, χ2 = 8.790, p = .003; attendance to religious services, χ2 =
a Fishers Exact Test.
22.834, p = .000044; bullying experience at home, χ2 = 7.520, p = .006; b
Significant at 5%.
persons to rely on, χ2 = 7.633, p = .006, and discussion or programs c
Significant at 1%.
attended, χ2 = 37.162, p = <.001). Meanwhile, on the other four, the
relationships are not warranted (types and intensities of bullying,
bullying as a term, news about bullying, and knowledge about RA Table 4
10627), and the remaining two require qualifications (media access and Advice received, experienced bullying at home, and attendance to religious
utilization, and perceived type of bullying). On the media access side, services of respondents.
radio is considered relevant (χ2 = 6.258, p = .012) together with the Bullying Variables Type of High School
internet (χ2 = 25.726, p = <.001), and bulletin boards (χ2 = 11.207, p
Public Private Total
= .001). Meanwhile, on the perceived or observed type of bullying,
f % f % f %
being snubbed (χ2 = 10.841, p = .001), and being insinuated with ru­
mors (χ2 = 7.730, p = .005) are also found to be related with school Advice on Bullying
types. Also, relationships are likewise supported on confidence to face Yes 413 84.8 211 76.2 624 81.7
No 74 15.2 66 23.8 140 18.3
and to report bullying when done by their schoolmates (χ2 = 7.190 p = Bullying at Home
.2069 and χ2 = 6.98, p = .073), but not on both conditions when done by Yes 315 65.2 152 54.9 467 61.4
teachers. Lastly, parents’ occupation is likewise supported (father, χ2 = No 168 34.8 125 45.1 293 38.6
241.43, p = .00001; mother, χ2 = 47.53, p = .00001). These relation­ Types and Intensity of Bullying at Home
Physical
ships can be confirmed using the subsequent frequency distribution ta­
Seldom 151 53.0 74 59.7 225 55.0
bles, and the implications of these will be elaborated further in the Occasionally 132 46.3 48 38.7 180 44.0
discussion section. Often 2 0.7 2 1.6 4 1.0
In Table 4, more students from public schools (84.8%) have received Verbal 0
some form of advice regarding bullying than those from private schools Seldom 106 35.0 45 31.9 151 34.0
Occasionally 172 56.8 84 59.6 256 57.7
(76.2%). Meanwhile, students in these public schools have experienced
Often 25 8.3 12 8.5 37 8.3
more bullying at home (65.2%) than students in private schools Emotional 0
(54.9%). Generally, of the three major kinds of bullying, verbal has Seldom 152 61.8 66 59.5 218 61.1
higher reporting as occasionally experienced (public, 56.8%; private, Occasionally 89 36.2 42 37.8 131 36.7
Often 5 2.0 3 2.7 8 2.2
59.6%) compared to physical and emotional, which were both reported
likewise but only as seldom (public, 53.0% and 61.8%; private, 59.7%
and 59.5%).
In Table 5, students from both public and private schools have by
majority affirmed to be aware of bullying (98.0% and 99.3%), to have

6
J.R.M. Sansait et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530

Table 5 Students were likewise asked for persons they considered they could
Awareness, News Received, Persons to Rely on, Discussion on Bullying, and report bullying to in case they experienced it. For students in public
Knowledge of RA 10627. schools, they claimed their mothers (Table 8, 2.16 ± 1.46), fathers (2.88
Bullying Variables Type of High School ± 1.70), and teachers (3.48 ± 1.60). On the other hand, those from
Public Private Total
private schools said their mothers (2.63 ± 1.86), fathers (3.34 ± 1.80),
and close friends (3.58 ± 1.94) are people they can rely on. Basically, in
f % f % f %
both school types, their mothers and fathers are similarly mentioned,
Awareness of Bullying as Term but in public schools, their teachers are prominently preferred, while in
Yes 478 98.0 275 99.3 753 98.4 private schools, their close friends are mentioned besides their parents.
No 10 2.0 2 0.7 12 1.6
Lastly, Table 9 presents the frequency distribution of respondents by
News about bullying their confidence to face and report bullying. The majority (35.03%), said
Yes 468 95.9 270 97.5 738 96.5
that they are partly confident in facing the bullying perpetrated by their
No 20 4.1 7 2.5 27 3.5
schoolmate or classmate. On the other hand, the majority (29.10%) of
Person to Rely on to when Bullied
the respondents said that they did not know if they could manage to face
Yes 461 95.1 246 89.5 707 93.0
No 24 4.9 29 10.5 53 7.0
bullying perpetrated by their teacher. As to their likelihood to report
cases of bullying they observed being perpetrated by their schoolmates
Discussion/Meeting on Bullying Attended
or teachers, in both school types, students expressed a high tentative
Yes 282 58.0 221 80.1 503 66.0
No 204 42.0 55 19.9 259 34.0 likelihood to report bullying either done by schoolmates (54.25%) or by
teachers (37.91%). The alarming data here is that both numbers rep­
Knowledge about RA 10627
A lot 19 3.9 17 6.1 36 4.7 resenting those who said to be generally confident to face bullying when
Few 361 74.1 202 72.9 563 73.7 done by their schoolmates or done by their teachers, are very low
None 107 22.0 58 20.9 165 21.6 (29.28% and 18.85%, respectively). Worse, are the scores that reflect
their likelihood to report bullying, which are very low when done either
by their schoolmates or teachers (2.22% and 3.69%, respectively).
heard about it in the news (95.9% and 97.9%), and to have persons to
rely on when bullied (95.1% and 89.5%). Noteworthy however is the
5. Discussion
latter variable, wherein relatively more students from public schools
(95.1%) said that they have someone to rely on whenever they are
This survey explored the knowledge, awareness, access to informa­
bullied at school than those from private schools (89.5%). As regards
tion, and existence of support among high school students in public and
those who have attended a meeting or discussion about bullying, they
private schools in Iloilo City, Philippines, regarding bullying. From the
are generally more from private schools (80.1%) than from public
previously identified variables, the chi-square test scores supported five
schools (58.0%).
relationships with the school types (advice on bullying, attendance at
Also, the majority of the respondents (totaling 73.7%) said that they
school services, bullying experience at home, persons to rely on, and
possessed a relatively small amount of knowledge or information about
discussion or programs attended), while four relationships were not
RA 10627. This is true for students from both public and private schools
warranted (types and intensity of bullying, bullying as a term, news
(74.1% and 72.9%, respectively), but looking at the score of those who
about bullying, and knowledge about RA 10627) and the remaining two
are much aware of the law, the private school students have it (at 6.1%
required a qualified explanation each (media access and utilization, and
vs 3.9% for the public school students).
perceived type of bullying).
Meanwhile, in Table 6, among different types, snobbery (62.8%) and
Beginning with the availability of advice, the result indicates that
the spreading of malicious rumors (82.3%) are far more prevalent in
those in public schools have greater access to it than those in private
private schools than in public schools. However, these do not disregard
schools (84.8% versus 76.2%). In light of the fact that their mean scores
the fact that each kind of bullying does exist in both types of schools,
in their respective schools are greater than three-quarters, optimism is
although to a lesser degree.
warranted; however, sustaining parental participation and concern for
In terms of news about bullying, more public high school students
children’s welfare is necessary. While all efforts to build a child’s con­
have reported to have utilized the radio and their school bulletin boards
fidence begin at home, it is continually challenged in the school envi­
as the major sources of news about bullying (Table 7, 56.0%, 52.3%). On
ronment; therefore, schools have an equal responsibility to keep
the other hand, there are more students from the private school who
students informed or well-advised. As a result of the friendly school
have made use of the internet (87.6%). Interestingly, if the variables are
environment, private schools in this area may underestimate the need
ranked based on the number of people who made use of them, TV,
for guidance, but the data indicate that the students understand this vital
Internet, and radio are the first three, followed by bulletin boards,
concept well.
movies, newsletters, and comics. This media utilization, however, does
It is also important to highlight the different general profiles of stu­
not mean they have constant use of these, but rather that they recognize
dents attending public and private schools, as they may not only indicate
that these tools are part of their sources of information.
the school type and prestige but also their familial background (Char­
alampousa, 2018; and Erginoz et al., 2013). In other words, it could be
the case that students attending private schools have absent or occupied
Table 6
parents due to their careers, and this is reflected indirectly here. This
Perceived type of bullying.
initial finding, however, may also suggest that the majority of students
Perceived Type of Bullying Type of High School in public schools have parents who regularly express concern for their
Public Private Total safety at school.
f % f % f % On the other hand, it is possible that in private schools, parents are so
confident in their children’s safety that they do not provide bullying
Physical 273 55.9 139 50.2 412 53.9
Insult 440 90.2 257 92.8 697 91.1 prevention advice. Furthermore, parents from a middle-class back­
Snob 245 50.2 174 62.8 419 54.8 ground, such as those found in private schools, may have shared as­
Rumors 357 73.2 228 82.3 585 76.5 sumptions and expectations of a nurturing school and thus may have
Ridicule 340 69.7 203 73.3 543 71.0 underestimated the importance of instilling anti-bullying advice in their
Scare 265 54.3 148 53.4 413 54.0
children (Guerrero, 1990; Rimando, 2019; and Tan and Ducanes, 2013).

7
J.R.M. Sansait et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530

Table 7
Sources of news about bullying and type of high school.
Media School Type

Public Private Total

f % Rank f % Rank f Rank %

Radio 271 56.0 3 127 46.4 3 398 3 52.5

Internet 342 70.7 2 240 87.6 3 582 2 76.8
TV 422 87.2 1 246 89.8 1 668 1 88.1
Newsletter 117 24.2 6 60 21.9 5 177 6 23.4
Comics 71 14.7 7 28 10.2 6 99 7 13.1
Movies 167 34.5 5 108 39.4 4 275 5 36.3
Bulletin boards 253 52.3 4 108 39.4 4 361 4 47.6

In addition to this, in many private schools, a number of students have

Table 8 parents working abroad as Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), and so
Persons to whom to report bullying.
nurturing is left to available extended family members and the school.
Persons to Report Bullying Type of High School Under these circumstances, important advice to a growing child may be
Public Private Total neglected, so any intervention at the school level must be encouraged
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
(Wong et al., 2011; Dresler-Hawke, E., & Whitehead, D., 2009). Overall,
this advice remains very important in order to lessen whatever negative
Mother 2.16 1.46 2.63 1.86 2.33 1.63
emotions these children from their school might experience, which
Father 2.88 1.70 3.34 1.80 3.05 1.75
Sibling 3.81 1.60 4.22 1.74 3.96 1.66 might result in further violence to themselves and to others (Moon & Jan
Teacher 3.48 1.60 3.84 1.73 3.61 1.66 2014).
Guidance officer 4.35 1.87 4.49 1.89 4.40 1.88 With the assumption that many students in public schools come from
Close friend 4.02 2.00 3.58 1.94 3.85 1.99 low socio-economic backgrounds, such a context may lead to expecta­
Classmate 4.98 1.84 5.04 1.81 5.01 1.82
tions that more children may be exposed to bullying at home due to such
pressure. However, more than half of the students from private schools
in this study did likewise experience bullying at home (public 65.2% vs
Table 9 private 54.9%), which begs alternative explanations besides pinning it
Confidence to face and report bullying when by schoolmates or teachers. to limited income. Nevertheless, while this information could be very
Confidence and Likelihood Type of High School helpful to schools in reiterating to parents the need to refrain from
Responses hurting their kids, it is still worthwhile to take serious note of the rele­
Public Private Total
vance of this high mean score (Lee, 2010; Soimah et al., 2019; Wong
f % f % f %
et al., 2008).
Confidence to face bullying The cultural practice of inflicting corporal punishments on children,
When done by schoolmates
Generally Makaya 145 29.71 79 28.52 224 29.28
which is interpreted as physical bullying, may be one uncorrected reality
confident ko gid that is related to physical bullying (Behind Closed Doors, 2006). Stu­
Partly Medyo 174 35.66 94 33.94 268 35.03 dents in private schools reported experiencing physical bullying more
Confident Kaya ko frequently (1.6% vs 0.7%), whereas in public schools it occurs less
Undecided Wala ko 70 14.34 64 23.10 134 17.52
frequently (46.3% vs 38.3%). On the other hand, the high incidence of
kabalo
Partly not Medyo 55 11.27 25 9.03 80 10.46 verbal bullying rather than physical bullying of students in both types of
confident indi schools may be viewed as a relief, but it is still bullying, and it hurts.
makaya Private school students reported receiving high scores in both the oc­
Generally Indi ko gid 39 7.99 12 4.33 51 6.67 casional and frequent categories (8.5% and 59.6% versus 8.3% and
not confident makaya
No Response 5 1.02 3 1.08 8 1.05
56.6%). However, as far as this study is concerned, all of these are un­
When done by teachers acceptable. Thus, the existence of physical and emotional bullying is
Generally confident, 92 18.85 59 21.30 151 18.85 sufficient to remind parents to treat their children with kindness, despite
Makaya ko gid the fact that only a small percentage of the population experiences
Partly Confident, Medyo 96 19.67 58 20.94 154 19.67
physical bullying (Cheng et al., 2011). In this regard, not only are future
Kaya ko
Undecided, Wala ko kabalo 142 29.10 95 34.30 237 29.10 researchers encouraged to investigate this further, but schools must also
Partly not confident, Medyo 62 12.70 27 9.75 89 12.70 make significant efforts with parental involvement to address this issue.
indi makaya While religious attendance may be uncommon among students in the
Generally not confident, 92 18.85 36 13.00 128 18.85 digital age, this variable is a good reminder of the significance of venues
Indi ko gid makaya
No Response 4 0.82 2 0.72 6 0.82
where a positive attitude can be enhanced. As a whole, more people
Likelihood to report bullying attend religious services on an irregular basis (2–3 times per month,
When done by schoolmates 40.78%), whereas private school students were far ahead in terms of
Yes 10 2.05 7 2.53 17 2.22 regular attendance (regularly, 38.63%). Given the current religious
No 233 47.75 96 34.66 329 43.01
fervor of Filipinos, student religious participation in the future may be
Probably or Maybe (It 242 49.59 173 62.45 415 54.25
depends) anticipated. In addition to this favorable scenario, schools, with parental
No Response 3 0.61 1 0.36 4 0.52 participation, can devise or promote additional group activities that may
When done by teachers enhance, foster, or reinforce their children’s social and interpersonal
Yes 18 3.69 9 3.25 27 3.69 skills.
No 284 58.20 187 67.51 471 58.20
Probably or Maybe (It 185 37.91 81 29.24 266 37.91
On the other hand, as social beings, students need someone to turn to
depends) in times of trouble, as this would allow them to reduce their stress and
No Response 1 0.20 0 0.00 1 0.20 adopt a more optimistic outlook on life (Schurya et al., 2017; Studer

8
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
et al., 2017; and Mitchell et al., 1982). In Table 5, there were more
students in public schools who claimed to have a person to rely on
(95.1% vs 89.%, respectively), and this is contrary to the belief that
those in private schools should have had more given their assumed ex­
clusivity and the relatively warm atmosphere they claim to have, since
their parents have a better choice of school for their children (Guerrero,
1990; Rimando, 2019; and Tan and Ducanes, 2013). This may be the
case, but the scores of both groups are high, and the difference between
them is very small, which is encouraging.
Despite this, it is notable that private school students scored nearly
twice as high as public school students in the category “no one to rely
on” (10.5% vs. 4.9%). As a stern reminder, no one should be complacent
or indifferent regarding this issue, as all students deserve to feel confi­
dent that they are at least being heard. There should be no doubt that
both schools should endeavor to re-energize their guidance offices and
teachers so that they are able to listen to the non-academic psychosocial
concerns of their students, taking into account proper procedures and
reporting. In this regard, additional research could answer the question
of what types of socialization opportunities students have in public and
private schools to enable them to confidently confront bullying (Jenson,
Dieterich, Brisson, Bender, & Powell, 2010). However, the presence of
someone they can rely on in a time of need can significantly boost their
confidence (Harvey & Alexander, 2012; Schurya et al., 2017; Billings &
Moos, 1982; and Wang et al., 2014).
During their formative years, particular individuals are crucial,
especially in times of need. Positively, in both types of schools, students
recognize the value of their parents as individuals to whom they can
report bullying. In a sense, this could not occur if parents were not
similarly concerned with their children’s welfare. However, the most
intriguing aspect of the data is that in private schools, close friends are
favored more than parents, whereas in public schools, students prefer
their teachers. Nonetheless, guidance officers are less prominent in both
public and private schools than teachers and close friends, with the
exception of classmates and siblings. While future research may clarify
this preference, it is assumed here that the impact of friends is stronger
in private schools than in public schools (Brown et al., 2013; Lee & Song,
2012). Moreover, while intervention may remedy this gap, it must be
acknowledged that these adolescents, in their search for acceptance and
identity, are more likely to interact with their peers than with their
guidance officers or teachers. Overall, the guidance officer and teachers
could take the initiative to explore additional options for enhancing the
roles of these classmates, friends, and parents in the school setting
(Brown et al., 2013).
In terms of attendance at meetings, students from private schools
reported significantly higher rates (80.1% versus 58.0%). This does not
necessarily imply that there were more meetings or discussions in pri­
vate schools than in public schools, but it does indicate that private
school students may have been grateful for the opportunity to recall
their participation in anti-bullying activities. A school with a smaller
population, such as the private high schools in Iloilo City, may also make
it easier to accommodate campaigns. Thus, it is equally possible that
there were more anti-bullying activities or meetings in public schools
than in private schools, but those may have only reached a small number
of students compared to those in private schools (Cross et al., 2011; Yoon
et al., 2011). Given this circumstance, it is imperative that public schools
accommodate more students in their training programs, and that they do
so at times when the participants are fully attentive (Sterrett & Shifflett,
2005).
Students at both schools have access to information about bullying
via radio, the Internet, and bulletin boards. Other modes, such as tele­
vision, newsletters, comic books, and films, were either devalued in their
memories or absent from schools and homes. However, based on their
information sources, television is far more popular in both public and
private schools (87.2% and 89.9%, respectively) than radio, the
Internet, and bulletin boards. With the exception of the bulletin board,
these media are generally uncontrolled by schools. This implies that
9
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
while there is a need to improve the presentation of anti-bullying mes­
sages on bulletin boards, particularly in private schools, there is room to
consider the use of newsletters and comics for this purpose (Sterrett &
Shifflett, 2005). If schools have the opportunity to speak with policy­
makers, they could use the findings of this study to advocate for the
inclusion of anti-bullying messages in movies and television.
This information demonstrates that access to these media is crucial to
the awareness and safety or well-being of students and that schools can
or should enhance these modes since they have the ability and privilege
to provide them. Along these lines, parents and school administrators
could utilize these resources to increase their children’s actual aware­
ness and confidence against bullying (Perkins et al., 2011). Bulletin
boards, though found to be significant, appeared to be underutilized
(52.3% vs 39.4%), with public schools outperforming private schools,
and this reinforces the need for schools to maximize these media in order
to foster further those helpful ideas that are already present in the minds
of the students (Horowitz et al., 2004).
Notably, while physical bullying was perceived to occur less
frequently in both public and private schools, it affected more than half
of the samples (public, 55.9% vs. private, 50.2%). This must be avoided,
regardless of who is affected. Importantly, schools must examine their
position in light of this magnitude: why has no one been prosecuted?
Things that have likely become the norm, such as complacency, a lack of
grounded focus, and apathy, must be modified. There must be a proper
reporting system and preventive programs for these incidents, as well as
an orientation for everyone to become sensitive and, as a result, readily
report bullying incidents. While it is commendable to encourage
reconciliation and camaraderie, it appears that schools were either un­
aware of their vision or acquiesced to the occurrence of this type of
violence in light of these disturbing statistics.
Many students from private schools (62.8% and 82.3%, respectively)
reported snobbery and the spread of malicious rumors about fellow
students as examples of emotional or relational forms of bullying they
had experienced. While this does not leave a physical scar, the long-term
emotional impact on a person’s self-esteem and sense of self cannot be
measured. Similarly, the fact that the data highlight the private school
students does not imply that the public school students were in a better
position, as their reported responses also indicate something equally
concerning (50.2% and 73.2%, respectively). Under the emotional
category, the insult received by students as a form of bullying is
significantly more severe, with private school students leading by a
small margin over public school students (92.8 vs. 90.0%). Given this
condition, schools will be required to implement preventive programs
that are beneficial to the mental and physical well-being of all students,
whether they are bullies or victims (Sapouna, 2008). Equally, the local
government of Iloilo City should take note of all these needless night­
mares its residents and future leaders are experiencing (Bowes et al.,
2009; Moon & Alarid, 2014; Moon & Jan 2014).
The timely passage of RA 10627, also known as “The Philippines’
Anti-Bullying Act of 2013,” may provide a framework for addressing
bullying in the Philippines. This legal framework serves as an inspiration
for society to combat bullying, and it could thus serve as a model for
schools. In this regard, it is greatly appreciated if students have a thor­
ough understanding of the law. Given the data, it is necessary to address
the lack of knowledge that students in both public and private schools
have. While these figures are not backed up by computed relationships,
they do provide an indirect opportunity or challenge for schools to
incorporate this law into their curricula and make it relevant to students
(Perkins et al., 2011; Jenson et al., 2010; and Kyriakides & Creemers,
2012).
Furthermore, among those who are confident in their knowledge of
the anti-bullying law, private school students outperform public school
students by nearly half (6.1% vs 3.9%). The magnitude of this difference
could be understood if these numbers were proportionately multiplied,
highlighting the importance of providing students with factual legal
knowledge. Although this does not imply that everyone has actual
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
knowledge of the law’s contents, the act of recognizing and claiming
knowledge is empowering and encouraging in and of itself. On the other
hand, when those who said they had little knowledge are included in all
of their responses (public, 74.1%, and private, 72.9%), the demand for
imparting this knowledge is greater in public schools. Nonetheless, all
students will benefit if their knowledge gap is filled and their level of
knowledge is raised.
It is reassuring to note that when two total scores in the generally
confident and partly confident categories are added together (29.28%
and 35.03%, respectively), a general picture emerges that at least half of
all respondents have a sense of confidence to face bullying. When the
undecided and unconfident responses are included, however, a quarter
appears to require special intervention (17.52% and 6.67%, respec­
tively). This cautious attitude is understandable given the other factors
that may influence the situation, such as the severity of the bullying, the
presence of an intimidating group of students, or when done by people
they may have trusted the most (Moon & Alarid, 2014). In this regard,
schools may include specific details or different modes of bullying in
their training so that students can increase their capacity to face bullying
through simulations (Skrzypiec, Slee, Murray-Harvey, & Pereira, 2011;
and Wong, 2004).
When done by teachers, however, even though the relationships are
not statistically supported, some lessons can be drawn from the overall
scores themselves. Thus, combining the partly not confident and unde­
cided responses (18.85% and 29.10%) reveals that more than half of the
students demonstrated an overall inability to respond positively. Even if
the latter score of the undecided is ignored, nearly a third of the popu­
lation being undecided may appear depressing. While this is under­
standable given the unequal power dynamic between teachers and
students, it should not be tolerated. While this data may require further
clarification, schools may begin to conceptualize how to provide
mechanisms for students to have a cordial relationship with their
teachers, as well as protocols to protect students from bullies, in this case
(DeSouza & Ribeiro, 2005; Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010). Although such
challenges may be part of growing up, students must be well-guided in
order to recognize and report bullying when it is perpetrated by people
they look up to. Soon, with the help of the school and everyone else,
these students may be able to stand up to bullies in whatever place and
time they may be (Konishi et al, 2010).
Finally, in both types of schools, students express apprehension
about reporting bullying by classmates or, more specifically, teachers.
According to the data, nearly half of all students said they were unlikely
to report bullying done by their peers, and similarly when done by
teachers, so a greater challenge must be presented to all schools: how to
increase confidence in reporting or facing bullying. In any case, given
the data above, the reasonable scenario is that when confronted with
bullying, students may not readily stand up to their classmates or
teachers, but this does not prevent them from reporting the incident. In
this regard, schools could improve their response systems for dealing
with reported cases of bullying and not dismiss any sign or hint from
students (Wong et al., 2011; and Lester et al, 2013). Students may have a
concrete basis to strengthen their trust in their school’s ability to assist
them or those in need as a result of this (Borup & Holstein, 2007; and
Kyriakides & Creemers, 2012). Indeed, prompt response by school of­
ficials could mean a lot in preventing future bullying for the good of
everyone by anticipating and mitigating the subsequent harm on the
victim, the bully, and the rest of the school community (Trach et al.,
2010).
6. Limitations of the study
To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first study to
investigate bullying in a city or region using secondary school students
as respondents, who were moderated by their school type (public or
private) and using psychosocial variables. While this study aims to
investigate these students’ psychosocial needs and popularize
10
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
preventive mechanisms during their adolescent years, it has some
methodological and analytical flaws.
The first is in sample selection, which involved drawing only half of
the ideal sample population of the listed schools available. This reduc­
tion to half of the sample population, while also done at random, implies
that the prospective respondents may represent only half of the city’s
high school students. This decision was made due to financial and time
constraints. Despite this circumstance, the researchers were able to
survey more students from a randomly selected class and section. In
other words, while the study may have some quantity or population
magnitude limitations, it hoped to compensate for these through the
quality of responses because, at the school level, everyone has an equal
opportunity to be heard.
In the future, future researchers would do well to collect the names of
all high school students in both private and public schools, across year
levels and sections. After determining the proportionate number of
students enrolled in each school type, grade level, and section, samples
for the survey can be drawn. This strategy was not chosen in this case
due to the budgetary constraint of paying a sufficient number of enu­
merators to offset the influence of intervening extraneous factors if
months pass before a sufficient number of respondents complete the
survey. It is hoped that the findings, as well as the research itself, will
raise awareness of bullying among teachers, parents, and students, as
well as the general public.
Second, because the process of surveying students on school cam­
puses involved a number of bureaucratic processes, the researchers had
no way of knowing if school heads had informed their students about the
upcoming survey in advance. Whether or not students were informed in
advance, the fact that a survey was announced in advance had to have an
impact on the responses. Given that the anti-bullying campaign is part of
the school’s image, not only to attract students but also to comply with
legal requirements, some bias was expected. The researchers were then
directed to keep their analysis and discussion, including statistical tools,
within this constraint.
Third, it is worth noting that a chi-square statistical tool has ad­
vantages and disadvantages, which are evident in this study given the
objectives of the research. In effect, this study addressed only basic
categorical relationships and failed to identify much more subtle re­
lationships that would necessitate the use of more sophisticated
analytical tools. To that end, future researchers who are interested in
modeling students’ perceptions and behavior are strongly encouraged to
do so in order to predict outcomes based on significant relationships
among variables in the anti-bullying campaign.
Finally, after exploring the variables given, a focus group discussion,
even with a few participants, could have supplemented the analysis.
While this is only an observation, any qualitative contribution from the
perspectives of a few respondents can certainly influence policies if well
integrated into the research. Thus, by recognizing this limitation, the
researchers hope that future researchers will improve their analysis by
incorporating respondents’ narratives into the design and analysis of
their study.
7. Conclusion
This study sought to contribute positive inputs to future psychosocial
interventions needed by youth in the region by describing how high
school students in Iloilo City, Philippines, perceive and experience
bullying. A comparison of data from private and public secondary
schools reveals five relationships with school types (advice on bullying,
attendance at school services, bullying experience at home, people to
rely on, and discussions or programs attended), but not the other four
(types and intensity of bullying, bullying as a term, bullying news, and
knowledge of RA 10627), and two others required qualifications (media
access and use, and perceived type of bullying). The most pressing need,
however, is for both types of schools to address non-physical forms of
bullying, which have been identified as predominating without de-
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
emphasizing physical bullying, which has been acknowledged as expe­
rienced by a few. Bulletin boards and other informative print media
should be readily available as a valuable part of preventive measures so
that students can gain detailed knowledge about bullying. Notably for
private schools, parents will need to be reminded on a regular basis to
include bullying in their everyday conversations, as it is a recognized
concern of their children. Also, guidance offices must be re-energized so
that they can work with parents and teachers to address students’ psy­
chological needs, particularly those related to bullying. Furthermore, at
both types of schools, meetings and seminars involving students and
parents must include or instill specific knowledge of RA10627 that can
provide confidence and mechanisms to deal with bullying perpetrated
by fellow students or any person in authority. Finally, while bullying
may not appear to be a widespread concern among students, parents,
and schools, the experience of a few should inspire everyone’s vigilance
and participation in the fight against this violence.
Declaration of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jose Rene M. Sansait: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Su­
pervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing,
Writing – review & editing. Giabelle Flecila Aguiling-Saldaña: Data
curation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – review & editing, Writing – review & editing. Pilar
Mercedes A. Retiracion: Data curation, Funding acquisition,
Methodology.
Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to express gratitude to the Office of the
Vice Chancellor for Research and Extension, University of the
Philippines Visayas for funding this study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100530.
References
Acidre, J. (2019). Private education, it’s worth examining. Manila Standard https://mani
lastandard.net/opinion/columns/the-fifth-gospel-by-jude-acidre/310288/private
-education.html.
Arcilla, J. S. (1972). Philippine education: Some observations from history. Philippine
Studies. Ateneo de Manila University, 20(2), 273–286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
42632150.
Ba, Z., Han, Z., Gong, Z., Li, F., Zhang, H., & Zhang, G. (2019). Ethnic differences in
experiences of school bullying in China. Children and Youth Services Review, 104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104402
Baker, C. N., Arnold, D. H., & Meagher, S. (2011). Enrollment and attendance in a parent
training prevention program for conduct problems. Society for Prevention Research,
12(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0187-0
Beckman, L., & Svensson, M. (2015). The cost-effectiveness of the olweus bullying
prevention program: Results from a modelling study. Journal of Adolescence, 45,
127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.07.020. ISSN 0140-1971.
Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children. (2006). UNICEF
child protection section. UK: The Body Shop International.
Borup, I., & Holstein, B. E. (2007). Schoolchildren who are victims of bullying report
benefit from health dialogues with school health nurse. Health Education Journal, 66
(1), 58–67.
Bowes, D., Marquis, M., Young, Holoway, P., & Isaac, W. (2009). Process evaluation of a
school-based intervention to increase physical activity and reduce bullying. Health
Promotion Practice, 10(3), 394–401.
Brown, J. R., Aalsma, M., & Ott, M. A. (2013). The experiences of parents who report
youth bullying victimization to school officials. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28
(3), 494–518.
CDC. (2023). Protective factors in schools. Center for disease control. https://www.cdc.
gov/healthyschools/protective_factors_schools.htm. (Accessed 2 December 2022).
11
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
Charalampousa, K., Demetriou, C., Trichab, L., Ioannou, M., Georgiou, S., Nikiforou, M.,
et al. (2018). The effect of parental style on bullying and cyber bullying behaviors
and the mediating role of peer attachment relationships: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Adolescence, 64, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2018.02.003. April 2018.
Chen, L., & Cheng, Y. (2013). Prevalence of school bullying among secondary students in
Taiwan: Measurements with and without a specific definition of bullying. School
Psychology International, 34(6), 707–720.
Cheng, Y., Chen, L., Ho, H., & Cheng, C. (2011). Definitions of school bullying in taiwan:
A comparison of multiple perspectives. School Psychology International, 32(3),
227–243.
Choi, S., & Cho, Y., II. (2012). Influence of psychological and social factors on
bystanders’ roles in school bullying among Korean-American students in the United
States. School Psychology International, 34(1), 67–81.
Coloroso, B. (2002). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander. http://www.hpedsb.on.
ca/documents/handout_bullying.pdf). (Accessed 25 August 2014).
Coram International. (2018). Situation analysis of children in the Philippines: Summary
report. https://www.unicef.org/philippines/reports/situation-analysis-children-ph
ilippines.
Cross, D., Epstein, M., Hearn, L., Slee, P., Shaw, T., & Monks, H. (2011). National safe
schools framework: Policy and practice to reduce bullying in Australian schools.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(5), 398–404.
Cruz, I. (2014). Why private schools. The philippine star. https://www.philstar.com/othe
r-sections/education-and-home/2014/01/09/1276645/why-private-schools.
(Accessed 27 July 2022).
De Guzman, L. (2011). Philippines still top Christian country in Asia, 5th in world.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/21233/philippines-sti
ll-top-christian-country-in-asia-5th-in-world. (Accessed 27 July 2022).
DeSouza, E. R., & Ribeiro, J. (2005). Bullying and sexual harassment among Brazilian
high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(9), 1018–1038.
Dill, T. D., Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., & Musick, M. A. (2006). Religious attendance
and the health behaviors of Texas adults. Preventive Medicine, 42(4), 309–312.
Dresler-Hawke, E., & Whitehead, D. (2009). The behavioral ecological model as a
framework for school-based anti-bullying health promotion interventions. The
Journal of School Nursing, 25(3), 195–204.
Eleni, P. (2014). School Bullying: The phenomenon, the prevention and the intervention.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 268–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.09.193. ISSN 1877-0428.
Eliot, M., & Cornell, D. G. (2009). Bullying in middle school as a function of insecure
attachment and aggressive attitudes. School Psychology International, 30(2), 201–214.
Erginoz, E., Aliksifoglu, M., Ercan, O., Uysal, O., Alp, Z., Ocak, S., et al. (2013). The role
of parental, school and peer factors in adolescent bullying involvement: Results from
the Turkish HBSC 2005/2006 study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 20(10),
1–13.
Garcia, A. S., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2020). The meanings and ways of parental
involvement among low-income Filipinos. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 53,
343–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.05.013. ISSN 0885-2006.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health behavior and health education:
Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guerrero, J. S. (1990). Education and the Filipino family. Population forum: Monthly
Newsletter of the Commission on Population, (1), 19–22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/12343163/.
Harvey, I., & Alexander, K. (2012). Perceived social support and preventive health
behavioral outcomes among older women. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 27
(3), 275–290.
Hash, R. (2003). Does physician weight affect perception of health advice? Preventive
Medicine, 36(1), 41–44.
Hay, J., Coups, E. J., Ford, J., & DiBonaventura, M. (2009). Exposure to mass media
health information, skin cancer beliefs, and sun protection behaviors in a United
States probability sample. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 61(5),
783–792.
Hooven, C., Walsh, E., Willgerodt, M., & Salazar, A. (2011). Increasing participation in
prevention research: Strategies for youth, parents and schools. Journal of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24(3), 137–149.
Horowitz, J. A., Vessey, J. A., Carlson, K. L., Bradley, J. F., Montoya, C., McCullough, B.,
et al. (2004). Teasing and bullying experiences of middle school students. American
Psychiatric Nurses Association, 10(4), 165–172.
Hutzell, K. L., & Payne, A. A. (2012). The impact of bullying victimization on school
avoidance. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(4), 370–385.
Iso, G. M. (2017). OFWs and the children left behind. https://philippineone.com/ofws-
and-the-children-left-behind/.
Jenson, J. M., Dieterich, W. A., Brisson, D., Bender, K. A., & Powell, A. (2010).
Preventing childhood bullying: Findings and lessons from the Denver public schools
trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(5), 509–517.
Jetelina, K. K., Reingle Gonzalez, J., Cuccaro, P., Peskin, M., Pompeii, L., Atem, F., et al.
(2019). Mechanisms and frequency of violent injuries among victims and
perpetrators of bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(5), 664–670.
Jia, L. (2021). Christian values education and holistic child development from the parent
perspective in Santiago City, Philippines. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, 10
(1), 86–100. ISSN 2289-3156/eISSN 2550-1763 http://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.
php/SAECJ.
Jimenez, E., Lockheed, M. E., & Paqueo, V. (1991). The relative efficiency of private and
public schools in developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 6(2),
205–218. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5218021_The_Relative_Efficie
ncy_of_Private_and_Public_Schools_in_Developing_Countries.
J.R.M. Sansait et al.
Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (2001). Public for private: The relationship between public
and private school enrollment in the Philippines. Economics of Education Review, 20
(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(00)00061-3. ISSN 0272-7757.
Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., & Li, Z. (2010). Do school bullying and student-
teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel analysis.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 19–39.
Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2012). Characteristics of effective schools in facing
and reducing bullying. School Psychology International, 34(3), 348–368.
Lasquety-Reyes, J. (2018). American education in the Philippines and Filipino values.
Southeast asian education in modern history. ISBN9781315161211. https://www.
academia.edu/40405699/American_Education_in_the_Philippines_and_Filipino_
Values.
Le Menestrel, S. (2020). Preventing bullying: Consequences, prevention and
intervention. Journal of Youth Development, 15(3). https://jyd.pitt.edu/ojs/jyd/
article/view/2020-15-3-SIA-1. (Accessed 2 December 2022).
Lee, C. (2010). Personal and interpersonal correlates of bullying behaviors among
Korean middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(1), 152–176.
Lee, C. (2011). An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle
school students in the Unites States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8),
1664–1693.
Lee, C., & Song, J. (2012). Functions of parental involvement and effects of school
climate on bullying behaviors among South Korean middle school students. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27(12), 2437–2464.
Lester, L., Cross, D., Dooley, J., & Shaw, T. (2013). Bullying victimization and
adolescents: Implications for school-based intervention programs. Australian Journal
of Education, 57(2), 107–123.
Levin, J. S., & Vanderpool, H. Y. (2008). Religious factors in physical health and the
prevention of illness. Prevention in Human Services, 9(2), 41–64.
Lindenberger, H. (2019). Private school vs. Public school: Facts, benefits & statistics. htt
ps://ph.news.yahoo.com/private-school-vs-public-school-182646593.html.
Llorent, V. J., Farrington, D. P., & Zych, I. (2021). School climate policy and its relations
with social and emotional competencies, bullying and cyberbullying in secondary
education. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 26(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psicoe.2020.11.002. ISSN 2530-3805.
Mitchell, R. E., Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1982). Social support and well-being:
Implications for prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 3(2), 77–98.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01324668
Moneymax. (2023). Tuition fees in the Philippines: Know your child’s education cost.
https://www.moneymax.ph/personal-finance/articles/cost-of-education-philippine
s. (Accessed 23 January 2023).
Moon, B., & Alarid, L. F. (2014). School bullying, low self-control and opportunity.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–18.
Moon, B., & Jan, S. J. (2014). A general strain approach to psychological and physical
bullying: A study of interpersonal aggression at school. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 29(12), 2147–2171.
Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M.
J. The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent
internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 25
(1), 53-63.
Murray-Harvey, R., & Slee, P. T. (2010). School and home relationships and their impact
on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31(3), 271–295.
National Statistics Office (Nso). (2000). Iloilo city: Demographic and housing characteristics,
1. Report No. 2.
Nikolaou, D. (2017). Do anti-bullying policies deter in-school bullying victimization?
International Review of Law and Economics, 50, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
irle.2017.03.001. ISSN 0144-8188.
Ohene, S., Ireland, M., McNeely, C., & Borowsky, I. W. (2006). Parental expectations,
physical punishment, and violence among adolescents who score positive on a
psychosocial screening test in primary care. Pediatrics, 117, 441–447.
Palma, J. S. (2012). January 29). 400 Years of catholic education in the Philippines. CBCP
Pastoral Letter. https://cbcponline.net/a-pastoral-letter-of-the-cbcp-on-the-occasi
on-of-the-400-years-of-catholic-education-in-the-philippines/.
Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using norms to reduce bullying: A
research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 703–722.
Philatlas. (2023). Iloilo city profile. https://www.philatlas.com/visayas/r06/iloilo-city.
html. (Accessed 23 January 2023).
Republic Act No. 10627. (2013). Anti-bullying act of 2013. https://www.officialgazette.
gov.ph/2013/09/12/republic-act-no-10627/.
Republic Act No. 9344. (2006). Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 https://elib
rary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/992.
12
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8 (2023) 100530
Rettew, D. C., & Pawlowski, S. (2016). Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of north
America. Bulletin, 25(2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2015.12.002. ISSN
1056-4993, ISBN 9780323417464.
Richard, J. F., Schneider, B. H., & Mallet, P. (2011). Revisiting the whole-school
approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology
International, 33(3), 263–284.
Rimando, G. J. (2019). Importance of education. The global Filipino magazine. https://
www.theglobalfilipinomagazine.com/2019/12/12/importance-of-education/.
Sapouna, M. (2008). Bullying in Greek primary and secondary schools. School Psychology
International, 29(2), 199–213.
Saunders, B. J., & Goddard, C. (2002). The role of mass media in facilitating community
education and child abuse prevention strategies. NCPC Issues No. 16 - June 2002.
Schools urged to deal OFW children lightly. (2010). Sunstar Philippines https://www.
sunstar.com.ph/article/198373/schools-urged-to-deal-ofw-children-lightly.
Schurya, K., Zimmermannb, M., Umlauftc, A. L. d, Hulberta, G. H., Ziegenhaine, U., &
Kolassaa, I.-T. (2017). Childhood maltreatment, postnatal distress and the protective
role of social support. Journal of Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 228–239.
Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2012). The clustering of bullying and cyberbullying behavior with
Australian schools. Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 142–162.
Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., Murray-Harvey, R., & Pereira, B. (2011). School bullying by one or
more ways: Does it matter and how do students cope? School Psychology International,
32(3), 288–311.
Soimah, A., Hamid, Y., & Daulima, N. H. C. (2019). Family’s support for adolescent
victims of bullying. Enfermería Clínica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2019.04.113
Steers, W. N., Elliott, E., Nemiro, J., Ditman, D., & Oskamp, S. (1996). Health beliefs as
predictors of HIV-preventive behavior and ethnic differences in prediction. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 136(1), 99–110.
Sterrett, W. L., & Shifflett, L. F. (2005). Bullying at Lincoln middle school. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 8(3), 62–71.
Studer, J., Baggio, S., Dupuis, M., Mohler-Kuo, M., Daeppen, J., & Gmel, G. (2017).
Substance use in young Swiss men: The interplay of perceived social support and
dispositional characteristics (pp. 1–13). Substance Use & Misuse. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10826084.2016.1264966. Downloaded from.
Takyi, B. K. (2003). Religion and women’s health in Ghana: Insights into HIV/AIDs
preventive and protective behavior. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1221–1234.
Tan, E. A., & Ducanes, G. (2013). Inequality in PH education. Philippine daily inquirer.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/53747/inequality-in-ph-education.
Trach, J., Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T., & Neale, K. (2010). Bystander responses to school
bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 114–130.
Trinidad, J. E. (2020). Material resources, school climate, and achievement variations in
the Philippines: Insights from PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational
Development, 75, Article 102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102174.
ISSN 0738-0593.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Risk and protective factors, longitudinal
research, and bullying prevention. New Directions for Youth Development, 133, 85–98.
Van Velsen, L., Beaujean, D. J., van Gemert-Pijnen, J., van Steenbergen, J. E., &
Timen, A. (2014). Public knowledge and preventive behavior during a large-scale
Salmonella outbreak: Results from an online survey in The Netherlands. BMC Public
Health, 14(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-100
Wang, M. L., Pbert, L., & Lemon, S. C. (2014). Influence of family, friend and coworker
social support and social undermining on weight gain prevention among adults.
Obesity, 22(9), 1973–1980.
Wei, H., & Chen, J. (2011). The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the
relationships between bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment in
adolescents. School Psychology International, 33(3), 345–363.
WHO. (2022). Determinants of health. World Health Organization. Retrieved https://www
.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/determinants-of-health.
(Accessed 2 December 2022).
Wong, D. S. W. (2004). School bullying and tackling strategies in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(5),
537–553.
Wong, D. S. W., Cheng, C. H. K., Ngan, R. M. H., & Ma, S. K. (2011). Program
Effectiveness of a restorative whole-school approach for tackling school bullying in
Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55
(6), 846–862.
Wong, D. S. W., Lok, D. P. P., Lo, T. W., & Ma, S. K. (2008). School bullying among Hong
Kong Chinese primary school children. Youth & Society, 40(1), 35–54.
Yoon, J., Bauman, S., Choi, T., & Hutchinson, A. S. (2011). How South Korean teachers
handle an incident of school bullying. School Psychology International, 32(3),
312–329.