Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Mar 21.
Published in final edited form as: Sch Psychol. 2023 Jul 27;39(5):510–519. doi: 10.1037/spq0000562

Violence Directed Against Teachers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social–Ecological Analysis of Safety and Well-Being

Linda A Reddy 1, Andrew Martinez 2, Andrew H Perry 3, Susan D McMahon 4, Dorothy L Espelage 5, Eric M Anderman 3, Ron A Astor 6, Frank C Worrell 7
PMCID: PMC11927438  NIHMSID: NIHMS2057388  PMID: 37498715

Abstract

Violence against teachers is a public health crisis that has devastating effects on school personnel well-being, health, and retention, as well as students’ educational outcomes. In collaboration with national organizations, the American Psychological Association Task Force on Violence against Educators conducted the first national survey on educator victimization that included 4,136 pre-K through 12th-grade teachers from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico during the pandemic. In the current study, 43.7% of teachers reported experiencing at least one verbal threat, physical assault, and/or property damage, with verbal threats being the most prevalent form of victimization during the pandemic. Using a social–ecological framework and logistic regression analyses, characteristics of teachers, school climate, and school organizational and community factors were examined as predictors of teacher victimization (i.e., verbal threats, physical, property violence) during the pandemic. Findings revealed that teacher role (i.e., special educators), negative and positive dimensions of school climate, as well as school organizational and community factors (i.e., percent of students receiving free and reduced lunch, instructional modality, school level, and urbanicity) significantly predicted greater teacher victimization. While findings revealed that in-person instruction significantly predicted teacher violence across aggressors, teacher victimization was reported across instructional modality (in-person, hybrid, remote). Results offer insights into possible contextual antecedents to teacher victimization, sense of safety, and well-being in schools. Implications for research and school practice are presented.

Keywords: teacher, violence, social–ecological framework, pandemic

Most of what we know about the context and consequences of school violence focuses on students, yet research has consistently documented high rates of violence directed against teachers (hereinafter teacher victimization; see reviews by Longobardi et al., 2019; Reddy et al., 2018). Teachers have been found to experience a broad range of victimization including, but not limited to, verbal aggression, threats, objects thrown, harassment, and physical assaults. A recent report from National Center for Education Statistics’s (NCES, 2022a) School Survey on Crime and Safety from 2019 to 2020 indicated that the rate of verbal and threatening behavior toward teachers by students has almost doubled since 2009–2010 (4.8%–9.8%). This increase in the prevalence of teacher violence has drawn national attention from educational organizations (e.g., American Federation of Teachers, National Educational Association), legislators, and scholars (e.g., Espelage et al., 2013; McMahon, Cafaro, et al., 2022).

Research has found that rates of teacher victimization can vary by sample, assessment time frame, and type of violence. For example, a review of 37 international and U.S. studies of teacher victimization representing over 49,000 educators yielded rates ranging from 8% to 80% (Reddy et al., 2018), and, in a recent meta-analysis of student violence against teachers, Longobardi et al. (2019) reported rates of 20%–75% during a 2-year time frame. Although students are common perpetrators of teacher violence, teachers are also victimized by parents (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2022) and other school personnel (e.g., teachers, support staff, school administrators), which can result in higher rates of victimization, a lowered sense of safety and belonging, and a negative work environment (McMahon et al., 2014, 2017). When teacher experience violence at school, it can compromise their health, mental health, and well-being (e.g., increase irritability, depression, anxiety, burnout) and decrease their job satisfaction and retention, as well as affect student educational achievement (e.g., Anderman et al., 2018; Gerberich et al., 2011; Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016). In sum, violence toward teachers is a serious public health issue that can have profound implications for the well-being of teachers, school personnel, and their students.

Researchers have begun examining not only the prevalence of teacher violence but also the predictors and consequences of teacher victimization (e.g., Curran et al., 2019; Martinez et al., 2016; McMahon, Peist, et al., 2020). They have examined individual teacher demographics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, year of experience), school-level factors (e.g., primary vs. secondary, school climate), and/or community-level factors, such as urbanicity, socioeconomic status, and/or community crime rates (e.g., see review by Reddy et al., 2018). At the teacher level, teacher violence has been found to vary by binary gender (i.e., male vs. female), race/ethnicity (e.g., Black, White, and Hispanic), and years of teaching experience; however, findings have been mixed (e.g., Berg & Cornell, 2016; McMahon et al., 2014; NCES, 2022b).

At the school level, researchers have found higher rates of teacher victimization in schools with disorganized systems, fewer resources, and unfavorable climates (e.g., Berg & Cornell, 2016; Gerberich et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2020). At the community level, some studies have indicated that schools located in urban settings or areas with high crime rates have higher teacher victimization rates (e.g., Casteel et al., 2007; Martinez et al., 2016). Overall, the majority of the literature on predictors of teacher victimization has examined teacher demographic variables, but very few empirical studies have examined the unique and combined contributions of teachers’ characteristics, school climate and organizational factors, and community factors to teacher victimization, especially within large national samples (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; Martinez et al., 2016; NCES, 2022b). Indeed, school organizational and climate have been found to be potent and meaningful school conditions for preventing and remediating the likelihood of violence directed against teachers and/or students. For example, negative school climate is one of the strongest predictors of school victimization among students, and more research is needed to better understand how school climate extends to teachers’ experiences of violence (Turanovic et al., 2020). While some work has examined the relationship between school climate and teacher victimization, these studies have not examined violence across a wide range of types (e.g., verbal, property) or have not examined school climate dimensions that specifically relate to student relations (e.g., Huang et al., 2020).

Research is needed that examines this national problem comprehensively using a social–ecological perspective and assesses behavior from a range of nested contextual factors and conditions (e.g., teacher, school climate, school organization, and community; Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Social–ecological theory, an important framework for understanding school violence, can guide the development of theory, research, and innovations in school-based interventions for teacher violence victimization (e.g., Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; Espelage et al., 2013; McMahon, Davis et al., 2020). Empirical ecological research can advance our understanding of who experiences violence and how teacher violence occurs in school contexts, guiding the development and validation of contextual-fit intervention approaches to preventing and addressing this problem.

Teachers’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic remain an important contextual factor that is missing from the teacher violence literature. Reports have documented the devastating outcomes of the pandemic on the loss of life, health, mental health, and learning affecting children, youth, and families worldwide (Muñoz-Price et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2022). As COVID-19 surged, the United States also experienced racial unrest, a contested presidential election, an insurrection in the national capital, and a lack of consensus on vaccinations and mask use in schools and communities. Also, the pandemic led to rapid changes in school operations and instructional delivery (e.g., remote, hybrid), resulting in staff shortages and unequal access to learning opportunities and social–emotional supports (Gross & Opalka, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2022). In combination, these events have raised significant national concerns about the health, mental health and well-being of students, families, and school personnel (De France et al., 2022; Samji et al., 2022; U.S. Surgeon General, 2021). Thus, research focused on teacher victimization and well-being during the pandemic is warranted.

Purpose of Study

This investigation builds on the teacher violence literature in unique ways. First, this study has one of the largest samples, to date, of pre-K–12 teachers surveyed on their experiences of violence in schools in the United States, across a wide range of victimization types. Second, we examine the contributions of a comprehensive set of social–ecological variables (individual, school, and community levels) using psychometrically sound scales that assess important factors associated with teacher safety and well-being. Third, the study includes multiple measures of school climate (scales of positive and negative valence). Finally, the study serves as the first national investigation that captures the experiences of teacher violence and well-being during the pandemic. The pandemic constituted a historical, unique time period for school personnel, students, and families in the United States. For example, educational policies and procedures on school operations, safety and instructional delivery widely varied among policy makers and district leaders. With different school operational policies and procedures across counties, states, and school districts, it would not be surprising that teacher victimization rates would vary compared to prepandemic conditions. Investigations conducted during this critical time period can potentially offer valuable information of teacher experiences of violence, safety, and well-being. Using a social–ecological measurement framework, we address the following research questions: (1) What is the rate of teacher-reported victimization during the pandemic; and (2) To what extent do characteristics of teachers, school climate, school organization, and community factors significantly predict victimization for verbal threats, physical assaults, and property damage? Based on the larger school violence literature (e.g., Turanovic et al., 2020), we hypothesized that dimensions of school climate and school organization elements would be associated with greater teacher-reported victimization (Reddy et al., 2018).

Method

The current study used data from a national online survey designed by the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Violence Against Educators and School Personnel (consisting of seven scholars from diverse backgrounds) and several national organizations that included the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of School Social Workers, and the School Social Work Association of America.

Sample

The sample included 4,136 teachers as part of a larger study on assessing violence against educators and school personnel in pre-K–12th-grade classrooms. Most participants identified as female (n = 3,235; 78.2%) and White (n = 3,454; 83.5%). In addition to the majority group members, the sample included 5.1% Black, 4.6% Hispanic/Latinx, 1.3% Asian, and 5.4% mixed-race teachers. With regard to teacher role, the sample consisted of general education teachers (n = 2,799; 67.7%), followed by special educators (n = 645; 15.6%) and specialists (n = 692; 16.7%). Regarding school-level characteristics, 1,478 teachers taught in high schools (35.7%), 907 taught in middle schools (21.9%), 1,370 taught in pre-K through 6th-grade schools (33.1%), 203 taught in pre-K through 9th-grade schools (4.9%), and 178 taught in schools with all grades from pre-K to 12th grade (4.3%). Participating teachers reported on average 14.67 years of teaching experience (SD = 9.31; range of 1 to 45). The classroom instructional modality used during the pandemic varied, with approximately 51.6% of the teachers teaching fully in-person (n = 2,135), 29.2% doing hybrid teaching (n = 1,206), and 19.2% teaching fully online (n = 795).

Measures

The online survey assessed characteristics of teachers, school climate, school organization, and community across 11 social–ecological factors associated with violence against teachers perpetrated by students, colleagues, parents, and school administrators.

School Climate Scales

Participating teachers also completed four, 5-point Likert-type scales of school climate. Each scale yielded a composite mean score, and scores were examined for internal consistency (assessed via Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω) and structural validity (assessed via a confirmatory factor analysis [CFA] using maximum likelihood estimation). The Student Climate Problems Scale (McMahon, Reddy, et al., 2022) consists of three items that assess student classroom behavior issues (e.g., classes were often disrupted by students who lacked discipline, some students with behavior problems made it difficult to carry out lessons as planned). Scale scores had strong internal consistency (α = .92; ω = .92) and acceptable fit to the data (e.g., comparative fit index [CFI] = .99, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .04, standardized root-mean-squared residual [SRMR] = .01; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Jackson et al., 2009). The Student Behavioral Problems Scale (Capp et al., 2020a, 2020b) consists of four items that assess student behavior problems (e.g., harassment or bullying among students, physical fighting between students, verbal aggression between students, disruptive student behavior). Scale scores had adequate internal consistency (α = .88; ω = .88) and acceptable fit to the data (e.g., CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .20, SRMR = .004). The Student–Staff Relationship Problems Scale (Capp et al., 2020a, 2020b) has four items that assess negative interactions between school personnel and students (e.g., staff humiliated or shamed students, physically harmed students). Scale scores have adequate internal consistency (α = .86; ω = .87) and structural validity (CFI = .97; RMSEA = .12; SRMR = .03). Finally, the Positive Staff/Parent Relationship Scale, a modified version of the relation to Parents subscale of the School Context Survey (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010) consists of four items that measure positive attitudes of school personnel toward parents (e.g., I feel that the parents have trust in our teachers, the parents trust and accept my decisions). Scale scores have fair internal consistency (α = .77; ω = .78) and structural validity (e.g., CFI = .99; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .01).

School Organization and Community Variables

Participating teachers responded to three questions that captured elements of their schools’ organizational structure. These variables were (a) the percent of students receiving free and reduced lunch (FRL) at school, which is a proxy for the proportion of low-income students at the school, (b) school level (e.g., elementary, middle school, high school), and (c) the classroom instructional modality they used during the pandemic (i.e., full in-person classroom instruction, hybrid in-person and virtual classroom instruction, and full virtual instruction). Finally, teachers were asked to indicate the urbanicity of their school community (i.e., urban, suburban, or rural).

Teacher Violence Scales

Teachers completed the Educator Victimization Scale (McMahon et al., 2022a, 2022c), which consisted of three subscales that assessed verbal and threatening, physical, and property violence against teachers. Each scale yielded a composite mean score and had adequate internal consistency and construct validity. Teachers reported how frequently they experienced each type of violence from each of four different aggressors (i.e., students, parents/guardians, colleagues, and administrators) during the pandemic on a 6-point scale from never to daily. Verbal and threatening violence was assessed with eight items: obscene remarks or gesture, intimated, slurs or verbal attacks based on demography, verbally threatened, bullied, publicly humiliated, cyber/internet bullying, and sexual harassed (α = .82; ω = .85). Physical violence was assessed with three items: objects thrown, ordinary object used as a weapon, or physically attacked (α = .87; ω = .88). Property violence was assessed with two items: personal or classroom property damaged, personal or classroom property stolen (α = .76; ω = .85). CFAs using maximum likelihood were carried out on the item sets as a three-factor measure of violence against teachers and yielded acceptable fit to the data: CFI = .90; RMSEA = .11; SRMR = .08. In the reporting of these scores in this article, ratings were dichotomized to reflect if the behavior occurred or did not occur (0 = never, 1 = at least once).

Procedure

Following institutional review board (IRB) procedures approved at the University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill, online survey data were collected, coded, and analyzed by the APA Task Force. School participants were contacted via school emails from July 2020 to June 2021 and provided the online anonymous survey that described the study purpose and IRB-approved written informed consent procedures.

Data Analytic Plan

Study research questions were addressed with several methods. Descriptive analyses were computed to assess the reported rate of teacher violence victimization (see Tables 1 and 2). Second, simultaneous logistic regressions (Pengk & So, 2002) were separately conducted for each subscale of the Educator Victimization Scale (i.e., verbal and threatening, physical, and property dichotomous scores) using 2021 SPSS Version 28 (IBM Corporation, 2021). These variables were grouped conceptually but were assessed simultaneously. The groups of variables were as follows: teacher characteristics (i.e., four variables: racial identity, primary role, gender identity, and educational experience), school climate characteristics (i.e., four scales: Student Climate Problems, Student–Staff Relationship Problems, Student Behavioral Problems, and Positive Student/Parent Relationships), school organizational characteristics (i.e., three variables: percentage of students on free or reduced-price lunch, school level, and modality), and community characteristics (i.e., urbanicity). The odds ratios of likelihood for violence against teachers to occur as an outcome of the respective predictors and 95% confidence intervals are reported in Table 3.

Table 1.

Frequencies for Teacher-Directed Violence by Violence Type and Educator Role

Educator role Verbal/threatening N (%) Physical N (%) Property N (%)
Overall 1,456 (35.2%) 443 (10.7%) 877 (21.2%)
General educators 973 (34.8%) 206 (7.4%) 566 (20.2%)
Special educators 262 (40.6%) 155 (24%) 180 (27.9%)
Specialists/other 221 (31.9%) 82 (11.8%) 131 (18.9%)
Open in a new tab

Note. Values for specific educator roles reflect percentages within each role.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviation for and Correlations Among the Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Gender — — —
2. Race — — .05** —
3. Role — — −.07** −.01 —
4. Years of experience 14.22 9.32 .00 −.01 .10** —
5. Student climate problems 2.68 1.22 −.10** −.00 .11** −.10** —
6. Student/staff relations problems 1.81 .64 −.03* −.02 −.06** −.10** .17** —
7. Student behavior problems 1.80 .66 −.04** −.01 .02 −.10** .58** .29** —
8. Positive parent/staff relationships 3.53 .75 .01 −.01 .09** .20** −.16** —.23** −.21** —
9. FRL — — −.03 .09** .04* −.04** .10** .02 .10** −.13** —
10. School level — — .22** .02 −.20** −.00 −.24** .11** −.01 −.13** −.11** —
11. Instructional modality — — −.03 −.04** .04* −.00 .29** .01 .28** −.01 −.03 −.02 —
12. Urbanicity — — .02 .07** .01 −.00 −.08** .02 −.06** −.02 .13** −.08* −.14** —
13. Verbal/threatening — — −.00 .02 −.01 −.08** .29** .20** .37** −.22** .11** .07** .13** .02 —
14. Physical violence — — −.07** .00 .11** −.05** .34** .08** .30** −.02 .05** −.22** .14** .03 .28** —
15. Property violence — — −.08** −.03 −.01 −.07** .35** .15** .35** −.11** .06** −.16** .17** −.01 .35** .50** —
Open in a new tab

Note. Race coded (1 = White, 2 = Black, 3 = Hispanic, 4 = Asian, 5 = multiracial). Gender coded (1 = female, 2 = male). FRL = percent of students receiving free and reduced lunch.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Results of Social–Ecological Variables Predicting Teacher Violence

Teacher victimization
Verbal/threatening
 Physical
 Property
Predictors (reference categories) OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Teacher characteristicsa
 Gender (female)
  Male 1.04 [.87, 1.24] .94 [.68, 1.29] .83 [.66, 1.05]
 Race (White)
  Black 1.34 [.97, 1.85] .63 [.33, 1.20] .43** [.26, 72]
  Hispanic .80 [.56, 1.15] .62 [.32, 1.20] .40*** [.23, .68]
  Asian .52 [.26, 1.06] .55 [.14, 2.13] .13** [.03, .58]
  Multiracial 1.32 [.96, 1.80] 1.30 [.79, 2.15] .92 [.61, 1.38]
 Primary role (general education)
  Special educators 1.21 [.99, 1.48] 3.31*** [2.52, 4.35] 1.05 [.83, 1.33]
  Specialist 1.02 [.83, 1.24] 1.22 [.90, 1.67] .69** [.54, .88]
 Years of teaching experience 1.00 [.99, 1.01] 1.00 [.98, 1.01] 1.00 [.99, 1.01]
School climate characteristics
 Student climate problems 1.32*** [1.22, 1.42] 1.72*** [1.50, 1.97] 1.46*** [1.32, 1.60]
 Student/staff relationships problems 1.32*** [1.17, 1.49] 1.02 [.84, 1.24] 1.20* [1.03, 1.40]
 Student behavior problems 2.32*** [2.01, 2.68] 2.04*** [1.66, 2.50] 1.97*** [1.67, 2.33]
 Positive staff/parent relationships .68*** [.61, .75] 1.04 [.88, 1.23] .88 [.77, 1.00]
School organizational characteristics
 % FRL (0%-10%)
  11–20 1.00 [.64, 1.55] .78 [.40, 1.51] 1.61 [.98, 2.66]
  21–30 1.41 [.94, 2.12] .90 [.48, 1.70] 1.26 [.76, 2.08]
  31–40 1.58* [1.06, 2.36] .84 [.46, 1.53] 1.54 [.96, 2.48]
  41–50 1.38 [.92, 2.07] .77 [.41, 1.43] 1.56 [.96, 2.52]
  51–60 1.50* [1.00, 2.26] .81 [.44, 1.51] 1.66* [1.02, 2.69]
  61–70 1.68** [1.13, 2.49] 1.00 [.55, 1.79] 1.68* [1.05, 2.70]
  71–80 1.55* [1.06, 2.28] 1.10 [.62, 1.92] 1.86** [1.18, 2.93]
  81–90 1.55* [1.04, 2.30] .72 [.40, 1.30] 1.20 [.74, 1.94]
  91–100 1.70** [1.19, 2.42] .81 [.48, 1.37] 1.34 [.88, 2.06]
 School level (pre-K-6th grade)
  Pre-K-9th grade .96 [.66, 1.39] .73 [.43, 1.23] .70 [.45, 1.08]
  Middle school 1.83*** [1.49, 2.26] .32*** [.23, .44] .72** [.56, .92]
  High school 1.73*** [1.42, 2.11] .27*** [.19, .38] .44*** [.35, .56]
  All grades 1.31 [.89, 1.92] .36*** [.21, .63] .41*** [.26, .63]
 Instructional modality (fully remote)
  Partially in-person 1.24 [.99, 1.55] 1.99 [.76, 5.19] 2.06* [1.11, 3.81]
  Fully in-person 1.30* [1.05, 1.60] 2.96* [1.15, 7.62] 3.17*** [1.73, 5.81]
Community characteristic
 Urbanicity (rural)
  Suburban 1.15 [.96, 1.39] 1.21 [.91, 1.60] 1.01 [.82, 1.26]
  Urban 1.40*** [1.15, 1.71] 1.21 [.88, 1.66] 1.00 [.78, 1.27]
Open in a new tab

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; FRL = percent of students receiving free and reduced lunch.

a

Variables coded.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Results

Overall, 43.7% of the participating teachers reported being victimized at least once since March 2020, the onset of the pandemic. As shown in Table 1, 35.2% of teachers reported verbal and threatening violence, 10.7% reported being physically assaulted, and 21.2% reported property damage. Special educators reported the highest rates of violence victimization, reporting at least one instance of verbal and threatening violence (40.6%), physical violence (24%), and property violence (27.9%). In Table 2, we present the means and standard deviations for select variables and correlations between predictors and the three teacher violence variables. Statistically significant small to medium correlations were found among specific variables.

Verbal and Threatening Violence

As indicated in Table 3, logistic regression results revealed that the teacher characteristics of gender, race, current role, and years of experience did not contribute to teacher-directed verbal and threatening violence. However, verbal and threatening violence against teachers was predicted by multiple measures of school climate, specifically Student Climate Problems, Student/Staff Relationship Problems, Student Behavioral Problems, and Positive Staff/Parent Relationships. Results indicated that as teacher ratings of Student Climate Problems, Student/Staff Relationship Problems, and Student Behavior Problems increased, the odds that teachers would report at least one instance of verbal or threatening violence increased (i.e., odds ratios of 1.32 to 2.32). Conversely, as teacher ratings of Positive Staff/Parent Relationships increased, the odds of teachers experiencing verbal and threatening violence decreased (i.e., .68).

Regarding school organizational characteristics, in general, as the percentage of students who receive free or reduced-price lunch increased, the odds of experiencing at least one instance of verbal and threatening violence also increased (e.g., odds ratios ranged from 1.50 to 1.70). School level also was found to contribute to teacher verbal and threatening violence. Compared to elementary schools, middle and high school teachers had greater odds of experiencing verbal and threatening violence (i.e., 1.83, 1.73). The instructional modality used by teachers was an important factor. Compared to teachers who were teaching 100% remotely, teachers who were teaching 100% in-person were more likely (i.e., 1.30) to report at least one instance of verbal and threatening violence. Finally, regarding community characteristics, teachers who taught in urban schools were more likely (i.e., 1.40) to experience verbal and threatening violence compared to teachers working in rural schools.

Physical Violence

Results revealed that teacher role predicted physical violence against teachers, with special educators having greater odds (i.e., 3.31) of reporting at least one instance of physical violence compared to general education teachers (Table 3). Other teacher characteristics did not contribute to teacher reports of physical assaults during the pandemic. Physical violence against teachers was predicted by two out of the four measures of school climate, specifically Student Climate Problems and Student Behavioral Problems. Results indicated that as teacher ratings of Student Climate Problems and Student Behavior Problems increased, the odds that teachers would report at least one instance of physical violence also increased (i.e., 1.72, 2.04).

Regarding school organizational characteristics, compared to elementary school teachers, teachers at all other school levels (middle school, high school, pre-K–12 schools) reported greater odds (i.e., .27–.36) of experiencing physical violence. For classroom instructional modality, teachers who were teaching 100% in-person were more likely (i.e., 2.96) to report at least one instance of physical violence compared to those teaching 100% remotely.

Property Violence

As indicated in Table 3, compared to teachers identifying as White, teachers identifying as Black, Hispanic, and Asian were less likely (i.e., .13–.43) to report at least one instance of property violence. Compared to general education teachers, specialists had lower odds (i.e., .69) of experiencing property violence. Property violence was predicted by three out of the four measures of school climate—specifically Student Climate Problems, Student/Staff Relationship Problems, and Student Behavioral Problems. Results revealed that as teacher ratings of Student Climate Problems, Student/Staff Relationship Problems, and Student Behavior Problems increased, the odds that teachers would report at least one instance of property violence increased (i.e., 1.20, 1.46, 1.97).

Regarding school organizational characteristics, the odds of experiencing property violence increased when more than 50% of students received free or reduced-price lunch (1.66–1.86). Teachers reported that property violence varied by school level. Compared to elementary schools, teachers at all other school levels (middle school, high school, pre-K–12 schools) had lower odds (i.e., .41–.72) of experiencing property violence. For classroom instructional modality, teachers working either hybrid teaching schedules or 100% in-person had higher odds of experiencing property violence than those teaching 100% remotely (i.e., 2.06, 3.17).

Discussion

Violence against teachers is a public health problem that has major effects on all school personnel, students, and communities. A sense of safety in one’s workplace is a fundamental necessity for well-being. In this investigation, we examined pre-K–12th-grade teachers’ experiences in the United States during a global pandemic. We found that 44% of classroom teachers surveyed reported being victimized, with verbal and threatening violence being the most frequent victimization, followed by personal or classroom property damage and physical assaults. We examined the contributions of teacher characteristics, school climate, school organization, and community contextual factors to teachers’ experiences with violence as victims. Overall, findings provide insights on the possible personal and contextual factors and conditions that may exacerbate or reduce the likelihood of violence against teachers during the pandemic.

Teacher Role

Consistent with prior work, this study highlighted that special educators are more vulnerable to victimization than their general education and specialist colleagues (e.g., Gerberich et al., 2011, 2014). Special educators are more likely to work closely with students with learning and self-regulation challenges, and this proximity is likely to expose teachers to violence. Although special education teachers are more likely to experience violence than their general education peers, most special education teachers in this sample did not report experiencing verbal and threatening (60%) and physical violence (76%) during the pandemic. However, it is important to note that rates of violence went down during the pandemic, and this is likely the result of many schools operating in a hybrid or online mode (McMahon, Reddy, et al., 2022). Future work can examine factors such as classroom type (e.g., integrated coteaching classrooms, self-contained classrooms), student individualized education plan classifications (e.g., emotional disturbance, autism, learning disability), and supports (e.g., classroom paraprofessional support) in relation to teacher victimization.

School Climate

We found that dimensions of school climate were powerful predictors of violence against teachers during the pandemic. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies of teacher-directed violence (e.g., Berg & Cornell, 2016; Martinez et al., 2016; McMahon, Cafaro, et al., 2022) as well as within the broader body of research on school violence (e.g., Turanovic et al., 2020). Thus, improving school climate may have benefits for different members of the school community. School climate is a multidimensional construct and findings in this study suggest that targeting different areas of school climate (e.g., student problem behaviors, student–teacher relationships) may play a central role in mitigating violence against teachers. These findings are encouraging because school climate is a more malleable factor (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2009; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2017; Osher et al., 2016) than several other features in the school setting (e.g., teacher characteristics, school community setting).

School Organization

School organizational factors were associated with teacher experiences of victimization. Specifically, we found that teachers employed in secondary education settings (i.e., middle school and high school) had greater odds of experiencing verbal and threatening violence and lower odds of physical violence than those working in elementary school settings. This is similar to findings from Anderman et al. (2018) and McMahon, Cafaro, et al. (2022) who reported that verbal abuse and threats of physical violence were more likely to be reported by secondary than elementary teachers, and reports of physical violence were more likely to occur among elementary and middle school teachers compared to high school teachers. Interestingly, in the present investigation, secondary education teachers reported lower odds in property violence than elementary school teachers, whereas McMahon, Cafaro, et al. (2022) found that middle school teachers were the most likely to report property violence compared to elementary and high school teachers.

We also found that teachers who worked in fully in-person settings during the pandemic were more likely to report experiencing verbal/threatening, physical, or property violence than teachers who taught fully remotely. The increased likelihood of experiencing all types of violence in face-to-face settings is not surprising, as it is easier to perpetrate most forms of violence when the perpetrator and the victim are in close physical proximity. Nevertheless, violence occurring on school grounds may have been further exacerbated by both the pandemic and by social unrest related to the George Floyd murder and other highly publicized incidents (Sawchuk, 2021). In general, we found that teachers working in schools that serve a higher percentage of students eligible for FRL were at greater risk for verbal and property victimization than those serving students with more resources. Thus, findings underscore the need to allocate more resources and programming for schools in low-income or underresourced contexts to protect school personnel and students from violence.

Community

With regard to community factors, urbanicity was found as a predictor of teacher violence. Specifically, teachers working in urban communities reported higher rates of verbal and threatening violence than those working in rural and suburban communities, which is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Martinez et al., 2016; McMahon et al., 2014). However, not all schools within the same community setting experience similar levels of violence and future work needs to explore this variability. Prior work has pointed to community violence exposure (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; McMahon et al., 2013), negative peer influences (Hong & Espelage, 2012), and neighborhood disadvantage and social disorganization (Shaw & McKay, 1942) as possible explanations; however, the extent to which these mechanisms also explain teacher-directed violence specifically is well-suited for future scientific inquiry.

Implications for School Practice

Findings from this investigation highlight several avenues for educational practice. First, effective prevention and intervention approaches for promoting teacher safety and well-being are dependent on ongoing comprehensive and reliable assessment. Brief assessments that measure the perspectives of school leaders, teachers, other staff (e.g., bus drivers, support staff, school mental health professionals), students, and parents/guardians across school and community contexts are needed. A multi-informant assessment can generate valuable data that identify district-, school-, and classroom-specific needs that can inform content-specific goals, guide intervention planning, and monitor progress toward goals following intervention.

Second, our findings underscore the power of a positive workplace climate in mitigating teacher victimization and promoting well-being. A school climate improvement plan can serve as a proactive and school-wide approach to mitigating violence. Professional development focused on training teachers and all school personnel on the use of culturally responsive relationship-based approaches would enhance elements of safety in schools. Additionally, frameworks such as the National School Climate Standards (National School Climate Center, 2010) can be useful in offering guidance to school leaders in the development of a positive and sustainable school climate.

Third, a close examination of the quality of school organizational structures and procedures (e.g., school safety committees, academic and behavior expectations, equitable disciplinary practices, and crisis management plans) are critical to addressing school personnel safety. Fourth, school-based practitioners and policy makers should direct resources (e.g., support staff, training, funding) toward subgroups of teachers and other school personnel who are more susceptible to violence (e.g., special education teachers). Finally, findings from this study underscore that school personnel and specifically teachers would benefit from tailored school-based interventions (e.g., social–emotional learning) and/or wellness training and resources. Likewise, school-based interventions for students and their parents and/or caregivers would be helpful for addressing mental health and health needs manifested from school/community violence, diversity, equity and inclusion concerns, and pandemic-related trauma.

Implications for Research

This investigation offers directions for research. First, research is needed that examines teacher victimization and sense of safety using a multimethod and source approach. Studies that include self-report, independent observations, school leader reports, and school records are needed. Second, mixed-method design studies can offer a rich and in-depth analysis of possible themes and conditions that lead to greater teacher sense of safety and well-being. Mixed-method studies help pinpoint nuances in specific contexts, interactions, and times that are most associated with teacher safety and well-being in the workplace (Astor et al., 2009). Third, studies are warranted that explore possible mediators or moderators associated with positive teacher–student, –colleague, –parent, and –school leader interactions that lead to healthy safe work environments. Fourth, multilevel analyses of school safety practices and teacher victimization in relation to school and state policies are needed. Fifth, much could be learned from in-depth case studies conducted at schools that have effectively mitigated violence perpetrated against educators; indeed, a careful and critical examination of the practices within specific school contexts that have led to decreased violence may greatly enhance subsequent intervention efforts. Sixth, future studies should examine how individual and system factors predict specific teacher victimizations (e.g., cyberbullying, weapon threats). Seventh, school-level longitudinal studies are needed to assess wellness and safety experiences and ecological factors within and across school years for teachers. Additionally, longitudinal investigations that track teacher sense of safety, as well as mental health and health status during and after the pandemic can identify correlates, shed light on how these factors fluctuate across time, and thus, help to inform effective interventions.

Finally, research is needed on the role of disciplinary policy, classroom management, and the overall physical and verbal climate between students and teachers in schools with high teacher victimization. Researchers conducting international studies have found that schools that have higher teacher victimization also have very high rates of student victimization by teachers, including humiliation, deprecating comments, physical harm, and formal disciplinary policies (e.g., Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; López et al., 2018). Most studies in the United States do not include questions for participants about teacher to student directed harm nor do they examine the relationship between teacher to student harm and student to teacher harm.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, this investigation is cross-sectional and does not permit the examination of possible historical effects and causal inferences of predictors of important teacher and student outcomes (e.g., retention, well-being, health/mental health, and achievement). Second, the timing of the data collection in this study is unique and may not generalize to all schools and time periods prior to or during the pandemic. Specifically, the current study collected data across 11 months during the pandemic and did not examine changes in teacher reports across and within specific months or quarters. Nevertheless, differences in teacher reports would largely reflect changes in school operations, such as instructional modality, which was accounted for in this study. Third, this study relied on teacher self-report and the extent of selection bias remains unclear; teachers who have been victimized may have been less likely to respond due to concerns about stigma or conversely may have been more likely to respond. The use of self-report may have increased the possibility of inflated victimization sampling; however, this hypothesis requires empirical investigation. Fourth, this study only examined predictions using binary gender groups (i.e., male vs. female) and did not assess the contribution of other possible gender identities and statuses (e.g., gender nonconforming, sexual minorities), which are marginalized and victimized populations in communities (McMahon et al., 2022b). Although this study included comprehensive ecological factors related to teacher victimization, it did not include other factors such as school leaders’ skills and supports, quality of staff–student relationships, school disorganization, and school–community alliances.

Conclusion

Understanding the possible personal and contextual characteristics associated with teacher safety and well-being is essential for guiding new ways to prevent and address school violence, as well as fostering more health-promoting learning environments for teachers and students (Herman et al., 2020). School psychologists, along with other stakeholders (e.g., school leaders, teachers, students, parents), are uniquely positioned to design and implement school-specific assessment–intervention approaches that promote the safety and well-being of school personnel and students following the pandemic.

Impact and Implications.

The present study found that teacher role (i.e., special educators), negative and positive dimensions of school climate, as well as school organizational and community factors (i.e., percent of students receiving free and reduced lunch, instructional modality, school level, and urbanicity) predicted greater teacher victimization. Additionally, teacher victimization was reported across instructional modality (in-person, hybrid, remote).

Acknowledgments

This study was based on the work of the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Violence Against Educators and School Personnel and supported by the APA Board of Trustees. The Task Force thanks Rena Subotnik, Maha Khalid, Kenneth Polishchuk, and Kim Mills from APA. The authors also thank our national partners, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, School Social Work Association of America and MCH Strategic Data, and all the adult stakeholders who completed surveys and shared their experiences. The Task Force thanks Christopher M. Dudek, Rutgers University; DePaul University: Kailyn Bare, Safa Asad, Yesenia Garcia, Kayleigh Zinter, Cori Tersesen, Taylor Swenski, Marlo Knapp-Fadani; The Ohio State University: Seung Yon Ha; University of California, Los Angeles: Hector Palencia, Gordon Capp, Laura Liévano-Karim, Natalie Fensterstock, Chaoyue Wu, Kate Watson, Sawyer Hogenkamp; University of North at Carolina Chapel Hill: Alberto Valido Delgado, Luz Elizabeth Robinson, Anne Drescher, and Ashley Brianna Woolweaver.

References

  1. Anderman EM, Espelage DL, Reddy LA, McMahon SD, Martinez A, Lane KL, Reynolds C, & Paul N (2018). Teachers’ reactions to experiences of violence: An attributional analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 21(3), 621–653. 10.1007/s11218-018-9438-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Astor RA, & Benbenishty R (2019). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving contexts: Culture, organization, and time. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Astor RA, Benbenishty R, & Estrada JN (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 423–461. 10.3102/0002831208329598 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Badenes-Ribera L, Angelo Fabris M, Martinez A, McMahon SD, & Longobardi C (2022). Prevalence of parental violence toward teachers: A meta-analysis. Violence and Victims, 37(3), 348–366. 10.1891/VV-D-20-00230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berg JK, & Cornell D (2016). Authoritative school climate, aggression toward teachers, and teacher distress in middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 122–139. 10.1037/spq0000132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bradshaw CP, Koth CW, Thornton LA, & Leaf PJ (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100–115. 10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bronfenbrenner U (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Capp G, Astor RA, & Gilreath T (2020a). School staff members in California: How perceptions of school climate are related to perceptions of student risk and well-being. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 11(3), 415–442. 10.1086/710974 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Capp G, Astor RA, & Gilreath TD (2020b). Advancing a conceptual and empirical model of school climate for school staff in California. Journal of School Violence, 19(2), 107–121. 10.1080/15388220.2018.1532298 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Casteel C, Peek-Asa C, & Limbos MA (2007). Predictors of nonfatal assault injury to public school teachers in Los Angeles City. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50(12), 932–939. 10.1002/ajim.20520 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Curran FC, Viano SL, & Fisher BW (2019). Teacher victimization, turnover, and contextual factors promoting resilience. Journal of School Violence, 18(1), 21–38. 10.1080/15388220.2017.1368394 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. De France K, Hancock GR, Stack DM, Serbin LA, & Hollenstein T (2022). The mental health implications of COVID-19 for adolescents: Follow-up of a four-wave longitudinal study during the pandemic. American Psychologist, 77(1), 85–99. 10.1037/amp0000838 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Espelage D, Anderman EM, Brown VE, Jones A, Lane KL, McMahon SD, Reddy LA, & Reynolds CR (2013). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda. American Psychologist, 68(2), 75–87. 10.1037/a0031307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gerberich SG, Nachreiner NM, Ryan AD, Church TR, McGovern PM, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, Watt GD, Feda DM, Sage SK, & Pinder ED (2011). Violence against educators: A population-based study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(3), 294–302. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31820c3fa1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerberich SG, Nachreiner NM, Ryan AD, Church TR, McGovern PM, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, Watt GD, Feda DM, Sage SK, & Pinder ED (2014). Case–control study of student-perpetrated physical violence against educators. Annals of Epidemiology, 24(5), 325–332. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gross B, & Opalka A (2020). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the pandemic. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://crpe.org/too-many-schools-leave-learning-to-chance-during-the-pandemic/ [Google Scholar]
  17. Herman KC, Reinke WM, & Eddy CL (2020). Advances in understanding and intervening in teacher stress and coping: The coping-competence-context theory. Journal of School Psychology, 78, 69–74. 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hong JS, & Espelage D (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311–322. 10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang FL, Eddy CL, & Camp E (2020). The role of the perceptions of school climate and teacher victimization by students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5526–5551. 10.1177/0886260517721898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. IBM Corporation. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 28.0.
  22. Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, & Purc-Stephenson R (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23. 10.1037/a0014694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindstrom Johnson S, Waasdorp TE, Cash AH, Debnam KJ, Milam AJ, & Bradshaw CP (2017). Assessing the association between observed school disorganization and school violence: Implications for school climate interventions. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 181–191. 10.1037/vio0000045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Longobardi C, Badenes-Ribera L, Fabris MA, Martinez A, & McMahon SD (2019). Prevalence of student violence against teachers: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 596–610. 10.1037/vio0000202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. López V, Benbenishty R, Astor RA, Bilbao M, Ascorra P, Carrasco C, Refaeli T, & Roziner I (2018). Cross-cultural patterns of student victimization in Israel and Chile. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(3), 780–792. 10.1007/s10826-017-0930-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Martinez A, McMahon SD, Espelage D, Anderman EM, Reddy LA, & Sanchez B (2016). Teachers’ experiences with multiple victimization: Identifying demographic, cognitive, and contextual correlates. Journal of School Violence, 15(4), 387–405. 10.1080/15388220.2015.1056879 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. McMahon SD, Anderman EM, Astor RA, Espelage DL, Martinez A, Reddy LA, & Worrell FC (2022a). Educator victimization scale [Unpublished manuscript]. DePaul University. [Google Scholar]
  28. McMahon SD, Anderman EM, Astor RA, Espelage DL, Martinez A, Reddy LA, & Worrell FC (2022b). Violence against educators and school personnel: Crisis during COVID. Technical report. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  29. McMahon SD, Anderman EM, Astor RA, Espelage DL, Martinez A, Reddy LA, & Worrell FC (2022c). Violence against educators and school personnel: Crisis during COVID [Congressional briefing]. American Psychological Association. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD5S_aU2teM [Google Scholar]
  30. McMahon SD, Cafaro CL, Bare K, Zinter KE, Murillo YG, Lynch G, Anderman EM, Espelage DM, Reddy LA, & Subotnik R (2022). Rates and types of student aggression against teachers: A comparative analysis of U.S. elementary, middle, and high schools. Social Psychology of Education, 25(4), 767–792. 10.1007/s11218-022-09706-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McMahon SD, Davis JO, Peist E, Bare K, Espelage DL, Martinez A, Anderman EM, & Reddy LA (2020). Student verbal aggression toward teachers: How do behavioral patterns unfold? Psychology of Violence, 10(2), 192–200. 10.1037/vio0000256 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. McMahon SD, Martinez A, Espelage DL, Rose C, Reddy L, Lane K, Anderman EM, Reynolds CR, Jones A, & Brown V (2014). Violence directed against teachers: Results from a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51(7), 753–766. 10.1002/pits.21777 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. McMahon SD, Peist E, Davis J, McConnell E, Reaves S, Reddy LA, Anderman EM, & Espelage DL (2020). Addressing violence against teachers: A social ecological analysis of teachers’ perspectives. Psychology in the Schools, 57(7), 1040–1056. 10.1002/pits.22382 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. McMahon SD, Reaves S, McConnell EA, Peist E, Ruiz L, & the APA Task Force on Classroom Violence Directed Against Teachers. (2017). The ecology of teachers’ experiences with violence and lack of administrative support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(3–4), 502–515. 10.1002/ajcp.12202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. McMahon SD, Reddy LA, Worrell FC, Anderman EM, Astor RA, Espelage DL, & Martinez A (2022). Student climate problems scale [Unpublished manuscript]. DePaul University. [Google Scholar]
  36. McMahon SD, Todd NR, Martinez A, Coker C, Sheu CF, Washburn J, & Shah S (2013). Aggressive and prosocial behavior: Community violence, cognitive, and behavioral predictors among urban African American youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 407–421. 10.1007/s10464-012-9560-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Muñoz-Price LS, Nattinger AB, Rivera F, Hanson R, Gmehlin CG, Perez A, Singh S, Buchan BW, Ledeboer NA, & Pezzin LE (2020). Racial disparities in incidence and outcomes among patients with COVID-19. JAMA Network Open, 3(9), Article e2021892. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022a). Discipline problems reported by public schools [Condition of education]. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a07/discipline-problems?tid=4 [Google Scholar]
  39. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022b). Teachers threatened with injury or physically attacked by students [Condition of education]. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a05 [Google Scholar]
  40. National School Climate Center. (2010). School Climate Brief, (3), 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nguyen NH, Tran TLN, Nguyen LT, Nguyen TA, & Nguyen MT (2022). The interaction patterns of pandemic-initiated online teaching: How teachers adapted. System, 105, Article 102755. 10.1016/j.system.2022.102755 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Oberle E, & Schonert-Reichl KA (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30–37. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Osher DI, Kidron YE, & DeCandia CJ (2016). Interventions to promote safe and supportive school climate. In Wentzel KR & Ramani G (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts (pp. 394–414). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pengk CYJ, & So TSH (2002). Logistic regression analysis and reporting: A primer. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences, 1(1), 31–70. 10.1207/S15328031US0101_04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Reddy LA, Espelage DL, Anderman EM, Kanrich JB, & McMahon SD (2018). Addressing violence against educators through measurement and research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 9–28. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Samji H, Wu J, Ladak A, Vossen C, Stewart E, Dove N, Long D, & Snell G (2022). Review: Mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and youth—A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 27(2), 173–189. 10.1111/camh.12501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sawchuk S (2021). Violence in schools seems to be increasing. Why? Education Week, 41(13), 6–7. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/violence-seems-to-be-increasing-in-schools-why/2021/11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shaw CR, & McKay HD (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Skaalvik EM, & Skaalvik S (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC, Kulig TC, & Cullen FT (2020). Individual, institutional, and community sources of school violence: A meta-analysis. United States Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254633.pdf [Google Scholar]
  51. U.S. Surgeon General. (2021). Protecting youth mental health: The U.S. surgeon general’s advisory. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-youth-mental-health-advisory.pdf
  52. World Health Organization. (2022, June 16). The impact of COVID-19 on mental health cannot be made light of. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-mental-health-cannot-be-made-light-of#:˜:text=Plenty%20of%20us%20became%20more,anxiety%20or%20post%2Dtraumatic%20stress

RESOURCES