Violence and Aggression Against Educators and School Personnel, Retention, Stress, and Training Needs: National Survey Results

Abstract

Aggression and violence against educators and school personnel have raised public health concerns that require attention from researchers, policymakers, and training providers in U.S. schools. School aggression and violence have negative effects on school personnel health and retention and on student achievement and development. In partnership with several national organizations, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Violence Against Educators and School Personnel administered two national, multi-informant, cross-sectional surveys. Time 1 data were collected in 2020–2021 from 14,966 respondents; participants reflected on their experiences of violence and aggression before COVID-19 and during COVID-19 restrictions in this survey. One year later, in 2022, 11,814 respondents completed the Time 2 survey after COVID-19 restrictions ended. Participants included teachers, school psychologists, social workers, counselors, staff members, and administrators from all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Rates of violence and aggression directed against educators by students, parents, colleagues, and administrators were substantial before COVID-19, were lower during COVID-19 restrictions, and returned to prepandemic levels or higher after COVID-19 restrictions. After COVID-19 restrictions, 22%–80% of respondents reported verbal or threatening aggression, and 2%–56% of respondents reported physical violence at least once during the year, varying by stakeholder role and aggressor. Rates of intentions to quit the profession ranged from 21% to 43% during COVID-19 restrictions (2020–2021) and from 23% to 57% after COVID-19 restrictions (2021–2022), varying by stakeholder role. Participants across roles reported substantial rates of anxiety and stress, especially during and after COVID-19 restrictions, and identified specific training needs. Implications for theory, research, training, and policy are presented.

School violence and educator shortages are public health issues that require investigation and action, especially given recent challenges exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the past 15 years, a growing body of research has examined teachers as targets of school violence (e.g., Reddy et al., 2018), yet there is a dearth of research examining other adult school stakeholder experiences. Educators experience different types of verbal and physical aggression, including intimidation, threats, sexual harassment, hitting, kicking, and pushing (e.g., McMahon et al., 2014). Longobardi et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis on student violence against teachers indicated that rates ranged from 20% to 75% in a 2-year period. Data also indicated an increase in violence against K–12 educators during the past decade, with student verbal abuse occurring at least once per week on average, doubling from 4.8% in the 2009–2010 academic year to 9.8% in 2019–2020 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022a). In this article, we report on violence and aggression against school personnel in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide recommendations for the field.

Although rates of teacher-directed violence are lower than those reported by employees in other occupational areas (e.g., medicine, mental health), teachers account for one fourth of all nonfatal workplace incidents (e.g., assaults, threats) among government workers (Harrell et al., 2022). Research has shown that prevalence estimates of victimization have varied substantially depending on the study sample, setting, time frame, and type of violence assessed. For example, verbal aggression occurs at a higher rate than physical violence (Longobardi et al., 2019), which is consistent with findings reported from national surveys (e.g., Irwin et al., 2022). Teachers working in urban settings are more likely to experience violence than those in rural settings (e.g., Gerberich et al., 2014), and elementary teachers report higher rates of physical aggression than high school teachers (McMahon, Cafaro, et al., 2022). Teacher victimization varies by race and ethnicity, with 12% of Black teachers reporting being threatened with injury by students compared to 8% and 10% of Hispanic and White teachers, respectively (NCES, 2022b). Teachers also experience violence from various aggressors, including students and parents (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2022). School context and administrative support play important roles in educator experiences with violence at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels (e.g., Huang et al., 2020).

Violence and aggression against educators are associated with negative outcomes, including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, sleep problems, cardiovascular issues, and relationship challenges (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). Bass et al. (2016) found that student violence against staff members was associated with more burnout and less engagement in work. These concerns can lead to impaired instructional and classroom management practices, lower efficacy in the classroom, absences, and even transferring to another district or leaving the education profession altogether, which adversely affect student learning and developmental outcomes (e.g., Amitai & Van Houtte, 2022).

Given ongoing challenges with school violence and a paucity of research on violence and aggression against teachers, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Classroom Violence Against Teachers was formed in 2008. This task force conducted a national study of violence against teachers, collected data from more than 3,400 teachers, and proposed recommendations to advance practice, research, and policy agendas (Espelage et al., 2013). Specifically, practice recommendations included positive, engaging, and developmentally appropriate classroom management and violence prevention strategies, as well as evidence-based, relevant, ongoing training for school leadership and personnel. Research recommendations included the need for longitudinal studies of student and educator behaviors in and across school contexts. However, despite more than a decade of research, few interventions have targeted violence against educators, and valid multisource and multimethod measurement and longitudinal studies remain scarce (Reddy et al., 2018). Additionally, given more recent social and political concerns related to how school districts responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and other social issues, new research is required to capture the current context.

COVID-19 Context

The COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, and fear (Giuntella et al., 2021; World Health Organization, 2022). However, even before the onset of the pandemic in 2020, social issues received increased attention. Racial unrest, a contested presidential election, and an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, all coinciding with the pandemic, contributed to heightened societal distress. Perhaps not coincidentally, large percentages of educators have considered leaving the profession (National Education Association, 2022). As of March 2022, 44% of U.S. public schools indicated they had current vacancies, and 61% of those schools cited the pandemic as a contributing factor (NCES, 2022b). During the pandemic, educators reported increased stress, burnout, and anxiety (Liss-Levinson, 2021); increased workloads (Amitai & Van Houtte, 2022); bullying and lack of respect from parents (Riley et al., 2022); and inadequate compensation (Doherty, 2020).

Study Aims

In 2019, the APA Task Force on Violence Against Educators and School Personnel was created to build upon the work of the previous APA Task Force on Classroom Violence Against Teachers and to examine the experiences of school violence against pre-K–Grade 12 teachers and other school personnel. Partnering with several U.S. professional organizations,¹ a national survey was administered at two time points, yielding substantial samples of teachers, school psychologists, social workers, school counselors, staff members, and administrators. Questions focused on concerns about and experiences of violence before COVID-19 (Time 1A), during COVID-19 restrictions (Time 1B), and after COVID-19 restrictions (1 year later; Time 2), with specific attention to (a) rates of verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence across aggressors, (b) intentions to transfer or quit positions due to experiences with violence and safety concerns, (c) anxiety and stress related to working in schools, and (d) training needs to promote school safety.

Method

Research Design Overview

Given the limited research on violence against educators and school personnel and the unique context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a mixed-method approach was used to capture the complexity of participants’ experiences and perspectives (Saldaña, 2003). Specifically, this study used a convergent parallel mixed-method design, which involved the simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data that were analyzed separately and used to inform each other (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Via online Qualtrics surveys distributed through national partners and email, participants reported on their experiences with verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence from students, parents or guardians, colleagues, and administrators. Survey items were designed to capture participant experiences during the academic school year, with minor modifications based on COVID-19. Time 1 surveys were completed between August 2020 and June 2021. Participants were asked to provide their reflections on their victimization experiences and anxiety and stress for two time periods using the same set of questions in the same survey. Specifically, they were asked about their experiences before COVID-19 from August 2019 to mid-March 2020 (designated Time 1A) and asked about their experiences between mid-March 2020 and the time of survey completion (designated Time 1B).

Data for Time 1A and Time 1B were collected at the same time. During COVID-19 restrictions (Time 1B), 55.4% of respondents reported they were working fully in person (i.e., working with students in person 5 days per week), 28.7% reported working a hybrid schedule (i.e., working between 1 and 4 days per week in person), and 15.9% reported they were working remotely with no in-person days. The Time 2 assessment measured experiences after COVID-19 restrictions during the academic year (August 2021 until survey completion in March–June 2022). Intentions to transfer or quit and training needs were only assessed at Time 1B (during COVID-19 restrictions) and Time 2 (after COVID-19 restrictions). Given the time frames differed across Time 1A, Time 1B, and Time 2, all analyses controlled for the number of months in each time frame in which each participant had the opportunity to experience aggression and violence based on the date of survey completion.

Participants

Time 1 data yielded 14,966 participants working across pre-K to Grade 12 settings—9,370 teachers; 2,049 school psychologists, social workers, and counselors; 2,687 other school staff members (e.g., paraprofessionals, instructional aides, school resource officers, school security officers); and 860 administrators—from all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Of the 14,966 participants at Time 1, 10,394 provided qualitative responses to at least one of six open-ended questions. Most participants were female (81%) and working in public schools (94%), and their average age was 44.5 years old (see Supplemental Table S1 for demographic information). Time 2 data yielded a sample of 11,814 (see Supplemental Table S2 for demographic information). Most participants included in the Time 2 sample were different from Time 1; only 6.7% (n = 1,007) of the same people were represented at both time points. Demographics for both samples were comparable to national statistics (Taie & Goldring, 2020).

Participant Recruitment

Following institutional review board approval from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, our national partners distributed the survey to relevant constituent samples during each time point through emails, website postings, and social media. MCH Strategic Data also provided the task force with email addresses of educators and school personnel stratified by region (i.e., West, Midwest, South, Northeast); urbanicity (i.e., rural, urban, suburban); school level (i.e., elementary, middle, high, all grades); and role (i.e., teachers, school psychologists, social workers, counselors, school staff, and administrators). MCH Strategic Data has a national comprehensive database of 5.4 million school personnel members that is consistently updated and verified to ensure accurate contact information. Email addresses were randomly selected based on the stratifications, with no consideration or knowledge of experiences with violence or aggression. Nonetheless, the resulting Time 1 and Time 2 samples were convenience samples, given varied methods and participants’ choices regarding whether to complete the survey. The survey emails had a subject line of “School Climate and Safety Survey,” “Your Experiences with School Safety,” or “Interdisciplinary Survey on School Climate and Safety.” Participants were provided with a link to complete the survey immediately upon receiving an email or invitation to participate and completing an online assent process. Recruitment strategies were the same for Time 1 and Time 2, except that Time 2 participants had the option of providing their email to enter a random drawing for one of 186 gift certificates ranging from $25 to $100; there were no incentives for Time 1 survey completion.

Quantitative Measures

Measurement tools used in this study included new, adapted, and existing scales. Scales were reviewed for content validity by educational experts from universities and national organizations. Scales were also pilot tested for readability, comprehension, and length, and items were reviewed and edited in several rounds of discussion and feedback. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to create and validate scales using the following model fit indices: root-mean-square error of approximation <.05, comparative fit index >.90, and standardized root-mean-square residual <.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Factor analyses were run separately for conceptually similar items (e.g., all items assessing victimization were included in one analysis). For Time 1 data, factor analyses were conducted separately for items assessed before COVID-19 (Time 1A) and during COVID-19 restrictions (Time 1B), though results suggested using identical items for both periods based on the best fitting models. Based on the results of Time 1 factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the same items assessed at Time 2. Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω statistics were used to assess the internal consistency of scores on each full scale at each time point and are reported in parentheses; Kuder–Richardson αs (KR-20) follow in brackets for dichotomous scales and dichotomous versions of the full scales.

Aggression and Violence

The Educator Victimization Scale (McMahon et al., 2022a) assessed the frequency of verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence experienced by educators and school personnel from four aggressors during the school year for each time point. Respondents rated 11 items on a 6-point scale (i.e., never, once, a few times, monthly, weekly, daily) that yielded two factors. Instructions specified, “Please indicate how often you experienced the following types of violence (from students, parents/guardians, administrators, and colleagues) at your school pre-COVID-19 (approximately August 2019–March 2020)” (Time 1A); the same instructions and items were repeated for “since COVID-19 (approximately March 2020 until present)” (Time 1B). After COVID-19 restrictions (Time 2), participants were instructed, “Please indicate how often you experienced the following types of violence during this school year (from students, parents/guardians, administrators, and colleagues)?”

The verbal and threatening aggression subscale consisted of eight items (i.e., obscene remarks or gestures, slurs or verbal attacks based on demography, verbal threats, sexual harassment, intimidation, public humiliation, cyber or internet bullying, bullying). Example items include “I was intimidated” and “I was verbally threatened.” Scores on this subscale demonstrated acceptable reliability for Time 1A, Time 1B, and Time 2 (α = .82, 81, and .84; ω = .85, .84, and .84 [KR-20 = .77, 75, and .85]). The physical violence subscale consisted of three items: “I had objects thrown at me,” “I had an ordinary object (e.g., pencil, scissors) used as a weapon against me,” and “I was physically attacked (e.g., bitten, scratched, hit)”; α = .85, .87, and .79; ω = .87, .89, and .79 [KR-20 = .78, 80, and .78]. These scales were adapted from the victimization scale used by McMahon et al. (2014) to assess the frequency of violence and aggression more comprehensively; behaviors assessed are similar to items on state and national surveys (Irwin et al., 2022; Longobardi et al., 2019). Survey data are presented both in dichotomous format indicating the percentage of respondents who experienced aggression or violence at least once and in Likert-type scaling indicating the frequency of victimization. All analyses were conducted on the continuous scales.

Transfer and Quit Intentions

The six-item Educator Transfer and Quit Scale (McMahon, Astor, et al., 2022) includes two subscales with three items assessing intentions to transfer or quit. Instructions specified, “Based on your experiences with violence and your concern with school climate issues, please rate your agreement with the following” on a 5-point scale (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree). Intentions to transfer and quit were assessed at Time 1B (during COVID-19 restrictions) and Time 2 (after COVID-19 restrictions). This scale is similar to measures used in a national survey that assessed educators’ intentions to leave the profession attributed to burnout and COVID-19 (National Education Association, 2022). For the Transfer subscale, participants responded to three items: (a) “I want to transfer to a different position or school or district,” (b) “I plan to transfer to a different position or school/district,” and (c) “COVID-19 had increased my desire to transfer to a different position or school/district.” Reliability was as follows: α = .90 and .83 and ω = .91 and .85 [KR-20 = .78 and .67]. The items on the Quit subscale were (a) “I want to quit my profession,” (b) “I plan to quit my profession or retire early,” and (c) “COVID-19 has increased my desire to quit my profession or retire early.” For the quit subscale, reliability estimates were α = .90 and .84 and ω = .89 and .84 [KR-20 = .75 and .60]. Each subscale was examined continuously and dichotomously (indicating an intention to transfer or quit if they agreed or strongly agreed with at least one of the items) at Times 1B and 2.

Anxiety and Stress

Anxiety and stress were assessed with a three-item Educator Work Anxiety and Stress Scale (McMahon, Espelage, et al., 2022) developed for this study. Items in this scale are analogous to items from the Job Anxiety Scale, which has demonstrated strong reliability and validity (Muschalla & Linden, 2017). The instructions specified, “Please indicate how often you have felt the following,” and participants responded to the same items of “before COVID-19” (Time 1A) and “since COVID-19” (Time 1B). At Time 2, the instructions specified: “Please indicate how often you have felt the following.” The items (i.e., “I find my work stressful,” “I have anxiety when thinking about school,” and “My anxiety affects my job performance”) were rated on a 5-point scale (i.e., not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently, almost always). Scores were examined continuously (α = .83, .86, and .84; ω = .84, .87, and 85) and dichotomously (indicating stress/anxiety if they endorsed at least one item as frequently or almost always) [KR-20 = .68, 72, 72].

Violence Prevention Training Needs

Using the School Violence Prevention Training Needs Scale (McMahon, Martinez, et al., 2022), participants were asked, “Do you feel you need more professional development, training, mentorship, or other support in any of the following areas to promote school safety?” They responded using a dichotomous scale (yes or no). The 18 strategies were as follows: using evidence-based methods of instruction; engaging and motivating students; working with diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups; inclusion of special education students; special education interventions or supports; socioemotional learning approaches; positive behavioral interventions and supports; creating a positive school environment; restorative justice practices (e.g., student mediation; circles to address harm); trauma-informed practices; crisis intervention; threat assessment; behavior and classroom management; de-escalation strategies; physical restraint; staff team building; working with parents; and connecting with community organizations and resources. Training needs were assessed at Time 1B [KR-20 = .94] and Time 2 [KR-20 = .90].

Qualitative Assessment

The qualitative open-ended survey questions were nested strategically in the quantitative survey to enhance, elaborate, or clarify results from the quantitative items (Creswell, 2009; Jogulu & Pansiri, 2011). The qualitative data provided in-depth elaboration on participants’ concerns in their unique contexts. The six open-ended survey questions were as follows:

1. Please share any other concerns you have regarding schools reopening or remaining closed.

2. What recommendations do you have for your school or district regarding reopening (e.g., policies, procedures)?

3. How have your experiences with aggression and violence differed in online versus in-person learning environments?

4. What are the biggest safety issues facing educators and staff in your school?

5. What policies, procedures, or interventions are needed to better prevent or address violence in your school?

6. What resources are needed to better address safety issues in your school?

Qualitative Coding and Analysis

The qualitative research team consisted of 19 researchers (15 doctoral students and postdoctoral scholars and four APA task force members) divided into three independent coding teams across four universities: (a) DePaul University; (b) University of California, Los Angeles; and (c) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill combined with Rutgers University (see Supplemental Material S3 for information about the research team and positionality). Conventional content analysis was used to guide qualitative analyses, which involves data immersion to extract themes (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This approach is recommended for research with limited theoretical background, such as violence against educators. The coding teams focused on meaning and insight that contributed to understanding variations and context in the quantitative data. Responses were examined by role, beginning with the sample of teachers who completed at least one open-ended response (n = 6,753). As an example, the teacher sample was randomly divided into three equal subsamples, one for each coding team. The initial phase included the independent identification of themes by each coding team with its respective subsample. Responses to each open-ended question were examined separately and iteratively, and themes, subthemes, and emergent categories were captured and organized into tables. The three coding teams shared and discussed initial themes. This process was repeated to analyze the school psychologist (n = 629), school social worker (n = 396), school staff (n = 2,039), and administrator (n = 577) subsamples.

During the second phase, each team coded participant responses in its subsample iteratively, with discussion of disagreements, until consensus across coders was achieved. Percentage agreement was obtained for each theme regarding each question for each team (Cofie et al., 2022). Initial interrater agreement was acceptable across all university teams, roles, and subsamples, ranging from 85% to 100% among raters in each coding team. After each coding team categorized the themes and subthemes for the subsamples, the teams then met to share, compare, and discuss their themes within and across the subsamples. Once all teams agreed on the themes and subthemes for coding, consensus, and saturation, the interrater agreement across the three teams regarding the subsample themes averaged 95%. Due to the high level of agreement in the categorization of themes both within and across teams, most of the discussion among the researchers focused on how best to frame the categories rather than substantive differences regarding coding, categorization, or interpretation. The three sets of themes were then condensed and synthesized into one framework per role, and the entire qualitative team reviewed each unified framework for agreement and consensus. Finally, common themes, subthemes, and categories were identified across stakeholder roles and brought to the entire team for agreement and consensus.

Transparency and Openness

The data are not currently available for public access due to ongoing data cleaning, organizing, scale refinement, and scale validation related to these very large data sets. The study materials are available upon request. This study was not preregistered.

Results

Quantitative Results

Demographic Differences Across Time Point

Demographic characteristics varied somewhat between the Time 1 and Time 2 samples (see Supplemental Tables S1 and S2). For example, the Time 1 teacher sample included a higher percentage of White and female teachers and a lower percentage of elementary school teachers than Time 2. Staff urbanicity varied across time points, and a higher proportion of high school administrators completed the survey at Time 1 compared to Time 2. Demographic variables were controlled for in subsequent analyses.

Aggression and Violence

Table 1 illustrates the percentage of stakeholders who reported experiencing verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence at least once from students, parents, colleagues, and administrators across Times 1A, 1B, and 2. Although a substantial percentage of respondents experienced verbal and threatening aggression or physical violence at least once, means for the frequency of victimization fell between 0 (never experienced) and 1 (experienced once) on a 6-point Likert-type scale (0–5). Similar patterns of violence and aggression by role and aggressor were found using continuous and dichotomous data (see Supplemental Table S4 for means).

Table 1.

Educator and School Personnel Aggression and Violence by Role and Aggressor

		Verbal and threatening aggression			Physical violence
		Before COVID-19	During COVID-19 restrictions	After COVID-19 restrictions	Before COVID-19	During COVID-19 restrictions	After COVID-19 restrictions
Respondent	Aggressor	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)
Teachers	Student	65 (4,607)	33 (2,154)	80 (5,308)	42 (2,903)	14 (676)	56 (3,664)
	Parent	53 (3,683)	29 (1,880)	63 (4,067)	1 (75)	0 (15)	26 (1,640)
	Colleague	31 (2,092)	14 (854)	49 (3,060)	1 (42)	0 (19)	27 (1,641)
	Administrator	32 (2,148)	18 (1,115)	48 (3,022)	0.50 (26)	0(11)	26 (1,620)
School psychologists, social workers, and counselors	Student	62 (970)	17 (260)	63 (829)	50 (771)	16 (115)	50 (609)
	Parent	65 (1,018)	24 (359)	63 (828)	1 (16)	0(5)	9 (107)
	Colleague	32 (493)	13 (108)	37 (469)	0(11)	0(3)	7 (92)
	Administrator	32 (499)	13 (189)	35 (454)	0(7)	0 (0)	8 (100)
Staff	Student	55 (985)	27 (436)	65 (544)	49 (842)	24 (284)	53 (449)
	Parent	31 (510)	15 (221)	36 (263)	1 (18)	0(4)	5 (34)
	Colleague	27 (438)	14 (194)	29 (214)	1 (23)	0(7)	4 (28)
	Administrator	18 (298)	10 (147)	22 (160)	0(4)	0(3)	3 (25)
Administrators	Student	65 (260)	37 (123)	64 (216)	42 (149)	15 (43)	43 (142)
	Parent	72 (268)	42 (133)	77 (262)	6(21)	1 (2)	4(13)
	Colleague	31 (116)	19 (62)	30 (99)	7 (24)	1 (4)	2 (7)

Note. Before COVID-19 and during COVID-19 restrictions experiences were assessed at Time 1, and after COVID-19 restrictions experiences were assessed at Time 2. Data represent the percentage of participants who reported they experienced each type of violence at least once.

To examine differences in verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence by role and school urbanicity across time, linear regressions were conducted using RStudio statistical software. To account for any differences in possible exposure to aggression and violence based on time, a control variable (i.e., months) was calculated by accounting for both the time frame of the victimization scale and the month in which the participant completed the survey. For example, the Time 2 survey asked questions about victimization experiences from the academic year (August until survey completion). Thus, participants who completed the survey in March received a 7, representing 7 possible months to experience aggression and violence. Main effects of predictor variables (i.e., time point, role, urbanicity) and control variables (i.e., gender, race and ethnicity, school level, months) were examined first for both verbal and threatening aggression, F(21, 24,339) = 476.68, p < .001, and physical violence, F(21, 21,844) = 511.34, p < .001. Next, interaction terms for all variables were added, again for both verbal and threatening aggression, F(31, 24,329) = 363.50, p < .001, and physical violence, F(31, 21,834) = 381.74, p < .001 (see Table 2). Likewise, to conduct post hoc comparisons, categorical variables were contrast-coded and included the following reference categories: Time 1A (time point), teachers (role), females (gender), White (race and ethnicity), elementary school (school level), and rural (urbanicity).

Table 2.

Linear Regression Results for Aggression and Violence

Independent variable and interaction term	Verbal and threatening aggression	Physical violence	Interaction: Verbal and threatening aggression	Interaction: Physical violence
	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
Time 1B	−0.16*** (.01)	−0.09*** (0.01)	−0.12*** (0.02)	−0.06*** (0.01)
Time 2	0.33*** (.01)	0.31*** (0.01)	0.58*** (0.02)	0.53*** (0.02)
Psych, SW, or counselor	−0.15*** (.01)	−0.11*** (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)
Staff	−0.17*** (.01)	−0.10*** (0.01)	−0.10*** (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)
Administrator	−0.10*** (.01)	−0.13*** (0.02)	0.08** (0.03)	0.03 (0.03)
Months	−0.09*** (.02)	−0.02*** (0.01)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.01*** (0.01)
Other gender	0.10** (.04)	0.02 (0.05)	0.11* (0.04)	0.03 (0.04)
Male	0.15*** (.01)	0.18*** (0.01)	0.13*** (0.01)	0.17*** (0.01)
Transgender	0.24*** (.05)	0.24*** (0.05)	0.23*** (0.05)	0.22*** (0.05)
Middle school	−0.12*** (.01)	−0.29*** (0.01)	−0.10*** (0.01)	−0.27*** (0.01)
High school	−0.19*** (.01)	−0.36*** (0.01)	−0.17*** (0.01)	−0.34*** (0.01)
All grades	−0.17*** (.01)	−0.28*** (0.01)	−0.14*** (0.01)	−0.26*** (0.01)
Suburban	−0.05*** (.01)	−0.05*** (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)
Urban	0.01 (.01)	−0.03** (0.01)	0.07*** (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)
Black	0.05*** (.01)	0.04*** (0.01)	0.04*** (0.01)	0.04*** (0.01)
Hispanic	0.11*** (.01)	0.10*** (0.01)	0.10*** (0.01)	0.09*** (0.01)
Multiracial	0.01 (.01)	−0.04* (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)	−0.03* (0.01)
Other race	−0.04 (.03)	−0.06* (0.03)	−0.03 (0.03)	−0.05 (0.03)
Native American	0.83*** (.03)	0.86*** (0.03)	0.79*** (0.03)	0.81*** (0.03)
Asian	0.41*** (.02)	0.48*** (0.02)	0.38*** (0.02)	0.45*** (0.02)
Pacific Islander	−0.04 (.08)	−0.18* (0.09)	−0.05 (0.08)	−0.18* (0.09)
Time 1B × Administrator			−0.07 (0.04)	−0.08 (0.04)
Time 2 × Administrator			−0.44*** (0.04)	−0.41*** (0.04)
Time 1B × Psych, SW, or Counselor			−0.03 (0.02)	−0.03 (0.02)
Time 2 × Psych, SW, or Counselor			−0.36*** (0.02)	−0.32*** (0.02)
Time 1B × Staff	0.05* (0.02)	−0.02 (0.02)
Time 2 × Staff	−0.40*** (0.02)	−0.40*** (0.02)
Time 1B × Suburban	−0.03* (0.02)	−0.03 (0.02)
Time 2 × Suburban	−0.21*** (0.02)	−0.20*** (0.02)
Time 1B × Urban	−0.09*** (0.02)	−0.03 (0.02)
Time 2 × Urban	−0.14*** (0.02)	−0.11*** (0.02)
Constant	0.48*** (.02)	0.49*** (.02)	0.32*** (0.02)	0.34*** (0.02)
Observations	24,361	21,866	24,361	21,866
R2 (adjusted R2)	.29 (.29)	.33 (.33)	.32 (.31)	.35 (.35)
Residual standard error	.45 (df = 24,339)	.44 (df = 21,844)	.44 (df = 24,329)	.44 (df = 21,834)
F statistic	476.68*** (df = 21; 24,339)	511.34*** (df = 21; 21,844)	363.50*** (df = 31; 24,329)	381.74*** (df = 31; 21,834)

Note. SE = standard error; Psych = school psychologist; SW = school social worker; Months = a potential number of months to experience violence and aggression (continuous). All other predictors were categorical and contrast-coded.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Verbal and Threatening Aggression by Role, Aggressor, and Urbanicity.

Verbal and threatening aggression from students, parents, colleagues, and administrators ranged from 18% to 72% before COVID-19, was lower during the COVID-19 restrictions (10% to 42%), and rebounded to pre-COVID-19 rates or higher after COVID-19 restrictions (22% to 80%; see Table 1). Students and parents were the most frequent aggressors at each time point, followed by colleagues and administrators. Teachers and staff members primarily experienced verbal and threatening aggression from students, whereas parents were the most common aggressors against administrators. School psychologists, social workers, and counselors reported similar rates of violence from students and parents.

Linear regression analyses indicated that teachers reported significantly more verbal and threatening aggression compared to school psychologists, social workers, and school counselors (b = −0.15, p < .001); staff (b = −0.17, p < .001); and administrators (b = −0.10, p < .001; see Table 2). Aggression varied as a function of time, with rates decreasing from before COVID-19 to during COVID-19 restrictions (b = −0.16, p < .001), and then increasing after COVID-19 restrictions (b = 0.33, p < .001) relative to before COVID-19. Time point interacted with role such that trajectories of verbal and threatening aggression differed across roles (see Table 2). As illustrated in Figure 1, administrators reported significantly higher rates of verbal and threatening aggression during the COVID-19 restrictions compared to staff, whereas teachers had significantly higher rates after COVID-19 restrictions compared to all other groups.

Figure 1. Comparisons Across Roles and Time for Aggression and Violence Experienced by Educators and School Personnel.

Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

Supplemental Table S5 presents the means of aggression and violence by school urbanicity before COVID-19, during COVID-19 restrictions, and after COVID-19 restrictions. Participants reported higher rates of verbal and threatening aggression in rural schools compared to suburban schools (b = −0.05, p < .001), but not urban schools (b = 0.01, p > .05; see Table 2). Significant interaction effects emerged in relation to urbanicity (see Table 2). As displayed in Supplemental Figure S6, participants from urban schools had the highest levels of verbal and threatening aggression before COVID-19, whereas participants from rural schools reported slightly higher rates after COVID-19 restrictions and demonstrated a greater increase from before COVID-19 to after COVID-19 restrictions relative to other groups.

Physical Violence by Role, Aggressor, and Urbanicity.

As shown in Table 1, the percentage of respondents who experienced physical violence at least once was lower than verbal and threatening aggression across all groups. Participants from each of the four stakeholder categories reported physical violence from students before COVID-19 (42%–50%), during COVID-19 restrictions (14%–24%), and after COVID-19 restrictions (43%–56%). Teachers reported the highest rates of physical violence across aggressors after COVID-19 restrictions (26%–56%) compared to previous time points and other stakeholders, whereas fewer than 10% of other respondents reported physical violence from parents, colleagues, and administrators across time points.

Teachers reported the highest rates of physical violence overall compared to school psychologists, social workers, and counselors (b = −0.11, p < .001); staff (b = −0.10, p < .001); and administrators (b = −0.13, p < .001; see Table 2). Physical violence also varied across time, with rates decreasing from before COVID-19 to during COVID-19 restrictions (b = −0.09, p < .001), and then increasing after COVID-19 restrictions (b = 0.31, p < .001). Time point interacted with role such that trajectories of physical violence differed across roles (see Table 2). Teachers experienced significantly higher rates of physical violence after COVID-19 restrictions compared to other stakeholders (see Figure 1).

Linear regression results revealed that participants from rural schools reported higher rates of physical violence than those from both suburban (b = −0.05, p < .001) and urban schools (b = −0.03, p < .01; see Table 2). Interaction effects between time point and urbanicity were significant such that respondents from rural schools reported the highest levels of physical violence at Time 2, followed by those from urban schools, and finally suburban schools (see Table 2 and Supplemental Figure S6).

Intentions to Transfer Schools or Quit the Profession

Intentions to transfer and quit were assessed at Times 1B and 2. During COVID-19 restrictions (Time 1B), rates of intentions to transfer to a new position or quit the profession due to experiences with violence and school climate concerns ranged from 14% to 26% and 21% to 43%, respectively. After COVID-19 restrictions (Time 2), intentions to transfer or quit the profession ranged from 20% to 49% and 23% to 57%, respectively (see Figure 2). At each time point, teachers reported the highest rates of transfer and quit intentions. For all stakeholder groups, mean rates of intentions to transfer and quit increased from during COVID-19 to after COVID-19 restrictions (see Supplemental Table S7). For all stakeholder groups at each time point, mean rates and percentages of intentions to quit were higher than intentions to transfer schools.

Figure 2. Educator and School Personnel Transfer and Quit Intentions.

Note. Intentions to transfer and quit were assessed during COVID-19 restrictions (Time 1B) and after COVID-19 restrictions (Time 2). Rates are based upon participants indicating they “agree” or “strongly agree” with plans to transfer or quit based on experiences with violence and concern about school climate. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

Anxiety and Stress

Rates of anxiety and stress before COVID-19 ranged from 19% to 48% across stakeholders (see Figure 3). During COVID-19 restrictions, rates increased, ranging from 42% for administrators to 75% for teachers. After COVID-19 restrictions, rates remained high and relatively stable across roles (39%–70%), changing by only 1%–6% for each role. Means by role and time increased from before COVID-19 to after COVID-19 restrictions, and rates hovered between sometimes and frequently experiencing anxiety and stress for all roles except staff (which were lower) after COVID-19 restrictions (see Supplemental Table S7).

Figure 3. Educator and School Personnel Rates of Anxiety and Stress.

Note. Responses were dichotomized based on participants indicating they “frequently” or “almost always” experienced anxiety and stress. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

Training Needs

Respondents were asked to rate their need for 18 types of training for preventing or addressing school violence. During COVID-19 restrictions, the most frequently endorsed training needs across roles were trauma-informed practices, de-escalation strategies, restorative justice practices, socioemotional learning approaches, and working with diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Between 50% and 58% of school personnel endorsed these five strategies, and rates for these strategies remained high after COVID-19 restrictions (43%–64%). Behavioral management, threat assessment, and staff team building were also in the group of most frequently endorsed training needs after COVID-19 restrictions (54%–58%; see Supplemental Figure S8).

Qualitative Results: Prominent Themes During COVID-19 Restrictions

Supplemental Table S9 presents themes and subthemes across respondents during COVID-19 restrictions (Time 1B). Subthemes are listed if they occurred in at least three of the five stakeholder groups: teachers, school psychologists, school social workers, staff, and administrators. Six prominent themes emerged: violence and aggression, physical and mental wellbeing, student support, policies, resources, and community and societal concerns.

Violence and Aggression

Individuals across roles identified verbal aggression and physical violence from students as major concerns. Although many participants noted a decline in violence from students when schools moved online, educators often reported that verbal and threatening aggression from parents increased during COVID-19 restrictions. Teachers, psychologists, social workers, counselors, and staff also reported violence and aggression from administrators, often in the form of intimidation or hostile behavior.

Physical and Mental Well-Being

Concerns over physical and mental health were identified as major themes across all roles, and sickness and COVID-19 were prominent foci. Teachers reported burnout, being overworked, and a desire to quit. Participants across roles expressed concerns over the hybrid school model related to student interactions, increases in responsibilities, and impacts on student achievement.

Student Support

Participants also raised concerns about the well-being of others and the social and emotional health of students. Participants discussed special education, including student placement, working with students with emotional and behavioral disorders, implementing individualized education plans, and special education resources.

Policies and Resources

Educators identified several policy and resource needs. Major policy themes included communication challenges and lack of support, inconsistent discipline, and lack of consequences. Regarding resources, participants discussed the need for (a) training and programs, with an emphasis on de-escalation, socioemotional learning, trauma-informed strategies, cultural sensitivity, restorative justice, mental health, and crisis response; (b) additional staffing and mental health personnel and reduced class sizes; and (c) enhanced physical resources, security, and COVID-19 supplies.

Community and Societal Concerns

Community and societal themes were (a) COVID-19, including risks of contraction and spread, lack of communication regarding the virus, and inadequate and inconsistent school policies from school cleanliness standards to mask wearing and social distancing; (b) the need for better relationships with the community and parents; (c) community and neighborhood safety; and (d) inequities, with an emphasis on concerns over the lack of access to resources related to low income and poverty.

Discussion

In this national study, we examined patterns of aggression and violence against educators and school personnel, intentions to transfer or quit, anxiety and stress, and training needs in pre-K through Grade 12 schools at a pivotal time in history—a global pandemic. Although most studies examining school personnel focus on teachers, the present study revealed that many stakeholders experience aggression and violence across various roles in pre-K–Grade 12 school settings; however, most of these incidents are infrequent. Broadening the scope of assessment to multiple stakeholders and aggressors and their experiences across contexts contributes to an ecological understanding of school violence.

This study suggests unique patterns for each stakeholder group in addition to general trends across all groups. For example, after COVID-19 restrictions, verbal and threatening aggression was commonly experienced across stakeholders at least once during the year, particularly from student offenders, while administrators reported the highest rates from parents. Although over 40% of stakeholders from each role reported physical violence from students at least once after COVID-19 restrictions, rates were low (i.e., <10%) from other aggressors for everyone except teachers; about one quarter of teachers reported physical violence from parents, colleagues, and administrators.

Results revealed rates of verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence decreased from before COVID-19 to during COVID-19 restrictions, then increased after COVID-19 restrictions. Teachers experienced the largest increase in rates of aggression and violence. However, patterns across time should be interpreted with caution given different samples participated at Time 1 versus Time 2. It is not surprising that victimization rates decreased during COVID-19 restrictions due to many schools operating in a remote or hybrid fashion. In addition, learning losses and teacher shortages that resulted from the pandemic may have contributed to worsening conditions after COVID-19 restrictions (Carver-Thomas et al., 2022). This study extends the literature by providing additional information about the frequency of victimization across stakeholder roles, aggressors, and time.

The prevalence of physical violence reported in this study is notably higher than in some comparable studies (Berg & Cornell, 2016; Bounds & Jenkins, 2016). Indeed, a meta-analysis of 24 studies of student violence against teachers found a pooled prevalence of only 3% for physical attacks (Longobardi et al., 2019); however, this pooled prevalence was based on only one item and type of physical violence. This discrepancy in findings is at least partially explained by the present study’s more comprehensive assessment of physical violence, which included not only physical attacks but also thrown objects and use of weaponized objects. Bounds and Jenkins (2016) reported the prevalence of both physical attacks and objects thrown was 22%, which is more comparable to our findings, but still excludes weaponized use of ordinary objects such as scissors. Throwing and weaponizing ordinary objects are important to assess in physical violence, given their easy access and common use in schools (McMahon et al., in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2021).

Our prevalence rates of verbal and threatening aggression (10%–80% across time points, stakeholders, and aggressors) are comparable to those found in a meta-analysis (Longobardi et al., 2019). In studies using similar time frames, each type of victimization was measured separately and ranged as follows: obscene gestures (25%–52%), offensive remarks (2%–58%), verbal violence (17%–44%), threats (2%–57%), and intimidation (3%–30%). The present study focused on various behaviors in combination for a comprehensive measure of verbal and threatening aggression, including threats, offensive remarks and gestures, and intimidation. It is also noteworthy that eight of the nine U.S. studies in this meta-analysis used convenience sampling and assessed victimization during the preceding school year or term, as in the present study. Further, although we found higher rates of aggression and violence in this study, data indicate these acts typically occurred less than once per year on average. The addition of frequency data in this study addresses a recognized gap in the literature (Longobardi et al., 2019).

Given rates of aggression and violence from various aggressors, examining the context surrounding victimization is needed. Previous research suggested that student- versus staff-generated violence may differ, in that student-generated violence often occurs when teachers discipline students, direct student behavior, address academic challenges, and break up fights (McMahon, Davis, et al., 2020; McMahon, Peist, et al., 2020), whereas staff-generated violence is often covert and related to job competition (Neuman & Baron, 1998). More research is needed to assess differences across educator roles, aggressors (e.g., parents), and workplace and leadership factors that contribute to this problem.

In terms of demographic differences, urbanicity was associated with victimization, underscoring variation across experiences. For example, consistent with previous findings, respondents working in urban settings reported the highest rates of aggression and violence prior to COVID-19 compared to those in other settings (Gerberich et al., 2014). Conversely, after COVID-19 restrictions, personnel working in rural schools reported higher levels of verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence than those in suburban schools and higher physical violence than those in urban schools. Participants from rural schools also experienced greater increases in both verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence from during COVID-19 restrictions to after COVID-19 restrictions. These findings differ from previous studies that have found urban teachers were most likely to report aggression and violence (e.g., McMahon, Cafaro, et al., 2022). Thus, more research is needed to understand how and why urbanicity contributes to school personnel victimization experiences and whether this pattern extends beyond the pandemic.

Intentions to transfer or quit were highest for teachers and increased from during COVID-19 restrictions to after COVID-19 restrictions for all stakeholders. Further, intentions to leave were substantial across other roles, with more than a third of psychologists, social workers, counselors, and administrators intending to quit after COVID-19 restrictions. Studies have found that teachers’ mental health and COVID-19 (National Education Association, 2022) are associated with intentions to transfer or quit. Peist et al. (2024) found that safety (e.g., physical and emotional well-being), community (e.g., family, community, and parent support), school (e.g., administrator lack of support related to violence), and societal factors (e.g., policies, resources) contribute to violence and turnover intentions, which lead to staff shortages.

Anxiety and stress were substantial across roles, and qualitative data suggest many factors likely contributed, such as violence and aggression from multiple stakeholders, serious concerns related to the contraction and spread of COVID-19, communication, workload, youth mental health, resources and support, and policies. These findings are consistent with COVID-19 pandemic reports (Office of the Surgeon General, 2021). Managing classrooms in which students exhibit aggressive behavior and may need alternative resources or placements, lacking support when victimization occurs, fearing injury, and feeling insufficiently trained to address aggression and violence could all contribute to stress and anxiety (e.g., Bass et al., 2016). Mental health may also play a key role in teacher turnover because verbal and threatening aggression and physical violence are associated with higher anxiety and stress, which contribute to teachers’ intentions to transfer positions or leave their profession (McMahon et al., 2023).

Findings from this study indicate a high need for specific types of training both during and after COVID-19 restrictions, including trauma-informed practices, socioemotional learning approaches, working with diverse groups, de-escalation strategies, restorative justice practices, behavior and classroom management, threat assessment, and staff team building. Although some of these approaches have a large body of supporting evidence (e.g., socioemotional learning; Hagelskamp et al., 2013), other strategies have yielded mixed findings (e.g., restorative justice practices; Huang et al., 2023). It is useful to assess school stakeholder perspectives regarding their training needs, yet empirical evidence beyond self-report is necessary to guide intervention. Unfortunately, many of these strategies have not been specifically tested to examine violence directed against educators and school personnel, highlighting future directions for research.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, although we collected data across two time points, this study was not longitudinal, and the samples largely represent different participants. This limitation precludes causal inferences based on changes across time. We acknowledge the higher rates of violence and aggression across time may reflect differences in the two samples’ experiences and contexts or differences in survey administration time frames rather than actual increases in victimization. Nonetheless, some increases in violence could be expected, especially as schools returned to in-person learning after COVID-19 restrictions. Second, participant responses could have been affected by retrospective bias, particularly the assessment of experiences before COVID-19. Third, the participants represent convenience samples across roles, regions, urbanicity, and school levels. Fourth, this study relied on self-report data and did not include independent reports or observations. Fifth, although the recruitment materials framed the study as being about school safety more broadly, people who experienced more violence and aggression or who were more unhappy about their work experience may have been more likely to complete the surveys. Lastly, although this study controlled for the number of months during which participants could have experienced violence at each time point, survey design studies cannot fully control for all potential biases that may contribute to the results.

Implications for Theory

In this study, the external ecological layers related to the pandemic and social strife are central to interpreting the data, moving the conceptual focus from individuals and dyadic relations to include the school, community, and national contexts. Astor and Benbenishty’s (2019) theory illustrates how worldwide events at the macrolevel can affect the day-to-day lives of students and school staff and how all staff, school, and community members contribute to and are affected by school climate and safety. The rates of violence and aggression experienced by school stakeholders at least once, along with differences across roles and urbanicity, draw attention to broader dynamics in the school context.

Mixed-method studies that link these outer ecological contexts to specific transactions and behaviors are still needed to improve the theory. In the present study, educators rated their victimization and then described their safety concerns. The qualitative data revealed themes concerning micro and macro stressors, elaborating on the quantitative findings, such as lack of safety measures and support, insufficient resources, and ineffective policies. Astor and Benbenishty (2019) predicted that the lack of resources and opportunity gaps can dramatically affect school safety, and in the United States, these gaps strongly correspond to interpersonal and systemic racism (Zimmerman & Astor, 2021). Thus, prior incidents and dyadic conceptualizations of educator-directed violence may oversimplify what is indeed a more complex and challenging experience.

Implications for Research

Researchers have examined the prevalence, predictors, and consequences of violence against educators (e.g., Longobardi et al., 2019), yet studies have been methodologically limited (Reddy et al., 2018). Studies on violence and aggression against educators have often varied in terms of the types of victimization assessed and time frames (e.g., Badenes-Ribera et al., 2022), while also primarily focusing on teacher reports and student aggressors (Reddy et al., 2018). We focused on developing scales that yielded reliable scores and valid inferences and assessing both the prevalence and frequency of behaviors across multiple stakeholders and aggressors. There is a need for further measurement development, greater consistency in measurement with multiple informants (e.g., parents, students), and in-depth analyses of triggers, school climate, context, and interventions.

There is also a need for rigorous, mixed-method, longitudinal studies to increase understanding and effective resolution of violence and aggression against various adult stakeholders. For example, our findings underscore that educators experience physical violence, but the extent to which physical violence occurs episodically or can be predicted based on less severe forms of victimization remains unclear. Longitudinal studies can help distinguish causes, correlates, frequency, severity, and consequences of violence and aggression against educators and school personnel and determine whether aggressors select the same victims over time. Mixed-method designs could elucidate the unique circumstances and dynamics that underlie victimization within and across roles, school levels, and school types. Finally, studies are needed that test school-based strategies and interventions. Considering educators’ training needs and myriad challenges (e.g., violence, stress, anxiety), empirically validated violence prevention and intervention programs that incorporate educator voice and components are needed.

Implications for Training

Decreasing educator victimization necessitates systemic approaches that address aggression and violence from multiple perspectives at preservice and in-service levels. Moreover, there is a clear need for educators to be well trained in addressing the psychological, social, and emotional needs of students. Yet, the coverage of socioemotional learning in preservice training is often insufficient. Indeed, Schonert-Reichl et al. (2017) reviewed the content covered in 3,916 required courses in U.S. teacher education programs and found that only 1.3% of those courses covered content that trains prospective teachers to address relationship skills and less than 1% contained any content preparing teachers to address decision making, self-awareness, or social awareness.

Youth mental health needs are great and have increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., De France et al., 2022), yet teacher shortages have sometimes led to a relaxation of training requirements for entering the profession (Nguyen et al., 2022). Given high levels of anxiety and stress, professional development training should include support for self-care, coping with stress, and mentoring. Findings suggest that evidence-based training is important for teachers, administrators, psychologists, social workers, counselors, and staff to support educators’ socioemotional needs and promote a positive school climate, trauma-informed practices, and violence prevention programs (Greenberg, 2023).

Implications for Policy

Addressing violence against school stakeholders and their intentions to transfer or quit requires dissemination and concrete actions. To this end, a congressional briefing with APA and national partners highlighted initial findings from this survey (McMahon et al., 2022b), supporting the passage of legislation that funded educator training and school-based mental health programs, such as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022). The high levels of anxiety and stress and intentions to transfer or quit reported by respondents speak to the need to address victimization effectively through policy reform and establish mental health programs for educators and school personnel. Our qualitative findings revealed that district and school leaders should engage educators and school personnel in ongoing discussions regarding school practices, discipline, placement, staffing, and school climate. Policymakers also need to build school capacity, especially in high-need school districts, to ensure schools have the resources and qualified staffing to meet the learning, socioemotional, and mental health needs of students.

Results from this study reveal important information about violence and aggression against educators and support the necessity of annual assessments of student, teacher, parent, and school personnel perspectives. Whether through surveys, interviews, or focus groups, gathering regular input from school stakeholders will help school systems monitor stress and wellness, identify needs and necessary supports, and inform ongoing school interventions. More broadly, anonymous surveys at the school, state, and national levels are needed to investigate the extent and types of victimization that educators and school personnel experience and solicit input on effective practices, policies, and solutions. Finally, we advise against policies and practices that promote the use of zero-tolerance or exclusionary practices because evidence indicates these strategies do not improve school safety but rather promote contact with the juvenile justice system and disproportionately affect students of color (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Skiba et al., 2022).

Conclusion

Aggression and violence against educators and school personnel are major concerns that affect the well-being of school personnel and the students and families they serve. School psychologists, social workers, and school counselors play critical roles in identifying, preventing, and intervening in school stakeholder victimization, and this research underscores the need to adopt a transdisciplinary approach that includes all school personnel, students, families, social services, police, and policymakers. We offer data-driven recommendations with a call for research, effective community–school practices, and policy changes at local, regional, and national levels. We need to carefully examine contextual factors, including state and county policies, community, school organization, teacher preparation and support, and educator and student voice. Overall, findings and recommendations provide a foundation for generating new innovations for school safety and effectiveness for pre-K–Grade 12 schools.

Public Significance Statement.

Aggression and violence against educators and school personnel and educator shortages are public health and educational issues that require attention, particularly in the context of recent trends surrounding COVID-19. This study describes new results that highlight violence and aggression before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2020), during COVID-19 restrictions (2020–2021), and after COVID-19 restrictions (2021–2022) for teachers, school psychologists, school social workers, counselors, school staff members, and administrators. Recommendations are provided to promote school safety and advance the field in theory, research, training, and policy.