Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma logoLink to Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma
. 2025 Apr 1;18(3):529–539. doi: 10.1007/s40653-025-00705-1

Prevalence and Correlates of Bullying by Teachers

Jill M Norvilitis 1,2,✉, Kimberly E Kamper-DeMarco 1, Jennifer Mitsuyama-Brandenberger 1
PMCID: PMC12433409  PMID: 40955402

Abstract

Teacher victimization has been found to have a negative impact on students’ academic engagement, motivation and increased behavioral issues. However, relatively little work has examined longer term consequences of victimization by teachers. The current study was a retrospective exploratory study of 271 undergraduates focused on teacher victimization prevalence in elementary and secondary school on academic outcomes, peer relationships, self-esteem, and general psychosocial distress in college. Students who reported experiencing teacher victimization were asked to provide a brief narrative description of a typical event to enhance validity. Overall, 43% of students reported experiencing at least one incidence of bullying by a teacher, and 82% of the narratives describing those experiences were coded as meeting criteria for teacher victimization. Teacher victimization correlated with negative academic effects, poorer adjustment to college, psychosocial distress, low self-esteem, peer victimization and amotivation. When individuals report being victimized by teachers but have little experience being victimized by peers, this appears to have a negative effect on their overall motivation in college.

Keywords: Teacher victimization, Motivation, Mixed methods, Academic adjustment, College students

Many studies have assessed the prevalence and effects of bullying with almost all research focusing on bullying by peers. Bullying by peers has been defined as aggressive behavior perpetrated by someone with more power in which there is a fear of repetition (Gladden et al., 2014; Olweus, 1993) and has been classified by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network as a form of trauma (www.nctsn.org). Relatedly, developmental trauma theory (Gregorowski & Seedat, 2013; van der Kolk, 2005) posits that exposure to repetitive interpersonal trauma disrupts children’s and adolescents’ interpersonal, cognitive, and behavioral development, with long-lasting consequences. Idsoe et al. (2021) argue that bullying victimization by peers is such a form of trauma. This behavior does not include single acts of aggression or indiscriminate behavior that targets all peers but rather highlights proactive aggressive behavior in which there is a power differential with the potential of repetition; however, little research has examined the effect of students feeling bullied by teachers.

Teachers are thought to provide a space for children to learn, problem-solve and think critically with best situations providing a positive community for individuals to grow (Leu, 2005). The importance of high-quality teaching has been established through decades of research. High-quality teaching involves teachers who are responsive and engaging and who actively involve students in their own learning (Leu, 2005). Forming strong bonds with students has been shown to improve student outcomes both academically and beyond (Hajovsky et al., 2020). Such teaching is directly related to students who are intrinsically motivated, who are academically well-adjusted, and who display trust in their teachers, leading to continued education and success and wellbeing in college (e.g. Cents-Boonstra et al., 2020; Quin, 2017). Much of this research presupposes that low-quality teaching simply involves not doing the aforementioned positive things. However, there are teachers who, regardless of teaching pedagogy, engage in fundamentally different practices in the classroom that may be termed bullying.

Among the handful of studies that have examined bullying by teachers, bullying by teachers is not uncommon. However, student reports of the prevalence of bullying by teachers vary widely, from just under 3% in a study of 7th and 8th grade students (Datta et al., 2017) to 7% of girls and 10% of boys in a study of Australian secondary students (Delfabbro et al., 2006) to 30% in a study of secondary students in Ireland (James et al., 2008). In retrospective studies of college students’ reflections on their K-12 educational experiences, rates vary from 44 to 52% (Fromuth et al., 2015; Marraccini et al., 2015). It is possible that participants in these studies may be conflating single acts of aggression, negative teachers who are hostile toward most students, and bullying that more closely aligns with the definition of bullying by peers: repeated behavior targeting one (or a few) individuals. This may be related to a lack of education on what bullying by teachers is, with less than 20% of students reporting education on teacher bullying (Fromuth et al., 2015). It may also be related to the tools used to measure bullying. For example, Delfabbro et al. (2006) used a single item, whereas Fromuth et al. (2015) developed a scale to examine the frequency of specific behaviors. Further, victimization by teachers may be more common among some populations than others. In a study of students in alternative education, 86% reported at least one incident of physical maltreatment by a staff member and 88% reported at least one incident of psychological maltreatment (Whitted & Dupper, 2008).

Despite the disparity in reports of prevalence, teachers also acknowledge the presence of bullying among their ranks. A survey of 1,067 teachers found that only 14% of teachers were not aware of teachers who engaged in “a pattern of conduct, rooted in a power differential, that harms, humiliates, induces fear, or causes students substantial emotional distress” (McEvoy & Smith, 2018). In a study of elementary teachers, 32% reported that they knew at least one teacher to bully students in their school and 40% of teachers admitted to having bullied a student at least once (Twemlow et al., 2006). Bullying teachers fell into two categories: sadistic, marked by humiliating students and being spiteful, and bully-victims, marked by problems in the use of discipline (Twemlow et al., 2006). Although teachers are aware of bullying by their colleagues, they report greater perceptions of severity and likelihood of intervention with peer bullying than bullying by teachers (Zerillo & Osterman, 2011).

Previous theory and research has demonstrated negative outcomes associated with bullying by peers, including trauma-related symptoms in children and youth (Idsoe et al., 2021; Lydecker, 2022), and poorer mental and physical health among college students (Holt et al., 2014) and, as is found with bullying by peers, there are negative consequences to being bullied by teachers. In a study of 9- to 12-year-old students in Greece, those who experience emotional abuse by a teacher had higher levels of behavior problems in school, though this relationship was mediated by social support (Nearchou, 2018). Although there are negative effects to both bullying by peers and teachers, these effects appear to vary. In a study of students in an alternative education program, 64% percent report that their worst school experience involved an adult and not a peer (Whitted & Dupper, 2008). Whitted and Dupper (2008) speculate that these incidents may be even more traumatizing because of the power imbalance and authority involved. Those bullied by peers report more general distress, but those bullied by teachers report lower grades and lower levels of academic engagement (Datta et al., 2017). This is supported by Fromuth et al. (2015), who reported that those who experienced bullying by teachers frequently did not want to go to school and received low grades as a result. Similarly, Delfabbro et al. (2006) reported that those who experienced peer victimization reported more social alienation and lower levels of psychological functioning, whereas those who experienced victimization by teachers struggled more academically and had decreased intention to complete school. Although there has been less research on symptoms in children and adolescents who have experienced victimization by teachers, the effects appear similar to the symptoms of trauma found in children, with researchers describing bullying by teachers as toxic (Datta et al., 2017), traumatizing (Twemlow et al., 2006), and destructive (Whitted & Dupper, 2008), incorporating the social aspects of bullying by peers while simultaneously disrupting the learning process.

These risks may be compounded because positive relationships with teachers are protective against peer victimization and distress related to victimization (Sulkowski & Simmons, 2018; van Aalst et al., 2021). Given this, it is not surprising that students report experiencing bullying by both peers and teachers (Gusfre et al., 2024; Lucas-Molina et al., 2015). For example, Datta et al. (2017) reported that 1.2% of students were bullied by teachers and an additional 1.5% were bullied by both teachers and peers. Those who report bullying by both peers and teachers report more risk behaviors, such as suicidal ideation, fighting, and substance use, than those reporting bullying by either peers or teachers (Kerere et al., 2024). Juva et al. (2020) provide an example of this. A student who was described as “non-normal” by teachers was bullied by peers. Teachers ignored the bullying behavior and, largely, ignored the child, occasionally participating in the bullying behavior themselves. Thus, not only did the student experience peer victimization, but the actions and inactions of the teachers compounded the negative situation. Significant developmental research has demonstrated that early traumatic experience has profound effects longitudinally (Colich et al., 2020; Croft et al., 2019). Kamper-DeMarco and colleagues (2023) found that when there was unsolicited teacher intervention with peer victimization in early childhood, this highlighting of the negative behavior led to increases in bullying behavior by the victim. However, the impact of teacher bullying may be more profound during different developmental periods due to the role of education in development. For example, in elementary school, children are often just beginning formal education which often leads to increased involvement and influence by teachers while later developmental periods may emphasize the importance of schooling on careers and future experiences (Marks, 2000); however, across all developmental periods, positive teacher engagement impacts student engagement and success. These differences highlight the unique demands of different developmental periods while emphasizing the unique, yet important role of teachers across all school-level developmental periods.

Less is known about how the experience of being bullied as a young student affects later development, including performance in college. In keeping with developmental trauma theory, which suggests that the impacts of trauma are long-term, the limited evidence to date indicates that problems will continue. Bullying by teachers may set up difficulties with future professors, as Marraccini et al. (2015) reported higher rates of bullying by professors among those who were bullied in school. Fromuth et al. (2015) reported both negative and adaptive responses to bullying by teachers. In their study, over half of college students who experienced teacher bullying reported that it had a negative impact on their lives and two-thirds reported a negative impact on their later view of school which may lead to academic difficulties in college. However, some students reported that they learned to stand up for themselves and other adaptive responses.

Given the varied prevalence rates reported in prior work, this study examined the prevalence of teacher bullying. Because there is relatively little research examining relationships with college well-being, this was examined as well, expanding on the work of Fromuth et al. (2015). Research questions guiding this exploratory study were:

  • What is the prevalence of bullying by teachers? Does prevalence vary by use of a single item versus a scale approach? Do narrative descriptions confirm the presence of bullying by teachers?

  • Prior research indicates that bullying by teachers may be related to psychosocial distress but is more strongly related to academic outcomes. Do these relationships continue over time into college? For the current study, psychosocial wellbeing is assessed through self-esteem and general psychosocial distress whereas academic wellbeing is assessed through several measures. GPA provides an objective indication of academic achievement while subjective measures include academic motivation, academic adjustment, and trust in professors. These were selected because they represent different facets of academic wellbeing that are related to college retention and academic success and that have been linked to high-quality teaching (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2020; Quin, 2017). Academic motivation extends self-determination theory to the college environment (Norvilitis et al., 2022). Academic adjustment encompasses both adaptation to college life and perceived academic wellbeing (Norvilitis et al., 2022). Trust in professors is both cognitive and affective and reflects the belief that one’s professors are caring and demonstrate integrity (Pachler et al., 2019).

  • Given the previously reported overlap between being bullied by teachers and being bullied by peers, is being bullied by both related to more negative scores on the measures above than being bullied by just peers or just a teacher?

Method

Participants

A total of 325 undergraduate psychology students participated in the current study. Eighteen students were removed from analysis because they completed less than 80% of the items. A further 36 students were removed because they either did not include their age (n = 8) or were outside of the traditional college age of 18 to 27 (n = 28), leaving a final sample of 271 with a mean age of 20.82 (SD = 2.00).

Of these, 222 (82%) participants identified as female, 47 (17%) identified as male, and 2 (< 1%) identified as non-binary or other. There were 36 (13%) first year (freshmen) students, 49 (18%) sophomores, 84 (31%) juniors, 93 (34%) seniors, and 8 (3%) fifth year or beyond students, with 1 (< 1%) student leaving this item blank. Further, 147 (54%) of students were white, 68 (25%) were black or African American, 1 (< 1%) was American Indian or Alaskan Native, 15 (6%) were Asian or Asian American, 29 (11%) were Latino or Hispanic, 1 (< 1%) was Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 10 (4%) reported their ethnicity as other.

Self-reported college GPA ranged from 0.50 to 4.0 (M = 3.16, SD = 0.57). High school GPA ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 (M = 3.36, SD = 0.54). Participants were also asked which of four sentences best described them in school with most participants (n = 181, 68%) reporting that they were a good kid who rarely got in trouble in high school. An additional 56 (21%) reported that they got in trouble from time to time, but nothing big; 21 (8%) reported that usually it was nothing big, but once in a while they got in bigger trouble; and 7 (3%) reported being suspended or expelled from school.

Materials and Procedure

Following approval from the campus Institutional Review Board for the protection of Human Participants and following the Declaration of Helsinki and the United States Health and Human Services Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects at 45 C.F.R. 46, participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes through announcements in the learning management platform to participate in a “study examining students’ experiences with teachers in kindergarten through high school.” Students received extra credit for participation, with alternative means to earn extra credit for those who declined participation in this study. After giving informed consent, participants completed demographic items and several measures on the Qualtrics platform. The study required less than 30 min per person to complete. Aside from demographics, including GPA, which were collected first, measures were given in random order to prevent order effects.

Measures of Bullying

Participants initially completed a single question on bullying by teachers, created for this study, “We are interested in learning about occasions when you might have been bullied by a teacher. For our purposes, being bullied by a teacher is defined as something that happened to you more than once (not just a teacher who had one bad day) and where the teacher singled you out (not a teacher that was just mean to everyone). Did this ever happen to you between kindergarten and 12th grade?” There were three response options: “Yes”, “I’m not sure if what happened to me was bullying”, and “No.” Those who answered yes or not sure were asked to respond to open-ended questions: “Please describe what happened to you. If you were bullied by more than one teacher, please choose one experience to describe.”, “What grade were you in when this occurred?”, “How did the situation end? Were there any consequences for you or for the teacher?” Open-ended questions focused on resolution and outcomes (e.g., “What do you think would have been the best outcome?”) were also asked but were not the focus of the current study. The above open-ended questions were used to qualitatively assess bullying behavior by teachers. All responses were coded by two independent researchers. Any discrepancies were verified with a third reviewer.

Students also completed quantitative scales related to bullying by teachers, adapted from Fromuth et al. (2015). The original Psychological Maltreatment by Teachers Scale comprised 10 items asking about specific teacher behaviors. Items are rated on a four-point scale from “Not at All” to “A Lot.” In the present study, in order to examine a broader range of behaviors by teachers, we modified this scale to include an additional 10 behaviors, such as “Threatened physical abuse or violence” and “Used threatening or inappropriate gestures.” The addition of these 10 items allowed for examination of a broader definitions of bullying behavior, including physical and relational bullying rather than just emotional abuse as is included in the original measure. Modifications were also made to be consistent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of bullying behavior and allowed for the assessment of repetition of aggressive behavior (Gladden et al., 2014). Specifically, we modified the response options so that participants answered twice about each item. The first stem was “This has ever happened to me…” with response options of “Yes, by more than 1 teacher”, “Yes, by only one teacher” and “No.” The second question asked “If yes, think of the primary teacher that did this. How often did the behavior occur?,” with the four options: “Just once”, “A few times”, “Occasionally”, and “Often.” These, combined with the “No” response from the first question, yielded a five-point frequency measure for which we calculated a mean score. Cronbach’s alpha for the frequency measure was strong (α = 0.93). To determine the frequency of bullying, we recoded responses of “Occasionally” or “Often” as responses indicating bullying and calculated a summed score.

The original Responses to Teacher’s Behavior Scale (Fromuth et al., 2015) comprised 9 items assessing outcomes associated with teacher bullying behavior. Two of the original items addressed positive outcomes (e.g., “I learned to stand up for myself.”), and the other items were negative (e.g., “I made low grades that year.”). We expanded the scale to include 19 items, increasing the number of positive outcomes (e.g., “I developed more empathy for others in similar situations.”) and adding items that addressed negative items that were school-related (e.g., “I became less interested in that teacher’s subject.”) or personal (e.g., “I struggled with feelings of sadness and anxiety.”). Items were scored on a 4-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” and a mean score was calculated. As anticipated, principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation identified three primary factors that we termed Negative Personal Outcomes (8 items, α = 0.87), Positive Outcomes (6 items, α = 0.79), and Negative School Outcomes (6 items, α = 0.79). Two items loaded onto two scales. One item failed to load onto these factors and was excluded from analyses.

Given the aforementioned overlaps between teacher bullying and peer bullying, participants completed the California Bullying Victimization Scale—Retrospective (CVBS-R; Greif Green et al., 2018) to assess peer victimization. The original California Bullying Victimization Scale is designed to be given to children in grades 5 through 12. Greif Green et al. (2018) modified the CVBS-R for retrospective reporting of bullying. As in the original CVBS, it is designed to identify victimization that is intentional, repeated, and involves a power imbalance. Items are divided into two groups, one asking about experiencing bullying (e.g., “Been teased or called names in a mean or hurtful way”; 8 items; α = 0.89) and the other asking about the perpetrator (e.g., “How popular was this other student?”; 7 items; α = 0.83) to assess the power imbalance. The presence of bullying items were scored on a 6-point scale from “Never” to “Several Times a Week” and mean scores were calculated. The power imbalance items are scored on a 3-point scale from “Less than Me” to “More than Me.”

Bullying by peers was also assessed through a one-item yes or no question.

Potential Psychosocial Correlates of Bullying

Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale is a widely-used 10-item scale to assess self-esteem (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.”). In the present study, reliability was good (α = 0.91). Items are completed on a four-point scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” and averaged to create an overall measure of self-esteem.

K6 Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2010) is a 6-item measure designed to screen for mental illness (e.g., “During the last 30 days, how often did you feel hopeless?”) in the general population that has been validated in countries around the world. In the present study, reliability was good (α = 0.92). Items were completed on a five-point scale from “Never” to “Very often” and mean scores were calculated.

Potential Academic Correlates of Bullying

The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1992–1993) comprises seven subscales, each with four items. Three subscales assess intrinsic motivation to attend college (for example, the desire to know), three assess extrinsic motivation to attend college (for example, to get a good job), and one assesses amotivation (for example, not knowing why one is in college at all; e.g., “I once had good reasons for going to college; however, now I wonder whether I should continue.”). Therefore, because of concerns with collinearity and length of the questionnaire and to simplify our analyses, we chose to use the To Know subscale of the AMS as our measure of intrinsic motivation, as in the Suhlmann et al. (2018) study. Items in the To Know subscale focus on college as a means to satisfy one’s desire to learn more and experience new ideas (e.g., “Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction while learning new things”). The extrinsic motivation subscales are also correlated with one another. Therefore, we chose to use the Identified subscale of the AMS as our measure of extrinsic motivation, again as Suhlmann et al. (2018) did. Items in the Identified subscale focus on college as a means to achieve a desired career (e.g., “Because I think that a college education will help me better prepare for the career I have chosen.”). Items were completed on a 5-point scale from “Does not correspond at all” to “Corresponds exactly.” Subscale items were averaged to create three scores. In the present study, reliability for the subscales was good (Intrinsic α = 0.91; Extrinsic α = 0.88; Amotivation α = 0.85).

The Academic Adjustment Scale (AAS; Anderson et al., 2016) is a 9-item scale examining students’ satisfaction with their own academic experience in college and is designed to address adjustment in the areas of college lifestyle, achievement, and motivation (e.g., “I am satisfied with my ability to learn at university.”). Although originally designed to comprise three 3-item subscales, the overall mean was stable and so we chose to use the total mean score as a measure of global college adjustment (α = 0.70). Items are completed on a five-point scale from “Rarely applies to me” to “Always applies to me.”

The Student Trust Scale (Adams, 2014) is a 13-item measure initially designed to measure trust in school teachers. In the present study, the scale was modified so that all references to teachers were replaced with ‘faculty’ and references to the school were replaced with ‘this college’ (e.g., “Faculty are always ready to help at this college.”). In the present study, reliability was good (α = 0.94). Items were completed using a five-point Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” and averaged to create an overall score.

Results

In order to address study questions, descriptive and correlation analyses were first conducted to better understand the relationships that exist between variables. Significant correlations along with theoretic support then led to multivariate analyses of key study questions.

Prevalence of Bullying by Teachers

To address the prevalence of bullying, rates of endorsement on both the Modified Psychological Maltreatment by Teachers scale were examined as well as on the single item measure of bullying. On the Modified Psychological Maltreatment by Teachers Scale, 118 (44%) participants reported that at least one of the behaviors happened to them at least occasionally. Of these, 37 (14%) reported only one behavior by a teacher and 27 (10%) reported 7 or more of the 20 behaviors. According to the single-item measure of bullying, 85 (31%) reported that they had been bullied by a teacher and an additional 65 (24%) had an experience with a teacher that they weren’t sure was bullying or not. Although the single-item measure had lower rates of bullying, Spearman’s rho indicated a strong relationship between the single item and scale (r =.49, p <.001) suggesting that prevalence does not vary significantly by use of a single item versus a scale approach.

Qualitative Narrative Descriptions of Bullying by Teachers

To better understand if narrative descriptions confirm the presence of bullying by teachers, students who reported that they had experienced bullying by teachers or had an experience that they unsure about were asked to write descriptions of their experiences. These descriptions were then examined for whether they appeared to involve victimization. In many cases, students gave a single example of the behavior to highlight what happened (e.g., “My teacher embarrassed me in front of my class and told me I wouldn’t last a day in college.”), although some noted that it was repeated (e.g., “My fifth grade teacher frequently singled me out. She called me r— in front of the class more than once…”). Thus, it was impossible to tell in many cases whether the behavior occurred repeatedly, as is part of the definition of bullying. Therefore, narrative descriptions were coded solely on the type of the behavior and not whether it was repetitive. For example, a student who described situations in which a teacher yelled at the whole class would be coded as “probably not bullying” because it did not appear that one child was the target, as would situations where it appeared that the teacher thought that they were acting in the student’s best interest. For example, one student described a teacher who talked to them about dating violence when, in fact, the student had been injured in athletics. Other behaviors coded as “probably not bullying” were those that were so vague that it was difficult to tell what had happened. For example, one student reported “When I had said something wrong, I was laughed at.” It is unclear who was laughing or what happened in that situation. As is demonstrated by the aforementioned examples, a conservative approach was used in order to ensure that only examples clearly demonstrating bullying were included. Some of these may, in fact, have involved bullying, but more information was needed.

A total of 143 (85% of those who said that they had been bullied by a teacher or if they were unsure if they had been bullied) students provided narrative descriptions. Two cases did not involve teachers (one involved a parent, one involved peers). Of the remaining 141, 120 (84%) responses indicated bullying or victimization by teachers. Participants who reported that they were sure that what happened to them was bullying were more likely to give responses that were coded as bullying by teachers than those who were not sure if it was bullying or not; χ2 = 4.43, p =.03. Despite this, it is noteworthy that 30 (70%) responses of the 43 individuals unsure about whether their experience was bullying were coded bullying or victimization. Thus, narrative descriptions increased inclusion of bullying experiences significantly among those who were unsure about whether their experience met the basic definition of bullying.

Qualitative Narrative Description Bullying Subtypes

Narrative descriptions recorded an array of experiences. Students reported verbal aggression (“Yelled at me constantly. Would say I was talking during an exam when I wasn’t and kick me out. Gave me a permanent library pass in case I ever ‘upset him so much that I need to leave.’”), favoritism (“The teacher screamed at me because I touched her stapler! She said “don’t you dare touch anything on my desk ever again. The next day, I walked into class and there was a student setting on the teacher’s chair, at her desk.”), humiliation (“I was called out in front of everyone for having the lowest test grade in an advanced math class by a teacher.”, “The teacher grabbed the paper that I had done and she crumbled it up and threw it at me and told me to throw it out.”), and neglect (“I was bullied by a teacher in 2nd grade, she only answered the questions of other kids. If I ever asked for help she would ignore me. I told my parents and they came up to speak with her and she called me the “[name] demon.”).

Correlations between Bullying by Teachers and Academic and Psychosocial Outcomes

Among those who reported that they had been bullied by teachers, most reported that there had been personal effects at the time of the bullying. Scores on the three subscales of the Modified Responses to Teacher’s Behavior Scale indicated a range of responses (Negative Personal Outcomes M = 2.69, SD = 0.84; Positive Outcomes M = 2.40, SD = 0.79; Negative Academic Effects M = 2.22, SD = 0.79). Not surprisingly, the two negative effect subscales were related (r =.76, p <.001). However, the two subscales were not related to Positive Outcomes (Negative Personal Outcomes r = −.01, p =.95; Negative Academic Effects r = −.04, p =.61). Similarly, students who reported more bullying behaviors from teachers on the Modified Psychological Maltreatment scale reported greater negative outcomes (Negative Personal Outcomes r =.34, p <.001; Negative Academic Effects r =.45, p <.001), but there was no relationship with Positive Outcomes (r = −.03, p =.73).

To assess whether these negative effects continued in college, we examined correlations between bullying by teachers and self-esteem, psychosocial distress, amotivation, college academic adjustment, and trust in professors. College students who reported more instances of bullying by teachers in their k-12 years reported poorer self-esteem on the RSE (r = −.18, p =.003), more psychosocial distress on the K6 (r =.26, p <.001), more amotivation (r =.18, p =.003), and poorer adjustment to college (r = −.16, p =.02). There was no relationship between bullying by teachers and intrinsic motivation (r =.01, p =.90) or extrinsic motivation (r = −.10, p =.10). There was a nonsignificant trend between more instances of bullying and decreased trust in college professors (r = −.11, p =.08) and lower GPA (r = −.12, p =.07). When examining Positive Outcomes, there were positive associations with academic adjustment (r =.29, p <.001) and self-esteem (r =.29, p <.001) as well as negative associations with psychological distress (r =.20, p =.01). In sum, significant associations were found between bullying and both psychological distress and negative academic outcomes though students with positive effects of bullying by teachers endorsed more positive outcomes.

Moderation Analysis of Bullying by Peers

On the single-item question, 113 (42%) participants reported that they had been bullied by peers in elementary, middle, or high school. Students who report having been peer bullied were also more likely to report having been teacher bullied or unsure if they had been bullied by a teacher, c2 (2) = 10.60, p =.005. Similarly, scores on the CVBS (i.e., peer victimization) were related to scores on the Modified Psychological Maltreatment by Teachers Scale (i.e., bullying by teachers); r =.35, p <.001.

Four regression analyses were completed with the Modified Psychological Treatment by Teachers Scale, peer victimization, and the interaction between the two as predictors of the variables that were significantly related to bullying by teachers [Table 1]. Peer victimization (b = -0.12, p <.01) and bullying by teachers (b = -0.01, p =.05) were both significant predictors of the RSE, but the interaction was not a predictor, R2 = 0.07, F (3, 256) = 6.77, p <.001. Similarly, peer victimization and bullying by teachers were both significant predictors of the K6, but the interaction was not a predictor, R2 = 0.17, F (3, 259) = 17.12, p <.001. Although the overall model predicting academic adjustment was significant, R2 = 0.04, F (3, 288) = 3.44, p =.02, only peer victimization was independently predictive (b = -0.08, p =.03). When predicting amotivation, the overall model was significant, R2 = 0.08, F (3, 260) = 7.77, p <.001. Bullying by teachers (b = 0.02, p <.001) and the interaction (b = -0.01, p =.001) were significant predictors of amotivation, but peer victimization was not. Given the significant interaction term, we examined how different levels of peer victimization impact the association of psychological maltreatment on amotivation (see Fig. 1). Specifically, simple slopes were used to examine low (-1 SD below the mean), average (mean), and high (+ 1 SD above the mean) levels of peer victimization impacted the association of psychological maltreatment on amotivation. At both low (b = 0.02, p <.001) and mean (b = 0.01, p =.001) levels of peer victimization there was a significant impact of psychological maltreatment on amotivation; however, there was no significant effect at high levels of peer victimization (p =.33).

Table 1.

Regression analyses predicting psychological adjustment outcomes from bullying experiences

Outcome and Predictors b t p F df p R 2

Overall Model:

Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSE)

 6.77 (3, 256) < 0.001 0.07
Peer Victimization -0.12 -3.24 0.001
Psychological Maltreatment -0.01 -1.96 0.05
Victimization X Maltreatment -0.00 0.22 ns

Overall Model:

Depression Scale

 17.12 (3, 259) < 0.001 0.17
Peer Victimization 0.33 5.26 < 0.001
Psychological Maltreatment 0.01 2.65 0.01
Victimization X Maltreatment -0.00 -0.83 ns

Overall Model:

Academic Adjustment

 3.44 (3, 288) 0.02 0.04
Peer Victimization -0.08 -2.17 0.03
Psychological Maltreatment -0.00 -1.25 ns
Victimization X Maltreatment 0.00 0.33 ns

Overall Model:

Amotivation

 7.77 (3,260) < 0.001 0.08
Peer Victimization -0.02 -0.35 ns
Psychological Maltreatment 0.02 4.20 < 0.001
Victimization X Maltreatment -0.01 -3.63 0.001
Open in a new tab

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Simple slopes for predicting amotivation

Exploratory Analyses of Consequences for Teachers

Of note, we also examined the consequences for teachers as reported by students. Open-ended responses to the question asking about consequences of the situation for the teacher were coded to determine responses to the bullying. Participants who reported that they told an adult (parent, teacher, administrator) and that someone attempted to intervene on their behalf were coded as indicating a consequence. Participants who did not tell anyone or who received no support after reporting were coded as no consequence to the teacher. Of the 97 participants who responded to this question, 31 (32%) reported that there was some sort of consequence for the teacher. Consequences ranged from a parent talking to the teacher and the behavior decreasing to the child being moved to another room to, in three cases, the teacher being fired. A MANOVA comparing those reporting consequences to those who reported no consequences did not indicate differences on any of the three subscales, F (3, 93) = 1.06, p =.37.

Discussion

Given developmental trauma theory and the importance of high-quality teaching, the role of teacher bullying in student development is crucial to understand. As such, the purpose of the current study was to examine the prevalence of bullying perpetrated by teachers and assess the impact of this behavior on college-related abilities. Initially, we examined self-reported rates of bullying by teachers and determined that close to half of participants reported occasional bullying by teachers in elementary or secondary school using a scale focusing on psychological maltreatment by teachers. Further validity of this rate was found through a single-item measure of bullying in which the majority of these students reported having been bullied or having experienced something they thought may classify as bullying. However many students noted uncertainty about whether the behavior qualified as bullying, including in cases where the narrative descriptions indicated that the behavior was clearly aggressive (e.g., “[I was] slapped in back of head for going too slow.”) Importantly, when students provided a narrative detailing the experience they thought was bullying, 84% of incidents were coded as bullying by teachers. Further, students who reported more bullying incidents reported more negative personal and academic outcomes at the time of the bullying. Overall, this supports the notion that teachers engage in bullying of students at relatively high rates and that, even though this behavior is not uncommon, the effects on children are significant. This is in keeping with the prevalence reported by Fromuth et al. (2015) and Marraccini et al. (2015) in their retrospective studies of college students and is considerably higher than research with secondary school students (e.g., Datta et al., 2017; Delfabbro et al., 2006; James et al., 2008). This suggests that students in the midst of the victimization may not recognize it as such, even though they experience negative outcomes, but, as they mature and gain some distance from the events, reflect differently on what happened to them.

Given prior research suggesting that bullying by teachers may have stronger negative effects on academic performance rather than social or psychological distress (Delfabbro et al., 2006; Fromuth et al., 2015), we examined the associations between bullying by teachers in the prediction of both variables years after the events occurred. Bivariate correlations revealed significant moderate associations between teacher bullying and academic adjustment as well as motivational factors, providing some evidence for the negative effect of bullying by teachers on academics; however, we also saw a significant correlation with psychosocial factors such as self-esteem and psychological distress. As has been found previously (Gusfre et al., 2024; Lucas-Molina et al., 2015), we also saw a strong correlation between bullying by teachers and bullying by peers, suggesting that those children who are being bullied by their peers, may often also be at risk for bullying by teachers as well. Given these findings, we conducted moderation analyses to examine whether there was a significant interaction between the different bullying perpetration and important outcomes including academic adjustment, motivation, and psychosocial distress. When predicting academic adjustment, bullying by peers was the only significant predictor, suggesting that when individuals feel victimized by their same-aged peers, this, rather than bullying by teachers, seems to account for lower levels of academic adjustment. Given that the measure includes lifestyle as well as more academically based items, it makes sense that those more personal previous experiences with peers, specifically those involving bullying, have a stronger negative influence on overall adjustment to college life than experiences with former teachers.

Interestingly, when examining amotivation, there was a significant interaction effect such that the influence of bullying by teachers is predictive of college student amotivation, particularly when peer victimization has been low. This suggests that individuals who are victimized by teachers are more likely to be amotivated if they have not experienced peer victimization. We speculate that bullying by teachers leads individuals to withdraw from school and instead focus their efforts outside of school, leading to disinterest in school even later at the college level. On the other hand, for those experiencing high levels of peer victimization, those social outlets outside of school may not be available thus, psychological maltreatment by teachers may have less of an effect on amotivation as these individuals may choose to focus on schoolwork as a result of feeling ostracized from their peer group.

It is noteworthy that some students reported positive outcomes following the bullying experience. Those who reported more intense or frequent bullying were less likely to report positive outcomes. However, the presence of positive outcomes may indicate that something akin to posttraumatic growth occurs in some of those who have experienced bullying by teachers. Further research is clearly necessary to identify environmental and psychological predictors of these positive outcomes so that we can better understand these associations across development.

Implications for Practice

The findings highlight the unique role of teacher victimization at the time of the incident and in subsequent student experiences. Bullying experiences with teachers are related to both academic achievement and motivational and intrapersonal factors years after the events occurred. These relationships support developmental trauma theory as a model of teacher victimization and suggest that the trauma that children experience at the hands of those in charge of their education is significant and has lasting effects. This indicates the need to provide support for both students who experience high rates of peer victimization within the school environment, as has been well-established, but also for those who are victimized primarily by teachers. Given the tendency to overlook bullying by teachers in the field, due to the prevalence and the significant negative effects of victimization and bullying (Twemlow et al., 2006), school administration should increase efforts made to identify bullying at all levels in order to encourage academic and individual growth within students. As such, special focus must be placed on helping teachers foster positive relationships with their students to ensure high-quality teaching. Further, just as school counselors and psychologists treat trauma in those who experience victimization by peers, interventions should be developed to address victimization by teachers.

Limitations

Despite using a mixed methods approach to understanding the impact of bullying by teachers, there were several limitations to the current study that help shed light for future research in this area. Specifically, the study was conducted with college students who reflected retrospectively on their elementary and secondary school experiences of bullying by teachers. Of note, many of these experiences were recalled with impressive detail; however, it is important to acknowledge that bias in retrospection may conflate or diminish the experiences that students may have had with prior teachers. This bias may be greater for experiences in primary school. College students may be just a year or two away from more recent experiences, but may be over a decade past elementary school experiences. Relatedly, college students may be less likely to have endured bullying by teachers than those who do not continue their education leading to limitations in generalizability. Further, given this research design, we also were unable to assess the relationship with the teacher that the student had prior to the bullying event which could impact both the experience of victimization by the student as well as provide more detail into why the incident occurred and we did not have any independent verification of the events described.

Because this was a retrospective study, participants reported on victimization experiences throughout elementary and secondary school. Prior research is mixed on whether bullying by teachers is more common in younger or older students (Gusfre et al., 2023) and there is, as far as we are aware, no work comparing the impact of bullying by teachers at different ages across primary and secondary school suggesting that the developmental impact this specific type of bullying may have both acutely and longitudinally is still unknown. Although these are topics that should be investigated in the future, these issues were simply beyond the scope of the present study. Similarly, several accounts mentioned bullying due to race or ethnicity (e.g., “When i first moved to my hometown i got bullied for my accent and my skin color. I had a very dark completion.”; “I could not speak any English… and the teacher continue on to yell at me even if he knew that I did not.”). However, we did not include questions specifically about bullying due to culture or diverse populations. This, too, should be examined in the future.

Despite these limitations, the narrative description of the bullying exhibited by teachers allows validation of the experiences detailed by students. Future research would benefit from continuing to examine the areas that bullying by teachers affects both in the short term (e.g., immediately following the victimization experience) as well as over time. Further investigation of what may contribute to amotivation among individuals who have been victimized by their teachers would help researchers understand the impact of peers on amotivation as well as how bullying by teachers may lead to different consequences depending on the developmental period in which the bullying experienced occurred.

Conclusion

Given the importance of teachers for allowing children to learn and grow, it is crucial to understand how negative experiences with these trusted authority figures impact students’ overall wellbeing. The current study contributes to a growing literature on bullying by highlighting the impact of teacher-perpetrated bullying during crucial developmental periods by identifying rates of teacher-led bullying as well as the detail in which students remember these experiences later. It also highlights the negative impact that bullying both by peers and teachers can have on the overall adjustment of college students. Our findings underpin the important social role that high-quality teaching plays in the development of motivation and adjustment for young adults.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Anna Weigel and Mikaela Morgan for their assistance with data collection and coding.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Data Availability

Data are available by request of the first author.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Adams, C. M. (2014). Collective student trust: A social resource for urban elementary students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 135–159. 10.1177/0013161x13488596 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, J. R., Guan, Y., & Koc, Y. (2016). The academic adjustment scale: Measuring the adjustment of permanent resident or sojourner students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 54, 68–76. 10.1016/j.ijinterl.2016.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cents-Boonstra, M., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Denessen, E., Aelterman, N., & Haerens, L. (2020). Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: An observation study of teacher and student Beahviors. Research Papers in Education, 36(6), 754–779. 10.1080/02671522.2020.1767184 [Google Scholar]
  4. Colich, N. L., Rosen, M. L., Williams, E. S., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2020). Biological aging in childhood and adolescence following experiences of threat and deprivation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 721–762. 10.1037/bul0000270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, J., Heron, J., Teufel, C., Cannon, M., Wolke, D., Thompson, A., Houtepen, L., & Zammit, S. (2019). Association of trauma type, age of exposure, and frequency in childhood and adolescence with psychotic experiences in early adulthood. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(1), 79–86. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2017). The toxicity of bullying by teachers and other school staff. School Psychology Review, 46(4), 335–348. 10.17105/SPR-2017-0001.V46-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, A., Metzer, J., & Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 71–90. 10.1348/000709904X24645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fromuth, M. E., Davis, T. L., Kelly, D. B., & Wakefield, C. (2015). Descriptive features student psychological maltreatment by teachers. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 8, 127–135. 10.1007/s40653-015-0042-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Education.
  10. Gregorwoski, C., & Seedat, S. (2013). Addressing childhood trauma in a developmental context. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 25(2), 105–118. 10.2989/17280583.2013.795154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Greif Green, J., Oblath, R., Felix, E. D., Furlong, M. J., Holt, M. K., & Sharkey, J. D. (2018). Initial evidence for the validity of the California bullying victimization scale (CBVS-R) as a retrospective measure for adults. Psychological Assessment, 30(11), 144401453. 10.1037/pas0000592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gusfre, K. S., Støen, J., & Fandrem, H. (2023). Bully by teachers towards students—a scoping review. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 5, 331–347. 10.1007/s42380-022-00131-z [Google Scholar]
  13. Gusfre, K. S., Yanagida, T., Støen, J., & Fandrem, H. (2024). Teacher bullying—Does it have an impact on peer bullying victimization? International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 10.1007/s42380-024-00273-2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hajovsky, D. B., Chesnut, S. R., & Jensen, K. M. (2020). The role of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the development of teacher-student relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 141–158. 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Holt, M. K., Green, G., Reid, J., DiMeo, G., Espelage, A., Felix, D. L., Furlong, E. D., Poteat, M. J., V. P., & Sharkey, J. D. (2014). Associations between past bullying experiences and psychosocial and academic functioning among college students. Journal of American College Health, 62(8), 552–560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Idsoe, T., Vaillancourt, T., Dyregrov, A., Hagan, K. A., Ogden, T., & Naerde, A. (2021). Bullying victimization and trauma. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 480353. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.480353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. James, D. J., Lawlor, M., Courtney, P., Flynn, A., Henry, B., & Murphy, N. (2008). Bullying behaviour in secondary schools: What roles do teachers play? Child Abuse Review, 17, 160–173. 10.1002/car.1025 [Google Scholar]
  18. Juva, I., Holm, G., & Dovemark, M. (2020). He failed to find his place in this school’—Re-examining the role of teachers in bullying in a Finnish comprehensive school. Ethnography and Education, 15(1), 79–93. 10.1080/17457823.2018.1536861 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kamper-DeMarco, K. E., Blakely-McClure, S. J., & Ostrov, J. M. (2023). Responses to peer victimization and bullying in early childhood. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 10.1007/s42380-022-00156-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kerere, J. L., Maeng, J. L., & Cornell, D. G. (2024). High school teacher bullying and student risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 75(3), 392–398. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kessler, R. C., Green, G., Gruber, J., Sampson, M. J., Bromet, N. A., Cuitan, E., Furukawa, M., Gureje, T. A., Hinkov, O., Hu, H., Lara, C. Y., Lee, C., Mneimneh, S., Myer, Z., Oakley-Brown, L., Posada-Villa, M., Sagar, J., Viana, R., M. C., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2010). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: Results from the WHO world mental health (WMH) survey initiative. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19(Supp. 1), 4–22. 10.1002/mpr.310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Leu, E. (2005). The role of teachers, schools, and communities in quality education: A review of the literature. Academy for Educational Development.
  23. Lucas-Molina, B., Williamson, A. A., Pulido, R., & Perez-Albeniz, A. (2015). Effects of teacher-student relationships on peer harassment: A multilevel study. Psychology in the Schools, 52(3), 298–315. 10.1002/pits21822 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lydecker, J. A. (2022). Conceptual application of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy to treat victims of bullying. Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion, 3(2), 231–245. 10.1177/26320770221074008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184. 10.3102/00028312037001153 [Google Scholar]
  26. Marraccini, M. E., Weyandt, L. L., & Rossi, J. S. (2015). College students’ perceptions of professor/instructor bullying: Questionnaire development and psychometric properties. Journal of American College Health, 63(8), 563–572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. McEvoy, A., & Smith, S. (2018). Teacher bullying, statistically speaking. Learning for Justice, 58. https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/spring-2018/statistically-speaking
  28. Nearchou, F. (2018). Resilience following emotional abuse by teachers: Insights from a cross-sectional study with Greek students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 96–106. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Norvilitis, J. M., Reid, H. M., & O’Quin, K. (2022). Amotivation: A key predictor of college GPA, college match, and first-year retention. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 11(3), 314–338. 10.17583/ijep.2022.7309 [Google Scholar]
  30. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.
  31. Pachler, D., Kuonath, A., & Frey, D. (2019). How transformational lecturers promote students’ engagement, creativity, and task performance: The mediating role of trust in lecturer and self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 162–172. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345–387. 10.3102/0034654316669434 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400876136
  34. Scharpf, F., Kızıltepe, R., Kirika, A., & Hecker, T. (2023). A systematic review of the prevalence and correlates of emotional violence by teachers. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 24(4), 2581–2597. 10.1177/15248380221192559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Suhlmann, M., Sassenberg, K., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Belonging mediates effects of student-university fit on well-being, motivation, and dropout intention. Social Psychology, 49(1), 16–28. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000325 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sulkowski, M. L., & Simmons, J. (2018). The protective role of teacher-student relationships against peer victimization and psychosocial distress. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 137–150. 10.1002/pits.22086 [Google Scholar]
  37. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., & Brethour, J. R. (2006). Teachers who bully students: A hidden trauma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 5(2), 187–198. 10.1177/0020764006067234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017. 10.1177/0013164492052004025 [Google Scholar]
  39. van Aalst, D. A. E., Huitsing, G., Mainhard, T., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Veenstra, R. (2021). Testing how teachers’ self-efficacy and student-teacher relationships moderate the association between bullying, victimization, and student self-esteem. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 10.10180/17405629.2021.1912728 [Google Scholar]
  40. van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401–408. 10.3928/00485713-20050501-06 [Google Scholar]
  41. Whitted, K. S., & Dupper, D. R. (2008). Do teachers bully students: Findings from a survey of students in an alternative education setting. Education and Urban Society, 40(3), 329–341. 10.1177/0013124507304487 [Google Scholar]
  42. Zerillo, C., & Osterman, K. F. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying. Improving Schools, 14(3), 239–257. 10.1177/1365480211419586 [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available by request of the first author.

Articles from Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES