Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

51(7), 2014 
C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21777

VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST TEACHERS: RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL SURVEY

SUSAN D. McMAHON AND ANDREW MARTINEZ
DePaul University

DOROTHY ESPELAGE
University of Illinois

CHAD ROSE
University of Missouri

LINDA A. REDDY
Rutgers University

KATHLEEN LANE
University of Kansas

ERIC M. ANDERMAN
The Ohio State University

CECIL R. REYNOLDS
Texas A&M University

ABRAHAM JONES
National Education Association

VEDA BROWN
Consultant

Teachers in U.S. schools report high rates of victimization, yet previous studies focus on select types
of victimization and student perpetrators, which may underestimate the extent of the problem. This
national study was based on work conducted by the American Psychological Association Classroom
Violence Directed Against Teachers Task Force and is one of the few national studies to examine
violence directed at teachers. Participants included 2,998 kindergarten through 12th -grade (K-12)
teachers from 48 states who completed an anonymous web-based survey assessing their experiences
with victimization. Results revealed that 80% of teachers reported at least one victimization, and
of these teachers, 94% reported being victimized by students. Nearly three-fourths of all teachers
experienced at least one harassment offense, more than half experienced property offenses, and
44% reported physical attacks. Findings suggest that specific teacher and community characteristics
are associated with a higher likelihood of victimization, namely, male gender and urban settings;
whereas, African American teachers were less likely to report victimization. Implications for
teacher training, school interventions, public policy, and future research are discussed.  C 2014

Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

School violence has emerged as a significant public health crisis warranting immediate attention.
Nationally, 11% of high school students report being in a fight, 8% report being threatened or injured
with a weapon on school property, and 6% report carrying a weapon on school property in the past

This study was based on the work of the American Psychological Association Classroom Violence Directed
Against Teachers Task Force and supported by the American Psychological Association Board of Educational Affairs.
The Task Force thanks the American Psychological Association Staff Contributors, Dr. Rena Subotnik, Ms. Ashley
Edmiston, and Ms. Rochelle Rickoff.
Correspondence to: Susan D. McMahon, Department of Psychology, 2219 N. Kenmore, Chicago, IL 60614.
E-mail: smcmahon@depaul.edu

753
754 McMahon et al.

30 days (Robers, Zhang, & Truman, 2010). Less severe forms of student victimization are even
higher, as 32% of 12- to 18-year-old students report having been bullied and 21% report being
ridiculed (Robers et al., 2010). Violence in schools has systematic adverse effects on students’
learning and behavior, as well as school personnel functioning and teacher and parent partnerships
(Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007). Although violence affects everyone in the school, most research
to date has focused on student violence and victimization, and little attention has been placed on
teacher-directed violence (Espelage et al., 2013).
Much of what is known nationally about teacher victimization is reported in the annual School
Crime and Safety Report (Robers et al., 2010), which includes data from a variety of national
surveys of students, teachers, and principals. According to a recent release of this report, 11%
of public school principals reported students engaging in acts of disrespect on a daily or weekly
basis, and 6% reported students engaging in verbal abuse directed toward their teachers (Robers
et al., 2010). Further, 7% of teachers reported being threatened with injury by a student at their
school, and 4% reported being physically attacked; reports of threat and injury are highest in urban
schools, in public schools, and among male teachers (Robers et al., 2010). Recently, research by
Tiesman, Konda, Hendricks, Mercer, and Amandus (2013) found that approximately 30% of school
staff experienced at least one nonphysical violent event in the workplace within the past year.
Overall, these data suggest that a significant number of teachers experience victimization, with
higher rates for less severe forms of victimization.
Despite high rates of teacher victimization, most school interventions have focused on student-
directed violence, whereas school interventions focusing on teacher-directed violence have lagged
behind (Espelage et al., 2013). Often, schools and school districts have relied on zero-tolerance
policies as a way of addressing violence directed at school staff and students, but such an approach
may lead to unfair disciplinary consequences for special education students and students of color
(Skiba & Peterson, 2000; Tiesman et al., 2013).
Violence directed toward K-12 grade teachers is a major problem in America’s schools, warrant-
ing immediate research and policy reform (Espelage et al., 2013). Student academic and behavioral
outcomes are directly influenced by the professional functioning of educators, as well as the recruit-
ment and retention of quality teachers (Reddy et al., 2014; Reddy, Fabiano, & Jimerson, 2013). Chal-
lenging working conditions, including school violence, negative school climate, and discipline prob-
lems, are directly related to teacher satisfaction and retention (e.g., Cohen, Pickeral, & McCloskey,
2009; Ingersoll, 2001; Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2007). Further, there are significant costs
of teacher victimization, including lost wages, lost instructional time/productivity, increased work-
ers’ compensation, litigation, and negative publicity (Levin, Belfield, Muenning, & Rouse, 2006).
There is an urgent need to better understand the nature and extent of teacher-directed violence to
improve students’ and teachers’ experiences and make our school systems safer and more effective.
Theoretically, examination of teacher-directed violence may be informed by social ecological
theory of violence (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), where behavior is shaped by a range of nested contextual
systems. Social ecological theory suggests that examining the context of teacher-directed violence
may help us to better understand how and why violence occurs. Within an interpersonal ecological
context, students have been found to be the main perpetrators of teacher-directed violence (Gerberich
et al., 2011; Tiesman et al., 2013). Several community and demographic predictors have also been
identified in large-scale studies on teacher victimization. More specifically, community and demo-
graphic variables (e.g., community poverty and disorganization, racial composition, socioeconomic
status, urban location, community crime, and total school enrollment) were significantly related to
teacher victimization rates and explained 43% and 54% of the variance in teacher victimization
among high schools and middle/junior high schools, respectively (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne,
& Gottfredson, 2005; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1985). School-level variables, including climate,

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Violence Directed Against Teachers 755

disciplinary standards, and resources, have also been found to predict teacher victimization, although
to a lesser degree than community and demographic variables (Gottfredson et al., 2005; Gottfredson
& Gottfredson, 1985). Given the substantial number of teachers reporting victimization experiences,
we need to further assess victimization by teachers’ gender, race/ethnicity, and community setting,
key variables that have been examined in the few existing studies.
In addition to limited research that targets teacher-victimization and contextual variables,
there are some significant limitations regarding the measurement and scope of teacher-directed
victimization that suggest current prevalence rates are likely to underestimate the problem. First,
assessment of teacher victimization has generally focused on victimization by students and has
excluded assessment of victimization experiences originating from parents, colleagues, or other
individuals in the school setting. Second, previous studies have often limited assessment to injury and
physical attacks, and have not assessed other forms of victimization, such as harassment and property
theft. This focus on serious injury has produced an incomplete picture of teacher victimization
experiences. Finally, in some national surveys of school safety, principals report rates of teacher
victimization in their schools. Restricting reports of teacher violence to principals may contribute to
an underestimation of rates, because teachers may not report all forms of victimization (especially
low-level aggression), and principals may minimize these reports to present their schools positively.
Collectively, these challenges underscore the need to directly survey teachers about their experiences,
assess victimization from multiple perpetrators, and assess a broader range of victimization to gain
a comprehensive picture of teacher experiences.
Identifying the nature and extent of teacher-directed violence may help us to better understand
the ecology of school settings and facilitate the development of effective interventions. The present
investigation addressed this void in the literature by examining teacher-directed violence among K-
12 teachers in a U.S. national survey. We examined the overall rate of victimization among teachers,
as well as the rates of victimization by: (a) offense type, (b) perpetrator, and (c) teachers’ gender,
race/ethnicity, and community setting.

M ETHOD
Participants
This study examined responses from 2,998 K-12 teachers surveyed from 48 states across the
United States. A total of 3,403 teachers responded to the survey, with 405 (12% of the sample) pro-
viding incomplete responses, yielding a sample of 2,998 participants. The 405 incomplete surveys
were omitted from further analysis. In terms of demographics, all four Census Bureau regions of the
United States were represented; the percentage of participants from each region is as follows: North-
east (9.1%), Midwest (15.6%), South (62.5%), and West (12.8%). West Virginia and South Carolina
were the only two states not represented in this sample. On average, teachers were 46.5 (SD = 11.2)
years old, were female (83.5%), and taught for 16.9 (SD = 10.5) years. The majority of teachers were
White (81.2%), followed by African American (9.3%), Latino (4.4%), and Other/Multiracial (5.1%).
The majority of teachers worked in a traditional public school setting (94.1%), and the remainder of
teachers worked in a public magnet or charter school (5.1%) or private school (.8%). Also, 22.5%
of the schools in which teachers worked were secondary schools, and the remainder of teachers
worked in grades K-8 (67.8%). A small portion of teachers (9.7%) worked in schools consisting
of a combination of high school and elementary/middle-school grades. Most teachers were general
education teachers, and only 16.3% were special education teachers. Participating teachers worked
in the following types of community settings: 44.5%, urban; 36.8%, suburban; and 18.7%, rural.
Although the current sample of 2,998 teachers is small compared with the population of full-
time, employed teachers within the United States (i.e., 3.7 million; United States Census Bureau,

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

756 McMahon et al.

2012), the similarity of the demographic characteristics of participants in this sample compared with
national statistics provides support for external validity. For example, the percentage of participants
with a master’s degree or higher reflected that of teachers in the United States (52%). This sample
included a slightly higher percentage of female teachers (83.5%) compared with national statistics
(76%). Despite a higher representation than national figures, female teachers in this sample were
less likely than were male teachers to report victimization, suggesting that their participation in the
study was not associated with interest in reporting victimization experiences. A higher percentage
of teachers in this sample were below age 40 (44%) compared with national rates (30%; United
States Department of Education, 2011), which may be due in part to the web-based nature of the
anonymous survey. A random sample would have been preferred as the best representation of the
population of teachers, but random sampling is typically rare in national studies (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002). External validity in this study is, however, strengthened due to the heterogeneous
sampling of locations (e.g., regions, states, school community settings) and individual demographic
characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity).

Procedure
Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at the University of Illinois, survey data
were collected by the American Psychological Association (APA) Center for Psychology in Schools
and Education (CPSE). CPSE worked collaboratively with The National Education Association
(NEA), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and each state’s association of education. The
NEA promoted survey participation through their newsletter, the AFT distributed survey weblinks
to teachers, and CPSE sent letters to the presidents of each state’s education association, with an
invitation to distribute information to teachers. Instructions informed teachers that the research was
approved by the IRB and that their completion of the anonymous, web-based survey indicated their
consent to participate in this study.
Recruitment efforts for survey completion occurred between January and May 2010. The initial
distribution of the solicitation letter yielded 600 responses by the end of March. In April, APA
distributed a second solicitation letter, yielding 2,422 completed surveys. In May, a final solicitation
letter was distributed, resulting in a 2,998 usable surveys for this study. State affiliates of national
teacher associations in Louisiana and Florida aggressively promoted participation in the survey study,
yielding higher response rates for the Southern region; however, nearly all of the states doubled their
response numbers from April to May.

Measures
The survey was developed by the APA Classroom Violence Directed Against Teachers Task
Force, and some items were drawn from previous studies on violence against teachers (Gottfredson
et al., 2005). Demographic questions mainly consisted of closed-ended questions followed by a
series of check boxes, for example, “What is your gender? (male, female).” For the main study
question, participants were asked, “Have any of the following happened to you personally this year
or last year at your school? If yes, please check all the individuals that may have been involved.”
Eleven forms of victimization were then listed: obscene remarks, obscene gestures, verbal threats,
intimidation, cyber/Internet violence, theft of personal property, damage to personal property, objects
thrown, physical attack not resulting in a visit to a physician, physical attack resulting in a visit to
a physician, and weapon pulled. For each victimization category, teachers could choose the “did
not happen” option. Those who experienced an incident were asked to report the role (e.g., student,
parent, colleague, stranger, other) of each individual who generated the offense. Note that the
identification of perpetrator type is not synonymous with the number of times one is victimized. The

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Violence Directed Against Teachers 757

11 dichotomous victimization categories (i.e., experienced offense/did not experience an offense)

revealed the percentage of teachers who experienced each type of offense.

R ESULTS
The analyses in this study serve two major purposes: (1) to examine the prevalence of teacher
victimization, and (2) to understand demographic factors that are associated with experiencing vic-
timization. First, percentages were used to describe the extent to which teachers reported being
victimized by offense type and by perpetrator. The 11 offense types were conceptually grouped into
three categories to provide an organizational framework for presenting the findings: (1) harassment
(i.e., obscene remarks, obscene gestures, verbally threatened, intimidated, Internet victim); (2) prop-
erty offenses (i.e., theft of property, damage to personal property); and (3) physical offenses (i.e.,
physical attack resulting in a visit to physician, physical attack not resulting in a visit to physician,
weapon pulled, objects thrown). Second, we used logistic regression analyses to examine demo-
graphic factors (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, and community setting) that are significantly associated
with each type of victimization.
Overall, we found that the prevalence of victimization in this sample was high, with 80% of the
participants reporting being victimized at school within the current or past year. Nearly three-fourths
of all teachers reported at least one harassment offense, with more than half reporting property
offenses and 44% reporting physical attacks. Further, 31% of teachers reported being victimized at
least once within all three major offense domains. See Table 1 for victimization rates by offense.

Offense Type by Perpetrator

Victimizations were examined by perpetrator (e.g., student, parent, colleague), overall, and
across the 11 victimization domains to determine who is most likely to engage in acts of violence
against teachers. A better understanding of who engages in which particular types of offenses
can be helpful in guiding school interventions. Overall, among teachers who reported at least one
victimization, the majority of the teachers (94%) reported being victimized at least once by a student,
followed by parents (37%), colleagues (21%), others (9%), and strangers (8%).
Next, victimizations were examined by perpetrator across each of the 11 respective victimization
categories (see Table 1). Teachers who experienced one or more victimizations within each category
were examined to assess the perpetrators. Although offense rates generated by students were high
(79%–93%), offense rates were lower, yet substantial, by parents (1%–44%) and colleagues (2%–
25%). Parent and colleague offenses tended to be harassment oriented, whereas, student offenses
were high across all three categories (harassment, property offenses, and physical offenses). Further,
48% of victimized teachers reported being victimized by two or more different types of perpetrators
(e.g., students, parents, etc.) and were, on average, victimized by 1.7 perpetrators. When taken
together, results indicate that teachers were victimized by a variety of individuals within the school
ecology.

Offense Type by Teacher and Community Characteristics

Offense type was examined in relation to three demographic variables (i.e., teacher gender,
teacher race/ethnicity, and school community setting). If we can better understand what demographic
factors are associated with higher risk of victimization, we can begin to assess why there is greater
risk and determine the best course of action to minimize the risk to certain individual teachers within
certain community settings. Table 2 presents results for victimization percentages by demographics.
Overall, male teachers and teachers in urban settings reported higher victimization, and African
American teachers reported lower victimization.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

758 McMahon et al.

Table 1
Teacher Victimization by Offense and Perpetrator

Perpetratorb

n (%) Reporting at
Offense Type Least 1 Offensea Student (%) Parent (%) Colleague (%)

Harassment 2,175 (73)

Obscene Remarks 1,872 (62) 93.2 29.1 8.1
Obscene Gestures 1,531 (51) 95.6 13.5 4.8
Verbally Threatened 1,477 (49) 85.0 26.3 7.9
Intimidated 1,338 (45) 67.0 44.4 24.6
Internet Victim 124 (4) 58.9 18.5 16.1
Property Offense 1,617(54)
Theft of Property 1,321 (44) 90.2 1.4 8.7
Damage to Personal Property 1,241 (42) 93.2 2.7 6.8
Physical Offense 1,308(44)
Objects Thrown 1,078 (36) 98.2 1.6 1.9
Physically Attacked (No Physician Visit) 738 (25) 93.5 2.3 4.7
Physically Attacked (Physician Visit) 259 (9) 89.2 1.5 11.2
Weapon Pulled 91 (3) 79.1 4.4 4.4

a Based on the entire sample. b Rates based on sample of teachers who were victimized at least once within the specific offense
type. Results of offense type by stranger and other were not included due to low rates.

Logistic regression analyses were conducted for each offense, for a total of 11 analyses,
to determine how demographic characteristics contributed to the likelihood that teachers were
victimized. Logistic regression is commonly used when the outcome variable is dichotomous (e.g.,
did experience or did not experience victimization; Peng & So, 2002). This analysis also allows
for the examination of the unique contribution of each independent variable (race/ethnicity, gender,
community setting) while controlling for other variables within the same model. For further reading
on logistic regression analyses, see Peng and So (2002).
In our model, the outcome variable, victimization, is a dichotomized variable (1 = Yes, vic-
timization occurred at least once across perpetrators; 0 = No victimization). We included all three
demographic independent variables (gender, race/ethnicity, and school community setting) in our
model to determine whether these variables were significantly associated with the occurrence of
teacher victimization. Each predictor variable was dummy coded to allow for the examination of dif-
ferences between groups, with female, White, and urban community setting serving as the reference
groups across all models (see Table 3 for results).
When examining how gender contributes to the risk of being victimized, we found that male
teachers were more likely than female teachers were to report obscene remarks, obscene gestures,
verbal threats, and having a weapon pulled on them (taking into account race/ethnicity and commu-
nity setting). However, men were less likely to report intimidation than were women. However, no
gender differences were found for property victimizations.
Findings also revealed significant differences in reported victimization experiences across
ethnic/racial groups for eight of the 11 offense domains (obscene remarks, obscene gestures, verbal
threats, intimidation, theft of property, damage to property, objects thrown, and physical attack not
leading to a physician visit), while taking into account the contributions of gender and community
setting. Specifically, African American teachers were less likely than White teachers to report

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Table 2
Teacher Victimization Across Demographic Variables: Percentage Reporting at Least One Offense

Gender Race/Ethnicity Community Setting

Offense Type Male Female White African American Latino Multiracial/Other Urban Suburban Rural

Harassment
Obscene Remarks 71.9 60.8 63.0 57.9 55.9 68.9 69.7 58.2 54.7
Obscene Gestures 60.5 49.5 51.5 46.8 47.2 53.7 57.9 47.4 43.3
Verbal Threats 55.4 48.3 49.4 45.8 51.2 52.1 55.0 47.0 40.9
Intimidated 40.1 45.8 45.3 35.1 50.8 49.7 47.4 43.1 41.9
Internet Victim 6.1 3.8 3.8 4.1 5.6 5.5 4.1 3.9 5.1
Property Offense
Theft of Property 47.0 43.8 44.7 37.4 43.0 52.7 50.2 41.6 35.7
Damage to Personal Property 41.3 41.7 42.6 28.5 37.0 49.3 45.4 40.1 36.0
Physical Offense
Objects Thrown 38.4 35.7 37.0 30.3 29.9 35.1 39.9 35.9 27.9
Violence Directed Against Teachers

Physically Attacked (No Physician Visit) 23.7 24.9 25.2 18.5 21.3 28.1 28.7 23.6 17.9
Physically Attacked (Physician Visit) 7.3 9.0 8.2 8.9 11.0 13.1 10.0 9.6 4.0
Weapon Pulled 5.9 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.9 6.3 3.9 2.3 2.5

Note. Based on entire sample.

Psychology in the Schools

759

DOI: 10.1002/pits
760 McMahon et al.

Table 3
Logistic Regression Results of Teacher and Community Demographics Predicting Offense

Harassment OR 95% CI

Obscene Remarks Gender (Female) Male 1.56*** [1.25, 1.93]

Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .69** [0.53, 0.89]
Latino .66* [0.46, 0.95]
Other 1.15 [0.80, 1.65]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .49*** [0.40, 0.61]
Suburban .59*** [0.50, 0.70]
Obscene Gestures Gender (Female) Male 1.48*** [1.21 1.82]
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .72* [0.55, 0.93]
Latino .73 [0.51, 1.06]
Other .97 [0.69, 1.36]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .52*** [0.43, 0.65]
Suburban .64*** [0.54, 0.76]
Verbal Threat Gender (Female) Male 1.30** [1.07, 1.59]
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .77* [0.59, 0.99]
Latino .99 [0.69, 1.42]
Other 1.01 [0.72, 1.42]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .55*** [0.45, 0.68]
Suburban .73*** [0.62, 0 .86]
Intimidated Gender (Female) Male .77* [0.63, 0 .95]
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .60*** [0.46, 0.79]
Latino 1.17 [0.82, 1.68]
Other 1.17 [0.84, 1.64]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .76** [0.62, 0.93]
Suburban .81* [0.69, 0 .96]
Property Offenses
Theft of Property Gender (Female) Male 1.09 [0.89, 1.33]
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .64* [0.49, 0.84]
Latino .83 [0.57, 1.19]
Other 1.27 [0.91, 1.79]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .53*** [0.43, 0.65]
Suburban .68*** [0.58, 0.81]
Damage to Personal Gender (Female) Male .94 [1.16, 0.77]
Property
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .48*** [0.37, 0.64]
Latino .72 [0.49, 1.04]
Other 1.25 [0.89, 1.75]
Community Setting(Urban) Rural .63*** [0.51, 0.78]
Suburban .77** [0.65, 0.91]
Physical Offenses OR 95% CI
Objects Thrown Gender (Female) Male 1.13 [0.92, 1.38]
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .67** [0.50, 0.88]
Latino .67* [0.46, 1.00]
Other .86 [0.61, 1.22]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .55*** [0.44, 0.69]
Suburban .81* [0.69, 0.97]

(Continued)

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Violence Directed Against Teachers 761

Table 3
Continued

Harassment OR 95% CI

Physical Attack (No Gender (Female) Male .88 [0.70, 1.12]

Physician Visit)
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .59*** [0.43, 0.82]
Latino .74 [0.48, 1.14]
Other 1.09 [0.75, 1.59]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .53*** [0.41, 0.68]
Suburban .74** [0.62, 0.90]
Physical Attack Gender (Female) Male .75 [0.51, 1.10]
(Physician Visit)
Race/Ethnicity (White) African American .96 [0.61, 1.51]
Latino 1.29 [0.72, 2.29]
Other 1.63 [0.98, 2.72]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .35*** [0.22, 0.58]
Suburban .96 [0.73, 1.27]
Weapon Pulled Gender (Female) Male 2.30*** [1.43, 3.67]
Race/Ethnicity (White) African Am. .99 [0.46, 2.11]
Latino 1.33 [0.52, 3.40]
Other 2.02 [0.97, 4.19]
Community Setting (Urban) Rural .65 [0.35, 1.21]
Suburban .59* [0.35, 0.98]

Note. OR = odds ratio. Internet victimizations are not included in this table because no statistically significant differences
were found.
* < .05. ** < .01. *** < .001.

victimization across the eight previously mentioned victimization categories. Latino teachers were
less likely than White teachers to report obscene remarks and objects thrown.
Results also revealed differences in victimization rates between different community settings
across all victimization categories, with the exception of having a weapon pulled and Internet
victimizations, while taking into account gender and race/ethnicity. In particular, teachers working
in rural and suburban community settings were less likely to report harassment (excluding Internet
victimizations), property offenses, and physical offenses (excluding weapon pulled) than teachers
working in urban school settings.

D ISCUSSION
Results from this national survey suggest that about eight out of 10 of all teacher participants
reported at least one form of victimization during the current or previous year. Harassment was the
most frequent form of victimization, followed by property offenses and physical offenses. Students
were the most common perpetrators of violence, but not the only perpetrators, as parents and
colleagues also committed a substantial number of offenses. In addition, important trends in teacher
victimization were found in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and community setting that shed light
on how teachers’ experiences in schools vary. Taken together, these findings provide an important
foundation for future research and offer directions for school practice, including prevention and
intervention efforts for educators.
Findings suggest that rates of violence toward teachers may be substantially higher than previ-
ously reported (Robers et al., 2010). For example, 29% of teachers in this investigation reported being

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

762 McMahon et al.

physically attacked at least once (combining physician and no physician visit required) compared
with the 4% of teachers reported by Robers and colleagues (2010) and 10% of teachers reported by
Wilson, Douglas, and Lyon (2011). Further, 43% of our overall sample of teachers reported being
verbally threatened (by any perpetrator at school) versus 7% of teachers reporting being threatened
with injury by a student at their school in a previous study (Robers et al., 2010). However, these two
indicators may not be exactly comparable, given that the questions were somewhat different and
the timeframe associated with the self-report measure differed (current or past year versus 1-year
timeframe). However, our results converge more closely with recent data, which found that one third
of school staff experienced at least one nonphysical violent event during the past year (Tiesman
et al., 2013). These findings have important implications for teacher retention.
Higher rates of victimization in our study may be due to asking teachers directly in an online,
anonymous survey, rather than asking principals or using identifiable data. Anonymous surveys
about school violence can yield higher and more accurate rates, especially when teachers fear being
judged (Kingery, Coggeshall, & Alford, 1998). We also accounted for multiple types of offenses
across multiple perpetrators. Indeed, it is possible that teachers who had been victimized were more
likely to complete the survey than teachers who had not been victimized, but there is no reason to
believe this is the case. To facilitate accurate tracking and to promote rigorous research, a national,
anonymous database needs to be developed for teacher victimization (Espelage et al., 2013).
Results indicated that teachers are victimized by multiple individuals within the school ecology.
When the issue of school violence is raised, researchers, educators, and the general public typically
think about student-perpetrated violence. Although students were the most common offenders in
our study, our results suggest that teachers experience victimization, particularly harassment, by
parents and colleagues as well. Higher student offense rates would be expected, given the amount
of time students spend with their teachers; parent and colleague offenses are particularly notable,
given less contact time and fewer opportunities for conflict. Further, when teachers experience
victimization by one perpetrator, they are significantly more likely to also experience victimization
by other perpetrators. Indeed, students who behave more aggressively are likely to be living in a
home where the parent also displays antisocial behavior (e.g., Espelage, Low, Rao, Hong, & Little,
2013; Snyder, Reid, & Patterson, 2003). In addition, teachers reported parents and colleagues as
most likely to use intimidation strategies compared with other types of victimization, followed by
obscene remarks for parents and Internet victim for colleagues. Notably, intimidation and Internet
victim were less frequently reported for students compared with other types of offenses. This pattern
may reflect power dynamics, in that other adults may be more likely to feel justified and effective
in using these strategies to manipulate the teacher to do what they want. Schools that are nested
within communities that experience more violence and that have organizational climates that do
not effectively address violence may be more likely to yield student, parent, colleague, and other
offenses. Moreover, this area warrants a multidimensional, comprehensive assessment approach that
includes the entire ecology of the school and community.
Gender differences highlighted that male teachers reported higher rates of victimization in most
of the harassment offenses (obscene remarks, obscene gestures, and verbal threats) and having a
weapon pulled on them, whereas, female teachers reported higher rates of intimidation than did their
male counterparts. These findings resonate with Crick and Bigbee (1998) and Finkelhor, Ormrod,
Turner, and Hamby (2005), who reported higher overt victimization and assault among boys, as well
as findings by Tjaden and Thoennes (2001), who reported physical assault as more common among
adult males. It is possible that male teachers may place themselves in riskier positions in schools,
such as intervening in altercations, which may lead to higher victimization rates. Socialization and
gender role stereotypes may also lead women to view themselves as “weaker” and to view certain
situations as more threatening (Harris & Miller, 2000). Women are also more likely to experience

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Violence Directed Against Teachers 763

minor forms of victimization (e.g. stares, whistles, condescending behavior), which may be more
likely to elicit feelings of intimidation among women and contribute to these gender differences
(Harris & Miller, 2000).
Racial/ethnic differences in outcomes also emerged. Compared with the reference group (teach-
ers who self-reported as White), African American teachers were less likely to report obscene
remarks, obscene gestures, verbal threats, intimidation, property theft, property damage, objects
thrown, and physical attacks (not requiring a physician) while taking gender and community setting
into account. It is possible that African American teachers’ lower reporting of victimization may be
related to the desensitization hypothesis (Gaylord-Harden, Cunningham, & Zelencik, 2011), which
holds that individuals adapt to violence when they are frequently exposed to it. It is also possible
that African American teachers interact with others in a manner that results in less victimization or
that they have different levels of tolerance and interpretations of what constitutes certain types of
victimization. Further, although our study did not assess whether these offenses were from the same
or different ethnic/racial group perpetrators, this would be a direction for future research.
In terms of community settings, the rates of victimization are higher in urban settings, compared
with rural and suburban settings across nearly all victimizations; yet, teacher victimization is present
for all offenses across all types of settings. Therefore, what typically might be perceived as an
“urban” problem is not confined to urban settings, but distributed to other community settings as well
(Gottfredson et al., 2005). Future research may benefit from comprehensive ecological assessments
that include community context in examining teacher violence (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty,
Astor, & Zeira, 2004).

Strengths and Limitations

This study is the first national study to include information from the teacher perspective
about the types of violence experienced as they relate to the perpetrators of offenses and teacher
and community characteristics (gender, racial/ethnic differences, community settings). This study
represents a large anonymous, although not random, national sample of K-12 teachers, which further
builds on this important line of research.
First, in terms of limitations, it is possible that the teachers who elected to complete this
survey had more experience with violence than those teachers who opted not to participate, and
this may have inflated the rates of reported teacher-directed victimization. Second, we used a web-
based survey, and individuals who feel less comfortable with this form of data collection may
have decided not to participate in the study, despite having experienced violence. Others may
have been more likely to participate due to the anonymous nature of the methodology (Kingery
et al., 1998). Nevertheless, the demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, percentage of teachers
with a master’s degree, age) of teachers in this sample were similar to those found in national
statistics. Third, the percentage of teachers reporting victimizations by various perpetrators was
assessed, but frequencies of actual offenses were not collected. Finally, the study had limited
measurement of school and community contextual variables and relied on teacher self-report. A 360
measurement system approach that includes input from district administrative leaders, principals,
teachers, students, and parents/guardians would offer a more complete assessment of the nature and
extent of teacher victimization in school systems. As such, this study was not able to provide a
comprehensive examination of the social ecology of violence directed toward teachers, given that
data were collected only from teachers and not linked to the characteristics of the schools in which
they experienced the violence. Indeed, school violence and violence experienced by teachers can
be associated with school disorder, school policies that foster aggression, compromised quality of

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

764 McMahon et al.

relationships between teachers and parents, and lack of warmth or cohesion in the school (Payne,
Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, 2003).

Recommendations for Future Research and Intervention

Results from this study offer several directions for future research. Estimates of teacher vic-
timization need to address the extent of victimization from each perpetrator to accurately assess the
prevalence of the problem. Likewise, inquiry on the unique contexts in which violence occurs, the
precursors that lead to violence against teachers, the events that follow an incidence of violence, how
administrators respond, and the role of school policies and practices in the promotion or reduction
of violence need to occur. Future research focused on the how and why violence against teachers
occurs will enable us to identify best practices and provide appropriate training to teachers, staff, and
administrators to address and prevent school violence. Assessing additional teacher characteristics,
such as years of teaching experience, degree earned, certification, and instructional context (general
vs. special education) will also provide valuable insight for developing innovative school prevention
and intervention programs. Finally, measures need to be developed and validated that assess school
violence at multiple levels, and teacher experiences need to be incorporated into theoretical formula-
tions and measures of school violence. Such measures should have commonly worded questions and
timeframes to facilitate comparability of teacher victimization across settings. Ultimately, the entire
ecology of schools and communities needs to be considered to yield a comprehensive assessment of
the problems, risk and protective factors, and effective intervention strategies (Reinke & Herman,
2002).
Findings also guide the development of policies and interventions designed to address teacher
victimization. Given the extent of victimization that is occurring in our nations’ schools, we need
a multipronged approach that incorporates primary, secondary, and tertiary strategies to address
the problem (Espelage et al., 2013). School psychologists are trained in mental health, assessment,
intervention, collaboration, and consultation (Sullivan & Long, 2010) and are uniquely positioned
to assume leadership roles in helping schools address violence directed toward teachers. Given the
rates of violence against teachers by students, parents, and colleagues, school-wide expectations are
needed for all members of the school community, rather than just students. School and commu-
nity psychologists may lead primary prevention efforts that focus on developing and communicating
school-wide behavioral expectations (e.g., respect for others) across school settings (e.g., classrooms,
hallway), with guidelines for resolving disagreements. Relatedly, recent work by Tiesman and col-
leagues (2013) shows that the majority of physical assaults on school staff occur when disciplining
a student. To better handle disciplinary confrontations, teachers can be provided with training on the
Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) model, which would help teachers identify and avoid spe-
cific triggers of aggressive student behaviors (Espelage et al., 2013; LaVan & Martin, 2008). School
psychologists can help guide these more targeted interventions and intervene with specific students
displaying repeated confrontations with teachers. However, certain groups (e.g., African American
students) may be susceptible to teachers’ subjective interpretations of behavior (e.g., threat, intimida-
tion; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002), and an important caution is that seemingly student-
generated offenses may reflect student–teacher dynamics. Therefore, comprehensive approaches that
engage both students and teachers may aid in mitigating teacher-directed violence. In conjunction,
school psychologists may use school databases to monitor school-wide patterns of victimization to
ensure that interventions are informed by evidence. Lastly, given that victimization is more likely in
urban community settings, such schools may need additional resources, community interventions,
and school–community linkages that promote positive school climates, youth outcomes, and school
belonging.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Violence Directed Against Teachers 765

Additional training is needed for teachers, staff, and administrators to better understand the
psychosocial and emotional issues that affect youth, support youth in effective ways, and develop
skills to prevent and reduce violence in the classroom. Indeed, higher student-reported teacher support
is associated lower teacher-reported aggressive behavior among students (Benhorin & McMahon,
2008). In addition, administrator support and policies that help colleagues work out disagreements
in productive ways are needed. Incorporating knowledge about how gender, ethnic/racial, and
community setting differences may impact levels of violence against teachers can aid in tailoring
more culturally sensitive and relevant school interventions.
Teachers play one of the most significant roles in the lives of children. Their well-being has
implications for the vitality of schools and the development of children. Schools in which 80%
of teachers may be victimized and 44% experience physical victimization present a crisis for our
country and certainly provide less than optimal conditions for healthy teacher–student relationships
and student learning. Further, if we are going to prevent high-quality teachers from choosing to
leave the profession, it is important to provide safe work environments. There is an urgent need to
incorporate the teacher experience into our national agenda on assessing, preventing, and addressing
school violence.

R EFERENCES
Benhorin, S., & McMahon, S. D. (2008). Exposure to violence and aggression: Protective roles of social support among
urban African American youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 723 – 743.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513 – 531.
Cohen, J., Pickeral, T., & McCloskey, M. (2009). Assessing school climate. The Education Digest, 74, 45 – 48.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337 – 347.
Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., & Hays, M. (2007). The impact of school violence on school personnel: Implications for
psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 652 – 659.
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D., . . . Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Understanding
and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda.
American Psychologist, 65, 75 – 87.
Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Rao, M. A., Hong, J. S., & Little, T. (2013). Family violence, bullying, fighting, and substance use
among adolescents: A longitudinal transactional model. Journal of Research on Adolescence. doi:10.1111/jora.12060
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive
national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5 – 25.
Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Cunningham, J. A., & Zelencik, B. (2011). Effects of exposure to community violence on internalizing
symptoms: Does desensitization to violence occur in African American youth? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
39, 711 – 719.
Gerberich, S. G., Nachreiner, N. M., Ryan, A. D., Church, T. R., McGovern, P. M., Geisser, M. S., . . . Pinder, E. D.
(2011). Violence against educators: A population-based study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
53, 294 – 302.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in schools. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School climate predictors of school disorder:
Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42,
412 – 444.
Harris, M. B., & Miller, K. C. (2000). Gender and perceptions of danger. Sex Roles, 43, 843 – 863.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 499 – 534.
Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that influence retention and resignation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 775 – 794.
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contributions of community, family, and school
variables to student victimization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 187 – 204.
Kingery, P. M., Coggeshall, M. B., & Alford, A. A. (1998). Violence at school: Recent evidence from four national surveys.
Psychology in the Schools, 35, 247 – 258.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

766 McMahon et al.

LaVan, H., & Martin, M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal
of Business Ethics, 83, 147 – 165.
Levin, H. M., Belfield, C. R., Muenning, P., & Rouse, C. E. (2006). The costs and benefits of an excellent education
for America’s children (Working Paper). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from
http://www.cbcse.org/media/download_gallery/AGGREGATE_REPORT_v7.pdf
Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2003). Schools as communities: The relationships among communal
school organization, student bonding, and school disorder. Criminology, 41, 749 – 777.
Peng, C., & So, T. (2002). Logistic regression analysis and reporting: A primer. Understanding Statistics, 1, 31 – 70.
Reddy, L. A., Espelage, D., McMahon, S. D., Lane, K., Anderman, E. M., Reynolds, C. R., . . . Brown, V. (2014). Violence
against teachers: Case studies from the APA task force. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1,
231 – 245.
Reddy, L. A., Fabiano, G. A., & Jimerson, S. R. (2013). Assessment of general education teachers’ Tier 1 classroom practices:
Contemporary science, practice, and policy. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 273 – 276.
Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Creating school environments that deter antisocial behaviors in youth. Psychology
in the Schools, 39, 549 – 560.
Robers, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2010. National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs10.pdf
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal
inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender
disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317 – 342.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional
Children, 66, 335 – 346.
Snyder, J. J., Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (2003). A social learning model of child and adolescent antisocial behavior. In
B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt & A. Caspi (Eds.), The causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 27 – 48).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Sullivan, A. L., & Long, L. (2010). Examining the changing landscape of school psychology practice: A survey of school-
based practitioners regarding response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 1059 – 1070.
Tiesman, H., Konda, S., Hendricks, S., Mercer, D., & Amandus, H. (2013). Workplace violence among Pennsylvania
education workers: differences among occupations. Journal of Safety Research, 44, 65 – 71.
Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (2001). Coworker violence and gender: Findings from the national violence against women
survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 85 – 89.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.census.
gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/labor.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
Wilson, C. M., Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (2011). Violence against teachers: Prevalence and consequences. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2353 – 2371.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits