Hubbry Logo
School violenceSchool violenceMain
Open search
School violence
Community hub
School violence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
School violence
School violence
School violence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

School violence includes violence between school students as well as attacks by students on school staff and attacks by school staff on students. It encompasses physical violence, including student-on-student fighting, corporal punishment; psychological violence such as verbal abuse, and sexual violence, including rape and sexual harassment. It includes many forms of bullying (including cyberbullying) and carrying weapons to school. The one or more perpetrators typically have more physical, social, and/or psychological power than the victim.[1] It is a widely accepted serious societal problem in recent decades in many countries, especially where weapons such as guns or knives are involved.

Forms of school violence and different types of bullying

[edit]

School violence occurs in all countries and affects a significant number of children and adolescents. It is mostly perpetrated by peers but, in some cases, is perpetrated by teachers and other school staff. School violence includes physical, psychological and sexual violence.[2]

Bullying

[edit]
See also: Bullying in teaching and School bullying

Bullying, in its broadest sense, can be defined as a form of aggressive behavior characterized by unwelcome and negative actions. It entails a recurring pattern of incidents over time, as opposed to isolated conflicts, and typically manifests in situations where there exists an imbalance of power or strength among the individuals involved.[2] It is important to distinguish bullying from occasional conflicts or disagreements that may arise among peers.[3]

Various forms of bullying exist, including physical, psychological, sexual, and cyber-bullying.[2]

  • Physical bullying encompasses a series of aggressive acts, such as physical assault, injury, kicking, pushing, shoving, confinement, theft of personal belongings, destruction of possessions, or coerced participation in undesirable activities. It is important to note that physical bullying differs from other types of physical violence, such as physical fights or attacks.
  • Psychological bullying entails verbal abuse, emotional abuse, as well as social exclusion. This form of bullying includes derogatory name-calling, malicious teasing, deliberate exclusion from activities, purposeful neglect or ignorance, and the spread of lies or rumors.
  • Sexual bullying involves subjecting an individual to ridicule through sexual jokes, comments, or gestures, causing embarrassment or discomfort.
  • Cyber-bullying refers to bullying that takes place through electronic means. This can involve receiving mean-spirited instant messages, posts, emails, or text messages, or the creation of websites intended to mock or ridicule a particular student. Additionally, cyber-bullying encompasses the unauthorized capture and online dissemination of unflattering or inappropriate images of a student, as well as hurtful or malicious behavior through mobile phones (such as texts, calls, or video clips) or online platforms (including email, instant messaging, social networking sites, and chatrooms).[2]

Physical fights

[edit]

According to the Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSSHS), a physical fight "occurs when two students of about the same strength or power choose to fight each other" and therefore is a form of physical violence between peers.[2] The Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) does not refer specifically to school-related violence or to violence between peers, as it can occur between a student and "a total stranger, a parent of other adult family member, a brother or sister, a boyfriend or girlfriend or date, a friend or someone known by the student".[2]

Sexual violence

[edit]
See also: Sexual harassment in education

According to Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), sexual violence is forced sexual intercourse or any other sexual acts against one's will. Violence Against Children Survey (VACS) defines it as completed non-consensual sex acts (such as rape), attempted non-consensual sex acts, abusive sexual contact (such as unwanted touching), and non-contact sexual abuse (such as threatened sexual violence, exhibitionism, and verbal sexual harassment).[2]

Physical violence perpetrated by teachers

[edit]

This is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential to cause death, disability, injury or harm, regardless of whether it is used as a form of punishment.[2]

Corporal punishment perpetrated by teachers

[edit]

In school, corporal punishment is defined as any punishment in which physical force is used against a student and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort. This often involves hitting children with a hand or implement, but it can also involve kicking, shaking, throwing or scratching children.[2]

Risk factors

[edit]

Internalizing and externalizing behaviors

[edit]

A distinction is made between internalizing and externalizing behavior. Internalizing behaviors reflect withdrawal, inhibition, anxiety, and/or depression. Internalizing behavior has been found in some cases of youth violence although in some youth, depression is associated with substance abuse. Because they rarely act out, students with internalizing problems are often overlooked by school personnel.[4] Externalizing behaviors refer to delinquent activities, aggression, and hyperactivity. Unlike internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors include, or are directly linked to, violent episodes. Violent behaviors such as punching and kicking are often learned from observing others.[5][6] Just as externalizing behaviors are observed outside of school, such behaviors also observed in schools.[4]

Other individual factors

[edit]

A number of other individual factors are associated with higher levels of aggressiveness. Compared to children whose antisocial conduct begins in adolescence, early starters have a worse prognosis in terms of future aggression and other antisocial activities.[7] Lower IQ seems to be related to higher levels of aggression.[8][9][10] Other findings indicate that motor, attention, and reading problems predict later persistent antisocial conduct in boys.[11]

Home environment

[edit]

The influence of the home environment on school violence has been a subject of study from the Constitutional Rights Foundation. According to this foundation, various factors within the home contribute to the acceptance of criminal and violent behavior among children. Long-term exposure to gun violence, parental alcoholism, domestic violence, physical abuse, and child sexual abuse all play a role in shaping children's perception of acceptability regarding such activities.[12] Research indicates a correlation between harsh parental discipline and increased levels of aggression in youth.[13] Additionally, exposure to violence on television[14][15] and, to a lesser extent, violent video games[16] has been linked to heightened aggressiveness in children. These aggressive tendencies can carry over into school environments.

One line of research, led by Straus, suggests that parental corporal punishment heightens the risk of aggressive behavior in children and adolescents.[17] However, these findings have been challenged by Larzelere[18] and Baumrind.[19][20] Nonetheless, a comprehensive meta-analysis of numerous studies on corporal punishment suggests that it leads to unfavorable outcomes for children and young people.[21] The most methodologically sound studies demonstrate a "positive, moderately sized association between parental corporal punishment and children's aggression".[21] Gershoff found that the trajectory of mean effect sizes (the size of the effect of corporal punishment on children's problem behavior) was curvilinear with the largest mean effect size in middle school (M = 0.55; on average the mean of corporal punishment group was more than half a standard deviation higher than the mean of the non-punishment group) and slightly smaller effect sizes in elementary school (M = 0.43) and high school (M = 0.45).[21]

Another influential model in understanding the development of aggressive behavior is Gerald Patterson's social interactional model.[22][23] This model highlights the dynamic between the mother's use of coercive behaviors and the child's counter-application of such behaviors. Coercive behaviors can include actions that are typically punishing, such as whining, yelling, and hitting. Abusive home environments can hinder the development of social cognitive skills necessary for understanding others' intentions.[12][24] Short-term longitudinal evidence supports the idea that a lack of social cognitive skills mediates the relationship between harsh parental discipline and aggressive behavior in kindergarten.[25] Follow-up studies indicate that the mediating effects persist until third and fourth grade.[24]

Hirschi's control theory, proposed in 1969, suggests that children with weak emotional bonds to their parents and school are more likely to engage in delinquent and violent behavior both within and outside of the school setting.[26] Hirschi's cross-sectional data from northern California largely support this view.[26] Findings from case-control[13] and longitudinal studies[27][28] also align with this perspective.

Neighbourhood environment

[edit]

Neighbourhoods and communities provide the context for school violence. Communities with high rates of crime and drug use teach youth the violent behaviors that are carried into schools.[12][29][30][31] Children in violent neighborhoods tend to perceive that their communities are risky, and that these feelings of vulnerability carry over to the school environment.[32] Dilapidated housing in the neighbourhood of the school has been found to be associated with school violence.[33] Teacher assault was more likely to occur in schools located in high-crime neighbourhoods.[34] Exposure to deviant peers is a risk factor for high levels of aggressivity.[6][10] Research has shown that poverty and high population densities are associated with higher rates of school violence.[29] Controlled longitudinal research indicates that children's exposure to community violence during the early elementary school years increases the risk of aggression later in elementary school, as reported by teachers and classmates.[35] Other, well controlled longitudinal research that utilized propensity score matching indicates that exposure to gun violence in early adolescence is related to the initiation of serious physical violence in later adolescence.[36] Neighbourhood gangs are thought to contribute to dangerous school environments. Gangs use the social environment of the school to recruit members and interact with opposing groups, with gang violence carrying over from neighbourhoods into some schools.[37] Alternatively, many children who grow up in violent neighborhoods learn to deliberately find and make "street-oriented" friends as an instrumental tactic used to avoid being victimized.[32] Without the threat of violence, children more commonly develop friendships based on homophily, or shared traits.

School environment

[edit]

Recent research has linked the school environment to school violence.[33][38] Teacher assaults are associated with a higher percentage of the male faculty, a higher proportion of male students, and a higher proportion of students receiving free or reduced cost lunch (an indicator of poverty).[34] In general, a large male population, higher grade levels, a history of high levels of disciplinary problems in the school, high student to teacher ratios, and an urban location are related to violence in schools.[33][39] In students, academic performance is inversely related to antisocial conduct.[8][40] The research by Hirschi[26] and others,[13][27][28] cited above in the section on the home environment, is also consistent with the view that lack of attachment to school is associated with increased risk of antisocial conduct.

Prevention and intervention

[edit]
See also: School security surveillance
Security camera mounted from the drop ceiling

The goal of prevention and intervention strategies is to stop school violence from occurring. According to the CDC, there are at least four levels at which violence-prevention programs can act: at the level of society in general, the school community, the family, and the individual.[41]

  • Society-level prevention strategies aim to change social and cultural conditions in order to reduce violence regardless of where the violence occurs. Examples include reducing media violence, reshaping social norms, and restructuring educational systems.[40] The strategies are rarely used and difficult to implement.
    • Now Is The Time is a federal initiative developed in 2013 in response to the growing number of gun related school violence incidents. The initiative will provide funding and resources to schools in an effort to reduce gun violence in schools. Funding will be provided for implementation of school interventions and training teachers and staff, programs that will support the mental and physical health of students, conflict resolution programs to reduce further school violence, and restoration of school environment after a violent incident.[42]
  • School-wide strategies are designed to modify the school characteristics that are associated with violence. An avenue of psychological research is the reduction of violence and incivility, particularly the development of interventions at the level of the school.[43][44][45] The CDC suggests schools promote classroom management techniques, cooperative learning, and close student supervision.[40][46] At the elementary school level, the group behavioral intervention known as the Good Behavior Game helps reduce classroom disruption and promotes prosocial classroom interactions.[47][48] There is some evidence that the Second Step curriculum, which is concerned with promoting impulse control and empathy among second and third graders, produces reductions in physically aggressive behavior.[49] Other school-wide strategies are aimed at reducing or eliminating bullying[50][51][52][53] and organizing the local police to better combat gang violence.[54][55]
    • The implementation of school-wide early-warning systems, the school equivalent of a DEW Line-like surveillance operation designed to "prevent the worst cases of school violence," has been problematic.[43] Recent developments in early threat assessment, however, show promise.[56] Violence-prevention efforts can also be usefully directed at developing anti-bullying programs, helping teachers with classroom-management strategies, applying behavioral strategies such as the Good Behavior Game, implementing curricular innovations such as the Second Step syllabus, developing programs to strengthen families (see below), and implementing programs aimed at enhancing the social and academic skills of at-risk students (see below).
  • Teachers are the professional group who works directly where school bullying takes place and who spends the most time with both bullies, victims and bystanders. Thus, whether and how teachers intervene in the case of bullying is of great importance. Research has shown that teachers prefer authority-based interventions towards bullies but seem to neglect to support the victims.[57] Unfortunately, teacher training curricula tend not to include preventive and interventive skills regarding school violence.[57] It has been shown that teachers who set limits and make it clear that previous behavior is in no way acceptable, and also involve the school administration, can reduce problematic behavior. Discussing the issue with the entire class can also lead to positive preventive effects.[58]

Not only does physical violence in schools affect its victims, it also affects the witnesses. In elementary schools, young students tend to copy their peers actions in schools, which may lead to more physical harm towards other students.

  • Some intervention programs are aimed at improving family relationships.[40] There is some evidence that such intervention strategies have modest effects on the behavior of children in the short[59][60] and long term.[61] Patterson's home intervention program involving mothers has been shown to reduce aggressive conduct in children.[22] An important question concerns the extent to which the influence of the program carries over into the child's conduct in school.
  • Some prevention and intervention programs focus on individual-level strategies. These programs are aimed at students who exhibit aggression and violent behaviors or are at risk for engaging in such behaviors. Some programs include conflict resolution and team problem-solving.[40] Other programs teach students social skills.[62] The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, while developing and implementing a universal anti-aggression component for all elementary school children, also developed and implemented a separate social-skills and academic tutoring component that targets children who are the most at risk for engaging in aggressive behavior.[63][64]
  • Bullying prevention programs such as Olweus provides materials for educators that will train them on how to mediate a bullying situation as well as procedures to take if a child is suicidal.

Challenges in measuring violence in schools

[edit]

According to a UNESCO report on school violence and bullying, research on violence affecting children in schools is challenging for a variety of reasons.[1]

Methodological issues

[edit]

When assessing the extent of violence within educational settings and understanding the various types of violence experienced by students, several crucial considerations arise. These include determining the sources of data within the school community, specifying the data to be collected from each source, and selecting appropriate methodologies for data collection.[1][page needed]

One significant question[according to whom?] is whether researchers should directly inquire about violence in schools by engaging students in studies or surveys. These methods might involve self-reports from students regarding their personal experiences as victims or perpetrators of violence. Alternatively, researchers may ask students about instances of violence they have observed as bystanders. Moreover, the choice of administering these questions through self-administered questionnaires or researcher-administered surveys within schools must also be deliberated.[citation needed]

According to the UNESCO report, the decision regarding data collection location is another aspect to consider. Researchers may contemplate gathering data outside of schools, such as through household surveys. Alternatively, online surveys could be employed, taking advantage of students' internet accessibility. Another option is to rely on existing mechanisms for reporting violent incidents in educational institutions. These mechanisms could be internal to the schools themselves or external, encompassing governmental hotlines, internet-based reporting systems, and involvement from the police and justice sectors. When formulating questions for children, UNESCO argues that it is imperative to use terminology that is easily understandable, age-appropriate and culturally sensitive. This ensures that the queries are comprehensible and relevant to the target audience, taking into account their developmental stage and cultural context.[1][page needed]

[edit]

In many countries, strict regulations govern research involving children due to their status as minors who are unable to provide legal consent. Consequently, obtaining informed consent for a study necessitates the involvement of parents and legal guardians. However, broaching the subject of violence with children, particularly inquiring about their personal experiences, can potentially be distressing and traumatic. Moreover, investigating matters concerning sexual orientation and gender identity within the realm of education, specifically in relation to children, presents additional challenges. In certain contexts, discussing these topics is legally prohibited both within and outside educational institutions. Even in cases where it is legally permissible, addressing issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity/orientation in education with children and young people is regarded as highly sensitive. Considerations of ethical implications arise, as engaging children and young people in discussions regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity in a school setting may lead to embarrassment and expose them to potential stigma and discrimination.[65]

To mitigate these concerns, UNESCO argues that questions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity should be handled with care and recommends that inquiries be conducted under confidentiality and anonymity, external to the school environment.[65]

See also

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0 (license statement/permission). Text taken from School Violence and Bullying: Global Status Report​, 9, 110-111, UNESCO, UNESCO. UNESCO.

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO. Text taken from Behind the numbers: ending school violence and bullying​, 70, UNESCO, UNESCO. UNESCO.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

School violence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
School violence refers to aggressive acts occurring within educational environments, including physical assaults, threats, , weapon possession, and in severe instances, homicidal events, typically on grounds, en route to or from , or at school-related activities. These behaviors encompass a spectrum of , from verbal and to forceful physical confrontations and group fights. While mass shootings capture public attention, they represent a minuscule fraction of incidents, with fewer than 2% of homicides aged 5-18 taking place on school property. In the United States, empirical data indicate substantial prevalence but contextual rarity relative to overall youth violence. During the 2021-22 school year, 67% of public schools reported at least one violent incident, with rates of 19 incidents per 1,000 students overall and 5 per 1,000 reported to law enforcement. Victimization rates stood at 11 per 1,000 students at school in 2020, lower than the 15 per 1,000 away from school, underscoring that schools are comparatively safer venues despite perceptions amplified by high-profile cases. Recent trends show a decline in reported violent incidents post-COVID-19, with federal surveys documenting reduced campus crime even amid rising student mental health concerns. Causal factors, drawn from meta-analyses of longitudinal studies, emphasize individual vulnerabilities such as prior aggression, , and , compounded by familial elements like child maltreatment and peer dynamics including rejection or deviant affiliations. School-level disorder, including poor supervision and norms tolerating aggression, further exacerbates risks, while consequences extend beyond immediate physical harm to include chronic fear, academic disruption, and elevated dropout rates among victims and witnesses. Controversies persist over response strategies, with debates centering on empirical efficacy of measures like zero-tolerance policies versus targeted interventions addressing root predictors, amid source biases in academic literature that may underemphasize familial and cultural breakdowns in favor of institutional fixes.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

School violence encompasses intentional acts or threats of physical force or power against another person, group, or community that result in or are likely to result in , death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation, occurring within or related to educational settings. This includes physical aggression such as and fights, psychological forms like and intimidation, and including harassment or . Definitions from authorities emphasize that such violence disrupts learning and affects students, educators, and staff, distinguishing it from general youth violence by its direct connection to school environments. The scope of school violence extends to incidents on school property, during transit to or from school, at school-sponsored events off-site, or via school-related communications that foster harm. Perpetrators may include students, teachers, other school personnel, or external individuals, while victims are primarily students but also encompass faculty and administrators. Primarily documented in primary and (K-12), the phenomenon can occur in higher education contexts, though data collection focuses more on younger age groups due to higher reported incidence rates. Excluded from core definitions are isolated domestic disputes unrelated to school functions or non-violent disciplinary issues, though broader scholarly analyses sometimes incorporate like exclusionary tactics if they involve coercive threats. Globally, scope varies by cultural and legal contexts, with international bodies like highlighting underreporting in low-resource settings due to weak surveillance systems.

Historical Evolution

Throughout the colonial period and into the , school in the United States primarily manifested as inflicted by teachers on students, a practice rooted in European traditions and justified as essential for discipline in emerging public education systems. Teachers employed tools such as switches, ferules, and straps, with records from the era describing routine beatings for infractions like tardiness or inattention; for instance, 19th-century courts debated the legality of such "inhuman " while upholding teachers' rights to physical correction. Peer-on-peer , including fistfights and hierarchies—often termed the "cock of the school" dominance—also occurred on playgrounds and in dormitories of boarding schools, as evidenced by contemporaneous accounts of student riots and expulsions for brawling in urban institutions like those in New York and . Early lethal incidents included the 1764 of teacher Enoch Brown and ten students by warriors during , marking one of the first recorded mass killings in an American schoolhouse. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw sporadic but deadly escalations, such as the 1853 shooting at a schoolhouse where a 15-year-old killed the and wounded others over a disciplinary dispute, prompting national outrage akin to modern responses. The most devastating pre-World War II event was the 1927 Bath School bombings in , perpetrated by groundskeeper , who detonated explosives killing 38 children and six adults while also murdering his wife. Bullying as a recognized pattern gained literary documentation in works like Thomas Hughes' Tom Brown's School Days (1857), which detailed ritualized fights and exclusion among English public schoolboys, influencing American perceptions of peer torment. By mid-century, U.S. schools transitioned from overt teacher-administered violence toward subtler peer conflicts, with , , and alcohol-related disruptions noted in post-1940s surveys. Federal attention intensified in the 1970s amid reports of surging spilling into schools, with the first national studies in 1975 and 1978 documenting , assaults, and possession as concerns, prompting early legislation like the 1975 Safe School Study. declined sharply from the 1970s onward—falling from widespread use to under 1% of students affected by 2014, with 19 states banning it entirely by 2017—shifting focus to student-perpetrated acts like and fights. This evolution paralleled broader societal changes, including and family instability, though empirical reviews reject claims of school violence as a uniquely contemporary , attributing heightened visibility to improved reporting rather than absolute novelty. Incidents like the 1999 Columbine shootings amplified policy responses, but historical precedents underscore persistence over innovation in forms.

Manifestations and Types

Bullying and Relational Aggression

Bullying in schools involves unwanted aggressive behaviors repeated over time, directed toward a victim whom the perpetrator perceives as having less power, encompassing physical, verbal, relational, or cyber forms intended to cause harm. This manifests as a key non-physical dimension of school violence, where perpetrators exploit imbalances in physical strength, social status, or peer influence to intimidate or isolate targets. In the United States, data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicate that 19% of students aged 12–18 reported being bullied during the 2021–22 school year, a decline from 28% in 2010–11, though verbal forms such as name-calling remain prevalent at 14% of cases. Bullies often target vulnerabilities like appearance or academic performance, with bystanders frequently witnessing but not intervening, perpetuating the cycle. Relational aggression, a covert subtype of bullying, harms victims by undermining their social standing through indirect tactics like gossip, rumor-spreading, social exclusion, or alliance manipulation, rather than overt confrontation. Defined in psychological literature as behaviors that damage interpersonal relationships to inflict emotional pain, it thrives in peer groups where relational ties hold high value, such as middle and high school cliques. This form correlates strongly with school environments, where perpetrators leverage group dynamics to enforce conformity or retaliate subtly, often evading detection by adults due to its non-physical nature. Gender patterns reveal boys more prone to direct physical or verbal , with studies showing higher male involvement in overt perpetration and victimization rates, while girls exhibit elevated , using exclusion or reputational attacks at rates up to twice that of boys in some adolescent samples. These differences stem from influences, where males compete via dominance displays and females prioritize relational hierarchies, though overlap exists and bully-victims of either face compounded risks. Prevalence data from the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey for 2023 confirm 19% of high school students experienced on school property, with relational elements contributing to underreporting as victims internalize over social fallout. Both and yield measurable psychological sequelae, including heightened anxiety, depression, and peer relationship deficits among victims, with longitudinal peer-reviewed analyses linking chronic exposure to elevated risks persisting into adulthood. Perpetrators, conversely, display antisocial traits predictive of later conduct issues, while the relational variant uniquely erodes victims' through prolonged social , exacerbating academic disengagement and . underscores bidirectional causality, where early relational harms forecast escalated aggression, emphasizing prevention through targeted interventions addressing power dynamics over generalized anti-violence programs.

Physical Fights and Assaults

Physical fights and assaults in schools primarily involve unarmed confrontations between students, such as punches, kicks, or shoves, classified as simple assaults or fights without serious injury under federal reporting guidelines. These incidents differ from weapon-involved violence by lacking lethal intent or tools, though they frequently cause injuries including contusions, lacerations, and concussions requiring medical intervention. Data from the (NCES) indicate that such events form the bulk of non-serious violent incidents, with public schools reporting 19 violent incidents per 1,000 students in the 2021–22 school year, encompassing fights and simple assaults. Prevalence remains notable among adolescents, particularly high students. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) found that 7.5% of students in grades 9–12 reported participating in a physical fight on at least once in the prior 12 months, a figure lower than the 16% recorded in 1993 but stable compared to pre-pandemic levels around 8% in 2019. Male students reported higher involvement (10.2%) than females (4.7%), with elevated rates among Black (10.1%) and Hispanic (8.3%) students relative to White peers (6.1%). School-level reporting from NCES shows 67% of public schools experienced at least one violent incident in 2021–22, predominantly fights without weapons, though underreporting is common due to in classifying minor altercations. Trends indicate a long-term decline in physical fights since the , attributed to expanded measures and programs, with YRBS showing a consistent decrease through 2021. Post-COVID-19, however, anecdotal and survey-based evidence suggests a rebound, with federal from the 2021–22 school year documenting increased classroom disruptions and fights amid learning disruptions and effects. NCES victimization rates for simple assaults held steady at around 15 per 1,000 students excluding more severe violence, but teacher reports highlight rising assaults on staff—98% perpetrated by students without weapons—potentially linked to eroded post-pandemic. These patterns underscore causal factors like peer conflicts unresolved through verbal means, exacerbated by inconsistent enforcement, though official statistics may lag behavioral surveys due to definitional variances. Weapon-related incidents in schools involve the possession, display, or discharge of firearms, knives, or other objects used to threaten or harm others, often during altercations or as displays of intimidation. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Youth Risk Behavior Survey indicate that 3% of U.S. high school students carried a weapon—such as a , , or club—on school property at least one day in the past 30 days in 2021, a decline from 5% in 2011. Additionally, 7.4% of students reported being threatened or injured with a on school property one or more times in the past year. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's analysis of over 1 million criminal incidents at school locations from 2020 to 2024 shows assaults as the predominant , with weapons involved in many cases; personal weapons (hands, fists, feet) were most common, followed by knives or cutting instruments and handguns. Firearm-specific incidents have increased in recent years, with more than 1,150 guns seized at U.S. K-12 schools during the 2022-2023 , averaging over six per school day. Between fall 2017 and spring 2023, minors brought 2,442 firearms to schools, often sourced from family homes. These events frequently arise from peer conflicts or gang affiliations rather than premeditated rampages, contributing to injuries or fatalities in isolated discharges. Mass shootings in schools constitute a rarer but high-impact subset, generally defined as incidents where one or more individuals actively engage in killing or attempting to kill multiple people in a populated area, often with firearms. From 2000 to 2022, active shooter events at U.S. elementary and secondary schools caused 131 deaths and 197 injuries among 328 total casualties, excluding the perpetrators. In 2024, K-12 school shooting incidents—encompassing gunfire on campus—numbered among the highest recorded, surpassing 2023 totals by October, though resulting in fewer deaths overall; many involved single or few victims from fight escalations rather than large-scale attacks. Such events underscore vulnerabilities in access to firearms, with perpetrators often obtaining weapons from unsecured home sources.

Sexual Violence and Harassment

Sexual violence and harassment in schools include non-consensual physical acts such as , attempted rape, and , as well as verbal, visual, or gestural behaviors like unwelcome sexual comments, advances, or displays that create a hostile environment. These manifestations often occur between peers but can also involve school staff targeting students. Peer-perpetrated incidents typically involve unwanted touching, coercive sexual activity, or dissemination of explicit images, while staff misconduct frequently includes grooming followed by boundary violations like sexual comments or physical contact. Official data undercounts true incidence due to underreporting, as victims fear retaliation, disbelief, or inadequate institutional response. In the United States, the Department of Education's 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection documented 13,799 reported incidents of sexual violence in K-12 public schools, equating to varying rates per 1,000 students across states (e.g., 1.09 in Georgia). Of these, 13,114 involved sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape, and 685 were rapes or attempted rapes, marking a 43% overall increase from 9,649 incidents in 2015-16. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 11% of high school students reported being forced into unwanted sexual acts (including kissing, touching, or intercourse) by anyone during the past year, with higher rates among females (14%) than males (8%). A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies estimated a 24.1% prevalence of diagnosed sexual harassment victimization among school-aged adolescents globally, associated with adverse mental health outcomes. Educator-perpetrated affects approximately 10-11.7% of students in grades 8-11 or recent graduates, primarily involving sexual comments (11%), followed by unwanted touching or explicit materials. Academic teachers account for 63% of such cases, with coaches and staff at 20%. Self-reported surveys indicate broader exposure, with up to 56% of girls in grades 7-12 experiencing peer , though definitions vary and may encompass non-physical acts. Increases in reported incidents, such as a 55% rise in K-12 from 2015-16 to 2017-18, may reflect improved awareness and reporting rather than solely rising occurrence.

Violence by Authority Figures

Violence by school authority figures, including teachers, administrators, and other staff, encompasses physical assaults, , and directed at students. These acts exploit the inherent power imbalance in educational settings, where adults hold disciplinary authority over minors. Empirical data indicate that such violence is underreported due to students' of retaliation, dependency on educators, and institutional cover-ups, though available statistics reveal significant globally and in specific regions. Corporal punishment, defined as deliberate infliction of physical pain by school personnel as discipline, remains a sanctioned form of in parts of the . In the United States, it is legal in 17 states as of 2023, with approximately 70,000 students subjected to paddling or similar methods during the 2017-2018 school year; students, comprising 15% of enrollment, accounted for 37% of those punished, highlighting racial disparities. Globally, teacher-perpetrated physical violence affects over 70% of students in some countries, even where bans exist, according to surveys from low- and middle-income nations; the notes that such practices correlate with long-term health harms, including increased aggression and issues, without evidence of behavioral benefits. Unauthorized by educators, such as slapping, hitting, or excessive restraint excluding formal , is less systematically tracked but documented in case studies and self-reports. In primary schools in regions like the , teacher-inflicted physical violence occurs alongside emotional abuse, often normalized culturally but linked to student trauma. federal data from the Civil Rights (2020-2021) indirectly reflect disciplinary excesses, though specific incidents by staff are rare in public reporting, suggesting under-detection; peer-reviewed analyses emphasize that these acts, when uncovered, frequently involve injury or escalation beyond discipline. Sexual violence by school staff, ranging from to , affects an estimated 10% of K-12 students lifetime exposure to educator misconduct, per a 2017 National Institute of Justice analysis synthesizing victim surveys and offender data. Recent U.S. reports show a 53% rise in alleged sexual assaults by educators and 99% in rape/attempted rape claims from pre-pandemic baselines to 2022, attributed partly to improved reporting mechanisms amid movements like #MeToo. Globally, data from Violence Against Children Surveys indicate school staff perpetrate against a notable subset of students, particularly girls, in low-resource settings, with grooming tactics exploiting trust; underreporting remains acute, as only a fraction of cases lead to prosecution.

Global and National Statistics

Globally, approximately one in three students experiences at school each month, with over 36% involved in physical fights with peers and nearly one in three reporting physical attacks at least once per year. These figures, drawn from surveys across multiple regions, highlight and physical aggression as pervasive, though varies by country due to inconsistent reporting standards. An estimated 246 million children and adolescents encounter violence in or around schools annually, encompassing , fights, and assaults, based on Plan International's analysis of global patterns. In low- and middle-income countries, prevalence among adolescents ranges from 12% to 69% according to Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) data from 54 nations, with higher rates often in . data remains sparse, available in only 17% of countries for incidents by school staff or en route to . Attacks on , including , rose significantly, with over 6,000 incidents harming students and educators in recent years per the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. In the United States, public recorded 857,500 violent incidents in the 2021–22 school year, including physical attacks and fights without serious injury, per the (NCES) School Survey on Crime and Safety. The rate of nonfatal violent victimization among students aged 12–18 declined from 79.8 per 1,000 in 1993 to 23.5 per 1,000 in 2022, reflecting long-term reductions despite periodic spikes. About 20% of high school students reported on school property in the past year, while 8% were in physical fights on school grounds, according to CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey data. School-associated homicides represent less than 2% of all youth homicides, with most youth violence occurring off-campus.
IndicatorGlobal EstimateU.S. Estimate (Recent)
Prevalence32% of students monthly19–20% of students annually
Physical Fights/Attacks36%+ involved8% of high school students
Violent Incidents246 million children affected yearly857,500 in public schools (2021–22)
Data limitations persist globally, as underreporting in conflict zones and varying definitions of violence (e.g., excluding in some metrics) affect comparability; U.S. figures benefit from standardized federal surveys but may overlook non-reported peer conflicts.

Temporal Patterns and Recent Developments

School violence victimization rates among U.S. students aged 12-18 have generally declined over the long term, dropping from 48 serious violent victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 6 per 1,000 in 2021, according to data from the . This downward trajectory aligns with broader reductions in during the same period, though rates of nonserious violent incidents, such as simple assaults, have fluctuated less dramatically. Globally, surveys indicate similar declines in perpetration and victimization across many European and Central Asian countries from the early to the , with perpetration rates falling by up to 20-30% in several nations. Intra-year patterns reveal higher incidences of school violence during active school terms compared to summer vacations, correlating with increased presence and routine activities that provide opportunities for conflict. In campus-dominated , rates, including assaults, exhibit tied to the academic , with elevations during semesters and dips during breaks. Daily and weekly variations show peaks on weekdays, particularly Mondays and Fridays, when peer interactions intensify, though factors like higher temperatures can exacerbate aggressive incidents during warmer months. These patterns underscore the role of structured school environments in both facilitating and constraining violent opportunities, distinct from general rhythms. Post-COVID-19 developments have shown mixed trends, with overall school crime rates decreasing in some metrics—for instance, total victimization fell from 11 to 7 per 1,000 students between 2020 and 2021 amid remote learning disruptions. However, criminal victimization at school rebounded, rising in 2022 after prior declines, potentially linked to resumed in-person attendance and accumulated social disruptions. School shootings marked a stark escalation, reaching a record 349-351 incidents in 2023, up from pre-pandemic levels, though total violent threats and incidents dropped 29.8% from 699 in 2022-23 to 490 in 2024-25 in surveyed districts. Violence against educators surged post-pandemic, with reports of physical aggression increasing and contributing to higher resignation intentions among staff. State-level data, such as in North Carolina, confirm year-over-year drops in reported crime and violence rates from 15.10 per 1,000 students in 2022-23 to 14.19 in 2023-24. These divergences highlight how rare but high-impact events like shootings contrast with broader declines in routine violence, amid ongoing debates over data underreporting due to pandemic-era survey limitations.

Etiology and Risk Factors

Individual Predispositions

Individual predispositions contributing to school violence encompass inherent psychological traits, conditions, and neurobiological markers that elevate the propensity for aggressive acts such as , fights, or assaults among students. Empirical research identifies low and deficits in emotional regulation as core factors, with meta-analyses indicating that children exhibiting these traits are more likely to perpetrate relational or physical aggression due to impaired and heightened . Hyperactivity and poor , often linked to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), further amplify risks, as longitudinal studies show these traits predict violent behavior from early onward. Personality profiles characterized by high , extraversion, and antisocial tendencies correlate strongly with perpetration, according to analyses of adolescent samples where such traits foster social dominance-seeking and reduced . Dark Tetrad traits—, Machiavellianism, , and sadism—exacerbate this, with perpetrators displaying elevated scores that predict both direct and victimization involvement, independent of environmental moderators. Conversely, low and honesty-humility diminish prosocial inhibitions, enabling repeated violations of school norms. Genetic underpinnings contribute, as systematic reviews of twin and molecular studies reveal estimates for childhood ranging from 40-70%, with polymorphisms in genes associated with impulsive . Mental health disorders like and represent robust individual predictors, with affected youth showing 2-4 times higher rates of school-based violence perpetration compared to peers, driven by chronic defiance and callous-unemotional traits. While severe is rare among general perpetrators—present in under 5% of cases per databases on mass incidents—subclinical and untreated depression heighten reactivity to stressors, per cohort studies tracking behavioral trajectories. Neurobiological indicators, such as low resting , signal autonomic under that buffers against prosocial while predisposing to thrill-seeking , evidenced in prospective data from high-risk youth. Low academic performance, often intertwined with these factors, independently forecasts violence, as cognitive underachievement correlates with frustration-induced outbursts in school settings. These predispositions interact dynamically, underscoring the need for early screening beyond solely environmental attributions.

Family and Domestic Influences

Children from father-absent homes exhibit significantly higher rates of involvement in school violence, including and physical . A study of juvenile delinquents found that 66% had experienced fatherlessness, with 20% never living with their and 25% having an alcoholic , correlating with elevated delinquency risks that extend to school settings. Econometric indicates that absent fathers increase the probability of adolescent criminal behavior, including violent acts, by 16-38%, with implications for school-based due to reduced and modeling of . These patterns persist despite controls for socioeconomic factors, underscoring family structure's causal role over mere correlations, as two-parent households provide dual in and emotional regulation. Exposure to within the family strongly predicts perpetration of and . Secondary school students witnessing interparental violence show a significant positive association with behaviors, mediated by learned aggression scripts and desensitization to conflict. Longitudinal data reveal that family violence exposure prospectively increases perpetration and victimization, with effect sizes amplified in homes lacking protective parental monitoring. Witnessing parental (IPV) doubles the odds of adolescent involvement in school fights and , as modeled behaviors transfer from domestic to peer contexts, independent of socioeconomic confounders. Parental disciplinary practices and further elevate risks. Harsh, lax, or inconsistent —common in low-education, low-income families—correlates with heightened youth in schools, as it undermines impulse control and prosocial norms. Child maltreatment, including physical and emotional or , links to aggressive school behaviors via disrupted attachment and heightened trait ; meta-analyses confirm abused children perpetrate 1.5-2 times more peer , with impairing development essential for non-aggressive . Maternal depression and minimal stimulating parent-child interactions independently predict bully-victim status, amplifying vulnerability through emotional unavailability. These factors interact causally: neglected children internalize , manifesting as school assaults, while protective elements like consistent monitoring buffer risks even in high-stress homes.

Peer Group Dynamics

Peer group dynamics significantly contribute to school violence through mechanisms such as affiliation with aggressive or delinquent peers, which amplifies individual tendencies toward via social learning and reinforcement. indicates that adolescents who associate with friends exhibiting high levels of are more likely to engage in similar behaviors, as measured by peer-nominated scores averaged across a child's . This influence operates through both selection effects, where similar individuals cluster, and processes, where exposure to aggressive norms encourages emulation. A of elementary students found that classroom-level peer norms favoring moderated friendship formation and perpetuated aggressive behaviors among group members. Bullying often emerges as a collective group process rather than isolated acts, involving roles like perpetrators, assistants, defenders, and bystanders, which sustain hierarchies based on dominance and . Reviews of group involvement highlight that participants in bullying may seek approval or elevated standing within the peer network, with showing mixed but context-dependent links between bullying perpetration and perceived popularity. Peer rejection exacerbates this dynamic, correlating positively with both overt physical and , as rejected individuals may resort to to regain status or retaliate against exclusion. Deviant peer affiliations further mediate the pathway from community exposure to school-based , with studies of adolescents demonstrating that such groups normalize violent responses and heighten . In high-risk environments, peer influences interact with individual vulnerabilities, such as childhood adversity, to predict perpetration, underscoring the causal role of in escalating minor conflicts into incidents. Meta-analyses of longitudinal data confirm that involvement in peer , including victimization, longitudinally predicts broader delinquent acts, with delinquent peer associations serving as a key amplifier rather than mere correlation. These findings, drawn from diverse samples including U.S. and international cohorts, emphasize that interventions targeting peer networks—such as disrupting aggressive cliques—can mitigate , though academic sources occasionally underemphasize selection biases in peer effects due to prevailing in social sciences.

School and Institutional Factors

School institutional factors encompass elements such as administrative policies, disciplinary frameworks, and environmental characteristics that can either mitigate or exacerbate . Empirical analyses identify low student attachment and belonging as key risk amplifiers, with protective effects emerging from strong school bonds supported by empathetic staff, extracurricular involvement, and consistent monitoring. Schools fostering these connections experience fewer serious violent incidents, as evidenced by meta-reviews linking attachment to reduced perpetration rates. In contrast, institutional disengagement correlates with heightened , particularly in larger schools or those in disadvantaged areas where violence rates are elevated due to concentrated socioeconomic stressors and weaker oversight. Disciplinary policies represent a contentious institutional , with zero-tolerance mandates—adopted across U.S. schools since the to curb weapons and disruptions—showing limited efficacy in curbing violence. Longitudinal studies reveal these policies increase suspensions and expulsions without corresponding drops in misbehavior or improvements in safety perceptions, often entrenching cycles of exclusion that fail to address root causes. Critics, drawing from juvenile justice data, argue such rigid approaches conflict with developmental needs and disproportionately impact certain demographics, yet proponents cite initial intentions to deter amid surges; overall, evidence indicates no net reduction in violent outcomes. Alternative strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, yield mixed results, with effectiveness hinging on consistent implementation rather than policy stringency alone. Bullying prevention initiatives, often institutionally mandated, frequently underperform due to systemic shortcomings like overburdened curricula, inadequate teacher buy-in, and principals' reluctance to enforce responses. Research highlights that programs falter when schools allocate insufficient time for or fail to integrate adult reporting mechanisms, allowing unchecked peer to escalate into broader . Institutional hardening measures, such as personnel or , show modest victimization reductions in high-risk settings but do not substitute for relational strategies emphasizing prompt, evidence-based interventions. These patterns underscore how administrative of procedural equity over decisive can perpetuate unchecked disruptions, as seen in evaluations of under-resourced programs where bully-victim dynamics persist despite nominal efforts.

Community and Cultural Contributors

Community-level socioeconomic , characterized by high rates, , and residential , correlates with elevated rates of school violence perpetration among adolescents. A study analyzing ecological models found that neighborhoods with concentrated —measured by factors such as low median income and high proportions of single-parent households—predict higher youth involvement in violent acts within settings, independent of or traits. This link persists even after controlling for school-level variables, suggesting that community resource scarcity fosters environments where aggressive behaviors are modeled and reinforced outside school walls. Exposure to neighborhood violence significantly heightens the risk of aggressive conduct spilling into schools. Longitudinal data indicate that adolescents witnessing or experiencing community violence exhibit increased normative beliefs endorsing , leading to higher rates of school-based fights and bullying; for instance, prior violence exposure accounted for significant variance in aggressive fantasy and behavior among urban elementary students. Such exposure disrupts , impairing and impulse control, which manifests as externalizing problems like physical altercations during school hours. In high-crime areas, this effect compounds through peer affiliation with deviant groups, amplifying school via shared norms of retaliation. Gang culture embedded in certain communities exerts a direct influence on school violence dynamics. gang members, estimated at around 850,000 in the U.S. as of recent surveys, perpetrate a disproportionate share of violent incidents, with gang-involved adolescents showing elevated victimization and rates that extend into educational settings. Qualitative analyses of gang-affiliated reveal that environments become extensions of conflicts, where loyalty pressures lead to in-school assaults and possession; for example, gang members often report normalizing as a mechanism learned from community interactions. This infiltration disrupts school safety, with gangs recruiting or coercing peers, thereby increasing overall violent incidents by factors linked to their 80% contribution to serious adolescent offenses in affected areas. Cultural norms within specific communities can perpetuate school violence through endorsement of or honor-based responses to perceived slights. The "culture of honor," prevalent in regions with historical agrarian economies emphasizing personal defense, serves as a , where adolescents internalize beliefs that restores status, correlating with higher school shooting and fighting rates in honor-endorsing areas. Cross-cultural analyses further show that subcultures glorifying toughness—often tied to media portrayals or familial modeling—foster attitudes tolerant of school , though empirical mediation models highlight how these interact with exposure to amplify outcomes beyond mere socioeconomic effects. Protective communal values, such as promotion, mitigate this in some contexts, but their absence in violence-saturated cultures leaves youth vulnerable to perpetuating cycles.

Consequences and Ramifications

Effects on Victims

Victims of school violence, encompassing physical assaults, , and threats, experience immediate physical injuries such as bruises, fractures, and concussions, with severe cases leading to hospitalization or long-term disabilities. Chronic exposure correlates with increased risks of physical inactivity, , , and related conditions like due to stress-induced behavioral changes. Psychologically, victimization elevates risks for depression, anxiety, , and , with meta-analyses showing victims are 2-3 times more likely to develop these disorders than non-victims. Longitudinal studies indicate persistent low , loneliness, and emotional distress persisting into adulthood, causally linked via quasi-experimental designs to adverse trajectories independent of pre-existing factors. Academically, victims exhibit reduced performance, including lower GPAs, increased , and higher dropout rates, mediated by concentration difficulties and of ; one study found school violence exposure accounts for up to 10-15% variance in grade declines among adolescents. Long-term ramifications include heightened adult , interpersonal difficulties, and elevated criminal involvement, with early victimization predicting a 20-30% increased odds of disorders and antisocial behavior decades later, underscoring causal chains from school trauma to enduring impairment.

Outcomes for Perpetrators

Perpetrators of violence, including those engaging in , physical assaults, or threats, typically face immediate disciplinary measures within educational institutions, such as out-of-school suspension or expulsion. In the 2019–20 year, U.S. public schools reported an average of 19 violent incidents per 1,000 students, with many resulting in removal from the environment to ensure , though such actions often exacerbate underlying behavioral issues rather than resolve them. Expulsion, reserved for severe cases like weapon possession or repeated , disrupts academic continuity and correlates with higher dropout rates; suspended students are more likely to repeat grades, disengage from , and enter the juvenile system compared to non-suspended peers. Legal repercussions escalate with the severity of the offense, involving police referrals and processing. For instance, incidents involving weapons or serious injury prompt sworn involvement in approximately 5 cases per 1,000 students annually, leading to s, , or detention. Juveniles adjudicated for violent school offenses experience elevated , with rearrest rates reaching 22% within six months and 61% within 36 months in some state cohorts, driven by factors like prior antisocial patterns and inadequate post-release supervision. Confinement in juvenile facilities further compounds risks, increasing adult arrest probabilities by 39% according to data from 2022. Long-term trajectories for perpetrators often involve persistent antisocial behavior and diminished life prospects. School violence perpetration, including , elevates the odds of adult violent offending by approximately two-thirds, as evidenced by a of longitudinal studies linking early to criminal continuity. Educational disruptions from discipline contribute to lower high school completion and employment stability, while underlying traits like predict higher rates of adult incarceration and . Although some studies indicate that non-recidivist violent juvenile offenders stabilize into adulthood without further offenses, the majority without targeted interventions—such as cognitive-behavioral therapy—exhibit patterns of relational instability and economic underachievement. These outcomes underscore causal links between unchecked school and broader societal costs, independent of institutional reporting biases that may underemphasize perpetrator accountability.

Broader Institutional and Societal Impacts

School violence imposes substantial economic burdens on educational institutions through heightened security expenditures, -related funding losses, and diminished instructional time. For instance, U.S. school districts lose federal funding under Title I programs when chronic exceeds 10%, with bias-based —a form of school violence—contributing to unsafe perceptions that drive up to 160,000 students absent daily, equating to millions in withheld reimbursements annually. Institutions also face direct costs for medical treatment, counseling, and property damage from violent incidents, with nonfatal school crimes alone generating billions in victim-related expenses, including work loss for families. These pressures often lead to reallocations from core educational resources, exacerbating performance gaps and prompting widespread adoption of zero-tolerance policies since the , which, while aimed at deterrence, have correlated with higher suspension rates without proportionally reducing violence. On a societal scale, school violence contributes to long-term productivity losses estimated at $11 trillion globally in foregone lifetime earnings, stemming from disrupted that impairs cognitive and socio-emotional development, thereby increasing future and . In the United States, violence, including school incidents, incurs an annual economic toll of approximately $120 billion, encompassing medical spending, reduced , and avoidable premature deaths. Such violence perpetuates cycles of , as exposed youth exhibit elevated risks of adult criminality and disorders, straining public systems like justice and healthcare; empirical reviews link school victimization to broader community escalation via eroded social ties and normalized . Broader societal cohesion suffers as school violence fosters widespread parental fear and community disengagement, diminishing trust in public and local safety nets. National surveys indicate that perceptions of school danger correlate with reduced civic participation and heightened residential segregation by safety concerns, weakening neighborhood bonds. This erosion extends to intergenerational effects, where unaddressed institutional failures in violence prevention signal systemic vulnerabilities, potentially amplifying and demands for privatized alternatives to public schooling. Longitudinal data from ecological studies further reveal that concentrated school violence in disadvantaged areas saturates community disadvantage, hindering collective efficacy and perpetuating intergenerational transmission of aggressive norms.

Prevention and Intervention Approaches

Evidence-Based School Programs

Universal school-based programs, evaluated through randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, demonstrate modest effectiveness in reducing violent behaviors such as , , and physical fights among students. A of 44 programs found a median relative reduction of 15% in violent acts across all grades, with stronger effects in elementary schools (up to 20-25% reductions) compared to secondary levels. These interventions typically emphasize school-wide policies, skill-building curricula, and environmental changes rather than punitive measures alone, though implementation fidelity and sustained effort are critical for outcomes, as inconsistent application often yields null results. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), developed in in the early 1980s and adapted internationally, targets —a key component of school violence—through comprehensive strategies including staff training, classroom rules against , parent involvement, and individualized interventions for victims and perpetrators. Multiple meta-analyses confirm its efficacy, with overall reductions in perpetration by 20-23% and victimization by 17-20% in implemented schools; a 2019 updated review of 100 evaluations reinforced these findings, noting OBPP's superior performance among programs for reducing bully perpetration. Long-term studies, such as a Norwegian register-based analysis, also link OBPP to improved academic outcomes and reduced dropout risks, indirectly mitigating violence-prone disengagement. However, effects diminish without ongoing reinforcement, and gains are smaller for or in high-risk urban settings. School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS or PBIS), a tiered framework established in the U.S. in the , promotes proactive behavioral expectations, data-driven , and systems to foster a positive . Rigorous evaluations, including cluster-randomized trials, report significant decreases in aggressive behaviors (effect sizes around 0.2-0.4 standard deviations), office discipline referrals by 20-50%, and suspensions linked to violence. The U.S. Department of rates PBIS as effective for reducing problem behaviors leading to violence, with benefits extending to emotional regulation and concentration, though it performs best when integrated with academic supports rather than as a standalone anti-violence tool. Critics note potential over-reliance on compliance metrics, but empirical data from multi-site implementations affirm violence reductions without increasing other risks. Other evidence-supported approaches include , which emphasize circles and relationship-building; a 2025 systematic review of 12 studies found consistent reductions in school violence incidents and improved emotional , though effects were moderated by cultural fit and buy-in. Broader meta-reviews, synthesizing over 200 studies, indicate that multicomponent programs combining cognitive-behavioral skills with environmental modifications yield the strongest violence reductions (up to 25% in some aggregates), outperforming single-focus initiatives. Despite these gains, no program eliminates school entirely, and meta-analytic effect sizes remain small to moderate (Cohen's d ≈ 0.1-0.3), underscoring the need for tailored adaptations to local contexts like socioeconomic factors or demographics. The Community Preventive Services Task Force endorses universal school-based violence prevention based on this body of , prioritizing programs with demonstrated and cost-effectiveness. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires states receiving federal education funding to implement policies mandating at least one-year expulsion for students possessing firearms on school grounds, aiming to deter gun-related violence. Evaluations of such zero-tolerance frameworks, widespread since the , reveal limited evidence of reducing overall school violence; instead, they correlate with elevated suspension and expulsion rates, particularly among minority students, without proportional declines in serious incidents like assaults or threats. A peer-reviewed analysis attributes this to over-punishment of minor offenses, exacerbating disciplinary disparities rather than addressing root causes of violence. Legal measures at state and federal levels include mandatory reporting of threats and weapons violations, with many jurisdictions requiring schools to notify for incidents involving violence or firearms. As of 2020, federal guidelines under the Every Student Succeeds Act reinforce data collection on school safety, including violence incidents, to inform policy enforcement. However, implementation varies, with some states imposing stricter penalties, such as charges for school threats, though empirical reviews question their deterrent effect on non-firearm violence due to inconsistent application and focus on reactive rather than preventive strategies. Deployment of school resource officers (SROs), authorized under policies like the 2020 federal support for in schools, has shown mixed outcomes in curbing violence. One study found SRO presence reduced fights and threats by approximately 30% while increasing detections by 150%, suggesting benefits for immediate threat mitigation. Contrasting evidence indicates no clear prevention of mass shootings or overall violence, with potential for heightened arrests of minor student behaviors, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups. Behavioral threat assessment teams, recommended by U.S. Secret Service guidelines since 2002 and adopted in 45 states by 2024, evaluate potential risks through multidisciplinary reviews of student behaviors and communications. Controlled studies of models like Virginia's Threat Assessment Guidelines demonstrate effectiveness in averting targeted attacks, including mass violence, by distinguishing transient from substantive threats and intervening early without over-reliance on exclusionary . By 2024, 85% of U.S. schools reported using such teams, correlating with fewer disruptions from unsubstantiated alarms. These approaches prioritize causal factors like planning indicators over blanket prohibitions, yielding stronger empirical support than punitive policies alone.

Familial and Community Strategies

Parental monitoring and consistent discipline within the family unit have been linked to lower rates of behavior in children, as families providing structured reduce opportunities for violent tendencies to manifest outside the home. Meta-analyses of family-school interventions demonstrate moderate improvements in children's social- competence, with effect sizes indicating reduced antisocial actions through enhanced parent-child communication and skill-building sessions. programs that target positive family environments—such as teaching non-violent and emotional regulation—yield sustained reductions in child-perpetrated physical and emotional violence, with one review finding effects maintained for up to 24 months after program completion in low- and middle-income settings. Home visitation models, where trained professionals deliver tailored guidance to families of infants and young children, effectively curb early precursors, with evaluations showing decreased violent incidents in participants compared to controls. Community-level initiatives complement familial efforts by fostering external support networks. Programs redirecting at-risk through mentoring and after-school activities have demonstrated reductions in perpetration by addressing peer reinforcement of outside school hours. Civic and faith-based partnerships that promote collective efficacy—such as neighborhood coalitions monitoring behavior—correlate with lower spillover into schools, though causal evidence remains stronger for integrated models involving parental buy-in. Evidence from scaled implementations in the Global South highlights -delivered workshops as viable for broad reach, achieving 15-20% drops in reported when combined with local enforcement of non-violent norms. However, isolated strategies without familial reinforcement show limited long-term efficacy, underscoring the necessity of aligned interventions to cycles of intergenerational transmission.

Measurement and Methodological Challenges

Data Collection and Reporting Issues

Data collection on school violence faces significant challenges due to underreporting, as official statistics from school incident logs and law enforcement often capture only a fraction of incidents compared to self-reported surveys. For instance, federal data from the (NCES) and (BJS) indicate that victimization rates from student surveys, such as the (NCVS), consistently exceed those from school-reported crimes, with 2022 NCVS data showing 16 violent victimizations per 1,000 students at school versus lower official counts. Underreporting stems from victims' fears of retaliation, stigma, or disbelief, particularly in cases of or peer assaults not deemed severe enough for formal action. Inconsistent definitions of school violence exacerbate reporting discrepancies, as terms like "" or "" vary across jurisdictions, schools, and studies, leading to divergent inclusion criteria. A 2024 analysis highlights how definitional differences in "school shootings"—ranging from any discharge on to those causing or —result in data divergence affecting and . School staff, students, and parents often provide mismatched accounts; for example, studies show students report higher rates of exposure to than administrators, attributed to reluctance among adults to document incidents that could harm the school's reputation or trigger audits. These perceptual gaps are compounded by methodological variances, such as reliance on anonymous surveys yielding higher disclosures than mandatory incident reporting, which may omit non-physical . Resource constraints and confidentiality concerns further hinder accurate reporting, including costs of , for staff, and electronic security to protect student privacy under laws like FERPA. Anonymous tip systems, implemented in some districts since the early , have increased reporting of threats by up to 20-30% in evaluated schools, but their effectiveness depends on promotion and trust-building, with underutilization persisting due to cultural norms like "." Cross-study inconsistencies arise from these issues, as longitudinal data from sources like the School Crime Supplement reveal fluctuating trends—e.g., a post-1990s decline in overall violence but spikes in specific forms like weapon involvement—partly attributable to evolving reporting protocols rather than incidence changes alone. Efforts to standardize, such as NCES-BJS collaborations on annual indicators, aim to mitigate these, yet persistent undercounts in official records undermine comprehensive .

Biases in Research and Interpretation

on school violence frequently relies on self-reported surveys for estimates, which are prone to methodological biases such as recall inaccuracies, social desirability effects, and differential disclosure rates across demographics. For example, adolescents may underreport perpetrating violence due to fear of consequences or overreport victimization to elicit , leading to inflated or skewed data compared to administrative records or observer reports. These discrepancies are exacerbated in studies of sensitive topics like gender-based violence in schools, where anonymous methods increase disclosure but introduce variability tied to interviewer effects or cultural stigma. Government datasets, such as those from the , acknowledge these limitations but continue heavy dependence on student self-reports, potentially distorting trends like victimization rates. Publication and selective reporting biases further distort the evidence base, as studies demonstrating null or negative outcomes for interventions—such as certain anti-bullying programs—are less likely to be published or emphasized. Systematic reviews of school-based bullying prevention efforts have detected this through funnel plot asymmetry and trim-and-fill analyses, indicating that reported effect sizes may overestimate program efficacy by 20-30% due to suppressed unfavorable results. This selective dissemination favors interventions aligned with prevailing educational paradigms, like restorative justice over punitive measures, even when empirical support is weak, perpetuating cycles of ineffective policy adoption. Ideological biases in interpretation stem from academia's systemic left-leaning orientation, which privileges environmental and systemic explanations for school violence while downplaying agency, , or normative deviations. Politically correct frameworks have shifted causal attributions from voluntary norm violations to or victimization models, often denying differences in despite biological evidence, such as males committing 80-90% of serious school assaults. This orientation, prevalent in institutions, leads to underemphasis on empirically robust predictors like dysfunction—where exposure to parental violence doubles the odds of perpetration—favoring instead or socioeconomic narratives to avoid stigmatizing non-traditional structures. Consequently, interpretations rarely integrate causal realism, such as the role of absent fathers in elevating delinquency risks by 2-3 times, prioritizing equity-focused analyses over data-driven ones. Such biases compromise , as peer-reviewed outlets amplify conforming viewpoints while marginalizing dissenting empirical work.

Key Debates and Controversies

Explanations for Rising Incidents

Reports from educational authorities and surveys document increases in specific forms of school violence following the , including a 44% rise in non-swatting violent incidents from the 2022-2023 to 2024-2025 school years in the United States, alongside surges in assaults on educators and misconduct in states like during 2021-2022. These upticks contrast with long-term declines in overall victimization rates from 79.8 per 1,000 students in 1993 to 23.5 in 2022, suggesting pandemic-related disruptions as a key driver rather than a reversal of secular trends. Disrupted during school closures has been linked to heightened upon resumption of in-person learning, with studies indicating that isolation from peers and routines fostered maladaptive behaviors manifesting as physical conflicts. research highlights a post-pandemic escalation in against pre-K to 12th-grade teachers, correlating with students' readjustment challenges and contributing to 57% of educators considering resignation or transfer by 2023-2024. In regions like , , anecdotal and survey data from 2024-2025 describe disruptions, including tantrums and assaults, as stemming from prolonged remote learning's erosion of behavioral norms. Worsening youth , exacerbated by pandemic stressors, correlates strongly with aggressive acts, as untreated conditions like anxiety and depression impair impulse control and escalate interpersonal conflicts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from the 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey reveal that , including violence exposure, heighten risks of poor mental health outcomes that perpetuate cycles of school-based aggression. A 2023 analysis of school threateners found prevalent psychiatric diagnoses and learning disorders among perpetrators, underscoring how unaddressed vulnerabilities translate into violent incidents. Social media platforms amplify school conflicts by enabling rapid escalation from online disputes to physical fights, with students using networks to organize, record, and disseminate assaults for social validation. CDC findings from 2024 indicate that frequent users among high schoolers face elevated electronic and in-person rates, fueling a feedback loop where virtual provocations spill into hallways. Research from 2021 documents how features like tagging and commenting intensify teen arguments, often culminating in real-world violence as groups converge to enforce perceived slights. Shifts in school disciplinary policies, such as the removal of school resource officers starting around in some jurisdictions, have coincided with reported violence spikes by reducing immediate deterrents to aggressive behavior. Advocacy for over punitive measures, while aimed at equity, has been critiqued for permitting repeated offenses without consequences, potentially normalizing disruptions in environments already strained by post-pandemic recovery. Empirical reviews emphasize that consistent, frameworks mitigate violence more effectively than lenient approaches, yet implementation varies, contributing to uneven incident rises.

Effectiveness of Common Interventions

Zero-tolerance policies, which mandate automatic severe punishments such as suspension or expulsion for offenses like bringing weapons or engaging in fights, have shown limited effectiveness in reducing school violence. A 2021 study found that teacher support for these policies correlated with higher out-of-school suspension rates and lower student perceptions of safety, without corresponding decreases in violent incidents. Similarly, research indicates these policies fail to deter aggression and instead exacerbate disciplinary disparities, particularly among minority students, while not improving overall school safety metrics. School resource officers (SROs), involving armed law enforcement presence in schools, demonstrate mixed outcomes in curbing violence. A 2023 analysis across U.S. schools revealed SROs reduced fights and threats by approximately 30% and increased detection by 150%, suggesting a deterrent effect through enforcement and vigilance. However, other evaluations highlight drawbacks, including heightened student fear, increased arrests for minor infractions, and no clear prevention of mass shootings, with some studies noting negative impacts on perceptions of safety. Anti- and prevention programs, often implemented school-wide, exhibit stronger empirical support for reducing violent behaviors. A 2021 meta-analysis of randomized trials found these programs significantly lowered perpetration ( 1.309) and victimization, with effects persisting at follow-up. Another 2020 confirmed reductions in both perpetration and issues linked to , though effects were modest and varied by program intensity. Comprehensive school-based interventions targeting multiple antisocial outcomes, including fighting and threats, also proved effective in meta-analyses, particularly for common aggressive acts rather than rare extreme violence. Restorative justice practices, emphasizing and over , have yielded promising results in reduction. A 2023 study of reported a 35% drop in in-school arrests, 18% reduction in out-of-school suspensions, and improved following implementation. Systematic reviews corroborate these findings, noting decreased , , and disciplinary disparities, with effects driven by fostering relationships and addressing root causes rather than exclusion. Whole-school approaches promoting student commitment similarly produce small but statistically significant reductions, including in cyber forms, per 2023-2025 meta-analyses.
Intervention TypeKey Evidence of EffectivenessLimitations/Noted Drawbacks
Zero-Tolerance PoliciesMinimal deterrence of violence; increases suspensions without safety gains.Heightens disparities; may erode trust and safety perceptions.
School Resource Officers30% reduction in fights/threats; enhanced weapon detection.Increases fear and arrests; ineffective against shootings.
Anti-Bullying/Aggression ProgramsSignificant reductions in perpetration (OR 1.309); modest mental health benefits.Variable by design; stronger for common vs. severe violence.
Restorative Justice18-35% drops in suspensions/arrests; reduced bullying/aggression.Requires sustained implementation; less data on long-term violence trends.

Balancing Security with Individual Rights

The tension between implementing school security measures to prevent violence and safeguarding students' individual rights, particularly under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, has been a central debate in educational policy. Public school officials must maintain discipline and safety, but students retain constitutional protections, albeit with a relaxed standard compared to adult contexts. In New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school searches require only reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, justifying actions like purse inspections when based on specific, articulable facts indicating wrongdoing, as the school's custodial and tutelary role demands flexibility to address immediate threats. This standard acknowledges that unchecked violence disrupts education, yet it mandates proportionality to avoid arbitrary intrusions. Zero-tolerance policies, which mandate automatic severe punishments for offenses like possessing weapons or drugs regardless of context, exemplify efforts to prioritize security but have drawn criticism for disproportionately infringing on and equality . Enacted widely in the following high-profile incidents, these policies led to surges in suspensions and expulsions—U.S. Department of from 2011-2012 showed over 3 million suspensions annually, often for minor infractions—without evidence of reduced violence rates. An task force analysis found they fail to enhance school safety, exacerbate racial disparities in (Black students suspended at three times the rate of white peers for similar behaviors), and erode trust in institutional fairness by denying individualized assessments. Critics argue such blanket approaches treat symptoms punitively rather than addressing root causes like family instability or peer conflicts, potentially violating equal protection principles by amplifying biases in enforcement. Physical and technological measures, including metal detectors, cameras, and random bag searches, aim to deter threats but raise concerns with limited empirical support for broad efficacy. A 2018 study of over 18,000 U.S. found that schools with more features, such as cameras and detectors, correlated with higher of victimization rather than perceived , suggesting a "fortress" environment may heighten anxiety without proportional reduction. Video , installed in 80% of U.S. secondary schools by 2019, captures areas but risks overreach into private spaces like restrooms, prompting lawsuits alleging Fourth Amendment violations when footage is misused or stored indefinitely. Empirical reviews indicate cameras aid post-incident investigations but do not prevent assaults, as perpetrators often act in blind spots or disguise intent; a 2023 ACLU of edtech tools reported no causal link to fewer incidents, instead documenting chilled speech and erroneous flagging of benign activities. Efforts to balance these imperatives emphasize targeted, evidence-based interventions over indiscriminate ones. Threat assessment teams, which evaluate behavioral indicators without routine invasive searches, have shown promise: a 2024 empirical study of non-hardened measures found they reduced violent incidents by 20-30% in implementing districts by focusing on causal precursors like grievances rather than blanket suspicion. Legal scholars advocate for clear protocols, such as documenting reasonable suspicion before searches and limiting data retention for cameras to 30 days absent incidents, to mitigate rights erosions while enabling rapid response. Policymakers, informed by federal guidelines post-2018 Parkland shooting, increasingly favor multidisciplinary approaches integrating mental health screenings with minimal physical intrusions, recognizing that over-securitization can alienate students and undermine voluntary reporting of threats. This framework prioritizes causal realism—addressing violence drivers like unresolved conflicts—over reactive hardware, ensuring security enhances rather than supplants educational rights.

References

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/youth-violence/about/about-school-violence.html
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11372489/
  3. https://schoolsafety.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Causes-and-Consequences-of-School-Violence-A-Review.pdf
  4. https://www.cdc.gov/youth-violence/data-research/school-associatedviolentdeathstudy/index.html
  5. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/1_17_2024.asp
  6. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=49
  7. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ivsafs.pdf
  8. https://www.the74million.org/article/10-charts-that-explain-how-schools-have-grown-less-violent-since-covid/
  9. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-are-predictors-school-violence-what-are-its-consequences
  10. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/302346.pdf
  11. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/school-based-violence-prevention-a-practical-handbook
  12. https://www.unesco.org/en/health-education/safe-learning-environments
  13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505193.pdf
  14. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE20_7000-PURL-gpo126612/pdf/GOVPUB-HE20_7000-PURL-gpo126612.pdf
  15. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-school-violence-and-bullying
  16. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13134-9_1
  17. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428445.pdf
  18. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/crime-and-punishment-schooling-process-historical-analysis
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5766273/
  20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24700885
  21. https://schoolviolenceinfoblog.wordpress.com/history-2/
  22. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/24/first-us-school-shooting-gun-debate-217704
  23. https://study.com/academy/lesson/school-violence-definition-history-causes-effects.html
  24. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768971.pdf
  25. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-evolution-of-violence-in-schools
  26. https://ewa.org/issues/early-learning/history-and-background-school-safety-security
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226348190_A_History_of_Violence_in_the_Schools
  28. https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/3705-a-brief-history-of-school-violence-in-the-united-states-2011
  29. https://www.cdc.gov/youth-violence/about/about-bullying.html
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11982999/
  31. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a10/bullying-electronic-bullying
  32. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740
  33. https://dictionary.apa.org/relational-aggression
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/relational-aggression
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3111222/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10560019/
  37. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=intuition
  38. https://journal.kurasinstitute.com/index.php/bocp/article/view/1073
  39. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db514.htm
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229723000096
  41. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01430343221138038
  42. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2024/2024145.pdf
  43. https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/results/2023-yrbs-results.html
  44. https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/dstr/index.html
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X23010017
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4570474/
  47. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/report-indicators-school-crime-and-safety-2023-and-indicator-2-incidence
  48. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a13/student-weapons-firearms
  49. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-crime-in-schools-2020-2024-special-report
  50. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/news/more-than-6-guns-per-day-were-seized-at-u-s-schools-last-year/128563/
  51. https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/research/analysis-student-firearm-carrying-schools
  52. https://www.k12dive.com/news/school-shootings-2024-near-record-high-2025-predictions/736590/
  53. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/reports-and-publications/2024-active-shooter-report/view
  54. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01/violent-deaths-and-shootings
  55. https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/incidents-of-gun-violence-on-school-grounds-in-2024-officially-surpasses-total-rates-from-2023/
  56. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-in-2024-more-than-last-year-but-fewer-deaths/2024/12
  57. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings
  58. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2022/08/Sexual-Harassment-and-Violence-in-School-Quick-Facts-Jan-2022.pdf
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35499558/
  60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15388220.2024.2309560
  61. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/sexual-violence.pdf
  62. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/su/pdfs/su7201-h.pdf
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10814736/
  64. https://www.ferretly.com/blog/teacher-student-sexual-misconduct-the-critical-role-of-social-media-screening
  65. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202305/educator-sexual-misconduct-remains-prevalent-in
  66. https://rtrlaw.com/personal-injury/what-are-the-statistics-of-sexual-assault-for-victims-in-school/
  67. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252484.pdf
  68. https://www.idra.org/education_policy/end-corporal-punishment-in-schools/
  69. https://journalistsresource.org/education/corporal-punishment-schools-discipline-research/
  70. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-24881-011
  71. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5353035/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213411001803
  74. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/crdc-discipline-school-climate-reportpdf-21409.pdf
  75. https://www.unicef.org/protection/violence-against-children-in-school
  76. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/violence-and-bullying-schools-unesco-calls-better-protection-students
  77. https://en.unesco.org/themes/school-violence-and-bullying
  78. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/new-data-hub-school-related-violence-statistics
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X25000026
  80. https://www.developmentaid.org/news-stream/post/184817/unesco-alarm-on-global-spike-in-attacks-on-education
  81. https://www.brightpathbh.com/school-violence-and-teen-mental-health-statistics/
  82. https://repository.gheli.harvard.edu/repository/12230/
  83. https://www.pacer.org/bullying/info/stats/
  84. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2024/2024043.pdf
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11891013/
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257594743_Seasonal_Variation_in_Violent_Victimization_Opportunity_and_the_Annual_Rhythm_of_the_School_Calendar
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225000376
  88. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP14300
  89. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/spcvt.pdf
  90. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/7_25_2024.asp
  91. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3930-2.html
  92. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/17/nx-s1-5542241/political-violence-mass-shootings-charlie-kirk
  93. https://eschoolsafety.org/s/2024-2025SY-ReportViolent-threat-and-incidents-in-schools-wwweschoolsafetyorg.pdf
  94. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2024/05/violence-against-educators-post-pandemic
  95. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2025/02/05/consolidated-data-report-shows-decrease-school-violence-dropouts
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237940159_Individual_risk_factors_for_school_bullying
  97. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2899%2900065-8/fulltext
  98. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44293/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8177084/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9616045/
  101. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-024-02870-7
  102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37865440/
  103. https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/new-findings-columbia-mass-murder-database
  104. https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S07493797%252812%252900338-8/fulltext
  105. https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/fact-sheet-fatherhood-and-crime
  106. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-demographic-economics/article/effects-of-absent-fathers-on-adolescent-criminal-activity-an-economic-approach/F52740881D7DA086087B2A44EB1A8619
  107. https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Fatherlessness_and_Crime.pdf
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10766691/
  109. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-024-10293-1
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2872483/
  111. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28711191/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4231780/
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379712003327
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3674141/
  115. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12650
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222564832_Bullying_and_the_peer_group_A_review
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10092515/
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213422005087
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9957552/
  120. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-81978-8
  121. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-91555-001
  122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19086747/
  123. https://www.vera.org/publications/a-generation-later-what-weve-learned-about-zero-tolerance-in-schools
  124. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3157&context=etd
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11890184/
  126. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15388220.2015.1095100
  127. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resilience-bullying/201810/if-your-anti-bullying-program-isnt-working-heres-why
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8831473/
  129. https://arg.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2003.Guerra_etal.CommunityViolExpsuresocial-cognitionaggamongurbanelementary-schlchldrn.Child-Dev.pdf
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3402358/
  131. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.612237/full
  132. https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
  133. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320926511_Gangs_in_School_Exploring_the_Experiences_of_Gang-Involved_Youth
  134. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/gngs-cnd/index-en.aspx
  135. https://shareok.org/bitstreams/0877a277-e18c-4c3e-8ba8-196af2aa4378/download
  136. https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/download/1049/1079/4186
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2386245/
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6598284/
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5371173/
  140. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-58808-001.html
  141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624001345
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10427593/
  143. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457300.2021.1994615
  144. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0039174.pdf
  145. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/consequences-school-violence-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis
  146. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/crdc-school-suspension-report
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9285988/
  148. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/why-youth-incarceration-fails-an-updated-review-of-the-evidence/
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178912000468
  150. https://sdp.cepr.harvard.edu/blog/long-term-impacts-school-suspension-adult-crime
  151. https://paloaltou.edu/resources/translating-research-into-practice-blog/juveniles-commit-violent-offenses-not-reoffend-adulthood/
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5578874/
  153. https://www.rti.org/publication/cost-school-crime/fulltext.pdf
  154. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-do-data-reveal-about-violence-schools
  155. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/08/03/violence-in-schools-leads-to-11-trillion-in-lost-lifetime-earnings
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11372722/
  157. https://bibliography.icpsr.umich.edu/bibliography/citations/data/156373/fileDownload
  158. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7676433/
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379707002371
  160. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK69063/
  161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918300727
  162. https://clemsonolweus.org/effectiveness.php
  163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8541967/
  164. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8558185/
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3483890/
  166. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1273750.pdf
  167. https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/school-wide-positive-behavioral-interventions-and-supports-swpbis
  168. https://www.pbis.org/resource/is-school-wide-positive-behavior-support-an-evidence-based-practice
  169. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1520137/full
  170. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211376.pdf
  171. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-02119-044
  172. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/violence-school-based-programs.html
  173. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/07/Guidance.Gun-Free-Schools-Act.pdf
  174. https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf
  175. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2179863
  176. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4397655/
  177. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/legal-context-school-violence-effectiveness-federal-state-and-local
  178. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334
  179. https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/sarah-shalf/1333721
  180. https://www.albany.edu/news-center/news/2023-research-shows-having-police-schools-results-fewer-fights-harsher-discipline
  181. https://research.iastate.edu/2024/11/19/why-school-police-officers-may-not-be-the-most-effective-way-to-prevent-violence/
  182. https://www.clccrul.org/blog/what-the-research-shows-the-impact-of-school-resource-officers
  183. https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/ssi_guide.pdf
  184. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/behavioral-threat-assessments-report
  185. https://education.virginia.edu/research-initiatives/research-centers-labs/research-labs/youth-violence-project/school-threat-assessment/comprehensive-school-threat-assessment-guidelines
  186. https://www.schoolta.com/research
  187. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5363950/
  188. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10209692/
  189. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654318825437
  190. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370%2823%2900180-3/fulltext
  191. https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/in-the-community
  192. https://gh.bmj.com/content/9/11/e015472
  193. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5831140/
  194. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a02/victimization-at-away-from-school
  195. https://schoolsecurity.org/trends/school-crime-reporting-and-underreporting/
  196. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/6/316
  197. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3088118/
  198. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842857
  199. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/safety/chapter2.asp
  200. https://sph.umich.edu/news/2022posts/anonymous-reporting-systems-in-schools-can-reduce-violence-increase-student-connectedness.html
  201. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10044100/
  202. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227976/
  203. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15526-w
  204. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9290269/
  205. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1143
  206. https://www.air.org/project/consequences-selective-reporting-bias-education-research
  207. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/politically-correct-approaches-violence-and-aggression
  208. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9326806/
  209. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2023/03/01/after-covid-nc-report-shows-increase-student-misconduct-2021-22-reflecting-nationwide-trends
  210. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9549156/
  211. https://www.ctf-fce.ca/blog-perspectives/school-based-violence-across-canada/
  212. https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/mental-health/index.html
  213. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7304a5.htm
  214. https://news.stonybrook.edu/newsroom/press-release/medical/students-who-threaten-violence-often-have-psychiatric-or-learning-disorders/
  215. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/15/technology/school-fight-videos-student-phones.html
  216. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7304a3.htm
  217. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/04/how-social-media-turns-online-arguments-between-teens-into-real-world-violence-2/
  218. https://globalnews.ca/news/11333551/ontario-school-violence-rate-increase/
  219. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/violence-seems-to-be-increasing-in-schools-why/2021/11
  220. https://showme.missouri.edu/2021/zero-tolerance-policies-in-schools-linked-to-higher-suspension-rates-lower-feelings-of-safety/
  221. https://www.tpr.org/education/2024-12-09/experts-say-zero-tolerance-policies-wont-reduce-violence-and-aggression-against-teachers
  222. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37131921/
  223. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2772453
  224. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/uchicago-education-lab-study-finds-decrease-arrests-suspensions-schools-use-restorative
  225. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8751228/
  226. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10051.html
  227. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062300210X
  228. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-025-02135-6
  229. https://www.ksbe.edu/assets/research/collection/05_0232_kanaiaupuni.pdf
  230. https://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/02-Teacher-Support-for-Zero-Tolerance-Is-Associated-With-Higher-Suspension-Rates-and-Lower-Feelin.pdf
  231. https://studentsdemandaction.org/report/address-the-presence-of-school-resource-officers-in-your-school/
  232. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/do-restorative-practices-work
  233. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/325/
  234. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/searches.htm
  235. https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/tolerance
  236. https://jlc.org/news/zero-tolerance-policies-good-bad-and-ugly
  237. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7205221/
  238. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/stu_privacy/surveillance.asp
  239. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-report-shines-light-on-shadowy-edtech-surveillance-industry-and-the-dangerous-consequences-of-surveillance-in-schools
  240. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1949933
  241. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1697&context=mwer
  242. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-right-to-search-students
  243. https://www.ecs.org/keeping-schools-safe-while-protecting-students-privacy/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.