Hubbry Logo
Bullying in teachingBullying in teachingMain
Open search
Bullying in teaching
Community hub
Bullying in teaching
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bullying in teaching
Bullying in teaching
Bullying in teaching
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

School teachers can be instigators of bullying within a school environment, and the subject of bullying by others.

Teachers bullying others

[edit]

According to an article,[weasel words] a high percentage of teachers admit that they bully their students.[1]

Students with learning disabilities may be especially at risk for teacher bullying.[2]

Others bullying teachers

[edit]

Comprehensive research carried out in the UK found that teaching was one of the occupations at highest risk from bullying:[3]

  • 15.5% of teachers stating they were currently being bullied
  • 35.4% saying they had been bullied over the last five years.

In another survey, the Economic and Social Research Institute found bullying to be more prevalent in schools (13.8%) than other workplaces (7.9%).[4]

A common manifestation of teacher bullying is staffroom bullying where teachers are bullied by other teachers or school managers.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

Complex dynamics

[edit]

There are complex issues with reporting bullying by teachers, not only for children, but also parents. By means of their position of power over the child, power that enables them to impact the child's present and future,[10] children and parents are reluctant to report.[11] There are specific signs that parents should watch for as their child is unlikely to disclose that the teacher is in fact the bully.[12]

Furthermore, a teacher who bullies may present as a Jekyll and Hyde figure: they are often celebrated and popular so their abuse can go on for long periods of time undetected.[13] Research on teachers in classrooms is lacking and it is unclear how much these activities go undetected or rewarded by teachers in the classroom. For coaches teaching a sport, it can be seen that adults are often rewarded for bullying conduct that would never be tolerated or condoned if done by a child.[14]

Parsons identifies teacher bullying as often being part of a wider bullying culture within a school, with a complex web of dynamics such as:[15]

  • Teachers may be bullied by: other teachers, students,[16] office staff, principals,[17] school governors or parents
  • Teachers may bully: other teachers, students[18] or parents
  • Teachers that bully others, may be subject to bullying, in return, from those they target

Manifestations

[edit]

In investigating teacher bullying, it is important to differentiate a teacher or coach who is demanding versus one who is demeaning. So "yelling" for instance can be highly productive and motivating, but if it involves belittling and is laced with putdowns, personal attacks, and insults, it becomes abusive.[19] Bullying by teachers can take many forms in order to harass and intimidate including:[20]

  • Swearing, or yelling, especially in close proximity to the child
  • Using homophobic, sexist,[21] racial slurs, or direct personal attacks, comments targeting a child's disability or difference
  • Humiliating
  • Berating
  • Ignoring or shunning
  • Throwing objects
  • Raging
  • Expressing disgust at the child through gestures or facial expressions
  • Muttering obscenities so only the targeted child or children hear
  • Hypocrisy (ex: telling a student not to say "well" despite using the same word while communicating)
  • Physical assault

Bullying of teachers can take many forms in order to harass and intimidate including:[22]

Bullies often exploit positions of seniority over the colleagues they are intimidating (see rankism) by:[22]

In some cases, teachers are ignored and isolated by colleagues in the staffroom or turned down for promotion or training courses (see silent treatment).[22] Other times, teachers are ostracized as whistleblowers when they report to administrators on students' reports of bullying being done by their colleagues.[23]

Impacts

[edit]

The power imbalance of teacher to student is greater than peer to peer and may well intensify the impact. The possible impacts on a child of bullying by teachers include:

"If bullying is performed by a person who is supposed to be a caregiver and a role model, it can be assumed that the consequences may be even more devastating for the exposed child" [25]

Notable incidents

[edit]

In April 2012, Stuart Chaifetz, a father of an autistic boy, released a video on YouTube[26] providing evidence that his son was allegedly the subject of emotional abuse at the hands of his teacher and aide at Horace Mann Elementary School, in the Cherry Hill Public Schools district.[27] The evidence was secured when Chaifetz wired his son with a microphone before sending him to school. When he listened to the audio recording, according to one news report, "Chaifetz says he caught his son's teachers gossiping, talking about alcohol and violently yelling at students. He took the audio to the Cherry Hill School District, where officials fired one of the teachers involved after hearing the tape. Chaifetz's son was relocated to a new school, where Chaifetz says he is doing well."[28][29] However, it appears that students with learning disabilities may be especially at risk for teacher bullying.[2]

In June 2014, Britain proposed the "Cinderella Law" which would put emotional abuse in the Criminal Code.[30]

[edit]

Teachers being portrayed as bullies have made into popular culture, along with works with teachers being bullied by other teachers, students, and even the principal.

Films

[edit]
  • Kids in America, a group of students with help from some teachers tries to stop their bully of a principal from becoming Superintendent, realizing the harm she can cause.
  • The Nutty Professor, The School Bully bullies the Professor.
  • Matilda, based on the novel of the same name, a student with psychokinesis helps her fellow students and a teacher to stop a cruel principal's reign of terror in the school.
  • The Breakfast Club, Principal Vernon is often seen as a bully to the students serving detention.
  • Mr. Woodcock, the film focuses on a man who is outraged that his former gym teacher, who bullied him and his classmates, is about to become his stepfather.
  • A Little Princess, the main character is the target of a corrupt principal at a boarding school.
  • The 400 Blows, Antoine Doinel is tormented by his insensitive teacher Guy Decomble.
  • Whiplash,[citation needed] Andrew Neiman is bullied by his abusive teacher Terence Fletcher.[31]

Books

[edit]
  • The Harry Potter series features bullying teachers, mainly Severus Snape and Dolores Umbridge.
  • British girls' comics often featured bully teachers and principals in serials and regular strips. Examples can be found in Wee Sue, The Girls of Liberty Lodge and The Four Friends at Spartan School, (Tammy), and Hard Times for Helen (Judy). Patsy on the Warpath (June) reversed the trend to show a teacher being bullied by toughs in her class.

TV

[edit]
  • iCarly: there have been episodes, like "IHave My Principals", where Ms. Francine Briggs and Mr. Howard clearly bully students, including the main characters, one of whom, Sam, is a bully herself. Mr. Devlin and Lauren Ackerman also bullied the students.
  • Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, Mr. Sweeney, a science teacher, appears to be evil until the third season, where he appears to reform himself to the point of saving his students from Vice Principal Harvey Crubbs, who also bullies the students, mainly the main characters.
  • Glee, Coach Bieste is bullied by staff, including Sue Sylvester and students.
  • Home and Away, Casey Braxton is bullied by Mr Dave Townsend in Summer Bay High.
  • The Simpsons episode, Black Eyed, Please, Lisa is bullied by a jealous substitute teacher, Miss Cantwell.
    • Later in episode Blazed and Confused, Bart is bullied by his cruel and sadistic new teacher, Mr. Jack Lassen, who shaves off the boy's hair in class.
  • Grange Hill (season four, episode four) Christopher Stewart is bullied by P.E. teacher Mr. Hicks, to the point of physical injury.

Music

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

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

Bullying in teaching

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bullying in teaching refers to the repeated, intentional misuse of an educator's positional authority to intimidate, humiliate, or harm students through verbal, relational, or physical means, exceeding appropriate classroom discipline and rooted in a inherent power imbalance. This phenomenon manifests in behaviors such as sarcastic ridicule, arbitrary punishment, exclusion from participation, or unwarranted physical contact, distinguishing it from isolated corrective actions. Empirical studies indicate prevalence rates varying widely from 2% to 40%, influenced by measurement criteria, cultural contexts, and self-reporting biases, with higher estimates in surveys capturing subtle relational aggression. Teacher undermines , correlating with elevated risks of depression, anxiety, substance use, and among victims, as well as broader disruptions like increased peer . Causally, it stems from educators' unmet needs for dominance or stress-induced lapses in self-regulation, often exacerbated by inadequate administrative oversight or professional burnout, though institutional reluctance to acknowledge it—due to toward —leads to underreporting and limited intervention . Defining characteristics include its covert nature in Western educational systems, where overt physical forms are rarer than psychological tactics, contrasting with higher physical prevalence in some non-Western contexts. Controversies arise from debates over distinguishing from firm , with evidence showing that unchecked teacher normalizes peer and erodes trust in educational institutions.

Definitions and Conceptual Framework

Defining Bullying in Educational Contexts

Bullying in educational contexts constitutes a systematic pattern of aggressive behavior intended to inflict physical, psychological, or relational harm on a victim who holds a perceived position of lesser power or ability to retaliate. Core elements include repetition over time, deliberate intent to harm, and an asymmetry of power, distinguishing it from isolated conflicts or mutual altercations. This framework originates from Dan Olweus's foundational work, which posits that occurs when an individual is exposed repeatedly to negative actions by one or more others, rendering difficult due to factors such as , , or numerical disadvantage. In school settings, manifestations span verbal taunts, physical assaults, , or cyber aggression, often exploiting unstructured environments like recess or platforms linked to academic life. Scholarly consensus, as reflected in psychological and literature, emphasizes that such behaviors erode victims' , academic performance, and long-term , with empirical studies documenting elevated risks of anxiety, depression, and among targeted students. While traditional definitions center on interactions, extensions in incorporate unidirectional aggression from authority figures, such as teachers employing sarcastic, belittling, or exclusionary tactics repeatedly against students, provided these exceed normative instruction or discipline. Power imbalances in educational bullying frequently align with institutional hierarchies, where perpetrators leverage age, size, popularity, or positional to perpetuate harm without immediate accountability. This causal dynamic underscores 's role as a microcosm of broader social dominance patterns, supported by longitudinal data showing persistence absent intervention. Definitions from bodies like the reinforce intentionality and victim vulnerability as prerequisites, rejecting one-off incidents as bullying regardless of severity. Empirical validation through victim self-reports and observer accounts highlights the need for contextual specificity, as cultural norms in schools can normalize subtle forms like , which erodes trust in educational .

Distinguishing Bullying from Discipline and Authority

Bullying by teachers toward students is characterized by repeated aggressive actions intended to cause harm, exploiting an inherent power imbalance, distinct from legitimate disciplinary measures aimed at enforcing rules or fostering behavioral improvement. Core criteria include (malice rather than correction), repetition over time, and disproportionate impact leading to distress or humiliation, as opposed to isolated, proportionate responses to misbehavior. For instance, a teacher repeatedly singling out a student for public ridicule without tying it to specific rule violations constitutes , whereas issuing a warning for disrupting class aligns with if it seeks compliance and is applied consistently. Discipline, in educational contexts, involves structured, rule-based interventions to maintain order and promote learning, grounded in the 's legitimate derived from institutional roles and . Such actions are typically reactive to verifiable infractions, proportional in response (e.g., detention for ), and documented to ensure fairness, lacking the personal animus or targeting seen in . Empirical analyses of perceived behaviors reveal a continuum: mild actions like temporary recess removal or raised voices during group management score as moderate or non- when contextually justified, while severe, repetitive tactics such as physical contact or derogatory labeling register as extreme due to their punitive excess. Authority exercise differs fundamentally from in its purpose and execution; it upholds boundaries for collective benefit without favoritism or vendettas, whereas weaponizes position for dominance, often evading oversight. Studies indicate that ambiguities arise when teachers rationalize harshness as "" or necessary control, but factorial assessments of behaviors confirm that patterns rooted in power —beyond reasonable limits—erode trust and correlate with reports of , with 64% of surveyed adults recalling at least one such incident in K-12 . Legal and ethical frameworks, such as those prohibiting actions causing undue distress, further delineate this by requiring to align with educational goals, not personal gratification. Distinguishing these requires evaluating through patterns: isolated corrections support learning, while recurrent targeting signals .

Forms and Directions of Bullying

Teacher Bullying of Students

Teacher bullying of students involves repeated aggressive actions by educators that exploit the inherent imbalance, such as , threats, or unfair punishment exceeding reasonable discipline, often manifesting as emotional or physical harm. This differs from standard , as it targets individual students persistently with intent to demean or control, akin to other forms of child maltreatment. Research identifies key behaviors including verbal disparagement, exclusion from activities, arbitrary grading penalties, or physical acts like shoving, with psychological tactics predominant in most cases. Prevalence estimates vary due to differing definitions and self-report methodologies, ranging from 0.6% in some Swedish samples to higher figures like 30% in Irish secondary schools, though frequent occurrences (weekly or more) are lower at around 1.2% in U.S. studies. In Norwegian surveys, 1.6% of students reported bullying two or more times monthly, while 5.1% of U.S. high schoolers noted it within the past year. Among students, 18% experienced at least once, with 51% witnessing it, often peaking in year and involving academic shaming or personal threats. Underreporting is common, as students fear retaliation or dismissal of complaints given the power dynamic. Contributing factors include teachers' low , unresolved personal histories of victimization, or workplace stressors that erode professional boundaries, leading to misuse of . Student vulnerabilities, such as behavioral issues or low , may heighten targeting, though institutional tolerance of unchecked exacerbates risks. Consequences for victims encompass elevated anxiety, depression, diminished , academic decline, and social withdrawal, with longitudinal data linking it to broader risk behaviors like substance use. These effects persist, underscoring the need for empirical validation beyond self-reports, as methodological inconsistencies in studies—such as reliance on student surveys without teacher corroboration—may inflate or understate true incidence.

Student Bullying of Teachers

Student bullying of teachers refers to repeated, intentional acts of aggression by one or more students directed at an educator, often involving a perceived power imbalance such as or disruption of authority. These acts can include verbal insults, , physical , or , distinguishing them from isolated disciplinary challenges by their pattern and intent to harm. Empirical studies define such behaviors through teacher self-reports or student admissions, emphasizing relational, verbal, and physical dimensions over one-off incidents. Prevalence varies by measurement and context, with teacher-reported rates consistently higher than student self-reports, suggesting potential underreporting by perpetrators or definitional differences. A of 23 studies involving 14,022 teachers across 13 countries found a pooled of 51.1% (95% CI [41.4%, 60.7%]) for teachers experiencing bullying over varying periods, ranging from 6% to 90.5% by study. In contrast, a of reports from 78,001 participants in seven studies yielded a lower pooled rate of 17.3% (95% CI [12.3%, 22.4%]), with country as a significant moderator (e.g., higher in some European samples). National surveys corroborate elevated teacher exposure: in a Lithuanian sample of 1,146 educators, 65.8% reported any victimization, including 51.0% verbal and 50.8% social forms; in a U.S. study of 6,643 pre-K-12 teachers, 57.9% experienced and 50% obscene remarks or gestures at least once. Common forms encompass verbal aggression (e.g., threats, insults, obscene gestures), social tactics (e.g., exclusion or rumors), physical acts (e.g., pushing, throwing objects, with 26.2% U.S. teachers reporting attacks), cyber harassment (12.8% in Lithuania), and sexual harassment (34.0% in Lithuania). Property-related offenses, such as theft (49.8%) or damage, also feature prominently, often escalating from verbal provocations. These behaviors peak in secondary schools, where student group dynamics amplify disruption, and less frequently involve weapons (1.5% in U.S. data). Peer-reviewed analyses highlight verbal forms as most pervasive, comprising over half of incidents in multiple samples. Victimization correlates with adverse outcomes for educators, including reduced (e.g., β = -0.179 for student in ), burnout, , and heightened turnover intentions. Longitudinal evidence links repeated exposure to stress, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic symptoms, and disturbances, impairing efficacy and retention. In structural models, student victimization mediates broader institutional effects on , with self-blame exacerbating psychological tolls. These impacts underscore causal pathways from unchecked to professional withdrawal, supported by multilevel analyses across contexts.

Bullying Among Educational Staff

Bullying among educational staff encompasses repeated, intentional acts of aggression by colleagues, such as teachers targeting fellow teachers or support personnel through , , or undermining professional efforts, aimed at exerting control or dominance. These behaviors often manifest in competitive environments where resources like assignments or administrative favor are limited, leading to covert tactics that evade formal oversight. Unlike student-teacher dynamics, staff-on-staff bullying is frequently underreported due to its nature and fear of retaliation, with perpetrators leveraging shared professional norms to mask hostility as "collegial ." Prevalence rates vary by measurement and context, but national surveys indicate significant exposure. In a study of U.S. public school teachers and support professionals, approximately 18% of teachers reported experiencing , compared to 14% among support staff, with no significant differences across demographic groups like or years of . Another analysis using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised found a 4.4% rate of weekly among employees, associating it with elevated job demands and insufficient resources. teachers report higher incidences, potentially due to intensified workloads and interdisciplinary tensions. These figures suggest is more pervasive in than in general workplaces, with some estimates indicating teachers face it three times more frequently. Common forms include , such as gossip, rumor-spreading, or deliberate exclusion from departmental decisions, alongside work interference like withholding information or sabotaging lesson preparations. Verbal tactics often involve sarcastic remarks about pedagogical methods or personal competence during staff meetings, while digital extensions occur via chains or critiques. In K-12 settings, these behaviors correlate with hierarchical strains, where senior staff impose undue scrutiny on juniors, exacerbating turnover intentions. Physical is rarer but documented in escalated conflicts over territory or scheduling. Contributing factors stem from institutional cultures prioritizing metrics over interpersonal , fostering zero-sum competitions for promotions or . High-stress conditions, including large class sizes and administrative pressures, amplify peer rivalries, while inadequate anti-bullying policies fail to address lateral dynamics distinct from vertical authority. Targets often exhibit traits like or , inviting reprisals from conformist colleagues. Empirical data links these patterns to broader , underscoring the need for targeted interventions beyond student-focused programs.

Administrative Bullying of Educators

Administrative bullying of educators encompasses repeated, intentional acts by school leaders, such as principals and superintendents, that undermine teachers' professional autonomy, psychological , and , often through of hierarchical rather than legitimate . These behaviors typically involve persistent negative actions, including excessive scrutiny, unfair evaluations, and isolation tactics, distinguishing them from routine oversight by their intent to harm or coerce compliance. Research identifies this as a form of prevalent in K-12 settings, where power imbalances enable administrators to target dissenting or experienced staff without immediate accountability. Prevalence data indicate that administrative bullying affects a substantial portion of educators, with one study of Texas K-12 teachers finding 92.5% reporting exposure to such behaviors from principals or assistant principals, based on the Negative Acts Questionnaire assessing frequency and severity. Broader surveys report 18% of U.S. teachers experiencing overall, with education professionals facing it at rates up to three times higher than other occupations, often implicating supervisory roles. In a sample of 324 K-12 respondents, 27.8% encountered bullying from infrequent to daily occurrences during the 2016-2017 year, while 41% witnessed at least one adult bullying incident, frequently involving administrative overreach. These figures underscore systemic vulnerabilities in hierarchies, where underreporting persists due to fears of retaliation. Common tactics include work-related pressures such as excessive monitoring (reported by 41% in one study), unmanageable workloads (70.7%), and unreasonable deadlines (56.5%), alongside personal attacks like persistent , exclusion from decisions (66% ignored opinions), and . Administrators may employ indirect methods, such as job redesign to assign undesirable tasks or heightened performance expectations to erode confidence, or direct via shouting and spontaneous anger. These align with documented patterns where principals foster environments of and isolation, exacerbating teacher distress without physical . Consequences for targeted educators involve moderate to severe psychological impacts, including elevated anxiety (mean score 2.41 on standardized scales), depression (2.42), and loss of professional confidence (2.70), correlating with social dysfunction and intentions to resign. Institutionally, this contributes to high turnover, reduced productivity, and financial costs from absenteeism and premature retirements, undermining educational quality. Empirical evidence links these outcomes to bullying's erosion of trust in leadership, prompting calls for policy reforms like anti-bullying statutes tailored to schools.

Causes and Risk Factors

Individual and Psychological Contributors

Teachers exhibiting high levels of , characterized by emotional , , and , demonstrate a stronger propensity for relational toward students, with neuroticism positively predicting such behaviors (β = 0.28, p < .001). This trait's influence intensifies under conditions of elevated or dissatisfaction, where interactions amplify incidence (p < .05 for both). Conversely, low , reflecting diminished and impulse regulation, independently correlates with higher rates (β = -0.15, p < .001), as such individuals may resort to aggressive tactics amid classroom challenges. A subset of bullying teachers displays sadistic tendencies, deriving gratification from humiliating targeted students, while others embody a "bully-victim" profile, often stemming from their own unresolved childhood victimization, which impairs boundary-setting and fosters retaliatory aggression. Low teacher self-efficacy further exacerbates risks, associating with escalated violent or coercive interactions, as educators with diminished confidence in managing disruptions perceive student behaviors through a lens of threat rather than opportunity for guidance. These patterns underscore how personal histories and cognitive attributions—such as normalizing punitive actions as legitimate discipline—blur ethical lines, enabling repetitive hostility under authority's cover. In the reverse dynamic of student-perpetrated bullying against teachers, individual psychological factors remain underexplored but link to emotional and behavioral difficulties (EBD) in perpetrators, heightening involvement in aggressive roles toward authority figures as an outlet for dysregulated impulses. Students with emerging antisocial traits, often predictive of later disorders, exhibit reduced inhibition against challenging educators, compounded by low and heightened externalizing symptoms that generalize defiance beyond peer contexts. Such contributors highlight a bidirectional where perpetrators' intrinsic deficits in emotional regulation perpetuate cycles of confrontation, though empirical data on this direction lags due to underreporting and institutional reluctance to acknowledge student agency in power imbalances.

Institutional and Cultural Drivers

Institutional hierarchies in educational settings often create power imbalances that enable by figures, such as teachers toward students or administrators toward educators, as these structures prioritize control and compliance over accountability and empathy. For instance, inadequate oversight mechanisms and vague disciplinary policies allow behaviors like excessive or favoritism to persist without consequence, fostering an environment where masquerades as routine . In teacher workplaces, factors such as poor administrative and lack of support exacerbate victimization, with surveys indicating that unsupportive principals correlate with higher rates of staff-on-staff , including exclusionary tactics and undue scrutiny. Lack of robust anti-bullying policies and programs within institutions further entrenches these issues; for example, schools without clear protocols for reporting administrative overreach report elevated stress and turnover linked to dynamics. and favoritism, embedded in organizational cultures, amplify perceptions of unfairness, prompting retaliatory or passive-aggressive behaviors among staff. In higher education contexts, political influences and power disparities interact with institutional inertia to sustain , as evidenced by analyses showing that unchecked hierarchies lead to environments tolerant of tactics against dissenting faculty. Cultural drivers stem from broader societal norms that either glorify authoritarian or erode for educational , contributing to bidirectional flows. In cultures emphasizing hierarchical obedience without reciprocal , teacher-to-student thrives through normalized verbal dominance or shaming, often rationalized as "" in under-resourced systems. Conversely, declining cultural reverence for teachers—fueled by media portrayals and familial attitudes—emboldens , with reports from U.S. schools noting increased defiance tied to permissive home environments that undermine institutional . Multicultural deficiencies in curricula exacerbate targeting of minority students or staff, as insufficient on diversity fosters in-group biases and exclusionary practices. School-wide cultural tolerances, such as acceptance of time-pressured environments that prioritize metrics over interpersonal relations, indirectly propel by straining teacher-student bonds and encouraging short-tempered responses. Unwelcoming institutional climates, characterized by perceived inequity, heighten overall risks, with empirical data from K-12 settings linking negative school to sustained victimization cycles across roles. These drivers interact causally: institutional rigidity amplifies cultural norms of or , perpetuating absent deliberate reforms like mandatory training and transparent accountability.

Manifestations and Behaviors

Verbal and Psychological Tactics

Verbal in educational settings encompasses the repeated use of derogatory language to demean, intimidate, or isolate targets, often exploiting power imbalances between teachers and students or among peers. Common tactics include name-calling, , cursing, and issuing threats, which can occur in classrooms or during interactions with authority figures. For instance, teachers have been documented yelling profanities such as telling students to "shut the up" or using words like "" and "" in class, behaviors adjudicated as abusive by professional discipline committees. Students perpetrating verbal against teachers similarly employ obscene remarks, insults, and threats, with surveys indicating verbal affects approximately 45% of educators. Psychological tactics extend beyond words to manipulative behaviors that erode self-esteem and foster fear or isolation, such as humiliation, exclusion from group activities, and intimidation through gestures or rumors. Teachers may humiliate students by mocking their performance, assigning undesired nicknames, or comparing them unfavorably to peers, with reported prevalence rates of 20.7% for humiliation and 8.8% for mocking in student surveys. These actions, including scaring students (28.6% prevalence) or discriminating against them (23.3%), exploit institutional authority to induce compliance or emotional distress. In reverse, students may psychologically target teachers through persistent exclusion from peer respect dynamics or spreading rumors that undermine professional credibility, though empirical data on such perpetrator-specific tactics remains less quantified compared to peer or teacher-initiated cases. Both verbal and psychological tactics often intersect, amplifying harm; for example, derogatory comments on appearance, such as weight remarks or racist slurs, combine with psychological . Homophobic or culturally insensitive remarks by teachers further exemplify this overlap, leading to adjudicated professional sanctions. underscores that these behaviors persist due to underreporting and inconsistent institutional responses, with verbal forms being the most frequently observed yet hardest to document empirically.

Physical and Digital Forms

Physical forms of in educational environments encompass direct acts of , including slapping, shoving, kicking, punching, or more severe assaults that cause . These manifestations often occur between and teachers or among staff, with increasingly directing physical violence toward educators. In the United States, 6% of public school teachers reported being threatened with by a during the 2020–21 year, while nearly 6% indicated they had been physically attacked by a . Post-pandemic surveys reveal heightened incidence, with 10.7% of teachers reporting physical assaults by and 35.2% experiencing verbal threats escalating to physical confrontations. Physical by teachers toward , though rarer in documented statistics due to legal prohibitions on in many jurisdictions, includes unauthorized or striking, often classified as rather than ; prevalence data remains sparse, with underreporting attributed to institutional protections for educators. Among educational staff, physical forms extend to altercations, such as shoving during conflicts over administrative decisions, but empirical quantification is limited compared to student-teacher dynamics. factors for physical escalation include overcrowded classrooms and lax disciplinary enforcement, leading to repeated incidents that undermine and ; for instance, one-third of teachers reported threats including in 2023 surveys. Digital forms of bullying, or , involve electronic means to harass, threaten, or humiliate targets, extending beyond hours via , emails, texts, or apps. Teachers frequently become victims, with one in seven reporting experiences, primarily through abusive emails (68%), texts (28%), or postings (26%). Common tactics include doxxing , creating fake accounts for impersonation, derogatory online reviews, or targeted trolling by students or parents. In Nepal-based studies, teachers encountered belittling comments, unethical requests, and sexual advances online, highlighting cross-cultural patterns in educator victimization. Digital harassment among staff may involve anonymous platforms for spreading rumors or threats related to promotions or evaluations, though data specific to this subgroup is emerging; broader academic surveys indicate rising abuse against faculty, including hate directed at styles or personal views. Unlike physical forms, digital bullying's persistence—content remaining accessible indefinitely—amplifies psychological impact, with victims often facing identity concealment by perpetrators, complicating intervention.

Prevalence and Statistics

Data on Student Victimization by Teachers and Peers

Peer victimization in schools, primarily involving from fellow , affects a substantial portion of . In the United States, surveys indicate that 19.2% of students aged 12-18 report experiencing by peers during the year, encompassing verbal, social, physical, or cyber forms. Globally, a of studies across multiple countries estimated the pooled prevalence of peer victimization at 25% (95% CI: 22%-28%) among adolescents, with higher rates in regions with weaker institutional safeguards. These figures derive from self-reported data in large-scale surveys, though underreporting may occur due to stigma or fear of , potentially underestimating true incidence. Teacher-perpetrated victimization, where educators misuse authority through repeated hostile actions like or unfair , is less prevalent but documented in . A 2024 analysis of over 100,000 U.S. high school students found 5.1% reported being by a teacher in the prior school year, comparable to peer bullying rates of 5.2% in the same sample but involving distinct power dynamics. In contexts, rates are lower; for instance, 1.2% of grades 7-8 students reported exclusive victimization by teachers or staff, versus 9.3% by peers alone. A 2022 scoping review of international studies reported wide variability in teacher-to-student prevalence, ranging from 0.6% to nearly 90%, attributable to differing definitions, measurement tools, and cultural contexts rather than uniform methodological rigor.
Victimization TypePrevalence EstimatePopulation/ScopeSource
Peer (U.S. students 12-18)19.2%National survey data
Peer (Global adolescents)25% (22%-28%)Meta-analysis of cross-national studies
(U.S. high school)5.1%100,000+ students, prior year
(Grades 7-8)1.2% (exclusive)School-based sample
Combined exposure to both teacher and peer victimization occurs in about 1-2% of cases in sampled , exacerbating risks compared to single-source , though data gaps persist in longitudinal tracking and non-Western settings. Self-report biases and inconsistent operational definitions across studies, particularly in academic literature prone to expansive interpretations of "bullying," warrant caution in cross-study comparisons.

Data on Teacher and Staff Victimization

A of U.S. teachers from 2016 to 2019, involving over 1,600 participants initially, found that only 17% reported no victimization by students across four annual waves, with affecting approximately 45% of respondents and physical s impacting 5-8%. In wave 3 (2018), 7% of 1,044 current teachers reported physical , of which 74% notified school officials, though only 21% involved police reports. A 2022 national survey of 2,998 K-12 teachers revealed that 80% had experienced at least one form of victimization, encompassing , , and other non-physical , underscoring the ubiquity of such incidents in U.S. schools. Complementing this, a 2018 of teacher-reported estimated a pooled of 53% for any type, with rates varying from 20% to 75% across studies depending on timeframe and definition, often higher over career spans (up to 56%). In a 2023 survey of approximately 4,000 middle and high teachers from the 50 largest U.S. districts, exposure to student-perpetrated physical attacks was rated as serious or very serious by 48% of victims, threats or by 25%, and by 25%, with and traditional also frequently cited as severe by 36% and 31%, respectively. among teachers and staff, typically involving colleagues or administrators, exhibits lower direct victimization rates than student aggression but remains prevalent. A 2016 analysis of job demands-resources data from employees reported a 4.4% of experiences. More recent cross-sectional research from 2024 indicated that 42% of to higher education teachers had witnessed behaviors among colleagues, though self-reported direct targeting was less quantified. At the level, a 2022 study found 33% of faculty perceived severe , correlating with reduced performance.
Type of VictimizationApproximate Prevalence (Student-Perpetrated)Source
45%NIJ Longitudinal (2016-2019)
Physical Assault5-8% (annual); 7% in 2018 waveNIJ Longitudinal
Any (Pooled)53% (2018)
Overall Victimization80% (at least one incident)National Survey (2022)
These figures highlight student aggression as the dominant vector, with dynamics contributing additionally, though underreporting persists due to inconsistent definitions and of across studies. In 2023, the Trends in International and Study reported a rise in -perceived from 2019 levels, with 56% of 4th graders and over 60% of 8th graders across participating countries experiencing at least one form of weekly, attributed partly to disrupted social norms post-COVID-19. This increase contrasted with U.S. data showing overall at 19% in 2021-22, down from 28% in 2010-11, though electronic affected 22% of victims, with higher rates among females. Teacher-perpetrated specifically impacted 5.1% of U.S. high s in recent surveys, correlating with elevated behaviors like substance use, independent of peer effects. Cyberbullying trends escalated in 2023-2024, with 26.5% of U.S. teens reporting victimization in the prior 30 days, up from 23.2% in , often involving school-related platforms and amplifying oversight challenges. For educator victimization, post-2023 reports documented surges in student-directed aggression, including verbal threats; in schools, 95% of elementary s faced physical or verbal in 2022-23, rising from 62% in 2017-18, with 80% encountering multiple incidents. U.S. surveys echoed this, with 65% of s reporting verbal by students in 2023-24, fueling burnout rates of 44% among K-12 educators. Administrative and colleague-perpetrated against teachers showed limited quantitative trends but persistent qualitative escalation; a 2023 study linked to doubled fatigue odds among school staff, with gender moderating vulnerability. By 2025, professional associations noted adult-on-adult dynamics, including principal-led exclusion, as key drivers of attrition, with U.K. investigations revealing widespread affecting over 300 educators surveyed in 2024. These patterns suggest underreporting due to institutional fears, though empirical gaps persist beyond regional violence proxies.

Impacts and Consequences

Effects on Victims

Victims of bullying by teachers, primarily students, experience heightened risks of psychological distress, including elevated levels of anxiety, depression, and diminished . A scoping review of studies on teacher-perpetrated bullying identified consistent adverse effects on , with victims reporting increased emotional turmoil and reduced participation in activities due to and . Empirical data from adolescent samples further link teacher bullying to these outcomes, often more severely when combined with peer victimization, as from parents or friends partially mitigates but does not eliminate the impact. Academically, teacher bullying correlates strongly with reduced , lower engagement, and poorer performance, distinct from peer bullying's broader health effects. In longitudinal analyses of adolescents aged 12-14, victims showed decreased school and learning interest preceding and concurrent with bullying exposure, alongside links to inferior grades and diminished academic potential. Amotivation serves as a key mediator, explaining how teacher-inflicted relational or undermines achievement, with college retrospective reports confirming persistent associations even after controlling for peer dynamics. Behaviorally, such victimization fosters concurrent increases in peer involvement and disbonding, potentially escalating to delinquent actions in later . Verbal abuse, reported by up to 17% of boys and 5% of girls at least twice monthly in Austrian samples, predicts heightened behavioral issues and reduced adult support over time. Physical repercussions, though less directly quantified in teacher-specific studies, manifest through responses akin to general victimization, including somatic complaints and heightened risk for substance use or other risk behaviors in high school contexts. Long-term consequences persist into adulthood, with early teacher bullying eroding relational trust and school bonding, contributing to sustained psychological vulnerabilities and academic setbacks. Transactional patterns observed in multi-wave data indicate that initial low , like adult support, exacerbate ongoing exposure, underscoring the causal role of authority-based in perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.

Effects on Perpetrators and Educational Outcomes

Perpetrators of in educational settings, including both and teachers, often face personal and professional repercussions that can exacerbate their behavioral patterns. Student bullies exhibit heightened risks for long-term antisocial outcomes, such as increased likelihood of psychiatric disorders, , and criminal convictions in adulthood, based on longitudinal data from over 1,400 participants tracked from age 8 to 32. These individuals also demonstrate poorer peer over time, with elevated rejection risks despite short-term popularity gains, as evidenced in studies of over 3,000 adolescents. For teachers engaging in bullying behaviors toward students—such as verbal or excessive —consequences typically include administrative investigations, suspension, or termination, with severe cases leading to legal charges and revocation of teaching credentials, though empirical data on prevalence remains limited due to underreporting. Bullying perpetration correlates with diminished academic performance among student perpetrators, who experience significant school adjustment difficulties, including lower motivation and engagement, mirroring some victim outcomes. Teacher perpetrators indirectly contribute to their own professional undermining, as unchecked behaviors erode classroom authority and invite scrutiny from school policies, potentially leading to career stagnation. Educational outcomes suffer broadly from bullying dynamics, with chronic exposure—whether from peers or teachers—linked to reduced GPA, lower scores, and decreased school participation across affected cohorts. In a study of 388 children, 24% experiencing persistent showed consistently poorer and greater likelihood of grade repetition or dropout. Teacher-to-student specifically amplifies these effects, fostering school avoidance and academic disengagement, as documented in reviews of multiple international studies where victimized students reported heightened achievement barriers. Overall, pervasive disrupts learning environments, contributing to higher rates—up to 20-30% in high-incidence schools—and long-term systemic underperformance.

Systemic and Long-Term Ramifications

Bullying within educational settings, including instances perpetrated by teachers, undermines the overall efficacy of systems by fostering environments of fear and disengagement, which in turn elevate chronic rates and diminish institutional funding tied to metrics. , for example, states like incurred an estimated $276 million in lost per-pupil funding in a single year due to students avoiding amid bullying-related concerns. This perpetuates cycles of academic underachievement, as victims exhibit sustained deficits in performance and motivation, straining resources allocated for remedial interventions and . Over time, such dynamics contribute to higher dropout rates and reduced systemic productivity, with longitudinal data indicating that early exposure correlates with poorer adaptation to educational demands persisting into adulthood. On a societal scale, the ramifications extend to elevated economic burdens through diminished participation and increased expenditures on and . Frequent childhood , inclusive of teacher-involved cases, has been linked to long-term reductions in probability and earnings, with effects measurable up to 50 years later, imposing higher societal costs for support among men and healthcare utilization among women. In , the cumulative cost of across a single student cohort over 13 years of schooling reached AUD$525 million, encompassing lost productivity, treatments, and justice system involvement. Teacher-perpetrated exacerbates these outcomes by eroding students' sense of institutional support, leading to behavioral issues and disengagement that forecast future delinquency and aggressive patterns, thereby amplifying demands on correctional and welfare systems. Long-term systemic inertia arises from unaddressed normalizing hierarchical abuses within , potentially entrenching intergenerational transmission where victimized students internalize maladaptive responses, such as social withdrawal or perpetration, that impair community cohesion and civic participation. Peer-reviewed analyses reveal that 's health sequelae, including chronic inflammation and elevated PTSD risk, persist into midlife, correlating with broader societal strains like reduced innovation capacity and heightened inequality in development. When teachers engage in or overlook such behaviors, it compounds institutional , deterring qualified educators and fostering , as evidenced by patterns of inadequate responses that sustain victimization cycles rather than disrupt them. These entrenched effects underscore 's role as a structural , with empirical models projecting compounded losses in equivalents from foregone educational yields.

Prevention and Intervention

School Policies and Training Programs

Schools establish anti-bullying policies that typically define prohibited behaviors, including or by staff toward students, and mandate reporting mechanisms for violations. These policies often draw from state laws, such as New York's Dignity for All Students Act of 2010, which requires districts to adopt guidelines prohibiting , , and bullying by employees and students alike, with procedures for complaints and investigations. Similarly, federal resources recommend clear rules enforced through consistent consequences, emphasizing staff accountability to deter teacher-perpetrated bullying, though enforcement relies on administrative oversight which varies by district. All 50 U.S. states have enacted anti-bullying statutes primarily targeting student conduct, but many extend protections against staff misconduct, enabling immediate intervention like suspension or termination for verified teacher violations. Teacher training programs form a core component of these policies, focusing on recognition, intervention, and prevention of dynamics, including self-reflection on authoritative behaviors that could escalate to . Evidence-based curricula like the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), implemented since the 1980s and validated in randomized trials, provide two-day training sessions for educators on research, strategies, and fostering , resulting in reported reductions of 20-50% in incidents in participating schools. Programs such as Second Step Bullying Prevention Unit equip K-5 teachers with skills for conflict resolution and relationship-building, with evaluations showing improved student social-emotional outcomes and decreased victimization rates by up to 25% in trained settings. Steps to Respect, another validated approach, trains staff to enhance responsiveness and promote prosocial norms, yielding 10-20% drops in observed through pre- and post-implementation surveys. Empirical reviews indicate moderate effectiveness of policy-integrated , with a Cochrane of 69 school-based interventions finding small but significant reductions in self-reported (odds ratio 0.88) and victimization, particularly when emphasizes active supervision and consistent rule enforcement. However, outcomes depend on fidelity; incomplete implementation or lack of follow-up often limits long-term impact, as seen in studies where initial gains dissipated without sustained . For victimization by students, policies increasingly incorporate staff reporting protocols, but a 2024 notes that only 21% of verbal or physical aggressions against educators prompt police involvement, highlighting gaps in protective measures despite on .
ProgramKey Training ElementsEvidence of Effectiveness
Olweus Bullying Prevention ProgramResearch on bullying dynamics; intervention strategies; school-wide rule-setting20-50% reduction in incidents per school trials
Second Step Bullying Prevention UnitEmpathy-building; conflict skills for K-5; teacher modelingUp to 25% decrease in victimization
Steps to RespectStaff responsiveness; prosocial norm reinforcement10-20% bullying drop in evaluations
In the United States, no comprehensive federal law specifically prohibits , including instances perpetrated by teachers; however, such conduct may intersect with federal civil rights statutes like of the , which addresses discriminatory harassment in educational settings, potentially encompassing teacher-on-student based on protected characteristics. State-level predominates, with all 50 states and the District of Columbia requiring public schools to adopt anti- policies by 2023, many of which explicitly cover by school employees and mandate reporting, investigation, and disciplinary procedures for staff misconduct. For example, law defines to include actions by staff and requires districts to implement prevention programs and procedures for addressing off-campus with school impact, while teacher behaviors like name-calling or physical intimidation have been deemed emotional abuse warranting termination in documented cases. These policies often emphasize documentation, chain-of-command reporting, and potential referral for severe incidents, though enforcement varies due to reliance on rather than uniform penalties. Empirical approaches to prioritize teacher training and behavioral interventions, as studies indicate teachers intervene in only 4-18% of observed incidents without targeted support, underscoring the need for structured programs to enhance . A 2020 randomized controlled trial of the Bullying Classroom Check-Up, a intervention for teachers, demonstrated short-term improvements in and reduced perpetration among coached participants by the end of the first year, though long-term requires further evaluation. Psychoeducational programs for teachers, such as those focusing on recognition and response strategies, have shown positive effects on teachers' perceptions, intervention rates, and prevention behaviors, with one 2022 study reporting enhanced dealing with post-training. Meta-analyses of school-wide anti- initiatives, including those targeting teacher , reveal modest overall reductions in perpetration (approximately 18-19%) and victimization, particularly when programs incorporate teacher training on empathy-building and consistent rule enforcement, though effects diminish without ongoing reinforcement. Tiered intervention frameworks, drawing from multi-tiered systems of support, emphasize universal to foster proactive monitoring alongside targeted responses for at-risk educators or incidents, with evidence from research linking support to buffered victimization impacts. Policy evaluations suggest high-quality anti-bullying policies correlate with lower verbal and physical victimization rates, but implementation fidelity—often challenged by resource constraints and teacher workload—critically determines outcomes, as pre- and post-policy studies show no significant perceptual shifts without active . These approaches, while empirically grounded, highlight causal limitations: interventions succeed most when addressing root behavioral drivers like unchecked rather than solely reactive measures, with cost-benefit analyses indicating gains outweigh per-student expenses in effective programs.

Controversies and Debates

Discipline Versus Abuse: Conceptual Overlaps

Discipline in educational settings refers to structured interventions by teachers aimed at correcting student behavior to foster learning and maintain order, such as verbal corrections, timeouts, or, where legally permitted, moderate corporal punishment that does not intend injury. In contrast, abuse involves actions that cause physical or emotional harm beyond reasonable correction, including repeated humiliation, manipulation, or excessive punishment that exploits the teacher's authority. Conceptual overlaps arise when disciplinary measures blur into abusive patterns, particularly through subjective perceptions of intent and severity; for instance, a firm verbal reprimand intended to enforce rules may be interpreted as bullying if it targets a student's vulnerabilities or occurs repeatedly without constructive follow-up. Empirical research highlights how punitive disciplinary practices can inadvertently model aggressive behaviors, leading to overlaps with teacher bullying, defined as power imbalances used to disparage or control students beyond standard procedures. A 2022 scoping review identified teacher bullying as encompassing actions like unwarranted public shaming or inconsistent rule enforcement, which share traits with discipline—such as authority assertion—but deviate by lacking pedagogical purpose and causing undue distress. Studies further indicate that strict school structures emphasizing punishment over positive reinforcement correlate with higher rates of teacher-to-student aggression, where moral disengagement by educators rationalizes harsh actions as "necessary discipline," obscuring abusive elements. Legal definitions exacerbate these overlaps by permitting "reasonable" physical in certain U.S. states while prohibiting non-accidental serious , creating in application; for example, over 160,000 students received in public schools annually as of recent data, with disparities in classification between corrective paddling and abuse often hinging on post-hoc investigations rather than clear . Perceptions among teachers and administrators vary, with some surveys showing under-detection of maltreatment due to conflating it with routine , particularly in cultural contexts where firm is normalized. This misclassification risks pathologizing effective boundary-setting while overlooking genuine abuses masked as enforcement, as evidenced by cases where isolated punitive acts escalate into patterns of disparagement without empirical thresholds for differentiation. To delineate overlaps, frameworks emphasize criteria like proportionality, documentation, and outcomes: aligns with prosocial goals and de-escalates , whereas persists despite ineffectiveness and amplifies , such as through that undermines student self-worth. Peer-reviewed analyses caution that anti-bullying interventions often fail to address these nuances, potentially stigmatizing teachers' legitimate and inflating reports in ideologically driven narratives, though data from mandatory reporting systems underscore the need for objective metrics to prevent both under- and over-punishment of educators.

False Accusations and Due Process Failures

False accusations of against teachers, often arising from student claims of verbal , unfair , or emotional , represent a significant in educational settings. Surveys indicate that 22% of teachers have encountered false allegations from pupils, with motivations including retaliation for enforcing rules or personal grudges. Similarly, 56% of administrators report awareness of false claims within their districts, highlighting the of unsubstantiated accusations that can mirror reports. One in seven male teachers faces false claims of inappropriate behavior, which frequently overlaps with allegations due to subjective interpretations of classroom . These accusations trigger immediate consequences, such as removal from duties and , even prior to verification. In cases where educators are later exonerated, the psychological toll persists; one study of cleared teachers described prolonged stress, disruption, and following false claims, a category that includes bullying-related . For instance, a teacher exonerated of student complaints sued accusing parents for after enduring suspension and public scrutiny, illustrating how unproven bullying claims can lead to punishment. Due process failures exacerbate these issues, as schools often prioritize swift action to avoid liability or backlash over rigorous collection. Common procedural lapses include inadequate notice of allegations, failure to witnesses promptly, and reliance on accuser statements without corroboration, violating tenets of fair hearing requirements for tenured staff. In the U.S., protections for teachers vary by state, but preliminary suspensions frequently occur without full hearings, presuming guilt in high-stakes accusations like to comply with anti-harassment policies. Such shortcuts, driven by institutional fears of litigation or media exposure, result in wrongful terminations; anecdotal from educator legal defenses notes cases where claims led to dismissal absent forensic review of motives like student behavioral issues. Empirical underscores systemic vulnerabilities: false claims rise in environments with lax verification, contributing to educator attrition and eroded . Reforms advocate for mandatory independent investigations and accuser accountability to balance with educator rights, though implementation remains inconsistent across districts.

Biases in Reporting and Cultural Narratives

Reporting of perpetrated by s against students is systematically underreported, with school districts often withholding data on such incidents despite legal obligations for transparency. For instance, in , multiple districts refused to disclose records of cases to inquiries in 2024, citing exemptions or delays that obscured the extent of the problem. This reluctance stems from institutional incentives to protect reputations and avoid litigation, as schools face financial and administrative burdens when misconduct is publicized; in , districts have charged thousands of dollars for access to misconduct records as of 2025, effectively deterring . Teachers' unions exacerbate underreporting by prioritizing member defense over victim accountability, often shielding educators accused of abuse through protracted grievance processes and legal support. A 2012 analysis documented how union contracts in major districts like New York City enabled abusive teachers to remain employed by complicating dismissal procedures, even in cases of verified sexual predation or physical harm. Similarly, a 2023 congressional report highlighted unions' role in downplaying K-12 sexual abuse spikes, with collective bargaining agreements delaying terminations and relocating offenders rather than removing them. These defenses, while framed as safeguarding due process, result in repeated offenses; for example, undercover investigations revealed union representatives advising simulated abusive teachers on evasion tactics. Such practices reflect a causal prioritization of labor protections over child safety, contributing to empirical estimates of teacher-inflicted emotional abuse affecting 2-66% of students, yet rarely quantified in official statistics due to suppressed reporting. Cultural narratives in media and academia further perceptions by framing as presumptively benevolent, minimizing overlaps between and . Mainstream reporting disproportionately emphasizes peer-to-peer or student-initiated —often through identity-based lenses—while sidelining perpetration, as evidenced by scoping reviews showing limited prospective studies on educator despite its in retrospective student accounts. This selective focus aligns with institutional biases in research, where academia's alignment with interests underemphasizes systemic failures like union-enabled , potentially influenced by shared ideological commitments that view critiques of s as attacks on equity. Consequently, narratives portray underreporting as mere definitional ambiguity rather than deliberate obfuscation, as noted in inspections where stakeholders struggled to classify behaviors like verbal as to avoid implicating staff. Empirical data counters this by linking unreported to heightened student withdrawal and long-term declines, underscoring the need for skepticism toward sources that normalize abuses under guises of pedagogical necessity.

Notable Cases

Historical Incidents

One prominent historical incident involving severe corporal punishment by school authorities occurred on October 6, 1970, at Charles R. Drew Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. Fourteen-year-old student James Ingraham and a classmate were slow to leave the school stage after an assembly, prompting Assistant Principal Solomon Barnes to order them paddled for tardiness. Ingraham was held down by the principal and another administrator while Barnes struck him over 200 times with a 2-foot-long paddle, causing a severe hematoma on his buttocks that required hospitalization, cortisone treatments, and three weeks of missed school; the other student received fewer strikes but also sustained injuries. The case, , escalated through the courts, reaching the U.S. in 1977. Ingraham's parents sued, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to the punishment's cruelty and lack of prior notice or hearing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of such in public schools, ruling it neither "cruel and unusual" under the Eighth Amendment nor requiring under the Fourteenth, as traditional common-law remedies like suits were deemed sufficient safeguards against abuse. Powell's emphasized deference to local educators' disciplinary , distinguishing it from criminal proceedings. This ruling reinforced historical norms of teacher-administered physical discipline prevalent in American schools since the colonial era, where tools like ferules and switches were routinely used, though it drew dissents from Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, who argued it risked unchecked excess. Earlier precedents reflect similar patterns of authority-driven physical coercion. In 1846, Canadian schoolteacher Charlotte Bodwell faced charges of cruelty in Oxford County after excessively whipping Robert McCue's child, highlighting early legal scrutiny of disproportionate amid one-room schoolhouse practices common in the . Such incidents underscore a historical continuum where s wielded unchecked power, often blurring discipline with intimidation, prior to modern anti-bullying frameworks distinguishing punitive excess from educational correction.

Contemporary Examples

In 2023, a teacher at Lake Mountain Middle School in the , Brandon Beckstead, was disciplined for racially targeted verbal bullying after referring to an Asian student as "," projecting the dictator's image in class, and making related derogatory comments. He received a written directive, two days of paid , and a warning letter from the State (USBE). A FOX 13 News investigation published in October 2024 revealed dozens of verified incidents of teacher-on-student bullying across Utah school districts from 2022 to 2024, often involving physical force or verbal intimidation, with outcomes ranging from reprimands to terminations based on public records and USBE actions. Examples include Jeffrey Clatterbuck at Salt Lake Center for Science Education-Bryant Middle School, who in January 2023 pushed a student and held them by the neck, resulting in his termination; and Alan Crookston at Northwest and Clayton Middle Schools, who from 2022 to 2024 body-shamed a student and made racist remarks, leading to a four-year USBE license suspension in September 2024. Other cases documented physical acts such as grabbing, shoving, and dragging students, with districts like Jordan, Canyons, and Weber issuing probations or accepting resignations in lieu of firing. In November 2024, a staff member at Saline Middle School in was removed from employment following accusations of students in a second-bell art class through harassing notes, initially investigated as peer conflict before staff involvement was confirmed. The incident prompted a police probe, with a warrant request forwarded to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office for potential criminal charges, highlighting parental concerns over the district's initial minimization of the issue. August 2025 reports from Gainesville High School in detailed a teacher placed on leave amid allegations raised by a , prompting Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to demand the educator's firing and teaching certificate revocation, underscoring demands for stricter accountability in cases blurring discipline and .

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4722861/
  2. https://scholars.indianastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2273&context=etds
  3. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/context/psychology_dissertations/article/1047/type/native/viewcontent
  4. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/high-school-teacher-bullying-and-student-risk-behavior
  5. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2824%2900237-4/fulltext
  6. https://www.uis.no/en/research/teachers-bullying-children-a-global-problem
  7. https://proctor.gse.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/Who%2520Is%2520the%2520Real%2520Bully_%2520Brief%2520%25283%2529%2520%25281%2529.pdf
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9486699/
  9. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42380-024-00273-2
  10. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2824%2900292-1/fulltext
  11. https://clemsonolweus.org/bullyinginfo.php
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10112998/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441930/
  14. https://www.apa.org/education-career/k12/bullying
  15. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42380-022-00131-z
  16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740
  17. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/defining-school-bullying-and-its-implications-education-teachers-and-learners
  18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ988197.pdf
  19. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(24)00237-4/fulltext
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392329740_Meta-Analysis_of_Teachers%27_Personal_Experiences_of_Student_Bullying
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391327562_Meta-Analysis_of_Students_Report_of_Bullying_Against_Teachers
  22. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/2/163
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11890184/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11952076/
  25. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1306959
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4235229/
  27. https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2016/08000/Workplace_Bullying_Among_Teachers__An_Analysis.12.aspx
  28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08884064211015698
  29. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5093&context=open_etd
  30. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-36833-008
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19932820.2023.2266239
  32. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=slr
  33. https://www.dignitytogether.org/blog/study-says-teachers-experience-workplace-bullying-more-than-3x-as-often-as-other-workers
  34. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/psychology_dissertations/article/1047/type/native/&path_info=
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X23002998
  36. https://www.ijopr.com/article/students-bullying-teachers-understanding-and-behavior-of-college-students-from-a-higher-education-6401
  37. https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1387&context=jri
  38. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajcp.12202
  39. https://ijssrr.com/journal/article/download/1942/1464/
  40. https://www.rochester.edu/warner/cues/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/bullying_FINAL.pdf
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374022000541
  42. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00313831.2020.1761446
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9596519/
  44. https://ejnpn.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41983-022-00449-x
  45. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1267777.pdf
  46. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/many-teachers-are-victimized-students-and-schools-response-matters-their-well-being
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5353035/
  48. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a05/teacher-attacked-by-students
  49. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/violence-threats-and-harassment-are-taking-a-toll-on-teachers-survey-shows/2022/03
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11927438/
  51. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/teaching-turmoil-growing-threat-student-outbursts
  52. https://www.teachingtimes.com/cyber-bullying-teachers/
  53. https://studentprivacycompass.org/let-teachers-be-concerns-about-the-online-harassment-of-teachers-and-practical-tips-for-self-protection/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9027022/
  55. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-021-00787-4
  56. https://www.fastvue.co/fastvue/blog/cyberbullying-in-2025-a-guide-for-educators/
  57. https://www.pacer.org/bullying/info/stats/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032725008821
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874513/
  60. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(24)00292-1/fulltext
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35383978/
  62. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-33716-001
  63. https://hcap.utsa.edu/documents/criminal-justice/victimization-preliminary-results.pdf
  64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27305842/
  65. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/11/1175
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363226160_Workplace_Bullying_in_Relation_to_Teacher%27s_Performance_at_the_University_Level
  67. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/look-new-timss-data-bullying-and-learning
  68. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=719
  69. https://whsc.on.ca/What-s-new/News-Archive/Ontario-schools-grapple-with-escalating-workplace-violence-report-finds
  70. https://research.com/education/teacher-burnout-challenges-in-k-12-and-higher-education
  71. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/help-im-educator-and-im-being-bullied
  72. https://news.sky.com/story/i-was-called-curry-lover-and-humiliated-by-other-teachers-the-toxic-truth-about-staffroom-bullying-13238729
  73. https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/42032/1/Teacher%2520and%2520Peer%2520Bullying%2520and%2520Impact%2520on%2520Victims%25E2%2580%2599%2520Mental%2520Health-%2520Does%2520Social%2520Support%2520Help%2520.pdf
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11218-024-09931-1
  75. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/psychology_theses/113/
  76. https://journalistsresource.org/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10092515/
  78. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-consequences-for-teachers-who-are-caught-bullying-students-or-other-teachers-Do-they-get-fired-or-what-happens-to-them
  79. https://deconstructingstigma.org/guides/bullying-kids-teens
  80. https://spanadvocacy.org/download/teachers-who-bully-students-patterns-and-policy-implications/
  81. https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/effects
  82. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/01/school-bullying
  83. https://www.eschoolnews.com/sel/2024/04/04/bullying-k-12-student-absenteeism/
  84. https://news.utexas.edu/2017/06/29/bullying-bias-can-cost-schools-millions-in-lost-funding/
  85. https://www.aaets.org/traumatic-stress-library/the-long-term-effects-of-bullying
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4552909/
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624001345
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29803971/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212657021000283
  90. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/23482/toolkit/teachers/teachers.pdf
  91. https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news-listing/bullying-may-have-long-term-health-consequences
  92. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/trauma-stressor-related-disorders/effects-being-bullied-harassed
  93. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4886884
  94. https://www.p12.nysed.gov/dignityact/documents/FINALDignityForAllStudentsActGuidanceDec2017.pdf
  95. https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/rules
  96. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/bullying-laws
  97. https://www.cde.state.co.us/mtss/bullyingpreventionprograms
  98. https://teachercertification.com/teacher-certification/preventing-bullying-for-teachers/
  99. https://www.secondstep.org/bullying-prevention
  100. https://www.all4healthfl.org/promisepractice/index/view?pid=981
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356322/
  102. https://www.stopbullying.gov/blog/2022/09/12/school-based-anti-bullying-interventions-work
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5363950/
  104. https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws
  105. https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws/texas
  106. https://www.pullcom.com/education-law-notes/when-the-teacher-is-the-school-bully
  107. https://www.graduateprogram.org/blog/how-to-handle-and-mitigate-teacher-bullying/
  108. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1364221.pdf
  109. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/anti-bullying-intervention-teachers-shows-positive-short-term-outcomes
  110. https://mecp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43045-022-00212-1
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022440520300753
  112. https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/research-resources/mtss-prevention-approaches-and-effective-intervention
  113. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.20230541
  114. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-022-01666-6
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3805039/
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11132461/
  117. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883750/full
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5766273/
  119. https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/definitions-child-abuse-and-neglect-washington/
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9908805/
  121. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4359&context=dissertations
  122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1078993.pdf
  123. https://www.pa.gov/agencies/pspc/content-pages/educator-discipline-system-and-mandatory-reporting
  124. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/30/one-in-five-school-staff-victims-of-false-claims-survey-shows
  125. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/concerns-about-allegations-child-sexual-abuse-against-teachers-and
  126. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918863
  127. https://theconversation.com/false-child-abuse-allegations-take-a-heavy-toll-on-teachers-22101
  128. https://www.denverpost.com/2013/10/14/cleared-of-charges-teacher-sues-accusing-parents/
  129. https://www.duffylawct.com/what-are-the-most-common-procedural-errors-made-by-schools-in-their-disciplinary-processes/
  130. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/due-process-laws-vary-for-teachers-by-state/2014/09
  131. https://kdlawgroup.com/blog/2022/04/understanding-why-teachers-are-targeted-for-false-abuse-claims/
  132. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367266366_Causes_of_The_Alarming_Rise_of_False_Sexual_Allegations_Against_Teachers_in_South_African_Schools
  133. https://www.masterlylegal.com/how-to-protect-yourself-from-false-accusations-in-the-classroom
  134. https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/multiple-school-districts-fail-to-provide-teacher-bullying-data-to-public
  135. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/schools-wisconsin-charge-big-money-teacher-misconduct-records
  136. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443437504577547313612049308
  137. https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409216
  138. https://laborpains.org/2016/06/21/exposed-local-teachers-union-protects-abusive-teacher/
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7418861/
  140. https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-teachers-unions-and-bureaucracy-often-fail-to-protect-students/
  141. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65389485
  142. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X24001963
  143. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-6527
  144. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/651/
  145. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/651
  146. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&context=jled
  147. https://archives.oxfordcounty.ca/blog-archive/1800s-corporal-punishment-in-rural-schools/
  148. https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/database-heres-the-list-of-disciplined-teachers-fox-13-has-found-so-far
  149. https://www.wxyz.com/news/school-employee-accused-of-bullying-no-longer-working-at-saline-middle-school
  150. https://www.wcjb.com/2025/08/22/gainesville-high-school-teacher-leave-after-bullying-allegations-mom-voices-frustration/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.