How do preschool to year 6 educators prevent and cope with occupational violence from students?

Abstract

Student violence directed at school educators appears to be increasing, thus it is important to identify practical strategies that educators use to prevent and cope with occupational violence. This observational study surveyed 369 government primary school staff in the Australian Capital Territory. Sixty per cent of respondents reported abusive language, 42% physical aggression, and 43% experienced other threatening behaviour from students at least weekly. More than one-third of respondents rated the impact of these experiences as moderate or higher. The most effective prevention strategies, according to respondents, were the educator’s response to the threat, focusing on the student’s needs, working collaboratively, and using antecedent control. The most effective coping strategies were debriefing, self-care, and work support. The most helpful sources of support were workplace colleagues, partners, school leaders, and friends. This study offers a solution-focused perspective about what works in preventing and coping with occupational violence from educators’ points of view.

Keywords

Teacher welfare teacher stress student violence staff development prevention coping

Introduction

School educators support the learning of all students, including those with complex challenging behaviours, which can lead to physically and psychologically dangerous situations. Globally, there has been an increase in student-perpetrated violence against educators, with this violence having a negative impact on educators’ physical and mental wellbeing (Espelage et al., 2013; Longobardi et al., 2018; Reddy et al., 2018). Occupational violence (OV) is any action, incident, or behaviour that diverges from acceptable conduct in which an individual is attacked, threatened, hurt, or wounded during, or as a direct result of, their work (International Labour Organization, 2003). Exposure to OV can increase educators’ stress and contribute to other negative consequences including burnout and leaving the profession (Buchanan et al., 2013; Burns et al., 2020).

Prevalence

Estimates of the prevalence of teacher-directed violence vary greatly; however, it appears to be escalating around the world (Espelage et al., 2013; Longobardi et al., 2018; McMahon et al., 2017). A systematic review of 37 studies found that educators experience violence from students in all school settings and grade levels (Reddy et al., 2018). A meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that half of all teachers reported experiencing at least one form of violence from students in the preceding two years (Longobardi et al., 2018).

A longitudinal study of Australian school leaders found that the reported prevalence of physical violence directed at teachers by students rose from 27% in 2011 to 42% in 2018 (Riley, 2019). In 2018, school principals were 9.3 times more likely to experience violence compared to other Australian professions. This was even higher in government schools, at 10.5 times the rates experienced in other Australian professions (Riley, 2019).

Another Australian study found that, in the 12 months prior to completing the survey, 560 teachers surveyed reported being bullied or harassed by a student, with 10% being punched or hit (Billett et al., 2019). In Western Australia, 68% of educators reported experiencing OV at least once in the past two years (Lowe et al., 2020). Finally, a survey of 1145 teachers in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) found that five per cent of teachers reported experiencing extreme violence from students every day, and an additional six per cent reported this level of violence at least once or twice a week (Shaddock et al., 2015).

Exposure to violence from students may have a range of negative physical, psychological, and professional impacts, including physical injury (McMahon et al., 2019), emotional distress (Moon & McCluskey, 2020), burnout (Bass et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2013), impaired job performance (Moon & McCluskey, 2020), and leaving the profession (Buchanan et al., 2013; Galand et al., 2007). Unfortunately, there tends to be a cultural acceptance that OV is a normal part of education (Shaddock et al., 2015), particularly in special education settings (Schofield et al., 2019). Educators working in disability education are four times more likely to experience physical violence from students compared to mainstream settings (Wei et al., 2013).

Socio-ecological theory

There is a lack of research-based knowledge about what works on the ground in terms of preventing and dealing with potential harm caused by OV from the perspective of educators. A systems perspective explains that individual attitudes and behaviours are shaped by interactions between personal and environmental factors (Espelage et al., 2013; Shaddock et al., 2015). Social-ecological theory provides a framework for preventing violence based on intervening at multiple levels which include the individual student, educator staff, classroom environment, school culture, and wider community, as well as the intersections between these levels such as student–staff relationships (Espelage et al., 2013; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The social-ecological model adapted to a school environment.

Preventing occupational violence

Occupational violence prevention strategies can operate at specific or multiple levels. For example, at the student level, early intervention (Silver et al., 2005) and improving students’ social and emotional literacy (Espelage et al., 2013) can lower student aggression. For student–educator interactions, creating and maintaining positive relationships with students is highly effective in reducing OV (De Cordova et al., 2019; Silver et al., 2005), especially during transition periods and when students and educators first meet (Silver et al., 2005).

Strategies at the classroom and school level work best when they are consistent (Espelage et al., 2013; Kapa & Gimbert, 2018). Clear school-wide expectations (Prpić, 2019; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002) and strong leadership, along with support from administration, is effective in reducing student violence (Martinez et al., 2015). It is also beneficial to involve the student’s family and engage the wider community (Sheldon & Epstein, 2002).

Coping with occupational violence

While there are many potential prevention strategies, this study sought to explore strategies that educators use and consider to be effective, as well as to understand how educators cope with OV. As it seems unlikely that OV from students can be eliminated, it is important to also understand how educators cope, as coping strategies are highly individualised (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007). Better understanding of effective coping strategies may also avert some of the negative consequences of long-term exposure to OV including decreasing motivation, lower job satisfaction (Kapa & Gimbert, 2018), increased burnout (Wei et al., 2013), and detrimental effects on staff mental and physical health (Moon et al., 2019). Feeling more confident in managing and handling OV improves work satisfaction and helps to minimise harm, which in turn helps to retain experienced staff (Kapa & Gimbert, 2018).

The most effective coping strategy may be to avoid student perpetrators or leave the workplace or profession entirely (Anderman et al., 2018). However, this may not be practicable or fair. Other effective coping strategies include debriefing (ACT Education Directorate, 2017), improving resilience (Jennings et al., 2017), physical exercise, meditation (Austin et al., 2005), and seeking support from colleagues, supervisors, and/or family (McMahon et al., 2017). The most common sources of support are colleagues and partners (Bounds & Jenkins, 2016), although they are not always perceived as helpful (McMahon et al., 2017). Whilst there are a range of adaptive coping strategies, there is also the potential for maladaptive responses such as excessive alcohol consumption (Deguchi et al., 2018). Further research is needed to identify strategies that work from the perspective of educators.

Current study

The current study seeks to describe the frequency and impact of school-based OV directed at educators by students and to identify what educators and workplaces do to prevent and cope with OV. The focus of the current study is on government primary school staff from the ACT. These schools educate 66% of primary students in the ACT, with the other third attending non-government schools (ACT Education Directorate, 2020).

The ACT Education Directorate’s Managing Occupational Violence Policy sets out its commitment to ensuring that the risk of OV to staff is eliminated so far as is reasonably practicable, to minimise the impact of any exposure, and to provide rapid response and appropriate support following any incident (ACT Education Directorate, 2017). This commitment has been strengthened following an Enforceable Undertaking initiated by WorkSafe ACT (2018) which found that staff were sustaining an unacceptable amount of physical and psychological injury from students. The Directorate is obligated to address these incidents and improve health and safety standards to minimise harm caused to staff.

The current study aims to address the following research questions:

1. What is the frequency of OV from students?

2. What is the impact on educators of OV from students?

3. How do educators prevent OV from students?

4. What strategies do educators use to cope with OV?

5. What sources of support do educators use and perceive as the most helpful?

Method

Participants

A convenience sample of 369 ACT government primary school staff was obtained. Fifty-one other responses were not used, mostly because they only completed the demographic questions or had completed less than half the survey items. To protect confidentiality, no staff or school names were collected. Eighty-six per cent of respondents identified as female (85.9%) and 14.1% as male (no participants identified as other), which is reasonably consistent with the high proportion of female staff (81.9%) in Australian primary schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020).

Participants reported an average of 13.9 years of experience working in education, ranging from 1 to 50 (SD = 8.8)years. Job roles included 206 classroom teachers (55.8%), 48 executive teachers (13%), 43 learning support assistants (11.7%), 25 principals (6.8%), 20 deputy principals (5.4%), eight administration assistants (2.2%), and 19 other school staff (5.2%), including youth workers, business managers, specialist teachers, and pastoral care staff. Three hundred and fifteen staff (85.4%) worked in mainstream primary school settings, 83 in preschool (22.5%), 51 in learning support units (13.8%), and 25 at specialist schools (6.8%).

Materials

A self-report questionnaire was developed for the current study. The time frame for the questions was identified as “prior to 2020” because at the time the study was conducted teachers were working remotely and delivering online lessons due to a COVID-19 related lockdown in the ACT. Educators’ experiences of the frequency of five types of OV (adapted from the OV reporting system used by ACT Education Directorate; abusive language, physical aggression, other threatening behaviour, bullying/harassment, overall) was measured using a six-point frequency scale (never, once every 6 months, once a month, once a week, a few times per week, daily). The impact of these types of OV was rated on a five-point severity scale (insignificant, minor, moderate, major, severe, not applicable).

Each level of impact on the severity scale was defined in the survey consistent with incident reporting by the Directorate: insignificant – no perceived impact on psychological or physical wellbeing; minor – pain inflicted at site, but no first aid required and/or some initial psychological distress that decreased over the day; moderate – injury requiring first aid and/or psychological distress that persisted past 24 hours; major – injury requiring medical assistance and/or psychological distress that persisted more than one week; severe – injury requiring hospital admission and/or psychological distress resulting in ongoing psychological condition such as anxiety/depression/PTSD.

Two open-ended questions asked educators to describe effective strategies used by the respondent and their respective workplace to prevent OV. Two further open-ended questions asked educators to describe the personal wellbeing strategies they usually used, and to identify the most effective strategies to cope with OV. Finally, participants rated how often they used each of 14 sources for support for coping with OV from students (adapted from Riley, 2019), on a five-point frequency scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) and how helpful each of these sources of support was on a five-point Likert scale (extremely unhelpful, unhelpful, neutral, helpful, extremely helpful). A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Supplemental Appendix C.

Procedure

The University of Canberra Human Research Committee (#20204486) and ACT Education Directorate (RES-2015) granted approval for this study. All 64 ACT government primary school principals were provided information about the study via email and asked to send invitations to their staff in Week 1 of Term 3 and a reminder in Week 3. A separate email was sent to principals by the director of the Directorate’s Occupational Violence and Complex Case Management Team endorsing and encouraging participation. Reminder emails were sent to principals in Week 3 and Week 5 to advise of the closing of the survey at the end of Week 6. All data were collected over a 6-week period, from 17 July to 28 August 2020. To provide an incentive to complete the survey, participants could enter a draw to win one of two A$50 shopping vouchers.

Codebooks were developed to interpret responses to the open-ended questions. There were 114 codes for the most effective OV prevention strategies (see Supplemental Appendix A) and 126 codes for the most effective OV coping strategies (see Supplemental Appendix B). Each response was coded by the lead author, with 10% of the coding independently checked by the last author, leading to an agreement rate of 89% and expansion of the descriptions for some codes.

Results

Frequency of occupational violence

Participants reported spending just over half of their workdays managing students with complex challenging behaviour (M = 52%, SD = 28). Half of the sample (49.4%) reported experiencing at least one form of OV from students on at least a weekly basis, with only 10.6% not experiencing OV (Table 1). The most frequent form of OV was abusive language (60.1% at least once a week), followed by other threatening behaviour (43.4%), physical aggression (41.5%), and bullying/harassment (20.2%).

Table 1.

Frequency of different types of occupational violence from students.

Frequency	Never		Once every 6 months		Once a month		Once a week		A few times per week		Daily
Frequency	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Abusive language	33	8.9	53	14.4	61	16.5	64	17.3	99	26.8	59	16.0
Physical aggression	48	13.0	106	28.7	62	16.8	58	15.7	70	19.0	25	6.8
Other threatening behaviour	66	17.9	77	20.9	66	17.9	70	19.0	68	18.4	22	6.0
Bullying/harassment	174	47.2	75	20.3	44	11.9	33	8.9	33	8.9	9	2.4
Overall	39	10.6	85	23.0	61	16.5	63	17.1	70	19.0	49	13.3

Impact of occupational violence

For respondents who experienced overall, the severity of impact was rated as moderate, major, or severe by 42.7%, with 15.5% rating the impact as major or moderate, and 15.2% rating the impact as insignificant (see Table 2). Physical aggression appeared to have the greatest impact (46.9% of those experiencing physical aggression reported at least moderate impact; 89.1% reported at least minor impact), followed by other threatening behaviours (37.4% reported at least moderate impact; 82.8% reported at least minor impact), bullying/harassment (34.9% reported at least moderate impact; 74% reported at least minor impact), and abusive language (24.9% reported at least moderate impact; 73.4% reported at least minor impact).

Table 2.

Impact of different types of occupational violence from students.

Type of OV	N of respondents who reported experience	Not applicable		Insignificant		Minor		Moderate		Major		Severe
Type of OV	N of respondents who reported experience	N	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Abusive language	334	3	0.9	86	25.7	162	48.5	58	17.4	20	6.0	5	1.5
Physical aggression	320	0	0.0	35	10.9	135	42.2	85	26.6	46	14.4	19	5.9
Other threatening behaviour	302	4	1.3	48	15.9	137	45.4	74	24.5	30	9.9	9	3.0
Bullying/harassment	192	3	1.6	47	24.5	75	39.1	44	22.9	17	8.9	6	3.1
Overall	323	6	1.9	49	15.2	130	40.2	88	27.2	39	12.1	11	3.4

Note. Responses to the level of impact were limited to those who reported experiencing OV.

Strategies for preventing occupational violence

Three hundred and thirteen respondents (84.8%) identified one or more effective strategies that staff used to prevent OV from students. A total of 1340 strategies (M = 4.3 strategies per respondent) were allocated to one of 114 prevention codes and subsequently organised into 15 themes (see Table 3 for descriptions of the themes). A multiple response analysis found that the most frequently mentioned strategies were about the staff member’s response to the student, focusing on individual student needs, and working collaboratively to create a whole school or team approach (see Table 4).

Table 3.

Most effective individual and workplace occupational violence prevention strategy theme descriptions.

Theme	Description
Staff response	How educators choose to act, respond, give choices, follow up, and deal with students who have a high risk of violent behaviour.
Collaboration	Working with, and being supported by colleagues, other Directorate staff and services, and adopting a whole school approach.
Individual student focus	Meeting student needs, engagement, individual differences, rewarding desired behaviour, teaching coping, and individualised timetabling.
Antecedent control	Understanding triggers, identifying early warning signs, and preventative strategies.
Relationships	Maintaining positive relationships with students and their family. Where possible, having familiar staff work with students when a regular teacher or learning support assistant is not available.
Rules/structure	Clear expectations, rules, routine, fair responses, and consistent consequences for violent behaviour.
Programs	Evidence-based whole school and individualised programs. Includes teaching emotional regulation to students, trauma-informed approaches, and how staff react as a team to de-escalate heightened students.
Plans	Plans at the individual student level or a wider response to managing behaviour. Includes proactive and reactive strategies.
Removal	Temporarily removing a violent student, class, or staff member out of harm's way. Includes student suspension.
Sensory needs	Providing calm spaces, visuals, breaks from learning, fidget toys and items, and opportunities to get energy out through movement.
Communication	Open communication between staff, the student, and their family. Positive communication with the student even when responding to problematic behaviour. Conveying messages in a way that the student does not feel targeted and can learn more adaptive responses.
Resourcing	Additional staff, including more learning support assistants for high needs students, and training.
Environment	Making the school, classroom, and other spaces inviting for students to be successful. Removing items that may be used by high-risk students to hurt others.
Recording and using data	Recording incidents to build data to better understand and identify ways to minimise violence.
Non-responses	Unsure or did not have any strategies.

Table 4.

Most effective individual and workplace occupational violence prevention strategy theme responses.

Theme	Individual (n = 313)		Workplace (n = 302)
Theme	% of respondents	% of strategies	% of respondents	% of strategies
Staff response	65.8	15.4	39.7	10.2
Collaboration	55.0	13.0	81.1	20.9
Individual student focus	55.6	12.8	43.7	11.2
Antecedent control	43.1	10.1	21.2	5.5
Relationships	39.6	9.3	21.5	5.5
Rules/structure	34.2	8.0	22.8	5.9
Programs	30.0	7.0	35.4	9.1
Plans	28.4	6.6	35.1	9.0
Removal	20.8	4.9	21.2	5.5
Sensory needs	19.2	4.5	18.5	4.8
Communication	14.7	3.4	14.9	3.8
Resourcing	10.5	2.5	22.2	5.7
Environment	9.3	2.2	4.0	1.0
Recording and using data	1.9	0.5	3.3	0.9
Non-responses	0.0	0.0	4.3	1.1

Note. Percentage of respondents does not add to 100 because respondents could identify more than one strategy.

Three hundred and two respondents (81.8%) identified one or more effective strategies the workplace used to prevent OV from students. A total of 1175 strategies (M = 3.9 strategies per respondent) were allocated to one of the prevention codes and themes described previously (see Table 3). A multiple response analysis identified a similar pattern of results to the staff member prevention strategies, with the following notable variations. The most common strategy, mentioned by over 80% of respondents, was collaboration. Other effective workplace prevention themes that were emphasised more often than individual staff strategies were the use of school-wide evidence-based programs and educator-level plans, increased resourcing, and recording and using OV data (see Table 4).

Strategies for coping with occupational violence

Three hundred and ten respondents (84%) identified one or more personal wellbeing strategies that they had used to cope with OV from students. A total of 1022 strategies (M = 3.3 strategies per respondent) were allocated to one of 126 codes that were subsequently organised into 14 themes (see Table 5 for a description of the themes). The most frequently mentioned personal wellbeing strategies were purposeful debriefing; mental and physical self-care; workplace support through colleagues, school staff, and the education profession; and physical exercise (see Table 6).

Table 5.

Occupational violence coping strategy theme descriptions.

Theme	Description
Debriefing	Purposefully discussing what occurred in a way that identifies what happened and encourages reflection.
Self-care	Looking after oneself through activities that enhance wellbeing and promote positive mental and physical health.
Work support	Collaborating, talking, and feeling supported by colleagues, school staff, and the wider education profession.
Exercise	Participating in physical activity to promote health or improve fitness.
Staff response	Staff member actions such as choosing to move on, ignoring, leaving work at work, having clear procedures, and post-incident choices such as seeking further training or leaving the workplace.
Time out	Taking time out after an incident. Includes taking lunch break away from the workplace, going home early, mental health days, or days off work.
Mindset	Attitude of staff members including positive mindset, resilience, solution focus, staying calm, and displaying empathy towards students.
Interests/hobbies	Doing preferred activities for enjoyment.
Emotional regulation	Any strategy that purposely regulates one's emotional response. Includes relaxation, purposeful breathing, crying, laughing, swearing, venting, and worrying.
External support	Seeking out or feeling supported by spouse, family, friends, or other informal supports outside of the workplace.
Student focus	Focusing on understanding reasons for the student's violent behaviour. Purposely improving the relationship with the student. Accepting that causes of the violent behaviour may be outside one's control.
Reflection	Journal writing, reflecting, and devising plans to minimise future incidents.
Indulgent behaviours	Engaging in behaviours that may be unhealthy in excess. Includes alcohol, chocolate, and comfort eating.
Professional support	Seeking support from professionals including GPs, psychologists, physiotherapists, and other mental health workers. Includes therapy or medication.
Non-responses	Not applicable, none, and unsure.

Table 6.

Occupational violence coping strategy theme responses.

Theme	Used (n = 310)		Best (n = 301)
Theme	% of cases	% of responses	% of cases	% of responses
Debriefing	58.1	17.6	35.2	13.7
Self-care	51.3	15.6	36.9	14.4
Work support	49.0	14.9	51.8	20.2
Exercise	31.9	9.7	16.9	6.6
Staff response	22.6	6.9	17.9	7.0
Time out	21.3	6.5	16.3	6.3
Mindset	14.8	4.5	17.3	6.7
Interests/hobbies	14.2	4.3	5.6	2.2
Emotional regulation	13.2	4.0	4.7	1.8
External support	11.6	3.5	10.3	4.0
Student focus	11.0	3.3	15.9	6.2
Reflection	11.0	3.3	13.3	5.2
Indulgent behaviours	8.7	2.6	2.3	0.9
Professional support	7.4	2.3	6.6	2.6
Non-responses	3.5	1.1	5.6	2.2

Note. Percentage of respondents does not add to 100 because respondents could identify more than one strategy.

Three hundred and one respondents (81.6%) identified one or more personal wellbeing strategies that they believed were most effective in coping with OV from students. A total of 773 strategies (M = 2.6 strategies per respondent) were allocated to one of the codes and themes described previously (see Table 5). An analysis of the most frequently occurring responses showed that educators believed that work support, self-care, and debriefing were the most effective personal wellbeing strategies (see Table 6).

Sources of support

Respondents identified workplace colleagues, partners, school leaders, friends, family members, and supervisors/line managers as the most frequently used sources of support in coping with OV from students (see Table 7). Work colleagues and partners were used more frequently (on average, ‘often’), whereas health practitioner, psychologist/counsellor, department/employer, Employee Assistance Program, union, other, and professional association) were, on average, rarely used.

Table 7.

Extent of use and helpfulness of supports in coping with occupational violence from students.

Support source	Extent of use			Helpfulness
Support source	M	SD	n	M	SD	n
Workplace colleague	4.31	0.84	336	4.40	0.67	329
Partner	3.96	1.27	301	4.02	0.99	284
School leader	3.68	1.04	332	4.03	0.98	316
Friend	3.43	1.18	332	3.97	0.77	302
Family member	3.19	1.27	333	3.80	0.85	287
Supervisor/line manager	3.18	1.28	314	3.76	1.07	251
Health practitioner	2.07	1.13	331	3.73	0.86	204
Psychologist/counsellor	1.95	1.16	328	3.83	0.91	186
Department/employer	1.87	1.05	323	3.08	1.06	186
Employee assistance program	1.66	0.96	315	3.25	0.93	159
Union representative	1.53	0.83	324	3.13	0.95	159
Other	1.46	1.01	117	3.33	0.78	58
Professional association	1.38	0.73	314	3.13	0.86	118

Note. Extent of use ranged from 1 = Never to 5 = Always; Helpfulness ranged from 1 = Extremely unhelpful to 5 = Extremely helpful.

Work colleagues were clearly rated as the most helpful support source (on average, between ‘helpful’ and ‘extremely helpful’, see Table 7). Partners, school leaders, and friends were the next most helpful sources of support, rated as ‘helpful’, on average. The average rating for Employee Assistance Programs, union representatives, and department/employers was less positive, closer to ‘neutral’. The most underutilised sources of support, based on the relatively low frequency of use yet relatively high helpfulness, were psychologist/counsellor and health practitioner.

Discussion

Student violence towards educators is an under-recognised, worldwide problem. The current study investigated the frequency and impact of OV directed towards staff by students in ACT government primary schools and explored strategies that staff reported as most effective in preventing and coping with OV, including key sources of support. Respondents reported spending over half of their working days managing students with complex behaviour which is consistent with Shaddock et al.’s (2015) research on ACT schools. With significant time spent managing challenging behaviours, it follows that staff are at risk of negative impacts, especially from aggressive behaviour.

Frequency and impact of occupational violence

Half of the respondents reported OV from students at least weekly, with only 11% never experiencing OV. More than 80% of staff experiencing overall OV reported that the impacts were more than insignificant. For more than 42.7% of staff experiencing overall OV, the impacts were rated as at least moderate (i.e. requiring first aid and/or involving distress lasting more than 24 hours), and for 15.5% the impacts were rated as major (i.e. injury requiring medical assistance and/or psychological distress that persisted more than 1 week) or worse.

Physical aggression is arguably the form of OV of greatest concern in terms of potential harm. Experiencing physical aggression was reported by 87% of respondents, with 41.5% subject to such behaviour on at least a weekly basis, similar to rates reported by Riley (2019), although comparisons are complicated by use of different definitions across studies. Physical aggression also had the most serious impact, with nearly half (46.9%) reporting the impacts to be at least moderate.

Abusive language was the most commonly reported form of OV, experienced by 60% of staff at least weekly. Whilst abusive language may be considered less harmful than other forms of OV, the impact was far from trivial, with 73.4% of respondents exposed to abusive language reporting that the impacts were at least minor (i.e., some initial psychological distress that decreased over the day). The high frequency and cumulative impact of exposure to abusive language may wear down staff resilience and increase the likelihood of burnout.

Bullying/harassment had the lowest occurrence, although a high impact, experienced by more than half (53%) of the respondents, with 20% of staff experiencing this form of OV on at least a weekly basis. The lower occurrence is likely to be due, at least in part, to the current study’s focus on primary school settings which involve mostly pre-adolescent students. For staff who experienced bullying/harassment, three quarters of staff (74%) reported at least minor impacts.

Preventing occupational violence

Participants provided an extensive list of their most effective strategies for preventing OV from students. The top theme involved individual staff member responses to students, including being consistent, calming the student, not rewarding negative behaviour, and avoiding conflict. In terms of the social-ecological model (Espelage et al., 2013), staff have the most control over their own actions. As these actions influence student behaviour, they represent the most proximal level of intervention. The next most effective staff strategy was collaborating with colleagues, the whole school, and Directorate staff and services to develop a team approach to preventing OV. These types of collaboration can be understood within the school and community levels of the social-ecological model. Adopting an individual student focus (rather than class focus) was also highly endorsed. This approach included teaching individualised coping skills, rewarding specific behaviours, and individualised timetabling. Another popular student level theme was using antecedent control. This involves upstream identification and avoidance of factors that can trigger student OV and acting on early warning signs (Espelage et al., 2013; Kapa & Gimbert, 2018; McMahon et al., 2019). Cultivating and maintaining a good, trusting relationship with students was also strongly endorsed. Warm, trusting, cooperative relationships between teachers and students are well recognised as important contributors to educational and behavioural outcomes (De Cordova et al., 2019; Gregory & Ripski, 2008; Silver et al., 2005).

The most effective workplace prevention strategies identified by participants were similar to the individual prevention strategies, with some notable variations. Collaboration was clearly the most recommended approach. Programs at the school-wide level and plans at the educator level were also emphasised more as workplace strategies than individual strategies, as was increased resourcing in the form of staffing and training and use of data about OV incidents.

Coping with occupational violence

Participants reported using a wide range of strategies to cope with OV. In general, the most used strategies were also the most effective. Debriefing with colleagues, both formally and informally, was the most common approach. Work support was the most effective strategy. Feeling supported by one’s workplace is a known protective factor for minimising harm post OV (McMahon et al., 2017). Debriefing could be considered as a form of workplace support but seemed to warrant its own theme because it was specifically mentioned by over half of the respondents. Self-care was the second most mentioned and effective coping theme. It included a wide variety of wellbeing strategies including taking time to address basic needs such as healthy eating, drinking water, and getting adequate sleep, as well as personally preferred relaxation activities (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007).

Sources of support

In line with previous findings (Bounds & Jenkins, 2016), workplace colleagues were the most frequently used source of support in coping with OV and were also perceived as the most helpful source of support. The educator’s partner and friends were also frequently used and helpful. Although school leaders tended to be less used, they were at least as helpful as partners. These results are similar to the sources of support that Australian principals have reported using to cope with OV (Riley, 2019). However, respondents did not report accessing the more formal sources of support that are often officially recommended after incidents of OV. This may be because some staff prefer informal, individualised strategies but may also be because they do not perceive that the OV had sufficient impact to warrant external professional support. For those who did seek formal support, psychologists/counsellors and health practitioners were rated as reasonably helpful.

Strengths and limitations

This exploratory study builds on Shaddock et al. (2015) to provide further insight into the experience of OV among ACT government primary school staff. Analysis of responses to open-ended questions elicited real-world prevention and coping strategies. The study sought to be inclusive by inviting all school staff, not just teachers or principals, to participate.

However, there were several limitations that must be acknowledged. Although all ACT government primary school principals were invited to distribute the survey to their staff, there was no way of knowing how many principals did so. Furthermore, the convenience sampling may have led to a self-selection bias by staff who have experienced more OV and/or who were more interested in the topic. There was also an attrition rate of one in eight who started but did not complete the survey. Finally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, survey questions referred to experiences prior to 2020 which may have made participants’ recollections and responses less accurate.

Implications and recommendations

This study offers insight about how educators seek to prevent, cope with, and access support when confronted with OV from students. The design could be extended to obtain a more representative sample and to include secondary school staff, non-government schools, and/or other states or countries. The frequency and impact survey questions could be adapted for internal monitoring of progress towards minimising OV from students towards school staff. More in depth inquiry about the prevention and coping themes, such as through interviews or focus groups, could lead to richer examples about how to reduce OV and its impact on school staff. According to respondents in this study, professional support services appeared to be underutilised, despite psychologists/counsellors and other health practitioners being rated as reasonably helpful – this warrants further investigation. New survey questions could be developed about the identified prevention and coping strategies so that potential mediating relationships between exposure to OV and outcomes such as staff burnout, work satisfaction, wellbeing, and turnover intention could be tested.

Conclusion

Most surveyed staff reported frequent (daily or weekly) experiences of OV from students with notable negative impacts. Key prevention strategies include focusing on how staff respond to individual students; collaborating with colleagues; seeking to understand and address individual student needs; developing and maintaining positive relationships with students; implementing structured, evidence-based aggression-reducing programs; and having clear plans and structured responses to OV incidents. This highlights the importance of the study’s main goals which were to provide collective feedback from school staff about what works to prevent, or at least minimise, the occurrence and impact of OV. In seeking to cope with OV from students, educators primarily value the support of their work colleagues through debriefing. What staff do to cope outside of the workplace was also important, particularly in adopting a positive, self-care mindset and receiving support from a partner.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material – How do preschool to year 6 educators prevent and cope with occupational violence from students?

Supplemental Material for how do preschool to year 6 educators prevent and cope with occupational violence from students? by David J Stevenson, James T Neill, Kayla Ball, Rebecca Smith and Melena C Shores in Australian Journal of Education

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants who contributed data to this study.

Authors’ Note

This article is based on the Bachelor of Science in Psychology (Honours) thesis completed by Stevenson (2020).

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The University of Canberra affiliated authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The ACT Government Education Directorate affiliated authors declare a potential conflict of interest as employees of the organisation being studied.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

David J. Stevenson

James T. Neill

Kayla Ball

Melena C. Shores

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material for this article is available online.

References

ACT Education Directorate (2017). Managing occupational violence policy. (Policy no. MOV20170718_FINAL). https://www.education.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1087486/Managing-Occupational-Violence-Policy-20170718_FINAL.PDF

ACT Education Directorate (2020). Census of ACT schools February 2020. https://www.education.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1562682/February-2020-Census-.pdf

Anderman

E. M.

Eseplage

D. L.

Reddy

L. A.

McMahon

S. D.

Martinez

Lane

K. L.

Reynolds

Paul

(2018). Teachers’ reactions to experiences of violence: An attributional analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 21(3), 621–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9438-x

Austin

Shah

Muncer

(2005). Teacher stress and coping strategies used to reduce stress. Occupational Therapy International, 12(2), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.16

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020, February). Data on students, staff, schools, rates and ratios for government and non-government schools, for all Australian states and territories 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/2021

Bass

B. I.

Cigularov

K. P.

Chen

P. Y.

Henry

K. L.

Tomazic

R. G.

(2016). The effects of student violence against school employees on employee burnout and work engagement: The roles of perceived school unsafety and transformational leadership. International Journal of Stress Management, 23(3), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000011

Billett

Fogelgarn

Burns

(2019). Teacher targeted bullying and harassment by students and parents: Report from an Australian exploratory survey. La Trobe University. https://doi.org/10.26181/5f0ea5d35dadd

Bounds

Jenkins

L. N.

(2016). Teacher-directed violence in relation to social support and work stress. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(4), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0091-0

Buchanan

Prescott

Schuck

Aubusson

Burke

Louviere

(2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9

10.

Burns

Fogelgarn

Billett

(2020). Teacher-targeted bullying and harassment in Australian schools: A challenge to teacher wellbeing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1755227

11.

De Cordova

Berlanda

Pedrazza

Fraizzoli

(2019). Violence at school and the well-being of teachers. The importance of positive relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1807), 10, Article e01807. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01807

12.

Deguchi

Iwasaki

Kanchika

Nitta

Mitake

Nogi

Kadowaki

Niki

Inoue

(2018). Gender differences in the relationships between perceived individual-level occupational stress and hazardous alcohol consumption among Japanese teachers: A cross-sectional study. Plos One, 13(9), Article e0204248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204248

13.

Dzuka

Dalbert

(2007). Student violence against teachers: Teachers’ well-being and the belief in a just world. European Psychologist, 12(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.253

14.

Espelage

Anderman

Brown

Jones

Lane

McMahon

Reddy

Reynolds

(2013). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice and policy agenda. The American Psychologist, 60(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031307

15.

Galand

Lecocq

Philippot

(2007). School violence and teacher professional disengagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X114571

16.

Gregory

Ripski

M. B.

(2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087881

17.

International Labour Organization (2003). Code of practice on workplace violence in services sectors and measures to combat this phenomenon. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–-ed_protect/–-protrav/–-safework/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_107705.pdf

18.

Jennings

P. A.

Brown

J. L.

Frank

J. L.

Doyle

Davis

Rasheed

DeWeese

DeMauro

A. A.

Cham

Greenberg

M. T.

(2017). Impacts of the CARE for teachers program on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000187

19.

Kapa

Gimbert

(2018). Job satisfaction, school rule enforcement, and teacher victimization. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1395747

20.

Longobardi

Badenes-Ribera

Fabris

M. A.

Martinez

McMahon

S. D.

(2018). Prevalence of student violence against teachers: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000202

21.

Lowe

Picknoll

Chivers

Farringdon

Rycroft

(2020). Teacher-directed violence by students in Western Australia: An exploratory study. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 187–202. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/lowe.pdf

22.

Martinez

McMahon

S. D.

Espelage

Anderman

E. M.

Reddy

L. A.

Sanchez

(2015). Teachers’ experiences with multiple victimization: Identifying demographic, cognitive, and contextual correlates. Journal of School Violence, 15(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2015.1056879

23.

McMahon

S. D.

Peist

Davis

J. O.

Bare

Martinez

Reddy

L. A.

Espelage

D. L.

Anderman

E. M.

(2019). Physical aggression toward teachers: Antecedents, behaviors, and consequences. Aggressive Behavior, 46(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21870

24.

McMahon

S. D.

Reaves

McConnell

E. A.

Peist

Ruiz

Espelage

Reddy

L. A.

Anderman

E. M.

Lane

Reynolds

C. R.

Jones

Brown

(2017). The ecology of teachers’ experiences with violence and lack of administrative support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(3-4), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12202

25.

Moon

McCluskey

(2020). An exploratory study of violence and aggression against teachers in middle and high schools: Prevalence, predictors, and negative consequences. Journal of School Violence, 19(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1540010

26.

Moon

Morash

McCluskey

(2019). Student violence directed against teachers: Victimized teachers’ reports to school officials and satisfaction with school responses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), NP7264–NP7283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519825883

27.

Prpić

(2019). Students’ violence against teachers in relation to school climate. Varstvoslovje, 21(4), 405–425. https://www.fvv.um.si/rv/arhiv/2019-4/05_Prpic_rV_2019-4-E.html

28.

Reddy

Espelage

Anderman

Kanrich

McMahon

(2018). Addressing violence against educators through measurement and research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42(5), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.006

29.

Riley

(2019). The Australian principal occupational health, safety, and wellbeing survey 2018 data. Australian Catholic University: Institute for Positive Psychology and Education. https://www.principalhealth.org/reports/2018_AU_Final_Report.pdf

30.

Schofield

K. E.

Ryan

A. D.

Stroinski

(2019). Student-inflicted injuries to staff in schools: Comparing risk between educators and non-educators. Injury Prevention, 25(2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042472

31.

Shaddock

Packer

Roy

(2015). Schools for all children and young people: Report of the expert panel on students with complex needs and challenging behaviour. ACT Education Directorate. http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/795186/62074-Expert-Panel-Report-Web.pdf

32.

Sheldon

S. B.

Epstein

J. L.

(2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312402237212

33.

Silver

R. B.

Measelle

J. R.

Armstrong

J. M.

Essex

M. J.

(2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: Contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics, and the teacher-child relationship during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 43(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.11.003

34.

Wei

Gerberich

S. G.

Alexander

B. H.

Ryan

A. D.

Nachreiner

N. M.

Mongin

S. J.

(2013). Work-related violence against educators in Minnesota: Rates and risks based on hours exposed. Journal of Safety Research, 44(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.12.005

35.

WorkSafe ACT (2018). Australian Capital Territory education directorate enforceable undertaking, 30518863. ACT Education Directorate. https://www.education.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1263367/Australian-Capital-Territory-Education-Directorate.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB