essay on violence in schools

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Identify and Prevent School Violence

Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Ann-Louise T. Lockhart, PsyD, ABPP, is a board-certified pediatric psychologist, parent coach, author, speaker, and owner of A New Day Pediatric Psychology, PLLC.

Yasser Chalid / Getty Images

Recognizing the Signs of School Violence

School violence refers to violence that takes place in a school setting. This includes violence on school property, on the way to or from school, and at school trips and events. It may be committed by students, teachers, or other members of the school staff; however, violence by fellow students is the most common.

An estimated 246 million children experience school violence every year; however, girls and gender non-conforming people are disproportionately affected.

"School violence can be anything that involves a real or implied threat—it can be verbal, sexual, or physical, and perpetrated with or without weapons. If someone is deliberately harming someone or acting in a way that leaves someone feeling threatened, that‘s school violence,” says Aimee Daramus , PsyD, a licensed clinical psychologist.

This article explores the types, causes, and impact of school violence and suggests some steps that can help prevent it.

Types of School Violence

School violence can take many forms. These are some of the types of school violence:

• Physical violence , which includes any kind of physical aggression, the use of weapons, as well as criminal acts like theft or arson.
• Psychological violence , which includes emotional and verbal abuse . This may involve insulting, threatening, ignoring, isolating, rejecting, name-calling, humiliating, ridiculing, rumor-mongering, lying, or punishing another person.
• Sexual violence , which includes sexual harrassment, sexual intimidation, unwanted touching, sexual coercion, and rape .
• Bullying , which can take physical, psychological, or sexual forms and is characterized by repeated and intentional aggression toward another person.
• Cyberbullying , which includes sexual or psychological abuse by people connected through school on social media or other online platforms. This may involve posting false information, hurtful comments, malicious rumors, or embarrassing photos or videos online. Cyberbullying can also take the form of excluding someone from online groups or networks.

Causes of School Violence

There often isn’t a simple, straightforward reason why someone engages in school violence. A child may have been bullied or rejected by a peer, may be under a lot of academic pressure, or may be enacting something they’ve seen at home, in their neighborhood, on television, or in a video game.

These are some of the risk factors that can make a child more likely to commit school violence:

• Poor academic performance
• Prior history of violence
• Hyperactive or impulsive personality
• Mental health conditions
• Witnessing or being a victim of violence
• Alcohol, drug, or tobacco use
• Dysfunctional family dynamic
• Domestic violence or abuse
• Access to weapons
• Delinquent peers
• Poverty or high crime rates in the community

It’s important to note that the presence of these factors doesn’t necessarily mean that the child will engage in violent behavior.

Impact of School Violence

Below, Dr. Daramus explains how school violence can affect children who commit, experience, and witness it, as well as their parents.

Impact on Children Committing Violence

Children who have been victims of violence or exposed to it in some capacity sometimes believe that becoming violent is the only way they‘ll ever be safe.

When they commit violence, they may experience a sense of satisfaction when their emotional need for strength or safety is satisfied. That‘s short-lived however, because they start to fear punishment or retribution, which triggers anger that can sometimes lead to more violence if they’re scared of what might happen to them if they don’t protect themselves. 

Children need help to try and break the cycle; they need to understand that violence can be temporarily satisfying but that it leads to more problems.

Impact on Children Victimized by School Violence

Victims of school violence may get physically injured and experience cuts, scrapes, bruises, broken bones, gunshot wounds, concussions, physical disability, or death.

Emotionally speaking, the child might experience depression , anxiety, or rage. Their academic performance may suffer because it can be hard to focus in school when all you can think about is how to avoid being hurt again.

School violence is traumatic and can cause considerable psychological distress. Traumatic experiences can be difficult for adults too; however, when someone whose brain is not fully developed yet experiences trauma, especially if it’s over a long time, their brain can switch to survival mode, which can affect their attention, concentration, emotional control, and long-term health. 

According to a 2019 study, children who have experienced school violence are at risk for long-term mental and physical health conditions, including attachment disorders, substance abuse, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and respiratory conditions.

The more adverse childhood experiences someone has, the greater the risk to their physical and mental health as an adult.

Impact on Children Who Witness School Violence

Children who witness school violence may feel guilty about seeing it and being too afraid to stop it. They may also feel threatened, and their brain may react in a similar way to a child who has faced school violence.

Additionally, when children experience or witness trauma , their basic beliefs about life and other people are often changed. They no longer believe that the world is safe, which can be damaging to their mental health.

For a child to be able to take care of themselves as they get older, they need to first feel safe and cared for. Learning to cope with threats is an advanced lesson that has to be built on a foundation of feeling safe and self-confident.

Children who have experienced or witnessed school violence can benefit from therapy, which can help them process the trauma, regulate their emotions, and learn coping skills to help them heal.

Impact on Parents

Parents react to school violence in all kinds of ways. Some parents encourage their children to bully others, believing that violence is strength. Some try to teach their children how to act in a way that won’t attract bullying or other violence, but that never works and it may teach the child to blame themselves for being bullied. 

Others are proactive and try to work with the school or challenge the school if necessary, to try and keep their child safe. 

It can be helpful to look out for warning signs of violence, which can include:

• Talking about or playing with weapons of any kind
• Harming pets or other animals
• Threatening or bullying others
• Talking about violence, violent movies, or violent games
• Speaking or acting aggressively

It’s important to report these signs to parents, teachers, or school authorities. The child may need help and support, and benefit from intervention .

Preventing School Violence

Dr. Daramus shares some steps that can help prevent school violence:

• Report it to the school: Report any hint of violent behavior to school authorities. Tips can be a huge help in fighting school violence. Many schools allow students to report tips anonymously.
• Inform adults: Children who witness or experience violence should keep telling adults (parents, teachers, and counselors) until someone does something. If an adult hears complaints about a specific child from multiple people, they may be able to protect other students and possibly help the child engaging in violence to learn different ways.
• Reach out to people: Reach out to children or other people at the school who seem to be angry or upset, or appear fascinated with violence. Reach out to any child, whether bullied, bullying, or neither, who seems to have anxiety, depression, or trouble managing emotions. Most of the time the child won’t be violent, but you’ll have helped them anyway by being supportive.

A Word From Verywell

School violence can be traumatic for everyone involved, particularly children. It’s important to take steps to prevent it because children who witness or experience school violence may suffer physical and mental health consequences that can persist well into adulthood.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing school violence .

UNESCO. What you need to know about school violence and bullying .

UNESCO. School violence and bullying .

Nemours Foundation. School violence: what students can do .

Ehiri JE, Hitchcock LI, Ejere HO, Mytton JA. Primary prevention interventions for reducing school violence . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2017;2017(3):CD006347. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006347.pub2

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Understanding school violence .

Ferrara P, Franceschini G, Villani A, Corsello G. Physical, psychological and social impact of school violence on children . Italian Journal of Pediatrics . 2019;45(1):76. doi:10.1186/s13052-019-0669-z

By Sanjana Gupta Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Violence in Schools Seems to Be Increasing. Why?

• Share article

Following the return of most U.S. schoolchildren to full-time, in-person learning, a raft of anecdotal reports indicate that violence may be rising in K-12 schools.

Teachers are reporting breaking up fights in schools and are raising concerns about their own safety. Students have been caught with guns or other weapons on campuses in several high-profile incidents. And school shootings in 2021, though still very rare, are on track to surpass their pre-pandemic high.

But if an actual surge is taking place, what’s causing it? Will it reshape the contours of the fractious school-safety conversation? And what do district leaders need to consider as they try to respond?

Criminologists note that the nation is in the grip of a general spike of violence probably due to the pandemic and social unrest accompanying the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Their best guess is that those trends are trickling inexorably, and tragically, down to K-12 students.

“You study these things for so long and then you throw the rule book out. No one really knows why we’ve got the trends and violence we’re seeing right now,” said James A. Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metropolitan State University, in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence. “But I think at the same time, we’re coming to the same sorts of conclusions.

“It’s a combination of the pandemic; a lack of trust in our institutions, particularly law enforcement; the presence of guns; the toxic, divisive, contentious times we live in. They’re all interacting together.”

What do we know about rates of school crime?

No recent, nationally representative data set exists to confirm that there have been more violent incidents so far in the 2021-22 school year, due to reporting lags and the generally disparate nature of the data across thousands of school systems.

The most-recent federal collection on school safety found that some types of violent crimes were on the rise as of the 2017-18 school year, though the figures still fell far below overall crime levels in schools in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Anecdotally, though, teachers, principals, and educators now say they are seeing an increase that has roughly paralleled the return of most students to in-person schooling.

In Anchorage, Alaska, fights and assaults are making up more of the suspensions issued so far this year. A brawl and stabbing in an Annapolis, Md., high school led to seven juvenile arrests. Pupils damaged elementary classrooms in Vermont, overturning furniture and supply bins. Parents in Baltimore County, Md., organized a protest in response to a perceived increase in violence. In Shreveport, La., a group of fathers are now taking shifts greeting students at the high school after 23 students were arrested in a one-week period.

The rhetoric surrounding these kinds of incidents is often red hot, with administrators and parents warning about even more-dire consequences if district leaders don’t do something now.

“Our students are sending us warning shots. Literal warning shots,” said Peter Balas, a principal at Alexandria City High School, in Alexandria Va., at a city council meeting earlier this month. Shortly after, the council voted to temporarily restore school police officers, who had been pulled from buildings last year in the wake of a wave of national protests about police violence. (A spokeswoman for the district denied a request to follow up with the principal.)

Teachers, too, have reported being victims of violence at school.

In Rochester, N.Y., high school English teacher Corrine Mundorff was in the middle of trying to break up a fight when, she says, a student sexually assaulted her , repeatedly groping her after she told the student not to.

The troubled city has long suffered from generational poverty and high crime rates. With so many kids out of school last year, some seem to have pulled into neighborhood turf squabbles, she said.

“We have some issues that we’ve been dealing with for years and years. This year, however we have brought our kids back—23,000 of them—and for some reason we’ve decided we were going to pretend the pandemic had never happened and ignore 18 months of trauma induced by the pandemic students have experienced,” Mundorff said in an interview. “And we’ve just had these arguments, these conflicts that ignited on day one. The violence that had been happening outside of the school just carried over.”

School shooting on par with pre-pandemic levels

Disparate sources of data generally support the notion that what’s happening in schools this year is actually a reflection of general trends.

National homicide rates soared in 2020 , according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, although other types of crime generally continued a steady decline. And Americans have been on a gun-buying spree during the pandemic. There are now simply more guns in desk drawers, on the streets, and in cabinets.

School shootings are also on track to outpace the figures in 2018 and 2019.

Education Week began its own tracker of school related shootings in 2018 in an attempt to cut through the morass of different definitions used by federal agencies and researchers. Our criteria are more restrictive than other collections. It includes only those incidents that take place during school hours or events, on school property, and in which at least one individual is wounded by a bullet.

According to EdWeek’s criteria, as of Monday of this week, there have been 24 incidents so far this year, resulting in 40 deaths or injuries . Two-thirds of these incidents occurred on or after Aug 1. There were also 24 incidents each in 2018 and 2019.

(The gun-control organization Everytown USA, which has more expansive criteria, also shows this year’s school shooting figures paralleling 2019’s.)

Recent Data: School Shootings

In 2018, Education Week journalists began tracking shootings on K-12 school property that resulted in firearm-related injuries or deaths. There is no single right way of calculating numbers like this, and the human toll is impossible to measure. We hope only to provide reliable information to help inform discussions, debates, and paths forward. Below, you can find big-picture data on school shootings since 2018. (This chart will be updated as new information becomes available.)

See Also: School Shootings This Year: How Many and Where

Details of the incidents are distressingly familiar. At least six began with fights or altercations between students that spilled over into gun violence. Six occurred at—or just following— football games . Three appear to have been precipitated by a pattern of bullying.

School shootings nevertheless remain exceptionally rare, and the small sample makes EdWeek’s collection a limited proxy for trying to determine overall violence trends. But the Gun Violence Archive , a nonprofit that tracks and confirms shootings from thousands of data sources, found that more children, not fewer, were harmed by gun violence in 2020, when many students were working from home, than in each of the past seven years.

Finally, children, like adults, are tired, isolated, and traumatized by the last 20 months. The numbers of children visiting emergency rooms for mental-health issues increased dramatically in a seven-month period in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, causing three children’s health organizations recently to declare a mental health state of emergency.

The nation is still in the crisis of the pandemic with no real end in sight, pointed out Margaret A. Sedor, a school psychologist and a member of the National Association of School Psychologists’ school safety and crisis response committee. And students can display a range of crisis reactions, which may include aggression, in response to the losses of the last two years.

“They’ve had almost two years of being socialized and acculturated in a different way, and we need to acknowledge and support community re-engagement,” she said.

What it all adds up to, said Densley, is this: The global pandemic has exacerbated risk factors for violence in general, like loneliness, isolation, and economic instability. Violence also tends to rise at times of uncertainty, especially when distrust in public institutions is high. And social media serves as an accelerant, whipping up anger and frenzy.

“Now you tie that together with last year’s record gun sales—and we’ve got more people carrying guns in public because of more lax laws in that regard,” he said. “And you can sort of put two and two together and say guns are just more likely to be found in the hands of juveniles.”

Some districts consider a return to school-based policing

Those sobering conclusions seem primed to restart an already searing debate over the role that school resource officers and other safety personnel play in schools.

Earlier this summer, Education Week found that a small number of U.S. school districts remove d police officers or cut their school-policing budgets in the wake of racial-justice protests in 2020. Some of those communities, like Alexandria, Va., are now beginning to have second thoughts.

In Rochester, the president of the teachers’ union and three other labor groups representing educators recently demanded that the district consider several options, including restoring SROs in high schools, increasing the number of school safety officers, and offering evening or remote learning options for disruptive students.

The district did not respond to a request for comment on its safety plans. Its superintendent has acknowledged the concerns about violence in public statements.

In other places, advocates fear that more violence could put paid to longstanding efforts there to remove school officers.

The Shelby County district, which includes Memphis, has resuscitated the idea of a “peace force” staffed by district-hired police officers in the wake of a harrowing shooting at a public K-8 school in late September, apparently prompted by bullying, that left one student in critical condition.

“I’m very concerned about the child, obviously. But my second thought is, ‘Oh no, what does this do to trying to get law enforcement out of schools?’ Because so many people think [having a police officer] is like a Band-Aid,” said Cardell Orrin, the Memphis executive director at Stand for Children Tennessee, which has pushed to remove sheriffs’ deputies from schools. “It makes people feel better rather than solving the challenges, and it potentially further criminalizes children. That is the fear, and I think that’s the fear nationally, too.”

Researchers continue to learn more about SROs and the tradeoffs that having them can mean for students. In an important study released earlier this month , a team of researchers studying federal data found that having an SRO did reduce some violent incidents in schools, mainly fights, but did not appear to reduce shootings or firearm-related incidents.

And their presence came at a high price: It meant that a higher proportion of students were suspended, arrested, or referred to the juvenile-justice systems, and the toll fell disproportionately on Black students. (The research has not yet been peer reviewed.)

Districts will need to honor the complexities

Even these new insights, though, don’t always make it clear what’s happening in the black box. For one thing, it’s ultimately principals who make the call on whether to suspend students, not officers themselves, and principals who, alongside officers, can refer students into the juvenile justice system. Put another way, the research appears to point to broader cultural problems in schools.

People want to see what you’re doing for safety, and police are very visible. Connecting kids with resources or using social workers or school psychologists—those things are not as kind of in-your-face or apparent.

The body of school safety literature invariably recommends that improved school culture and safety hinge on strong relationships between adults and students.

Getting kids back into school and back in routines and being reconnected with their peers and classmates is a critical step, said Sedor, the school psychologist. But it demands that districts think systematically about how to support students, and that they move from merely reacting to incidents to intervention and wellness-promotion efforts.

“I think it’s bringing folks together and acknowledging that things have changed and talking about fear and loss, and then problem-solving and strengthening coping strategies,” she said. “It’s about relationships and being able to listen.”

But desperate to respond to frightened communities, districts often seek out immediate, tangible improvements rather than the painstaking work of improving school culture. For good or ill, police officers and other hardening measures—fences, metal detectors, bulletproof glass—signify safety, even though, for the most part, not much evidence suggests they contribute to safer schools.

“People want to see what you’re doing for safety, and police are very visible. Connecting kids with resources or using social workers or school psychologists—those things are not as kind of in-your-face or apparent,” noted Joe McKenna, a senior research associate at WestEd’s Justice & Prevention Research Center.

Even teachers who say they’re close to their breaking points acknowledge the complex calculus.

“I know that teachers are annoyed that the focus keeps going to school resources officers because there are so many more levels to it, and everyone just focuses on them,” said Mundorff, the Rochester teacher. “Would it be helpful to have one? Sure. Does that solve all our problems? Absolutely not. We have three social workers for 952 students who are carrying tons of trauma. And now we have students who weren’t carrying trauma before the pandemic and the ones before are carrying a ton more.”

In Madison, Wis., Gloria Reyes represents the radical middle when it comes to the ongoing school safety conversation.

A former law enforcement officer, she served on the city school board when it voted in June 2020 to remove SROs. She now teaches classes, including on racism within the criminal justice system at Madison College, and runs a local nonprofit.

She strongly supports the restorative justice programs that have replaced school policing in the district, but she’s also concerned that teachers and other educators aren’t well trained to respond to incidents of violence. And while she agrees that communities have for far too long relied on police for things they shouldn’t, they’ve simultaneously neglected other critical social investments, she notes.

If rising violence is due to a simple equation—that hurt kids hurt other kids—the solution, she fears, is complex.

“We have to have professionals out in our communities, visiting with families and visiting with children and doing the outreach and support,” Reyes said. “You know, it’s going to take families, parents, teachers, social workers—it’s going to take everyone to prevent fighting.”

A version of this article appeared in the November 17, 2021 edition of Education Week as Violence in Schools Seems To Be Increasing. Why?

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

What you need to know about school violence and bullying

Bullying in schools deprives millions of children and young people of their fundamental right to education. A recent UNESCO report revealed that more than 30% of the world's students have been victims of bullying, with devastating consequences on academic achievement, school dropout, and physical and mental health.

The world is marking the first International Day against Violence and Bullying at School Including Cyberbullying , on 5 November. Here is what you need to know about school violence and bullying.

What is school violence?

School violence refers to all forms of violence that takes place in and around schools and is experienced by students and perpetrated by other students, teachers and other school staff. This includes bullying and cyberbullying. Bullying is one of the most pervasive forms of school violence, affecting 1 in 3 young people.

What forms may school violence take?

Based on existing international surveys that collect data on violence in schools, UNESCO recognizes the following forms of school violence:

• Physical violence, which is any form of physical aggression with intention to hurt perpetrated by peers, teachers or school staff.
• Psychological violence as verbal and emotional abuse, which includes any forms of isolating, rejecting, ignoring, insults, spreading rumors, making up lies, name-calling, ridicule, humiliation and threats, and psychological punishment.
• Sexual violence, which includes intimidation of a sexual nature, sexual harassment, unwanted touching, sexual coercion and rape, and it is perpetrated by a teacher, school staff or a schoolmate or classmate.
• Physical bullying, including hitting, kicking and the destruction of property;
• Psychological bullying, such as teasing, insulting and threatening; or relational, through the spreading of rumours and exclusion from a group; and
• Sexual bullying, such as making fun of a victim with sexual jokes, comments or gestures, which may be defined as sexual ‘harassment’ in some countries.
• Cyberbullying is a form of psychological or sexual bullying that takes place online. Examples of cyberbullying include posting or sending messages, pictures or videos, aimed at harassing, threatening or targeting another person via a variety of media and social media platforms. Cyberbullying may also include spreading rumours, posting false information, hurtful messages, embarrassing comments or photos, or excluding someone from online networks or other communications.

Who perpetrates school violence?

School violence is perpetrated by students, teachers and other school staff. However, available evidence shows that violence perpetrated by peers is the most common.

What are the main reasons why children are bullied?

All children can be bullied, yet evidence shows that children who are perceived to be “different” in any way are more at risk. Key factors include physical appearance, ethnic, linguistic or cultural background, gender, including not conforming to gender norms and stereotypes; social status and disability.

What are the consequences of school violence?

Educational consequences: Being bullied undermines the sense of belonging at school and affects continued engagement in education. Children who are frequently bullied are more likely to feel like an outsider at school, and more likely to want to leave school after finishing secondary education. Children who are bullied have lower academic achievements than those who are not frequently bullied.

Health consequences: Children’s mental health and well-being can be adversely impacted by bullying. Bullying is associated with higher rates of feeling lonely and suicidal, higher rates of smoking, alcohol and cannabis use and lower rates of self-reported life satisfaction and health. School violence can also cause physical injuries and harm.

What are the linkages between school violence and bullying, school-related gender-based violence and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression?

School violence may be perpetrated as a result of gender norms and stereotypes and enforced by unequal power dynamics and is therefore referred to as school-related gender-based violence. It includes, in particular, a specific type of gender-based violence that is linked to the actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity or expression of victims, including homophobic and transphobic bullying. School-related gender-based violence is a significant part of school violence that requires specific efforts to address.

Does school-related gender-based violence refer to sexual violence against girls only?         

No. School-related gender-based violence refers to all forms of school violence that is based on or driven by gender norms and stereotypes, which also includes violence against and between boys.

Is school violence always gender-based?           

There are many factors that drive school violence. Gender is one of the significant drivers of violence but not all school violence is based on gender. Moreover, international surveys do not systematically collect data on the gendered nature of school violence, nor on violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. 

Based on the analysis of global data, there are no major differences in the prevalence of bullying for boys and girls. However, there are some differences between boys and girls in terms of the types of bullying they experience. Boys are much more exposed to physical bullying, and to physical violence in general, than girls. Girls are slightly more exposed to psychological bullying, particularly through cyberbullying. According to the same data, sexual bullying the same proportion of boys and girls. Data coming from different countries, however, shows that girls are increasingly exposed to sexual bullying online.

How does UNESCO help prevent and address school violence and bullying?

The best available evidence shows that responses to school violence and bullying that are effective should be comprehensive and include a combination of policies and interventions. Often this comprehensive response to school violence and bullying is referred to as a whole-school approach. Based on an extensive review of existing conceptual frameworks that describe that whole-school approach, UNESCO has identified nine key components of a response that goes beyond schools and could be better described as a whole-education system or whole-education approach.  These components are the following:

• Strong political leadership and robust legal and policy framework to address school violence and bullying;
• Training and support for teachers on school violence and bullying prevention and positive classroom management
• Curriculum, learning & teaching to promote, a caring (i.e. anti- school violence and bullying) school climate and students’ social and emotional skills
• A safe psychological and physical school and classroom environment
• Reporting mechanisms for students affected by school violence and bullying, together with support and referral services
• Involvement of all stakeholders in the school community including parents
• Student empowerment and participation
• Collaboration and partnerships between the education sector and a wide range of partners (other government sectors, NGOs, academia)
• Evidence: monitoring of school violence and bullying and evaluation of responses

More on UNESCO’s work to prevent and address school violence and bullying

Read UNESCO's publication Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying

Photo: Eakachai Leesin/Shutterstock.com

More on this subject

Other recent articles

clock This article was published more than  2 years ago

Back to school has brought guns, fighting and acting out

A Pennsylvania high school reverted to virtual classes last week, but it wasn’t because of coronavirus fears. It was because of “credible threats” after student fights.

In a Waldorf, Md., high school, a school resource officer was assaulted as three separate fights unfolded in the hallways and one spilled into the student parking lot. And in a large fight at a high school outside Columbus, Ohio, nine teachers were injured and seven students were charged with aggravated riot.

Much of the attention around the return to school after months of remote learning has focused on academic losses, but educators also feared emotional damage and behavioral unrest as students who have seen their lives upended by the pandemic adjust to being in school buildings again.

Those fears now appear to be materializing, in big ways and small. The National Association of School Resource Officers reports that from Aug. 1 to Oct. 1 this year, there were 97 reported gun-related incidents in schools. During the same span in 2019, there were 29.

Similarly, Everytown for Gun Safety, a lobby group for gun restrictions, tallies 56 instances of gunfire on school grounds in August and September of 2021. That is higher for those two months than any year since the group began tracking incidents in 2013, and more than double the previous high of 22 in 2019. It also found record numbers of deaths, at eight, and injuries, with 35.

“School violence has risen to levels that we haven’t seen quite frankly,” said Mo Canady, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers. “I don’t think it took a genius to see this coming.”

A D.C. teen was killed outside of school. The city is working to prevent violence as more students return to classrooms.

There is no national data on less-serious instances of violence in schools, but teachers and school administrators across the country say they are seeing a rise in everything from minor misbehaviors to fighting in the hallways.

“The toxic stress of everything going on during the pandemic, it’s building up with kids — and adults. Now that they’re around each other again, they need to relearn how to do school again,” said Christina Conolly, director of Psychological Services for Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, who recently chaired the School Safety and Crisis Response Committee of the National Association of School Psychologists.

Stress levels are also high among adults when it comes to schools, with loud fights over whether masks should be mandatory and over how to teach about race in schools. Some school board members have been shouted down and even threatened by parents angry over school policies.

More worrisome for students, experts say, is the social isolation wrought by the pandemic. Isolation is among the risk factors for students who commit violent acts in schools, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a May bulletin . The agency noted that the pandemic also denied many students access to mental health professionals and put financial strains on many families.

“The reduced access to services coupled with the exposure to additional risk factors suggests schools — and the communities in which they are located — will need to increase support services to help students adjust to in-person learning as they cope with the potential trauma associated with the pandemic response,” the Homeland Security bulletin said.

Anecdotally, teachers and even some students say the level of disturbance this fall has gone far beyond years past. In some cases, students are unaccustomed to following the rules that govern a school building. They don’t grasp the expectations for their ages, teachers say, because the last time some were in school was two grades ago.

Dawn Neely-Randall, a fifth-grade teacher in Elyria, Ohio, has taught for more than 30 years and said she has never seen “so much defiance” from students, including children pushing each other and lobbing verbal attacks.

“I’m not just talking about immature behaviors,” she said. “On the first day of school, when students are usually on their best behavior, they came roaring in, jumping onto and over the furniture.”

She said she has managed to get her classes under control but she has to be stricter than usual, and was pushed to seek anti-anxiety medication for the first time in her life and has begun contemplating early retirement.

“Hardest year in 32 years of teaching,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “I know I’m not alone. It’s being felt all across the nation.”

In dramatic 1 a.m. reversal, Alexandria City Council votes to put police back in schools temporarily

Leo Cavinder, 17, sees it too, at La Porte High School in La Porte, Ind.

“I have seen and heard a lot more violence … than in previous years,” he said. “There have been fights break out that result in blood on the floor and lockers and broken or bruised faces.”

He blames the extended period of remote school, where students didn’t have to deal with peers. “Students are adjusting back to normal,” he said.

At Westlake High School in Waldorf, Md., the principal wrote families this month about multiple fights in a single day. The first was after lunch in the hallway, then came a second after sixth period, outside the library. As the halls were being cleared, another fight was unfolding upstairs that resulted in a physical assault on a school resource officer.

Then, as school dismissed, a fourth altercation occurred in the student parking lot.

“Please talk with your child about using supports in place at school, and consequences for behavior that violates school policies and rules,” Principal Diane Roberts wrote.

In Lysa Mullady’s elementary school in Suffolk County on Long Island, the behavior problems are small things: “No one can get along on the playground.”

“The remote-learning kids who are coming back into the classroom have forgotten what it’s like to be with other children,” she said. “There’s a skill set that you need to problem-solve.” Those skills include talking it out and walking away, she said. “They haven’t had to navigate outside their homes for so long they’ve really forgotten how to do it.”

Mullady, vice president for elementary for the New York State School Counselor Association, said she advises teachers to go over difficult moments with the whole class, so everyone can learn how to better solve problems. Schools need to examine data and teachers need to consult with each other to identify students who are having trouble. And, she said, teachers need to take time to check in and connect with individual children.

“It’s relationship building, it’s creating safe spaces so you build a relationship by really seeing each child,” she said. “Teachers are feeling the stress of the gap they have to make up academically, but we cannot make up any gap until a child is emotionally ready to learn.”

At a recent meeting of the school board in the Addison Central School District in Vermont, Fawnda Buttolph said she has never seen such poor student behavior in some 20 years of teaching. This fall, she has worked as a substitute in four district schools.

“The kids are in charge and they know it,” she said during a long speech in which she broke into tears. She described disrespectful students refusing to do classwork and “chaotic” hallways.

One day a student threw a bag of grapes into her classroom, making a mess that he refused to clean up. Students in one of her classrooms were so “out of control” and disrespectful that she had to call in the principal, who came with the assistant principal and removed four students. “For the first time ever, I raised my voice and yelled at my students. I’ve never done that,” she said.

In Farmington, N.M., two high school students were arrested for planning a school shooting, after officials found a map and written plans. Separately, Superintendent Gene Schmidt said there was some damage done to a couple of school bathrooms, the result of a TikTok challenge. Other than that, though, he says students have mostly been excited to be back in school.

“After kids had been out of school for so long, when they first came back we had, if anything, less behavioral problems than before because they just wanted to be back in school,” he said.

Other educators say the year began on a joyful note but behavior problems emerged after students were back for a bit.

At Woodland Hills High School outside Pittsburgh, the district shifted to remote schooling for two days in hopes of calming things down after fights rolled through the school last week.

It began with two girls fighting at lunch, said Superintendent James Harris. Later that day, two boys fought over a girl, prompting friends to jump in. By the time it was over, 30 students had attacked other students, he said.

“That adrenaline just started flowing through them and they couldn’t control it,” Harris said.

Harris said he is not excusing the behavior, but has little doubt the mayhem can be traced to students needing to relearn how to be in school after so many months away from it.

“The freshmen were seventh-graders last time they were in school,” he said. “They went from recess and cartwheels to ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?’ and ‘where do you want to go to college?’ Their bodies have grown but their minds haven’t. They’re still seeing themselves as young students who want recess, who want to play.”

At the same time, many students have lost loved ones in the pandemic, and there have been recent shootings in the area, leaving students with added trauma.

“A lot of it comes down to socialization, expectations and I think deep down inside there’s a lot of sadness from the trauma that students experienced,” Harris said.

He decided to move to remote school last Thursday and Friday after administrators picked up comments on social media threatening to continue the fight. After two days of remote learning, he said, Friday night’s football game and Saturday’s homecoming dance went on as scheduled and unfolded without any trouble.

Harris said the two-day break was made possible by technology bought for remote school during the pandemic. He had imagined the schools might also use it on snow days, or for a student who was out of town.

“It’s a tool that we have at our disposal,” he said. “We never thought we [would have to] shut down the school because of kids fighting.”

• High contrast
• Press Centre

Search UNICEF

An everyday lesson: #endviolence in schools.

Globally, half of students aged 13–15 experience peer-to-peer violence in and around school. This violence has short-term effects on their educational achievement and a long-term impression on their futures. This report outlines the prevalence of violence in and around schools and highlights students’, partners’ and UNICEF efforts to #Endviolence in schools.

Files available for download

Related topics, more to explore, global deployment of rapid diagnostic tests to boost fight against cholera, six grave violations against children in times of war.

How children have become frontline targets in armed conflicts

UNICEF and UNFPA alarmed by proposed repeal of law banning FGM in The Gambia

Millions at risk from cholera due to lack of clean water, soap and toilets, and shortage of cholera vaccine.

School shootings: What we know about them, and what we can do to prevent them

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, robin m. kowalski, ph.d. robin m. kowalski, ph.d. professor, department of psychology - clemson university @cuprof.

January 26, 2022

On the morning of Nov. 30, 2021, a 15-year-old fatally shot four students and injured seven others at his high school in Oakland County, Michigan. It’s just one of the latest tragedies in a long line of the horrific K-12 school shootings now seared into our memories as Americans.

And we have seen that the threat of school shootings, in itself, is enough to severely disrupt schools. In December, a TikTok challenge known as “ National Shoot Up Your School Day ” gained prominence. Although vague and with no clear origin, the challenge warned of possible acts of violence at K-12 schools. In response, some schools nationwide cancelled classes, others stepped up security. Many students stayed home from school that day. (It’s worth noting that no incidents of mass violence ended up occurring.)

What are the problems that appear to underlie school shootings? How can we better respond to students that are in need? If a student does pose a threat and has the means to carry it out, how can members of the school community act to stop it? Getting a better grasp of school shootings, as challenging as it might be, is a clear priority for preventing harm and disruption for kids, staff, and families. This post considers what we know about K-12 school shootings and what we might do going forward to alleviate their harms.

Who is perpetrating school shootings?

As the National Association of School Psychologists says, “There is NO profile of a student who will cause harm.” Indeed, any attempt to develop profiles of school shooters is an ill-advised and potentially dangerous strategy. Profiling risks wrongly including many children who would never consider committing a violent act and wrongly excluding some children who might. However, while an overemphasis on personal warning signs is problematic, there can still be value in identifying certain commonalities behind school shootings. These highlight problems that can be addressed to minimize the occurrence of school shootings, and they can play a pivotal role in helping the school community know when to check in—either with an individual directly or with someone close to them (such as a parent or guidance counselor). Carefully integrating this approach into a broader prevention strategy helps school personnel understand the roots of violent school incidents and assess risks in a way that avoids the recklessness of profiling.

Within this framework of threat assessment, exploring similarities and differences of school shootings—if done responsibly—can be useful to prevention efforts. To that end, I recently published a study with colleagues that examined the extent to which features common to school shootings prior to 2003 were still relevant today. We compared the antecedents of K-12 shootings, college/university shootings, and other mass shootings.

We found that the majority of school shooters are male (95%) and white (61%) –yet many of these individuals feel marginalized. Indeed, almost half of those who perpetrate K-12 shootings report a history of rejection, with many experiencing bullying. One 16-year-old shooter wrote , “I feel rejected, rejected, not so much alone, but rejected. I feel this way because the day-to-day treatment I get usually it’s positive but the negative is like a cut, it doesn’t go away really fast.” Prior to the Parkland shooting, the perpetrator said , “I had enough of being—telling me that I’m an idiot and a dumbass.” A 14-year-old shooter stated in court, “I felt like I wasn’t wanted by anyone, especially  my mom. ” These individuals felt rejected and insignificant.

Our study also found that more than half of K-12 shooters have a history of psychological problems (e.g., depression, suicidal ideation, bipolar disorder, and psychotic episodes). The individuals behind the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings, among others, had been diagnosed with an assortment of psychological conditions. (Of course, the vast majority of children with diagnosed psychological conditions don’t commit an act of mass violence. Indeed, psychologists and psychiatrists have warned that simply blaming mental illness for mass shootings unfairly stigmatizes those with diagnoses and ignores other, potentially more salient factors behind incidents of mass violence.) For some, the long-term rejection is compounded by a more acute rejection experience that immediately precedes the shooting. While K-12 school shooters were less likely than other mass shooters to experience an acute, traumatic event shortly before the shooting, these events are not uncommon.

Many shooters also display a fascination with guns and/or a preoccupation with violence. They play violent video games, watch violent movies, and read books that glorify violence and killing. Several of the shooters showed a particular fascination with Columbine, Hitler, and/or Satanism. They wrote journals or drew images depicting violence and gore. The continued exposure to violence may desensitize individuals to violence and provide ideas that are then copied in the school shootings.

To reiterate, however, there is no true profile of a school shooter. Plenty of people are bullied in middle and high school without entertaining thoughts of shooting classmates. Similarly, making and breaking relationships goes along with high school culture, yet most people who experience a break-up do not think of harming others. Anxiety and depression are common, especially in adolescence, and countless adolescents play violent video games without committing acts of violence in real life. Even if some commonalities are evident, we must recognize their limits.

What can we do?

Understanding the experiences of school shooters can reveal important insights for discerning how to prevent school shootings. So, what might we do about it?

First, the problems that appear to underlie some school shootings, such as bullying and mental-health challenges, need attention—and there’s a lot we can do. School administrators and educators need to implement bullying prevention programs, and they need to pay attention to the mental-health needs of their students. One way to do this is to facilitate “ psychological mattering ” in schools. Students who feel like they matter—that they are important or significant to others—are less likely to feel isolated, ostracized, and alone. They feel confident that there are people to whom they can turn for support. To the extent that mattering is encouraged in schools, bullying should decrease. Typically, we don’t bully people who are important or significant to us.

Second, because most of the perpetrators of K-12 shootings are under the age of 18, they cannot legally acquire guns. In our study , handguns were used in over 91% of the K-12 shootings, and almost half of the shooters stole the gun from a family member. Without guns, there cannot be school shootings. Clearly more needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of youth in America.

Third, students, staff, and parents must pay attention to explicit signals of an imminent threat. Many shooters leak information about their plans well before the shooting. They may create a video, write in a journal, warn certain classmates not to attend school on a particular day, brag about their plans, or try to enlist others’ help in their plot. Social media has provided a venue for children to disclose their intentions. Yet, students, parents, and educators often ignore or downplay the warning signs of an imminent threat. Students often think their peers are simply expressing threats as a way of garnering attention. Even if the threats are taken seriously, an unwritten code of silence keeps many students from reporting what they see or hear. They don’t want to be a snitch or risk being the target of the would-be shooter’s rage. With this in mind, educators and administrators need to encourage reporting among students—even anonymously—and need to take those reports extremely seriously. Helpful information for teachers, administrators, and parents can be found at SchoolSafety.gov . In addition, Sandy Hook Promise provides information about school violence and useful videos for young people about attending to the warning signs that often accompany school shootings.

Fourth, school leaders should be aware that not every apparent act of prevention is worth the costs. Some people believe that lockdown drills, metal detectors, school resource officers, and the like are useful deterrents to school shootings and school violence more broadly. However, researchers have also demonstrated that they can increase anxiety and fear among students . Students may also become habituated to the drills, failing to recognize the seriousness of an actual threat should it arise. Additionally, most K-12 shooters are students within the school itself. These students are well-versed in the security measures taken by the school to try to deter acts of violence by individuals such as themselves. While few would suggest getting rid of lockdown drills and other security measures, educators and administrators need to be mindful of the rewards versus the costs in their selection of safety measures.

Ultimately, our goal should be creating an environment in which school shootings never occur. This is an ambitious aim, and it will be challenging work. But addressing some key issues, such as mental health, will go a long way toward preventing future tragedies in our schools. As so aptly demonstrated in the Ted Talk, “ I was almost a school shooter ,” by Aaron Stark, making someone feel that they have value and that they matter can go a long way toward altering that individual’s life and, consequently, the lives of others.

Related Content

Kenneth Alonzo Anderson

November 8, 2018

Andre M. Perry

December 4, 2018

K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Brad Olsen, John McIntosh

April 3, 2024

Darcy Hutchins, Emily Markovich Morris, Laura Nora, Carolina Campos, Adelaida Gómez Vergara, Nancy G. Gordon, Esmeralda Macana, Karen Robertson

March 28, 2024

Jennifer B. Ayscue, Kfir Mordechay, David Mickey-Pabello

March 26, 2024

Fast Fact: Preventing School Violence

School violence is violence that occurs in the school setting. It describes violent acts that disrupt learning and have a negative effect on students, schools, and the broader community. School is the location where the violence occurs, not a type of violence.

Examples of school violence include:

• Bullying and cyberbullying
• Fighting (e.g., punching, slapping, kicking)
• Gang violence
• Sexual violence

Places school violence occurs:

• On school property
• On the way to or from school
• During a school-sponsored event
• On the way to or from a school-sponsored event

In 2019, CDC’s nationwide Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) was administered to high school students across the United States. According to YRBS results  from 13, 677 students:

• About 1 in 5 high school students reported being bullied on school property in the last year.
• 8% of high school students had been in a physical fight on school property one or more times during the 12 months before the survey.
• More than 7% of high school students had been threatened or injured with a weapon (for example, a gun, knife, or club) on school property one or more times during the 12 months before the survey.
• Almost 9% of high school students had not gone to school at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey because they felt they would be unsafe at school or on their way to or from school.

All students have the right to learn in a safe school environment. The good news is school violence can be prevented. Many factors contribute to school violence. Preventing school violence requires addressing the factors that put people at risk for or protect them from violence. Research shows that prevention efforts by teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and even students can reduce violence and improve the school environment.

CDC developed Resources for Action , formerly known as, “technical packages,” to help communities and states prioritize prevention strategies based on the best available evidence. The strategies and approaches in the Resources for Action are intended to shape individual behaviors as well as the relationship, family, school, community, and societal factors that influence risk and protective factors for violence. They are meant to work together and to be used in combination in a multi-level, multi-sector effort to prevent violence.

See  Youth Violence Resources  for articles, publications, data sources, and prevention resources for school violence.

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

• Data & Statistics (WISQARS)
• Opioid Overdose Prevention
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Motor Vehicle Safety

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

An Examination of US School Mass Shootings, 2017–2022: Findings and Implications

Antonis katsiyannis.

1 Department of Education and Human Development, College of Education, Clemson University, 101 Gantt Circle, Room 407 C, Clemson, SC 29634 USA

Luke J. Rapa

2 Department of Education and Human Development, College of Education, Clemson University, 101 Gantt Circle, Room 409 F, Clemson, SC 29634 USA

Denise K. Whitford

3 Steven C. Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, Purdue University, 100 N. University Street, BRNG 5154, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098 USA

Samantha N. Scott

4 Department of Education and Human Development, College of Education, Clemson University, 101 Gantt Circle, Room G01A, Clemson, SC 29634 USA

Gun violence in the USA is a pressing social and public health issue. As rates of gun violence continue to rise, deaths resulting from such violence rise as well. School shootings, in particular, are at their highest recorded levels. In this study, we examined rates of intentional firearm deaths, mass shootings, and school mass shootings in the USA using data from the past 5 years, 2017–2022, to assess trends and reappraise prior examination of this issue.

Extant data regarding shooting deaths from 2017 through 2020 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the web-based injury statistics query and reporting system (WISQARS), and, for school shootings in particular (2017–2022), from Everytown Research & Policy.

The number of intentional firearm deaths and the crude death rates increased from 2017 to 2020 in all age categories; crude death rates rose from 4.47 in 2017 to 5.88 in 2020. School shootings made a sharp decline in 2020—understandably so, given the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent government or locally mandated school shutdowns—but rose again sharply in 2021.

Conclusions

Recent data suggest continued upward trends in school shootings, school mass shootings, and related deaths over the past 5 years. Notably, gun violence disproportionately affects boys, especially Black boys, with much higher gun deaths per capita for this group than for any other group of youth. Implications for policy and practice are provided.

On May 24, 2022, an 18-year-old man killed 19 students and two teachers and wounded 17 individuals at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, using an AR-15-style rifle. Outside the school, he fired shots for about 5 min before entering the school through an unlocked side door and locked himself inside two adjoining classrooms killing 19 students and two teachers. He was in the school for over an hour (78 min) before being shot dead by the US Border Patrol Tactical Unit, though police officers were on the school premises (Sandoval, 2022 ).

The Robb Elementary School mass shooting, the second deadliest school mass shooting in American history, is the latest calamity in a long list of tragedies occurring on public school campuses in the USA. Regrettably, these tragedies are both a reflection and an outgrowth of the broader reality of gun violence in this country. In 2021, gun violence claimed 45,027 lives (including 20,937 suicides), with 313 children aged 0–11 killed and 750 injured, along with 1247 youth aged 12–17 killed and 3385 injured (Gun Violence Archive, 2022a ). Mass shootings in the USA have steadily increased in recent years, rising from 269 in 2013 to 611 in 2020. Mass shootings are typically defined as incidents in which four or more people are killed (Katsiyannis et al., 2018a ). However, the Gun Violence Archive considers mass shootings to be incidents in which four or more people are injured (Gun Violence Archive, 2022b ). Regardless of these distinctions in definition, in 2020, there were 19,384 gun murders, representing a 34% increase from the year before, a 49% increase over a 5-year period, and a 75% increase over a 10-year period (Pew Research Center, 2022 ). Regarding school-based shootings, to date in 2022, there have been at least 95 incidents of gunfire on school premises, resulting in 40 deaths and 76 injuries (Everytown Research & Policy, 2022b ). Over the past few decades, school shootings in the USA have become relatively commonplace: there were more in 2021 than in any year since 1999, with the median age of perpetrators being 16 (Washington Post, 2022 ; see also, Katsiyannis et al., 2018a ). Additionally, analysis of Everytown’s Gunfire on School Grounds dataset and related studies point to several key observations to be considered in addressing this challenge. For example, 58% of perpetrators had a connection to the school, 70% were White males, 73 to 80% obtained guns from home or relatives or friends, and 100% exhibited warning signs or showed behavior that was of cause for concern; also, in 77% of school shootings, at least one person knew about the shooter’s plan before the shooting events occurred (Everytown Research & Policy, 2021a ).

The USA has had 57 times as many school shootings as all other major industrialized nations combined (Rowhani-Rahbar & Moe, 2019 ). Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the USA, with children ages 5–14 being 21 times and adolescents and young adults ages 15–24 being 23 times more likely to be killed with guns compared to other high-income countries. Furthermore, Black children and teens are 14 times and Latinx children and teens are three times more likely than White children to die by guns (Everytown Research & Policy, 2021b ). Children exposed to violence, crime, and abuse face a host of adverse challenges, including abuse of drugs and alcohol, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, school failure, and involvement in criminal activity (Cabral et al., 2021 ; Everytown Research and Policy, 2022b ; Finkelhor et al., 2013 ).

Yet, despite gun violence being considered a pressing social and public health issue, federal legislation passed in 1996 has resulted in restricting funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The law stated that no funding earmarked for injury prevention and control may be used to advocate or promote firearm control (Kellermann & Rivara, 2013 ). More recently, in June 2022, the US Supreme Court struck down legislation restricting gun possession and open carry rights (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 2021 ), broadening gun rights and increasing the risk of gun violence in public spaces. Nonetheless, according to Everytown Research & Policy ( 2022a ), states with strong gun laws experience fewer deaths per capita. In the aggregate, states with weaker gun laws (i.e., laws that are more permissive) experience 20.0 gun deaths per 100,000 residents versus 7.4 per 100,000 in states with stronger laws. The association between gun law strength and per capita death is stark (see Table ​ Table1 1 ).

Gun law strength and gun law deaths per 100,000 residents

Accounting for the top eight and the bottom eight states in gun law strength, gun law strength and gun deaths per 100,000 are correlated at r  =  − 0.85. Stronger gun laws are thus meaningfully linked with fewer deaths per capita. Data obtained from Everytown Research & Policy ( 2022a )

Notwithstanding the publicity involving gun shootings in schools, particularly mass shootings, violence in schools has been steadily declining. For example, in 2020, students aged 12–18 experienced 285,400 victimizations at school and 380,900 victimizations away from school; an annual decrease of 60% for school victimizations (from 2019 to 2020) (Irwin et al., 2022 ). Similarly, youth arrests in general in 2019 were at their lowest level since at least 1980; between 2010 and 2019, the number of juvenile arrests fell by 58%. Yet, arrests for murder increased by 10% (Puzzanchera, 2021 ).

In response to school violence in general, and school shootings in particular, schools have increasingly relied on increased security measures, school resource officers (SROs), and zero tolerance policies (including exclusionary and aversive measures) in their attempts to curb violence and enhance school safety. In 2019–2020, public schools reported controlled access (97%), the use of security cameras (91%), and badges or picture IDs (77%) to promote safety. In addition, high schools (84%), middle schools (81%), and elementary schools (55%) reported the presence of SROs (Irwin et al., 2022 ). Research, however, has indicated that the presence of SROs has not resulted in a reduction of school shooting severity, despite their increased prevalence. Rather, the type of firearm utilized in school shootings has been closely associated with the number of deaths and injuries (Lemieux, 2014 ; Livingston et al., 2019 ), suggesting implications for reconsideration of the kinds of firearms to which individuals have access.

Zero tolerance policies, though originally intended to curtail gun violence in schools, have expanded to cover a host of incidents (e.g., threats, bullying). Notwithstanding these intentions, these policies are generally ineffective in preventing school violence, including school shootings (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008 ; Losinski et al., 2014 ), and have exacerbated the prevalence of youths’ interactions with law enforcement in schools. From the 2015–2016 to the 2017–2018 school years, there was a 5% increase in school-related arrests and a 12% increase in referrals to law enforcement (U.S. Department of Education, 2021 ); in 2017–18, about 230,000 students were referred to law enforcement and over 50,000 were arrested (The Center for Public Integrity, 2021 ). Law enforcement referrals have been a persistent concern aiding the school-to-prison pipeline, often involving non-criminal offenses and disproportionally affecting students from non-White backgrounds as well as students with disabilities (Chan et al., 2021 ; The Center for Public Integrity, 2021 ).

The consequences of these policies are thus far-reaching, with not only legal ramifications, but social-emotional and academic ones as well. For example, in 2017–2018, students missed 11,205,797 school days due to out-of-school suspensions during that school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2021 ), there were 96,492 corporal punishment incidents, and 101,990 students were physically restrained, mechanically restrained, or secluded (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2020 ). Such exclusionary and punitive measures have long-lasting consequences for the involved students, including academic underachievement, dropout, delinquency, and post-traumatic stress (e.g., Cholewa et al., 2018 ). Moreover, these consequences disproportionally affect culturally and linguistically diverse students and students with disabilities (Skiba et al., 2014 ; U.S. General Accountability Office, 2018 ), often resulting in great societal costs (Rumberger & Losen, 2017 ).

In the USA, mass killings involving guns occur approximately every 2 weeks, while school shootings occur every 4 weeks (Towers et al., 2015 ). Given the apparent and continued rise in gun violence, mass shootings, and school mass shootings, we aimed in this paper to reexamine rates of intentional firearm deaths, mass shootings, and school mass shootings in the USA using data from the past 5 years, 2017–2022, reappraising our analyses given the time that had passed since our earlier examination of the issue (Katsiyannis et al., 2018a , b ).

As noted in Katsiyannis et al., ( 2018a , b ), gun violence, mass shootings, and school shootings have been a part of the American way of life for generations. Such shootings have grown exponentially in both frequency and mortality rate since the 1980s. Using the same criteria applied in our previous work (Katsiyannis et al., 2018a , b ), we evaluated the frequency of shootings, mass shootings, and school mass school shootings from January 2017 through mid-July 2022. Extant data regarding shooting deaths from 2017 through 2020 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, utilizing the web-based injury statistics query and reporting system (WISQARS), and for school shootings from 2017 to 2022 from Everytown Research & Policy ( https://everytownresearch.org ), an independent non-profit organization that researches and communicates with policymakers and the public about gun violence in the USA. Intentional firearm death data were classified by age, as outlined in Katsiyannis et al., ( 2018a , b ), and the crude rate was calculated by dividing the number of deaths times 100,000, by the total population for each individual category.

The number of intentional firearm deaths and the crude death rates increased from 2017 to 2020 in all age categories. In absolute terms, the number of deaths rose from 14,496 in 2017 to 19,308 in 2020. In accord with this rise in the absolute number of deaths, crude death rates rose from 4.47 in 2017 to 5.88 in 2020. Table ​ Table2 2 provides the crude death rate in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the most current years with data available. Figure  1 provides the raw number of deaths across the same time period.

Intentional firearm deaths across the USA (2017–2020)

Data obtained from WISQARS (2022)

Intentional firearm deaths across the USA (2017–2020). Note. Data obtained from WISQARS (2022)

As expected, in 2020, the number of fatal firearm injuries increased sharply from age 0–11 years, roughly elementary school age, to age 12–18 years, roughly middle school and high school age. Table ​ Table3 3 provides the crude death rates of children in 2020 who die from firearms. Males outnumbered females in every category of firearm deaths, including homicide, police violence, suicide, and accidental shootings, as well as for undetermined reasons for firearm discharge. Black males drastically surpassed all other children in the number of firearm deaths (2.91 per 100,000 0–11-year-olds; 57.10 per 100,000 12–18-year-olds). Also, notable is the high number of Black children 12–18 years killed by guns (32.37 per 100,000), followed by American Indian and Alaska Native children (18.87 per 100,000), in comparison to White children (12.40 per 100,000 children), Hispanic/Latinx children (8.16 per 100,000), and Asian and Pacific Islander children (2.95 per 100,000). A disproportionate number of gun deaths were also seen for Black girls relative to other girls (1.52 per 100,000 0–11-year-olds; 7.01 per 100,000 12–18-year-olds).

Fatal firearm injuries for children age 0–18 across the USA in 2020

  AN Alaska Native; – indicates 20 or fewer cases

Mass shootings and mass shooting deaths increased from 2017 to 2019, decreased in 2020, and then increased again in 2021. School shootings made a sharp decline in 2020—understandably so, given the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent government or locally mandated school shutdowns—but rose again sharply in 2021. Current rates reveal a continued increase, with numbers at the beginning of 2022 already exceeding those of 2017. School mass shooting counts were relatively low between 2017 through 2022, with four total during that time frame. Figure  2 provides raw numbers for mass shootings, school shootings, and school mass shootings from 2017 through 2022. Importantly, figures from the recent Uvalde, TX, school mass shooting at Robb Elementary School had not yet been recorded in the relevant databases at the time of this writing. With those deaths accounted for, 2022 is already the deadliest year for school mass shootings in the past 5 years.

Mass shootings, school shootings, and mass school shootings across the USA (2017–2022). Note. Data obtained from Everytown Research and Policy. Overlap present between all three categories

Gun violence in the USA, particularly mass shootings on the grounds of public schools, continues to be a pressing social and public health issue. Recent data suggest continued upward trends in school shootings, school mass shootings, and related deaths over the past 5 years—patterns that disturbingly mirror general gun violence and intentional shooting deaths in the USA across the same time period. The impacts on our nation’s youth are profound. Notably, gun violence disproportionately affects boys, especially Black boys, with much higher gun deaths per capita for this group than for any other group of youth. Likewise, Black girls are disproportionately affected compared to girls from other ethnic/racial groups. Moreover, while the COVID-19 pandemic and school shutdowns tempered gun violence in schools at least somewhat during the 2020 school year—including school shootings and school mass shootings—trend data show that gun violence rates are still continuing to rise. Indeed, gun violence deaths resulting from school shootings are at their highest recorded levels ever (Irwin et al., 2022 ).

Implications for Schools: Curbing School Violence

In recent years, the implementation of Multi-Tier Systems and Supports (MTSS), including Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI), has resulted in improved school climate and student engagement as well as improved academic and behavioral outcomes (Elrod et al., 2022 ; Santiago-Rosario et al., 2022 ; National Center for Learning Disabilities, n.d.). Such approaches have implications for reducing school violence as well. PBIS uses a tiered framework intended to improve student behavioral and academic outcomes; it creates positive learning environments through the implementation of evidence-based instructional and behavioral interventions, guided by data-based decision-making and allocation of students across three tiers. In Tier 1, schools provide universal supports to all students in a proactive manner; in Tier 2, supports are aimed to students who need additional academic, behavioral, or social-emotional intervention; and in Tier 3, supports are provided in an intensive and individualized manner (Lewis et al., 2010 ). The implementation of PBIS has resulted in an improved school climate, fewer office referrals, and reductions in out-of-school suspensions (Bradshaw et al., 2010 ; Elrod et al.,  2010 , 2022 ; Gage et al., 2018a , 2018b ; Horner et al., 2010 ; Noltemeyer et al., 2019 ). Likewise, RTI aims to improve instructional outcomes through high-quality instruction and universal screening for students to identify learning challenges and similarly allocates students across three tiers. In Tier 1, schools implement high-quality classroom instruction, screening, and group interventions; in Tier 2, schools implement targeted interventions; and in Tier 3, schools implement intensive interventions and comprehensive evaluation (National Center for Learning Disabilities, n.d ). RTI implementation has resulted in improved academic outcomes (e.g., reading, writing) (Arrimada et al., 2022 ; Balu et al., 2015 ; Siegel, 2020 ) and enhanced school climate and student behavior.

In order to support students’ well-being, enhance school climate, and support reductions in behavioral issues and school violence, schools should consider the implementation of MTSS, reducing reliance on exclusionary and aversive measures such as zero tolerance policies, seclusion and restraints, corporal punishment, or school-based law enforcement referrals and arrests (see Gage et al., in press ). Such approaches and policies are less effective than the use of MTSS, exacerbate inequities and enhance disproportionality (particularly for youth of color and students with disabilities), and have not been shown to reduce violence in schools.

Implications for Students: Ensuring Physical Safety and Supporting Mental Health

Students should not have to attend school and fear becoming victims of violence in general, no less gun violence in particular. Schools must ensure the physical safety of their students. Yet, as the substantial number of school shootings continues to rise in the USA, so too does concern about the adverse impacts of violence and gun violence on students’ mental health and well-being. Students are frequently exposed to unavoidable and frightening images and stories of school violence (Child Development Institute, n.d. ) and are subject to active shooter drills that may not actually be effective and, in some cases, may actually induce trauma (Jetelina, 2022 ; National Association of School Psychologists & National Association of School Resources Officers, 2021 ; Wang et al., 2020 ). In turn, students struggle to process and understand why these events happen and, more importantly, how they can be prevented (National Association of School Psychologists, 2015 ). School personnel should be prepared to support the mental health needs of students, both in light of the prevalence of school gun violence and in the aftermath of school mass shootings.

Research provides evidence that traumatic events, such as school mass shootings, can and do have mental health consequences for victims and members of affected communities, leading to an increase in post-traumatic stress syndrome, depression, and other psychological systems (Lowe & Galea, 2017 ). At the same time, high media attention to such events indirectly exposes and heightens feelings of fear, anxiety, and vulnerability in students—even if they did not attend the school where the shooting occurred (Schonfeld & Demaria, 2020 ). Students of all ages may experience adjustment difficulties and engage in avoidance behaviors (Schonfeld & Demaria, 2020 ). As a result, school personnel may underestimate a student’s distress after a shooting and overestimate their resilience. In addition, an adult’s difficulty adjusting in the wake of trauma may also threaten a student’s sense of well-being because they may believe their teachers cannot provide them with the protection they need to remain safe in school (Schonfeld & Demaria, 2020 ).

These traumatic events have resounding consequences for youth development and well-being. However, schools continue to struggle to meet the demands of student mental health needs as they lack adequate funding for resources, student support services, and staff to provide the level of support needed for many students (Katsiyannis et al., 2018a ). Despite these limiting factors, children and youth continue to look to adults for information and guidance on how to react to adverse events. An effective response can significantly decrease the likelihood of further trauma; therefore, all school personnel must be prepared to talk with students about their fears, to help them feel safe and establish a sense of normalcy and security in the wake of tragedy (National Association of School Psychologists, 2016 ). Research suggests a number of strategies can be utilized by educators, school leaders, counselors, and other mental health professionals to support the students and staff they serve.

Recommendations for Educators

The National Association of School Psychologists ( 2016 ) recommends the following practices for educators to follow in response to school mass shootings. Although a complex topic to address, the issue needs to be acknowledged. In particular, educators should designate time to talk with their students about the event, and should reassure students that they are safe while validating their fears, feelings, and concerns. Recognizing and stressing to students that all feelings are okay when a tragedy occurs is essential. It is important to note that some students do not wish to express their emotions verbally. Other developmentally appropriate outlets, such as drawing, writing, reading books, and imaginative play, can be utilized. Educators should also provide developmentally appropriate explanations of the issue and events throughout their conversations. At the elementary level, students need brief, simple answers that are balanced with reassurances that schools are safe and that adults are there to protect them. In the secondary grades, students may be more vocal in asking questions about whether they are truly safe and what protocols are in place to protect them at school. To address these questions, educators can provide information related to the efforts of school and community leaders to ensure school safety. Educators should also review safety procedures and help students to identify at least one adult in the building to whom they can go if they feel threatened or at risk. Limiting exposure to media and social media is also important, as developmentally inappropriate information can cause anxiety or confusion. Educators should also maintain a normal routine by keeping a regular school schedule.

Recommendations for School Leaders

Superintendents, principals, and other school administrative personnel are looked upon to provide leadership and comfort to staff, students, and parents during a tragedy. Reassurance can be provided by reiterating safety measures and student supports that are in place in their district and school (The National Association of School Psychologists, 2015 ). The NASP recommends the following practices for school leaders regarding addressing student mental health needs directly. First, school leaders should be a visible, welcoming presence by greeting students and visiting classrooms. School leaders should also communicate with the school community, including parents and students, about their efforts to maintain safe and caring schools through clear behavioral expectations, positive behavior interventions and supports, and crisis planning preparedness. This can include the development of press releases for broad dissemination within the school community. School leaders should also provide crisis training and professional development for staff, based upon assessments of needs and targeted toward identified knowledge or skill gaps. They should also ensure the implementation of violence prevention programs and curricula in school and review school safety policies and procedures to ensure that all safety issues are adequately covered in current school crisis plans and emergency response procedures.

Recommendations for Counselors and Mental Health Professionals

School counselors offer critical assistance to their buildings’ populations as they experience crises or respond to emergencies (American School Counselor Association, 2019 ; Brown, 2020 ). Two models that stand out in the literature utilized by counselors in the wake of violent events are the Preparation, Action, Recovery (PAR) model and the Prevent and prepare; Reaffirm; Evaluate; provide interventions and Respond (PREPaRE) model. PREPaRE is the only comprehensive, nationally available training curriculum created by educators for educators (The National Association of School Psychologists, n.d. ). Although beneficial, neither the PAR nor PREPaRE model directly addresses school counselors’ responses to school shootings when their school is directly affected (Brown, 2020 ). This led to the development of the School Counselor’s Response to School Shootings-Framework of Recommendations (SCRSS-FR) model, which includes six stages, each of which has corresponding components for school counselors who have lived through a school mass shooting. Each of these models provides the necessary training to school-employed mental health professionals on how to best fill the roles and responsibilities generated by their membership on school crisis response teams (The National Association of School Psychologists, n.d. ).

Other Implications: Federal and State Policy

Recent events at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, prompted the US Congress to pass landmark legislation intended to curb gun violence, enhancing background checks for prospective gun buyers who are under 21 years of age as well as allowing examination of juvenile records beginning at age 16, including health records related to prospective gun buyers’ mental health. Additionally, this legislation provides funding that will allow states to implement “red flag laws” and other intervention programs while also strengthening laws related to the purchase and trafficking of guns (Cochrane, 2022 ). Yet, additional legislation reducing or eliminating access to assault rifles and other guns with large capacity magazines, weapons that might easily be deemed “weapons of mass destruction,” is still needed (Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School & Community Violence, 2022 ; see also Flannery et al., 2021 ). In 2019, the US Congress started to appropriate research funding to support research on gun violence, with $25 million in equal shares provided on an annual basis from both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (Roubein, 2022 ; Wan, 2019 ). Additional research is, of course, still needed.

Despite legislative progress, and while advancements in gun legislation are meaningful and have the potential to aid in the reduction of gun violence in the USA, school shootings and school mass shootings are something schools and students will contend with in the months and years ahead. This reality has serious implications for schools and for students, points that need serious consideration. Therefore, it is imperative that gun violence is framed as a pressing national public health issue deserving attention, with drastic steps needed to curb access to assault rifles and guns with high-capacity magazines, based on extensive and targeted research. As noted, Congress, after many years of inaction, has started to appropriate funds to address this issue. However, the level of funding is still minimal in light of the pressing challenge that gun violence presents. Furthermore, the messaging of conservative media, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and republican legislators framing access to all and any weapons—including assault rifles—as a constitutional right under the second amendment bears scrutiny. Indeed, the second amendment denotes that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Security of the nation is arguably the intent of the amendment, an intent that is clearly violated as evidenced in the ever-increasing death toll associated with gun violence in the USA.

Whereas federal legislation would be preferable, the possibility of banning assault weapons is remote (in light of recent Congressional action). Similarly, state action has been severely curtailed in light of the US Supreme Court’s decision regarding New York state law. However, data on gun fatalities and injuries, the correspondence of gun violence to laws regulating access across the world and states, and failed security measures such as armed guards posted in schools (e.g., Robb Elementary School) must be consistently emphasized. Additionally, the widespread sense of immunity for gun manufacturers should be tested in the same manner that tobacco manufacturers and opioid pharmaceuticals have been. The success against such tobacco and opioid manufacturers, once unthinkable, is a powerful precedent to consider for how the threat of gun violence against public health might be addressed.

Author Contribution

AK conceived of and designed the study and led the writing of the manuscript. LJR collaborated on the study design, contributed to the writing of the study, and contributed to the editing of the final manuscript. DKW analyzed the data and wrote up the results. SNS contributed to the writing of the study.

Declarations

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

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

• American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. The American Psychologist. 2008; 63 (9):852–862. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.852. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American School Counselor Association (2019). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th edn.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
• Arrimada M, Torrance M, Fidalgo R. Response to intervention in first-grade writing instruction: A large-scale feasibility study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2022; 35 (4):943–969. doi: 10.1007/s11145-021-10211-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016–4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
• Bradshaw CP, Mitchell MM, Leaf PJ. Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2010; 12 (3):133–148. doi: 10.1177/1098300709334798. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CH. School counselors’ response to school shootings: Framework of recommendations. Journal of Educational Research and Practice. 2020; 10 (1):18. doi: 10.5590/jerap.2020.10.1.18. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabral, M., Kim, B., Rossin-Slater, M., Schnell, M., & Schwandt, H. (2021). Trauma at school: The impacts of shootings on students’ human capital and economic outcomes. A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved June 21, 2022, from  https://www.nber.org/papers/w28311
• Chan P, Katsiyannis A, Yell M. Handcuffed in school: Legal and practice considerations. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. 2021; 5 (3):339–350. doi: 10.1007/s41252-021-00213-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Child Development Institute. (n.d.). How to talk to kids about violence. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from  https://childdevelopmentinfo.com/how-to-be-a-parent/communication/talk-to-kids-violence/
• Cholewa B, Hull MF, Babcock CR, Smith AD. Predictors and academic outcomes associated with in-school suspension. School Psychology Quarterly. 2018; 33 (2):191–199. doi: 10.1037/spq0000213. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochrane, E. (2022). Congress passes bipartisan gun legislation, clearing it for Biden. The New York Times. Retrieved July 27, 2022 from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/politics/gun-control-bill-congress.html
• Elrod BG, Rice KG, Bradshaw CP, Mitchell MM, Leaf PJ. Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2010; 12 (3):133–148. doi: 10.1177/1098300709334798. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elrod BG, Rice KG, Meyers J. PBIS fidelity, school climate, and student discipline: A longitudinal study of secondary schools. Psychology in the Schools. 2022; 59 (2):376–397. doi: 10.1002/pits.22614. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Everytown Research & Policy. (2021a). Keeping our schools safe: A plan for preventing mass shootings and ending all gun violence in American schools. Retrieved July 17, 2022, from https://everytownresearch.org/report/preventing-gun-violence-in-american-schools/
• Everytown Research & Policy. (2021b). The impact of gun violence on children and teens. Retrieved, June 21, 2022, from https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-and-teens/
• Everytown Research & Policy. (2022a). Gun law rankings. Retrieved July 19, 2022, from https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
• Everytown Research & Policy. (2022b). Gunfire on school grounds in the United States. Retrieved July 19, 2022, from https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/
• Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Shattuck AM, Hamby SL. Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013; 167 (7):614–621. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.42. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flannery, D. J., Fox, J. A., Wallace, L., Mulvey, E., & Modzeleski, W. (2021). Guns, school shooters, and school safety: What we know and directions for change. School Psychology Review, 50 (2-3), 237–253.
• Gage NA, Lee A, Grasley-Boy N, Peshak GH. The impact of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports on school suspensions: A statewide quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2018; 20 (4):217–226. doi: 10.1177/1098300718768204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gage, N. A., Rapa, L. J., Whitford, D. K., & Katsiyannis, A. (Eds.) (in press). Disproportionality and social justice in education . Springer
• Gage N, Whitford DK, Katsiyannis A. A review of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports as a framework for reducing disciplinary exclusions. The Journal of Special Education. 2018; 52 :142–151. doi: 10.1272/74060629214686796178874678. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gun Violence Archive. (2022a). Gun violence archives 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2022, from https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
• Gun Violence Archive. (2022b). Charts and maps. Retrieved June 23, 2022, from  https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
• Horner RH, Sugai G, Anderson CM. Examining the evidence base for schoolwide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2010; 42 (8):1–14. doi: 10.17161/fec.v42i18.6906. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence. (2022). Call for action to prevent gun violence in the United States of America. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.dropbox.com/s/006naaah5be23qk/2022%20Call%20To%20Action%20Press%20Release%20and%20Statement%20COMBINED%205-27-22.pdf?dl=0
• Irwin, V., Wang, K., Cui, J., & Thompson, A. (2022). Report on indicators of school crime and safety: 2021 (NCES 2022–092/NCJ 304625). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 21, 2022 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2022092
• Jetelina, K. (2022). Firearms: What you can do right now. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/firearms-what-you-can-do-right-now
• Katsiyannis A, Whitford D, Ennis R. Historical examination of United States school mass shootings in the 20 th and 21 st centuries: Implications for students, schools, and society. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2018; 27 :2562–2573. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1096-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katsiyannis A, Whitford D, Ennis R. Firearm violence across the lifespan: Relevance and theoretical impact on child and adolescent educational prospects. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2018; 27 :1748–1762. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1035-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kellermann AL, Rivara FP. Silencing the science on gun research. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013; 309 (6):549–550. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.208207. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemieux F. Effect of gun culture and firearm laws on firearm violence and mass shootings in the United States: A multi-level quantitative analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. 2014; 9 (1):74–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis T, Jones S, Horner R, Sugai G. School-wide positive behavior support and students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Implications for prevention, identification and intervention. Exceptionality. 2010; 18 :82–93. doi: 10.1080/09362831003673168. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingston MD, Rossheim ME, Stidham-Hall K. A descriptive analysis of school and school shooter characteristics and the severity of school shootings in the United States, 1999–2018. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2019; 64 (6):797–799. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.12.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Losinski M, Katsiyannis A, Ryan J, Baughan C. Weapons in schools and zero-tolerance policies. NASSP Bulletin. 2014; 98 (2):126–141. doi: 10.1177/0192636514528747. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowe SR, Galea S. The mental health consequences of mass shootings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2017; 18 (1):62–82. doi: 10.1177/1524838015591572. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association of School Psychologists. (n.d.). About PREPaRE. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.nasponline.org/professional-development/prepare-training-curriculum/aboutprepare#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20the%20PREPaRE,E%E2%80%94Evaluate%20psychological%20trauma%20risk
• National Association of School Psychologists. (2015). Responding to school violence: Tips for administrators. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-safety-and-crisis/school-violence-resources/school-violence-prevention/responding-to-school-violence-tips-for-administrators
• National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Talking to children about violence: Tips for parents and teachers. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-safety-and-crisis/school-violence-resources/talking-to-children-about-violence-tips-for-parents-and-teachers
• National Association of School Psychologists & National Association of School Resource Officers (2021). Best practice considerations for armed assailant drills in schools. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-safety-and-crisis/systems-level-prevention/best-practice-considerations-for-armed-assailant-drills-in-schools
• National Center for Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). What is RTI? Retrieved July 21, 2022 from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 20–843. (United States Supreme Court, 2021). Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
• Noltemeyer A, Palmer K, James AG, Wiechman S. School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS): A synthesis of existing research. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. 2019; 7 :253–262. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2018.1425169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center. (2022). What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. Retrieved June 21, 2022 from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
• Puzzanchera, C. (2021). Juvenile arrests, 2019 . U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Juvenile Justice Statistics National Report Series Bulletin. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/juvenile-arrests-2019.pdf
• Roubein, R. (2022). Now the government is funding gun violence research, but it’s years behind. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 17, 2022 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/26/now-government-is-funding-gun-violence-research-it-years-behind/
• Rowhani-Rahbar A, Moe C. School shootings in the U.S.: What is the state of evidence? Journal of Adolescent Health. 2019; 64 (6):683–684. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rumberger, R. W., & Losen, D. J. (2017). The hidden costs of California’s harsh school discipline: And the localized economic benefits from suspending fewer high school students . California Dropout Research Project : The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/summary-reports/the-hidden-cost-of-californias-harsh-discipline/CostofSuspensionReportFinal-corrected-030917.pdf
• Sandoval, E. (2022). Inside a Uvalde classroom: A taunting gunman and 78 minutes of terror. The New York Times. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/uvalde-injured-teacher-reyes.html
• Santiago-Rosario, M. R., McIntosh, K., & Payno-Simmons, R. (2022). Centering equity within the PBIS framework: Overview and evidence of effectiveness. Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. Retrieved July 27, 2022 from www.pbis.org
• Schonfeld DJ, Demaria T. Supporting children after school shootings. Pediatric Clinics. 2020; 67 (2):397–411. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2019.12.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skiba RJ, Arredondo MI, Williams NT. More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education. 2014; 47 (4):546–564. doi: 10.1080/10665684.2014.958965. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel LS. Early identification and intervention to prevent reading failure: A response to Intervention (RTI) initiative. Educational and Developmental Psychologist. 2020; 37 (2):140–146. doi: 10.1017/edp.2020.21. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Center for Public Integrity. (2021). When schools call police on kids. Retrieved June 21, 2022 from https://publicintegrity.org/education/criminalizing-kids/police-in-schools-disparities/
• Towers S, Gomez-Lievano A, Khan M, Mubayi A, Castillo-Chavez C. Contagion in mass killings and school shootings. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (7):e0117259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117259. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U. S. Department of Education. (2021). An overview of exclusionary discipline practices in public schools for the 2017–18 school year . Civil Rights Data Collection. Retrieved June 21, 2022, from https://ocrdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018
• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2020). 2017–18 civil rights data collection: The use of restraint and seclusion in children with disabilities in K-12 schools. Retrieved July 27, 2022 from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/restraint-and-seclusion.pdf
• U.S. General Accountability Office (2018). K-12 education: Discipline disparities for Black students, boys, and students with disabilities (GAO-18–258). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
• Wan, W. (2019). Congressional deal could fund gun violence research for first time since 1990s. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 17, 2022 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/12/16/congressional-deal-could-fund-gun-violence-research-first-time-since-s/
• Wang, K., Chen, Y., Zhang, J., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2020). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2019 (NCES 2020–063/NCJ 254485). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020063-temp.pdf
• Washington Post. (2022). The Washington Post’s database of school shootings. Retrieved June 21, 2022 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/school-shootings-database/

• How We're Funded
• Staff Directory
• Board of Directors

Violence in Schools Is Bad for Learning

Recommended.

WORKING PAPERS

Schools play many roles in society, but most people believe that they should at least help children to master fundamental skills—like literacy and numeracy—and make sure that children are safe in their care. Unfortunately, far too often, children are neither safe , nor learning . Many children experience sexual, psychological, and physical violence at schools. While we don’t have consistent, global data on the number of children affected, the data we do have point to a serious problem. More than one in three children report being victims of physical attacks in school across a sample of Sub-Saharan African countries; two in five report psychological bullying in Central America; and more than one in ten students in Senegal and Zambia report sexual harassment at school over just a four week period.

We suggest that addressing violence in schools—because it is bad, in and of itself—should be a first order priority for the education sector. But school violence also impedes learning, and if we don’t take those effects into account, we may be underselling just how important it is for schools to be safe. In this post, we discuss the latest evidence, which shows the adverse impact of violence in schools on children’s learning.

The impact of school violence on learning outcomes is a tough question to answer.

Measuring the impact of violence on learning outcomes is a challenge for several reasons:

Schools that are more engaged in curbing violence may be more likely to report it (and so the data may suggest that they have higher rates of violence). In Peru, training school leaders to better manage violence in schools led to a doubling in reported violence! The evidence suggests that this isn’t because violence increased, but rather because reporting increased. This could lead to a perverse scenario where reported violence has a positive association with learning outcomes even if actual violence has an adverse impact. Similarly, if a predatory teacher gives good grades in exchange for sex, that could create an apparent positive association between sexual violence and one measure of learning outcomes.

More generally, violence and poor learning outcomes may both be affected by other factors. For example, a predatory teacher who offers students better grades in exchange for sex might also be ineffective in the classroom. If we find that students of that teacher tend to perform poorly, the correlation might be driven only partly by the experience of violence, and partly by the teachers’ poor teaching skills.

Students may be targeted for violence because of poor performance. Peers might bully students who can’t read, or teachers might exert more violent physical discipline on students who struggle with math. In that case, poor learning might be “causing” the violence rather than the other way around. (We put “causing” in quotation marks because of course poor performance isn’t a justification for violence, and the children who experience violence have not done anything wrong.)

In other areas of education, researchers often overcome these challenges with randomized experiments or quasi-experimental trials. Thankfully, no one is randomizing children’s experience of violence, and identifying natural experiments in this space has proven challenging to date (in countries at all income levels).

One solution would be to use a randomized controlled trial to reduce school violence and see how that impacts learning outcomes; but interventions to reduce school violence have been mostly small in scale so far, often having a large enough sample to see the impact on violence but not large enough (and potentially not long-term enough) to see the follow-on impact on learning outcomes. For example , a whole school intervention to reduce violence in Ugandan schools succeeded at that, but with only 150 total schools in the sample, estimates of student learning had very wide confidence intervals, including both positive and negative possible outcomes. In some cases, like this study in Pakistan , the measures of learning are weak (e.g., asking kids to rate how they’re doing in school) so a lack of measured impact is unsurprising. There are a few exceptional studies that do allow us to see the impact of violence reductions on learning, which we’ll discuss below.

In the absence of experiments or quasi-experiments, studies seek to control for differences between students or between schools and examine the remaining impact of school violence on learning. We went through two dozen studies on the topic in low- and middle-income countries, and this is what we learned.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that corporal punishment and bullying harm learning outcomes

First, corporal punishment is consistently associated with poorer student learning outcomes. This runs counter to the intuition of many parents and educators , who have defended the use of corporal punishment to maintain discipline in schools. In India , corporal punishment from teachers had enduring negative impacts on English and math scores. Another study in India confirmed those impacts and showed that they were worst for the most vulnerable (low caste) students. Evidence from Jamaica , Pakistan , Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam all show a negative association between corporal punishment and student learning outcomes. Studies from Malawi and Uganda have more mixed results; remember what we mentioned earlier about the challenge of measuring this. The fact that the overwhelming majority of studies show adverse relationships—using different data and controlling for different variables—point to a clear pattern.

We also have evidence that if you reduce corporal punishment, learning outcomes can rise. A classroom management training program in Jamaica , evaluated via a randomized controlled trial (and so overcoming some of the challenges mentioned earlier), reduced teachers’ use of corporal punishment and subsequently improved children’s language and self-regulation skills.

Second, bullying is bad for learning outcomes. Several multi-country studies in Latin America , using different data, all show adverse associations between bullying and students’ reading and math scores. Evidence from Botswana, Ghana, and South Africa back this up. (Another Ghana study also finds an adverse impact but finds that having a woman teacher mitigates those negative impacts.)

As with corporal punishment, reducing bullying can boost learning outcomes. Efforts to reduce bullying in schools in Peru—by making students aware of bullying’s adverse impacts and making it easier for students to report bullying—showed positive, significant impacts on test scores in reading, math, and other subjects for students who had experienced bullying in the past.

Other studies—in Tanzania and Rwanda , albeit not Zambia —show adverse associations between learning outcomes and more general measures of school-related violence (e.g., teachers or students report feeling unsafe at school).

We know sexual violence is bad. We don’t know enough about its impact on learning

We know that sexual violence is not infrequent , but few studies have examined the academic impacts. In Malawi , boys who experienced sexual violence in school had worse reading outcomes the next year; girls had worse numeracy outcomes.

We need to learn more about these dynamics so that we can design the best interventions to help children, while keeping kids safe during the learning process. But our need to continue to learn doesn’t mean we should wait to take action.

Violence has a negative effect on school attendance

There are other studies that examine the impact on non-learning educational outcomes, like school attendance. While attendance certainly doesn’t guarantee learning , it’s difficult to learn if you’re not attending . A study among adolescents in refugee settlements in Rwanda and Uganda found that, after adjusting for levels of income, children exposed to school violence were more likely to miss days of school. Likewise, bullying was associated with more school absences in Ghana , Pakistan , and Swaziland .

Prioritize curbing violence for lots of reasons: improving learning outcomes is one of them

Despite the challenges we describe to measuring the impact of school violence on learning outcomes—and the need for more research to understand that relationship—the vast majority of evidence that we have suggests that violence in school hurts learning outcomes, whether that violence is bullying from peers, corporal punishment from teachers, or sexual violence. The fact that child safety is not only a human right but also delivers benefits to learning (as well as to indicators of long-term child well-being) means that a wider group of stakeholders should want to prioritize the curbing of violence in schools.

Many thanks to Amina Mendez Acosta for crucial research assistance on this post and to Line Baago-Rasmussen, Deon Filmer , Halsey Rogers , and Sameer Sampat for feedback. A shorter version of this post appears on the World Bank’s Let’s Talk Development blog .

CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.

View the discussion thread.

More Reading

Ideas to action: independent research for global prosperity

© 2024 Center for Global Development | Privacy Notice and Cookie Policy

Sign up to get weekly development updates: