Teacher-to-Student Victimization: The Role of Teachers’ Victimization and School Social and Organizational Climates

Abstract

Prior research has largely neglected the issue of violence perpetrated by teachers against students, even though evidence indicates its prevalence worldwide. Research has also overlooked teachers’ perspectives on these concerning phenomena, relying predominantly on student reports. To address this gap, this cross-sectional study used a sample of 214 teachers from six Hebrew-language and four Arabic-language middle and high schools across Israel (69.2% female; 61.2% older than 41 years) to predict teachers’ reports on teacher-to-student victimization based on teachers’ victimization by students and parents, school social climate, and three dimensions of the school organizational climate: interpersonal conflict at work, trust in the principal, and job socialization. Chi-square and t-tests were used to examine the bivariate associations between teacher-to-student victimization and the predictors, and a three-step hierarchical binary logistic regression was used to examine multivariate associations. Teachers who reported teacher-to-student victimization scored higher on interpersonal conflict at work, social climate, trust in the principal, and job socialization compared to those who did not report such violence. Binary logistic regression analysis predicting teacher-to-student victimization revealed that Arabic-speaking teachers were more likely to report such victimization compared to their Hebrew-speaking counterparts. Teachers who reported a less positive school climate and higher levels of interpersonal conflict in the workplace were far more likely to report incidents of teacher-to-student victimization. The study highlights key directions for practice to address teacher-to-student victimization, including the establishment of a more positive social and organizational climate, with an emphasis on the role of the school principal as a central component of this initiative.

1. Introduction

School violence continues to be a significant and concerning problem that warrants attention both in research and practice. Studies have traditionally focused on violence among school students, particularly peer victimization, while often neglecting the involvement of other school stakeholders in violence. This limited approach may result in an incomplete understanding of the issue, leading to ineffective interventions that fail to address the problem holistically and effectively. During the past decade, however, a growing body of literature has considered the involvement of teachers and staff members in school violence (e.g., Espelage et al., 2013; McMahon et al., 2022), yet this field of research is relatively underdeveloped. Notably, research on teachers’ involvement in school violence has largely overlooked the perpetration of violence against students by teachers. As a result, teachers have primarily been viewed as victims of school violence rather than both aggressors and victims (e.g., Perry et al., 2024; Reddy et al., 2018), despite growing evidence suggesting that teachers also perpetrate violence against students (e.g., Chen et al., 2020; Heekes et al., 2022; López et al., 2020). Furthermore, school violence researchers have been encouraged to shift their focus from solely examining student perspectives and consider other viewpoints to explore various risk factors associated with school violence (Benbenishty et al., 2024), yet most research on teacher-to-student victimization has been based on students’ reports (e.g., Chen et al., 2020). Incorporating multiple perspectives from all members of the school community is valuable in its own right, as it reflects the unique viewpoint of each group. Incorporating accounts from teachers who have either victimized students or witnessed such actions by their colleagues is essential to expanding this line of inquiry. Such perspectives can improve understanding of the traits exhibited by teachers more inclined to mistreat students, as well as the personal and interpersonal dynamics contributing to these behaviors, viewed from the teachers’ own vantage point. This insight would prove valuable in the development of effective and accessible intervention strategies for educators (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019).

Prior research indicated an association between teachers’ negative behaviors and maltreatment toward students and the potential risk of retaliation against those teachers by students and parents, highlighting the reciprocal nature of violence among school community members (Astor et al., 2024; Benbenishty et al., 2019; Berkowitz et al., 2022). Teacher-to-student victimization has also been associated with negative school social and organizational climate (Astor et al., 2024; Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; Benbenishty et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2020; López et al., 2020). To address research gaps regarding teacher-to-student victimization, this study employed a socioecological model of school violence, with schools positioned at the center (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019). It examined teachers’ reports of teacher-to-student victimization in their schools while considering teachers’ experiences of victimization by students and parents, the school’s social climate, and the school’s organizational climate as measured by interpersonal conflict at work, trust in the principal, and job socialization. The results could enhance our understanding of the concerning phenomenon of teacher-to-student victimization, which has not received sufficient empirical attention, and may offer valuable insights for developing effective school-based interventions.

1.1. Teacher-to-Student Victimization

School violence is broadly defined as any behavior intended to harm, physically or emotionally, individuals in school and their property (American Educational Research Association, 2013). All members of the school community can be perpetrators or victims of violent acts, yet research has largely focused on peer victimization. More recently, however, teacher-to-student victimization has emerged as a significant concern. Students may be victimized by teachers in multiple ways, including physically, emotionally, verbally, and sexually (López et al., 2020). Research has consistently revealed that victimization of students by teachers is widespread globally, even in the presence of laws prohibiting teacher violence or corporal punishment against students (Arënliu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2020; Gershoff, 2017). To illustrate, 6% to 8% of elementary, middle, and high school students in Israel reported physical or sexual victimization by teachers (National Authority of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, 2022). In Taiwan, more than one third of a sample of 1262 junior high students reported maltreatment by teachers during a semester (Chen et al., 2020). A systematic literature review on corporal punishment in schools found that the lifetime prevalence of school corporal punishment exceeded 70% in Africa and Central America, past-year prevalence surpassed 60% in the Eastern Mediterranean and Southeast Asia, and past-week prevalence topped 40% in Africa and Southeast Asia (Heekes et al., 2022). Violence from teachers toward students has been associated with negative physical, academic, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for students (Baker-Henningham et al., 2009; Brendgen et al., 2007; Chen & Wei, 2011; Hecker et al., 2014; Heekes et al., 2022; Kızıltepe et al., 2020; Maiti, 2021), underscoring the detrimental consequences for students and society as a whole.

Building on the Ecology of Human Development model (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), school violence researchers have placed schools at the center of a larger ecological system and suggested exploring school victimization by considering multiple risk and protective factors both inside and outside schools (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019). Because schools are positioned at the heart of the ecological system, the model suggests that school violence is shaped by the student body and family demographics and characteristics, the neighborhood, the broader community, and the larger cultural and ethnic environment. Still, the school’s internal context, including the social and organizational climate, moderates and mediates outside influences and helps shape the experiences and behaviors of the school community, including students, staff, and parents. The model also highlights the interrelationships among all members of the school community, including instances of mutual victimization (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019).

The limited yet increasing research on teacher-to-student victimization has underscored the relevance of various factors in the school environment, including teachers’ victimization by students and parents, and school social and organizational climate (Chen et al., 2020; López et al., 2020; Masath et al., 2022). These factors, including their contribution to teacher-to-student victimization, are reviewed in the following sections.

1.2. Teachers’ Victimization

Teachers may be subjected to violence by multiple individuals in the school, including students and parents, at significant rates. To illustrate, in Israel, 7% of students across all age groups reported engaging in verbal and physical violence and making threats against teachers (National Authority of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, 2022). During the 2022–2023 academic year, a survey of more than 32,000 teachers revealed that 9% reported experiencing violence from a student, whereas 5% reported violence from parents. Additionally, 6% of teachers expressed feeling threatened by parents, citing concerns about false complaints, property damage, victimization via social media, or physical harm (National Authority of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, 2024). A meta-analysis examining violence perpetrated against teachers by students found incidence rates ranging from 20% to 75% during a 2-year timeframe (Longobardi et al., 2019). Most studies that have explored teacher-directed violence have primarily focused on student perpetrators, disregarding parents’ violence toward teachers (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2022; McMahon et al., 2023).

Research has demonstrated the reciprocal nature of violence among members of the school community. Problematic and violent student behavior has been associated with teachers’ use of violence toward students (Chen & Wei, 2011; Gershoff, 2017). A study examining the patterns of teacher-to-student and student-to-teacher victimization among Jewish and Arab students in Israel and in a sample of Chilean students revealed a significant association between the two forms of victimization. Students who reported victimization by teachers were also more likely to report victimizing teachers (Benbenishty et al., 2019). Therefore, the current study tested the hypothesis that teachers’ victimization by students and parents is associated with increased risk of teacher-to-student victimization.

1.3. School Social Climate

School social climate is a complex and multifaceted construct, broadly defined as the character and quality of school life. A positive school climate includes “norms, values, and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally, and physically safe” (Cohen et al., 2009, p. 182). School climate shapes the quality of the interactions of all students, teachers, parents, and school personnel (National School Climate Council, 2007). Schools that foster a positive climate are characterized by safety and order, an authoritative approach that is strict yet fair, and consistency in enforcing school rules (Berg & Cornell, 2016).

Ample research has suggested that a positive school climate is associated with reduced school violence. In a positive school climate, students’ and parents’ violence against teachers decreases (Berkowitz et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2020; McMahon et al., 2023; Reddy et al., 2024), and students are also less likely to experience teacher-to-student victimization (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; López et al., 2017, 2020). Therefore, this study tested the hypothesis that a more positive school climate is associated with a reduced risk of teacher-to-student victimization.

1.4. School Organizational Climate

Astor and Benbenishty (2019) positioned the school as the central organizational unit in their model. Consequently, in addition to the school’s social climate, its organizational climate influences its operations and capacity to achieve objectives, including the safety and well-being of both students and staff members. The organizational aspects of school climate, including principal leadership, staff collaboration, collegial and school administrative support, and backup among school personnel, are important predictors of school violence and bullying (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; Berkowitz et al., 2022; Kim & Ko, 2022). These organizational elements of schools are particularly relevant when examining teachers’ perspectives and experiences with violence in their workplace. This study measured school organizational climate via teachers’ reports on interpersonal conflicts at work, job socialization, and trust in the principal.

1.4.1. Interpersonal Conflict at Work

A significant source of job-related stress for all employees, and particularly teachers, is interpersonal conflict in the workplace (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006). Negative and unsupportive collegial relationships were associated with increased teacher-directed violence (Martinez et al., 2016; McMahon et al., 2017). In contrast, harmonious professional relationships among staff members and support from the principal and colleagues reduced professional challenges associated with student misbehavior and school violence and fostered teacher well-being (Galand et al., 2007). A qualitative study examining teachers’ perceptions of workplace victimization found that positive relationships among teachers and staff members, along with collegial support and approval, are key factors that influenced teachers’ ability to confront school violence (Berkowitz et al., 2022). Therefore, the study tested the hypothesis that as teachers’ reports of interpersonal conflict in the workplace increase, the risk of teacher-to-student victimization increases.

1.4.2. Job Socialization

Novice teachers are immersed in a novel environment with both positive and negative influences on their professional identity, requiring them to adapt and gradually integrate into the school’s culture (Güneş & Uysal, 2019). Thus, a crucial responsibility for school leadership is facilitating teachers’ integration into the organization. This adjustment encompasses acquiring the skills necessary to perform the job effectively, accepting the established norms and practices of that particular organization, understanding how one’s role relates to the broader organizational structure, and fostering a sense of acceptance among colleagues (Gardner et al., 2022). Schools with a communal organization (as indicated by support among teachers, administrators, and students), a common set of goals and norms, and a sense of collaboration and involvement experience reduced teacher victimization and student misbehaviors (Payne et al., 2003). Mentoring, guidance, and support provided to beginning teachers can decrease incidents of school violence and violence directed against teachers (Berkowitz et al., 2022). Support, guidance, and orientation programs for beginning teachers have been shown to improve various aspects of teaching performance, including maintaining a positive classroom atmosphere and effective classroom management (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Effective classroom management has been associated with reduced conflict, aggressive behaviors, and violence among teachers and students (Berkowitz et al., 2022; Bounds & Jenkins, 2018; Oliver et al., 2011). Therefore, this study explored the hypothesis that as teachers’ reports of job socialization increase, the risk of teacher-to-student victimization decreases.

1.4.3. Trust in the Principal

School principals have a central role in violence prevention. Astor et al. (2009) demonstrated that a key characteristic of safe schools with low levels of violence is the presence of a visionary and strong principal. An effective principal who manages to eradicate violence in the school often has a comprehensive educational philosophy that directly connects school safety to the organization’s mission. These principals are capable of mobilizing the entire school community, fostering positive relationships, and encouraging collaborative trust with teachers and staff members. This leadership style allows for autonomy without undermining or disrespecting teachers’ authority (Astor et al., 2009).

School principals are increasingly expected to cultivate open, cooperative, and trustful learning environments (Fox et al., 2015). When trust is present, it promotes open communication and collaboration that can help identify and address potential conflicts and issues before they escalate into violence. Building trust, support, and collaboration among school staff members can create a culture that discourages violence and enhances overall school safety (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Therefore, this study considered the hypothesis that teachers’ reports of greater trust in the principal are associated with decreased risk of teacher-to-student victimization.

In summary, this study used teachers’ reports to explore the contributions of teachers’ victimization by students and parents, and school social and organizational climate, to teacher-to-student victimization. The research hypotheses guiding this study were that the risk of teacher-to-student victimization increases with teachers’ reports of (a) victimization by students and parents, (b) less supportive school climate, (c) increased interpersonal conflict at work, (d) decreased job socialization, and (e) decreased trust in the principal.

1.5. Study Context

The Israeli education system reflects the diverse cultural and ethnic landscape of Israeli society, encompassing secular and orthodox Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Bedouin communities. It enables each subpopulation to maintain curricula, instructional practices, and textbook content that align with their unique cultural identities and family values (Israel Archives, 2017). As a result, most Arab families in Israel opt to enroll their children in Arabic-language schools, whereas Jewish families tend to choose Hebrew-language schools. Indicators such as poverty, unemployment, and the allocation of public funds for social services—including health and education—demonstrate that the Arab-speaking minority in Israel is at a greater disadvantage compared to Hebrew-speaking populations (Kassir et al., 2024).

Violent victimization differs notably between the two language sectors. National student reports suggest that the rates of verbal peer victimization are significantly lower in Arabic-language schools compared to Hebrew-language schools, whereas instances of gang violence, social victimization, and physical victimization are significantly higher in Arabic-language schools. Additionally, teacher-to-student victimization is much more prevalent in Arabic-language schools, particularly in the lower grades, compared to Hebrew-language schools. Student aggression toward teachers is also more pronounced in Arabic-language schools than in their Hebrew counterparts (Benbenishty et al., 2019; National Authority of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, 2022). According to teachers’ reports, incidents of threats and fear of physical or verbal violence by parents are slightly lower in Arabic-language schools. Conversely, reports of threats and fear of physical or verbal violence from students are slightly higher in Arabic-language schools compared to Hebrew-language schools (National Authority of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, 2024).

2. Methods

2.1. Study Procedure and Sample

This research relied on data from a larger cross-sectional mixed-methods study on the rate, scope, antecedents, and consequences of violence directed at teachers in Israel. The current study data were drawn from the second phase of the research, in which we explored reports from students, parents, and teachers on school violence, climate, and outcomes of violence directed against teachers using quantitative measures.

The research team connected with junior high and high school principals across Israel through professional relationships and invited them to engage their schools in the research. In each school where principals agreed to participate, the school leadership was asked to distribute a link to the research survey to all teachers and encourage them to respond. Teachers were invited to complete the online anonymous structured survey. The survey began with a declaration outlining the study aims, purpose, and significance. Only teachers interested in participating in the research were asked to complete the online survey privately and anonymously, ensuring that their decision to participate and their responses would remain confidential. Teachers were informed of their right to decline participation, skip any questions, or withdraw from the study at any stage. The identities of schools participating in this study were kept confidential. The principal in each participating school received a research report detailing the results of the survey conducted at their school, and upon request, they received consultation from the study’s principal investigators regarding the interpretation of their report and suggestions for practice. Questionnaires were administrated during the 2019–2020 academic year.

The sample included 214 teachers from six Hebrew-language and four Arabic-language schools in Israel. Many teachers identified as female (69.2%) and older than 41 years old (61.2%). In terms of professional roles, the largest proportion of respondents identified as teachers (40.2%), followed by approximately one third as homeroom teachers (30.8%), one tenth as grade coordinators (11.2%), and one sixth as another professional position at school. Most teachers had worked at their school for 1 to 10 years (51.9%), with the remaining teachers having been at their school for more than 10 years (42.5%;

Table 1. Teachers’ background and professional characteristics by teacher-to-student victimization (N = 214).

Variable	Total		Teacher-to-Student Victimization
			No		Yes
	(N = 214)		(n = 154)		(n = 60)
	n	%	n	%	n	%	χ2
Gender							2.63
Male	64	29.9	41	64.1	23	35.9
Female	148	69.2	111	75.0	37	25.0
Age							0.04
18–40	79	36.9	56	70.9	23	29.1
41+	133	62.1	96	72.2	37	27.8
Ethnocultural affiliation							18.81 ***
Hebrew speaking	147	68.7	119	81.0	28	19.0
Arabic speaking	67	31.3	35	52.2	32	47.8
Professional role							4.27
Teacher	86	40.2	60	69.8	26	30.2
Homeroom teacher	66	30.8	52	78.8	14	21.2
Grade coordinator	24	11.2	18	75.0	6	25.0
Other	35	16.4	21	60.0	14	40.0
Years at school							6.86 **
1–10	111	51.9	87	78.4	24	21.6
11+	91	42.5	56	61.5	35	38.5

Note: ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

).

2.2. Measurements

2.2.1. Dependent Variable

Teacher-to-student victimization was assessed using a modified version of the California School Climate and Safety Survey (e.g., Greif-Green et al., 2011) that was further revised by Benbenishty and Astor (2005) and has been used extensively in international studies examining students’ reports of teacher-perpetrated victimization (e.g., Benbenishty et al., 2019, 2022). Because this study focused on teachers’ reports of teacher-to-student victimization, the instrument was further adapted to assess teachers’ perceptions of whether acts of violence by teachers toward students occurred in their school. The questionnaire was designed to measure teacher-to-student victimization indirectly, given the legal prohibition of child maltreatment and the associated mandatory reporting requirements, which present ethical and legal challenges for researchers and are likely to discourage participants from providing candid responses (Fluke et al., 2021). Teachers considered seven items referring to the frequency of teacher-to-student physical, verbal, sexual, and property victimization in their school during the past 3 months (e.g., “A teacher or staff member used a derogatory name, cursed or insulted a student in your school”; “A teacher or staff member made sexual remarks to a student in your school”). They responded on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = three times and more). Because teachers’ reports on teacher-to-student victimization were infrequent, responses were coded as victimization in a dichotomous manner if at least one item received a rating of 1 or 2. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.52.

2.2.2. Independent Variables

School social climate was measured using the Delaware School Climate Survey–Teacher/Staff (Bear et al., 2014). The scale consists of 24 items across seven domains that evaluate the school’s social climate, including teacher–student relations (e.g., “Teachers care about their students”), student–student relations (e.g., “Students treat each other with respect”), teacher–parent communication (e.g., “Teachers listen to the concerns of parents”), students’ safety (e.g., “Students feel safe in this school”), clarity of expectations (e.g., “Students know how they are expected to act”), fairness of rules (e.g., “The school rules are fair”), and bullying schoolwide (e.g., “Students threaten and bully others”). Regarding each statement, teachers were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Items formulated in a negative manner were reversed, and a summative measure was computed such that higher scores indicated more positive perceptions of the school social climate among teachers (α = 0.96).

The school’s organizational climate was assessed using three domains: interpersonal conflict at work, trust in the principal, and job socialization. Interpersonal conflict at work was measured using six items. Four items, formulated in a negative manner, were adapted and modified to the school context from the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (Spector & Jex, 1998), which was designed to measure the extent to which workers experience disagreements or are treated poorly at work (e.g., “How often are other staff members rude to you?). An additional two items formulated in a positive manner were included to describe harmonious interpersonal relationships among school staff members (e.g., “How often do staff members support each other”). Responses to these items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 5 = to a very large extent). Positive items were reversed, and a composite measure was computed, with higher scores indicating more conflictual school staff relationships. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78.

Trust in the principal was assessed via a 12-item scale. Six items were adapted from Mishra and Mishra’s (1994) trust scale (e.g., “My principal cares about the future of school”). Six new items were developed for this study to measure trust in the principal in the school context (e.g., “My principal helps in conflicts with parents”). Items were rated on the same 5-point Likert scale as interpersonal conflict, and a composite measure was computed, with higher scores reflecting greater trust in the principal. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.96.

Job socialization was measured via five items adapted from the Socialization Tactics Scale (Jones, 1986) and modified to the school context (e.g., “Experienced teachers at school see advising or training newcomers as one of their main job responsibilities”). Responses were rated on the same 5-point Likert scale, and a composite measure was computed, with higher scores indicating greater job socialization at school. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78.

Teachers’ victimization by students and parents was measured via the Client Violence Questionnaire (Enosh et al., 2015), which was adapted and modified to the school context. This modified 16-item scale assessed the frequency of teachers’ experience of student and parent violence during the past 3 months (e.g., “A parent or student threatened to complain about you”). Responses were scored on a 3-point scale (0 = never to 2 = three times or more). Because teachers’ reports on victimization were infrequent, responses were coded as victimization in a dichotomous manner if at least one item received a rating of 1 or 2. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72.

Demographic and professional data included information on participants’ gender (male, female, other), age, marriage or relationship status (yes, no), ethnocultural affiliation (Hebrew speaking, Arabic speaking), professional role at their school (teacher, homeroom teacher, grade coordinator, school counselor, social worker, psychologist, other), and number of years working at their school.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The dataset was evaluated for outliers (Hair et al., 2014), shape of distributions (Kline, 2016), and missing data. Outliers were adjusted using winsorization (Dixon, 1980), replacing them with the nearest nonoutlier value. Missing data (<0.6%) was assessed via Little’s (1988) missing completely at random test and imputed using the expectation–maximization algorithm (Collins et al., 2001).

Associations among the study’s independent variables were assessed using correlation analyses. Associations between teacher-to-student victimization and categorical variables were examined via chi-square tests of independence. Independent-samples t-tests were used to estimate associations with continuous variables. Predictors of teacher-to-student victimization (0 = no, 1 = yes) were identified through a three-step hierarchical binary logistic regression, with each step consisting of significant variables from the bivariate analyses. Step 1 included the ethnocultural affiliation of teachers (Hebrew or Arabic speaking), Step 2 added social climate, and Step 3 added organizational climate variables of interpersonal conflict at work, trust in the principal, and job socialization. Multicollinearity was further assessed via variance inflation factor values. To assess the model’s discriminative capacity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated. The ROC curve is a graphical plot that measures the model’s overall ability to differentiate between outcome groups—specifically, between teachers reporting teacher-to-student victimization and those not reporting such victimization. The area under the curve (AUC) value ranges from 0.5, indicating no better discrimination than chance, to 1.0, reflecting perfect classification accuracy (Hanley, 2005). Multilevel analyses were not conducted due to the limited number of schools participating in this study, which is insufficient for such analyses (Hox et al., 2017). All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29 with a two-tailed alpha threshold of 0.05.

3. Results

Two outliers were identified and subsequently adjusted using winsorization. All variables showed acceptable skewness and kurtosis. Little’s missing completely at random test indicated that the data were missing completely at random, χ²(4) = 2.89, p = 0.576.

Correlations between the study’s independent variables are presented in Appendix A. Table 1 presents background and professional characteristics and teachers’ reports on teacher-to-student victimization. Significant differences between groups were found in terms of school type and years at school. Specifically, teachers reporting teacher-to-student victimization were significantly more likely to work in Arabic-language schools and have longer tenure at their school compared to those working in Hebrew-language schools or those with a shorter tenure at their school.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of research variables by teacher-to-student victimization (N = 214).

Variable	Teacher-to-Student Victimization
	No		Yes
	(n = 154)		(n = 60)
Categorical	n	%	n	%	χ2
Teacher victimization					2.70
No	81	77.1	24	22.9
Yes	71	67.0	35	33.0
Continuous	M	SD	M	SD	t	d
Social climate	4.22	0.39	3.73	0.43	8.06 ***	1.23
Interpersonal conflict at work	1.42	0.35	1.90	0.60	−5.84 ***	−1.11
Trust in the principal	52.20	8.97	44.23	11.61	4.79 ***	0.81
Job socialization	3.32	0.86	2.64	0.88	5.15 ***	0.78

Note: *** p < 0.001.

displays differences in study variables based on teacher-to-student victimization. With the exception of teachers’ victimization by students, all analyses revealed significant results. In particular, teachers who reported teacher-to-student victimization scored higher on interpersonal conflict at work and lower on social climate, trust in the principal, and job socialization compared to those who did not report such violence.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical binary logistic regression analysis predicting teacher-to-student victimization (N = 214).

Independent Variable	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
	b (SE)	OR	AME	b (SE)	OR	AME	b	OR	AME
Ethnocultural affiliation (1 = Arabic speaking)	1.36 *** (0.32)	3.89	0.287	0.72 * (0.38)	−2.06	0.117	0.83 * (0.40)	2.28	0.129
Social climate				−2.52 *** (0.47)	0.08	−0.372	−1.56 ** (0.60)	0.21	−0.219
Interpersonal conflict at work							1.31 * (0.58)	3.71	0.184
Trust in principal							−0.01 (0.02)	0.99	−0.001
Job socialization							−0.03 (0.27)	0.97	−0.003
Intercept	−1.45 *** (0.21)			8.85 *** (1.92)			3.39 (2.85)	29.74
Pseudo-R2	0.116			0.335			0.379

Note: * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001; OR = odds ratio; AME = average marginal effect.

presents the binary logistic regression analysis predicting teacher-to-student victimization. Coefficients, standard errors, odds ratios, and average marginal effects (AMEs) are displayed for the predictors. The AME of a given predictor represents the change in the likelihood of the outcome variable—teacher-to-student victimization—associated with a 1-unit increase in that predictor, while holding all other variables constant. To express this change in percentage points, AMEs were multiplied by 100. One key benefit of using AMEs is that their absolute values can be directly compared across independent variables and model specifications. Because the results remained consistent regardless of years at school, they are presented without this control. According to the first step, Arabic-speaking teachers were more likely—by 28.7 percentage points—to report teacher-to-student victimization compared to Hebrew-speaking teachers. According to the second step, school climate was extremely important in determining teacher-to-student victimization; a 1-unit increase in teachers’ reports of a more positive school climate was associated, on average, with a 37.2-percentage-point decrease in the probability of reporting teacher-to-student victimization. The third step showed that a 1-unit increase in teachers’ reports of more interpersonal conflict at work was associated, on average, with an 18.4-percentage-point increase in the probability of reporting teacher-to-student victimization. Trust in the principal and job socialization did not emerge as statistically significant predictors. Finally, the model demonstrated excellent discriminative ability, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86, 95% CI [0.81, 0.91], indicating a high level of accuracy in distinguishing between outcome groups (see Figure 1). Additionally, no multicollinearity was detected, as all variance inflation factor values were below 3.04.

4. Discussion

Prior research has largely neglected the issue of violence perpetrated by teachers against students, despite evidence of its prevalence worldwide (e.g., Arënliu et al., 2022; López et al., 2020). To address these gaps in research, this study used a sample of 214 teachers from 10 schools across Israel to predict teacher-to-student victimization. Anchored in the school violence in evolving contexts model (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019), this study predicted teacher-to-student victimization through teachers’ victimization by students and parents, school social climate, and three dimensions of school organizational climate: interpersonal conflict at work, trust in the principal, and job socialization.

The study explored the hypothesized association between teachers’ reports on victimization by students and parents and teacher-to-student victimization. This hypothesis was based on prior findings indicating such an association (e.g., Benbenishty et al., 2019) and a substantial body of literature demonstrating a correlation between victimization and offending behaviors (Jennings et al., 2012). Yet in contrast with prior studies (e.g., Astor et al., 2024; López et al., 2020), the results did not confirm a significant association between teachers’ victimization by students and parents and teacher-to-student victimization. A possible explanation for these results is that teachers were not asked whether they personally perpetrated violence against their students, but rather whether teachers in their school engage in such behaviors. The decision to measure teacher-to-student victimization indirectly was informed by the sensitivity of the topic and worries about biased reporting surrounding teachers’ self-incrimination. In Israel, as in many other countries, teacher-to-student victimization is prohibited by law. Given the serious legal and ethical implications of teacher-to-student victimization, it is unlikely that teachers would disclose instances of self-perpetrated violence against students (Fluke et al., 2021). This method allowed teachers to discuss behaviors in ways that did not necessarily involve self-incrimination.

The results further confirmed that teachers’ reports of a more positive school social climate were associated with a reduced risk of teacher-to-student victimization. These findings align with prior research indicating that a positive school climate is linked to decreased victimization for all members of the school community (Peist et al., 2024), including reduced instances of teacher-to-student victimization (e.g., López et al., 2017, 2020). It is likely that a negative school climate that either facilitates or fails to condemn aggressive behavior among its members can lead various school stakeholders to adopt a culture that perceives violence as acceptable conduct. In contrast, a school vision and philosophy that promote prosocial values and support personal responsibility for actions, tolerance, respect for others, and positive relations—along with an overall broader educational mission centered on the societal purposes of education—can reduce student and teacher victimization and increase safety among students, teachers, and parents (Astor et al., 2009; Astor & Benbenishty, 2019; Berkowitz et al., 2022).

The organizational aspects of school climate were also significantly associated with teacher-to-student victimization. The study confirmed that heightened interpersonal conflict in the workplace raised the risk of teacher-to-student victimization. Although previous research confirmed the pivotal role of collegial support and backing in addressing teachers’ victimization (Martinez et al., 2016; McMahon et al., 2017), the current findings add to the emerging body of knowledge on teacher-to-student victimization and indicate that supportive collegial relationships may also reduce teacher-to-student victimization. A positive organizational climate characterized by nonconflictual staff relationships and support enables teachers to confront school violence effectively, function more successfully, and foster nonviolent interactions with their students (Berkowitz et al., 2022; Galand et al., 2007), thereby reducing teacher-to-student victimization.

Another pivotal element of a positive school organizational climate hypothesized in this study to reduce the risk of teacher-to-student victimization is job socialization among teachers. New teachers encounter significant challenges that they often face in isolation from their colleagues, being left to succeed or fail on their own. They are frequently placed in the most difficult classrooms (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). The current results suggest that job socialization is associated with reduced risk of teacher-to-student victimization. Mentoring likely increases teachers’ ability to manage students’ behavior problems more successfully, reduce violence and conflictual teacher–student relations, and thereby reduce teacher-to-student victimization. Research evidence has suggested that novice teachers who received mentoring can more effectively organize and manage instruction, establish more workable classroom routines, and ensure their students exhibit better behavior and engagement (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). Effective classroom management predicted decreased teacher–student conflictual relations and violence between teachers and students (Berkowitz et al., 2022; Bounds & Jenkins, 2018; Oliver et al., 2011). It is also probable that schools offering job socialization to their teachers do so through more organized, systematic, and consistent procedures that account for the challenges individual teachers encounter. This approach aims to offer organizational support, improve overall school functioning, and address teacher–student interactions, consequently reducing violence among teachers and students. This aligns with the findings of Astor et al. (2009) that in safe schools, the school principal established a schoolwide awareness of the mission, ideology, and procedures associated with school safety, in contrast to sporadic and unorganized policies and role definitions in unsafe schools.

The central role of the school principal is further reflected in the current research findings, which indicate that greater trust in the principal was associated with a decreased risk of teacher-to-student victimization. Strong and visionary school principals fully trust their teachers and mobilize the entire school community toward creating a caring and nurturing environment (Astor et al., 2009). Trust among staff members is the foundation of success in schools. An organizational culture grounded in trust is vital for the overall effectiveness and efficiency of schools. Trust facilitates collaboration among stakeholders, alleviates uncertainty, and ensures a sense of order in the educational environment (Hoy & Tarter, 2004). Relational trust fosters necessary social exchanges among school staff members, helping them learn from one another and supporting a moral imperative to take on the difficult work of school improvement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Thus, trust can decrease antisocial behavior and discipline issues (Gregory & Ripski, 2008), and as this study found, trust in the principal is associated with decreased teacher-to-student victimization.

4.1. Multivariate Prediction of Teacher-to-Student Victimization

The results of the regression analysis in this study indicate that being an Arabic-speaking teacher, along with reporting a more negative social climate and heightened interpersonal conflict in the workplace, effectively predicted teacher-to-student victimization. Although examining teacher-to-student victimization in relation to ethnocultural affiliations was not the primary focus of this study, these findings warrant careful attention. The findings are concerning, because they may reflect the higher rates of teacher-to-student victimization reported in Arabic-language schools in Israel compared to Hebrew-language schools (Benbenishty et al., 2019; National Authority of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, 2024). This disparity may be rooted in broader structural factors. Israeli Arab communities have historically faced systemic socioeconomic disadvantages, including higher rates of poverty, limited access to quality resources, and underinvestment in public infrastructure (Al-Haj & Rosenfeld, 2020). These conditions are often mirrored in the education system, where Arabic-language schools may experience chronic underfunding, larger class sizes, and a lack of support services relative to Hebrew-language schools. Such disparities can place greater strain on teachers, potentially increasing the likelihood of negative interactions, including various forms of teacher-to-student victimization. In addition, institutional discrimination and marginalization may shape the school environment in ways that compound stress and reduce the availability of protective mechanisms, such as positive school climate or effective professional development (Abu-Asba et al., 2011; Arar, 2012). Specific cultural characteristics of Israeli Arab society—particularly its strong emphasis on age-based and authority hierarchies (Zaatut & Haj-Yahia, 2016)—may also shape teacher–student relationships and influence the dynamics of school violence. However, it is important to emphasize that the internal school context—particularly the school social and organizational climate—can significantly influence school victimization, irrespective of the socioeconomic or cultural context of the school community (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019). Furthermore, a positive school climate may have a more positive significant effect on ethnic minority students’ outcomes compared to their nonminority peers (Berkowitz & Ben-Artzi, 2024; Civitillo et al., 2021). Consequently, a positive school climate may provide greater advantages for those in more disadvantaged situations, such as ethnic minority students.

Indeed, the results suggest that the school’s socioemotional climate was the strongest predictor of teacher-to-student victimization. Respectful relationships, open parent–teacher communication, students’ sense of safety, and fair and clear rules were all associated with reduced teacher-to-student victimization, highlighting the importance of a supportive and warm school environment. Although to a lesser degree, interpersonal conflict at work also significantly predicted teacher-to-student victimization in the multivariate analysis. These results align with prior research highlighting the critical role of positive socioemotional and organizational climates in reducing school violence broadly (e.g., Astor et al., 2009; Astor & Benbenishty, 2019) and teacher-to-student victimization specifically (López et al., 2020). While trust in the principal and job socialization exhibited significant associations with teacher-to-student victimization in the bivariate analyses, they did not emerge as statistically significant predictors in the multivariate analysis. It is probable that teachers’ reports of school social climate and interpersonal conflict at work already explained a substantial portion of the variance in the dependent variable, highlighting their importance in predicting teacher-to-student victimization while leaving little additional variance to be explained by these organizational climate variables.

4.2. Study Implications

As interest in interventions and policies aimed at protecting teachers continues to grow, it is equally crucial to address the phenomenon of teachers victimizing students. The current results suggest that a positive school climate, trust in the principal, positive collegial relationships, and job socialization reduce the risk of teacher-to-student victimization. Therefore, school efforts to enhance the climate appear to be a promising avenue for effectively addressing teacher-to-student victimization. In addition, teacher training programs should recognize that educators may feel inadequately prepared and frustrated when confronted with disruptive behavior from students. Therefore, alongside fostering harmonious staff relationships, trust, and support, these training programs should provide teachers with effective nonviolent strategies for managing conflicts (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019).

The findings indicate that the risk of teacher-to-student victimization is significantly higher among Arabic-speaking populations in Israel, who also tend to experience greater socioeconomic disadvantage compared to the Hebrew-speaking population. Astor et al. (2021) argued that school safety constitutes a fundamental element of a society’s opportunity structures, deeply intertwined with systemic discrimination and the socioeconomic conditions of the community. They maintained that limited community resources contribute to severely inadequate and unequal local opportunities and safety infrastructures, which directly and profoundly affect communities facing poverty and lacking robust social organizational support. Accordingly, educators, school social workers, and other school-based professionals play a critical role in addressing these disparities by advocating equitable resource distribution, implementing evidence-based school safety interventions, and promoting a positive school climate to support marginalized communities and reduce the safety gap between dominant and nondominant ethnocultural groups. The current findings suggest that fostering a more positive social and organizational climate represents a promising approach to reducing aggression and conflict between teachers and students.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although informative, this study has several limitations that should be noted. The study relied on teachers’ reports of violence involving students and teachers, which represents a significant contribution to the literature in a largely unexplored field. However, the internal consistency for teacher-to-student victimization was moderate, which may be attributable to the complexity and sensitivity of the subject matter, as well as to the limited number of items included in the scale. The moderate internal consistency may also be attributed to the heterogeneity of the scale, which assesses distinct forms of teacher-to-student victimization rather than measuring a single, unified construct. Future research should consider refining the measure to enhance its reliability, possibly by examining different subtypes of teacher-to-student violence or employing subscales, to enhance reliability. Teacher-to-student victimization was measured indirectly in this study because caregiver reports likely underestimate their abusive behavior (e.g., Afifi et al., 2015; Tonmyr et al., 2018). This approach addresses concerns about socially desirable responding by teachers in disclosing self-perpetrated violence against students. However, because this indirect measurement may introduce limitations to measurement validity, it is recommended that future research examine teacher-to-student victimization using multiple perspectives, including those of both students and teachers within the same school. Incorporating these diverse viewpoints could provide a more valid and comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon.

Another limitation is related to the sample size, which was relatively limited due to challenges in recruiting teachers to participate. Accessing additional national data could enhance the findings and provide deeper insights into the topic, including prevalence statistics and comparisons between subgroups based on ethnicity, culture, grade level, teacher gender, and role, among other factors. Larger samples could also allow for multilevel analyses that account for school-level factors that may help explain the findings and suggest important directions for effective schoolwide interventions.

Further research should also incorporate reports from students and parents regarding mutual victimization among students, parents, and teachers in the same school. Including the perspectives of students and parents will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the school’s internal context (Astor & Benbenishty, 2019). This holistic approach could explain the relationships among these perspectives and how varying experiences of teachers, students, and parents influence school violence, climate, student outcomes, and overall functioning of the school.

Addressing a gap in the literature concerning the complexities of school violence, this study explored teachers’ perceptions and experiences within their broader working environment to better understand and predict teacher-to-student victimization. The study sheds light on the less-examined phenomenon of teachers perpetrating violence against students by considering factors such as their own victimization, school social climate, and organizational dynamics.

The current findings underscore the need for interventions that move beyond traditional approaches focused solely on individual factors and peer victimization. Emphasizing improvements to the overall school climate, organizational support structures for teachers, and the inclusion of diverse voices and experiences from all members of the school community—not just students—is critical. The study advances our understanding of how the dynamics among the entire school community influence school violence and safety. Ultimately, these steps may help foster a safer and more supportive environment for teachers, students, and parents.