







































Children and Teenagers 
ISSN 2576-3709 (Print) ISSN 2576-3717 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct 

34 
 

Original Paper 

Teacher Bullying: A Reality or a Myth? 
Kathleen G. Burriss1* & Donald Snead2 

1 Department of Elementary and Special Education, Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee, 
United States 
2 Department of Educational Leadership, Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee, United States 
* Kathleen G. Burriss, Department of Elementary and Special Education, Middle Tennessee State 

University, Tennessee, United States 

 

Received: April 12, 2018         Accepted: April 27, 2018        Online Published: May 11, 2018 

doi:10.22158/ct.v1n1p34                          URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ct.v1n1p34 

 

Abstract 

The topic of teachers who may bully children is uncomfortable to discuss, but because of the vulnerable 

nature of children in the classroom context, it is justified. In order to uncover instances of teachers who 

bully, the purpose of this project is to explore teachers’ and students’ perceptions of bullying behaviors. 

This mixed method project involves two data sets. In the first study, classroom teachers (n=186) 

provided rationalistic data identifying occurrences of observed bullying behaviors. Included in the 

survey, teachers referenced definitions of emotional, physical, and intellectual bullying. Quantitative 

analysis showed nonsignificant findings; classroom teachers reported they do not bully and do not 

observe other educators bullying children. In the second study, teacher education students (n=341) 

completed an open-ended survey describing any instances where they either observed children bullied 

by a teacher or where they were victims of a teacher bully. Qualitative analysis described incidents 

ranging from early childhood through university instruction wherein student-participants observed or 

were victims of teachers who bullied. The purpose for this project was to begin to reconcile the lack of 

relevant findings describing teachers who bully. These current data provide evidence for the teacher as 

bully phenomenon and contribute to the literature by confirming descriptions associated with 

emotional, physical, and intellectual bullying. Implications discuss the culture of teaching and 

university teacher preparation.  

Keywords 

teachers, bullying, vulnerable, social 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
35 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1. Introduction 

This current discussion contributes to the literature by providing additional data describing how 

teachers demonstrate emotional, intellectual, and physical bullying. Additionally, these data initiate a 

discussion regarding the contrastingly different perspectives shared between practicing classroom 

teachers and teacher candidates who are not yet licensed and not accepted as professional educators. 

Although distasteful, without an honest consideration of all possible indicators for educators who may 

bully students, children remain vulnerable.  

Each school year, children spend more than one thousand hours with their classroom teacher. The 

social context of the classroom experience, as guided by the teacher, is significant with potential 

influence on children’s sense of self and diverse others. With this understanding of the importance of 

the social context for children’s optimal intellectual learning and emotional development, Vygotsky’s 

(1962) theory of social constructivism underpins the current study. In addition to the instruction of 

traditional academic content areas, the classroom is perceived as an arena for children’s social and 

emotional constructions of self. Children’s emerging self-concept and self-esteem remain integral with 

respect to their abilities to communicate and interact with others. Developing a sense of self and 

framing expectations for interacting with others remain as ongoing, active, and dynamic. The 

child/student is regarded as an information-constructor. From the objective reality, through 

interpersonal interactions and ongoing feedback, students construct personally subjective meanings of 

themselves and diverse others. New information is linked to prior understandings. Using the theoretical 

lens of social constructivism, the authors assume the level of potential development refers to the level 

at which learning takes place. Still developing, cognitive structures will only mature under the guidance 

of or in collaboration with others. A teacher who bullies has a profound and long lasting negative 

influence on a child with respect to their own self-concept and, consequently, influences their future 

interactions with others. Because social constructivism builds upon a regard for proactive and informed 

collaboration, a child’s ability to establish trust, initiate activity, and ensure industry are contingent on 

their sense of self and diverse others. Considering the pervasive influence of the classroom teacher on 

the lives, attitudes, and successes of their students, this current mixed method project warrants 

consideration in contributing to the understanding of the potential of a teacher as bully phenomenon.  

With the vast number and range of diverse educators, researchers believe most teachers practice 

integrative and compassionate pedagogy. Yet, considering this large number and diverse range of 

educators, it is also probable to believe some teachers may exhibit bullying behaviors. In order to 

ensure the emotional, social, physical, and intellectual security for all children, the current research 

contributes to the literature by describing how different populations define teacher-bullying. 

Typically, the first image that comes to mind associated with bullying is a larger and/or older person 

shoving a smaller/younger person in a remote area of a school or community. This traditional image is 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
36 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

limiting and does not accurately depict the range of potential bullying behaviors. A person calling 

names or pushing in line may be distressing, but is this bullying? 

Bullying is the behavior of someone who seeks power and control over another person who has been 

determined as weak, vulnerable, or unable to defend themselves. There is premeditation. Potential 

Victims may come from a non-traditional family, wear different clothes, or have some type of atypical 

physical or emotional trait. Students targeted as victims of bullying are often socially isolated 

individuals. Therefore, the difference between simple conflict and bullying is the existence of an 

imbalance of power between the victim and bully with an intent to cause harm. The harm can be direct 

and assume face-to-face confrontation (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005).  

Bullying refers to a range of different behaviors including physical actions (hitting, pushing, kicking), 

verbal actions (name calling, provoking, threatening, spreading slander), or other behaviors such as 

making faces or social exclusion (Fekkes et al., 2005).  

Adopting McEvoy’s (2005) definition, the current discussion defines bullying as any verbal or 

non-verbal action intended to intimidate or harass another. Bullying includes negative physical 

(pushing and inappropriate touching), intellectual (forcing agendas, compelling compliance, ignoring 

or negating others’ views), and emotional (yelling, belittling, threatening) behaviors toward perceived 

vulnerable others.   

The research literature clarifies behaviors associated with children’s peer-on-peer bullying, but limited 

data are provided toward adults who bully. Informal conversations with administrators, teachers, and 

parents suggest the issue of teachers who bully does exist. For example, it is a common practice for 

some principals to intentionally not place at-risk students with certain teachers (Twemlow, Fonagy, 

Sacco, & Brethour, 2004). Why does this practice occur? This strategy may be understood as a 

consequence of deficient knowledge with respect to diversity on the part of the teacher, inability of the 

administrator to insure “best practice”, or a veteran teacher receiving administrator favoritism. Such 

placements could be interpreted as an institutional strategy to diminish the potential for teacher 

bullying behaviors. The following section discusses the literature describing peer-on-peer bullying and 

draws the implications for teachers who may bully.  

The chronic nature and public display of student peer-on-peer bullying behaviors share similarities with 

adult bullying. In both peer-on-peer and adult-child bullying behaviors, the bully intends to draw 

attention by humiliating the victim, which causes the victim to become publically undermined.  

There are a range of potential opportunities to support or undermine children during a single day in a 

classroom. For example, Twemlow et al. (2004) describe teachers reporting bullying students on a 

frequent basis and admitting to bullying students in isolated events. Additionally, data describe how 

elementary school teachers were more likely to bully students in or out of the school setting if they had 

experienced bullying themselves as children. McEvoy (2005) asserts, in many schools, at least one or 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
37 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

more teachers could be identified as abusive toward students.  

The bullying scenario, in contrast with popular belief, shows the child peer-on-peer bully does not 

evidence a lower self-esteem than the non-bullying child (Rigby & Slee, 1993). Furthermore, it is not 

true that children’s bullying behaviors are the consequence of low academic performance or poor 

school achievement (Olweus, 1993). The bully does not hold low status in the group (Salmivalli, 

Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukialnen, 1996).  

Admittedly, these data describe interactions ages eight through sixteen, but the implications become 

illustrative when attempting to understand how or why teachers who bully children may remain in the 

educational system. The existing data, identifying peer-on-peer bullies, negate the argument that bullies 

evidence low self-esteem, struggle for group status, or exhibit poor academic achievement. Teachers 

who bully may be established and secure in their positions (McEvoy, 2005). This means, teachers who 

bully can be self-confident, represent high teacher/administrative acceptance, and demonstrate 

intellectual capacity. These descriptors help to explain why bullying teacher-behaviors continue; 

teacher-bullies may be perceived as accepted and leaders in the school community. Exploring why 

some teachers may bully students warrants a consideration of the demands of the contemporary 

classroom. Daily, teachers confront a range of students’ differences including culture, ethnicity, SES, 

race, language, ability, sexual orientation, and gender. In many instances, the teacher’s history, 

experiences, and worldview are dissimilar from their students (Whitted & Dupper, 2008). This disparity 

places daily demands on an individual’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions that may result in teachers 

becoming frustrated, overwhelmed, or threatened (Zerillo & Osterman, 2011). 

While most educators do not favor bullying attitudes, teachers in schools with low and high rates of 

suspensions tend to see fewer differences between bullying and non-bullying teachers than those from 

schools with medium rates of suspensions. Teachers who experienced bullying as children tend to or 

are more likely to grow up to bully. Additionally, they are more aware of other bullying adults 

(Twemlow & Fonagy, 2005).  

For both children and adults, bullying can be a social event that involves more than the bully and the 

victim. Bystanders become part of the bullying interaction (Kaukiainen et al., 1999). In legitimizing 

bullying as a group process, an understanding of the human experience as a social context is important; 

societal groups reject victims of bullying behaviors (Salmivalli, 1996). In addition to a bully’s taunts, 

the victim experiences the stress of a group’s rejection (Kaukiainen et al., 1999). For the school 

community, teachers as well as students may fear this rejection. Motivated by a fear of becoming 

bullied, bystanders become reticent to assist victims (McEvoy, 2005).  

McEvoy (2005) argues, if not stopped by an authority figure, the bullying behavior may be interpreted 

by the victim as acceptable. The victim believes the bully’s values are shared by others. Regardless of 

age, the victim’s rejection is highly stressful. Eventually, if the bullying behaviors are not stopped, the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
38 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

victim begins to assume responsibility for the bully’s actions and internalizes a sense of worthlessness 

(McEvoy, 2005). When teachers publically embarrass, belittle, or humiliate a student, they not only 

bully the targeted student, but they as well create a hostile and vulnerable environment for all children. 

In doing so, bullying teachers undermine the potential learning environment for all students.  

Educators who bully often use motivation or instruction as a justification for their intimidating 

behaviors. Teachers may claim to use intimidation as a form of disciplinary response to a student’s 

misbehaviors (McEvoy, 2005). As a result of a teacher’s behavior, victimized students may experience 

confusion, anger, fear, and begin to doubt their social and academic competencies. McEvoy describes 

how adults, when challenged for their perceived bullying behaviors, attempt to convince the victim 

they misunderstood or misrepresented the behaviors. Educators who bully also attempt to undermine 

the credibility of those who challenge their actions (2005). It appears these responses are only an 

attempt to shift focus away from the bully’s inappropriate behaviors. This is an attempt to create an 

impression that these events are more of a personal misunderstanding than genuine abuse (McEvoy, 

2005). 

Findings link health issues with the victims of bullying behaviors. Longitudinal data (Copeland, Wolke, 

Angola, & Costello, 2013) reveal victims of bullying experienced a higher rate of psychological health 

problems later in life (agoraphobia, anxiety. and panic disorders). Data also describe how victims of 

bullying experience a higher rate of anti-social behaviors. Victims of teacher bullying are more likely to 

be rated as less academically capable, less inclined to complete school, and more likely to be involved 

in high-risk behaviors (gambling, drug use, and under-age drinking) (Delfabbro et al., 2006). 

Additionally, both those who bully and those who are bullied are more disposed to depression and 

suicidal ideation than those who are neither bullied nor demonstrate bullying behaviors (Forero, 

McLellan, Rissel, & Baumann, 1999). Therefore, in planning to maximize proactive professional 

learning communities, it is critical to examine the potential for children who may be victims of teacher 

bullying.  

Research Questions: 

Do classroom teachers exhibit bullying behaviors? 

What kinds of bullying behaviors do teachers demonstrate? 

Is bullying, as practiced by teachers, a social event? 

Which children may be targeted by teacher bullying behaviors? 

 

2. Method 

2.1 Study One: A Quantitative Project Describes Classroom Teachers’ Reports of Their Bullying 

Behaviors or Observations of Other Teachers Who Bullied Students 

2.1.1 Purpose and Participants 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
39 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

The purpose of Study One was to collect rationalistic data to determine the types and frequencies of 

teacher-bully behaviors as observed by other practicing teachers. One hundred eighty-six (n=186) early, 

elementary, middle, and high school teachers (139 females, 30 males, and 17 non-responders) 

volunteered to complete surveys describing their observance of, or participation in a range of defined 

bullying behaviors. The definitions were adapted from McEvoy (2005) and included descriptions for 

emotional, physical, and intellectual bullying. Twenty-six participants did not identify their level.  

2.1.2 Instrument 

Surveys were passed out at county schools in a large urban area in the Southeastern United States. The 

surveys included no identifying information. Using a five-item Likert scale 1-5 (1=none of the time, 

2=rarely, 3=some of the time, 4=most of the time, 5=all of the time), 186 participants described their 

workplace experiences as observing or participating in bullying events. Before completing the survey, 

teacher-participants reviewed definitions of bullying as adapted from McEvoy (2005). 

2.2 Study Two: A Qualitative Project Describing Teacher Candidates’ Experiences with Teachers Who 

Bully 

2.2.1 Purpose and Participants  

The purpose of the second study was to collect narrative data to determine the types and frequencies of 

teachers who bully as reported by teacher candidates. Students preparing to be licensed teachers (n 

=341), attending a large urban university located in the Southeastern US, responded to a 

one-open-ended question. The survey asked for any descriptions of events where they observed 

children being bullied by teachers or instances where they were themselves, victims of teacher bullies. 

The return rate was 88%. 

2.2.2 Instrument 

The open-ended nature of the single question allowed participants to consider all possibilities 

describing teachers who bully. This open-ended response included university students’ personal history 

as a student. Definitions of teacher bullying were not provided for participants to reference. No 

restrictions were placed upon participants’ memories or recall. Researchers did not attempt to validate 

participants’ stories. Students’ third-party or heresay narratives were not included in the qualitative 

analysis. This means the participant had to either be a victim of bullying or first-hand observed a 

bullying event. Participants never personally experiencing a bullying event or never observing another 

student being bullied by a teacher, checked a box describing this “lack of observed bullying behavior”. 

This was done to identify the total population of students who “never experienced bullying.”    

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
40 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

3. Results 

3.1 Study One  

3.1.1 Data Analysis 

For all measures, participants rated responses less than a score of three (1.29 > 2.37). Participants 

reported infrequent involvement in bullying encounters. Cumulatively, 84% of respondents indicated 

verbal or non-verbal intellectual bullying occurred some of the time, rarely, or none of the time. The 

mean score for all categories of intellectual bullying was less than 2.43. Smaller numbers indicate 

absence of bullying. These data indicate intellectual bullying behaviors rarely occurred or were 

non-existent.  

In the category of emotional bullying, a cumulative frequency indicated more than 83% of participants 

reported non-verbal or verbal emotional bullying occurred some of the time, rarely, or none of the time. 

The mean score for all categories of emotional bullying was less than 2.37. Data indicate emotional 

bullying behaviors rarely occurred or were non-existent. With respect to reporting incidents of bullying, 

cumulatively, more than 89% (M > 1.79) indicated some of the time, or rarely, taking the responsibility 

to report incidents of observed bullying behaviors.  

When participants were asked whether they had experienced bullying encounters with an 

instructor/coordinator or university instructor, data indicated cumulatively, 95% (M > 1.55) indicated 

some of the time or rarely did they experience incidents of bullying behaviors. Ninety-seven percent of 

respondents reported either some of the time, or rarely, reporting any incidents of bullying behaviors in 

this category. 

There was less than 2% (M > 1.40) reporting of any experiences with physical bullying. Finally, data 

reveal no indication of administrators engaging in nonverbal bullying behaviors. However, bullying 

was described as a group process 80% (M =2.63) of the time when it did occur. 

The data suggest minimal incidents whereby educators were either perpetrators or bystanders to 

intellectual, emotional, or physical bullying encounters. If these data are to be accepted, classroom 

teachers are not bullies.  

3.2 Study Two  

3.2.1 Data Analysis 

Narrative data were coded to generate categories emerging from the participants’ responses. Content 

validity was determined by the multiple layers of Constant Comparative analysis (LeCompte & Preissle, 

1993). The two researchers analyzed all surveys using a layered approach. Initially, the two coders 

independently read through the data multiple times and identified common themes/categories. A range 

of categories began to represent the teacher candidate-participants’ shared bullying stories. The two 

researchers then read through all data as a collaborative team. Through ongoing discussion, data 

determined category names by providing participants’ narratives as examples. Finally, interpretations 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
41 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

were reviewed for any potential inconsistencies.  

In addition to the open-ended response, the survey allowed for participants to initially check one of 

three descriptors to indicate their perception of how often teacher bullying occurs. A total of 341 

completed the survey and responded to the statement to reveal their belief regarding teacher bullying. 

Sixty-five (19%) students reported they believed teacher bullying occurs rarely while only seven 

participants (2%) indicated that they had never seen, heard or been a victim of teacher bullying. One 

hundred-forty (41%) of students indicated that they believe teacher bullying occurs sometimes while 

120 (35%) indicated that they believe teacher bullying occurs more frequently than people want to 

admit. The remaining nine (3%) students did not provide an answer to this statement. Based on these 

data, roughly three-fourth of respondents indicated, at the least, some degree of awareness that teacher 

bullying occurs. 

In the open-ended section of the survey, students were provided opportunity to comment on their 

experiences with teachers who bully. Forty-five students indicated that they never observed teacher 

bullying, while 63 students indicated no personal encounter with teacher bullying. One hundred 

fifty-two students reported that they had personally experienced bullying directly or indirectly. 

Consistent with the existing literature, two students equated bullying to “tough love”. This is the case 

when a teacher is seemingly too hard on a particular student. The remaining respondents did not 

provide data for this question.  

Using the constant comparative analysis, the authors identified three primary categories describing 

teachers’ bullying behaviors. Within each of the primary behavioral categories, applying the 

participants’ responses, authors were able to further describe sub-categories of behavior within each of 

the broader labels.  

Primary categories were identified as Verbal, Shaming, and Targeting. Subcategories within each 

primary category included: calling-out, singling-out, and humor (Verbal); demeaning, embarrassing, 

humiliating, and belittling (Shaming); and finally power, and differences (Targeting).  

For the subcategory “differences”, participants’ comments further delineated subcategories for the ways 

in which teachers targeted students’ differences. The extended subcategories for the subcategory 

“differences” included physical appearance, diversity difference, and ability difference.   

For the Verbal bullying subcategory “calling out”, one university student-participant wrote: “In 

elementary school, I remember having a couple of teachers who would call students dumb or stupid in 

front of the whole class”. Another university student-participant commented: “I’ve witnessed teachers 

bullying students that aren’t the best of students by making fun of them and always calling them out”. 

In Verbal bullying subcategory “single out” a university student-participant commented; I have been 

part of a class where the teacher always picked on one student no matter what that student was doing. 

The teacher always had something negative to say. Likewise, another university student-participant said: 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
42 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

“I have been bullied by a teacher. I was in high school and this teacher seemed to have it out for me. 

She would yell at me in front of the class if I asked a question that required her to repeat the 

instruction.” In the third Verbal bullying subcategory “humor”, a university student-participant said: “I 

have seen teachers playing jokes with students sometimes that can be taken too far or taken the wrong 

way”. 

Regarding bullying activities within the Shaming subcategory “demeaning”, one university 

student-participant wrote, “I once had a teacher in fourth grade yelling in my ear for answering a 

question incorrectly. I’ve seen a teacher give Smarties candy to smart kids and ‘Dumdum’ lollipops to 

the dumb kids.” In the Shaming subcategory of “embarrassment”, a university student-participant wrote, 

“I can’t think of an exact time, but I have seen teachers call students out too much. To the point I think, 

the teacher is purposefully embarrassing the student”. An additional example of a university 

student-participant’s comment said, “I had a teacher that I knew of who would talk down to the kids 

and told them that they would not do well in life.” In Shaming subcategory “humiliation”, a university 

student-participant wrote, “Once my teacher became frustrated. She walked me down to a kindergarten 

classroom and said, ‘If you don’t understand something this simple, this is the kind of class you belong 

in’”. Finally, in the Shaming subcategory “belittle”, a university student-participant wrote, “I have 

witnessed several teachers at a school belittle the students. They would yell at them, they did not 

consider that sometimes they did not understand what the teacher was saying because they spoke 

different languages other than English”.  

In the third category of Targeting, several university student-participants reported experiencing teacher 

bullying. In the subcategory “power”, one university student-participant wrote, “There were several 

instances in high school when some teachers who abused their power and picked on certain students 

who gave them trouble. Instead of helping a troublesome student, they seemed to target them during 

class”. Another university student-participant commented, “I’ve noticed before some students getting 

higher grades if the teacher likes them and others getting lower grades when a teacher does not like 

them”. Another university student-participant wrote, “Teachers verbally attack students and use their 

authority to make it seem like it is not bullying. I have had teachers who publically shame students for 

their personal business and make them feel bad about themselves”. Another university 

student-participant reported, “I have seen where the teacher will have favorites and if they are not his or 

her favorites and treat the other students worse and bully them for grades”. An additional university 

student-participant stated, “In fifth grade a teacher, made fun of me in class. He also threw markers at 

us for certain reasons”. For the primary category, Targeting, subcategories include “difference” and 

“appearance”. One university student-participant stated, “My teacher in elementary school used to 

make fun of how my legs were shaped. He called me turkey legs”. Another university 

student-participant wrote, “I got bullied because of my big curly hair in middle school”. Another 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
43 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

university student-participant wrote, “When I was in middle school, the PE teacher would make several 

comments about my weight. That led to students in class saying it too”.   

Data also indicated that there were several comments describing diversity with respect to English as 

Second Language (ESL) students and students who appeared to have ability differences. A university 

student-participant wrote, “I’ve seen several teachers before mentally bully one student. Unfortunately 

the students were mainly those students who may have learned a little slower than everyone else or just 

could not learn what the teacher taught. The teacher would use words as losers or tell the students they 

were losers or telling the students they would never become anything”.  

Third-hand reports of teacher bullying were not included in the analysis. Participants either directly 

observed the bullying event or were victims of a teacher who bullied. 

3.2.2 Limitations  

Researchers acknowledge time and memory may be potential mediating influences. Furthermore, 

researchers acknowledge the two populations for Study One and Two are different and cannot be 

directly compared. Yet, the question remains why a closed population of “practicing” teachers observed 

minimal to no observed teacher bullying behaviors, while the second population of university teacher 

education students described a range of bullying behaviors. In order to maximize the positive learning 

experiences for all children, authors argue further research identifying and describing teachers who 

bully is warranted. 

 

4. Discussion 

Twemlow et al. (2006) describe teacher bullying as an attitudinal characteristic. Emerging from a 

coercive power dynamic established during childhood experiences, family roles, and school 

environments, children, victims of status in-balance, appear to be more likely to be trapped in future 

bully-victim interactions. Toward improving the lives of children, this would involve changing victim 

and bully roles as well as being more alert to the bullying of others. Further, Twemlow et al. (2006) 

also describe reasons for teachers’ bullying behaviors including lack of administrative support, 

inadequate classroom management strategies, and fear of injury by students, large class sizes, and 

teacher envy of smart students. These indicators describe the daily reality of the contemporary 

classroom. 

If the findings from Study One are to be accepted, teachers do not verbally or nonverbally harass 

students, teachers do not threaten or inappropriately compel students’ intellect, and teachers do not 

compromise the students’ emotional well-being. In collecting data for Study One, a principal denied 

data collection because she claimed, “the act of bullying among the staff at this school is non-existent 

and to give this survey is nonsense”. While some administrators may believe their staff members do not 

demonstrate bullying behaviors, why deny the opportunity to substantiate the claim. This particular 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
44 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

principal’s perspective was affirmed by Study One; teachers do not bully children. 

Study Two data clearly described the several ways in which teachers bully children. Assuming the lens 

of the university student-participants’ histories and not the classroom teachers’ perspectives, Study Two 

narratives overwhelmingly described how teachers bully children from preschool through university. 

Interestingly, although the university student-participants in Study 2 were not previously provided with 

McEvoy’s (2005) definitions of bullying, their open-ended responses consistently aligned with 

McEvoy’s indicators. Additionally, university student-participants’ narratives overwhelmingly 

described how teacher bullying was framed as a public event. The bullying actions were seen and heard 

by other students and teachers. 

Even if a student is not directly targeted as a victim by the teacher, because of the balance of power, all 

students are vulnerable. Consequently, students are reluctant to support their peers or, as victims, are 

unable to speak out against the teacher. Students understand the role of teacher to be associated with 

power, influence, and authority. In several of the university student-participants’ narratives, there was 

an implied reference to power. 

There were several descriptions of teachers throwing items at students. One student-participant said 

that the teacher was frustrated because students were not doing homework, so through his gradebook 

across the room. This same teacher also through a dry erase marker at a student who was not paying 

attention and as well threw a chair across the front of the classroom. Another university 

student-participant stated witnessing a teacher throwing things at students with no specific description 

of the object. 

Furthermore, university student-participants’ narratives described teachers targeting students with 

respect to their appearance, diversity, and ability differences. For a variety of reasons, many children 

are unable to maintain the grade-level standards. University student-participants’ narratives described 

how students’ intellectual capacity, language difference, and/or maturity level became the target for 

teacher ridicule.  

Regardless of individual student difference, the role of the teacher is to support, instruct, and guide 

students. Negotiating a range of diverse students’ needs and abilities is not extraordinary, it is what 

teachers do. As a professional, teachers do not exhibit frustration, anger, or preference. 

Mainstream media and other news agencies (Copeland et al., 2013; Bradshaw, 2013) devoted 

considerable airtime broadcasting issues related to bullying among school-age students. It is well 

documented that health issues and suicides among school-age students are closely associated with 

bullying victimization. Popular media highlighted incidents of peer-on-peer bullying encounters 

resulting with the mainstream population responding with shock and horror. Parents asked, “How is 

this possible?”  

Students, educators, and administrators have long known children are bullied by other children. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
45 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

However, not until the recent media focus did the peer-on-peer bullying issue motivate school leaders 

and officials to create anti-bullying programs. Why were educators, those in the schools each day, not 

the first to discuss the peer-on-peer bullying issue? Is this similar to what happened in Study One? 

Once you are a member of the school community, is there a lack of institutional introspection to 

identify weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and problems within your own profession?  

Study One data clearly reported teachers do not bully. Yet, for Study Two, university participants, who 

were still students, described a range of teacher-bullying from the early years to university. The 

difference between the two populations, practicing teachers and teacher candidates, provided 

incongruent and contrasting perspectives.  

Is it not reasonable to ask if there are some teachers who are unprepared or ill-equipped to effectively 

and compassionately interact with diverse student populations? In the future, will it be left to popular 

media to continue the bullying discussion to include classroom teachers? Alternatively, can practicing 

teachers and teacher education programs collaborate and monitor the profession? 

When children are systematically ridiculed, harassed, or left vulnerable to others, the outcomes are 

significant and long-term. This is especially devastating when the bully represents authority, power, and 

influence. Authors believe teachers are responsible, not only for the academic delivery of material, but 

also are obliged to ensure the emotional, physical, and intellectual safety of all children. 

In an effort to understand the teacher bullying phenomenon, the school community is obliged to 

consider this potential threat to children. Until this discussion begins, children are vulnerable. In order 

to manage students, some educators praise teachers who use tough language, strong intimidation, and 

harsh posturing. In contrast, compassionate management and effective instructional behaviors are 

designed to invite and involve students; bullying disengages children. Yet, in the current study, another 

reason for lack of reporting of bullying incidents might be because identifying bullies may seem to be 

an act of anti-collegial behavior. In almost all instances, faculty and staff are expected to support and 

nurture one another. Reporting wrongful incidents often becomes a silent issue in order to prevent 

being labeled in a negative or non-supportive manner. In Study One, practicing teachers denied any 

bullying by their colleagues. This notion teachers may be reticent to “whistle blow” on their colleagues 

is supported by the literature describing bullying as a social and group experience. Yet, university 

teacher education students, in Study Two, well described a range of teacher bullying behaviors. Is the 

difference that, as students, they are not yet “a part” of the system and are more ready to describe the 

injustice? 

 

5. Contributions 

Initially, the purpose of the first study was to describe what teachers reported with respect to different 

types of teacher bullying behaviors; minimal evidence for teacher bullying was generated from the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
46 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

teacher data set. Lack of data is not necessarily lack of evidence. Despite the dismissive findings from 

Study One, researchers were not convinced some educators do not bully students. Researchers 

wondered, in preparing Study Two, if teacher candidates, not yet professionals in a school community, 

might be more willing to report events of observed bullying by teachers. Collecting data from this 

university student population clearly demonstrated examples of teachers’ emotional, physical, and 

intellectual bullying.  

Current revisions in teacher education programs, Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 

systematically incorporate the use of dispositional standards. This means, a teacher candidate may earn 

an adequate GPA for admission to a teacher education program, but without satisfactory dispositions, 

may be forwarded for remediation. Findings report that most problems arising in the student teaching 

semester are a consequence of inappropriate dispositions (Brabeck & Koch, 2013). Teacher education 

programs scaffold the understanding for planning, instruction, and assessment of learning and teaching, 

but it is the candidates who must as well inherently possess the core dispositions to consistently 

respond to their future children with empathy, respect, and regard. A teacher’s concept of self, 

competency in the profession, and ability to relate with diverse others are critical in resolving the issues 

related to teachers who bully. 

Implications for Future Research 

Reflecting upon an educator’s potential influence on children’s academic learning and emotional 

well-being highlights the need to identify key aspects related to school personnel. For this reason, it is 

important for public school faculty to be knowledgeable with respect to the range, types, and roles 

associated with the bullying phenomenon. In order to maintain standards and ensure the protection of 

children, self-examination and monitoring related to teachers who bully warrant further discussion.  

 

References 

Bradshaw, C. (2013). Bulling, violence, and gangs. National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning 

Environment. Retrieved from: http://www.stopbullying.gov/blog/archive/201305/ 

Brabeck, M., & Koch, C. (2013). Why the new teacher ed. standards matter. Education Week, 33(4), 

26-27. 

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angola, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of 

bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 

419-426. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504 

Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., & Metzer, J. (2006). Peer and 

teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and 

psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 71-90. 

https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24645 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
47 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and 

where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education 

Research, 20(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg100 

Forero, R., McCellan, L., Rissel, C., & Baumann, A. (1999). Bullying behavior and psychosocial health 

among school students in New South Wales, Australia: Cross sectional survey. British Medical 

Journal, 319, 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7206.344 

Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, C., & Forsblom, S. 

(1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. 

Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81-89. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:2<81::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-M 

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research 

(2nd ed.). 

McEvoy, A. (2005). Teachers Who Bully Students: Patterns and policy implications. In Paper 

presented at the Hamilton Fish Institute’s Persistently Ontario Safe Schools Conference. 

Philadelphia, USA. 

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian schoolchildren 

and their implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33-42. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116 

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, C., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukianinen, A. (1996). Bullying as a 

group process: Participant roles and their relations to social  status within the group. Aggressive 

Behavior, 22, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T 

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., & Brethour Jr., J. R. (2006). Teachers who bully students: A 

hidden trauma. International Journal of social Psychiatry, 52(3), 187-198. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764006067234 

Twemlow, S. W., & Fonagy, P. (2005). The prevalence of teachers who bully students in schools with 

differing levels of behavioral problems. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 2387-2389. 

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2387 

Twenlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., & Brethour Jr., J. R. (2004). Teachers who bully students: A 

hidden trauma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52(3), 187-198. 

http://doi:10.1177/002076400606 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Haufmann, & G. Vakar, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge: 

MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 

Whitted, K., & Dupper, D. (2008). Do teachers bully students? Findings from a survey of students in an 

alternative education setting. Education and Urban Society, 40(3), 329-341, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
48 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

http://:10.1177/001312450730447 

Zerillo, C., & Osterman, K. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying. Improving Schools, 14(3), 

239-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480211419586 


