Violence against staff in schools: it’s never OK
(This article was first published in The Point, Term 2 edition earlier this year).
It’s time for violence in schools to be recognised as an occupational health and safety issue.
Before we go any further:
Your school is responsible for your wellbeing
You don’t have to tolerate violence from students
You should never fear for your safety in your workplace
If you are the victim of violence or aggression there are things you can do
Violence in schools is not just a behavioural management issue for students
Violence has always been an important issue for education staff, but following pandemic lockdowns, it has escalated. Reports of fights and bullying, student violence and aggression abounded when schools reopened earlier this year.
Violence and assault can be physical, verbal or psychological, and include threats like, “I am going to get you sacked”.
Whatever form aggression and violence takes, one thing must be made clear:
The safety of staff is just as important as the safety of students. No one’s rights take precedence over another person’s rights, anywhere, including in schools.
The first sentence of the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria’s “Safe and Sound Practice Guidelines” for school principals states it simply enough: “Employing authorities and school principals carry a duty of care for providing a safe learning and working environment for students and staff”.
However, moribund attitudes in too many schools mock this enlightened statement.
IEU Organisers and Industrial Officers report that victims of violence are too often met with unacceptable responses. These include:
Questioning of competence. The employee is blamed for allowing a violent situation to arise in the first place and then must ‘prove’ that they didn’t bring it on themselves. There are parallels to victims of sexual assault being forced to defend how they were dressed when they were attacked.
“It’s part of the job”. Too many people in leadership positions who were in the classroom 20 or more years ago have the attitude that since they had to put up with aggressive behaviour in the past, so should their current staff. In Catholic schools this is often part of the attitude that we should all “suffer for our sins” and for the privilege of having a “vocation”.
The impact on the student. Staff are concerned the offending student will be labelled as unmanageable, particularly in primary schools. However, it is vital to address this behaviour early so it doesn’t become normalised.
Gender based implications. Women members are more often the target of this type of behaviour, as some students see them more vulnerable and may replicate behaviour they experience at home.
These attitudes are so entrenched that many teachers wrongly blame themselves for being the cause of dangerous student actions. Experience is no bar to this phenomenon: often experienced staff who have not had students act this way before are most prone to reaching this wrong-headed conclusion.
In 2022, it is unacceptable for teachers to accept the threat of violence as part of their job.
Violence is an OHS issue
Many schools still treat dangerous or aggressive conduct from students as a behavioural issue, rather than an Occupational Health and Safety matter. Schools are much more likely to treat it as an OHS issue if there is active participation from an IEU-trained Health and Safety Rep and an IEU Rep who is well supported by an Organiser, but too many disregard education staff when considering dangerous conduct.
Students acting out this way often have complex psychological needs which prevent them from engaging meaningfully with behavioural management programs.
A proper OHS assessment focuses on hazards and identifies factors that increase safety risks.
When applied to dangerous student behaviour this would mean asking:
what are the known triggers for the student’s dangerous conduct?
what measures de-escalate potentially dangerous situations?
what training would be helpful for staff?
It is the legal duty of schools to ask, ‘what should we have known about this hazard?’
A recent incident provided an example of what the employer should have known. The employee who worked most closely with a student who ended up assaulting staff said they knew from the outset the day was going to go badly for that student and anyone working with him because he’d left his device in the car “and it would all go downhill from there”.
If the school had a proper OHS framework, it would have known that missing the device would trigger the student’s bad behaviour and they could have intervened, preventing a violent meltdown. They could have been sent home or a parent could have been asked to bring the device or a replacement. An adequate OHS approach would have saved them from trauma, injury, and visits from the police and WorkSafe.
Another OHS essential is a robust reporting regime. All staff must be engaged in reporting not just minor incidents, but "near misses", such as when a student throws an object but it doesn't strike anyone. Reporting all incidents identifies patterns of behaviours including what time of the day or week the behaviour occurs; the gender or role of the staff targeted; and the living arrangements and background of the perpetrator, whether they are dealing with a parental break-up etc.
A universal reporting regime also means that if someone sees something unsafe occur to someone else, they will report it just in case the target doesn’t report it or didn’t recognise it.
In secondary schools, it may be possible to create a "behaviour contract" discussed and agreed upon by the student, their staff, and parents, so there is no argument with the subsequent consequences of any unacceptable actions. This also sets out accepted responses if there is an "escalation" of behaviour, which can include removal from classes or parents collecting the student from class.
Some schools are reluctant to address violent incidents because they fear they will face claims they are discriminating against the student involved and possibly failing in their duty to make reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities.
This is a misunderstanding of the Disability Standards for Education, which make it clear schools are not required to make unreasonable adjustments for students with disabilities.
Restorative practice pitfalls
Restorative practice aims to repair damaged relationships by trying to bring about a sense of responsibility on the part of the offender and forgiveness by the victim. Restorative processes may have a place where students act in a violent manner to other students as this can be a matter of their maturity and development.
However, it is no replacement for the employer meeting their duty under the OHS Act to make sure the workplace is safe. The OHS Act doesn’t place a duty on a child who behaves in a violent way – the duty is on the employer to control the risk of that occurring.
The concept of restorative processes is also inappropriate for a staff member who has been targeted by violent actions, particularly where there is a some “pre-planning” in the act or there is a history of violent behaviour from the aggressor.
Employees do not have to – and should not – tolerate violent acts towards them.
They should not accept them as “part of the job”.
The challenge for schools is to remember they are both places of education and places of work. Too often they forget the latter.