September 2026 - Minaz Jivraj My Take: Beyond the Code of Conduct - A Comprehensive Response to Abusive Parents
Schools depend on constructive relationships among students, families, teachers, principals and governing authorities. Parents have a legitimate role in asking questions, challenging decisions, advocating for their children and seeking explanations about grades, discipline, special education services and school policies. That role is essential to accountable education.
Legitimate advocacy, however, is not the same as intimidation, harassment, threats, public humiliation, discriminatory abuse, stalking, cyberbullying or physical violence. A growing body of research indicates that teachers and school leaders are experiencing aggression from parents and caregivers, particularly in verbal, written and online forms. The evidence does not justify claiming that most parents are abusive, nor does it establish a universal global trend using consistent measures. It does show that parent aggression is a significant and insufficiently measured occupational-safety problem.
A 2023 study of 450 United States teachers who described their most upsetting experiences with parent aggression identified concerns across four dimensions of school climate: safety, academic work, the institutional environment and the school community. Incidents were linked to disputes over discipline, grades and services; perceived failures of administrative support; communication breakdowns; mistrust; accountability disputes; and concerns about job stability.The problem is especially consequential because abuse directed at educators can affect more than the individual victim. It can weaken teacher authority, discourage staff from communicating openly with families, increase anxiety and burnout, contribute to absenteeism and turnover, and divert principals from instructional leadership toward crisis management. The appropriate response is neither indiscriminate exclusion of parents nor passive tolerance of abuse. Schools need a proportionate system that preserves family participation while establishing clear boundaries around safety and professional respect.
What the research shows
A developing evidence baseResearch on school violence has historically concentrated on student victimization and student aggression. Parent-to-teacher aggression has received substantially less attention. The 2023 school-climate study explicitly identified this gap and examined how parent aggression is experienced within the broader ecology of the school rather than treating each incident as an isolated interpersonal conflict.The strongest recent evidence comes from the American Psychological Association Task Force on Violence Against Educators and School Personnel. Its national, multi-informant study surveyed 14,966 educators and school personnel at the first time point and 11,814 at the second. Participants included teachers, administrators, school psychologists, social workers, counsellors and other staff from all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The surveys assessed experiences before COVID-19, during pandemic restrictions and after restrictions ended.After COVID-19 restrictions, 63% of surveyed teachers reported experiencing verbal or threatening aggression from a parent or guardian at least once during the relevant school year. Among administrators, the corresponding figure was 77%. Parent-related physical violence was much less common: 26% of teachers and 4% of administrators reported such an experience in the study’s post-restriction period. These findings require careful interpretation: the study used national survey recruitment but was not a fully probability-based longitudinal panel, and the results measure reported experiences rather than verified criminal incidents.The same research found that verbal and threatening aggression across the school system fell during pandemic restrictions and then returned to pre-pandemic levels or higher after restrictions ended. Students and parents were the most frequent aggressors overall, while parents were the most common aggressors against administrators. The authors also found substantial anxiety, stress and intentions to transfer or leave the profession among school personnel.A separate study of 5,971 Kentucky public-school teachers found that parental aggression was relatively rare and predominantly verbal rather than physical. Younger teachers, teachers with advanced degrees and teachers in more heavily populated areas were more likely to report experiencing parental aggression. This earlier finding is important because it cautions against presenting the issue as a simple, uniform epidemic. Rates vary according to definitions, samples, geography, occupational role and reporting practices.
Common forms of abuse
Parent aggression can occur in person, by telephone, email, messaging applications, social-media platforms, parent groups and communications directed to or about staff. Common behaviours include:- shouting, profanity and personal insults;- intimidation and aggressive posturing;- threats of physical harm, legal action, media exposure or complaints to senior officials;- repeated or vexatious communications;- public accusations and reputational attacks;- discriminatory or sexually harassing comments;- cyberbullying, doxxing or coordinated online criticism;- entering or refusing to leave school premises;- physical assault or attempted assault.The distinction between a complaint and abuse should be based on conduct, not merely on disagreement. A parent may strongly challenge a decision without acting abusively. Conversely, apparently polite messages can become harassment when they are repetitive, coercive, targeted and designed to overwhelm or frighten a staff member.The research literature also identifies authority bypassing as a recurring mechanism. A parent dissatisfied with a teacher may immediately threaten to contact the principal, superintendent, school board, ministry, lawyer or media. Escalation is not inherently improper; formal review and appeal processes are necessary. The problem arises when escalation is used as intimidation, when staff are repeatedly contacted after a matter has been answered, or when a parent attempts to undermine a teacher’s professional authority rather than engage with the substance of the concern.
Why principals are particularly exposed
Teachers frequently experience parent conflict around grades, classroom management, communication and services. Principals face an additional layer of exposure because they are often the final institutional decision-maker. They may be responsible for discipline, attendance, safety restrictions, staffing decisions, special education disputes, school placement and responses to complaints about individual teachers.Australian principal-survey evidence illustrates the scale of the leadership problem. The 2025 “Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey” reported that 53.7% of school leaders experienced threats of violence and 47.8% experienced physical violence during 2025. Students were the most common source of physical violence, while parents were identified as the main source of threats. A related account of the survey reported that parents and caregivers were the source of almost nine in ten cases of cyberbullying reported by principals in 2025.These data should not be transferred uncritically to other countries. The Australian survey has its own sample, wording and occupational context. Nevertheless, it demonstrates why principal safety cannot be reduced to student behaviour. School leaders are also targets of threatening communications, online abuse, gossip and persistent complaint behaviour.
Why parent aggression occurs
No single explanation is sufficient. Parent abuse is produced by interacting individual, institutional and social factors.
High-stakes decisions
Parents may experience decisions about discipline, grades, special education, student placement, attendance or school safety as threats to their child’s identity, opportunity or wellbeing. Emotional investment can become entitlement: the belief that the parent’s preferred outcome must prevail and that any contrary professional judgment is evidence of incompetence or bad faith.
Mistrust and contested authority
The 2023 school-climate study connected parent aggression with mistrust, negative attitudes, communication problems and disputes over accountability. Trust is weakened when schools communicate inconsistently, use opaque processes or fail to explain decisions. It is also weakened when parents approach schools with generalized suspicion, assume discriminatory intent without evidence, or treat every professional boundary as an obstacle.
Post pandemic conflict
The pandemic intensified disputes about health measures, remote learning, curriculum, student wellbeing and institutional authority. Although the available evidence does not prove that the pandemic caused parent aggression, the APA study found that aggression declined during restrictions and rebounded afterward, alongside broader social stress and conflict.
Digital amplification
Digital communication removes many of the social restraints present in face-to-face interaction. A parent can send messages at all hours, copy large numbers of recipients, post allegations to community groups or contact staff through personal accounts. A conflict that once involved two people can become a public reputational event within minutes.
Organizational inconsistency
Parents learn quickly whether a school enforces boundaries. If one staff member is told to tolerate abuse, another is permitted to respond informally and a third is denied administrative support, the organization creates uncertainty and encourages escalation. The APA research identifies administrative support and school context as important factors in educator experiences of violence and aggression.
Structural and equity considerations
Schools must avoid treating all assertive parents as threats. Cultural differences in communication, language barriers, disability-related needs, prior negative experiences with institutions and legitimate concerns about discrimination may affect how conflict is expressed and interpreted. At the same time, equity cannot mean that staff must accept racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory abuse. A fair system examines both the substance of the complaint and the behaviour used to advance it.
Consequences for schools
Harm to staff wellbeingAggression can produce anxiety, sleep disruption, reduced confidence, emotional exhaustion and fear of returning to work. The APA review notes associations between educator-directed violence and depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress symptoms, sleep problems, burnout, reduced engagement and intentions to transfer or leave.The consequences may be cumulative. A single threatening incident can be traumatic, but repeated low-level hostility may also create a climate of vigilance. Teachers may avoid contacting families, reduce classroom innovation or soften necessary decisions to prevent confrontation. Principals may spend disproportionate time managing individual adults rather than improving instruction and student support.
Erosion of professional authority
Schools cannot function when professional judgments are routinely overridden through intimidation. If a parent can secure a different outcome by threatening staff, copying senior officials or posting online, other parents may imitate that strategy. Staff then receive an implicit message that policy applies only to those without the willingness or resources to challenge it aggressively.
Effects on students
Students observe how adults resolve conflict. When a parent publicly denigrates a teacher, the student may perceive the teacher as lacking authority or legitimacy. This can complicate classroom management and weaken the consistency between school and home expectations. Conversely, an opaque or dismissive school response may teach students that institutions do not listen. The objective is therefore not simply to protect adults from unpleasant interactions; it is to preserve a safe and credible educational environment.
Retention and recruitment
Teacher shortages make retention a safety issue. The APA study found post-restriction intentions to quit ranging from 23% to 57% across stakeholder roles, although those intentions reflected violence, safety concerns and the broader work environment rather than parent aggression alone. Parent abuse should not be treated as the sole cause of workforce instability, but it is one occupational stressor that schools and boards can address directly.
How schools should respond
1. Define unacceptable conduct
Every school should publish a family and community code of conduct that distinguishes:
- legitimate disagreement and formal complaint;
- firm but respectful advocacy;
- unacceptable communication;
- threatening, harassing, discriminatory or violent conduct.
The policy should apply to in-person interactions, telephone calls, email, messaging platforms, social media, school events, field trips and communications about staff. It should identify consequences such as ending a meeting, requiring written communication, restricting contact to a designated administrator, removing a person from premises, imposing a communication plan, issuing a trespass or exclusion direction where lawful, and referring threats or assaults to police.
A policy should not prohibit criticism merely because it is uncomfortable or reputationally damaging to the school. It should focus on threats, harassment, discriminatory conduct, disruption, intimidation, repeated unreasonable contact and conduct that creates a safety risk.
2. Establish a single, documented process
Schools should provide parents with a clear complaint pathway:
1. raise the concern with the relevant teacher when appropriate;
2. request review by the principal or designate;
3. use a superintendent, board or appeal process where available;
4. pursue external legal or administrative remedies when applicable.
The process should state expected response times, acceptable communication channels and the circumstances in which direct contact with a staff member will be limited. Every incident should be recorded factually, including dates, exact words where possible, witnesses, screenshots, actions taken and follow-up.Documentation is not merely defensive. It allows schools to identify repeat behaviour, protect staff who work across multiple sites, recognize escalation and evaluate whether interventions are effective.
3. Use a graduated response
A proportionate response might include:
- a reminder of communication expectations;
- a facilitated meeting with two school representatives;
- a written warning;
- a requirement that future communication occur through one administrator;
- a temporary communication or access restriction;
- an immediate direction to leave where there is disruption or risk;
- a longer exclusion order or legal intervention;
- police notification where there is an imminent threat, assault, stalking, property
damage or other potential offence.
The threshold should be based on risk, not on whether the parent is influential, persistent or politically connected. Staff should not be required to negotiate alone with someone who has threatened them.
4. Protect staff during meetings and online contact
Schools should avoid unsupervised meetings where prior conduct suggests risk. Options include two-person meetings, visible locations, reception-controlled access, a remote meeting with a second staff member present, security support and predetermined end-of-meeting language.
Staff should not be expected to use personal telephone numbers or social-media accounts. Schools should provide official channels, establish reasonable response hours and preserve relevant electronic evidence. A message that contains a threat should not be answered impulsively; it should be saved, reported and assessed under the school’s safety protocol.
5. Train staff and leaders
Training should cover:
- early identification of escalation;
- de-escalation and boundary-setting;
- trauma-informed communication;
- culturally responsive conflict resolution;
- threat assessment;
- documentation and evidence preservation;
- online abuse and privacy;
- when to involve police, legal counsel, occupational health or employee assistance services;
- post-incident support.
Training must not imply that the victim is responsible for preventing the aggressor’s behaviour. De-escalation is a safety skill, not a substitute for organizational protection.
6. Support recovery
After an incident, leaders should check the staff member’s immediate safety, provide practical assistance, preserve confidentiality where possible and offer access to counselling or occupational-health support. The staff member should not have to repeatedly recount the event to multiple administrators. Schools should also assess whether timetable changes, temporary contact restrictions or additional supervision are needed.
A return-to-work plan may be appropriate after serious threats or assault. The plan should be developed with the employee, not imposed on them.
7. Measure the problem
Boards should collect anonymized data on:
- source of aggression;
- role targeted;
- type of behaviour;
- in-person versus online setting;
- frequency and duration;
- protected-characteristic or hate-related content;
- injuries or psychological effects;
- response time;
- police or legal involvement;
- repeat incidents;
- staff transfer or leave following incidents.
Data should be reviewed by role, school level, geography and relevant equity variables. Without consistent reporting, claims that abuse is “increasing” remain difficult to verify. The research itself repeatedly identifies measurement limitations and the need for longitudinal, multi-source studies.
Legislative responses
Several jurisdictions have enacted or introduced measures specifically relevant to abusive adults in schools.
Victoria, Australia
Victoria established a School Community Safety Order scheme under the “Education and Training Reform Act 2006”, amended by the “Education and Training Reform Amendment (Protection of School Communities) Act 2021”. The scheme allows authorized persons to issue immediate or ongoing orders against adults, including parents and carers, whose conduct is harmful, threatening, abusive or disruptive. Orders may restrict entry to school premises, attendance at school-related places and contact with school staff.
The Victorian framework includes procedural safeguards, including information about appealing an order and remaining involved in a child’s education. This is significant because a safety restriction is directed at the adult’s conduct, not at the child’s right to attend school.Victoria announced further strengthening of the scheme for 2027, including a broader response to harmful conduct on social media, messaging platforms and other online forums. The reform illustrates an emerging legislative recognition that school-related abuse can occur away from campus.
South Australia
South Australia has legislation permitting school leaders to issue a direction to leave or a barring notice where a person poses a risk to the safety or wellbeing of people at an education site. The framework can extend to conduct at off-site activities and vexatious online communication with or about staff. The maximum barring period was increased from three months to six months, and the maximum penalty was increased from $2,500 to $7,500 under the measures described by the South Australian Department for Education.
The South Australian government reported a 200% increase in parental bans in public schools over the preceding five years and a more than 250% increase in formal warning letters and reminders about respectful behaviour. Those figures are government-reported administrative data and should be interpreted in that context; they may reflect increased reporting or enforcement as well as increased conduct.
British Columbia, Canada
British Columbia does not appear, on the evidence reviewed here, to have a parent-specific school-safety order scheme equivalent to Victoria’s. It does, however, provide relevant legal authority under section 177 of the School Act. A person must not disturb or interrupt school proceedings or an official school function. A principal, vice-principal, director of instruction or authorized board representative may direct a person to leave school property, and the person may not return without prior approval. The provision also permits school administrators to seek peace-officer assistance to restore order.British Columbia’s provincial standards for school codes of conduct require attention to safe, caring and orderly environments and identify bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, intimidation, threatening and violent behaviours as unacceptable in circumstances affecting the school environment. These provisions are relevant to Vancouver-area school boards, but they do not eliminate the need for board-level family conduct policies, occupational-health procedures and consistent administrative enforcement.
Conclusion
The evidence supports a careful but urgent conclusion: parent aggression toward teachers and principals is a genuine school-safety and occupational-health concern, especially in verbal, threatening, repetitive and online forms. The available research does not establish that most parents are abusive or that every jurisdiction is experiencing the same increase. It does show substantial reported victimization, particularly among administrators, and significant consequences for wellbeing, authority, retention and school climate.Schools should respond by protecting both participation and boundaries. Parents must retain meaningful avenues to question decisions, challenge discrimination and appeal outcomes. Teachers and principals must also be protected from threats, intimidation, harassment and violence. The most effective framework combines clear conduct standards, accessible complaint processes, trained leaders, reliable documentation, graduated restrictions, legal enforcement when necessary and sustained support for affected staff.Legislation can provide essential authority, but it is not a complete prevention strategy. A school becomes safer when its policies are predictable, its leaders support staff promptly, its complaints process is credible and its community understands that disagreement is protected while abuse is not.
References
1. Santor, Bruckert & McBride (2021) – ERIC record
Violence and Harassment Against Educators Project – Home page
https://www.educatorviolence.ca/
“In Harm’s Way” full report (Ontario education workers)
https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-34885059/documents/6c87009f685d41b7a78eddc4f3845d4e/In%20Harm's%20Way%20-%20Full%20Report%20November%202021.pdf
CBC report on Ontario elementary-school violence (2019)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/elementary-school-violence-1.5278838
OSSTF 2023 Workplace Violence Survey
Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation news release on violence study
QPAT pamphlet “Teachers have the right to a safe workplace!”
https://qpat-apeq.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1197-QPAT-Pamphlet-Violence-EN.pdf
FPSS-CSQ violence survey report (French)
https://fpss.lacsq.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2024/11/Rapport-violence-soutien-scolaire.pdf
Alberta Teachers’ Association – “Teaching in Tension” report
Canadian Teachers’ Federation – “Stop Violence in Schools”
https://www.ctf-fce.ca/take-action/stop-violence-in-schools/
BC School Act, section 177 (BC Laws)
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96412_11
BC Ministerial Order 276/07 (codes of conduct standards)
Victoria (Australia) – School Community Safety Orders
https://www.vic.gov.au/school-community-safety-orders
South Australia – “Better protection against abusive parents at schools”
15. Global News – Quebec non‑binary teacher threats
Minaz Jivraj MSc., C.P.P., C.F.E., C.F.E.I., C.C.F.I.-C., I.C.P.S., C.C.T.P.
Disclaimer:The information provided in this blog/article is for general informational purposes only and reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the content, the author makes no representations or warranties about its completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal advice specific to their situation.