UNESCO Behind The Numbers 2019eng

United Nations Sustainable
Educational, Scientiﬁc and Development

Cultural Organization Goals
Behind the numbers:

Ending school violence
and bullying
UNESCO Education Sector The Global Education 2030 Agenda
Education is UNESCO’s top priority because it is UNESCO, as the United Nations’ specialized
a basic human right and the foundation on which agency for education, is entrusted to lead and
to build peace and drive sustainable development. coordinate the Education 2030 Agenda, which is
UNESCO is the United Nations’ specialized agency part of a global movement to eradicate poverty
for education and the Education Sector provides through 17 Sustainable Development Goals by
global and regional leadership in education, 2030. Education, essential to achieve all of these
strengthens national education systems and goals, has its own dedicated Goal 4, which aims to
responds to contemporary global challenges “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education
through education with a special focus on and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.”
gender equality and Africa. The Education 2030 Framework for Action provides
guidance for the implementation of this ambitious
goal and commitments.
Education
Sector
United Nations
(GXFDWLRQDO6FLHQWL¿FDQG
Cultural Organization
Published in 2019 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP, France
© UNESCO 2019
ISBN 978-92-3-100306-6
This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO)
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the
users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.
org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en).
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those
of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
Cover photo credit: Pikul Noorod/Shutterstock.com
Graphic design: Ana C. Martin
Printed by UNESCO
Printed in France
Behind the numbers: Putting an end to school violence and bullying
Behind the numbers:

and bullying
1
Foreword
School-related violence in all its forms is an infringement of children’s and adolescents’ rights to
education and to health and well-being. No country can achieve inclusive and equitable quality
education for all if learners experience violence and bullying in school.
This UNESCO publication provides an up-to-date and comprehensive overview of global and regional prevalence and trends
related to school-related violence and examines the nature and impact of school violence and bullying. It reviews national
responses, focusing on countries that have seen positive trends in prevalence and identifies factors that have contributed to an
effective response to school violence and bullying.
Addressing school violence and bullying is essential in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular
SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, and
SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies.
Monitoring progress in this regard requires accurate data on prevalence and trends in school violence and bullying, and on
how effectively the education sector is responding to it. This publication aims to contribute to monitoring progress towards the
achievement of safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments.
School violence and bullying can be devastating for the victims. The consequences include children and youth finding it difficult
to concentrate in class, missing classes, avoiding school activities, playing truant or dropping out of school altogether. This has
an adverse impact on academic achievement and future education and employment prospects. An atmosphere of anxiety,
fear and insecurity is incompatible with learning and unsafe learning environments can, therefore, undermine the quality of
education for all learners.
This publication builds on previous UNESCO work on school violence and bullying including publication of the School Violence
and Bullying: Global Status Report (UNESCO, 2017), and we trust that it will be useful to everyone who has an interest in
preventing and addressing school violence and bullying. We also hope that it will make an important contribution to the Safe
to Learn Campaign, which aims to end all violence in schools by 2024, by raising awareness and catalyzing action to eliminate
school violence and bullying.
Stefania Giannini
Assistant Director-General for Education
Acknowledgements
This publication was developed under the leadership of Soo-Hyang Choi, Director of UNESCO’s Education Sector's Division
for Peace and Sustainable Development. Preparation of the publication was coordinated by Christophe Cornu, with the
support of Yongfeng Liu, and thanks are also due to the following colleagues at UNESCO for their valuable review and
comments: Jenelle Babb, Chris Castle, Cara Delmas and Joanna Herat; and Kathy Attawell (consultant), who wrote the text.
Laura Kann (formerly at the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) conducted the secondary
analysis of the data on school violence and bullying collected through the Global Student Health Survey. Frank Elgar (McGill
University, Canada) and Petr Badura (University of Groningen, Netherlands and Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic)
conducted the secondary analysis of the data collected through the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study.
Edinburgh Innovations Ltd. (University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom) synthesised the quantitative data and analytical
findings from the secondary data analyses and other available sources, and conducted qualitative country case studies, with
research work led by Deborah Fry, supported by Eilidh Moir, Chad Hemady, Tabitha Casey, Charles Holton, Karina Padilla
Malca, Sujin Yoon, Zain Kurdi, Elvira Caceres Ruiz, Dana Dabbous and Stuart Elliott. Charlotte Pram Nielsen (United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF)) supervised the case study on Côte d’Ivoire conducted by Marie Devers (consultant).
We acknowledge the substantial inputs of key informants on national education sector responses to school violence and
bullying in selected countries, who included the following:
• Eswatini: Zandile Masangane (Ministry of Health), Bethusile Mahlalela and Phumzile Ncube (Ministry of Education and
Training), Mpendulo Masuku (Deputy Prime Minister’s Office), Edwin Simelane (UNESCO Eswatini), Sakhile Dlamini
(World Vision, Eswatini), Thabo Magagula (Save the Children), Lindiwe Mhlanga and Gcinaphi Ndlovu (Swaziland Action
Groups Against Abuse)
• Italy: Giovanni Vespoli (Ministry of Education, University and Research), Simona Caravita (Catholic University of the
Sacred Heart), Erika Bernacchi and Marco Zelano (UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti) and Ersilia Menesini (University
of Florence)
• Jamaica: Fern M. McFarlane (Ministry of Education), Rebecca Tortello (UNICEF Jamaica), Maureen Samms-Vaughan
(University of the West Indies) and Cirenia Chavez (UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti)
• Lebanon: Fadi el Hage (Saint Joseph University, Beirut), Zeena Zakharia (UMass Boston), Salem Dib (United Nations
Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Education Programme Lebanon), Nadine Said (Education Department) and Miled
Abou Jaoude (Save the Children International)
• Netherlands: Michael Hoppe (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science), G.E. Huitsing (University of Groningen), Daan
Wienke and Patricia Bolwerk (Stop Bullying Now Foundation)
• Peru: Fredy Sánchez (Ministry of Education), Rosa Vallejos (Save the Children) and Alfredo Gastelo (Municipality of San
Miguel)
• Republic of Korea: Hyeyoung Hwang, Misuk Sun and Nayoung Kim (Institute of School Violence Prevention, Ewha
Womans University), and Jong Ik Lee and Seung Hye Kim (Foundation for Preventing Youth Violence)
• Sweden: Hugo Wester (Ministry of Education) and Jacob Flärdh Aspegren (Friends International Centre against Bullying)
• Uganda: Angela Nakafeero (Ministry of Education and Sport) and Dipak Naker (Raising Voices Uganda)
• Uruguay: Verónica Massa (Human Rights Directorate - Administración Nacional de Educación Pública) and Juan Carlos
Noya (Liceo Alemán, Montevideo)
UNESCO also extends a special thank you to the following external reviewers: Marta Santos Pais (Special Representative
of the UN Secretary General on Violence against Children), Manos Antoninis (Global Education Monitoring Report), Sujata
Bordoloi (United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) Secretariat), Patrick Burton (Centre for Justice and Crime
Prevention, South Africa), Jane Davies and Stuart Cameron (Global Partnership for Education), James O'Higgins Norman
(UNESCO Chair on Tackling Bullying in School and Cyberspace/Irish National Anti-Bullying, Research and Resource Centre,
Ireland) and Tae Seob Shin (Institute of School Violence Prevention, Ewha Womans University, Republic of Korea).
Table of contents
Executive summary....................................................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 11
1.1 Objectives....................................................................................................................................................................11
1.2 Data sources and definitions................................................................................................................................11
1.3 Target audience.........................................................................................................................................................15
1.4 Structure of the publication.................................................................................................................................15
2. Current status of school violence and bullying ................................................................ 16

2.1 Prevalence...................................................................................................................................................................16
2.2 Changes in prevalence over time.......................................................................................................................22
2.3 Influencing factors...................................................................................................................................................25
2.4 Consequences............................................................................................................................................................31
2.5 Regional snapshots..................................................................................................................................................34
3. What are the characteristics of effective national

responses to school violence and bullying?........................................................................... 46
3.1 Success factors...........................................................................................................................................................48
3.2 Constraining factors................................................................................................................................................51
3.3 Consistency between country success factors and global conceptual frameworks........................53
3.4 Relationship between the prevalence of violence in society and in schools.....................................55
4. Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 56

Annex 1. ........................................................................................................................................ 58
References
Annex 2. ........................................................................................................................................ 60
Prevalence of students who reported being bullied, by sex, age and most common types
and drivers of bullying, by country or territory*
Annex 3. ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Prevalence of students who reported being in physical fights or physically attacked
during the past 12 months, by country or territory
4
Acronyms
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
HBSC Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (study)
GSHS Global School-based Student Health Survey
ICT Information and communication technology
IPV Intimate partner violence
LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
NGO Non-governmental organization
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PISA Programme for International Students Assessment
SACMEQ Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SWAGAA Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse
TERCE Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study
TIMSS Trends in Mathematics and Science Study
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNGEI United Nations Girls' Education Initiative
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNSC United Nations Security Council
VACS Violence Against Children Survey
WHO World Health Organization
5
Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying
6
Executive summary
Why is this publication important?

This publication provides an overview of the most up-to-date evidence on school violence and bullying, including global and
regional prevalence and trends, and of evidence from successful national responses to school violence and bullying. It is both
significant and innovative because it:
ll brings together for the first time in one place a wealth of quantitative data from two large-scale international surveys,
the Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) and the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study,
which cover 144 countries and territories in all regions of the world, and from a wide range of other global and regional
surveys (see Data sources in Chapter 1);
ll provides, again for the first time, an analysis of trend data from the same two surveys, to show changes in the prevalence
of school violence and bullying over time;
ll presents regional snapshots of the status of school violence and bullying; and
ll includes qualitative data on national responses, based on a series of country case studies specially commissioned by
UNESCO to increase understanding of the factors that contribute to a reduction in school violence.
What do the data tell us about school violence and bullying?

The scale of the problem
Almost one in three students (32%) has been bullied by their peers at school at least once in the last month. In all regions except
Europe and North America, physical bullying is the most common and sexual bullying is the second most common type of
bullying. In Europe and North America, psychological bullying is the most common type of bullying. Cyberbullying affects as
many as one in ten children. More than one in three students (36%) has been involved in a physical fight with another student
and almost one in three (32.4%) has been physically attacked at least once in the past year. Information about sexual violence
perpetrated by peers is limited but evidence from sub-Saharan Africa suggests that a schoolmate is more likely to be the
perpetrator than a teacher, especially for boys.
Globally, physical violence perpetrated by teachers is uncommon but, in some countries, children report high levels of physical
violence at the hands of their teachers. Corporal punishment, which is a form of physical violence, is still allowed in schools in 68
countries and is frequently used in many of these countries.
The factors that influence vulnerability to school violence and bullying

School violence and bullying affects both girls and boys, but there are differences between the sexes. Boys are more likely to
have been involved in a physical fight and to have been physically attacked than girls. Physical bullying is more common among
boys than among girls, while the opposite is true for psychological bullying. Age is also a factor. As children grow older, they are
less likely to be bullied, to be involved in a physical fight or to be physically attacked. In contrast, older students appear to be
more at risk of cyberbullying than younger students.
Children who are perceived to be ‘different’ in any way are more likely to be bullied. International surveys reveal that physical
appearance is the most common reason for being bullied, with race, nationality or skin colour the second most common reason.
Children from poorer families as well as migrant children, also appear to be more vulnerable to bullying and cyberbullying.
Other studies show that students seen as gender non-conforming, including those who are or are perceived as lesbian, gay,
bisexual or transgender (LGBT), are more at risk of school violence and bullying than those who fit into traditional gender
norms.
7
The consequences of bullying

Children who are frequently bullied are nearly three times more likely to feel like an outsider at school and more than twice as
likely to miss school as those who are not frequently bullied. Children who are bullied have worse educational outcomes than
children who do not. They score lower in mathematics and reading tests, and the more often they are bullied the worse their
score. Children who are frequently bullied are also more likely to expect to leave formal education after finishing secondary
school compared with children who are not frequently bullied.
School violence and bullying affects the overall attainment of the student population of a school. Poor discipline and an unsafe
school environment are associated with lower academic achievement and, more specifically, students in schools where bullying
is frequent score lower in science tests than those in schools where bullying occurs less often.
Bullying can have a significant impact on children’s mental

health, quality of life and risk behaviours. Children who are
bullied are around twice as likely to feel lonely, to be unable
to sleep at night and to have contemplated suicide as those Clarifications about the data:
who are not bullied. Self-reported quality of health and life ll The definitions used in this publication
satisfaction is lower among children who are bullied and who for different forms of school violence and
are both bullies and victims of bullying than those who are different types of bullying are based on the
not involved in bullying. Bullying is also associated with higher definitions and questions used in the main
rates of smoking, alcohol and cannabis use, and earlier sexual international surveys, in particular the GSHS
experience. and the HBSC (see Definitions in Chapter 1);
The trends in school violence and bullying ll The publication considers bullying separately
from other forms of violence, because
Bullying has decreased in almost half of countries and available data show that bullying is the
territories. Of 71 countries and territories with trend data on most common form of school violence and
the prevalence of bullying for a period ranging from 4 to 12 because the main international surveys
years between 2002 and 2017, 35 have seen a decrease, 23 have monitor bullying separately;
seen no significant change and 13 have seen an increase in
prevalence. ll The publication focuses primarily on violence
and bullying that takes place in schools and
A similar proportion of countries have seen a decrease in therefore does not include violence and
physical fights or physical attacks. Of the 29 countries and bullying that takes place outside school
territories with trend data on involvement in a physical fight, premises or on the way to and from school;
13 have seen a decrease in prevalence, 12 have seen no and
change and four have seen an increase. Physical attacks have
decreased in half of countries. Of 24 countries and territories ll The publication includes data on violence
with trend data on the prevalence of physical attacks, 12 have perpetrated by peers and by teachers,
seen a decrease, 10 have seen no change and two have seen an although it is important to note that most
increase. school violence and bullying is perpetrated
by other students.
Cyberbullying is a growing problem. Data from seven
countries in Europe show that the proportion of children aged
11-16 years who use the Internet and who had experienced
cyberbullying increased from 7% in 2010 to 12% in 2014.
8
What are effective national responses?

Based on case studies of six countries that have succeeded in reducing school violence and bullying – Eswatini, Italy, Jamaica,
Lebanon, Republic of Korea and Uruguay – and two countries that have maintained low levels over time – the Netherlands and
Sweden – there are a number of factors that contribute to effective national responses.
Political leadership and high-level commitment, together with a robust legal and policy framework that addresses violence
against children and school violence and bullying. Many successful countries also have an emphasis in national policies on
promoting a safe learning environment and a positive school and classroom climate and a strong commitment to child rights
and empowerment.
Collaboration and partnerships. At national level, this includes partnerships between the education sector and other sector
ministries, civil society organizations, academic institutions, professional associations and the media. At school level, it includes
partnerships involving all stakeholders in the school community, including head teachers, teachers, other staff, parents and
students, local authorities and professionals in other sectors. More specifically, the involvement of all students, including
bystanders, and the use of peer approaches, have been a key factor in countries that have made the most progress.
Evidence-based approaches, informed by accurate and comprehensive data and systematic evaluation of the
effectiveness of existing programmes. Effective systems for routine reporting and monitoring of school violence and bullying,
and rigorous evaluation of the impact of programmes and interventions are also critical.
Training and support for teachers and care and support for affected students. Training in successful countries has focused
on developing skills to prevent and respond to school violence and bullying and to use positive approaches to classroom
management.
The case studies also identified a number of factors that can limit the effectiveness and impact of national responses. These
include lack of data on specific aspects of school violence and bullying and on the sub-groups of students who are most
vulnerable, low coverage of interventions, and lack of systematic monitoring of school violence and bullying and of robust
evaluation of the impact of programmes.
What needs to be done?

The findings and conclusions of this publication reinforce the recommendations of the 2016 and 2018 Reports of the UN Secretary-
General to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on Protecting Children from Bullying. These include the need to:
ll ensure that legislation is in place to safeguard the rights of children and to underpin policies to prevent and respond to
school violence and bullying;
ll improve the availability of accurate, reliable and disaggregated data and implement evidence-based initiatives that are
informed by sound research;
ll train and support teachers to prevent and respond to school violence and bullying;
ll promote whole-school approaches that engage the wider community, including students, teachers, other school staff,
parents and local authorities;
ll provide information and support to children to enable them to speak up and seek support;
ll promote the meaningful participation of children in efforts to prevent and respond to school violence and bullying;
ll give priority to children who are especially vulnerable, as a result of race, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation;
and
ll establish child-friendly and gender-sensitive reporting, complaint and counselling mechanisms and restorative
approaches.
9
1. Introduction
1.1 Objectives 1.2 Data sources and definitions

The purpose of this publication is to present a synthesis and School violence is widespread, occurs in all countries and
new analysis of the available evidence on school violence affects a significant number of children and adolescents. It is
and bullying, based on the latest and most comprehensive mostly perpetrated by peers but, in some cases, is perpetrated
data. The aim is to raise awareness, share lessons learned and by teachers and other school staff.
encourage countries to take evidence-based action to prevent
and respond effectively to school violence and bullying. School violence includes physical, psychological and sexual
Specifically, the publication: violence. As Figure 1 shows, physical violence includes
physical attacks, physical fights, corporal punishment and
ll provides an overview of the global and regional physical bullying; psychological violence includes verbal
prevalence of and trends in school violence and bullying abuse, emotional abuse, social exclusion and psychological
and; bullying; and sexual violence includes completed and
attempted non-consensual sex acts, unwanted touching,
ll summarizes global and regional evidence on the nature,
sexual harassment and sexual bullying.
drivers and consequences of school violence and
bullying; This publication addresses bullying and the different types of
ll reviews responses to school violence and bullying, bullying – physical, psychological and sexual – as a separate
focusing on countries that have seen positive trends issue. This is because available data show that bullying is the
in prevalence, in order to identify the factors that have most common form of school violence and because the main
contributed to progress; and global surveys monitor bullying separately from other forms
of violence.
ll provides evidence-based recommendations for action
for the education sector.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of school violence and bullying
ICA
L VIOLENCE CHOLOGICAL V
YS PS Y IO
H LE
P N
Physical attacks Verbal
CE
abuse
Physical fights
BULLYING Emotional
Corporal abuse
punishment
Destroying Sexual Social

property harassment exclusion
Unwanted
sexual
touching
Coercion
Rape including
attempted rape
Sexual comments
and jokes
Gender-based
discrimination
SEX
UAL VIOLENCE
11
Data sources Other key data sources include the Demographic and Health
Surveys (DHS)3, Progress in International Reading Literacy
This publication is based on a wide range of quantitative Study (PIRLS) and Trends in Mathematics and Science Study
and qualitative data sources including international surveys (TIMSS)4, Programme for International Students Assessment
(Table 1), a review of the literature, and country case studies. (PISA)5, Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study
(TERCE)6, and Violence Against Children Surveys (VACS)7.
Data are drawn in particular from two large-scale international
surveys – the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Data from all these data sources are intended to be nationally
School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS);1 and the Health representative and are disaggregated data by sex, with the
Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study2, conducted exception of the DHS, which only collects data on violence
by the HBSC Consortium. Together they provide data from from female respondents. Country data tables are included in
144 countries and territories (96 GSHS and 48 HBSC) in all Annexes 2 and 3.
regions of the world. The HBSC covers countries in Europe and
North America; the GSHS covers countries in other regions. Data were also included from the UBS Optimus studies in
They both focus on violence and bullying that takes place in China, South Africa and Switzerland; the UN Multi-Country
schools (although the GSHS does not specify the location of Study on the Drivers of Violence Affecting Children; the Young
physical attacks), and therefore the scope of this publication Lives Longitudinal Study conducted in Ethiopia, India, Peru
does not include violence and bullying that takes place and Viet Nam; and the Global Kids Online studies in Argentina,
outside school premises or on the way to and from school. Brazil, the Philippines, Serbia, and South Africa.
Box 1. Clarifications about the data

Data on the prevalence of bullying and different types of bullying are drawn mainly from the GSHS and the HBSC,
supplemented by PIRLS and PISA data. Data on the prevalence of bullying are available for all regions, but only North
America and Europe include data on the prevalence of bullying others. Comparable data on cyberbullying are available
only for North America and Europe.
Data on physical fights and physical attacks are drawn from the GSHS only, as the HBSC does not include questions on
these forms of violence. Data on physical fights and physical attacks are therefore available for GSHS regions and sub-
regions, but not for North America and Europe.
The two large international surveys do not collect data on sexual violence perpetrated by peers, or physical or sexual
violence perpetrated by teachers; data on these forms of violence are drawn from other surveys, including the DHS and
VACS, and from other sources. Data on gang-related violence and violent attacks on schools are drawn from a range of
sources.
Data on changes in prevalence of bullying over time are drawn from the GSHS and HBSC, and data on changes in
prevalence of physical fights and physical attacks are drawn from the GSHS. Global Kids Online is the source of trend data
on cyberbullying.
Global comparable data are available only for factors that influence bullying, not other forms of violence. Data on
the drivers of bullying – physical appearance, race, nationality or colour, and religion – are available for GSHS regions
and sub-regions and some HBSC countries. The HBSC and PISA collect data on bullying, socio-economic status and
immigration status. PISA also collects data on bullying and the school environment, peer support and family support.
International surveys do not collect data on school violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or
expression, so data on this are drawn from other specific national surveys.
3 The DHS are implemented by ICF international.

4 Both PIRLS and TIMSS are managed by the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
5 PISA is managed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
6 The Regional Comparative and Explanatory Studies, including TERCE, are
managed by the Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of
Education (LLECE/UNESCO).
1 Data collected between 2003 and 2017. 7 The VACS are implemented by the US Centers for Disease Control and
2 Data collected between 2001 and 2014. Prevention, UNICEF and the Together for Girls Partnership.
12
Table 1. International surveys that collect data on school violence and bullying
Survey Managing institution Year Age group Countries/regions

School-based surveys assessing health-related behaviours and outcomes
Global School-based World Health Organization (WHO) Since 2003; survey conducted 13-17 year olds since 96 countries and territories
Student Health Survey every 3-5 years (for most 2013, and previously across all regions except
(GSHS) countries) 13-15 year olds Europe and North America
Health Behaviour in School- HBSC Consortium Since 1983; survey conducted 11, 13 and 15 year 48 countries and territories in
aged Children study (HBSC) every 4 years; next survey in olds Europe plus Israel, and North
2021-22 America
School-based surveys assessing learning outcomes
Estudio Regional Latin American Laboratory for Since 2006; survey conducted 8-9 year olds (Grade 3) 15 countries in Latin America
Comparativo y Explicativo Assessment of the Quality of Education in 2006 (SERCE) and 2013 and 11-12 year olds (TERCE)
(ERCE) (Regional (LLECE)/UNESCO (TERCE); next survey in 2019 (Grade 6)
Comparative and
Explanatory Study)
Progress in International International Association for the Since 2001; survey conducted 9-10 year olds 65 countries across all regions
Reading Literacy Study Evaluation of Educational Achievement every 5 years; next survey in (Grade 4)
(PIRLS) (IEA) 2021
Programme for Organization for Economic Since 2015; conducted every 3 15 year olds 72 countries in Africa, Asia,
International Students Co-operation and Development years; next survey in 2021 Europe and Latin America
Assessment (PISA) (OECD)
Trends in Mathematics and International Association for the Since 1999; conducted every 4 9-10 year olds (Grade 77 countries and territories
Science Study (TIMSS) Evaluation of Educational Achievement years; next survey in 2019 4) and 13-14 year olds across all regions, with the
(IEA) (Grade 8) majority in Europe
Population-based surveys
Demographic and Health ICF International. Contributions Since DHS Phase 5 (2003- 15-49 year olds Over 90 countries and
Survey (DHS) from United Nations Children’s Fund 2008); conducted every 4 territories
(UNICEF), United Nations Population years; current survey phase
Fund (UNFPA), WHO and United 2013-18
Nations Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS).
Funded by United States Agency for
International Development (USAID)
Violence Against Children Centers for Disease Control and Since 2007 18-24 year olds; 13-17 Reports available from 11
Survey (VACS) Prevention (CDC), UNICEF, Together for year olds countries from Africa (8), Asia
Girls Partnership (2) and Latin America (1).
Data from these sources were supplemented by a review of Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East and South America – and
the literature, which focused on multi-country studies and different levels of socio-economic development. The selection
reports such as the Know Violence in Childhood global report, also represents different education systems in terms of the
UNICEF’s latest statistical analysis report on violence against balance of public, private and faith-based schools; and the
children; and UNESCO global and regional reports on school level at which decisions are made about education policies,
violence and bullying and school-related gender-based curricula, teacher training and school programmes, i.e.,
violence (SRGBV). In addition, the review explored existing whether this is at national, regional, local or school levels.
global systematic reviews, meta-analyses and nationally The 11 case study countries8 included:
representative population-based studies.
ll Six countries where the prevalence of school bullying or
UNESCO also commissioned a series of qualitative country physical violence, or both, has decreased significantly:
case studies to identify factors that have contributed to Eswatini, Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, Republic of Korea, and
reducing or to maintaining a very low prevalence of school Uruguay
violence and bullying, and to identify common challenges.
The countries were selected based on an analysis of trend
data collected through the GSHS or the HBSC. These countries 8 UNESCO commissioned 13 case studies in total; it was not possible to complete
were selected to represent different regions – Africa, Asia, the case studies for Fiji and Trinidad and Tobago.
13
ll Two countries where the prevalence of school bullying that are used in the main international surveys – the GSHS and
or physical violence, or both, has been low for a long HBSC – that collect data on bullying:
period of time: the Netherlands and Sweden
ll Physical bullying includes repeated aggression such
ll Two countries that have made progress in specific as being hit, hurt, kicked, pushed, shoved around or
areas of their national response to school violence and locked indoors, having things stolen, having personal
bullying: Côte d’Ivoire, which has strengthened routine belongings taken away or destroyed, or being forced
collection of data and monitoring of the prevalence to do things. It is different from other forms of physical
of school bullying and violence, and Peru, which has violence such as physical fights and physical attacks.
developed a national mechanism to facilitate the
systematic reporting of incidents of school violence ll Psychological bullying includes verbal abuse,
emotional abuse and social exclusion and refers to being
ll One country that offers lessons on scale-up of called mean names, being teased in an unpleasant
interventions: Uganda. way, being left out of activities on purpose, excluded
or completely ignored, and being the subject of lies or
The country case studies are based on qualitative data from nasty rumours.
key informants.9 Among other questions, key informants were
asked: why the prevalence of school violence and bullying ll Sexual bullying refers to being made fun of with sexual
has decreased or remained low; what factors – both within jokes, comments or gestures.10
and beyond the education sector – have contributed to
this; which of these factors has had the greatest impact; and ll Cyberbullying includes being bullied by messages, i.e.
what evidence is available. In addition to identifying success someone sending mean instant messages, postings,
factors, the case studies also explored factors that limit the emails and text messages or creating a website that
effectiveness of national responses to school violence and makes fun of a student or by pictures, i.e. someone
bullying. taking and posting online unflattering or inappropriate
pictures of a student without permission; it also refers
Definitions to being treated in a hurtful or nasty way by mobile
phones (texts, calls, video clips) or online (email, instant
The definitions of different forms of school violence and messaging, social networking, chatrooms) and online
different types of bullying used in this publication are hurtful behaviour.
based on the definitions and questions used in the main
international surveys, in particular the GSHS and the HBSC. Physical fights - There are two different definitions of physical
fights. In the GSHS, a physical fight “occurs when two students
Bullying - Bullying is characterised by aggressive behaviour of about the same strength or power choose to fight each
that involves unwanted, negative actions, is repeated over other” and therefore is a form of physical violence between
time, and an imbalance of power or strength between the peers. The HBSC uses a different definition that does not refer
perpetrator or perpetrators and the victim. Frequency of specifically to school-related violence or to violence between
bullying is measured in different ways by different surveys. For peers, as it can occur between a student and “a total stranger,
a student to be considered a victim of bullying, aggressions a parent of other adult family member, a brother or sister, a
should occur at least once or twice a month or more. boyfriend or girlfriend or date, a friend or someone known
by the student”. Data on physical fights presented in this
There is no standard definition of bullying or cyberbullying
publication are therefore from the GSHS only.
in international surveys, with only three surveys – the GSHS,
HBSC and PISA – providing explicit definitions. The Global Physical attacks - Only the GSHS collects data on physical
Kids Online survey does not refer to cyberbullying and uses attacks, defined as “when one or more people hit or strike
“online hurtful behaviour” instead. Depending on the survey, someone (a student in this case), or when one or more people
students are asked about their experience of different types of hurt another person (student) with a weapon (such as a stick,
bullying – physical, psychological, sexual and cyberbullying. knife or gun)”. Therefore, although it can be a form of physical
The following definitions of different types of bullying used violence between students, it is not necessarily perpetrated
in this publication are based on the definitions and questions only by peers. The HBSC does not collect data on physical
attacks against students, so data presented in this publication
is also from the GSHS only.
9 In some countries, it was difficult to identify key informants able to provide a

long-term perspective on the national response to school violence and bullying, 10 Sexual jokes, comments or gestures are characterised as sexual harassment
including actions taken prior to or during the period for which trend data were in some countries, including from a legal perspective, but not in others,
available, or to provide an explanation for why prevalence had decreased or particularly in the school environment. For these reasons, they are referred to as
remained low. sexual bullying in this report. Sexual bullying is a form of sexual violence.
14
Sexual violence - Sexual violence is defined in the DHS as The country case study methodology had some limitations.
forced sexual intercourse or any other sexual acts against one’s In particular, it highlighted weaknesses in monitoring
will; and in VACS as completed non-consensual sex acts (such and analysis of data at country level; the need to improve
as rape), attempted non-consensual sex acts, abusive sexual awareness of the situation nationally; and for countries to
contact (such as unwanted touching), and non-contact sexual improve their analysis of the impact of their actions on school
abuse (such as threatened sexual violence, exhibitionism, and violence and bullying.
verbal sexual harassment).
Preparing this publication also identified some key data
Physical violence perpetrated by teachers - This is defined gaps. These include data on: psychological bullying; school-
as the intentional use of physical force with the potential to related sexual violence; bullying and violence related to
cause death, disability, injury or harm, regardless of whether it disability; bullying and violence related to migration; corporal
is used as a form of punishment. punishment and other violence perpetrated by teachers; links
between gang violence and school violence and bullying;
Corporal punishment perpetrated by teachers - In school, the potential correlations between family factors and school
corporal punishment is defined as any punishment in which violence and bullying; and the links between violence in
physical force is used and intended to cause some degree school and in other settings.
of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting
children, with the hand or with an implement, but it can also
involve kicking, shaking, throwing or scratching children.
1.3 Target audience
Data analysis and synthesis The publication is intended primarily for education policy
makers and planners, teachers and teachers’ unions, school
Data analysis and synthesis involved review of existing
management and staff. We hope it will also be useful for
secondary analysis and synthesis of large global datasets,
others with an interest in preventing and addressing school
review of data from the literature review, and new secondary
violence and bullying including those working in other
analyses of the GSHS and HBSC data sets commissioned by
sectors, such as health, gender and youth, justice and law
UNESCO. Additional secondary analysis was conducted using
enforcement, donor and technical agencies, civil society
the data from the Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence
organizations, researchers, parents’ associations and youth
to further explore relationships between school violence in
organizations.
childhood and intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood.
Data limitations
1.4 Structure of the publication
Preparing this publication revealed some of the challenges
This publication is organised as follows:
in using and comparing data from multiple surveys. These
include: ll Chapter 2 provides an overview of the current status
of school violence and bullying. It includes global data
ll differences in the scope of different surveys and in the
on its prevalence of school violence and; changes in
definitions of school violence and bullying used
prevalence over time; factors that increase vulnerability;
ll differences in questions on bullying, including on types, and the educational and health consequences of
drivers and frequency of bullying school violence and bullying. It also includes regional
snapshots, which summarise key data by region and
ll differences in the age range covered by different surveys sub-region.
ll differences in the timeframe for reporting experience of ll Chapter 3 draws on country case studies to assess national
violence and bullying used by different surveys responses, focusing on countries that have seen a decrease
in school violence and bullying, in order to identify the
ll differences in the frequency of data collection.
factors that contribute to and limit effective responses. It
In addition, in countries where universal primary and also includes a brief analysis of the links between violence
secondary education are not mandatory, school-based in schools and violence in wider society.
surveys may not reach children who have already dropped
ll Chapter 4 summarises the main conclusions and
out of school – anecdotal evidence suggests that corporal
recommendations regarding effective national
punishment and harsh treatment from teachers, as well
responses to school violence and bullying.
as early and unintended pregnancy resulting from sexual
violence have been linked to students’ early exit from
schooling (Pereznieto, et al., 2010).
15
2. Current status of school violence and bullying

2.1 Prevalence Data on the prevalence of bullying and different types of
bullying are drawn mainly from the GSHS and the HBSC,
This section provides an overview of the prevalence of supplemented by PIRLS and PISA data. Data on physical fights
different forms of school violence and bullying. It includes and physical attacks are drawn from the GSHS only as the HBSC
analysis of data on school violence and bullying perpetrated does not include questions on these forms of violence. These
by peers – including bullying (and different types of bullying), two international surveys do not collect data on sexual violence
physical fights, physical attacks11 and sexual violence – and perpetrated by peers or physical or sexual violence perpetrated
by teachers – including corporal punishment, other physical by teachers; data on these forms of violence are drawn from
violence, and sexual violence. It also presents data on other other surveys, including the DHS and VACS, and from other
forms of violence that affect schools, including gang-related sources. Data on gang-related violence and violent attacks on
violence and violent attacks on schools. schools are drawn from a range of sources.
Figure 2. Percentage of students who were bullied, in a physical fight or physically attacked, by region
Caribbean North America Europe Middle East
Physical Physical Physical Physical

Bullying Bullying Bullying Bullying
fights attacks fights attacks
25% 38.3% 33.8% 31.7% 25% 41.1% 42.8% 31%
Central America South America North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa
Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical

Bullying Bullying Bullying Bullying
fights attacks fights attacks fights attacks fights attacks
22.8% 25.6% 20.5% 30.2% 31.3% 25.6% 42.7% 46.3% 38% 48.2% 36.9% 36.4%
Sources: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS data and HBSC data (for Europe and North America only).
11 According to the GSHS definition, physical attacks on students may be

perpetrated by peers or by other people.
16
Some children are bullied very frequently. GSHS data from

Globally, one in three 96 countries and territories show that, overall, almost one in
five (19.4%) students had been bullied at school on one or
children experiences bullying two days, one in 20 (5.6%) on three to five days, and one in 13
and a similar proportion are (7.3%) on six or more days during the previous month. PIRLS
data from 50 countries and territories across all regions show
affected by physical violence that 29% of 9-10 year olds had been bullied every month and
14% had been bullied every week in the past school year.
There are significant differences in the prevalence and

Bullying by peers frequency of bullying between regions. The proportion
Globally, almost one in three students has been bullied of students reporting that they have been bullied is highest
in the past month. Available data from all regions show that in sub-Saharan Africa (48.2%), North Africa (42.7%) and
32% of students have been bullied in some form by their the Middle East (41.1%) and lowest in Europe (25%), the
peers at school on one or more days in the past month (GSHS, Caribbean (25%) and Central America (22.8%) (Figure 2).
HBSC). Across GSHS countries, the prevalence of having been Students were most likely to report having been bullied at
bullied ranged from 7.1% to 74%. Across HBSC countries, the school on six or more days during the previous month in
prevalence ranged from 8.7% to 55.5%. sub-Saharan Africa (11.3%) and least likely to report this in
Central America (4.1%).
Physical and sexual bullying are the

Asia two most frequent types of bullying
in GSHS regions; psychological
bullying is the most frequent type of
bullying in HBSC regions
Bullying
Physical Physical Physical bullying is the most frequent type of bullying in
fights attacks
many regions. Based on GSHS data from 96 countries and
30.3% 24.6% 32.8% territories, 16.1% of children who have been bullied say that they
have been hit, kicked, shoved around or locked indoors (Figure
3).12 Physical bullying is one of the two most common types
of bullying in all GSHS regions except Central America and
South America; the highest reported prevalence is in the Pacific
Pacific
and sub-Saharan Africa. In HBSC countries where the question
about different types of bullying was asked, being hit, kicked or
pushed was the least frequently reported type. PISA data from
72 countries show that 4% of students report that they had
been hit or pushed around at least a few times a month in the
past year. The lower prevalence reported by PISA may reflect
differences in the recall period13 and the age of respondents.
Only 15-year-olds participate in the PISA study, and global
Physical Physical
data indicate that older children are less likely to experience
Bullying
fights attacks physical bullying than younger children.
36.8% 38.1% 48.4%
12 Regional median prevalence data for Europe and North America not available.
13 The recall period is "the past 12 months" in the GSHS while it is "the past couple
of months" in the HBSC.
17
Sexual bullying is the second most frequent type of 8.2% have been cyberbullied via pictures15 (HBSC). Data from
bullying in many regions. Based on GSHS data from 96 other sources show that 13% of children aged 9-16 years in
countries and territories, 11.2% of children who have been Australia and 6% of children aged 9-16 years in the European
bullied report being made fun of with sexual jokes, comments Union report being cyberbullied (Livingstone et al., 2011). The
or gestures (Figure 3). Sexual bullying is one of the top two Global Kids Online study found that the percentage of 9-17
most common types of bullying in Central America, the year old internet users reporting online hurtful behaviour16
Middle East and North Africa, but in North America and was 35% in Serbia, 29% in the Philippines and 20% in South
Europe it was reported less frequently than psychological Africa, and 77% among 13-17 year olds in Argentina. The
bullying (HBSC). Brazilian Kids Online Survey 2015 found that, among 9-17
year olds who were Internet users, 20% reported having been
subjected to cyberbullying and 12% had behaved offensively
Figure 3. Percentage of students who were bullied, by
online (Kids Online Brazil, 2016). Data from Argentina, Brazil,
type of bullying
the Philippines, Serbia and South Africa also showed that
between 12% and 22% of children had received messages
with sexual content in the past year (Global Kids Online).
Hit, kicked, pushed,
16.1% shoved around or locked
indoors
Physical fights between peers
More than one in three students in GSHS regions has been
involved in a physical fight in the past year. Based on data
from 96 countries and territories, 36% of students reported
being in a physical fight with another student at least once in
Made fun of with
11.2% sexual jokes,
comments or gestures
the past year (Figure 2) (GSHS). Across all GSHS countries, the
prevalence of being involved in a physical fight ranges from
10.2% to 75.1%. Overall, around one in ten students reports
a high frequency of physical fighting. In the past year, 10.6%
had been in a physical fight two or three times and 8.1% four
Left out of activities
on purpose or or more times.
5.5% ignored
There are regional differences in the prevalence and
frequency of involvement in a physical fight. The
Source: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS data. Regional
median data for Europe and North America not available. prevalence was highest in North Africa and the Middle East
and lowest in Central America and Asia (Figure 2). Students
were most likely to report involvement in a physical fight
four or more times in the past year in the Pacific (12%), the
Psychological bullying is reported more frequently in
Middle East (12.8%) and North Africa (13.3%) and least likely
North America and Europe than in other regions. HBSC data
to report this in Central America (4.9%), South America (5%)
show that 28.4% of students in North America and 15.1% in
and Asia (5.7%).
Europe report being left out of activities on purpose or ignored.
Psychological bullying is reported less frequently, and is less
common than physical or sexual bullying in other regions.
Physical attacks
Overall, based on GSHS data from 96 countries and territories, Almost one in three students in GSHS regions has been
5.5% of students report being left out of activities on purpose physically attacked in the past year. Based on data from
or ignored (Figure 3); the reported prevalence was highest in 96 countries and territories, 31.4% of students have been
Central America (7.5%) and South America (7.2%). As noted physically attacked at least once in the past year (Figure 2)
earlier, some of the differences in prevalence between HBSC (GSHS). Across all GSHS countries, the prevalence ranged
and GSHS regions may be due to the difference in recall periods from 10.1% to 82.9%. Around one in ten students reports a
and the age of respondents. high frequency of physical attacks. In the past year, 9.6% had
been physically attacked two or three times and 9% four or
Cyberbullying is less frequent but affects a significant
more times.
minority of children. Available data suggest that around one
in ten children have experienced cyberbullying. In Canada
and Europe, 10.1% have been cyberbullied via messages14 and 15 Taking and posting online unflattering or inappropriate pictures of someone.
16 The Global Kids Online Study refers to children who are victims of “online
hurtful behaviour”, rather than cyberbullying, described as being treated in a
hurtful or nasty way by mobile phone (texts, calls, video clips) or online (email,
14 Instant messages, postings, emails and text messages. instant messaging, social networking, chatrooms).
18
There are also regional differences in the prevalence and Central America (Figure 2). Students were most likely to report
frequency of physical attacks. The prevalence of physical being physically attacked four or more times in the Pacific
attacks was highest in the Pacific, North Africa and sub- (12.4%), North Africa (11%) and sub-Saharan Africa (10%).
Saharan Africa (36.4%), and lowest in South America and
Box 2. Gang-related violence and school violence

Gang violence is the intentional use of violence by a person or group of persons who are members of, or identify with, any long-lasting,
street-orientated youth or armed group whose identity includes involvement in illegal activity (WHO, 2015). Gangs are usually formed
in the community, not specifically in schools, and gang violence affects communities beyond schools. Although there is limited
evidence about the links between gang violence and school violence and bullying, gang violence can potentially affect schools in
different ways including:
ll Gangs can recruit members in schools;
ll Gang members from the same school can engage in violence on the school premises or around their school;
ll Gang members from the same school can commit violence against other students in the same school who belong to a different
gang or who do not belong to a gang;
ll Gangs may perpetrate violence against other schools and students in the community where they are active, even if these
students do not belong to a gang.
There is little global data on the prevalence of these different forms of gang violence in and around schools. However, available
evidence suggests that gang violence is more common in schools where students are exposed to other forms of community violence
and where they fear violence at school (UN, 2016). For example, the Multi-country Study on the Drivers of Violence Affecting Children
highlights the link between community violence and violence against children in other settings including schools (Maternowska et al.,
2018). Growing up in neighbourhoods with high levels of crime has been identified as a risk factor for youth violence, including gang
violence (WHO, 2010; WHO, 2015; Krug et al., 2002); one study found that children who knew many adult criminals were more likely to
engage in violent behaviour by the age of 18 years than those who did not (WHO, 2015).
Gang violence is often associated with carrying weapons, including in school (UN, 2016). A study of 10-19-year-olds in the UK found
that 44% of those who reported belonging to a delinquent youth group had committed violence and 13% had carried a knife in the
previous 12 months versus 17% and 4% respectively among those who were not in such a group (Sharp et al., 2004). A meta-analysis of
14 countries in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific also showed that
carrying a weapon at school is associated with bullying victimization (Valdebenito et al., 2017).
Comparison of GSHS data on school violence and bullying for countries that are particularly affected by gang violence suggests,
however, that the links may be limited. In El Salvador and Guatemala, for example, where gang violence is a serious problem, GSHS data
show that the prevalence of bullying, physical fights and physical attacks reported by school students is relatively low, and is similar to
prevalence in other countries in Central America where gang violence is less prevalent. It is possible that gang violence mainly affects
out-of-school children and youth, but more research is needed to explore the relationship between gang violence and school violence.
Sexual violence perpetrated by peers figure including a teacher.17 The percentage who reported
that the first instance of sexual violence was perpetrated by
Both boys and girls are victims of sexual violence in a classmate or schoolmate ranged from 6.9% in Zambia to
schools. Available evidence suggests that perpetrators 15.5% in Malawi for girls and from 8.6% in the United Republic
are more likely to be other students rather than authority of Tanzania to 26.6% in Nigeria for boys (VACS). Data from
figures including teachers. There is little comprehensive another reliable source (DHS) confirm that the prevalence of
global data on the prevalence of sexual violence within sexual violence towards students by teachers is relatively low
schools. However, data from seven countries in sub-Saharan in sub-Saharan Africa (see below section on sexual violence
Africa show that the perpetrator of the first incident of sexual perpetrated by teachers).
violence, as reported by young people aged 18-24 years, is
more likely to be a classmate or schoolmate than an authority
17 Authority figures include teachers, police/security persons, neighbours and
religious leaders. VACS data are not disaggregated by categories and therefore
it is not possible to determine the proportion of sexual violence perpetrated by
teachers specifically.
19
Physical violence perpetrated by teachers In some countries,

children report high
Corporal punishment, which is a form of physical violence,
is still used in schools in many countries. Corporal Globally, the levels of physical
violence at the hands
punishment is legally prohibited in schools in 132 countries,
but is still allowed in 68. A survey of 63 countries, including 29
prevalence of of their teachers. Data
from five countries in
where corporal punishment in school is banned, found that physical violence Africa, Asia and the
the proportion of students who had experienced corporal
punishment at school was 90% or more in nine countries, perpetrated by Caribbean – Cambodia,
Haiti, Malawi, Nigeria
70-89% in 11 countries and 13-69% in 43 countries (Figure 4)
(Gershoff, 2017).
teachers is low, but and the United Republic
of Tanzania – identify
this is not the case teachers, particularly
Figure 4. Percentage of students who experienced
corporal punishment in 63 countries
in all regions. male teachers, as the
perpetrators of a large
proportion of physical
violence experienced by
children (Figure 5) (VACS). In the Good Schools Study in
70-89%
13-69% Uganda, more than 75% of 9-16 year olds reported physical
violence from a teacher in the past year, the most common
Over 90%
in 9 countries in 11 countries in 43 countries form of violence reported by children in the study (Devries et
al., 2018). DHS data, which is for females only, show lower
reported prevalence of physical violence perpetrated by
teachers (Figure 6).18 Overall, among women aged over 15
Data source: Gershoff, 2017
years who had experienced physical violence, 6.2% in West
and Central Africa, 5.1% in East and Southern Africa, 0.6% in
Asia and 0.2% in Eastern Europe reported that the perpetrator
Figure 5. Percentage of 18-24 year olds who experienced was a teacher. However, in West and Central Africa, prevalence
childhood physical violence reporting teachers as ranged from 0.1% to as high as 17.9% and in East and
perpetrators of first incident Southern Africa from 1.1% to as high as 19.3%.
26.8 Figure 6. Prevalence of women aged over 15 years who

Cambodia 62.2
2013 19.5 had experienced physical violence who reported that the
43.8 perpetrator was a teacher
27.8
Haiti 89.4
2012 39.4 0.1%
82.5 Asia 0.6%
22.4 4.3%
Malawi 68.6
2013 21.9 0.1%
63.0 Eastern Europe 0.2%
25.8 0.3%
Nigeria 58.4
2014 9.6 1.1%
52.5 East and
Southern Africa 5.1%
12.2
Tanzania 31.9 19.3%
2009 5.8 0.1%
46.2 West and
6.2%
Central Africa
Females reporting a female teacher as perpetrator 17.9%
Females reporting a male teacher as perpetrator

Lowest Median Highest
Males reporting a female teacher as perpetrator
Males reporting a male teacher as perpetrator Data source: DHS
Data source: VACS

18 Data collected between 2005 and 2017.
20
Sexual violence perpetrated by teachers

Box 3. Violent attacks on schools
The prevalence of sexual violence perpetrated by teachers
is low, although this is not the case in all countries. Data Violent attacks on schools are not always seen as school
are only available for some regions and countries. DHS data, violence but violence against schools. They include two
specific forms of violence: mass school shootings, sometimes
which are for three sub-regions and for females only, show
perpetrated by students or former students; and, in countries
that the median prevalence of women who reported a first affected by conflict, indiscriminate or targeted attacks on
instance of forced sex perpetrated by a teacher is between schools19 by individuals and groups involved in the conflict.
0.5% and 0.8%, although the prevalence ranges from 0% to as
Between 1991 and 2015, 59 school shootings - defined
high as 7.1% in Central Africa (Figure 7).
as incidents carried out with at least one firearm on the
grounds of an elementary or secondary school, and
involving two or more victims with at least one fatality -,
Figure 7. Prevalence of women who reported a first
were documented in 14 countries. School shootings are
instance of forced sex perpetrated by a teacher, when they more likely to occur in countries were students can easily
were aged over 15 years, in sub Saharan Africa access firearms: nearly three in four of these have occurred
in the USA. (UNICEF, 2017)
In countries affected by conflict, attacks on education

became more common between 2013 and 2017, with
0,0%
41 countries that experienced more than five attacks on
Central Africa 0,5% education in which at least one incident was a direct attack
or killed at least one person, compared to 30 countries
7,1% between 2009 and 2012. More than 1,000 incidents of attacks
on schools were reported in four of the nine countries
0,0% most heavily affected by attacks on education: Democratic
East and Republic of the Congo, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria and Yemen.
0,7%
Central Africa Between 500 and 999 attacks on schools were documented
1,5% in four other countries: Afghanistan, South Sudan, Syrian
Arab Republic, and Ukraine. In total, the Global Coalition to
0,3% protect Education from Attack found attacks on education
in 74 countries. (Global Coalition to protect Education from
Western Africa 0,8% Attack, 2018)
1,9%
19 The Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack considers six
categories of attacks on education: physical attacks or threats of
attacks on schools; physical attacks or threats directed at students,
Lowest Median Highest teachers and other education personnel; military use of schools and
universities; child recruitment at, or en route to or from, school or
Data source: DHS university; sexual violence by armed parties at, or en route to or from,
school or university; attacks on higher education.
21
2.2 Changes in prevalence over time Changes in bullying prevalence over time
This section draws on GSHS and HBSC data to analyse Bullying has decreased in almost half of countries. Of the
changes in the prevalence of bullying over time and on GSHS 71 countries and territories with trend data, 35 have seen a
data to analyse changes in the prevalence of physical fights decrease in the prevalence of bullying (Figure 8 and Figure 9)
and physical fights over time. It also draws on the most recent (GSHS, HBSC). There are some differences between the sexes.
trend data available on cyberbullying from the Net Children Among male students, a significant decrease in bullying was
Go Mobile project co-funded by the European Commission's identified in nine GSHS countries: Eswatini, Fiji, Indonesia,
Better Internet for Kids Programme. Jamaica, Lebanon, the Maldives, Namibia, Seychelles and
Uruguay. Among female students, a significant decrease was
identified in seven GSHS countries: Eswatini, Fiji, Indonesia,
Jamaica, Lebanon, Tonga and Trinidad and Tobago. Bullying
Overall, many countries have prevalence rates for both male and female students decreased
in Eswatini, Fiji, Indonesia, Jamaica and Lebanon.
seen a decline in the prevalence
Bullying prevalence has increased in almost one in five
of bullying, but fewer have seen countries, and has remained unchanged in one in three
a decrease in physical fights or countries. Of the 71 countries and territories with trend data,
13 have seen an increase in the prevalence of bullying and
physical attacks 24 have seen no significant change (GSHS, HBSC). Among
GSHS regions, the Middle East has seen no change, and both
North and sub-Saharan Africa have seen an increase in the
prevalence of bullying. Again, there are differences between
the sexes. Among male students, a significant increase in
Figure 8. Number of countries where bullying, physical
bullying was identified in four GSHS countries: Myanmar,
fights, and physical attacks have increased, decreased or
Oman, Philippines and the United Arab Emirates. Among
remained stable
female students, a significant increase was identified in nine
GSHS countries and territories: Egypt, Kuwait, Mongolia,
Morocco, Myanmar, the Philippines, Rodrigues (Mauritius),
23 Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. Bullying prevalence
12 10
rates for both male and female students increased in
Myanmar, the Philippines and United Arab Emirates.
13
4 2
35 13 12
Bullying Physical fights Physical attacks
Decreased Increased Remained stable
Sources: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS and HBSC data.

HBSC for Europe and North America (students aged 11, 13 and 15); GSHS for the
other regions (students aged 13-15). Data collected between 2002 and 2017. Years
of data collection and intervals between rounds of data collection vary depending
on countries.
22
Figure 9. Trends in the prevalence of students who were bullied, in physical fights or physically attacked
Country or Survey years Bullying Physical Physical Country or Survey years Bullying Physical Physical
territory fights attacks territory fights attacks
Anguilla 2009, 2016 ◆ ▼ ◆ Luxembourg 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Argentina 2007, 2012 ◆ ▲ ◆ Macedonia (FYROM) 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Armenia 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Maldives 2009, 2014 ▼ ◆ ◆
Austria 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Malta 2002, 2014 ◆ ◯ ◯
Belgium-Flemish 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Mauritius 2007, 2011 ◆ ◆ ◆
Belgium-French 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯ Mongolia 2010, 2013 ◆ ◆ ◆
Benin 2009, 2016 ◆ ◆ ▼ Morocco 2006, 2016 ▲ ◆ ▼
Bulgaria 2002, 2014 ◆ ◯ ◯ Myanmar 2007, 2016 ▲ ▲ ▲
Canada 2002, 2014 ◆ ◯ ◯ Namibia 2004, 2013 ◆ ▼ ◯
Cook Islands 2011, 2015 ◆ ▼ ◆ Netherlands 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Croatia 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Norway 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Czech Republic 2002, 2014 ◆ ◯ ◯ Oman 2005, 2015 ◆ ▲ ▼
Denmark 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Philippines 2003, 2015 ▲ ▼ ◯
Egypt 2006, 2011 ◆ ◆ ◆ Portugal 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Estonia 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Rodrigues (Mauritius) 2007, 2011 ◆ ◆ ▲
Eswatini 2003, 2013 ▼ ▼ ◯ Romania 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Fiji 2010, 2016 ▼ ▼ ▼ Russian Federation 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯
Finland 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯ Seychelles 2007, 2015 ◆ ◯ ◯
France 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Slovakia 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯
Germany 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Slovenia 2002, 2014 ◆ ◯ ◯
Greece 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Spain 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Greenland 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Sri Lanka 2008, 2016 ◆ ◆ ▼
Guyana 2004, 2010 ◆ ◆ ◯ Sweden 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Hungary 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯ Switzerland 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Iceland 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Thailand 2008, 2015 ▲ ◆ ◆
Indonesia 2007, 2015 ▼ ▼ ▼ Tonga 2010, 2017 ▼ ▼ ◆
Ireland 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯ Trinidad and Tobago 2007, 2011 ▼ ▼ ▼
Israel 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Ukraine 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Italy 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ United Kingdom, England 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Jamaica 2010, 2017 ▼ ▼ ▼ United Kingdom, Scotland 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯
Jordan 2004, 2007 ◆ ◆ ◯ United Kingdom, Wales 2002, 2014 ▲ ◯ ◯
Kuwait 2011, 2015 ◆ ◆ ◆ United Arab Emirates 2005, 2016 ▲ ◆ ▼
Latvia 2002, 2014 ◆ ◯ ◯ United States 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯
Lebanon 2005, 2017 ▼ ▼ ▼ Uruguay 2006, 2012 ▼ ▼ ▼
Lithuania 2002, 2014 ▼ ◯ ◯ Yemen 2008, 2014 ◆ ▼ ▼
▲ Increased ▼ Decreased ◆ No significant changes ◯ Trend data not available
Source: HBSC for countries and territories in Europe and North America, and GSHS for countries and territories in other regions.
23
Changes in the prevalence of physical fights Changes in prevalence of cyberbullying over

over time time
Fewer than half of countries have seen a decrease in Although the prevalence of
involvement of students in physical fighting. Of the 29 cyberbullying is relatively
countries and territories with trend data on involvement in
a physical fight, 13 have seen a decrease, 12 have seen no
Cyberbullying is a low compared with other
forms of school violence
change and four have seen an increase (Figure 8 and Figure 9) growing problem and bullying, it is an
(GSHS). The pattern was similar for male and female students, increasing problem. In
although in the Cook Islands, Morocco, Thailand, Trinidad seven European countries20,
and Tobago, and Yemen, prevalence significantly decreased overall, the proportion of
among male students, but did not change significantly children aged 11-16 years who use the Internet and reported
among female students, and in Tonga, prevalence significantly that they had experienced cyberbullying increased from 7% in
decreased among female students, but did not change 2010 to 12% in 2014 (Figure 10) (Mascheroni and Cuman, 2014).
significantly among male students. Prevalence rates for
physical fights for both male and female students decreased
in Anguilla, Eswatini, Fiji, Indonesia, Jamaica, Lebanon, Figure 10. Change in the percentage of children aged 11-
Namibia, the Philippines and Uruguay. The prevalence 16 who use the Internet reporting being cyberbullied in
rate among female students increased in the Maldives but Europe
not among male students. In Oman, the prevalence rate
significantly increased among male students, but did not
change significantly among female students.
Changes in the prevalence of physical attacks

over time
2010 2014
Physical attacks have decreased in half of countries. Of 24
7% 12%
countries and territories with trend data on the prevalence
of physical attacks, 12 have seen a decrease, 10 have seen no
change and two have seen an increase in prevalence (Figure
8 and Figure 9) (GSHS). The pattern was similar for male and
Data source: Mascheroni and Cuman, 2014.
female students, although in the Maldives, Morocco, Trinidad
and Tobago, Uruguay, and Yemen, the prevalence rates
significantly decreased among male students, but did not
change significantly among female students, and in Sri Lanka
and Tonga, the prevalence rates significantly decreased among
female students, but did not change significantly among male
students. Prevalence rates for physical attacks for both male and
female students decreased in Benin, Fiji, Jamaica, Indonesia,
Lebanon, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. In Mongolia, the
prevalence rate significantly increased among female students,
but did not change significantly among male students.
Among the 30 countries and territories with trends data

for the prevalence of bullying, physical fights and physical
attacks, six countries have seen a decrease in the prevalence
of all three of these forms of violence – Fiji, Indonesia, Jamaica,
Lebanon, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay.
20 Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom
24
2.3 Influencing factors types of bullying experienced. International surveys

do not collect data on school violence based on sexual
orientation, so this section draws on other data from
Children who are perceived to be specific national surveys to discuss this factor.
‘different’ in any way are more at risk ll Finally GSHS, HBSC and TIMSS data are used to analyse
the relationship between student age and school
of bullying. Key factors include: not violence and bullying.
conforming to gender norms, physical Sex differences

appearance, race, nationality or colour Globally, girls and boys
School violence and are equally likely to
experience bullying.
This section summarises data on factors that influence
bullying:
bullying affects both GSHS data show that the
global prevalence of
ll Both the GSHS and HBSC collect data on the following
boys and girls, but in bullying is 30.4% among
factors: physical appearance, race, nationality or colour; different ways girls and 34.8% among
boys aged 13-15; HBSC
and religion.
data show similar findings,
ll The HBSC and PISA collect data on social status and with prevalence of 28.2% among girls and 30.5% among boys
immigration status. (Figure 11). There are, however, considerable differences
between regions. Boys are much more likely to be bullied than
ll PISA collects data on the school environment, and peer girls in the Middle East, North Africa and the Pacific (GSHS). In
and family support. Europe and North America, the difference was significant in 23
ll The GSHS, HBSC and PISA also provide data countries, with boys reporting a lower prevalence of bullying
disaggregated by sex, which have been used here to than girls in 18 countries, and girls reporting a lower
analyse sex differences in the forms of violence and prevalence than boys in five countries (HBSC).
Figure 11. Percentage of boys and girls affected by different types of school violence and bullying
Bullying among students

28.2% aged 11, 13 and 15 (HBSC) 30.5%
Bullying among students
30.4% aged 13-15 (GSHS) 34.8%
Bullying by hitting, kicking, shoving around or
10.1% locking indoors (GSHS) 21.5%
Bullying by leaving out of activities on purpose
6.1% or ignoring (GSHS) 4.7%
Bullying by making fun with sexual jokes,
10.3% comments or gestures (GSHS) 11.6%
Cyberbullying by messages among students
11.8% aged 11, 13 and 15 (HBSC) 9.3%
Cyberbullying by photos among students
7.9% aged 11, 13 and 15 (HBSC) 8.1%
Physical fights among students
25.4% aged 13-15 (GSHS) 45.4%
Physical attacks against students
25.9% aged 13-15 (GSHS) 38.6%
Female Male
Sources: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS and HBSC data.
25
Boys are more likely to experience physical bullying; girls Figure 12. Median percentage of students reporting
are more likely to experience psychological bullying. Data that teachers disciplined them more harshly than other
from GSHS countries show that, overall, boys (21.5%) are more students, across selected regions
likely to experience physical bullying than girls (10.1%). PISA
data also suggest that boys are more likely to experience
8,0%
physical bullying than girls, but that girls (6.1%) are slightly North Africa (Tunisia)
20,9%
more likely than boys (4.7%) to experience psychological
9,9%
bullying. Asia
20,5%
Girls are more likely than boys to experience bullying Europe

9,7%
based on physical appearance. In all regions, girls report 20,5%
being made fun of because of how their face or body Middle East
14,2%
looks more frequently than boys, with the difference being 11,8%
particularly striking in Asia, the Caribbean and sub-Saharan North America
8,0%
Africa (GSHS). 16,1%
12,6%
Pacific
Globally, there are no major differences in the extent to 22,1%
which girls and boys experience sexual bullying, but there 8,8%
are regional differences. Across all GSHS regions, 10.3% of South America
16,3%
girls and 11.6% of boys report being made fun of with sexual
jokes, comments or gestures. However, girls are more likely to Female Male
report sexual bullying in the Caribbean, the Middle East and
North Africa, while boys are more likely to report it in Asia, Data source: PISA 2015
Central America, the Pacific and South America.
Age differences
Girls are more likely than boys to be cyberbullied via
messages but there is less difference between the sexes As children grow older, they are less likely to experience
in the prevalence of cyberbullying via pictures. In Europe violence and bullying perpetrated by peers. Globally, the
and North America, sex differences in the prevalence of proportion of students who report being bullied declines with
cyberbullying via messages were significant in 27 of 42 increasing age: from 33% in those aged 13 years to 32.3% in
countries: prevalence was higher among girls in 24 countries those aged 14 years, and to 30.4% in those aged 15 years
and among boys in three countries. Sex differences in the (GSHS). The trends are the same in Europe and North America,
prevalence of cyberbullying via pictures were significant in where students aged 15 years are less likely to be bullied
26 of 42 countries: prevalence was higher among boys in 14 (23.7%) than those aged 13 years (29.6%) and 11 years (32.6%)
countries and among girls in 12 countries (HBSC). (HBSC). TIMSS data show a similar trend, with the prevalence
of being bullied decreasing from 43% among those aged 10
Boys are more likely than girls to have been involved in
years to 36% among those aged 14 years (Figure 13). With
a physical fight and to have been physically attacked.
respect to psychological bullying specifically, a global
Globally, 45.4% of boys and 25.4% of girls have been involved
meta-analysis showed that, globally, between 70% and 80% of
in a physical fight in the past year; there are significant
all boys and girls aged 8-11 years had experienced
differences between the sexes across all GSHS regions.
psychological violence from a classmate in the past year, but
Globally, 38.6% of boys and 25.9% of girls have been
this decreased to 50% among those aged 12-17 years (Devries
physically attacked in the past year. While there are significant
et al., 2018). Physical attacks and fights perpetrated by peers
differences in some GSHS regions, there is little difference in
are also more common in younger teenagers, with prevalence
others, for example, the Pacific, sub-Saharan Africa and Central
decreasing as they get older (GSHS) (Figure 16). The same
America.
global meta-analysis also showed that the prevalence of
Boys are more likely to experience harsh discipline in physical violence from a classmate decreased after the age of
school than girls. PISA data show that boys report a higher 12 years among boys (Devries et al., 2018).
median prevalence than girls of feeling they have been more
harshly disciplined than other students, across all regions
(Figure 12). Other data from four countries suggest that boys
are more likely than girls to experience corporal punishment
perpetrated by teachers (Ethiopia 44% versus 31%, India 83%
versus 73%, Peru 35% versus 26%, Viet Nam 28% versus 11%)
(Portela and Pells, 2015; Know Violence in Childhood, 2017).
26
Figure13. Percentage of students who were bullied, in physical fights or physically attacked, by age
43%
Bullying
TIMSS data
37.1%
36.1%
36% Physical
33.5% 35.4% fights
Bullying Bullying GSHS data
HBSC data GSHS data 32.3%
32.6% 33% 30,9%
32%
30.4% Physical
attacks
29.6% GSHS data
23.7%
Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15
4th graders 8th graders
Data sources: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS and HBSC data; TIMSS.
The HBSC and GSHS data reflect the global median prevalence whereas TIMSS data show the international average.
Age differences are less pronounced for bullying Available evidence indicates that the frequency of
perpetration. HBSC data suggest that age may have less corporal punishment in school declines with age. In two
impact on bullying perpetration. The differences between of the Young Lives countries for which trend data have been
age groups were less pronounced, with reported prevalence analysed, the frequency of corporal punishment decreased
of bullying others of 22.9% in those aged 11 years, 27.5% in significantly between the ages of 8 and 15 years. At age 8,
those aged 13 years and 26.1% in those aged 15 years. nearly one in three children surveyed in Peru and Viet Nam
reported they had experienced corporal punishment but,
Older students may be more exposed to cyberbullying. among the same respondents at age 15, this had declined to
HBSC data suggest that older students may be more exposed less than one in ten (Portela and Pells, 2015).
to cyberbullying than younger students. For cyberbullying via
messages, prevalence estimates varied little between students
aged 11 years and those aged 15 years but, of the 22 countries
with significant differences between age groups, 11-year-
olds reported the highest prevalence in only three countries.
For cyberbullying via pictures, the youngest age category
reported the lowest prevalence.
27
Not conforming to gender norms Physical appearance

Students viewed as gender non-conforming are at higher Physical appearance is the most frequent reason for
risk of school violence and bullying. This includes students bullying. Globally, 15.3% of students who have been bullied
who are, or are perceived as, lesbian, gay, bisexual or report being made fun of because of how their face or body
transgender (LGBT), and those who do not conform to looks (Figure 15) (GSHS). This was one of the top two most
stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, such as boys frequent forms of bullying in all GSHS regions except for the
viewed as ‘effeminate’ or girls viewed as ‘masculine’. Data from Middle East, North Africa and the Pacific. One in three
New Zealand show that lesbian, gay and bisexual students students in North America and one in four students in Europe
were three times more likely to be bullied and transgender who have been bullied report that this was based on their
students were five times more likely to be bullied than their physical appearance (HBSC). There is little data on the specific
heterosexual peers; and in Norway, 15%-48% of lesbian, gay aspects of physical appearance that increase vulnerability to
and bisexual students reported being bullied compared with bullying.
7% of heterosexual students (UNESCO, 2016). In the USA, a
large national school-based survey found that 11.2% of Figure 15. Percentage of students who were bullied
students identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual or were unsure because of their physical appearance; race, nationality or
about their sexual orientation, and that they were significantly colour; or religion
more likely to be bullied at school, cyberbullied, and involved
in a physical fight at school than students who identified as
heterosexual (Figure 14) (Kann, L. et al., 2016). In a study in
15.3%
Australia, 60%-70% of LGBT youth reported experiencing How their body or face
bullying due to their sexual orientation or gender identity looks
(Hillier et al., 2010). In Thailand, the prevalence of bullying
among LGBT youth due to their sexual orientation or gender
identity was 55% (UNESCO, 2014). Other data suggest that
one in three non-LGBT students who do not conform to
gender norms experience school violence and bullying (Know
10.9%
Violence in Childhood, 2017). Their race, nationality
or colour
Figure 14. Percentage of high school students in the USA

who were bullied on school property, electronically bullied
or in a physical fight at school, by sexual orientation
18,8% 4.6% Their religion

Bullied on
school property 24,9%
34,2%
Source: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS data: among students who
were bullied on one or more days during the 30 days before the survey
14,2%
Electronically
bullied 22,5% Being dissatisfied with your body and being overweight
28,0% are associated with bullying. Overall, in Europe and North
America, body image dissatisfaction is more prevalent among
7,1% children who are bully-victims21 (52.1%) and those who are
In a physical fight
at school 14,6% bullied (50.9%) than among bullies (43.1%) and those not
11,2% involved in bullying (39.7%). Being overweight or obese is also
more prevalent among bully-victims (18%) and victims (17.2%)
Heterosexual
than among bullies (15.2%) and those not involved in bullying
Gay, lesbian or bisexual
(13%) (HBSC).
Not sure of sexual orientation
Data source: Laura Kann et al, 2016
21 Bully-victims are students who are both bullies and victims of bullying.
28
Race, nationality or colour Religion

Bullying based on race, nationality or colour is the second Compared to other factors, religion is mentioned by far
most frequent reason for bullying reported by students. fewer students as a reason for being bullied. Across all
Across all GSHS regions, 10.9% of students (11.9% of boys GSHS regions, 4.6% of students (3.8% of girls and 5.4% of
and 8.9% of girls) who had been bullied reported that this boys) who had been bullied reported that this was based on
was based on their race, nationality or colour (Figure 18). their religion (Figure 18). The highest rates were reported in
The highest rates were reported in the Pacific (14.2%) and the Pacific (6.3%) and sub-Saharan Africa (8.8%). In Europe,
sub-Saharan Africa (13.5%). In Europe, 8.2% of students who 3.6% of those bullied reported that this was based on
have been bullied reported that this was based on their race, religion.2324
nationality or colour.22
23 HBSC data on religion as a driver of bullying were collected in only five
22 HBSC data on race, nationality, and colour as drivers of bullying were collected countries in Europe.
in only six countries in Europe. 24 Note the study did not ask where the violence occurred.
Box 4. School violence and bullying and disability

There is limited data on the experience of school violence and bullying among children living with disabilities. Available evidence
suggests that children with disabilities are at increased risk of physical and sexual violence (Jones et al., 2011), but there is little
comprehensive or comparable data on location or perpetrators. Reasons for increased vulnerability to violence and bullying include
stigma, discrimination and isolation from potential protective factors, and specific disabilities, such as difficulties with communication,
that make it difficult for children to report experiences of violence (Fry et al., 2017).
In the few school-based studies that have been conducted, both peers and teachers are cited as perpetrators of violence. In Uganda,
84% of children living with a disability reported that they had experienced violence perpetrated by peers or school staff in the past
week, compared to 54% of children without disabilities. Girls with disabilities were more likely to report sexual violence from male peers
than girls without disabilities (7.8% vs. 3.7%); this was also true for boys (4.5% vs. 1.1%). Girls with disabilities were also more likely to
report psychological violence from their female peers than girls without disabilities (27.5% vs. 19%) (Devries et al., 2014).24 Research
from the USA shows that students with disabilities report repeated victimization, and this was more common among students with
autism in elementary and middle school and among students with physical disabilities in high school (Blake et al., 2012). Other research
from the USA suggests that certain types of disabilities are associated with being bullied and being a bully-victim (Farmer et al., 2012)
and with bullying behaviour (Blake et al., 2016).
In the USA, children with disabilities are reported to be more likely to be recipients of corporal punishment from teachers, together with
children from ethnic minorities (Sullivan, 2009). In Uganda, girls with disabilities were slightly more likely to report physical violence
from school staff than girls without disabilities (98% versus 93.9%) (Devries et al., 2014). The limited data available also show that
children with certain difficulties may be more vulnerable. In Uganda, for example, children with self-care difficulties were found to be
18.6 times more likely to report sexual violence from staff and 17.1 times more likely to report a severe injury from school staff (Kuper et
al., 2016).
Socio-economic status
Figure 16. Percentage of students who were bullied, by
Socio-economic disadvantage is associated with increased self-perceived family social status
risk of being bullied. PISA data show that this is the case in
all regions, except for the Caribbean and Central America,
where there is little difference between students of different
socio-economic status, and East Asia, where more advantaged
27.4% 30% 40.4%
students experience slightly higher rates of bullying. PISA
data also show that students in disadvantaged schools are
more likely to report being a victim of bullying than those in High/very high Average Low/very low
advantaged schools. In Europe and North America (Figure social status social status social status
16), students who perceive their family social status as low or
very low were more likely to report being bullied than those Source: Secondary analysis calculations based on HBSC data.
perceiving themselves as from middle or average or high or

very high social classes (HBSC).
29
A similar relationship is seen between self-perceived School environment, peer and family support
social status and cyberbullying. In 34 of 42 countries,
students who perceive their family social status as low or
very low were more likely to report being cyberbullied via The school environment,
messages (17.6%) than those from middle or average (10.1%)
or high or very high (9.6%) social classes. The same pattern relations with peers
was seen for cyberbullying via pictures in 27 of 42 countries
(HBSC).
and family support can
The relationship between socio-economic status and influence the prevalence
punishment perpetrated by teachers is less clear. PISA
data show a very small difference between more and less
of bullying
advantaged students in self-reported harsh discipline by
teachers. However, in the USA, poorer children were found to A positive school environment reduces bullying. Bullying
be among the most frequent victims of corporal punishment occurs more often in schools with poor discipline and where
in school (Sullivan, 2009). Similarly, the Young Lives study teachers treat students unfairly. Data from the Organization
found that children from economically disadvantaged for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries
households were significantly more likely to experience show that the proportion of students who are victims of
corporal punishment from teachers in Peru and Viet Nam, frequent bullying is 7% higher in schools with a poor
compared to children from more advantaged households in disciplinary climate in class than in schools with a positive
the same community (Portela and Pells, 2015). disciplinary climate25 (Figure 18). The data also show that
bullying is 12% higher in schools where students report that
Migrant status teachers treat them unfairly26 (PISA).
Immigrant students are more likely to be bullied than

their native-born peers. Data from Europe and North Figure 18. Percentage of students in OECD countries who were
America show that immigrant students are more likely to be bullied, by perceived disciplinary climate
bullied (33%) than their native-born peers (26.3%) (Figure 17).
Immigrant students are also more likely to experience
cyberbullying by messages (14.2%) than their native-born
peers (9.4%), although there are differences between
countries (HBSC).
Figure 17. Percentage of students who were bullied, by 12.3%

immigration status
In schools with a negative
disciplinary climate
26.3% 33% 5.7%

In schools with a positive
Native-born Born outside
disciplinary climate
Data source: PISA 2015
Source: Secondary analysis calculations based on HBSC data.
25 PISA 2012 asked students to describe the frequency with which interruptions occur
in mathematics lessons. This included how often – “never”, “in some”, “in most” or
“in all” mathematics lessons – students don’t listen to what the teacher says; there
is noise and disorder; the teacher has to wait a long time for students to quieten
down; students cannot work well; and students don’t start working for a long time
after the lesson begins. These responses were combined to create a composite
index of disciplinary climate. A school with a positive or negative disciplinary
climate is one where the average index of disciplinary climate is statistically higher
or lower than the average level in the country.
26 Being treated unfairly refers to students reporting that teachers disciplined
them more harshly than other students, and/or ridiculed them in front of
others and/or said something insulting to them in front of others, “a few times a
month” or “once a week or more”.
30
There appears to be a relationship between peer-related Family support and communication can be an important
factors and bullying. HBSC data show that children who protective factor. In HBSC countries, children with more
are not involved in bullying are more likely to perceive their family support are less likely to be bullied or to bully others;
classmates to be kind and helpful (75.1%), compared with bullies, bully-victims and victims have lower scores for family
bully-victims (60.5%) and victims (59.8%). Similarly, students support. Similarly, children who are not involved in bullying
who are not involved in bullying are more likely to report that others, and who are not bullied, score higher on the quality
their classmates accept them as they are (83%), compared of family communication compared with bullies, bully-
with bully-victims (62.1%) and victims (58.4%). The findings victims and victims. PISA data from OECD countries also
were similar from a composite score on a 3-item classmate show that students who report that their parents support
support scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of them when they have difficulties at school are less likely to
perceived support from classmates. Bullies (8.7), bully-victims report being bullied. Again, GSHS data showed the opposite,
(7.9) and victims (7.8) had lower median scores than those indicating that students who were bullied were more likely to
who were not involved in bullying (9.1) (HBSC). However, score higher on family support.27 More comprehensive and
GSHS data found the opposite, indicating that students who comparable global data are needed to better understand
were bullied were more likely to perceive their classmates as the association between peer and family support and
supportive (GSHS). vulnerability to school violence and bullying.
27 The conflicting findings might suggest that the survey questions might not
have been fully credible to measure protective factors as complex constructs,
or that the findings provide evidence of the resilience of students – even those
who are being bullied.
Box 5. Experience of multiple forms of violence by children and adolescents

Some children and adolescents experience violence and bullying in multiple settings and in multiple forms. Increasingly, therefore,
research on children and violence is focusing on multiple forms of victimization or ‘polyvictimization’ (Finkelhor et al., 2005). A
systematic review found that polyvictimization is more prevalent among children in low- and lower middle-income countries than
among those in high- and upper-middle income countries, and that it increases the negative mental health and health risk behaviour
outcomes associated with violence and bullying (Le et al., 2016).
There is very little data on the extent to which children who experience school violence and bullying also experience violence in other
settings such as the home and the community. One exception is the Multi-Country Study on the Drivers of Violence Affecting Children,
which showed that children’s experience of severe punishment or violence in the home could be a risk factor for bullying perpetration
and/or victimization at school (Maternowska et al., 2018). For example, in Zimbabwe, children’s experiences of severe punishment at
home and lack of family support were found to be risk factors for bullying behaviour at schools (Ncube, 2013). In Italy, children who
experienced physical or sexual abuse or neglect at home were found to be at greater risk of becoming bullies at school and of being
bully-victims (Bernacchi et al., 2016). Other risk factors identified for bullying perpetration and/or victimization include parental health
and psychological problems, low parental education, and low family income (Bianchi and & Moretti, 2006; Caso et al., 2011; Bardi and&
Borgognini, 2001; Baldry, 2003; Arace et al., 2013).
2.4 Consequences Educational consequences

This section summarises available evidence on the Children who are frequently bullied are more likely to
educational and health consequences of school violence and feel like an outsider at school. Children who are frequently
bullying. Global comparable data are available only for the bullied are almost three times more likely to report feeling
consequences of bullying, not for the consequences of other like an outsider at school than those who are not frequently
forms of school violence. Data on educational consequences bullied (Figure 19). In OECD countries, 42% of those who are
are largely drawn from PISA, supplemented by PIRLS and TERCE frequently bullied report feeling like an outsider at school
data. Data on health consequences are largely drawn from compared with 15% of those who are not frequently bullied
the GSHS, HBSC and PISA. Discussion of longer-term social (PISA). Children who are frequently bullied are also nearly
consequences, specifically the relationship between school twice as likely to skip school more often (Figure 19). In other
violence and bullying and intimate partner violence (IPV) data, psychological bullying has been shown to have a
in adulthood, is based on data from a UN multi-country study. negative effect on socialization and feelings of acceptance
(TERCE) and that as bullying decreases, students’ sense of
belonging at school increases (PIRLS).
31
Being bullied undermines Being bullied can affect continued engagement in

education. Children who are frequently bullied are more
the sense of belonging at likely to want to leave school after finishing secondary
education than those who are not frequently bullied
school and affects continued (Figure 19). PISA data found that almost 45% of students who
engagement in education were frequently bullied, versus 35% of those not frequently
bullied, wanted to leave formal education after finishing
secondary school.
Figure 19. Educational consequences of bullying
Frequently bullied Not frequently bullied
Expected to end their education at the secondary level 44.5% 34.8%

Feel like an outsider (or left out of things at school) 42.4% 14.9%
Skipped school at least 3-4 days in previous two weeks 9.2% 4.1%
Feel anxious for a test even if well prepared 63.9% 54.6%
Data source: Relationship between being frequently bullied and other student outcomes, OECD average, PISA 2015
Figure 20. Impact of bullying on learning outcomes, mean scores*
LEARNING Never or almost Bullied Bullied

never been bullied monthly weekly
ACHIEVEMENT
SCORE
521 507 482
Data source: Difference in learning achievement between students who were bullied and not bullied, PIRLS 2015
SCORES IN…
Not bullied Bullied
MATHEMATICS 715.11 699.74

READING
715.43 696.91
Data source: Difference in learning scores between students who were bullied and those who were not bullied, TERCE
SCORES IN… Schools where 5% of Schools where more

students or less are than 10% of students are
frequently bullied frequently bullied
SCIENCE
517 470
Data source: Relationship between being frequently bullied and other student outcomes, OECD average, PISA 2015
*Surveys use different achievement scores. They are based on the achievement across all participating countries. The scale centerpoint is set to
correspond to the mean of overall achievement or mean performance across countries. PIRLS: The scale has a typical range of achievement between
300 and 700. The centerpoint is 500. TERCE: The centerpoint is 700 for both reading scores and mathmatics scores. PISA: the mean performance for
science is 493.
32
Children who are bullied students in schools where bullying occurs less frequently
Educational score lower in tests than (PISA).
their non-bullied peers. In
outcomes 15 Latin American countries, Poor discipline and an unsafe school environment are
associated with lower academic achievement. TIMSS and
are lower for students who were bullied
scored lower in mathematics PIRLS data show that primary and secondary schools where
children who and reading tests than students principals felt there were moderate to severe discipline
problems or where teachers reported the environment to
who were not bullied (Figure
are bullied 20) (TERCE). Students who were be less than safe and orderly, were associated with lower
bullied achieved between 9.6 academic achievement.
and 18.4 points less in mathematics, and between 5.8 and
19.4 points less in reading. Data from the TERCE study also
Health consequences
showed that psychological bullying may have a greater Bullying is associated
effect on learning than physical bullying. For example, in Children’s mental with higher rates of
Argentina, psychological bullying was associated with a score
of 20 points less in mathematics, and physical bullying was health and well- feeling lonely and
suicidal. Children who
associated with a score of 10 points less in mathematics; a
similar picture was seen in Chile.
being can be are bullied are around
twice as likely to feel
The more often a student is bullied, the worse their scores.
adversely impacted lonely, to be unable to
Performance is between 9.2 and 10.9 points lower if a student by bullying sleep at night and to have
contemplated suicide as
experiences one event of bullying but between 42.8 and 61
those who are not bullied
points lower if they experience six events of bullying (TERCE).
(GSHS). Overall, in GSHS countries, during the past 12 months,
PIRLS data show that the average achievement for students
18.3% of children who were bullied felt lonely most of the
who said they were never or almost never bullied was 521
time or always, 17.2% were so worried that they could not
compared with 507 for those who said they were bullied
sleep at night, and 23.4% had seriously considered attempting
monthly and 482 for those who said they were bullied weekly.
suicide, compared with 8.2%, 7% and 12% respectively of
In addition, students who are bullied frequently are more
those who were not bullied (Figure 21). The VACS data show
likely to feel anxious before a test than other students, even
that all forms of childhood violence influence negative health
when they are well prepared (Figure 19) (PISA). Data from
outcomes including risky sexual behaviours, substance misuse
OECD countries also show that students in schools where
and mental health.
bullying is frequent score 47 points lower in science than
Figure 21. Differences in mental health status and the prevalence of risk behaviours between students who were bullied
and those who were not bullied
18.3% Felt lonely 8.2%

17.2% Were so worried they could not sleep at night 7.0%
23.4% Seriously considered attempting suicide 12.0%
19.7% Current tobacco use 8.6%
30.3% Current alcohol use 18.6%
7.9% Current marijuana use 1.7%
27.4% Early sexual intercourse 18.9%
● Bullied in the past 30 days ● Not bullied in the past 30 days
Source: Secondary analysis calculations based on GSHS data.
33
School violence can cause physical injuries and harm. Figure 22. Differences in self-reported health status
PIRLS data suggest that globally, 28.1% of students report between students who were bullied and those who were
being injured at school by another student. The prevalence is not bullied
highest in the Middle East, with 41.9% of students reporting
having been injured at school by another student, and lowest Median % of students who rated their health as excellent*
in Eastern Europe, where the prevalence is 15.9%. These data
highlight the high prevalence of self-defined injury resulting
from school violence and bullying. Other forms of school Not involved in bullying 39.6%
violence, such as corporal punishment, can also cause injury Been bullied and bullied others 28.0%
(Gershoff, 2017).
Bullied others only 33.8%
Bullying is associated with higher rates of smoking,
Been bullied only 29.1%
alcohol and cannabis use. In Europe and North America,
rates of current alcohol use and of lifetime smoking and
cannabis use are higher among bullies and bully-victims Presence of ill-health symptoms at any frequency (0-8)**
than among victims only, or those who are not involved in
bullying (HBSC). In other regions, children who are bullied are
more likely than those who are not bullied to have smoked Not involved in bullying 3.51
cigarettes, to have consumed alcohol, and to have used
Been bullied and bullied others 4.70
cannabis in the previous month (Figure 21) (GSHS).
Bullied others only 4.05
Bullying is also associated with earlier age of first sexual
experience. In Europe and North America, among students Been bullied only 4.47
aged 14-15 years, bullies and bully-victims were found to be
more likely to have had sexual intercourse than victims only
Source: Secondary analysis calculations based on HBSC data, 2013/2014
or those not involved in bullying in the majority of countries
* Students are asked “In general, would you say your health is excellent, good, fair, or
(HBSC). In other regions, among students aged 13-15 years, poor?” and can chose between excellent (1) versus good, fair or poor (0).
those who are bullied are more likely to have ever had sexual ** Symptoms include 4 psychological and 4 physical symptoms: headache; stomach-ache;
intercourse than those who are not bullied (Figure 21) (GSHS). back ache; feeling low; irritability or bad temper; feeling nervous; difficulties in getting
to sleep; feeling dizzy. The frequency of each symptom is scored on a 5-point scale:
0 = rarely or never, 1 = every month, 2 = every week, 3 = more than once a week, 4 =
Bullying is associated with lower rates of self-reported life every day. Incidence rate of those eight symptoms at any frequency (0–8)
satisfaction and health. Students who are bullied frequently

are more likely to report low life satisfaction (a value of 4 or
less on a scale of 1 to 10) than those who are not bullied. In
OECD countries, 26% of students who are frequently bullied
2.5 Regional snapshots
report low life satisfaction (PISA). Students who are bullied This section summarizes key data, mainly from the GSHS and
(29.1%), bully-victims (28%) or bullies (33.8%) are also less the HBSC, on school violence and bullying by region and sub-
likely to report their self-rated health as excellent than those region. These snapshots highlight the most prevalent forms of
who are not involved in bullying (39.6%) school violence and bullying, the main types of bullying, and
(Figure 22) (HBSC). the key drivers. They also describe changes in the prevalence
of school violence and bullying in regions and sub-regions for
A United Nations multi-country study on men and violence
which trend data are available.
in six countries in Asia and the Pacific found that 40% of adult
men surveyed reported having been hit by a teacher during
their childhood and 27.3% reported that they had bullied
others during their childhood. Adult men who reported being
hit by a teacher were more likely to report perpetrating IPV in
adulthood; the same applied to adult men who reported that
they had bullied others in school or the community (Fulu et
al., 2013).
34
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com
35
Asia and the Pacific
Asia Pacific
The prevalence of bullying in the Asia region, at 30.3% The prevalence of bullying in the Pacific region, at 36.8%
(range 7.1%-51.2%), is slightly lower than the global median (range 25.1%-74%), is above the global median prevalence
prevalence of 32%. There is little difference in bullying of 32%, and the Pacific has the fourth highest prevalence of
prevalence between the sexes, at 31.2% among boys and bullying of any region. There is relatively little difference in
28.3% among girls. bullying prevalence between the sexes, at 39.8% among boys
and 32% among girls.
Physical bullying is the most frequent type of bullying overall
and for boys (22.2%), followed by sexual bullying (10.5%). Physical bullying is the most frequent type of bullying
Girls are equally likely to report physical bullying (10.9%) and reported by both boys and girls who have been bullied, but
sexual bullying (10.9%). Girls (6.6%) are slightly more likely the prevalence of physical bullying is higher in boys (29%)
than boys (4.6%) to report psychological bullying. than in girls (19%). The differences between the sexes are less
pronounced for sexual bullying – at 10.3% in boys and 9.3%
Physical appearance is reported to be the main driver for in girls – and for psychological bullying – at 4.3% for boys and
bullying by girls (19.2%) and they are twice as likely to report 5.4% for girls.
this as boys (9.8%). Boys are slightly more likely to report
bullying that is related to race, nationality or colour (10.4%) Physical appearance is reported to be the main driver for
than girls (7.3%) and the same for bullying based on religion bullying by girls (13.2%) and they are more likely to report this
(4.1% vs. 2.4%). than boys (8.5%). Boys are more likely to report that bullying is
related to race, nationality or colour (15.1%) than girls (10.2%),
The overall prevalence of physical fights in Asia, at 24.6% whereas there is no difference for bullying based on religion,
(range 10.2%-46.3%), is the lowest of all regions. The which is also reported least frequently by both sexes.
prevalence of physical attacks is higher, at 32.8%. There are,
however, significant differences between the sexes. Boys The prevalence of physical violence in the Pacific region is high.
(35.9%) are twice as likely to report involvement in a physical The overall prevalence of physical fights, at 38.1% (range 30.5%-
fight as girls (17.4%) and are also more likely to report being 75.1%), is the fourth highest of all regions. Boys (48.7%) are
physically attacked (39.2% versus 24.7%). more likely to report involvement in a physical fight than girls
(35.2%), but the prevalence in girls is high compared with other
In terms of trends based on the analysis of GSHS data, Asia regions. The overall prevalence of physical attacks is far higher,
has seen an overall decrease in bullying. Only one country, at 48.4%, and the Pacific has the highest reported prevalence
Indonesia, has seen a decline in bullying, physical fights and of this form of physical violence of any region. There is little
physical attacks. The Philippines has seen a decline in physical difference between the sexes, with 49% of boys and 46.9% of
fights, and Sri Lanka has seen a decline in physical attacks. girls reporting having been physically attacked and, again, the
prevalence in girls is high compared with other regions.
In terms of trends, the Pacific region has seen an overall

decrease in bullying in schools. Only one country, Fiji, has
seen a decline in bullying, physical fights and physical attacks.
Tonga has seen a decline in physical fights and physical
attacks, and the Cook Islands have seen a decline in physical
attacks.
36
Figure 23. Status of school violence and bullying in Asia Pacific
Asia Female Male

Percentage of students who were victims of school violence
31.2% 28.3% 35.9% 17.4% 39.2% 24.7%

Percentage of students who were bullied, by type
22.2% 10.9% 10.5% 10.9% 4.6% 6.6%

Physical Sexual Psychological (social exclusion)
Percentage of students who were bullied, by driver
9.8% 19.2% 10.4% 7.3% 6.3% 26.3%

Physical appearance Race, nationality or colour Religion
PACIFIC
39.8% 32.0% 48.7% 35.2% 49.0% 46.9%

29.0% 19.1% 10.0% 9.3% 4.3% 5.4%

8.5% 13.2% 15.1% 10.2% 6.3% 6.3%

37
Europe
The overall prevalence of bullying reported in Europe is 25%, with 10.4% of students who had been bullied reporting
which is below the global median of 32%, and Europe has this. This is different from most other regions, except for
the second lowest prevalence of bullying of any region. There North America, where physical bullying and sexual bullying
is little difference between the sexes in the prevalence of are the top two most common types of bullying. Some of
bullying victimization, at 30.1% for boys and 28.28% for girls. the difference in prevalence of different forms of bullying
In contrast, reported prevalence of bullying others shows that between HBSC and GSHS regions may be because of the
this behaviour is far more prevalent among boys (33%) than difference in survey age groups and recall periods.
among girls (19.2%).
Based on available data, one in four students who has
In Europe, girls (11.7%) are slightly more likely to experience been bullied reports that this was based on their physical
cyberbullying via messages than boys (9.3%), whereas boys appearance, 8.2% of students report that this was based on
(8.1%) are slightly more likely to experience cyberbullying via their race, nationality or colour,28 and 3.6% report that this was
pictures than girls (7.5%). based on their religion.29
Available data on different types of bullying show that Overall, Europe has seen a decline in the prevalence of
psychological bullying is the most frequent type, with 25.7% bullying in schools over time, with 25 countries and territories
of students who had been bullied reporting being called reporting a significant decrease. However, eight countries in
names, 15.3% reporting being left out and 19.5% reporting the region have seen an increase in the prevalence of bullying.
that lies or rumours had been spread about them. Sexual
bullying was, marginally, the second most frequent type 28 HBSC data on race, nationality, and colour as drivers of bullying collected in
of bullying, with 11% of students who had been bullied only six countries in Europe.
29 HBSC data on religion as a driver of bullying were collected in only five
reporting this, and physical bullying the third most frequent, countries in Europe.
Figure 24. Status of school violence and bullying in Europe
Percentage of students who were victims of school violence Female Male
30.1% 28.2% 33.0% 19.2% 9.3% 11.7% 7.5% 8.1%

Been bullied Bullied others Bullied cyberbullied Bullied cyberbullied
via messages by pictures
25.7%
19.5%
15.3% 11.0%
10.4%
Called Left Lies,

Hit, kicked, pushed Sexual jokes
names out rumours
● Physical bullying ● Psychological bullying ● Sexual bullying
38
North America
The overall prevalence of bullying reported in North America being called names, 28.4% reporting being left out and
is 31.7%, which is close to the global median of 32%. There 29.4% reporting that lies or rumours had been spread about
is little difference between the sexes in the prevalence of them. Sexual bullying was the second most frequent type
bullying victimization, at 30.5% for boys and 32.8% for girls. of bullying, with 19% of students who had been bullied
However, North America is one of only two regions – sub- reporting this, and physical bullying the third most frequent,
Saharan Africa is the other – where girls report a higher with 13.4% of students who had been bullied reporting this.
prevalence of bullying than boys. In contrast, reported This is different to most other regions, except for Europe,
prevalence of bullying others shows that this behaviour is where physical bullying and sexual bullying are the top two
more prevalent among boys (30.1%) than among girls (23.8%). most common types of bullying. Some of the differences in
prevalence of different forms of bullying between HBSC and
In North America, girls are more likely to experience GSHS regions may be because of the difference in age groups
cyberbullying, with 13.6% reporting cyberbullying via and recall periods. One in three students in North America
messages, compared with 6.7% of boys, and 9.7% reporting who has been bullied reports that this was based on their
cyberbullying via pictures, compared with 6.3% of boys. physical appearance.
Available data on different forms of bullying, for Canada Overall, the North America region has seen a decline in
only, show that psychological bullying is the most frequent bullying prevalence over time, specifically in the USA.
type, with 36.5% of students who had been bullied reporting
Figure 25. Status of school violence and bullying in North America
Percentage of students who were victims of school violence Female Male
30.5% 32.8% 30.1% 23.8% 6.9% 13.6% 6.3% 9.7%

Been bullied Bullied others Bullied cyberbullied Bullied cyberbullied
by messages* by pictures*
Percentage of students who were bullied, by type*
36.5%
29.4%
28.4%
19%
13.4%
Hit, kicked, Called Left Lies,

Sexual jokes
pushed names out rumours
Physical bullying Psychological bullying Sexual bullying
● Physical bullying ● Psychological bullying ● Sexual bullying

*Data available for Canada only.
39
Latin America and the Caribbean

Physical bullying is the most frequent type of bullying
Central America
reported by boys who have been bullied (13.6%), followed
Globally, the Central America sub-region has the lowest by sexual bullying (10.8%), and psychological bullying (5.6%).
prevalence of bullying, at 22.8% (range 19%-31.6%), and there The picture is different for girls. Sexual bullying (9.4%) and
is little difference in bullying prevalence between the sexes. psychological bullying (9.4%) are the most frequent types of
This is consistent with PISA data collected in 2015 in Costa bullying reported by girls who have been bullied, followed by
Rica and Mexico. physical bullying (5.4%). Students in South America report a
higher prevalence of psychological bullying than the global
Sexual bullying is the most frequent type of bullying for median of 5.5%. TERCE 2013 data from eight countries in the
both boys (15.3%) and girls (10.8%). Physical bullying is the sub-region show that students report more psychological
second most frequent type of bullying for boys (13.3%) and bullying than physical bullying and, as in Central America, this
psychological bullying is the second most frequent type may reflect difference in questions asked.
of bullying for girls (8.2%). Girls are far less likely to report
physical bullying (4.5%) than boys. The most frequent driver of bullying is physical appearance.
Differences between the sexes are not significant, with 14%
Overall, students in Central America report a higher of boys and 15.8% of girls reporting that they were bullied
prevalence of psychological bullying than the global because of their physical appearance. Boys (8.4%) are more
median of 5.5%. Data from the Third Regional Comparative likely than girls (5.6%) to report that bullying is related to
and Explanatory Study (TERCE), conducted in 2013 in four race, nationality or colour. Only 3.7% of boys and 3.9% of girls
countries in the sub-region, show that students report more report that it is related to their religion.
psychological bullying than physical bullying. This may reflect
differences in questions asked about bullying in the TERCE The overall prevalence of physical fights, at 31.3% (range
and the GSHS. 20.2%-39.4%), is below the global median of 36%, but
this masks significant differences between the sexes. The
Physical appearance is reported to be the main driver for prevalence of being involved in a physical fight is 45.3%
bullying by both boys (14.2%) and girls (24.2%), although the among boys compared with 20.8% among girls.
proportion of girls reporting this is far higher. Boys (11.2%) are
more likely than girls (8.4%) to report that bullying is related The overall prevalence of physical attacks, at 25.6%, is
to race, nationality or colour, while girls (4.8%) are more likely below the global median of 31.4%, and is the second lowest
than boys (2.2%) to report that bullying is related to religion. prevalence of any region. Again, however, there are significant
differences between the sexes, with boys reporting a higher
The prevalence of physical violence in schools in Central prevalence of physical attacks (34.1%) than girls (21.5%).
America is low relative to other regions. The overall prevalence
of physical fights, at 25.6% (range 22.1%-36%), is the second In terms of trends, South America has seen an overall decrease
lowest of all regions – only Asia has a lower prevalence – and in bullying in schools. Only one country, Uruguay, has shown a
Central America also has the lowest proportion of students significant decline in bullying, physical fights and physical attacks.
reporting being involved in a physical fight four or more times
in the past year (4.9%). There is, however, a significant difference
Caribbean
in prevalence between the sexes. Boys (33.9%) are twice as Globally, the Caribbean has the second lowest prevalence of
likely to report involvement in a physical fight as girls (16.9%). bullying, at 25% (range 13.3%-29.9%) of any region; only Central
America has a lower prevalence. The prevalence of bullying in
The overall prevalence of physical attacks in schools in Central
the Caribbean is similar in boys (25%) and in girls (24.8%).
America, at 20.5%, is the lowest of any region. The difference
between the sexes is less significant than for physical fights, Physical bullying is the most frequent type of bullying
with boys reporting only a slightly higher prevalence of reported by boys who have been bullied (23.9%), followed
physical attacks (21.7%) than girls (18%). by sexual bullying (9.8%) and psychological bullying (4.5%).
The picture is different for girls. Sexual bullying is the most
In terms of trends, Central America has seen an overall
frequent type of bullying reported by girls who have been
decrease in bullying in schools.
bullied (11.3%), followed by physical bullying (7.3%) and
South America psychological bullying (4.6%).
The prevalence of bullying in South America, at 30.2% Girls (25.7%) are far more likely than boys (12.9%) to report
(range 15.1%-47.4%), is slightly lower than the global median that bullying is related to their physical appearance. There was
of 32%. The prevalence of bullying is similar in boys (31.7%) not a significant difference between boys and girls reporting
and girls (29.3%). Data collected through PISA in 2015 in that bullying was related to race, nationality or colour (11.7%
five countries in the sub-region reveal a lower prevalence of versus 9.7%) or to religion (6% versus 3.2%).
bullying, ranging from 16.9% in Uruguay to 22.1% in Colombia.
40
In contrast to bullying, the prevalence of physical violence prevalence of physical fights (46.4%) than girls (28.6%) and a
is high in the Caribbean, especially among boys. The overall higher prevalence of physical attacks (41.9%) than girls (27.2%).
prevalence of physical fights, at 38.3% (range 25.9%-47.5%),
and of physical attacks, at 33.8% is higher than the global In terms of trends, the Caribbean has seen an overall
median (36% and 31.4%, respectively). There are significant decrease in bullying in schools. Only two countries, Jamaica
differences between the sexes, with boys reporting a higher and Trinidad and Tobago, have seen a significant decline in
bullying, physical fights and physical attacks. Anguilla has
seen a significant decline in physical fights.
Figure 26. Status of school violence and bullying in Latin America and the Caribbean
CENTRAL AMERICA Female Male

CARIBBEAN
26.0% 24.3% 33.9% 16.9% 21.7% 18.0% Percentage of students who were victims of school violence
13.3% 4.5% 15.3% 10.8% 8.1% 8.2%

Physical Sexual Psychological 25.0% 24.8% 46.4% 28.6% 41.9% 27.2%
(social exclusion) Bullying Physical fights Physical attacks
14.2% 24.2% 11.2% 8.4% 2.2% 4.8%

Physical Race, nationality or Religion
23.9% 7.3% 9.8% 11.3% 4.5% 4.6%
appearance colour Physical Sexual Psychological
(social exclusion)

SOUTH AMERICA
12.9% 25.7% 11.7% 9.7% 6.0% 3.2%

appearance colour
31.7% 29.3 45.3% 20.8 34.1% 21.5

13.6% 5.4% 10.7% 9.4% 5.6% 9.4%

Physical Sexual Psychological
(social exclusion)
14.0% 15.8% 8.4% 5.6% 3.7% 3.9%

appearance colour
41
Middle East and North Africa
Middle East North Africa

Globally, the Middle East region has the third highest Globally, the North African region has the second highest
prevalence of bullying overall, at 41.1% (range 17.5%-59.5%), prevalence of bullying, at 42.7% (range 30.6%-70%), and the
and the third highest prevalence of bullying both among second highest prevalence of bullying both among boys, at
boys, at 45.4%, and among girls, at 33.4%. 46%, and among girls, at 39%.
A similar proportion of boys who have been bullied report Physical bullying is the most frequent type of bullying
physical bullying (18.8%) and sexual bullying (18%) as the reported by boys (23.4%), and sexual bullying the second
most frequent type. The same pattern is seen for girls, with most frequent (13.6%). Sexual bullying is the most frequent
10.1% reporting that physical bullying and 10.8% reporting type of bullying reported by girls (17.9%), and physical
that sexual bullying were the most frequent forms. The Middle bullying the second most frequent (10.8%). Psychological
East has the highest proportion of boys reporting sexual bullying is the third most common type of bullying reported
bullying as the most frequent form of bullying of any region. by both boys and girls, with little difference between the sexes
Psychological bullying was the third most common form of (5.4% versus 6.3%).
bullying reported, by 3.7% of boys and 5.5% of girls who had
been bullied. Race, nationality or colour is the most common driver of
bullying for both boys (12.3%) and girls (11.8%) who have
In contrast to other regions, race, nationality or colour is the been bullied. Girls are slightly more likely than boys to report
most frequent driver of bullying reported by male students. that bullying is related to physical appearance (6.7% versus
Boys are more likely than girls to report that bullying is related 5.5%) or religion (6.3% versus 5.4%).
to race, nationality or colour (12.3% versus 8.2%). Physical
appearance comes second for boys (8.4%) while it is a slightly The prevalence of physical violence among boys, especially
more important driver for girls (9%). Religion is mentioned by of physical fights, is very high in North Africa. The overall
a smaller number of both boys and girls (6.1% versus 3%). prevalence of physical fights, at 46.3% (range 39.7%-57.8%),
is higher than the global median of 36%, and North Africa
The prevalence of physical violence among boys, especially has the highest prevalence of being in a physical fight of
of physical fights, is high in the Middle East. The overall any region. North Africa also has the highest proportion of
prevalence of physical fights, at 42.8% (range 37.1%-50.6%) students reporting being involved in a physical fight four
is higher than the global median of 36%, and the Middle East or more times in the past year (13.3%). There are significant
has the second highest prevalence of being in a physical fight differences between the sexes, with boys reporting a much
of any region – only North Africa reports a higher prevalence. higher prevalence of physical fights (61.7%) than girls (26.8%).
The Middle East also has the second highest proportion of
students reporting being involved in a physical fight four or The overall prevalence of physical attacks, at 38%, is also
more times in the past year (12.8%). The overall prevalence higher than the global median of 31.4%, and North Africa has
of physical attacks, at 31%, is similar to the global median of the second highest prevalence of physical attacks on students
31.4%. There are significant differences between the sexes, of any region. Again, there are significant differences between
however, with boys reporting a higher prevalence of physical the sexes, with boys reporting a higher prevalence of physical
fights (56%) than girls (29.9%), and a higher prevalence of attacks (49.4%) than girls (24.4%).
physical attacks (38.4%) than girls (23.6%). In terms of trends, North Africa is one of only two regions –
In terms of trends, the Middle East region has seen no sub-Saharan Africa is the other – that have seen an increase in
change in the prevalence of school bullying over time. Only the prevalence of bullying.
one country, Lebanon, has seen a decline in all three forms:
bullying, physical fights and physical attacks. Yemen has seen
a decline in physical fights and physical attacks. Oman and the
United Arab Emirates have seen a decline in physical attacks.
42
Figure 27. Status of school violence and bullying in Middle East and North Africa
MIDDLE EAST Female Male

45.4% 33.4% 56.0% 29.9% 38.4% 23.6%

18.8% 10.1% 18.0% 10.8% 3.7% 5.5%

8.4% 9.0% 12.3% 8.2% 6.1% 3.0%

NORTH AFRICA
46.0% 39.0% 61.7% 26.8% 49.4% 24.4%

23.4% 10.8% 13.6% 17.9% 4.3% 5.3%

5.5% 6.7% 12.3% 11.8% 5.4% 6.3%

43
Sub-Saharan Africa
Globally, sub-Saharan Africa is the region reporting the has seen a decline in bullying, physical fights and physical
highest prevalence of bullying, at 48.2% (range 26.9%-67.2%), attacks. Eswatini has seen a decline in bullying and physical
and the highest prevalence of bullying in both boys (47.7%) fights, Namibia has seen a decline in physical fights, and Benin
and girls (50.5%). Sub-Saharan Africa also has the highest has seen a decline in physical attacks.
proportion of students reporting being bullied on six or more
days in the previous month (11.3%). It is one of the only two Available data suggest that school-related sexual violence is
regions – North America is the other – where girls report a a problem in some countries in the region. In Nigeria, 26.6%
higher prevalence of bullying than boys. of boys said that their first experience of sexual violence was
perpetrated by a classmate or schoolmate, compared to 13%
Sub-Saharan Africa has the second highest proportion of of girls. The same trend was observed in Uganda, where 23.7%
students reporting physical bullying of any region. Physical of boys and 13.5% of girls reported the same; and in Malawi,
bullying is the most frequent type of bullying reported by all 19.2% of boys and 15.5% of girls (VACS). The prevalence of the
students who have been bullied (22.9%) and by both boys first instance of forced sex perpetrated by teachers against
(25.4%) and girls (18.7%). Sexual bullying is the second most female students in countries in Central Africa ranges from 0%
common type of bullying reported by boys (10%) and girls to 7.1%. It is much lower in Western Africa, ranging from 0.3%
(9.1%). Psychological bullying is the third most common to 1.9%, and in East and Southern Africa, ranging from 0% to
type of bullying reported by boys (5.2%) and girls (6.5%). The 1.5% (DHS).
difference between the sexes in the prevalence of these types
of bullying is not significant. The prevalence of physical violence perpetrated by teachers
also appears to be high in sub-Saharan Africa, although there
Overall, race, nationality or colour (14.3%) and physical is significant variation between countries. A study conducted
appearance (13.5%) are more frequently reported as drivers in five countries including three countries in sub-Saharan
of bullying than religion (8.8%). Girls (17.5%) are more likely Africa – Malawi, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania
than boys (11.7%) to report that bullying is related to their – identified teachers, particularly male teachers, as among
physical appearance, while boys (16%) are more likely than the perpetrators of physical violence experienced by children
girls (10.8%) to report that bullying is related to their race, (VACS). In the Good Schools Study in Uganda, more than 75%
nationality or colour. There is not a significant difference of 9-16 year olds reported physical violence from a teacher in
between the sexes in bullying related to religion (9.3% in boys the past year, the most common form of violence reported
and 8.7% in girls). by children in the study (Devries et al., 2018). However, DHS
data collected between 2005 and 2017, which are for females
The prevalence of physical fights in the region is 36.9% (range only, show lower reported prevalence of physical violence
19.4%-59.5%) and the prevalence of physical attacks is 36.4%. perpetrated by teachers. Overall, among women aged over
The prevalence of physical fights is similar to the global 15 years who had experienced physical violence, 6.2% in
median of 36%, but the prevalence of physical attacks is West and Central Africa and 5.1% in East and Southern Africa
higher than the global median of 31.4%. Boys in sub-Saharan reported that the perpetrator was a teacher, but in West and
Africa report a higher prevalence of physical fights (44.6%) Central Africa, prevalence ranged from 0.1% to as high as
than girls (31.9%). There is not a significant difference between 17.9%, and in East and Southern Africa from 1.1% to as high
the sexes in the prevalence of physical attacks (36.6% in boys as 19.3% (DHS). In a recent report on corporal punishment,
and 35.8% in girls). which is a form of physical violence, in 63 countries, four
In terms of trends, sub-Saharan Africa is one of only two countries in sub-Saharan Africa had rates of more than 90%:
regions – North Africa is the other – that have seen an increase Botswana, Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania and
in the prevalence of bullying. No country in sub-Saharan Africa Uganda (Gershoff, 2017).
44
Figure 28. Status of school violence and bullying in Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa Female Male

47.7% 50.5% 44.6% 31.9% 36.6% 35.8%

25.4% 18.7% 10.0% 9.1% 5.2% 6.5%

Physical Sexual Psychological
(social exclusion)
11.7% 17.5% 16.0% 10.8% 9.3% 8.7%

45
3. What are the characteristics of effective national

responses to school violence and bullying?
As the data in Chapter 2 show, some countries made Three additional case studies were commissioned to
considerable progress in reducing school violence and document the experience of countries where quantitative
bullying, while others have been able to maintain low levels of data do not show yet the impact of national responses in
school violence and bullying over time. terms of reduction of the prevalence of school violence and
bullying, but where innovative strategies have been put in
This chapter looks at the key factors that contribute to place in key areas such as the routine monitoring of school
effective national responses to school violence and bullying, violence and bullying by the education sector, the systematic
based on eight case studies of countries where the prevalence reporting of incidents of school violence at national level,
of school bullying or physical violence, or both, has decreased; or the scaling-up of successful interventions currently
or where it has been low for a long period of time (Figure 30). implemented in a limited number of schools.31
The selection of countries was based mostly on analysis of In addition to success factors, this chapter presents factors
trend data collected through the GSHS or the HBSC. The case that may have limited the effectiveness of national responses
study countries represent a significant sample of countries to school violence and bullying, which key informants were
where there has been a decrease in the prevalence of school asked to identify in all 11 case study countries.
violence and bullying according to these data: seven out
of 35.30 These countries were also selected to represent This chapter also assesses whether success factors are
different regions, levels of socio-economic development and consistent with existing conceptual frameworks developed
education systems. Country case studies were commissioned by the UN and partners to improve understanding of school
by UNESCO to collect qualitative data from selected key violence and bullying, and of effective responses, including
informants who were presented with the quantitative data the guiding principles or key elements of a comprehensive
on the prevalence of school violence and bullying in their response to school violence.
respective countries, and asked to explain why this prevalence
had decreased or remained low. Finally, the chapter looks at school violence and bullying
within the broader context of violence in society, and analyses
This report therefore analyses the effectiveness of responses whether there may be a relationship between the prevalence
to school violence and bullying from a country perspective of violence in schools and the prevalence of violence in
using trend data from nationally representative samples that society in the eight case study countries where school
show impact on a national scale, measured by a decrease violence has been low or has been reduced.
in the overall prevalence of school bullying and/or physical
violence. The report identifies and compares factors that
make national responses effective in different country
contexts. This approach is original for various reasons: in the
past, the analysis of successful responses to school violence
and bullying was mostly based on data from evaluations of
relatively small-scale interventions in selected countries; or
successful national responses were described for individual
countries only, e.g. Finland or Sweden, without elements of
comparison with other countries, particularly in other regions.
31 UNESCO commissioned 13 case studies in total; it was not possible to complete

case studies for Fiji and Trinidad and Tobago. In some countries, it was difficult
to identify key informants able to provide a long-term perspective on the
national response to school violence and bullying, including actions taken prior
30 Eswatini, Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Sweden and Uruguay. Only to or during the period for which trend data were available, or to provide an
data for the Republic of Korea are data from a national survey. explanation for why prevalence had decreased or remained low.
46
Figure 29. Trends in school violence and bullying in eight case study countries32
Country Survey years
2003 39.6% 27.8%

Eswatini
2013 32.1% 20.4%
2002 26.9%
Italy
2014
14.8%
2010 40.2% 50% 43.8%
Jamaica
2017 25.5% 34.5% 26.9%
Korea,
2014 46.9%
Republic of*
2018 29.5%
2005 33.9% 45.9% 40.5%
Lebanon
2017
17.5% 40.2% 20.9%
2002 29.1%
Netherlands
2014
22.1%
2002
14.6%
Sweden
2014
12.5%
2006
23.0% 32.2% 19.2%
Uruguay
2012
19.1% 25.9% 14.9%
Data sources: GSHS and HBSC.
32 Except for the Republic of Korea, trend data were collected through the GSHS or HBSC. Both surveys use nationally-representative samples although, in some case study
countries, key informants questioned whether the sample was representative of all schools, e.g. private schools, faith-based schools, schools for refugees. Trend data
from the GSHS and HBSC were confirmed by data from other surveys and studies in a number of case study countries.
47
3.1 Success factors Commitments to tackling school violence and bullying also
need to be matched by allocation of resources. In Uruguay, for
The list of success factors presented in this section is based example, efforts to tackle school violence as part of broader
on comparative analysis of responses of key informants in reforms in the education sector have been supported by
all eight case study countries that have been able to reduce increased investment in education.
school violence or maintain low levels of school violence
and bullying over time, on what factors have contributed to Collaboration between the education sector
success – both within and beyond the education sector –, and a wide range of partners
and which ones have had the greatest impact. Only success
factors that have been identified in all eight countries or most Data from all eight countries show that an effective response
countries are described here, assuming that factors that have to school violence and bullying has largely been driven and
proved effective in all those very diverse contexts may be also led by the education sector. However, national policies and
effective in other countries. strategies that take a multi-sector approach are found in many
of the case study countries. In Eswatini, for example, there is
Strong political leadership and a robust legal a national multi-sector strategy to address violence against
and policy framework to address violence children, that builds on multi-sector efforts to address gender-
based violence (GBV) as well as on data generated by the
against children including school violence VACS in 2007, which highlighted the scale of violence against
Political leadership and commitment to preventing and children in the country.
responding to school violence and bullying is critical,
In some countries, specific policies and strategies to address
both overall and in the education sector. For example, in
school violence and bullying set out the roles of other sectors
Jamaica, the Prime Minister, who previously served as the
or reflect engagement with non-education sectors. Sweden
Minister for Education, has provided strong leadership for
has a comprehensive multi-sector approach and, in Lebanon,
proposed amendments to the Education Act to ban corporal
the Ministry of Education and Higher Education has worked
punishment in schools and for promotion of the use of
closely with other ministries, including justice and social
positive discipline. A related factor to this is recognition
affairs, in policy development. In Jamaica, the Ministry of
of the need to address school violence and bullying in
Education highlighted the importance of its collaboration
order to ensure universal access to quality education. In
with the Office of the Children’s Advocate and the Jamaica
Uruguay, efforts to tackle school violence have been part of
Police Force in investigation of cases of school violence and
wider reforms in the education sector to improve access to
bullying and in mentoring and mediation.
education, while, in Lebanon, the Policy for the Protection
of Students in the School Environment (2017) reflects Countries also identified education sector collaboration with
government commitment to SDG 4. a range of non-government partners at national level as
an important success factor. Partnerships with civil society
A supportive legal and policy framework is essential, to convey
organizations, academic institutions, professional associations
a clear message that violence and bullying are unacceptable
and the media – and, in some countries, with UN and donor
and to provide the foundation for planning, implementation,
agencies – have strengthened advocacy, research and
and monitoring and evaluation of the national response. All
evidence, policy and planning, programme implementation,
eight case study countries have laws that address violence
and monitoring and evaluation. In Italy, Lebanon, the
against children in general and education sector policies that
Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and Sweden, academic
include school violence and bullying. Sweden was the first
institutions have played a key role in improving the availability
country in the world to legally prohibit all forms of violence
of data and in evaluating interventions. In Eswatini, Italy,
against children and its 2010 Education Act obliges schools to
Republic of Korea and Sweden, NGOs have been central to
implement measures to prevent and respond to it. Similarly, in
developing supporting materials for teachers and providing
the Netherlands, the Anti-Bullying Law ensures that action to
care and support for students affected by school violence and
prevent bullying is on the school agenda.
bullying.
Another factor that is common to many of the case study
countries is an emphasis within national policies on a positive Implementing school-based programmes and
school and classroom environment, including the use of interventions that are based on evidence of
positive discipline. This is an approach that goes beyond the effectiveness
prevention of school violence and bullying alone, and aims
to ensure that all elements that make life in school a positive The two countries that have succeeded in both reducing
experience for learners and school staff are in place. and maintaining a low prevalence of school violence and
48
bullying – the Netherlands and Sweden – are also the two In a number of countries, such as Eswatini, Jamaica, Lebanon
countries that have taken a clear evidence-based approach, and Uruguay, there has also been a strong emphasis on
drawing on systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of improving teachers’ skills in classroom management,
existing programmes and interventions. The Netherlands, including creating a positive classroom culture and using
for example, conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness positive discipline. In Eswatini, teacher training has moved
of school-based anti-bullying programmes in 2015 to assess towards supporting teachers to use positive discipline and
their impact on the prevalence of bullying and on improving to create a classroom culture where children participate
the classroom environment. The meta-analysis reviewed 86 in setting the rules. In Uruguay, training in use of positive
programmes and identified ten that were based on scientific discipline and conflict mediation includes inviting teachers
evidence. to reflect on their own practices, including classroom
management, and encouraging them to take an approach
Italy, which has achieved a significant decrease in the that focuses on the rights of children.
prevalence of bullying, has also invested significantly in
research and evaluation, including an analysis of a wide Focus on a safe and positive school and
range of anti-bullying interventions and programmes and
an evaluation of the efficacy of interventions. The evaluation
classroom environment
showed that the two main school-based programmes, No The school environment encompasses both the physical
Trap!, beginning in 2008, and KiVA beginning in 2013, which environment, including safety and security, and the
had previously been implemented in other countries, were psychological environment, including the school climate,
effective in achieving sustained reductions in school violence classroom management and discipline, and the relationship
and bullying in Italian schools. between teachers and students and between students.
A common feature across case study countries is a policy
Availability of data on school violence and commitment, reflected in implementation at the school
bullying and systematic monitoring of level, to promoting a safe and positive school and classroom
responses environment. For example, policies in Jamaica, the Republic
of Korea, Sweden and Uruguay refer to promoting a safe
Routine data collection to monitor the prevalence of school learning environment and a positive school climate or culture,
violence and bullying and to monitor implementation of and policies in Eswatini, Jamaica, Lebanon and Uruguay refer
programmes to address it is a critical factor. In the Republic specifically to promoting use of positive discipline.
of Korea, a national survey of students’ perceptions and
experiences of school violence and bullying has been In Jamaica, the School Wide Positive Behavioural Intervention
conducted twice a year since 2012. The Netherlands has a tool and Support framework supports schools to introduce
for schools to use to monitor bullying. positive behaviours, such as respectfulness, safety and
responsibility. In Uruguay, the Living Together in Schools
Sweden has a national system to monitor school safety and programme, which aims to strengthen social integration,
the implementation of preventive measures, with a strong coexistence and sense of belonging in schools, has a broad
focus on accountability through making reports available to objective of improving the school climate. In Italy, successful
schools and online. Jamaica has established an independent school-based interventions associated with a decrease
National Education Inspectorate to evaluate the performance in bullying include improved playground supervision,
and accountability of the education sector; one of the disciplinary methods, classroom rules and classroom
evaluation domains is the quality of provisions to support management, and support for teachers.
students’ safety, health and well-being. The Republic of Korea
has developed assessment tools and indices to regularly In most countries, the main emphasis is on the psychological
monitor and evaluate the response at the school level. environment. However, Jamaica and the Republic of Korea
also have a strong focus on strengthening school safety
Training for teachers on school violence and and security. In Jamaica, the 2015 revision of the Security
and Safety Policy Guidelines included modifications to
bullying and positive classroom management support schools on security, discipline, interventions and risk
Training teachers to implement measures set out in national management: schools have also been encouraged to develop
policies and plans on school violence and bullying is a factor security and safety action plans. In the Republic of Korea, new
common to all eight countries. Training has emphazised the schools are required to prevent and address violence using
importance of increasing teachers’ understanding of school Criminal Prevention Through Environmental Design and all
violence and bullying and ensuring that they have the skills schools are required to introduce CCTV. Both Jamaica and the
required to prevent, identify and respond to incidents. Republic of Korea also work closely with the police, and the
latter has school police officers.
49
Commitment to child rights and Systematic approaches to involving all

empowerment, and student participation stakeholders in the school community
Another factor common to all countries with an effective The country case studies also illustrated the importance of
national response is a strong commitment to child rights, participation of all stakeholders in the school community,
listening to children, and the empowerment and meaningful including head teachers, teachers, other school staff, parents
participation of students in initiatives to tackle school violence and students, local authorities and professionals in other
and bullying. sectors, to enable successful implementation of programmes
at the school level, especially in those that have taken a
Italy, Sweden and Uruguay have an explicit policy focus on child whole-school approach.
rights. For example, interventions in Sweden focus on ensuring
that children are aware of their rights, including the right to be Sweden takes a holistic, systematic approach to involving
safe and to feel secure. In Uruguay, the Living Together in Schools students, teachers, other school staff, parents and the wider
programme is based on the human rights and empowerment of school community. Uruguay’s approach involves ‘participation
children and the participation of students. councils’ held several times a year, which bring together
students, parents, teachers and other school staff elected
Eswatini, Italy, Sweden and Uruguay emphazise the by the school community. These councils are involved in
importance of the empowerment and participation of discussions about their school or learning institution including
children and young people. In Eswatini, the NGO Swaziland activities to improve living together. In Lebanon, the Ministry
Action Group against Abuse (SWAGAA) has given high priority of Education and Higher Education explicitly promotes
in its work in schools to informing and empowering children partnerships between schools and parents.
and young people to speak out against violence and abuse.
In Sweden, experience has shown that the most successful Support and referral for students affected by
interventions promote inclusive student participation in
identifying and addressing problems, and take a ‘children as
school violence and bullying
experts’ approach. Mechanisms to provide support in schools and referral to
other services including health care, social protection, and law
More specifically, involvement of all students, including
enforcement were also identified as essential components of
bystanders, and use of peer approaches have been a critical
an effective response for children and adolescents affected
success factor in countries that have made significant
by school violence and bullying. Approaches to support and
progress. In Italy, school-based interventions such as NoTrap!
referral vary across case study countries, although some
and KiVA include peer approaches that involve all children and
common themes emerged, including providing access to
young people in a school, including bystanders. One of the
trained counsellors, offering care and support, and promoting
core principles of KiVA is to motivate bystanders to stand up
mediation and conciliation, with peer approaches used for
for the victim, and to work with all students, not just victims
counselling and mediation in some countries.
and bullies, to ensure that they view school violence and
bullying as unacceptable behaviour. NoTrap! is a peer-led peer Lebanon, for example, has recruited specialist school
education model that addresses bullying and cyberbullying counsellors, Eswatini has provided counselling training for
and works with all students in a school. teachers, and Jamaica has trained guidance counsellors to
support students in and out of school. Jamaica also provides
Sweden also gives high priority to participation and
mediation support. In the Republic of Korea, the We +
empowerment of bystanders. In the Republic of Korea,
Education + Emotional project offers diagnosis, treatment
student participation in the prevention of and response
and counselling to victims and perpetrators of school
to school violence and bullying is promoted through peer
violence and bullying; to support the project, the number of
counselling, peer conciliation and mediation, and ‘student
professional counsellors and teachers who have been trained
courts’. In Uruguay, meetings involving students from
in counselling has increased. The response to school violence
secondary, technical and vocational education are organised
and bullying also includes peer conciliation and mediation.
every year at local, regional and national levels, and these aim
to foster the active participation of students in education, and In Uruguay, inter-disciplinary support teams play a central
to facilitate social integration, co-existence, and a sense of role in addressing incidents of school violence. Schools can
belonging. call upon these teams, comprised of social workers, social
educators and psychologists, when incidents of violence
occur to provide support to those involved in the incident.
In Eswatini, support and access to justice are provided by
SWAGGA through its work in schools.
50
3.2 Constraining factors

Implementing programmes and interventions Reporting of incidents of school violence and
at scale bullying
In some case study countries, programmes and interventions There are gaps in many case study countries in systems
only cover a proportion of schools; in others, only a limited for reporting incidents of school violence and bullying.
number of teachers have been trained. The experience of The example of Peru, below, illustrates one approach to
Uganda, below, which is in the process of trying to scale up addressing this, and also shows that the introduction of a
interventions that have been shown to make a difference, systematic approach to reporting can result in an apparent
highlights some key issues and challenges. increase in prevalence as the true scale of the problem is
captured.
Box 6. Uganda: Challenges to scale up

The Government of Uganda has put in place policies to protect children against violence. In 2006, corporal punishment was banned
in schools and, in 2015, the National Strategic Plan on the Elimination of Violence Against Children was launched. The Ministry of
Education has developed a school-based programme, Journeys through Uganda, which focuses on GBV. Other partners and NGOs are also
implementing programmes to prevent and respond to school violence and bullying although many of these are only being implemented
in a small number of schools. One of these, The Good School Toolkit by Raising Voices, has been evaluated and shown to be one of the
most effective.
The Ministry of Education and Raising Voices agree that scale-up will require using evidence-based approaches to address school violence
and bullying in all schools. This implies shifting mind-sets of those teaching at and attending teacher training colleges, and of all teachers,
to increase their understanding of the responsibility they have in addressing school violence and their capacity to implement programmes
to prevent school violence, including the use of positive discipline. However, there are a number of challenges to implementing
programmes at scale. These include:
ll Providing strong national leadership to ensure that the many different partners in Uganda take a harmonized and evidence-
based approach to preventing and addressing school violence and bullying; consistency is a challenge as different implementing
organizations, funders and other stakeholders have varying positions on expected strategies or outcomes. There is a need to
reconcile different approaches, for example, between the whole-school, holistic approach advocated by Raising Voices, and less
comprehensive approaches taken by some other partners
ll Implementing a multi-sector approach at district level that brings key stakeholders together to take responsibility for the
problem, and ensuring that districts and schools own and drive the process
ll Securing adequate financial resources to build the capacity of students, teachers, schools and communities
ll Integrating work on school violence and bullying with wider child protection initiatives and structures, in order to support
children to gain confidence to speak out if they are victims of violence
ll Strengthening collaboration between all ministries responsible for child protection, as well as coordination between
government, donors and NGOs
ll Strengthening and coordinating reporting, routine monitoring of school violence and bullying and evaluation of programmes
51
Box 7. Peru: Improving reporting of and responding to school violence

The Ministry of Education in Peru launched the Specialised System against School Violence (SiseVE33) in 2013. SiseVE is a specialised
platform that aims to ‘register, attend to and monitor cases of violence in schools’. SiseVE involves all levels of the education system –
national, regional and local education management and school management. Schools register with SiSeVE and cases of violence in
the school setting can then be reported, by victims, witnesses or others. The system allows follow-up actions to be recorded as well
as registration of cases and it also provides guidance on strategies to prevent and monitor school violence and bullying. The person
in a school who is responsible for SiseVE must record the actions taken in each case, and the regional and local education authorities
can monitor each school registry to ensure that this happens. To protect the identity of the victims, data are confidential and only
accessible to specific staff in the Ministry of Education.
In 2013, when SiseVE was launched, only 907 cases of school violence and bullying were reported. The number has since increased
steadily each year, reaching 5,591 cases in 2017. This reflects both the improvement in the system and, in parallel, government
implementation of large-scale social media communications campaigns to increase awareness of school violence. Evaluation of one
of these campaigns, “Díle alto al bullying” (Say stop to bullying), found that it had helped to reduce the acceptability of bullying.
Peru’s experience shows that the combination of an effective system to report cases of school violence, together with effective
communication campaigns to raise awareness, can dramatically increase reporting.
33 In Spanish, “Sí se ve” means “Yes, you can see it”.
Providing support and referral services Monitoring of school violence and bullying
In many of the case study countries, prevention has been Not all case study countries have routine systems in place to
the main focus of school violence and bullying policies and monitor school violence and bullying or the prevalence of
programmes. Relatively few countries have taken a systematic different forms of violence; in many of these countries, data
approach to the establishment of support and referral are only collected through international surveys such as the
mechanisms. In the Netherlands, for example, the need for GSHS and HBSC. In Côte D’Ivoire, see below, the Ministry
better coordination between education and social care was of National Education, Technical Education and Vocational
highlighted. Training has taken steps to improve collection of data on
school violence and bullying through the national Education
Management Information System (EMIS).
Box 8. Côte d’Ivoire: Integrating school violence and bullying indicators in the Education
Management Information System
Following the publication of a national study showing high rates of violence in schools in Côte d'Ivoire, the Ministry of National
Education, Technical Education and Vocational Training (MENET-FP) decided to integrate school violence and bullying indicators into
the Education Management Information System (EMIS). Steps included: identification of key indicators by the education sector and
UN partners ; training those responsible for collecting, reporting and analysing data at all levels; developing a framework to harmonise
data across different departments within the MENET-FP (e.g. strategy, planning, statistics); and establishing a working group involving
all relevant ministries (e.g. education, health, child protection, social security, justice) to coordinate child protection activities in schools
and promote reporting of violence in schools.
Key indicators collect data on physical, psychological and sexual violence perpetuated by peers and by teachers. Indicators include:
proportion of pupils (primary, secondary) who are victims of physical violence by other pupils; proportion of pupils (primary,
secondary) who are victims of psychological violence by other pupils; proportion of pupils (primary, secondary) who are victims of
sexual violence by other pupils; and the same again for all three forms of violence but where the perpetrator is a teacher. Results will
be disseminated via the "Pocket School Statistics" for the school year, showing the number of students who are victims of violence at
primary and secondary school level, by age, form of violence, and perpetrator. It is expected that this information will raise awareness
of the problem and will be used to inform national, local and school level action to address school violence and bullying.
Côte d'Ivoire is the first country in West and Central Africa to collect data on school violence through the routine annual school census,
and it has provided an example for other countries in the region to follow. Experience in Côte D’Ivoire highlights the importance of
national commitment and ownership, strong leadership from the education ministry, support from partners for successful integration
of school violence indicators in the EMIS, and the need for capacity building at all levels to ensure that the EMIS provides reliable
statistics.
52
Evaluating the effectiveness of programmes Preventing and responding to new types of

and interventions bullying
Relatively few of the case study countries systematically Relatively few case study countries provide data on
evaluate the effectiveness of school violence and bullying cyberbullying or strategies to address it. Only two countries,
programmes and interventions or the factors that contribute Italy and Lebanon, report teacher training on online safety
to reducing the prevalence of school violence and bullying. and prevention and reporting of cyberbullying.
Reaching children and young people who Sustaining interventions to prevent and
are at increased risk of school violence and respond to school violence and bullying
bullying Some case study countries noted that keeping school
There is limited data in case study countries on the prevalence violence and bullying on the agenda is a challenge in contexts
of violence and bullying among students who may be more where there is an increasing emphasis on school results and
vulnerable. However, available evidence suggests that, academic achievements, resulting in a focus on cognitive skills
even in countries with a decreasing or low prevalence of at the expense of socio-emotional skills. This is despite clear
school violence and bullying overall, some sub-groups of evidence to show that strengthening students’ social and
students report a higher prevalence of victimization. These emotional skills can help to reduce bullying and violence and
include students perceived to be gender non-conforming, their negative impact on learning outcomes. Related to this,
including LGBT students, students with disabilities, and the extent to which school violence and bullying is integrated
migrant and refugee students. In Uruguay, for example, a into pre-service teacher training and school curricula in order
study in Montevideo in 2015 showed that 31.3% of children to ensure sustainability, also varies across case study countries.
with disabilities reported being victims of bullying while the
overall prevalence of bullying was 20.9%. Also in Uruguay, a
survey among LGBT students in 2016 revealed that this group 3.3 Consistency between country
is much more vulnerable to bullying than other students. The success factors and global
Netherlands’ case study noted that more research is needed conceptual frameworks
on the effectiveness of anti-bullying programmes for children
with additional support needs. In Lebanon, the crisis in Syrian During the last few years, the UN and partners have
Arab Republic has resulted in a large influx of refugees, developed conceptual frameworks to improve understanding
increasing the number of refugee children in public schools. of school violence and bullying, and of effective responses,
Lebanon has put in place a dual system in public schools, including what should be the guiding principles or key
with some Syrian refugee children attending school in the elements of a comprehensive response to school violence,
morning together with other children who are not refugees, based on existing evidence. These elements are described, for
and others attending school in the afternoon in lessons that example, in the Global Guidance on School-Related Gender-
are only for Syrian students. There is currently no data on the Based Violence (UNESCO and UN Women, 2016), the Global
respective impact of these two different approaches on the Status Report on School Violence and Bullying (UNESCO,
prevalence of school violence and bullying experienced by 2017), the global report on education sector responses to
refugee students. In the Republic of Korea, informants noted violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or
that little research has been conducted among students from expression (UNESCO, 2016), or in reports published by the
multi-cultural or refugee backgrounds who are perceived to Office of the United Nations Special Representative of the
be more vulnerable. Secretary-General on Violence Against Children (UNGA, 2016
& 2018).
53
A comparison of the success factors identified through the For example, in Eswatini, success is attributed to a
case studies commissioned for this report and of existing combination of national dialogue and commitment, based on
conceptual frameworks, reveals that success factors are research and data, a multi-sectoral approach that builds on
broadly consistent with most key elements of an effective earlier work on gender-based violence, a strong partnership
response already described in the frameworks that are with civil society, training for teachers, and school-based
available (Figure 30). However, the evidence from case studies interventions to empower students and provide care and
also shows that some countries have managed to reduce support. In Italy, success reflects robust legislation and
school violence and bullying without having in place all of the policies, considerable investment in research and evaluation,
elements of what has been described as a “comprehensive” evidence-based programming, and a focus on strengthening
response; and that each country has a slightly different peer relationships and the active participation of all students.
combination of success factors/key elements of an effective
response, depending on the socio-cultural context which In the Republic of Korea, progress has been achieved through
influences the education sector. multi-sector plans focused on prevention of school violence
and bullying that include interventions to create safe learning
environments, change the culture of schools, and respond to
Figure 30: Conceptual framework for an effective national and refer cases of school violence and bullying, working with
response to school violence and bullying both the victims and the perpetrators.
Key elements in maintaining a low prevalence of school

violence and bullying in Sweden have included a multi-sector
strategy that has encompassed a shift from an individual
approach to a more holistic, structural approach where
the whole school community is responsible for addressing
Leadership: Safe physical and the problem. Sweden has a robust legal framework and
laws, policies and psychological school
a strong focus on child rights, has taken a systematic and
education reforms environment
evidence-based approach, and has a transparent national
system to monitor school safety. Research has been used
to identify approaches that reduce school bullying and
violence, including creating a positive and inclusive classroom
environment, promoting positive interaction between
Curriculum, teaching Reporting mechanisms, peers, treating children as experts, and targeting the role of
and learning counselling and support bystanders in preventing bullying.
services and referral
In Uruguay, the decrease in school violence and bullying
is attributed to a focus on promoting a positive school
climate and positive discipline, related training and support
for teachers, and promotion of the participation and
empowerment of students within a framework that promotes
human rights in general and children’s rights in particular. The
Partnerships, fact that the Living Together in Schools programme has been
Evidence: Monitoring of
participation and
school violence and implemented in all schools has also been critical. In addition,
empowerment
bullying and other programmes are thought to have contributed to the
evaluation of responses decrease, including programmes designed to improve the
quality of education overall, including the school climate and
Source: Adapted from UNESCO & UN Women, 2016 (p. 36). learning outcomes, particularly in schools in disadvantaged
communities. These programmes have strengthened the links
between the community, families and schools and increased
the ratio of teachers to pupils in primary schools.
54
3.4 Relationship between the The GPI is a composite of 23 indicators.34 Based on the
most recent report, which presents the GPI ranking for 163
prevalence of violence in society and countries and includes 2018 findings, the eight case study
in schools countries are ranked as follows: Sweden (14), the Netherlands
(23), Uruguay (37) and Italy (38) are the most peaceful; the
A common assumption is that violence in schools would
Republic of Korea (49) and Eswatini (72) are ranked as less
reflect violence in the community, as schools are not isolated
peaceful, and Jamaica (90) and Lebanon (147) are ranked as
from the rest of society. Based on that assumption, one could
the least peaceful.
also think that it may be easier to prevent and address school
violence and bullying in societies where levels of violence in However, the value of the GPI in analyzing the relationship
society are low. between “peace” in a country and levels of school violence
should be considered in light of the indicators it uses. For
This section considers whether or not there might be a
example, some of the indicators negatively affect the ranking
relationship between the prevalence of violence in schools
of countries like Lebanon and the Republic of Korea because
and the prevalence of violence in society. In order to compare
of the context in their respective regions, although this does
violence in schools and violence in society for the eight case
not have a direct impact on schools. For these two countries,
study countries where school violence has been low over time
the homicide rate is a more useful indicator, and shows that
or has been reduced, the section draws on the one hand on
both countries have very low levels of violence in society.
GSHS and HBSC data on the prevalence of bullying in schools,
Taking this into consideration, the best ranked countries in
and on the other hand on two measures: the Global Burden
the GPI - i.e., most peaceful - are also those countries that have
of Disease data for homicide rates and the Global Peace Index
managed to keep low levels of bullying in their schools.
(GPI) country ranking.
Both measures therefore suggest that countries with lower
The homicide rate is one of the core indicators used to
levels of violence overall are also likely to have lower levels of
measure violence in society. Among the eight case study
school violence and bullying. This has informed the approach
countries, those with the lowest prevalence of school bullying
taken in Jamaica, where there has been considerable
are also those with the lowest homicide rates (Italy, Lebanon,
emphasis on reducing violence in wider society, and national
the Netherlands, Sweden and Uruguay), while those with
and community anti-violence initiatives may have made an
a higher prevalence of school bullying also have a higher
important contribution to reducing the prevalence of violence
homicide rate (Eswatini and Jamaica) (Figure 31).
and bullying in schools.
Figure 31. Victims of intentional homicide in the case
study countries, 2016 (per 100,000 population)
Uruguay 7.7
Sweden 1,1
Netherlands 0,6
Lebanon 4.0
Republic of Korea 0.7
Jamaica 47
34 Number and duration of internal conflicts; Number of deaths from external
Italy 0,7 organised conflicts; Number of deaths from internal organised conflicts;
Number, duration, and role in external conflicts; Intensity of organized internal
conflicts; Relations with neighbouring countries; Level of perceived criminality
Eswatini* 17.3 in society; Number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of
population; Political instability; Impact of terrorism; Political terror; Number
of homicides per 100,000 people; Level of violent crime; Likelihood of violent
* Data of 2010.
demonstrations; Number of jailed persons per 100,000 people; Number of
Data source: UNODC Statistics Online (https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/ internal security officers and police per 100,000 people; Military expenditure
intentional-homicide-victims). Retrieved 15 January 2019 as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP); Number of armed-services
personnel per 100,000; Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons
as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people; Volume of transfers of major
conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people; Financial
contribution to UN peacekeeping missions; Nuclear and heavy weapons
capability; Ease of access to small arms and light weapons.
55
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Conclusions or low prevalence of school violence and bullying to specific

factors or combinations of factors.
Countries that have succeeded in reducing school violence
and bullying, or maintaining a low prevalence, have a number Country case studies also highlight the importance of
of factors in common. Key factors include: the context. Differences in administrative structures, the
education system and types of schools will affect the extent
ll Strong political leadership, a robust legal and policy to which factors that appear to contribute to success in
framework, and consistent policies on violence against one context may be feasible of effective in another. For
children, school violence and bullying and related issues. example, the administrative structure of a country and
of the education sector will influence the level at which
ll Collaboration between the education sector and a
decisions are made about issues such as curricula, training
wide range of partners at national level, including non-
and resource allocation, and implementation of prevention
education sector ministries, research institutions and
and response interventions, reporting, monitoring and
civil society organizations.
evaluation. Socio-cultural differences between countries will
ll Commitment to promoting a safe and positive school also have implications for the acceptability of interventions.
climate and classroom environment, including the use For example, the introduction of CCTV and the presence of
of positive discipline. police officers are socially acceptable in the Republic of Korea,
but this may not be the case in other countries. Finally, other
ll Programmes and interventions that are based on data suggest that there may be a relationship between the
research and evidence of effectiveness and impact on prevalence of violence in wider society and the prevalence of
school violence and bullying. violence in schools in some contexts, and national responses
may also need to take this into account.
ll Strong commitment to child rights, empowerment and
participation of children.
ll Involvement and participation of all stakeholders in the 4.2 Recommendations

school community.
The findings of this report on the status of school violence
ll Training and ongoing support for teachers. and bullying, and the evidence from case study countries
about factors that contribute to success in reducing the
ll Mechanisms to provide support and referral to other prevalence of school violence and bullying, reinforce the
services for students affected by school violence and recommendations of the 2016 and 2018 Reports of the UN
bullying. Secretary-General to the UN General Assembly on Protecting
Children from Bullying. In line with these recommendations,
ll Effective systems for reporting and monitoring school
there is a need to:
violence and bullying.
ll ensure that legislation is in place to safeguard the rights
The evidence from the eight case study countries about
of children and to underpin policies to prevent and
factors that contribute to success is consistent with global
respond to school violence and bullying;
evidence and with global conceptual frameworks that
have tried to identify the key elements of an effective and ll improve the availability of accurate, reliable and
comprehensive response to school violence and bullying. The disaggregated data and implement evidence-based
case study countries appear to share many of these elements, initiatives that are informed by sound research;
although it is important to note that case study countries
have achieved considerable success without having every one ll train and support teachers to prevent and respond to
of these elements in place, and each has a slightly different school violence and bullying;
combination of factors. In addition, in the absence of rigorous
evidence, it is difficult to attribute reduction in prevalence
56
ll promote whole-school approaches that engage the These recommendations are also reflected in the Safe to Learn
wider community, including students, teachers, other Campaign’s Call to Action that is being launched in tandem
school staff, parents and local authorities; with this report, and which highlights the need to implement
policy and legislation, strengthen prevention and response
ll provide information and support to children to enable at the school level, shift social norms and change behaviour,
them to speak up and seek support; generate and use evidence, and invest resources effectively.
ll promote the meaningful participation of children in The Safe to Learn Campaign, which has the goal of ending all
efforts to prevent and respond to school violence and violence in schools by 2024, is an initiative of the members
bullying; of the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children.
It aims to bring together existing efforts to end violence in
ll give priority to children who are especially vulnerable, schools and build a movement of governments, partners and
as a result of race, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual communities committed to ensuring that all children are safe
orientation; to learn, wherever they may live.
ll establish child-sensitive reporting, complaint and

counselling mechanisms and restorative approaches.
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com
57
Annex 1.
References
Arace, A., Scarzello, D. and Occelli, C. 2013. Pratiche educative Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., et al. 2005. Measuring poly-
genitoriali e orientamento alla punizione: un confronto victimization using the JVQ. Child Abuse & Neglect,
tra italiani e immigrati. Maltrattamento e abuso 29(11), 1297–1312.
all’infanzia, 15(1), pp. 37-57.
Fry, D., Lannen, P., Vanderminden, J., et al. 2017. Child
Baldry, A. 2003. Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic Protection and Disability: Methodological and practical
violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(7), pp. 713-732. challenges for research. Protecting Children and Young
People series. Edinburgh: Dunedin Press.
Bardi, M. and Borgoginni-Tarli, S. 2001. A survey on parent
-child conflict resolution: Intrafamily violence in Italy. Fulu, E., Warner, X., Miedemer, S. et al. 2013. Why do some men
Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(6), pp. 839-853. use violence against women and how can we prevent it?
Quantitative findings from the United Nations Multi-
Bernacchi, E., Fabris, A. and Zelano, M. (2016). Multi-country country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the
study on the drivers of violence affecting children. Pacific. Bangkok: UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UNV.
Italian Report. Firenze, Italy: Istituto degli Innocenti.
Gershoff, E. 2017. School corporal punishment in global
Bianchi D.and Moretti, E. (a cura di). 2006. Vite in bilico: perspective: prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at
indagine retrospettiva su maltrattamenti e abusi in età intervention. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(Sup1),
infantile. Firenze : Istituto degli Innocenti. pp. 224–239.
Blake, J., Lund, E., Zhou, Q., Kwok, O. and Benz, M. 2012. Global Coalition to protect Education from Attack. 2018.
National prevalence rates of bully victimization among Education under attack 2018.
students with disabilities in the United States. School
Psychology Quarterly, 27(4), p. 210. Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M. et al. 2010. The third national
study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex
Blake, J., Zhou, Q., Kwok, O. and Benz, M. 2016. Predictors of attracted and gender questioning young people. [pdf ]
bullying behavior, victimization, and bully-victim risk Melborne, Australia: Australian Research Centre in Sex,
among high school students with disabilities. Remedial Health and Society, La Trobe University.
and Special Education, 37(5), pp. 285-295.
Jones, S., Bombieri, L., Livingstone A. and Manstead, A.
Caso, L., Vitale, F. and Boni, M. 2011. La violenza assistita 2011. The influence of norms and social identities
intrafamiliare: uno studio qualitativo sui fattori on children’s responses to bullying. British Journal of
di rischio e di protezione nei minori vittime. Educational Psychology, 82(2), pp. 241-256.
Maltrattamento e a Buso All’infanzia, 13(1) pp. 87-109.
Know Violence in Childhood. 2017. Ending Violence in
Devries, K., Kyegombe, N., Zuurmond, M. et al. 2014. Violence Childhood. Global Report 2017. New Delhi, India: Know
against primary school children with disabilities in Violence in Childhood.
Uganda: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14,
pp.1017. Kann, L., Olsen, E., McManus, T., Harris, W. et al. 2016. Sexual
identity, sex of sexual contacts and health-related
Devries, K., Knight, L., Petzold, M. et al. 2018. Who perpetrates behaviors among students in Grades 9-12 - United States
violence against children? A systematic analysis of age- and Selected Sites, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
specific and sex-specific data. BMJ Paediatric Open, 2(1). Report. (CDC) Surveillance Summaries.
Farmer, T., Petrin, R., Brooks, D. et al. 2012. Bullying Kids Online Brazil. 2016. ICT kids online Brazil 2015: Survey on
involvement and the school adjustment of rural internet use by children in Brazil.
students with and without disabilities. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(1), pp. 19-37. Krug E., Dahlberg L., Mercy J., et al. 2002. World Report on
Violence and Health. Geneva: WHO.
58
Kuper, H., Banks, M., Kelly, S., Kyegombe, N., and Devries, K. UNESCO. 2016. Out in the Open: Education sector responses to
2016. Protect Us! Inclusion of children with disabilities in violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
child protection. Woking: Plan International. expression. Paris: UNESCO.
Le, M., Holton, S., Nguyen, H. et al. 2016. Poly-victimisation UNESCO. 2017. School violence and bullying: Global Status
and health risk behaviours, symptoms of mental health Report. Paris: UNESCO
problems and suicidal thoughts and plans among
adolescents in Vietnam. International Journal of Mental UNESCO and UN Women. 2016. Global guidance on
Health Systems, 10, 66. addressing school-related gender based violence. Paris:
UNESCO, New York: UN Women.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K. 2011.
Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 2018. Report of the
European children: full findings and policy implications Secretary-General on protecting children from bullying,
from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their A/73/265 30 July 2018).
parents in 25 countries. London: LSE, EU Kids Online. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 2016. Protecting
Mascheroni, G. and Cuman, A. 2014. Net children go mobile: children from bullying: Report of the Secretary-General,
Final report. Deliverables D6.4 & D5.2. Milano: Educatt. A/71/263 26 July 2016).
Maternowska, M., Potts, A. and Fry, D. 2016. The multi-country United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2017.
study on the drivers of violence affecting children. A Familiar Face: Violence in the Lives of Children and
Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti. Adolescents. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
Ncube, N. 2013. The family system as a socio-ecological United Nations Security Council (UNSC). 2017. Children
determinant of bullying among urban high school and Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General
adolescents in Gweru, Zimbabwe: Implications for A/72/361-S/2017/821).
intervention. Asian Social Science, 91(7). United Nations (UN) Special Representative of the Secretary-
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General General on Violence Against Children. 2016. Protecting
for Children and Armed Conflict. 2017. Attacks on Children Affected by Armed Violence in the Community.
Schools and Hospitals New York: United Nations. New York: UN.
Pereznieto, P., Harper, C., Clench, B. and Coarasa, J. 2010. The Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M., Eisner, M. and Gaffney, H. 2017.
Economic Impact of School Violence: A Report for Plan Weapon carrying in and out of school among pure
International. London: ODI/Plan International. bullies, pure victims and bully-victims: A systematic
review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and
Portela, M. and Pells, K. 2015. Corporal Punishment in Schools: longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behaviour,
Longitudinal Evidence from Ethiopia, India, Peru and Viet 33, pp. 62–77
Nam. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. Preventing youth
Sharp, C., Aldridge, J. and Medina, J. 2004. Delinquent youth violence: an overview of the evidence. World Health
groups and offending behaviour: findings from the 2004 Organization.
Offending, Crime and Justice Survey. Home Office Online
Report 14/06.
Sullivan, P. M. 2009. Violence exposure among children with

disabilities. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 12,
196-216.
UNESCO. 2014. Bullying targeting secondary school students

who are or are perceived to be transgender or same-sex
attracted: Types, prevalence, impact, motivation and
preventive measures in 5 provinces of Thailand. Bangkok:
Mahidol University, Plan International Thailand,
UNESCO Bangkok.
59
Annex 2.
Prevalence of students who reported being bullied, by sex, age and most
common types and drivers of bullying, by country or territory*
Median prevalence of students who were bullied

4th graders
Country/territory/ 8th 15-year-olds
(9-10)[3] 11-year- 13-year- 14-year-
geographical area[1] Total[2]
Male [2]
Female [2]
graders
olds[2] olds[2] olds[2] GSHS/
PIRLS TIMSS (13-14)[3]
PISA[4]
HBSC
Afghanistan 44.2 42.3 44.9 ... ... ... 43.9 ... 43.3 45.4 …
Albania 19.9 22.6 17.3 ... ... 23.8 20 ... ... 16.1 …
Algeria 51.7 48.1 55.1 ... ... ... 53.1 ... 50.4 51.6 …
Anguilla 26.1 22.2 30.2 ... ... ... 25.1 ... 32.9 20.1 …
Antigua and Barbuda 24.9 23.5 26.7 ... ... ... 27.9 ... 23 23.8 …
Argentina 24.5 24.8 24.2 ... ... ... 26.1 ... 25.3 22.4 …
Armenia 8.8 11.1 6.7 ... ... 10.7 8.5 ... ... 6.5 …
Australia ... ... ... 53 55 ... ... 43 ... 24.2 24.2
Austria 35.6 39.1 32.5 37 ... 37.2 42.2 ... ... 28.6 19.1
Azerbaijan … … … 28 ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Bahamas 23.6 24.7 22 ... ... ... 24.7 ... 24.9 17.6 …
Bahrain 29.4 35.6 22.8 64 66 ... 31.8 51 29.3 27 …
Bangladesh 23.6 27.1 17.3 ... ... ... 19.6 ... 24.7 26 …
Barbados 13.3 15.4 11 ... ... ... 18.1 ... 13.2 10.5 …
Belgium (Flemish) 20.1 20.2 20.1 48 53 24.7 22.1 ... ... 15 …
Belgium (French) 46.7 53.7 39.8 58 ... 51.6 48.2 ... ... 40.2 …
Belize 30.7 30.3 31.1 ... ... ... 29.8 ... 31.3 31 …
Benin 49 47.4 51.5 ... ... ... 52.4 ... 46.5 49.5 …
Bhutan 30.1 31.2 28.9 ... ... ... 33 ... 31 27.4 …
Bolivia (Plurinational State of ) 30.2 31.7 28.2 ... ... ... 28.2 ... 30.2 31.5 …
Botswana 52.1 52.6 51.8 ... ... ... 48.3 74 51 53.8 …
Brazil ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... … 17.5
British Virgin Islands 17.2 18.3 16.5 ... ... ... 15.4 ... 18.1 17.9 …
Brunei Darussalam 23.4 25.3 21.7 ... ... ... 29.6 ... 21.7 20.3 …
Bulgaria 34.2 35.5 32.8 44 46 38.2 35.1 ... ... 29.6 …
Cambodia 22.4 22.5 22.2 ... ... ... 20.8 ... 22.2 23.5 …
Canada 35.4 32.6 38.2 50 47 38.7 38.5 35 ... 30.6 20.3
Chile 15.1 15.8 13.9 36 40 ... 15.5 22 18.1 11.6 18
China - Beijing 20.2 23 17.4 ... ... ... 18.1 ... 22.8 18.7 …
China - Hangzhou 31.8 30.7 32.9 ... ... ... 31.5 ... 31 33.3 …
China - Hong Kong ... ... ... 40 46 ... ... 44 ... ... 32.3
China - Macao ... ... ... 57 ... ... ... ... ... 27.3
China – Taipei ... ... ... 38 42 ... ... 14 ... ... 10.7
China – Wuhan 33.2 34.2 31.6 ... ... ... 33 ... 34.5 30.8 …
China – Urumqi 31.9 32.5 31.2 ... ... ... 35.7 ... 33 24.3 …
Colombia - Bogota 34.2 36.4 32.4 ... ... ... 33 ... 35.5 34 …
Colombia - Bucaramanga 31.6 32.2 31 ... ... ... 30.9 ... 31.8 32.2 …
Colombia - Cali City 29 28.5 29.3 ... ... ... 26.7 ... 32.3 27.9 …
Colombia - Manizales 32.6 35.4 30.5 ... ... ... 34.1 ... 35.9 28.1 …
Colombia - Valledupar 31.4 28.2 33.5 ... ... ... 31.5 ... 30.8 31.8 …
60
Types of bullying[2], [5] Drivers of bullying[2],[6]

Psychological / Race, nationality or
Physical Sexual Physical appearance Religion
social exclusion colour
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
19.1 21.9 13.7 13.1 12.9 14.6 23 24.6 22.6 6.8 6.4 7.9 14.3 15.2 12.3 12.9 11.4 14.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
15.9 24.7 9.2 1.4 0.8 1.9 18.2 18.7 17.9 7.2 7.9 6.7 9.3 12.3 7 2.9 3.3 2.6
15.1 ... 8.5 5.9 ... 5.7 12.6 ... 9.3 19 ... 25.1 14.6 ... 12.4 1.9 ... 3.1
14.5 24.7 5.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 10.9 13.2 9.1 22.2 11.1 31.4 15.5 14.8 16.1 4.9 7.4 2.6
9.6 12.5 7.1 6.1 5.4 6.9 14.3 17.8 11.5 25.5 17.9 32.1 7.6 10.1 5 3.1 3.2 2.9
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
10.6 ... 5.9 7.1 ... 7.9 12.4 ... 10.1 24.4 ... 31.5 8.4 ... 7.4 5.2 ... 4.1
15.4 18.9 10.1 4.2 3 6.1 15.5 19 10.3 18.2 14.2 24.4 10.5 12.1 8.2 2 2.7 0.8
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... … ...
16.6 ... ... 2.1 ... ... 13.1 ... ... 21.7 ... ... 9.1 ... ... 3.4 ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
15 21.2 8.4 5.5 4.9 6.2 6.9 8.4 5.4 21.5 18.9 24.2 10.8 11.8 9.8 4.1 3.4 4.8
11.8 14.3 7.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 16.5 14.8 20.1 10.2 11.4 8.4 22.3 20.2 24.6 14.8 15.8 13.6
18 24.4 12.2 4.1 3.8 4.4 8.7 6.4 10.9 21.8 16.1 26.9 8.9 10.3 7.3 3.6 3 4.2
12.7 18.9 6.1 7 4.2 9.7 11.1 13.2 9.4 15.5 13.2 18 9.4 10.6 7.1 6.9 7.2 6.9
23.4 27.6 19.9 6.2 6.3 6.1 8.3 9.5 7 17.4 11.9 22.3 11.5 13 10.3 8.8 9 8.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
9.2 9 9.3 4 7.1 1.3 9.6 7.5 11 25.7 20.9 29.7 12.2 9.9 14.2 2.3 3 1.7
8.2 12.1 4 6.1 4.8 7.5 7.7 7.5 8 23.1 22.7 23.5 9.4 11.6 7 1.9 1.2 2.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
9.6 ... 6.9 12.2 ... 14.9 16.1 ... 16.6 20.6 ... 24.9 25.8 ... 19.9 4.7 ... 6.1
13.4 ... ... 28.4 ... ... 19.0 ... ... ... ... ... N/A ... ... N/A ... ...
8.6 ... ... 6.8 ... ... 18.4 ... ... 32.2 ... ... 7.8 ... ... 4.8 ... ...
22.1 29.4 12.6 5.7 4.6 7.1 7.2 8.6 5.5 17.1 11.6 24.2 2.8 2.1 3.7 0.3 0.5 0
15.8 19.5 12.1 9 6.1 11.5 8.9 9.3 8.5 15.1 14.4 15.8 2.9 2 3.8 1.2 1.1 1.4
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
13.1 17.8 7.6 7.3 7.4 6.6 16.2 19.7 11.8 15 9.3 22.9 2.5 0.4 4.3 0.2 0.4 0
22.2 31.5 11.4 6.3 5.9 6.8 10.2 7.8 12.6 13.9 9.3 19.2 4.4 4.5 4.4 2 1.8 2.3
7 9.9 4.7 9.2 9.2 9.4 11 12.4 9.9 15.8 19.5 12.7 4.3 4.9 2.8 1.1 1.4 0.9
7.4 9 5.3 11.1 10.2 12.1 9.5 10.7 8.5 18.6 22.2 15.4 7 6.2 7.8 3.5 3.7 3.4
6.7 10.4 3.9 9.4 4.2 13.3 11.8 10.3 12.9 13.2 14 12.6 6.4 7.9 5.3 3 4.1 2.1
9.2 14.3 4.5 8.3 6.3 10.3 8.1 8.4 7.5 19 26.1 12.5 4 4.3 3.8 0.3 0.4 0.3
7 9.6 5.5 10.4 6.8 12.7 9 10 8.5 22.3 22.2 21.8 5.7 5.8 5.6 2.4 3.9 1.5
61

4th graders
(9-10)[3] 11-year- 13-year- 14-year-
geographical area[1] Total [2]
Male [2]
Female [2]
graders
PISA[4]
HBSC
Cook Islands 30.9 29.4 31.8 ... ... ... 47.7 ... 31.9 22.5 …
Costa Rica 19 18.4 19.6 ... ... ... 17.9 ... 19 20 20.8
Croatia 17.1 17.6 16.6 ... 27 16.3 20.4 ... ... 14.5 17.1
Cyprus ... ... ... ... 45 ... ... ... ... ... 18.1
Czech Republic 17.8 18.7 17 38 40 18.6 19.4 ... ... 15.5 25.4
Denmark 20.2 20 20.3 33 42 26.9 19.7 ... ... 14.2 20.1
Djibouti 40.9 44.3 35.8 ... ... ... 39.4 ... 36.4 44.5 …
Dominica 27.4 28.7 26 ... ... ... 27.7 ... 34.1 21.4 …
Dominican Republic 24.3 26.3 22.3 ... ... ... 26.1 ... 21.2 26 30.1
Ecuador - Guayaquil 28.5 31.8 25.3 ... ... ... 28.8 ... 28.1 28.8 …
Ecuador - Quito 27.5 29.3 25.9 ... ... ... 22.2 ... 28 34.1 …
Egypt 70 70.1 69.7 27 ... ... 71.4 45 68.9 69 …
El Salvador 22.6 20.9 24.3 ... ... ... 25.2 ... 21.6 21.5 …
Estonia 38 39 36.9 ... ... 48.3 38.2 ... ... 26.8 20.2
Eswatini 32.1 33.1 31.2 ... ... ... 29.6 ... 34.6 31.1 …
Fiji 29.9 33.1 25.7 ... ... ... 24.5 ... 32.6 28.5 …
Finland 27.5 30.7 24.4 25 29 32.6 28.6 ... ... 21.1 16.9
France 28.8 29.5 28 34 35 29.7 30.3 ... ... 25.7 17.9
French Polynesia 25.1 26.2 24.1 ... ... ... 23.9 ... 26.4 25.2 …
Georgia ... ... ... 26 27 ... ... 18 ... ... …
Germany 23.3 22.9 23.6 43 43 25.2 25.9 ... ... 19.2 15.7
Ghana 62.4 61.3 63.9 ... ... ... 60.6 ... 61.5 64.7 …
Greece 18.3 19 17.6 ... ... 15.1 23.1 ... ... 16.5 16.7
Greenland 33.3 34.3 32.5 ... ... 36 37.5 ... ... 26.1 …
Grenada 27.2 28.6 26.1 ... ... ... 27.7 ... 27.8 25.9 …
Guatemala 22.8 26 19.6 ... ... ... 23.1 ... 20.7 24.8 …
Guyana 38.4 40.2 36.6 ... ... ... 39.7 ... 41.7 34 …
Honduras 31.6 31.5 31.6 ... ... ... 33.1 ... 32 29 …
Hungary 30.8 30.8 30.8 40 42 38 32.2 27 ... 19.9 20.3
Iceland 16.6 17.8 15.3 ... ... 23 18.7 ... ... 8 11.9
Indonesia 21.3 23.7 19 ... 57 ... 22.5 ... 20.6 20.5 …
Iran, Islamic Rep of ... ... ... 34 51 ... ... 40 ... ... ...
Iraq 27.7 32.4 21.9 ... ... ... 31.6 ... 22.8 28.7 …
Ireland 27.6 26 28.6 26 27 27.7 29.1 25 ... 26.1 14.7
Israel 23.7 32.5 15.9 ... ... 28.8 25.8 ... ... 15.7 …
Italy 15.6 17.4 13.8 45 50 22.7 15.3 27 ... 8.5 …
Jamaica 25.5 26.3 24.8 ... ... ... 19.2 ... 27.5 26.5 …
Japan ... ... ... ... 32 ... ... 20 ... 21.9 21.9
Jordan 41.1 45.6 37.1 ... ... ... 37.5 36 42 41.2 …
Kazakhstan ... ... ... 23 25 ... ... 14 ... ... …
Kenya 57.1 56.6 57.4 ... ... ... 60.1 ... 56.6 55.7 …
Kiribati 36.8 42.1 32.2 ... ... ... 37.6 ... 36.1 36.8 …
Korea, Republic of ... ... ... ... 24 ... ... 16 ... ... 11.9
Kuwait 31.7 35.8 27.7 ... 53 ... 32.6 40 32.9 30 …
Lao PDR 13.2 15.2 11.3 ... ... ... 19.3 ... 16.4 10.6 …
Latvia 49.7 49.1 50.2 54 ... 52.5 54.4 ... ... 41.3 30.6
Lebanon 17.5 23.9 11.7 ... ... ... 19.1 48 15.6 18 …
Libya 35.3 40 30.5 ... ... ... 35.5 ... 32.3 38.5 …
Lithuania 54 54.3 53.6 40 44 57.4 54.5 28 ... 49.4 16.4
Luxembourg 30.1 28.6 31.4 ... ... 38.1 29.5 ... ... 24 15.7
Macedonia
23 26.7 19.3 ... ... 22.6 26.4 ... ... 20.3 …
(the former Yugoslav Republic of )
62

14 24.1 7.4 3.9 3.9 4 16.8 8.8 20.7 16 9.3 20.8 10.1 17.3 5.4 3.3 5.3 1.9
8.1 12.4 3.6 7.3 5 9.5 15.2 20.1 10.8 26.5 21.6 31.1 5.5 7.5 3.8 1.6 1.8 1.5
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
28.4 34.7 17.5 2.6 3.1 1.7 11 9.9 13 14.2 11.5 19.1 11.4 12.1 9.3 12.1 8.9 18
21.6 31.5 10.6 3.5 4.8 2.1 12.7 9.9 15.7 19 14 24.5 8.6 11.6 5.4 3.6 3.8 3.3
14.7 20.2 6.1 5.2 3.2 7.7 14.7 9 21.5 18.1 11.6 26.2 11 14.2 6.5 4 2.9 5.3
13 20.5 4.5 6.6 4.9 8.4 8.2 9.5 7.2 13.7 11.8 15.8 12.4 15 8.8 3.7 3.2 4.4
10.8 17 3.7 8.9 9.1 8.6 11.9 12.1 11.7 7.8 6.3 9.6 7.4 9 5.5 3 0.6 5.7
26.5 34.8 18.2 4.6 4 5.3 17.1 11.6 22.5 2.5 2.3 2.7 18.2 17.2 19 6.5 6.5 6.3
7.4 10.8 4.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 13 15.3 11.1 19 14.2 23.7 12.6 17.4 7.7 4.7 2.2 6.9
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
23.4 26 21.9 4 2 5.5 4.2 4.8 3.8 19.5 22.3 17.1 10.8 11.1 10.4 3.5 2.2 4.4
19.7 23.6 15.6 5.1 4.5 5.2 9.5 9.4 9.8 12.9 11.6 13.4 15.4 16.6 14.6 5.8 7.7 2.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
8.4 11.2 5.5 7.4 7.3 7.5 21.4 15.2 27.9 21.4 17 25.9 8.1 12.6 3.5 2.2 2.5 1.8
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
32.4 33.3 31.2 5 5 5 6.7 5.6 7.8 10.1 9.3 11.1 19.1 18.4 19.5 9.5 10.4 8.7
4.6 ... ... 12.9 ... ... 16.0 ... ... ... ... ... 4.5 ... ... 3.1 ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
12.3 23 3.9 5.3 2.2 7.8 12.2 12.8 11.3 21.4 10.7 29.9 9.9 10.1 9.8 3.2 5.8 1.2
16.4 20.1 11.4 7.5 9.4 5.1 12.6 12 13.4 17.2 10.4 26.2 13.7 11.2 16.9 1.7 2.1 1.3
15.1 22.9 7.3 6.9 7.2 6.5 7 7.4 6.7 12.6 6.1 19.2 11.4 11.4 11.1 9.7 9.5 10.1
8.6 13.3 4.5 10.2 9.2 11.3 14.1 18.5 10.2 16.6 8.7 22.8 8.8 9.5 8.4 5.4 5.4 5
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
4.7 ... ... 13.9 ... ... 2.5 ... ... ... ... ... 3.3 ... ... 1.9 ... ...
11.7 16.2 6.6 5.8 5.5 6.1 21.5 24.3 18.3 19.9 15.7 24.8 6.7 6.7 6.8 2.7 4.1 1.2
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
32.3 37.2 ... 3.2 1.1 ... 13.2 13.7 ... 6.6 6.4 ... 13.4 11.7 ... 6.4 7.6 ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
12.2 ... ... 11.2 ... ... 11.6 ... ... ... ... ... 13.6 ... ... 10.2 ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
10.1 17.3 3.5 4.4 4.1 4.6 11.6 9.7 13.4 20.9 13.7 27.4 13.6 18 9.6 6.1 9.1 3.5
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
11.4 14 8.7 4.1 4.3 3.6 9.4 9.2 9.7 10.3 12.2 8.4 11 13.7 8.2 5.6 5.9 4.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
27.4 33.1 22.5 10.5 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.4 10.3 12.8 10.9 14.4 12.4 12.3 12.2 11.9 9.4 14
27 31.6 22.4 1.8 2 1.6 30.1 23.7 36.5 9.6 7.2 12 7 9.6 4.4 15.7 16.7 14.6
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
17.6 20.1 14.6 2.8 2.1 3.3 9.5 12.5 5.7 22.7 23.2 21.9 13.3 16.9 8.1 6.5 9.8 2.1
36.3 ... ... 3.5 ... ... 5.9 ... ... 14.1 ... ... 9.3 ... ... 1.9 ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
24.8 30.9 12.6 4.2 3.7 5.1 17.8 18 17.3 7.7 6.1 10.7 10.1 12.3 5.7 4.4 4.3 4.6
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
8.1 ... ... 12.6 ... ... 6.4 ... ... ... ... ... 7.2 ... ... 3.6 ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
63

4th graders
(9-10)[3] 11-year- 13-year- 14-year-
geographical area[1] Total[2]
Male [2]
Female [2]
graders
PISA[4]
HBSC
Malawi 44.9 42.9 46.5 ... ... ... 50.6 ... 41.6 44.4 …
Malaysia 20.9 24 17.8 ... ... ... 24.1 52 21.9 16.7 …
Maldives 30.1 30.4 29.5 ... ... ... 25.3 ... 32.2 29 …
Malta 25.7 29.8 21.3 46 ... 30.3 28.4 36 ... 16.5 …
Mauritania 47.2 48 46.3 ... ... ... 46 ... 45.1 48.9 …
Mauritius 35.7 42.1 29.5 ... ... ... 33.9 ... 36 37.1 …
Mexico ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 20.2
Mongolia 30.5 35.9 25 ... ... ... 30.8 ... 31.8 28.7 …
Montenegro ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 16.4
Montserrat 28.1 31.8 24.8 ... ... ... 27.9 ... 27.8 29 …
Morocco 38.2 44 31.6 43 56 ... 37.6 49 38.3 38.8 …
Mozambique 45 45 46.4 ... ... ... 47.6 ... 37.4 48.6 …
Myanmar 50.1 51.4 48.7 ... ... ... 52.1 ... 49.7 47.6 …
Namibia 46.6 47.9 45.4 ... ... ... 44.9 ... 47.6 46.9 …
Nauru 38.9 39.8 37.9 ... ... ... 35.5 ... 41 40.3 …
Nepal 50.6 56.2 45.4 ... ... ... 51.6 ... 49.7 50.6 …
Netherlands 22.3 22 22.7 42 41 26.3 23.3 ... ... 17.3 9.3
New Zealand ... ... ... 60 60 ... ... 45 ... ... 26.1
Niue 35.5 38.2 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... …
Norway 21.4 22.5 20.3 26 30 24.3 20.9 25 ... 17.9 17.7
Oman 42.3 45.4 39.3 52 58 ... 45.1 56 43.2 40.2 …
Pakistan 41.1 45.1 35.3 ... ... ... 37.1 ... 43.6 40.7 …
Palestine State - Gaza 59.5 63 55.5 ... ... ... 59.5 ... 56.4 62.8 …
Palestine State - West Bank 52.9 54.5 51.5 ... ... ... 52.5 ... 50.9 56.4 …
Paraguay 16.7 19.2 14.6 ... ... ... 17.2 ... 16 17.1 …
Peru 47.4 46.7 48.2 ... ... ... 45.1 ... 48.4 47.7 18.4
Philippines 51.2 53.3 49.3 ... ... ... 51.9 ... 52.5 49.4 …
Poland 30.3 32.1 28.5 28 27 33.8 31.1 ... ... 25.9 21.1
Portugal 39 42.6 35.8 40 43 40.9 41.1 ... ... 34.2 11.8
Qatar 42.1 48.8 34.8 57 57 ... 39.6 39 42.4 47.6 25
Republic of Moldova 34.7 34 35.4 ... ... 33.9 38 ... ... 32.1 …
Rodrigues 50 44.8 54.4 ... ... ... 54.3 ... 49.4 47.1 …
Romania 33.8 36.7 31.1 ... ... 32.5 39 ... ... 30.3 …
Russian Federation 42.5 45.1 40.5 48 49 50.6 42.3 34 ... 35.2 27.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis 22.7 24.9 20.4 ... ... ... 24.4 ... 25.3 19.1 …
Saint Lucia 25.1 25.2 25.1 ... ... ... 29.4 ... 23.7 23.1 …
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 29.9 30.7 29.4 ... ... ... 34.3 ... 27.5 25.3 …
Samoa 74 78.6 69.4 ... ... ... 74.1 ... 74.2 73.7 …
Saudi Arabia ... ... ... 47 53 ... ... 36 ... ... ...
Serbia ... ... ... ... 27 ... ... ... ... ... …
Seychelles 47.4 44.5 49.9 ... ... ... 52 ... 49.1 41.2 …
Singapore ... ... ... 50 53 42 25.1
Slovakia 26.7 28.5 24.8 43 43 29.2 27.3 ... ... 23.4 22.5
Slovenia 22.1 25.5 18.8 44 42 23.8 25.5 28 ... 16.8 16.4
Solomon Islands 66.5 64.1 67.7 ... ... ... 64.8 ... 65.9 67.9 …
South Africa ... ... ... 78 ... ... ... 64 ... ... ...
Spain 15.4 18.2 12.7 46 52 19.3 16.5 ... ... 10.9 14
Sri Lanka 39.4 50.2 28.8 ... ... ... 45.2 ... 38.1 35.2 …
Suriname 26.3 26.4 26 ... 24 ... 30.8 ... 26.3 23.4 …
Sweden 12.6 11.4 13.8 29 35 15.4 14.3 26 ... 8.7 17.9
64

16.4 15.9 15.5 10.9 9.1 12.3 7.4 12 3.1 14.4 13.3 16.1 17.1 17.6 16.6 15.9 17.4 15
14.2 18.9 8 4.2 3.1 5.7 19.6 18.5 21.1 19.7 17.7 22.3 11.4 11.4 11.4 4 4.8 3
6.3 9.2 3.9 4.7 4.5 5.1 11 14.3 8.4 18.2 15.1 21.7 10.3 11.1 9.3 3.7 4.1 2.4
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
23.1 23.4 23.1 8.5 10.7 6 10.7 7.3 14.2 3.6 4 3.3 20.7 22.9 18.5 19.4 17.9 20.2
13.2 19.1 5.5 5.6 1.8 10.7 15.1 18.8 10.3 13.8 10.3 18 11 12.6 9 4.1 4.7 2.8
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
20.9 28.9 10.8 22 18.2 26.9 3.3 3.3 3.4 15.4 9 23.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 1.6 2 1.1
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
20.9 ... ... 0 ... ... 8.6 ... ... 14.9 ... ... 14.8 ... ... 1.8 ... ...
16.4 20.6 10.8 5.5 4.3 7.2 21.7 24 19 7.4 5.5 9.8 11.8 11.4 11.8 3.9 5 2.1
48.7 44.4 55.3 1.7 2.1 1.2 10 13.4 5.5 4.2 3.2 5.7 13.6 11.4 16.7 7.3 9.6 4.3
16.2 25 8.2 11.9 7.3 16.4 2.6 3.2 1.7 24.1 17.9 30 18.3 21.5 15 5.8 6.6 4.9
22.5 29.5 16.7 4.9 3.4 5.8 8.1 4.7 10.9 18.1 12.1 22.9 13.3 16.6 10.7 5.3 5 5.2
29.5 29.3 27.9 3.8 5.9 1.7 11.2 14.7 8 16.8 18.3 15.7 9.1 12.8 5.7 7.2 6.8 7.8
13.5 15.2 10.9 3.3 3.3 3.1 10.1 10.7 9.6 7.6 6.1 9.1 8.9 9.6 7.1 8.1 9.8 6.5
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
11.9 15.1 8.2 2.2 2 2.5 35.2 36.3 33.9 10.4 11.9 9.1 7.5 11.9 2.7 2 2.7 1.3
27 24.1 33.9 2.2 2.5 1.6 7.9 8.9 5.5 9.2 9.3 8.9 15.9 18.1 10.5 5.6 7 2
11.9 16 7 5.3 4.9 5.9 25.2 27.9 22.1 7.7 8.4 6.9 9.2 8.8 10 4.6 6.1 3
9.5 15 4.4 5.3 4.8 6 22.4 28.6 16.3 6.9 5 8.9 8.1 9.1 7 5.3 7.5 2.9
10.3 ... ... 10 ... ... 12.9 ... ... 17.7 ... ... 9.3 ... ... 4.7 ... ...
9.9 12.9 7.2 10.5 10.8 10.3 11.2 11.6 10.8 17.6 13 21.7 6.7 8.1 5.3 4.6 3.6 5.6
16.5 18.2 14.9 5.4 3 7.8 24.1 26.1 22.2 13.4 10.3 16.6 21.2 23.5 18.7 3.3 4.6 1.9
9.6 ... ... 16.2 ... ... 10.5 ... ... ... ... ... 14.3 ... ... N/A ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
17.4 16.9 16.9 5.9 5.3 7.1 15.1 17.2 11.2 6 6.6 5.2 25.4 25.4 25.7 13.5 13.6 14.1
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
14.8 21.1 10.8 1.7 2.3 1.3 11.3 13 10.2 21.9 18.7 23.9 12.2 15.4 10.2 3 3.6 2.6
18.3 ... ... 20.4 ... ... 9.2 ... ... ... ... ... 9.1 ... ... 6.7 ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
21.9 30.6 12.3 4.3 5.6 3 12.2 11.5 12.4 15.6 12.1 19.9 12.8 14.7 10.9 5.7 6.1 5.4
11.8 20.2 5.1 6.5 5.8 7.1 11.3 8.5 13.6 20 15.3 24.2 5.3 5.1 5.4 5.7 10 2.3
20.7 28.2 13.8 5 5.5 4.6 8.2 8.7 7.8 15.9 10.1 21.1 8.5 9.2 7.9 4.3 7.8 1.1
20.5 20.4 20.9 5.3 4. 6 5.6 10.6 12.3 8.7 8.5 8.6 8.8 23.9 24.7 23.4 17.2 18.6 15.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
12 19 7.4 2.7 3.6 2.1 8.1 10 6.9 15.5 10.5 18.8 13.6 18 10.7 3.3 3.1 3.5
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
23.8 28.6 17.2 5.9 6.6 5.5 8.8 9.2 8 8.9 6.7 11.4 19.9 19.6 21 7.3 9.4 5.4
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
11.2 ... ... 21.8 ... ... 21.4 ... ... ... ... ... N/A ... ... N/A ... ...
9.3 11.4 5.6 9.9 10 9.4 9.3 10.4 7.2 14.4 11.7 19.1 11.3 11 12 3.3 3.7 2.8
4.3 8.8 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 6.1 9.5 3.4 18.4 14.4 21 6.9 7.9 6.3 1.4 1.2 1.7
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
65

4th graders
(9-10)[3] 11-year- 13-year- 14-year-
geographical area[1] Total [2]
Male [2]
Female [2]
graders
PISA[4]
HBSC
Switzerland 33.2 33.8 32.6 ... ... 39.7 33.9 ... ... 26.6 16.8
Tajikistan 7.1 7.1 7.1 ... ... ... 8.4 ... 8.2 5.4 …
Tanzania (United Republic of ) 26.9 25 28.1 ... ... ... 28.5 ... 25.7 26.5 …
Thailand 33.2 38.3 27.8 ... ... ... 38.9 67 31.1 29 27.2
The former Yugoslav Rep. of
10.1 10.1 10.2 ... ... ... 9.9 ... 10.5 9.9 …
Macedonia
Timor-Leste 31.3 38.5 24.7 ... ... ... 34.6 ... 31.8 29.4 …
Tokelau 40.5 38.6 38.9 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... …
Tonga 38.1 45.5 30.5 ... ... ... 47 ... 38.6 29.3 …
Trinidad and Tobago 15.4 17.9 13 63 ... ... 12.7 ... 17.1 16.1 …
Tunisia 30.6 37.4 24.4 ... ... ... 30.8 ... 30 31.1 28.2
Turkey 55.5 56.8 54.1 ... 43 63.9 58.9 31 ... 41.3 18.6
Tuvalu 26.9 40.1 15 ... ... ... 27.2 ... 28.8 24.1 …
Uganda 45.5 50 41.1 ... ... ... 47.3 ... 44.6 45.5 …
Ukraine 37.6 38.5 36.9 ... ... 42.9 38.8 ... ... 32 …
United Arab Emirates 27.1 32.5 21.8 56 57 ... 29.5 42 30.2 22.3 27
United Kingdom ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 23.9
United Kingdom - England 32.4 30.8 34 48 46 33.6 33.9 38 ... 29.4 …
United Kingdom - Scotland 33.8 30.3 37.2 ... ... 38.6 36.8 ... ... 25.5 …
United Kingdom - Northern
... ... ... 41 36 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Ireland
United Kingdom - Wales 36.4 33.6 39.1 ... ... 36.9 40 ... ... 32.4 …
United States of America 27.9 28.4 27.4 44 44 33.3 29.8 36 ... 20.2 18.9
Uruguay 19.1 17.7 20.4 ... ... ... 21.3 ... 19.2 17.6 16.9
Vanuatu 67.3 68 66.5 ... ... ... 68.1 ... 67.4 66.1 …
Venezuela - Barinas 34.5 38.9 30.4 ... ... ... 33.1 ... 34.4 37.7 …
Venezuela - Lara 36.1 36.7 35.6 ... ... ... 36.8 ... 35.1 36.9 …
Viet Nam 26.1 26.1 26.2 ... ... ... ... ... 28.5 24.5 …
Wallis and Futuna 30.8 30.2 30.9 ... ... ... 32.1 ... 27.1 33.5 …
Yemen 41.5 47.3 33.4 ... ... ... 43.8 ... 41.1 40 …
Zambia 65.1 62.5 67.1 ... ... ... 63.7 ... 66 65.3 …
Zimbabwe - Bulawayo 59.9 70.2 52.5 ... ... ... 49.7 ... 65.4 59.9 …
Zimbabwe - Harare 55.3 60.2 51.1 ... ... ... 56.6 ... 57.8 52.7 …
Zimbabwe - Manicaland 67.2 65.9 68.6 ... ... ... 68.5 ... 69.4 65.4 …
* This table compiles data collected from different surveys for which the years of data collection, sample profiles and methods of measurement vary. Therefore it is not
recommended to compare the data across different sources.
[1] The names of countries, territories and geographical areas used in this table are those used by the international surveys that are the data sources for the table. These
designations do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
[2] The prevalence was reported using weighted data from the most recent survey cycles of GSHS (2017) and HBSC (2013/2014), supplemented with data from earlier cycles
for countries that did not provide data in the most recent survey cycles. The percentages represent median prevalence of students who reported being bullied on one
or more days during the 30 days before the survey, in countries/territories that participated in the GSHS (i.e., all countries/territories except those in Europe and North
America), or in the past few months prior to the survey, in countries/territories that participated in the HBSC (i.e., countries/territories in Europe and North America).
[3] The percentage represents the prevalence of students who reported being bullied about monthly or weekly, PIRLS 2016 and TIMSS 2015.
[4] Percentage of students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month, PISA 2015.
[5] Percentage of students who responded that they were bullied by the selected type of bullying that occurred to them most often during the 30 days before the survey
(for GSHS countries/territories), or percentage of students who responded that they were bullied by the selected type of bullying that occurred to them during the past
couple of months (for HBSC countries/territories).
[6] Percentage of students who responded that they were bullied most often as a result of a specific driver during the 30 days before the survey (for GSHS countries/
territories), or percentage of students who responded that they were bullied most often as a result of a specific driver during the couple of months before the survey
(for HBSC countries/territories).
66

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
51.2 53.1 49.1 2.9 1.8 4.4 9.6 7.9 12 3.1 2.9 1.9 17.8 18.5 17.4 6.2 9.3 2.7
23.2 23.9 21.8 9.5 9.4 9.9 6.8 8.6 5 11.9 10.3 13.8 16.2 17.6 14.3 8.8 6.4 11.1
22.6 26.2 17.8 3.5 2.4 5 30.6 30.3 31.6 9.1 7.1 12 9.6 10.4 8 3.1 4.1 1.8
18.4 ... ... 10.5 ... ... 15 ... ... 20.2 ... ... 6.8 ... ... 3.2 ... ...
27.9 32.7 23.5 4.4 3.7 4.7 30.6 29.1 33.4 2.4 2.6 2.5 8.7 10 5.9 10 7.9 9.1
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
31.3 35.7 25.4 3.7 4.1 3.1 6.9 7.7 5.3 9.7 7.4 12.6 14.2 11.9 17.9 6.3 5.5 7.2
19.1 25.8 11.6 2.9 3.5 2.2 10.9 15.9 5.4 19 14.7 24.2 11.1 11.8 10.3 4.4 3.7 4.2
11.3 14.7 6.6 5.2 6.7 3.2 12.1 13.6 10.2 12.5 10.7 15.3 8.5 10 6.5 5.7 5.4 6.3
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
37.6 44.6 ... 3.2 1.4 ... 4.3 5.7 ... 4.2 4.3 ... 16.8 16.4 ... 5.4 5.8 ...
26.5 28.2 23.3 6 5.3 6.8 9.5 8.5 11 10.4 8.8 12.2 14.1 17.3 10.8 13.5 11.3 16.6
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
15.1 18.8 10 8.3 2.3 16.4 16.1 21.3 9.2 15.9 14.4 17.5 12.7 16.4 8.2 4.1 6.1 1.4
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
12.9 ... ... 28.2 ... ... 16.6 ... ... ... ... ... N/A ... ... N/A ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
4 6.6 2.4 7.2 3.9 9.4 18.9 22.7 16.4 31.1 26.7 34.1 5.7 6.6 5.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
33.2 42.7 23.1 4.1 2.6 5.6 9.7 10.6 8.5 10.5 8.4 12.9 14.6 13.7 16 6.8 5.5 8.3
27.9 40.5 12.9 4.7 2.2 7.6 9.3 9.5 9.3 9.2 6.9 12 12.2 11 13.3 7.5 5.9 9.1
17.3 27.2 8.1 6.4 5.6 6.5 15.6 18 13 11.4 6.3 15.8 8.7 13.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 5.1
14.5 22.4 7.7 2.1 1 3 10.1 10.5 9.7 8.6 6.8 10.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.4 1.2 1.6
11.8 ... 8.5 5.8 ... 8.3 27.3 ... 28.3 12.6 ... 14.7 6.8 ... 3.4 0.8 ... 1.4
29.5 29.9 29.5 3.7 3.7 4.1 9.4 11.8 5.8 5 3.8 7.4 21.6 26.7 10.9 9.8 5.5 16.4
23.1 21.7 23.6 8.3 7.5 9.3 9.1 6.9 11.5 11.3 12 9.8 20 21.5 19.5 14.6 15.9 13.3
20.7 25.2 16.3 9 5.8 12.2 7 7.1 6.8 22.5 18 26.8 11.3 14 8.6 8.7 9.1 8.4
21.2 25.6 17 11 8 14 11.6 11.6 11.7 20.7 19.3 22.3 9.6 8.5 9.8 8.4 10 6.9
22.7 23.8 21.6 10.7 6.9 14.2 11.7 15.7 7.9 15 11.8 17.9 15 18.6 11.7 11.1 9.7 12.4
67
Annex 3.
Prevalence of students who reported being in physical fights or physically
attacked during the past 12 months, by country or territory
Physical fights Physical attacks

Country/Territory/
Sex Age Sex Age
geographical area[1] Total Total
Male Female 13 14 15 Male Female 13 14 15
Afghanistan 40.6 47.1 31.6 42.0 41.8 38.6 34.6 40.6 26.6 29.3 36.2 36.2
Algeria 47.7 61.3 35.5 50.0 47.0 46.6 24.5 34.1 15.8 28.4 23.9 21.9
Anguilla 29.8 37.1 22.3 31.2 33.9 24.8 28.2 33.0 22.8 28.8 31.2 24.7
Antigua and Barbuda 47.5 55.1 38.4 48.7 48.2 45.5 39.9 46.5 32.7 40.7 40.2 38.7
Argentina 34.1 44.2 24.7 33.8 34.7 33.4 24.8 30.0 20.0 25.2 25.1 24.3
Bahamas 40.0 44.3 35.9 38.4 39.7 44.3 30.9 35.1 26.8 33.6 30.4 25.5
Bahrain 42.6 53.6 30.8 44.2 43.9 39.7 27.9 36.1 19.1 30.2 27.6 25.9
Bangladesh 21.1 27.1 10.2 23.5 20.0 20.5 62.5 66.5 55.1 70.8 60.0 58.3
Barbados 38.4 47.9 28.3 41.3 39.2 35.7 29.3 30.8 27.6 29.7 28.7 29.6
Belize 36.0 42.7 29.7 36.3 38.1 33.4 28.1 33.6 23.0 26.4 29.2 28.4
Benin 30.5 32.1 27.3 36.0 31.4 27.9 25.4 27.8 20.5 26.4 28.1 23.3
Bhutan 42.5 51.7 34.4 43.8 43.6 40.6 40.7 48.5 34.0 44.1 42.7 36.8
Bolivia
33.0 45.3 20.8 33.9 32.4 33.0 34.7 38.8 30.3 34.3 33.4 36.2
(Plurinational State of )
Botswana 47.7 54.4 41.7 45.3 45.6 49.7 55.7 56.9 54.7 52.1 54.1 57.8
British Virgin Islands 35.0 45.0 26.3 32.5 34.9 37.5 31.3 38.5 24.8 27.0 32.0 34.6
Brunei Darussalam 24.4 31.9 17.1 26.2 26.2 20.7 27.5 32.1 23.3 29.7 25.9 27.6
Cambodia 13.8 15.3 12.2 16.4 12.9 12.9 20.6 24.0 17.4 22.3 21.4 18.8
Chile 28.5 38.2 19.0 32.2 27.9 25.6 21.1 25.1 16.7 22.3 22.1 19.1
China - Beijing 15.8 25.5 6.3 14.1 15.7 17.9 ... ... ... ... ... ...
China - Hangzhou 17.9 29.3 5.7 17.8 17.2 19.1 ... ... ... ... ... ...
China - Wuhan 20.1 30.4 8.1 18.4 21.4 21.9 ... ... ... ... ... ...
China - Urumqi 22.0 34.7 8.3 22.4 22.4 21.0 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Colombia - Bogota 39.4 55.4 27.0 36.5 40.7 40.7 30.5 38.8 24.0 32.1 31.1 28.4
Colombia - Bucaramanga 34.1 48.4 21.3 34.7 34.7 32.8 28.3 35.6 21.8 26.9 30.1 27.6
Colombia - Cali City 30.3 43.0 20.3 27.1 29.2 35.2 23.0 30.4 17.3 22.4 22.1 24.6
Colombia - Manizales 31.3 45.2 20.4 34.9 30.6 29.0 25.6 34.1 18.8 27.7 26.1 23.2
Colombia - Valledupar 29.8 41.8 21.0 34.4 28.4 27.3 23.5 26.1 21.5 23.0 25.8 21.7
Cook Islands 30.5 34.6 25.9 34.8 30.6 28.4 38.5 40.2 36.9 38.9 40.8 35.8
Costa Rica 22.1 32.3 12.1 20.4 22.8 23.0 13.8 16.0 11.8 13.4 13.6 14.5
Djibouti 59.5 68.1 46.6 64.0 54.2 61.9 56.2 63.8 44.6 53.0 53.5 58.8
Dominica 39.1 47.7 29.8 35.7 43.5 38.5 37.8 43.3 31.7 33.4 42.0 38.2
Dominican Republic 25.9 32.4 19.2 29.0 27.5 23.8 24.2 26.4 22.3 26.3 24.4 23.5
Ecuador - Guayaquil 36.0 50.8 22.9 35.9 37.4 34.0 34.8 38.5 31.1 34.9 31.1 40.5
Ecuador - Quito 37.3 53.4 21.3 33.6 37.6 41.9 36.2 38.7 33.8 36.0 36.7 35.8
Egypt 45.1 62.0 28.9 43.2 48.2 44.2 55.5 63.8 47.7 57.9 55.6 50.2
El Salvador 25.6 33.9 16.9 26.6 23.8 26.8 18.9 20.6 16.9 16.6 20.4 19.0
Fiji 33.6 43.1 24.2 29.5 35.7 32.5 34.2 39.3 28.5 40.3 34.7 32.7
French Polynesia 31.7 38.5 24.7 36.1 31.7 27.1 16.4 19.8 13.0 18.2 18.3 12.5
Ghana 52.5 57.8 47.4 57.8 47.5 53.6 49.5 49.7 49.4 48.8 48.2 51.4
Grenada 38.2 52.7 26.9 34.5 36.8 43.2 41.0 55.2 30.0 37.2 42.6 42.9
Guatemala 22.8 31.2 14.1 23.7 20.7 24.3 24.0 28.5 19.3 26.6 20.2 25.9
Guyana 37.9 51.3 25.0 36.2 42.9 34.0 39.1 44.4 33.8 38.3 41.2 37.6
Honduras 28.0 36.4 20.5 32.2 26.9 23.8 20.5 21.7 19.1 23.8 18.1 19.4
Indonesia 24.6 35.9 13.1 25.8 25.0 22.0 33.9 43.2 24.5 37.2 32.2 31.4
Iraq 37.1 49.5 22.4 37.2 34.7 39.3 31.0 38.4 21.9 34.7 28.3 30.4
Jamaica 34.5 44.3 25.4 29.9 36.0 35.3 26.9 34.7 19.6 23.2 25.1 30.2
68

Country/Territory/
Sex Age Sex Age
Jordan 46.5 65.1 29.9 45.0 46.4 47.0 38.2 51.1 26.3 37.8 38.6 38.0
Kenya 48.2 50.5 46.1 53.1 47.1 45.8 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Kiribati 35.3 43.3 28.5 35.6 36.7 33.7 10.0 14.9 5.9 10.9 10.0 9.3
Kuwait 42.8 56.0 30.0 41.3 46.3 40.8 29.2 38.0 20.7 30.3 32.0 26.0
Lao PDR 10.2 12.0 8.7 10.7 12.1 9.2 19.5 23.1 16.2 18.8 23.9 17.5
Lebanon 40.2 57.3 24.4 39.3 40.5 40.7 20.9 26.7 15.6 24.0 19.9 18.8
Libya 39.8 55.7 23.0 38.6 38.4 43.0 29.5 42.4 16.0 28.8 28.0 32.1
Malawi 23.0 23.7 20.8 22.4 22.7 24.0 36.8 35.9 37.6 40.0 36.1 34.9
Malaysia 30.1 38.5 21.9 32.6 31.3 26.3 29.2 33.6 24.7 30.9 29.6 27.0
Maldives 31.7 41.1 22.8 35.7 34.9 28.4 31.1 38.9 23.4 35.5 33.6 28.4
Mauritania 57.8 66.1 48.3 61.4 57.2 57.0 52.7 56.3 48.8 50.4 51.9 54.1
Mauritius 35.5 49.2 22.2 28.2 35.8 42.3 23.3 30.5 16.2 18.2 21.7 29.9
Mongolia 43.8 64.6 23.0 43.1 45.9 42.4 30.0 38.0 21.8 29.9 30.9 29.1
Montserrat 39.0 49.8 28.8 42.0 37.7 37.2 33.6 43.6 24.6 30.3 29.5 42.4
Morocco 39.7 53.1 24.6 39.2 39.9 40.1 24.1 28.7 18.6 22.2 25.4 24.7
Mozambique 39.8 42.2 36.8 36.0 38.6 42.3 36.0 37.2 34.6 33.9 35.8 37.1
Myanmar 24.1 31.1 17.4 28.5 21.4 21.9 32.8 40.5 25.9 37.9 31.5 27.5
Namibia 35.8 44.0 29.2 36.1 34.3 36.7 41.5 47.1 37.0 41.3 37.9 44.4
Nauru 45.2 48.5 42.2 46.6 44.2 44.8 55.1 59.5 51.4 66.6 46.8 51.1
Nepal 39.9 45.2 35.1 38.9 41.0 39.6 44.9 51.0 39.1 47.9 45.9 40.8
Niue 32.9 47.1 ... ... ... ... 41.0 27.8 … … … …
Oman 47.8 55.6 41.3 49.8 50.4 44.7 29.6 36.1 24.1 31.5 31.9 26.9
Pakistan 37.3 46.9 22.5 34.2 37.9 38.4 33.8 38.7 26.3 32.8 33.4 34.9
Palestine State - Gaza 41.9 49.9 32.8 40.9 40.4 44.6 46.7 53.1 39.5 51.0 43.4 46.2
Palestine State - West Bank 46.0 66.2 24.6 45.0 47.8 44.4 36.7 48.9 23.6 42.8 33.4 34.0
Paraguay 20.2 26.1 14.5 20.2 18.6 21.8 16.2 18.7 13.7 21.1 12.8 15.9
Peru 36.9 52.4 21.5 37.1 38.8 35.0 37.2 42.2 32.2 33.5 39.5 37.1
Philippines 38.7 43.7 34.0 42.5 40.1 34.2 38.6 42.3 35.0 37.0 40.1 38.3
Qatar 50.6 62.5 38.0 47.0 52.4 54.7 40.4 50.6 29.6 38.0 40.8 44.7
Rodrigues 34.5 40.6 29.2 40.7 32.8 31.2 31.8 34.1 29.8 34.3 33.4 28.2
Saint Kitts and Nevis 37.8 44.2 31.2 41.5 38.0 35.5 34.9 42.2 27.6 38.6 33.9 34.0
Saint Lucia 40.7 52.4 31.1 49.1 41.3 33.5 34.0 41.7 27.7 40.4 33.1 29.8
Saint Vincent & the
46.0 55.5 37.1 52.6 41.2 40.9 38.9 45.8 32.7 42.8 35.9 35.9
Grenadines
Samoa 67.7 73.3 62.1 70.0 66.8 67.3 71.0 73.2 68.3 68.7 72.3 70.7
Seychelles 34.1 41.4 27.4 39.0 33.8 29.7 28.0 35.0 21.5 29.3 25.2 29.4
Solomon Islands 52.7 53.5 50.7 55.5 50.9 52.7 56.0 56.2 53.4 51.3 56.1 58.4
Sri Lanka 46.3 56.7 36.1 51.9 46.2 40.9 38.2 47.4 28.7 43.2 39.5 31.8
Suriname 20.5 30.4 12.3 21.3 19.0 21.5 23.3 28.2 19.2 25.0 21.2 24.0
Swaziland 19.4 27.4 14.3 27.9 18.8 15.6 32.0 36.0 29.3 31.2 32.1 32.2
Tajikistan 21.8 29.5 12.5 25.5 22.4 19.3 24.8 27.0 21.4 28.0 26.3 21.5
Tanzania
30.9 33.2 28.2 38.1 30.4 23.9 54.6 56.1 53.2 53.2 54.1 56.6
(United Republic of )
Thailand 29.0 37.0 20.5 33.1 27.2 26.2 29.8 39.2 19.7 35.4 28.8 24.2
The former Yugoslav Rep. of
30.1 40.7 18.4 30.4 27.4 32.6 19.5 24.6 13.8 19.2 17.8 21.8
Macedonia
Timor-Leste 33.7 39.8 26.9 37.1 32.4 33.4 41.6 44.0 38.6 50.7 39.9 39.2
Tokelau 75.1 88.4 60.1 ... ... ... 57.4 49.0 65.4
Tonga 38.1 49.9 25.3 41.7 38.9 33.9 48.4 54.1 42.3 49.8 47.5 48.1
Trinidad and Tobago 35.9 44.6 27.2 32.3 37.8 37.2 34.3 42.0 26.5 31.0 35.9 35.7
Tunisia 47.4 70.7 24.3 47.9 48.0 45.9 46.4 62.8 30.1 44.6 47.8 46.4
Tuvalu 71.1 76.5 65.8 73.2 72.7 66.1 62.7 73.1 53.3 65.8 58.9 62.9
Uganda 35.5 39.3 32.2 37.5 32.3 37.3
United Arab Emirates 41.2 54.3 28.8 42.9 44.0 37.2 27.8 36.7 19.2 34.0 29.9 21.2
69

Country/Territory/
Sex Age Sex Age
Uruguay 25.9 38.0 15.4 21.8 27.0 27.7 14.9 17.0 12.9 12.1 16.6 15.2
Vanuatu 50.5 59.9 41.8 55.8 49.7 43.4 54.0 55.8 51.4 57.3 54.2 48.6
Venezuela - Barinas 31.1 46.4 16.6 31.5 30.2 31.8 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Venezuela - Lara 28.2 45.4 11.8 29.4 28.3 23.3 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Viet Nam 21.8 33.4 11.8 ... 23.5 20.3 28.0 35.8 21.3 … 30.7 25.5
Wallis and Futuna 35.0 48.7 22.9 33.8 34.4 36.5 16.0 19.8 12.4 17.8 19.2 11.7
Yemen 44.3 56.9 27.5 45.3 51.4 36.6 40.1 48.4 28.4 40.9 43.4 36.1
Zambia 53.0 50.3 55.9 58.1 54.6 48.3 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Zimbabwe - Bulawayo 38.8 47.1 32.7 34.0 42.3 37.9 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Zimbabwe - Harare 37.9 45.2 30.7 40.0 39.1 35.9 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Zimbabwe - Manicaland 47.3 49.2 45.5 48.5 46.2 47.8 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Source: GSHS.
[1] The names of countries, territories and geographical areas used in this table are those used by the international surveys that are the data sources for the table.
These designations do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
70
Behind the numbers:
and bullying
School-related violence in all its forms, including bullying, is an infringement of
children’s and adolescents’ rights to education and health and well-being. No
country can achieve inclusive and equitable quality education for all if learners
experience violence in school.
This publication provides an overview of the most up-to-date evidence on

school violence and bullying. It includes global and regional prevalence and
trends, factors that influence vulnerability to school violence and bullying, and
consequences. The publication brings together for the first time in one place a
wealth of quantitative data from two large-scale international surveys: the Global
School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) and the Health Behaviour in School-
aged Children (HBSC) study. The surveys cover 144 countries and territories in all
regions of the world, and from a wide range of other global and regional surveys.
The publication also includes an analysis of factors that contribute to effective
national responses, based on a series of case studies commissioned by UNESCO
of countries that have succeeded in reducing the prevalence of school violence
and bullying or have maintained low levels of school violence over time.
Stay in touch
UNESCO
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris France
https://en.unesco.org/themes/school-violence-and-bullying
@UNESCO
@UNESCO 9 789231 003066

UNESCO Behind The Numbers 2019eng

Uploaded by

Copyright:

UNESCO Behind The Numbers 2019eng

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

UNESCO Behind The Numbers 2019eng

Uploaded by

Copyright:

United Nations Sustainable

Educational, Scientiﬁc and Development

Behind the numbers:

Cover photo credit: Pikul Noorod/Shutterstock.com

Graphic design: Ana C. Martin

Behind the numbers:

1.2 Data sources and definitions................................................................................................................................11

1.3 Target audience.........................................................................................................................................................15

1.4 Structure of the publication.................................................................................................................................15

2. Current status of school violence and bullying ................................................................ 16

2.2 Changes in prevalence over time.......................................................................................................................22

2.3 Influencing factors...................................................................................................................................................25

2.5 Regional snapshots..................................................................................................................................................34

3. What are the characteristics of effective national

3.2 Constraining factors................................................................................................................................................51

3.4 Relationship between the prevalence of violence in society and in schools.....................................55

4. Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 56

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

HBSC Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (study)

GSHS Global School-based Student Health Survey

ICT Information and communication technology

IPV Intimate partner violence

LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

NGO Non-governmental organization

PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

PISA Programme for International Students Assessment

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SWAGAA Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse

TERCE Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study

TIMSS Trends in Mathematics and Science Study

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNGEI United Nations Girls' Education Initiative

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNSC United Nations Security Council

VACS Violence Against Children Survey

WHO World Health Organization

Why is this publication important?

What do the data tell us about school violence and bullying?

The factors that influence vulnerability to school violence and bullying

The consequences of bullying

Bullying can have a significant impact on children’s mental

What are effective national responses?

What needs to be done?

1.1 Objectives 1.2 Data sources and definitions

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of school violence and bullying

Destroying Sexual Social

Box 1. Clarifications about the data

3 The DHS are implemented by ICF international.

Survey Managing institution Year Age group Countries/regions

9 In some countries, it was difficult to identify key informants able to provide a

2. Current status of school violence and bullying

Caribbean North America Europe Middle East

Physical Physical Physical Physical

25% 38.3% 33.8% 31.7% 25% 41.1% 42.8% 31%

Central America South America North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa

Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical

11 According to the GSHS definition, physical attacks on students may be

Some children are bullied very frequently. GSHS data from

There are significant differences in the prevalence and

Physical and sexual bullying are the

Box 2. Gang-related violence and school violence