In recent years, the rising incidence of violence in schools around the world points to a social problem that goes beyond the safety of children and youth. According to a recent report published in the United States (US), 46 attacks in and around schools during 2026 alone resulted in 31 fatalities.[i] The majority of those who died were students, including children. In Europe, on the other hand, students’ anger, anxiety, and concerns are now spilling outside of school. In early October 2026 in France, during protests that began over resource shortages, teacher deficits, and overcrowded classrooms in the education system, students from high schools to universities have begun exhibiting violence and being subjected to violence.[ii]
Explaining such incidents—which have also started to be seen in our country in recent years—with labels such as a temporary reaction of a specific generation, the behavior of angry adolescents, economic entrapment, or the influence of social media means reducing a multi-causal phenomenon to a single cause and moving away from the true dimensions of the situation. To understand school attacks, rather than focusing on the “perpetrators,” it is necessary to examine the network of relationships that makes violence possible. However, understanding why children and youth turn to violence does not mean condoning violence; rather, it is investigating which relationships, institutions, and social conditions fell short and what needs to be done.
Not “Generation Z,” but Bonds Between Generations are in Crisis
The frequently voiced rhetoric of the “problematic Generation Z” after school attacks is labeling that ignores the institutional responsibilities of adults. Adolescence is a period during which physical changes, the search for identity, the need for belonging, impulse control, peer relationships, and future life expectations develop intensely. These characteristics do not inherently bring about aggression. In the emergence of violence, alongside individual sensitivities, family relationships, peer bullying, exclusion, exposure to violence, access to weapons, and social conditions play roles together.
An important concept here is “invisible exclusion”: a child’s not being seen or listened to, despite being present at school or within the family, and not being able to feel like a meaningful member of a community. The perception of failure, humiliation, loneliness, or injustice can accumulate and fuel anger. However, not every excluded child turns to violence; aggression must be evaluated within the interaction of specific risks and protective factors.
Incidents extending from high schools to middle schools require us not to collectively declare age groups or at-risk children and youth dangerous, but rather to examine peer, family, and societal bullying starting at earlier ages, skills in expressing emotions, trust in adults, and the effectiveness of support resources for the child.
Violence Has No Single Cause or Culprit: Economy, Digital World, and Substance Use
Economic inequality, anxiety about the future, precarity, and differences in families’ access to resources narrow children’s developmental opportunities. Overcrowded classrooms, inadequate support services, and an educational approach that reduces success to exam results can also weaken some students’ sense of belonging. However, poverty is not a direct cause of aggression; the fact that children growing up in similar conditions follow different paths demonstrates the importance of protective relationships.
Digital environments add a new layer to this picture. The turning of violence into a spectacle, the heroization of aggressive figures, cyberbullying, and the rapid spread of misinformation can influence the behaviors and perceptions of violence of some youth. It is also possible for online conflicts among peers to spill over into school corridors. Nonetheless, screen time or a single game cannot be considered the cause of violence on its own. As recommended by the World Health Organization (2019), preventing online violence requires addressing digital safety alongside peer relationships, family involvement, and school-based work.[iii]
The transformation of digital use into a loss of control can be seen alongside issues such as difficulties in cognitive functions, impairment in sleep and functionality, isolation, and impulsivity. The use of alcohol and other substances also negatively affects decision-making skills and impulse control. However, there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between addictions and aggression. Every child must be evaluated within their individual and environmental context.
The Disconnection Among Family, School, and Society
The presence of secure and affection-inspiring bonds, consistent boundaries, and healthy role models in the family is a protective factor. Yet, holding the family solely responsible is not a solution either. Parents’ ways of coping with economic and psychological burdens, long working hours, relationships with the screen and digital world, or their own experiences of violence affect their relationship with the child. Healthy authority should not be about intimidation; it should involve behaviors that can protect the relationship and the child while setting boundaries.
School, on the other hand, should not be merely an institution that transfers knowledge, but one where the child learns to be accepted, to express themselves within relationships, and to experience a sense of justice. Teachers’ skills in recognizing signs of violence from the perspectives of both the aggressor and the victim, intervening appropriately and necessarily against bullying, and guiding students without stigmatizing them are important. In this context, it should not be overlooked that school psychological counselors have obligations under both professional ethics and legal terms to know, monitor, provide psychological support to the child, and—when necessary—work together with security and health organizations to support the healthy development of children.
Regarding this issue, which is becoming widespread globally and affecting the future and security of both youth and society, the measures of the Ministry of National Education are also on the agenda in Turkey. Regulations concerning psychological counseling and guidance services in educational institutions are based on developmental and preventive services, as well as student-family-teacher cooperation.[iv] School mental health specialists play a role in early recognition and prevention, psychosocial support, and post-crisis recovery; community mental health and child-adolescent mental health specialists play a role in clinical evaluation and treatment when necessary. Specifically regarding school attacks, an approach that takes threats seriously, yet does not declare every angry or withdrawn child a potential aggressor, is required. A psychological counselor cannot keep every child under constant individual surveillance through interviews and programs they will conduct, nor is it possible for them to heal a child alone. Against risk signs, the school, family, and relevant mental health, social, and security service units must act in coordination. Consequently, the conditions necessary for school counselors to effectively monitor children come to the agenda. The number of “competent” school psychological counselors per student, responsibilities toward the child and the boundaries of confidentiality, active family participation, referral mechanisms, and access to specialists must be examined together.
Is a Security Guard Enough? International Impacts and National Policies
It is assumed that security guards, controlled entrances, reduced access to weapons and cutting tools, emergency plans, and rapid intervention in schools can lower the risk of loss of life. However, such preparations directed toward the approach of a potential attack cannot single-handedly solve the exclusion, threat, or accumulated conflict that brought the child to this point before the attack. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also treats school violence as an area that requires evaluating individual, relational, social, and structural risks together.[v]
News of attacks in the US and Europe, shares in digital communities, and content glorifying violence can influence the models encountered by youth in Turkey. However, there is no situation where direct external political intervention or the policies of a specific country cause these attacks. Global polarization, the perception of impunity, hardening in public language, and the reflections of violence becoming ordinary and going unpunished in daily community life are factors worth researching. Politics’ responsibility is to evaluate systematic data, audit institutions, and guarantee children’s rights without causing institutions to mutually blame one another.
What Should Change, What Awaits Us?
The publication of regular, comparable national data for school attacks and bullying can be seen as a fundamental step. Within this scope, the role of pre-incident warnings, family and school interventions, access to weapons, and the social environment should be examined independently. Concrete practices regarding the unacceptability of bullying in schools, student participation, family trainings, and functional specialist support should gain continuity. Alongside rapid and fair investigations, the law must ensure the protection of victims and interventions appropriate to the developmental needs of children.
Otherwise, the most objectionable things happen: demands for more security measures, harsher punishments, and more intensive surveillance targeting children and youth increase. Moreover, in the child and adolescent who cannot be understood, cannot feel loved, does not witness compassion, is not taught self-control while being spoiled, and cannot express themselves, fear, stigmatization, anger, hatred, and alienation from school also deepen. The functional option is to sustain security and freedom through a relationship of trust, rather than viewing them as opposing poles.
Therefore, the following questions must also be asked: Who remains invisible at school? Do students find a reliable adult to turn to when they are wronged? Why do children reporting threats of violence feel afraid, and how does the process work in practice following the report? Do institutions record and monitor warnings? How do they monitor them? How competent are the practitioners on the ground? Does children’s access to mental health support vary according to economic income? Does news of violence unintentionally heroize the aggressor? Is family culture protective of the child against violence in the screen and virtual world? Do institutional support resources responsible for the child take protective actions in the face of violence witnessed or experienced within the family?
Conclusion
The phenomenon of school-related violence is an obstacle before children’s and adolescents’ rights to education, health, and well-being. As long as students face violence at school, inclusive and equal-quality education cannot be achieved in any country.[vi]School attacks test not only problems specific to children and adolescents, but actually the quality of the relationship that society establishes with children. They require questioning a multi-layered structure extending from the family to the school, and from social relationships to public policies.
The prevention of violence requires meeting children’s needs for belonging, security, justice, and being understood; supporting families; strengthening educators and school psychological counselors; and facilitating access to mental health services. Security measures are important, of course; however, no practice that fails to change the conditions growing children up amidst violence is sufficient on its own. Taking early warnings into account, evaluating threats of violence seriously, and supporting children without stigmatization must form the basis of the protective approach.
A society that can notice children’s silence, anger, and calls for help in a timely manner can produce preventive, fair, and applicable solutions by going beyond punishment in the fight against violence. All factors—from digital risks to social inequalities, and from institutional negligences to discourses that trivialize violence—must be evaluated together. The ultimate goal is to establish a system that protects children and strengthens inter-institutional cooperation.
Because protecting children is protecting the future!
[i] “School Shootings in The US: Fast facts”, CNN US, https://edition.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg, (Date Accessed: 10.10.2026).
[ii] “Fransa’da okul protestoları büyüyor: Yaklaşık 2000 gözaltı”, DW Türkçe, https://tinyurl.com/2mu29v9j, (Date Accessed: 11.10.2026).
[iii] “New report showcases strategies to keep children safe online”, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (WHO), https://www.who.int/news/item/02-12-2022-new-report-showcases-strategies–to-keep-children-safe-online, (Date Accessed: 10.10.2026).
[iv] “Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışma Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği”, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=34760&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5, (Date Accessed: 10.10.2026).
[v] “Youth Violence Prevention: About Youth Violence”, ABD Hastalık Kontrol ve Önleme Merkezi (CDC), https://www.cdc.gov/youth-violence/about/about-school-violence.html, (Date Accessed: 10.10.2026).
[vi] “Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying”, Birleşmiş Milletler Eğitim, Bilim ve Kültür Örgütü (UNESCO), https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/behind-numbers-ending-school-violence-and-bullying, (Date Accessed: 10.10.2026).
