Chapter 4Addressing disruption

4.1Many participants in this inquiry argued that evidence-based approaches are more effective in managing challenging behaviour than reactive approaches, which attempt to deal with behavioural issues after they occur. These practices could include promoting effective instructional environments, leadership within schools, equipping teachers with the necessary skills in evidence-based classroom management techniques, and providing better resources and supports for teachers in the classroom.

4.2This chapter discusses these matters in greater detail.

Promoting effective instructional environments

4.3The inquiry found a range of evidence-based practices and frameworks that could better address the issue of disruptive behaviour in school classrooms. Many submitters argued that there is a clear link between highly effective instructional environments, leadership within schools, classroom management, and behavioural outcomes.[1]

4.4The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) was of the view that the application of 'evidence-based whole-class teaching practices, along with the provision of additional support or extension for a smaller number of students, is fundamental to addressing the prevalent low-level disengagement and disruption caused by work-related difficulties in Australian schools'.[2]

4.5Similarly, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) indicated that contemporary research into classroom management has 'consistently found that proactive evidence-based practices, which focus on teaching and reinforcing expected behaviours, are more effective than reactive approaches which focus on dealing with behavioural issues after they occur'.[3]

4.6The National Catholic Education Commission concurred:

Maximising the use of evidence informed responses will equip teachers and schools with skills and strategies to manage classrooms and create learning environments best suited to equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary to make meaningful contributions to their communities and the nation as a whole.[4]

4.7Several submitters supported evidence-based explicit instructional models as they have been shown to be effective in addressing disruptive behaviours in classrooms. AERO submitted that it has 'the most rigorous and relevant research to identify the evidence-based practices that have been proven to make a difference in the learning outcomes for students', including:

explicit instruction;

formative assessment;

mastery learning; and

spacing and retrieval.[5]

4.8Despite the evidence backing these particular instructional models as being best practice, AERO noted that its own survey showed that 'teachers do not consistently understand or implement well-established evidence-based practices that create safe and supportive learning environments'. AERO determined that:

Classroom management is the least implemented among the evidence-based practices we've investigated. As an example, as a proportion, only 60 per cent of year 4 teachers and 38 per cent of year 8 teachers responding to our survey agreed that their school's rules were enforced in a fair and consistent manner. Our research shows that teachers are very keen to implement evidence-based approaches in their practice, but they lack time, and they lack confidence.[6]

4.9To this end, AERO stated it had been commissioned by the Department of Education to develop a range of resources for the 'Engaged Classrooms' initiative that will be publicly available to 'anybody who is a teacher or school leader... The practices that we describe will form part of the core content curriculum for initial teacher education into the future'.[7]

4.10AERO explained the rationale behind 'Engaged Classrooms' as the:

… understanding that behaviour needs to be explicitly taught and it can be treated like other elements of the curriculum with content that needs to be taught, practised and retrieved so that it becomes routine ... The project provides an important opportunity to translate the strong and established evidence into useful and practical resources for teachers and leaders. It has the potential to support the best approaches being implemented systematically across all Australian classrooms to help every young Australian learn and achieve success.[8]

4.11Consideration of the physical learning environment is also important. The NSW Department of Education gave evidence stating that 'in our schools we would not have any school that is an entirely open-plan school'.[9] They further clarified that:

Open-plan classrooms are large learning spaces designed to accommodate between 2 – 4 classes of students without the ability to create smaller spaces through the use of operable walls. The majority of recently completed new and upgraded public schools in NSW have traditional classroom spaces that include breakout areas … Current and future new and upgraded school projects will not include the construction of open-plan classrooms that cannot function as an individual classroom …[10]

4.12The Australian Psychological Society (APS) argued that cross-jurisdictional coordination was required to develop a national approach to assisting schools to select and implement evidence-informed resources and programs, noting:

… educators face a confusing and disjointed proliferation of poorly evaluated approaches, programs, and services, and often lack the resources and supports to select effective options suitable for their school context. There are numerous toolkits, planning templates and program databases across the various federal and state jurisdictions and educational sectors, which add to the confusion.[11]

Whole-school approaches to addressing behaviour

4.13The adoption of a whole-school approach to behaviour management that is underpinned by ongoing training and resources, was advocated by many submitters.[12] For instance, Dr Donna Cross, the Chief Behavioural Adviser for the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education, told the committee:

I think perhaps when people think about disruptive behaviour they only think about what can be done in a classroom environment without also thinking deeply about the ways that policies can be influenced, and the ways parents can be much more actively engaged in that process, how the physical environment can lead to disruptive behaviour, the importance of school climate and setting a climate that is building relationships between students and staff, staff and parents. And of course, the quality of the pedagogy and engagement of student voice as being elements within a whole-school approach; these each have a unique contribution to the ways that children behave in that environment but with a particular emphasis on relationships.[13]

4.14Similarly, Dr Tim McDonald, the Chief Executive Officer of YMCA Western Australia, told the committee:

We know that students who are dysregulated in their emotional control thrive in predictable classrooms that have clear consequences and they know that they're followed through. So they know exactly where they stand. The teaching of behaviour is not going to stop violence, is not going to stop aggressive behaviour. Be clear on that. But will it lessen the disruptive behaviour that is prevalent in Australian classrooms? I believe it will. It will enable people to learn and to get that success from achievement.[14]

4.15MultiLit recommended the adoption of:

… a whole-school approach to behaviour support where policies and procedures focus on preventative action to drive positive school culture and align practice with school values. Consistent approaches across classrooms ensures that there is predictability and fairness for students around behavioural expectations that are reinforced over time.[15]

4.16The Y WA also argued that the 'teaching of behaviour is best coordinated across the school as a 'behaviour curriculum'. It explained that:

This curriculum development is purposeful and will take time. Students will not automatically 'know' how to behave because the teacher tells them on day one. Students will need time to develop the behaviours required and will need plenty of practice to ensure that they understand how to behave and for these behaviours to become habits. As in the teaching of subject concepts we want the students to become automatic (e.g., times tables) in their responses to reduce time thinking, the same automaticity is what we want from the students with how they behave and listen. We want students to have the habits of good learning behaviours as a result of the behaviours being taught, practiced, reviewed, re-taught and practiced some more.[16]

4.17Similarly, Professor Tom Bennett, School Behaviour Adviser to the United Kingdom's Department for Education, underscored the importance of teaching behaviour in the classroom and in the school setting more broadly:

You keep teaching the behaviour and linking it to the value—here's the behaviour; link it to the value. It's not just simply plodding through the behaviours by lecturing to children. You have discussions about it. You check their understanding. You quiz them. You can do role plays. You can talk about the values you want to talk about, whether it be stoicism or motivation or integrity. You teach them how to share, what to do if they are sad and what to do if they need the bathroom. You teach them these behaviours that seem obvious to us, because we're good at them, but aren't obvious to children. You teach as if it was a subject. Once you've had that discreet package delivered, you then revisit it constantly, on a daily basis, on a conversational basis, particularly, for instance, in pastoral meetings and so on. But it becomes part of the common, everyday language.[17]

4.18The committee observed first-hand that schools that perform well in classroom behaviour management have a strong commitment to, as well as knowledge of, explicit teaching practices. For example, the committee had the opportunity to see how the evidence-based Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) model was successfully applied in practice at Marsden Road Public School (See Box 4.1).

4.19Some participants noted the importance of productive engagement and connections between parents/communities and schools.[18]For example, the ACU pointed out that the 'solution is not entirely in the hands of the teaching staff and school leaders'. The ACU argued:

Unless there is a partnership between families and the school, any young teacher is going to be floundering if they don't get the early mentoring and support. I note that in the Teacher Workforce Action Plan that is an item for support. That's to be applauded, because that will help them retain and translate their training into their school.[19]

Supporting teachers to manage disruptive behaviour

4.20Multiple participants highlighted the need to ensure that initial teacher education (ITE) courses are including these best practice methods on classroom and behaviour management to better prepare new teachers for the challenges of disruptive behaviour in the classroom.[20]

Initial teacher education

4.21The inquiry heard calls from several stakeholders for a stronger, more consistent focus on behaviour management in ITE courses.[21] For example, Independent Schools Australia (ISA) argued that ITE programs need to better prepare teachers to work with students demonstrating challenging behaviours:

A greater focus in ITE programs and practicums on positive classroom management in diverse contexts may better prepare graduate teachers in developing positive classroom climates. AISs [Associations of Independent Schools] noted that teacher graduate preparedness for student behaviour management and classroom safety varies across the sector.[22]

4.22Indeed, the Australian Professional Teachers Association (APTA) suggested this would require a greater focus on the practical aspects of teaching, rather than theoretical approaches:

Teachers need time in the classroom to gain experience in managing classroom behaviour and need to feel supported in what they are doing. While the very basics of classroom management can be taught in a lecture theatre, the classroom is where these skills will be developed. One could argue that there are not many teachers equipped to manage the current level of disruption being seen across many schools and that in some cases the classroom environment is beyond what should be expected of a classroom teacher in a mainstream setting.[23]

4.23In addition, ADHD Australia and Macquarie University commented on the lack of teacher education and professional development around conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other disabilities:

The lack of ADHD teacher professional learning and the disempowerment that teachers feel leads to high rates of teacher burnout and teacher mental ill-health. Likewise, parenting stress is higher for ADHD than for autism, and often leads to burn-out and parent mental ill-health. Mental ill-health cost the Australian government $11 billion in 2019 to 2020, and costs are set to increase dramatically by 2025. ADHD teacher training and professional development will not only have positive impacts on ADHD students, but also on teachers and parents.[24]

4.24MultiLit pointed out that teacher training 'tends to focus on how to assess academic difficulties but fails to provide training on how to systematically assess and support challenging behaviour'. MultiLit observed:

Lack of training in a function-based approach to behaviour management (the 'why' a student may be engaging in certain behaviours) often leads teachers down a slippery path toward the overuse of reactive and aversive strategies. In addition, without understanding or identifying the function of the problem behaviour, teachers are more likely to inadvertently reinforce and strengthen problem behaviour.[25]

4.25The Y WA agreed that classroom management was crucial for students and early career teachers and suggested that 'students are not uniformly taught the skills or abilities to establish positive learning environments'. It argued:

The students are often held captive by theory with little application to practice. It is unfortunate that the theory that is taught runs counter to the Science of Learning and therefore the ability to teach students behaviour. The concept of teaching behaviour or indeed that we need to see behaviour as a curriculum is not evidenced in ITE graduates or those on practicums that I have encountered in classrooms across several states.[26]

4.26There was also support from some stakeholders for the embedding of trauma-informed positive education strategies in all Australian classrooms.[27]Some participants advocated for the introduction of compulsory, comprehensive, and ongoing training for educators on inclusion.[28]

4.27However, Professor Bennett cautioned against reliance of these strategies in place of whole-school behaviour management approaches:

… many teachers and school leaders are required to operate on policies which centre trauma informed approaches, therapeutic approaches, restorative-practice-based approaches and so on. There are grains of truth and science in all of these approaches, but they are not whole-school behaviour management approaches. We often see that schools that attempt to treat misbehaviour as some kind of pathology of a child's mental state always—and I mean always—come a cropper. They always do badly.[29]

4.28Many participants noted that the issues raised during the inquiry regarding ITE have been addressed by the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review, and/or supported the subsequent recommendations of the Teacher Education Expert Panel (Expert Panel).[30]

4.29The Expert Panel's report included 14 recommendations to improve teacher training and better prepare teachers for the classroom, including:

strengthening ITE to deliver confident, effective beginning teachers;

drawing a stronger link between performance and funding of ITE;

improving practical teaching experience; and

enhancing postgraduate ITE programs for mid-career entrants.[31]

4.30In relation to introducing core content requirements for every initial teacher education course, the Department of Education (department) noted that:

AITSL is bringing advice back to the next education ministers meeting in October about how to fast-track implementation. If we let the normal accreditation cycles roll out, it will take up to 10 years to implement changes to initial teacher education programs across the country. The idea that ministers have come up with is that they want to fast-track that so that it's done by the end of 2025.[32]

Experience in the classroom

4.31Several participants called for improved partnerships between universities and schools to increase pre-service teachers' exposure to the management of difficult classroom situations.[33]

4.32For example, the Australian Catholic University (ACU) recommended 'stronger and deeper partnerships between universities and schools to foster a closer relationship between theory and practice'. The ACU argued that this 'would enable opportunities for pre-service teachers to be exposed to expert teachers managing difficult situations, and students, in classrooms.[34]

4.33The ACU suggested various ways this could be achieved, including by expanding 'hub schools' to facilitate immersion of pre-service teachers, engaging pre-service teachers as paraprofessionals and/or learning support officers in schools, and using realistic simulations of school life and emerging technologies.[35]

4.34Similarly, AITSL noted that:

… there is some excellent practice across the country, but we'd be keen to do work to make sure that teachers had more better-quality exposure to a variety of situations in schools, because we know classroom management is one of those things that has a significant practical component. Perhaps you only really learn it once you've got experience in a classroom.[36]

Peer learning and mentoring

4.35Several participants highlighted the importance of peer learning and mentoring relationships within schools to support new teachers entering the profession and help them develop their skills.[37]

4.36Indeed, Social Ventures Australia (SVA) observed that 'classroom management tends to be more of a problem for teachers earlier in their careers than for those with more experience'. As such, SVA argued that 'early career teachers may require tailored support—such as coaching and mentoring with more explicit learning about classroom behaviour strategies—to help them create a positive classroom climate while they develop their craft'.[38]

4.37Similarly, Dr Cross, the Chief Behavioural Adviser to the NSW Government, noted that there tends to be a 'focus on the content of what teachers are teaching and less on how to manage and the quality of pedagogy in our classrooms'.Dr Cross argued that:

There needs to be much stronger induction and mentorship, expert teacher apprenticeships that are built around educators who are first in the workplace. Even the possibility of teachers in their first year being something like a learning support officer who supports other staff but at the same time is getting expert mentorship around that. I believe we need much more qualified special education educators within the school, and those in allied health who can support the mental health and development of children and building those skills and staff.[39]

4.38When it came to the importance of practicum as an essential component of ITE, the ACU noted that 'peer learning is not a common practice in Australian teaching culture, as it is in other countries'.[40] The ACU went on to observe:

In Shanghai, for example, all teachers have mentors, and new teachers have several mentors who observe and give feedback on their classes. In many high performing East Asian countries, teachers regularly observe each other’s classes, providing instant feedback to improve each student's learning. By contrast, registered teachers in Australia can spend their entire career without ever having their teaching observed by another teacher.

Teacher isolation, rather than peer observation, is the norm in Australia which undoubtedly is one of the reasons why universities struggle to find enough teacher supervisors for their preservice teachers.[41]

4.39AITSL noted that it is currently developing national guidelines to support early career teachers and new school leaders, including mentoring and induction as part of the National Teacher Work Force Action Plan.[42]

Early identification and intervention

4.40Many submitters underscored the importance of early intervention to support students who may have behavioural issues when they enter schooling.[43] Asnoted in Chapter 3, this is particularly the case for student cohorts that are overrepresented in problematic behaviours.[44]

4.41The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) argued that schools and teachers must be adequately resourced so that each student has a sense of belonging and the appropriate support in place to fully participate in their own learning. ARACY indicated that:

Within the classroom or formal education setting, it is imperative that each student feels included, has a sense of belonging, and has the appropriate support in place to fully participate in their own learning. ARACY firmly supports that all students, particularly those in priority cohorts such as First Nations' students, those with disability, and those who are neurodiverse, have a right to access a learning environment that supports their individual needs, and where additional support, if required, is provided. This, of course, speaks to the importance of adequately resourced schools, classrooms, and teaching staff.[45]

4.42The APS strongly advocated for the 'implementation of evidence-informed whole school, multi-tiered approaches to addressing disruptive behaviour and other learning, mental health and wellbeing concerns in schools that are often comorbid with disruptive behaviour problems'. The APS argued that:

Improved educational outcomes are associated with sustained whole school approaches that have internally coordinated tiers of health promotion, targeted prevention, and early intervention support and connect with external and community support systems. Whole school approaches also prompt schools to address policies, procedures and practices that can help to prevent disruptive behaviour occurring in schools and classrooms.[46]

4.43Arange of submitters, such as the Disability Discrimination Legal Service (DDLS), concurred and stressed that 'teachers ought not be expected to resolve issues that arise from complex disabilities'.[47] Indeed, many participants emphasised the importance of additional supports, such as behaviour specialists and other allied health professionals.[48] For instance, Monash University Faculty of Education indicated that many states and territories were developing additional coaching workforces to support teachers to implement evidence-based behaviour support practices:

In Victoria, the Department of Education has developed new roles for certified behaviour analysts, behaviour coaches, and inclusion coaches with specific expertise to help teachers and school leaders support students with higher needs and behaviours of concern, including students with disabilities. The New South Wales Department of Education has recently created new behaviour specialist roles. The Behaviour Specialist is a new, non-school-based position that will join the Delivery Support team. It is anticipated that Behaviour Specialists work with schools to support students with complex behaviours as well as offer a range of capacity-building resources. In Queensland, each state school region has a PBL principal advisor who provides professional development and coaching support to PBL schools.[49]

4.44To this end, the Catholic Schools Parramatta Diocese (CSPD) noted that it was one of the 'few jurisdictions in Australia to use an interdisciplinary team of leading and specialist teachers, social workers, and psychologists to support schools in their management of problematic student behaviour'. It explained:

In CSPD schools, teachers managing problematic behaviours associated with a disability are supported by an interdisciplinary team of psychologists, social workers, leading and specialist teachers to identify and manage the risks presented by students and to plan for students' management and learning adjustments.[50]

4.45The committee observed firsthand the benefits of an integrated approach to preventing behavioural problems through screening and early intervention by an interdisciplinary team of specialists and teachers (See Box 4.2).

4.46However, participants also noted the shortages of experienced teachers and long waitlists for qualified professional, health, and school counselling services.[51] Forinstance, the Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators (WAESPA) noted that the lengthy wait time for medical diagnosis of conditions such as autism:

At the moment there's about a 12-month waitlist to get a paediatrician appointment. From there, if they've identified that possibly there are any ASD traits, it's about 24 to 28 months to get the diagnosis. That's three years of a child's life. They can be well into schooling before we get even a diagnosis. So all that early intervention is missed. I think we need to look at something more like a functional needs model where we actually look at the needs of the student and really identify what's going on for that child, particularly in those early years, because the more early intervention we can actually do for our students, the better the outcome is going to be.[52]

4.47The Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO) raised similar concerns about access to allied health practitioners—and noted that 80 per cent of parents are greatly concerned about their child's mental health and well-being:

Access to allied health practitioners is difficult, with wait lists for psychologists, speech pathologists, and occupational therapists as long as six, twelve, or even twenty-four months. ACSSO's position is that qualified and sufficient professional school counselling services are urgently needed, as the rise in the prevalence of mental health issues, the diagnosis of autism and other student disability diagnoses … all have an impact on the additional support required for staff, students, and families in the classroom.[53]

4.48Further, the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People (CCYP SA) called for more streamlined referral pathways:

Young people said they also want know more about what support is available to the both inside and outside of school, and for there to be clearer referral pathways. There appears to be a lack of coordination between education and mental health systems. Embedding a coordinated multi-sector response that provides for a continuum of supports and involve schools, community partners and different levels of government, as well as primary health care, including professional and peer workforce teams who are specialists in child and adolescent health.[54]

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, MultiLit, Submission 28, pp. 1–2; Monash University Faculty of Education, Submission 30, pp. 12–16; Independent Schools Australia, Submission 43, pp. 4–5; Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators Association, Submission 3, p. 3; Australian Psychological Society, Submission 57, p. 2; Australian Association of Special Education, Submission 35, [p. 4]; y Associate Professor Rebecca Collie, Submission 16, p. 3; Dr Robyn Wheldall, Director, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 9.

[2]Australian Education Research Organisation, Submission 23, p. 3 See also, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Submission 82, p. 2.

[3]Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Submission 82, p. 2.

[4]National Catholic Education Commission, Submission 27, p. 4.

[5]Australian Education Research Organisation, Submission 23, p. 1, Dr Jennfier Buckingham, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, Mrs Karen Yager, Vice President, Australian Professional Teachers Association, Proof Committee Hansard, p. 25, MultiLit, Submission 28, p.6, Dr Helen Egeber, Senior Lecturer, Edith Cowan University School of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, p. 3.

[6]Dr Jenny Donovan, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Education Research Organisation, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 28.

[7]Dr Jenny Donovan, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Education Research Organisation, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 29.

[8]Dr Jenny Donovan, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Education Research Organisation, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, pp. 28–29.

[9]Ms Leanne Nixon, Acting Deputy Secretary, Learning Improvement, Department of Education, New South Wales, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 36.

[10]Department of Education, New South Wales, Answers to questions taken on notice, 4 August 2023 (received 30 August 2023), p. 6.

[11]Australian Psychological Society, Submission 57, p. 2.

[12]See, for example, Dr Greg Ashman, Submission 5, [pp.9–11]; Social Ventures Australia, Submission50, p. 2; MultiLit, Submission 28, p. 3; Monash University Faculty of Education, Submission 30; Independent Schools Australia, Submission 43, pp. 4–5.

[13]Dr Donna Cross, Chief Behavioural Adviser, New South Wales Government, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 8.

[14]Dr Tim McDonald, Chief Executive Officer, YMCA Western Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 7June 2023, p. 37.

[15]MultiLit, Submission 28, p. 3 (citations omitted).

[16]The Y WA, Submission 52, p. 4.

[17]Professor Tom Bennett, School Behaviour Adviser, Department for Education, United Kingdom, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 November 2023, p. 5.

[18]See, for example, Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 11, p. 6; Country Education Partnership, Submission 14, [p. 1]. See also, Dr Jenny Donovan, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Education Research Organisation, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 32.

[19]Dr Paul Kidson, Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership, National School of Education, Australian Catholic University, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 19.

[20]See, for example, MultiLit, Submission 28, p. 4; Ms Deborah Taylor, President, Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 June 2023, p. 12.

[21]See, for example, Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators, Submission3, p. 3; NSW Secondary Principals' Council, Submission 29, [p. 1]; Australian Education Union, Submission 33, pp.10–11; MultiLit, Submission 28, pp. 4–5; NSW Secondary Principals' Council, Submission 29, [p.2]; MacKillop Family Services, Submission 34, pp. 3–4; Western Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 47, p. 4; Ms Carol Barnes, Submission71, p. 3.

[22]Independent Schools Australia, Submission 43, p. 5.

[23]Australian Professional Teachers Association, Submission 17, p. 6.

[24]ADHD Australia and Macquarie University, Submission 62, p. 5.

[25]MultiLit, Submission 28, p. 5 (citations omitted).

[26]The Y WA, Submission 52, p. 5. See also, Dr Tim McDonald, Chief Executive Officer, YMCA Western Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 7June 2023, p. 38.

[27]See, for example, Berry Street, Submission 38, p. 2; Secondary Principals' Council, Submission 29, [p.3].

[28]See, for example, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, Submission 26, p.3.

[29]Professor Tom Bennett, School Behaviour Adviser, Department for Education, United Kingdom, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 November 2023, p. 2.

[30]See, for example, Dr Jenny Donovan, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Education Research Organisation, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 29; Dr Jennifer Buckingham, Private capacity, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 7; Mr Glenn Fahey, Director of Education, Centre for Independent Studies, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 3.

[31]Australian Government, Strong Beginnings: Report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel, July 2023, pp. 17–21.

[32]Ms Julie Birmingham, First Assistant Secretary, Teaching and Learning Division, Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 36. See also, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Submission 82, pp. 6–7.

[33]See, for example, Advocate for Children and Young People, Submission 53, [p. 2], Dr Tim McDonald, Chief Executive Officer, YMCA Western Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 June 2023, p. 38, Dr Robyn Wheldall, Director, MultiLit, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 9, Mrs Karen Yager, Vice President, Australian Professional Teachers Association, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 27, Ms Deborah Taylor, President, Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 June 2023, p. 9, Name Withheld, Submission 66, p. 5.

[34]Australian Catholic University, Submission 4, p. 1.

[35]Australian Catholic University, Submission 4, p. 1. See also, Australian Catholic University, answers to questions taken on notice, 4 August 2023 (received 5 September 2023); Northern Sydney District Council of P&C Associations, Submission 51, p. 4.

[36]Mr Edmund Mission, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 25.

[37]See, for example, Western Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 47, p. 5; DrPaul Kidson, Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership, National School of Education, Australian Catholic University, Proof Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, pp. 21–22, Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Submission 2, [p. 3], Associate Professor Rebecca Collie, Submission 16, [p. 3].

[38]Social Ventures Australia, Submission 50, p. 2.

[39]Dr Donna Cross, Chief Behavioural Adviser, New South Wales Government, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 September 2023, p. 8.

[40]Australian Catholic University, Submission 4, p. 2.

[41]Australian Catholic University, Submission 4, pp. 2–3.

[42]Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Submission 82, p. 2.

[43]See, for example, Australian Association of Special Education, Submission 35, [p. 2]; Schofields Public School P&C Association, Submission 48, [pp. 4–5]; Australian Psychological Society, Submission 57, p. 2.

[44]Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Submission 1, p. 2 (citation omitted).

[45]Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, Submission 32, p. 3.

[46]Australian Psychological Society, Submission 57, p. 2.

[47]Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Submission 1, p. 4. See also, Institute of Special Educators, Submission 13, [p. 2]; Catholic School Parents Australia, Submission 19, p. 14; Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 45, pp. 14–15.

[48]See, for example, Autism CRC, Submission 25, p. 5; Name Withheld, Submission 68, [p. 1]; Associate Professor Rebecca Collie, Submission 16, [p. 3]; Australian Association of Special Education Inc, Submission 35, [p. 4]; Dr Geoff Kewley, Submission 75, pp. 2–3; Name Withheld, Submission 68, [p. 1]; Monash University Faculty of Education, Submission 30, p. 10.

[49]Monash University Faculty of Education, Submission 30, p. 10

[50]Catholic Schools Parramatta Diocese, Submission 58, p. 3.

[51]See, for example, Australian Council of State School Organisations, Submission 11, pp. 5–6; NSW Secondary Principals' Council, Submission 29, [p. 2]; Monash University Faculty of Education, Submission 30, p. 11; Australian Education Union, Submission 33, pp. 9–10.

[52]Ms Deborah Taylor, President, Western Australian Education Support Principals and Administrators, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 June 2023, pp. 9–10.

[53]Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO), Submission 11, p. 7. Refers to results from ACSSO's 2022 National Survey.

[54]South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 45, p. 10.