Executive
summary
- Classroom
disruption and disruptive student behaviour is a complex and multifaceted
issue. Disruptive behaviour in schools encompasses a wide range of behaviours,
ranging from chatting in class to physical violence.[1]
Problematic student behaviour is intertwined with numerous aspects of schooling
including student engagement, classroom management practices, school learning
environments and disciplinary practices.
- Classroom
disruption can impact negatively on students and teachers. Disruptive classroom
environments are associated with poorer student performance, which can in turn
have long-term impacts on students’ lives. Disruptive student behaviour can
impact on teachers’ job satisfaction and contribute to teachers wanting to
leave the profession.[2]
- Managing
disruptive behaviour can be difficult. Classroom management is one of the most
challenging aspects of teachers’ roles, particularly for early career teachers.[3]
Furthermore, strict disciplinary practices used to manage problematic student
behaviour such as suspension or expulsion can themselves have negative impacts
on students.[4]
In Australia, exclusionary practices disproportionately affect boys, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander students, students with disability, and those living
in out-of-home care.[5]
Introduction
This paper explores issues related to
classroom disruption, including what it is, its impact on students and
teachers, and approaches to managing it. Based on students’ reports in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) in 2018, the disciplinary climate in schools in Australia
is among the worst in OECD countries.[6]
Classroom disruption can impede student learning, contributing to lost teaching
time and making it difficult for students to concentrate. It can also take a
toll on teachers, contributing to a loss of job satisfaction, stress and
burnout.
In Australia, there are 2 broad school sectors: government
(also referred to as public or state schools) and non-government (also referred
to as private or non-state) schools.[7]
State and territory governments administer and operate government schools and
regulate government and non-government schools in their jurisdiction.
Non-government schools can be further distinguished as Catholic and independent
schools. Many non-government schools have a religious affiliation or promote a
particular educational philosophy. Non-government schools may be administered
as part of a system, or operate as single entities.
Schools and school authorities have policies and procedures to
guide responses to disruptive student behaviour. In response to persistent or
serious student misbehaviour, schools may employ exclusionary disciplinary
approaches such as suspensions or expulsions. However, research has found that such
punitive approaches are disproportionately applied towards students who are
disadvantaged and male students, and can themselves have negative impacts on
students.[8]
In Australia, better data is needed on suspensions and expulsions. There is no
nationally consistent data on suspensions and expulsions in government schools
and no publicly available data for non-government schools.
In this paper, we consider what constitutes disruptive
behaviour in schools and how it can be measured. We discuss examples of data
that can provide insight into the extent of classroom disruption in Australia
and overseas, as well as discussing how Australia compares to other countries
on international measures of disciplinary climate. We then examine the impact
of disruptive behaviour on students, including on student performance as well
as the impact of exclusionary discipline; and on teachers, such as teacher
safety, work satisfaction and staff retention. In the final section, we discuss
factors that contribute to students’ (mis)behaviour and strategies that may be
employed to manage and minimise classroom disruption, and present examples of
resources and approaches from Australia and selected overseas countries.
What
constitutes disruptive behaviour in schools?
There is no single definition of classroom disruption.
Disruptive behaviours can vary from low-level disruptions to more challenging
behaviours. Low-level disruptions can include students:
- talking
unnecessarily or chatting
- calling
out without permission
- being
slow to start work or follow instructions
- showing
a lack of respect for each other and staff
- not
bringing the right equipment
- using
mobile devices inappropriately.[9]
More challenging behaviours can include:
- physical
and verbal aggression
- unsafe
and dangerous behaviours.[10]
PISA uses a pragmatic definition of disciplinary climate
(discussed further below), measuring it ‘by the extent to which students miss
learning opportunities due to disruptive behaviour in the classroom’.[11]
While challenging behaviours, particularly violence and
aggression, tend to gain media attention,[12]
most classroom disruption is low-level disruption, such as talking out of turn,
and/or student disengagement.[13]
More serious or persistent disruptive behaviour may be
punishable through exclusionary practices, such as suspension or expulsion. States
and territories set out grounds for suspension and/or expulsion in government
schools in legislation and policies.[14]
However, just as there is a wide range of behaviour that can be considered
disruptive, there is considerable variation across Australia in how the grounds
for suspension and/or expulsion are specified. For example, while South
Australian legislation includes ‘persistent and wilful indifference to school
work’ as well as violence and acting illegally,[15]
Western Australian legislation broadly states that a student may be suspended
for ‘a breach of school discipline’, which is ‘any act or omission that impairs
the good order and proper management of the school’.[16]
Table 1, reproduced from a study of exclusionary practices in Australia,
compares the grounds on which students in government schools may be suspended
in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
Table 1 Grounds on
which students may be suspended in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and
Western Australia
Source: Jamie Manolev, Anna
Sullivan, Neil Tippett and Bruce Johnson, School Exclusionary Practices in Australia, School Exclusions Study Key Issues Paper No. 1
(Adelaide: University of South Australia, 2020), 2.
The
extent of classroom disruption in Australia
Because classroom disruption can take many forms, there are
also multiple ways that disruptions can be measured. In Australia, this
includes data collected as part of PISA, as well the OECD’s Teaching and Learning
International Survey (TALIS); data about the number of school exclusions,
such as suspensions and/or expulsions; and surveys of school communities’
opinions.
PISA and
TALIS – Australian results on disciplinary climate
PISA 2018
PISA is an
international assessment of 15-year-olds which measures students’ ability to
apply their knowledge in reading, mathematics, and science.[17]
PISA is a sample assessment. Participating countries select a representative
sample of schools to take part, and within those schools a representative
sample of students is selected for testing.
The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER)
published reports of Australia’s results in PISA 2018. In 2018, 14,273 students
from 740 schools participated in PISA. Of these, 56% of students were from
government schools, 24% were from Catholic schools, and 20% were from
independent schools.[18]
Chapter 9 of PISA 2018:
Reporting Australia’s Results. Volume II Student and School Characteristics
discussed the disciplinary climate in English classes.[19]
Students were asked how frequently the following occurred in their English
classes on a 4-point scale (every class, most classes, some classes, never
or hardly ever):
- ‘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’
- ‘students
don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins’.
Key findings of the report included the following for
Australian students in English classes:
- Approximately
one-fifth (21%) of students reported that in most or every class students
cannot work well, one-quarter (26%) reported that students don’t start
working for a long time after the lesson begins, approximately one-third
reported that the teacher has to wait a long time for students to quieten
down (32%) and that students don’t listen to what the teacher says
(37%).
- Almost
half (43%) of students reported that there is noise and disorder in most
or every class.
- The
disciplinary climate deteriorated between PISA 2009 and 2018, for example, there
was a 5 percentage point increase in students reporting that students
don’t listen to what the teacher says in most or every class.
- Students
in non-government schools reported a more favourable disciplinary climate than
students in government schools.
- Students
in classrooms with the most favourable disciplinary climate (the highest
quartile of the disciplinary climate index) performed higher in reading
literacy than students in classrooms with the least favourable disciplinary
climate (lowest quartile of the disciplinary climate index), scoring 55 points
higher on average – the equivalent of around one and two-thirds of a year of
schooling.[20]
As part of PISA 2018, school principals were asked about the
extent to which they perceived student behaviour hindered learning. Key
findings discussed in Chapter 10 of ACER’s report included that, on average, 50%
of principals of Australian students reported student learning was hindered to
some extent or a lot by students not being attentive, with lower
percentages reported for the perceived hinderance on learning of:
- student
truancy (33%)
- students
lacking respect for teachers (30%)
- students
skipping classes (24%)
- students
intimidating or bullying other students (23%)
- student
use of alcohol or drugs (11%).[21]
TALIS
2018
TALIS collects information about the learning environment
and working conditions of teachers and principals across the world.[22] It asks teachers to
identify a particular class chosen at random from their teaching schedule (the
‘target class’) and asks teachers questions about the class and how they teach
it.[23]
Like PISA, TALIS also looks at the classroom disciplinary environment. It asks
teachers about their level of agreement (strongly disagree; disagree;
agree; strongly agree) with statements about the disciplinary
climate in the classroom:
- ‘I
lose quite a bit of time because of students interrupting the lesson’
- ‘I
have to wait quite a long time when the lessons begin for students to quieten
down’
- ‘there
is much disruptive noise in the classroom’
- ‘students
in this class take care to create a pleasant learning atmosphere’.[24]
The Australian report for TALIS 2018 reported that, despite Australian
schools often being characterised as noisy and disruptive, there were no
differences in these areas between Australia and the OECD average (discussed
further below).[25]
Another aspect of school and classroom climate considered by
TALIS is school safety. Principals were asked about the frequency of safety-related
incidents occurring in their schools (never; less than monthly; monthly;
weekly; or daily). Australian principals reported a higher
frequency of incidents than on average across the OECD. For example:
- 37%
reported that intimidation and bullying among students occurs at least weekly
in their schools, compared with 14% of schools across the OECD
- 12%
reported that intimidation and verbal abuse of teachers and staff by students
occurs at least weekly, compared with 3% of principals across the OECD.[26]
Australian
surveys of school staff
Surveys of school staff can also provide insights into the
extent of disruptive student behaviour in schools. Findings from recent surveys
are summarised below.
Australian
Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey: This annual survey is conducted by the Australian
Catholic University. It includes principals, assistant principals, and deputy
principals from every school type, sector, state, and territory. The 2022
survey results reported an increasing trend in threatening behaviour from students
compared with 2021:
- 37.6%
of school leaders reported being exposed to threats of violence (up
4.3 percentage points from 2021)[27]
- 41.6%
reported being subjected to physical violence (up 4.5 percentage points
from 2021)[28]
Australian
Teachers’ Perceptions of their Work in 2022: This Monash
University survey had 5,497
respondents, a majority of whom were primary (41.8%) or secondary (31.5%)
teachers. The majority of respondents were from the public or state school
sector (65.7%) followed by private and independent schools (14.8%) and
faith-based schools (12.8%). The 2022 report showed that when comparing the
results from the 2019 survey, there were more teachers who felt unsafe at work in
2022, with 24.5% feeling unsafe, an increase of 5.6 percentage points since
2019.[29]
Of those who indicated that they did not feel safe at work, participants were
asked to comment on reasons why. Student behaviour and violence were key
reasons with almost two-thirds of comments provided relating to students,
suggesting that some students were ‘abusive’, ‘aggressive’, violent’ and
‘threatening’. Other reasons included abuse from parents and negative
relationships with staff.
Teachers cited particular challenges in relation to student behaviour,
including perceived lack of parent discipline at home, and ‘the rise of new and
difficult student behaviours that we don’t yet know how to deal with’.
Solutions canvassed included increased resourcing to reduce workloads and
reduce class sizes, as well as extra funding for teaching aides, social
workers, counsellors and qualified professionals to provide extra psychosocial
support for students and to support teachers, particularly in low socioeconomic
and remote schools.[30]
State of Our Schools: This is an
annual survey of Victorian government school staff (principals, teachers,
education support and casual relief teachers) conducted by the Victorian Branch
of the Australian Education Union. The 2021 survey results, based on 10,831
responses, showed:
- 41.1%
of teachers who reported increased work-related stress attributed the increase
to student behaviour[31]
- of
those who saw themselves leaving public school education in 10 years or less,
40.1% blamed student behaviour[32]
- 68.5%
of respondents considered that improved resources and processes to support
student management issues would most help to retain teachers in the profession.[33]
State and
territory data
Australian state and territory data on exclusionary
discipline (such as suspensions and expulsions) and school surveys of students’
and/or parents’ opinions can also provide insights into classroom behaviour and
schools’ disciplinary climate.
Table 2 below provides links and a brief description of the
available data by state and territory in relation to school exclusion and
school surveys.
State and territory government school suspension and
expulsion data
There is no nationally comparable data on government school
suspensions and expulsions. As such, the terminology, length and grounds for
suspensions and expulsions and the public availability and extent of the data
provided vary considerably between jurisdictions. Also, policy changes in
relation to discipline, suspensions and expulsions and the effects of the COVID
pandemic, with its lockdowns and remote learning, has affected consistency and comparability
of trend data within jurisdictions. There is also no readily available data for
non-government school suspensions and expulsions.
One of the aims of the University of South Australia’s School Exclusions Study is
to create a National Data Profile which will include a comparative
national analysis of the incidence of exclusions recorded over a 5-year period
in government schools; the reasons for exclusions; and a characteristics
profile of which groups of students are excluded.
Although jurisdictions publicly report school suspensions
and expulsions in different ways, with significant variation in the detail
provided, it is apparent from the available data that school suspensions and
expulsions are most prevalent in the middle years of secondary school (Years 8
and 9), and more prevalent for boys and students facing disadvantage and/or
marginalisation.[34]
School
suspension and expulsion data does not measure other classroom disruptions
which do not result in these exclusions. Some other indicators of classroom
behaviour are provided by survey data.
School
surveys
Schools have access to the School Survey, a data
collection tool launched in 2013 after being developed by Education Services
Australia and approved by the then ministerial Standing Council on School
Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC; now Education Ministers Meeting). The SCSEEC
approved the use of agreed student and parent survey items to gather and analyse
school opinion information. The results of school opinion surveys are then made
available to schools and their communities, but aggregated data are not always
reported publicly.
Table 2 Availability of state and territory government
school exclusion and school survey data
|
State/Territory
|
School exclusion data[35]
|
School surveys
|
|
ACT
|
Suspension
data is provided by school level (primary, secondary and college) and
includes the number of suspension incidents, rate per 100 students, number of
suspension days, number of students suspended and suspension rate as a
percentage of enrolments.
- In
2021, the suspension rate was 1.3% for primary schools, 5.7% for high
schools, and 0.8% for colleges (Years 11 and 12).
|
Parents and caregivers, students in Years 4 to 12 and
school staff provide feedback through the annual School
Satisfaction and Climate Survey. Only brief results for the ACT are published.
School principals decide
about distribution of school level results.
|
|
NSW
|
Suspensions
and expulsions data is disaggregated by suspension type (short and long),
school level (primary and secondary), aggregated years (K–2, 3–6, 7–10,
11–12) and gender. Data is also provided for Indigenous students, students
with disability and students by geolocation. Total exclusions over time are
presented graphically.
- In
2021 (full
year data), 1.5% of primary students and 8.5% of secondary students
received suspensions (of any length); 12.6% of Aboriginal students received
suspensions, and 10.3% of students identified as receiving adjustments due to
disability received a suspension.[36]
|
The Tell
Them From Me surveys of students (Years 4 to 12), teachers and parents
aim to measure student engagement and wellbeing. Aggregated data do not
appear to be publicly released.
|
|
NT
|
Routinely published
school suspensions data is minimal, only providing the number of students
suspended by region. However, detailed data are provided in the recent
report, Occupational
Violence and Aggression in Northern Territory Government Schools (October
2022).
- In
2021 the suspension rate per 1,000 students was 6.8 for non-Aboriginal
students and 14.4 for Aboriginal students (see pp. 26–29 for more
detailed data).
|
The annual Northern
Territory Government School Survey collects the opinions of staff,
students (Years 5 to 12), and parents and carers about school performance,
culture and services. It appears survey results are shared at the school
level, but results are not readily publicly available.
|
|
QLD
|
Data
is provided by region and student demographics, including number of suspensions
(short and long), exclusions and cancellations of enrolment by year level,
reasons for action and Indigenous status.
- In
2022, most school disciplinary absences (SDAs) were imposed on students in
Year 8, with 14,618 SDAs.
- Across
all years, Indigenous students received 18,829 SDAs in total (24.1% of total
SDAs), while non-Indigenous students received 59,169 SDAs (75.8% of total
SDAs).[37]
|
The annual
School Opinion Surveys obtain the views of parents/caregivers in all
families, students in Years 5, 6, 8 and 11, and school staff.
- The
2022
survey results found that 82% of parents and caregivers, 67% of students
and 76% of staff agreed that student behaviour was well-managed at their
school.
|
|
SA
|
Data
for suspensions, exclusions and expulsions are provided by year level.
- In
2022, the highest number of suspension incidents was for Year 8 students,
with 918 suspension incidents; students in Year 9 had the highest number of
exclusion incidents at 49 incidents. No expulsions are recorded.[38]
|
The wellbeing
and engagement collection surveys students in Years 4 to 12 about
non-academic factors relevant to learning and participation, including school
climate and experience of bullying.
- In
2023, 24% of students reported low wellbeing in relation to school
climate and 13% of students reported low wellbeing in relation to verbal
bullying.
|
|
TAS
|
Student
engagement and participation data outlines the proportion of total
students suspended by year level. A breakdown of the proportions of student suspensions
by reason is also provided.
- In
2022, the proportion of students suspended in government schools was 6.3%.
- Year
8 had the highest proportion of students suspended at 17.7%.
|
Students in Years 4 to 12 undertake the Student
Wellbeing and Engagement Survey annually.
- The
statewide
report for the survey in 2023 reported that 31% of students reported low
wellbeing in relation to school climate and 17% of students experienced low
wellbeing in relation to feeling safe at school.
|
|
VIC
|
Data
on expulsions is provided by level of education (primary and secondary),
year level, gender, and student background (Indigenous status, students with
disability, students in out-of-home care, students from migrant, refugee or
asylum seeker background), and outcomes for expelled students.
- In
2021, there were 125 expulsion incidents for primary and secondary aged
students. Of these, 97 expulsions (77.6%) were for male students; 9 (7.2%)
were for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; and 26 (20.8%) were
for students receiving Program for Students with Disabilities funding.[39]
|
Students, parents and caregivers and staff participate in
the annual Attitudes
to School Survey. The results do not appear to be publicly available but
are provided at the school level.
|
|
WA
|
The Department of Education’s Annual Report 2022–23
provides the number and percentage of students suspended, and number of
students excluded (see p. 36).
- In
2022, 19,289 students (5.8% of total enrolments) were suspended, up from 18,068
in 2021 (5.5%).
- The
annual report also noted that suspensions and exclusions had increased
following the launch of Let’s
take a stand together, the WA Government’s plan to address violence
in schools.
|
We have not located information about a school survey in
WA schools.
|
Australia’s
results in an international context
International comparisons can be made using results from the
2018 PISA and TALIS surveys. Although Australian students’ reports of classroom
disruption in PISA 2018 were among the worst internationally and below the OECD
average, based on teachers’ reports in TALIS 2018, the disciplinary climate in
Australian classrooms was not vastly different from the OECD average.
Index
of Disciplinary Climate (PISA 2018)
According to the OECD’s 2018
index of disciplinary climate (shown in
Figure 1 below) from PISA, Australia ranked among the lowest at 70th out of 77
participating countries, with higher values in the index indicating a more
positive disciplinary climate.
The index is based on student responses to statements about
classroom disciplinary environments. The OECD
reported:
-
On
average across OECD countries, almost one in three students reported that, in
every or most lessons, students do not listen to the teacher or there is noise
and disorder.
-
Student
reports of disciplinary climate generally improved
between 2009 and 2018, especially in Albania, Korea and the
United Arab Emirates.[40]
-
In
all countries and economies, students with higher reading scores tended to
report a more positive disciplinary climate, after accounting for
socio-economic status. Even occasional disciplinary problems were negatively
associated with reading performance.
-
Student
reports of disciplinary climate were more positive in schools where more
than 60 % of students were girls and in gender-balanced schools than
in schools where more than 60 % of students were boys, on average
across OECD countries.
-
On
average across OECD countries, the positive relationship between disciplinary
climate and reading performance was relatively stable across students’ gender,
socio-economic status and immigrant background.[41]
Figure 1 Index of
disciplinary climate, by school characteristics based on students’ reports
Source: OECD, ‘Chapter 3. Disciplinary Climate’, PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life
Means for Students’ Lives, (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019).
Disciplinary climate (TALIS 2018)
According to teachers’ reports in TALIS, Australian classes
are not as disruptive as students report through PISA and are not vastly
different from other countries’ classrooms (see Table 3).[42]
One reason posited for the difference between teachers’
reports and students’ reports is that PISA focuses on Year 9 students, while
TALIS reports on lower secondary school (Years 7–10), ‘so it may be that the
differences reported are less about student perception versus teacher
perception and more about the differences between Year 9 classes and Year 7–10
classes more broadly’.[43]
Table 3 Teachers’
reports of disciplinary climate internationally and for Australia
Source: Sue Thomson and
Kylie Hillman, TALIS 2018: Australian Report (Volume I): Teachers and
School Leaders as Lifelong Learners,
(Melbourne: ACER, 2019), 60.
Note: SE is Standard Error.
Impacts on teachers and
students
Impacts
on teachers
Problematic student behaviour can affect teachers’ job
satisfaction, particularly for early-career teachers. Challenging behaviours
can also contribute to teachers feeling unsafe at work and impact on their psychological
wellbeing, which in turn, can hinder long-term staff retention.
Teacher
safety, work satisfaction and workforce retention
Classroom management is one of teachers’ greatest challenges
and can contribute to burnout, job dissatisfaction and early exit from the
profession.[44]
For example, as noted above, results from the 2021
survey of Victorian government school staff showed that, of the teachers
who reported increased work-related stress, 41.1% attributed the increase to
student behaviour.[45]
Of teachers who saw themselves leaving the Victorian government school system
in 10 years or less, student behaviour was the second highest reported reason
(40.1%), behind excessive workloads (87.0%).[46]
Results from the 2022
Australian Teachers’ Perceptions of their Work survey were released by
Monash University in October 2022. According to teachers, the complexity of the
learning, behaviour and social needs of students placed additional pressures on
them in terms of workload and their perceptions of respect. Of the 5,497
teachers who responded to the survey, most reported feeling that the public did
not respect the role of teachers (70.8%) and that the profession was
unappreciated (69.2%).[47]
A quarter of teachers (24.5%) reported feeling unsafe in the workplace, with
reasons identified including student behaviour and violence and parent abuse.[48]
Additional support and time for teachers to engage productively with students
was identified as a potential way to alleviate disruptive and disrespectful
behaviour in schools, and therefore contribute to improving teachers’ feelings
of safety and wellbeing.
Loss
of instructional time because of disorder and distraction
TALIS asks teachers to report on the proportion of time they
spend on 3 types of activities: actual teaching and learning; administrative
tasks; and keeping order in the classroom.
According to TALIS 2018, Australian teachers reported
spending 78% of classroom time on teaching and learning, which was similar to
teachers in other OECD countries.[49]
On average, teachers reported spending 15% of class time keeping order in the
classroom.
Time spent on actual teaching and learning was positively
related to teacher age and experience, with teachers with more than 5 years
teaching experience spending more time on actual teaching and learning than
teachers with 5 years or less teaching experience. This was the case for
Australia and all high-performing PISA countries.[50]
However, Australia performed worst in terms of time spent
teaching by equity cohorts. The TALIS 2018 report stated:
Importantly, in terms of equity, Australian teachers in
schools with a higher proportion of disadvantaged students spent less time
teaching and learning than their colleagues in more advantaged schools. The
difference in Australia (of 9.8 percentage points) is the highest in the OECD,
and equates to about 6 minutes per hour. Over 1,000 hours of face-to-face time
at school, this is substantial. Of the high-performing PISA countries, only in
Alberta (Canada) was there a similar difference (of 7.2 percentage points).[51]
This is further exacerbated in Australia as disadvantaged
students tend to be concentrated in disadvantaged schools.[52]
Australian schools are among the most socio-economically segregated in the
world, with more than half of all disadvantaged students attending
disadvantaged schools.[53]
In 2021, students with a low socio-educational advantage status comprised 31.3%
of enrolled students at government schools and 12.8% of students at
non-government schools.[54]
Impacts on
students
Classroom disruption can negatively impact students’
performance and achievement at school, which in turn can have long-term impacts
on education and employment. However, strict disciplinary approaches to student
behaviour, such as exclusionary practices, disproportionately affect particular
groups of students and can also have negative impacts on students in later
life.
Student achievement
Research findings have highlighted the association between
orderly learning environments and student achievement.[55] Results from PISA 2018 showed
that students who reported a better disciplinary climate performed better in
reading, after accounting for the socio-economic profile of schools and
students.[56]
On average across the OECD, a unit increase in the index of disciplinary
climate – where higher values indicate a more positive disciplinary climate – was
associated with an increase of 11 points in reading performance.[57]
Australian students’ performance in PISA assessments has
been declining since the international standardised assessment began in 2000. While
the reasons for the decline are complex, numerous facets of the education
system, including classroom disruption, have been posited as contributing
factors.[58]
The PISA 2018 results show Australia’s PISA scores have been steadily declining
in all 3 assessment domains (reading, mathematics and science), as set out in
Figure 2.[59]
Figure 2 Australian
achievement in PISA since 2000, measured from the first cycle in which a
subject was the major focus domain
Source: ACER, ‘PISA 2018: Australian students’ performance’, ACER Discover, 3 December 2019.
As depicted in Table 4, the Australian
results also show:
- the
proportion of low performers has increased and the proportion of high
performers has decreased in each domain
- the
proportion of students who attained the National Proficient Standard has
declined in all domains.[60]
Table 4 Changes in
performance over time for Australia
Source:
Sue Thomson et al., PISA in Brief 1: Student Performance, (Melbourne: ACER), 7.
The results of PISA
2022 are expected to be released at the end of 2023.
Impacts of exclusionary
discipline
As noted above, exclusionary discipline, such as
suspensions, exclusions and/or expulsion, is sometimes used in response to
student behaviour. Research has found that Australian schools’ exclusion
practices disproportionately impact boys, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students, students with disability, students from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds, and those living in out-of-home care.[61] For example, data from 2019
showed the following:
Indigenous students
-
In Queensland, Indigenous students
received a quarter of all fixed-term and permanent exclusions (25.3% and 25.4%
respectively), despite making up just over 10% of all Queensland’s full-time
state school enrolments.
-
In NSW, of all short and long
suspensions approximately 25% were for Aboriginal students, even though this
group represents just 8% of all student enrolments.
-
In Victoria, 6.5% of all expulsions
were for Indigenous students, however, this group represents only 2.3% of the
student population.
Students with disability
-
In Victoria, students with
disability funding received 14% of all permanent exclusions yet constituted
only 4.5% of all government school enrolments.
Male students
-
In South Australia, over three
quarters of all suspensions were given to male students (77%), a ratio of over
3:1 compared to females.
-
In Victoria, males received over
80% of the permanent exclusions, a ratio of 4:1 compared to females.
-
In NSW, around three quarters of
all short and long suspensions in 2019 were for males (75.3% and 73.9%
respectively).[62]
The risk of suspension increases with greater
intersectionality; that is, for students falling into multiple equity groups,
such as students who are Indigenous and have disability and live
in out-of-home care.[63]
Strict discipline policies and exclusionary practices can
have negative impacts for excluded students. School suspension can compound
behavioural problems and increase the likelihood of leaving school early, which
in turn can have lifelong impacts.[64]
Dr Daniel Quin from the Australian Catholic University explained:
If we consider that they were
probably already struggling academically, and that this may have been a
contributing factor to their behavioural issues, suspension of even a day can
have a major impact on the rest of their schooling.
We know that children who
have been suspended are more likely to skip school, participate in anti-social
behaviour and leave school early. In turn, early school departure is associated
with greater unemployment, diminished happiness in home life, diminished
health, higher mortality rates, and an increased association with the criminal
justice system.[65]
Dr Quin’s research into the effectiveness of school
suspensions found that suspension is likely to be applied to students who lack
the ability to self-regulate their behaviours and emotions in the classroom.
Pre-existing behavioural problems may be exacerbated by excluding students through
reducing school protective factors (such as supportive teacher relationships,
belonging and acceptance) and increasing exposure to known risk factors (such
as interaction with antisocial peers).[66]
In the 1980s and 90s, ‘zero
tolerance’ discipline policies emerged in the United States, whereby
students who broke certain school rules faced mandatory penalties including
suspension and referral to law enforcement. However, research on the impact of
such policies has found that they can stigmatise students and contribute to the
‘school-to-prison pipeline’.
Analysis by the US National Bureau of Economic Research
examined the impact of school discipline on student achievement, educational
attainment and adult criminal activity. It found that higher suspension rates in
schools have substantial negative long-run impacts on students’ lives. Students
assigned to a school with a suspension rate one standard deviation higher were
15–20% more likely to be arrested and incarcerated as adults. The study also
found negative impacts on educational attainment. Male students and students
from minority groups had the largest impacts from attending a high suspension
school.[67]
Similarly, results from the International Youth Development
Study, which studied adolescent development in Victoria (Australia) and
Washington State (US), found that school suspensions were associated with increased
likelihood of students engaging in problem behaviours, including violent and
antisocial behaviours and tobacco use.[68]
A complicating aspect of exclusionary discipline is that
strategies to reduce suspensions and expulsions and their negative impacts and
disproportionate application on vulnerable cohorts may be viewed as increasing
risks to teacher safety and reducing the options available to teachers to
manage student behaviour. For example, in September 2022, the NSW Government
updated its policy on ‘Student
discipline in government schools’, changing it to ‘Student
behaviour’. The new policy emphasised positive behaviour practices and
changed procedures for managing student behaviour, including in relation to
suspensions – reducing the maximum length for a suspension from 20 days to 10
days. The changes were designed to reduce the number of suspensions and provide
better support for students, particularly Indigenous students, students with
learning difficulties and students from low SES backgrounds.[69]
However, the changes were met with mixed reactions. While parents supported the
policy, the NSW Teachers Federation argued that it posed ‘“a significant risk”
to the health and safety of principals, teachers, support staff and students’,
and constrained teachers’ ability to manage disruptive and dangerous behaviour.[70]
Following a change in the NSW Government, the school
behaviour policy will again be updated:
An updated NSW public school behaviour policy will replace
a controversial strategy introduced under the former Coalition government
that capped the length and number of suspensions schools could issue, as well
as the grounds for which a student could be sent home.
NSW Education Minister Prue Car said a review of the former
policy, which was rolled out in term 4 last year, found it undermined teachers’
ability to protect the safety of staff and students.[71]
The new policy will be released for training and
familiarisation in Term 4, 2023, and come into effect in Term 1, 2024.[72]
Similarly, in response to increased misbehaviour in
schools in the US, a number of states are moving to make it easier for teachers
and principals to exclude misbehaving students.[73]
Such changes reverse policy reforms which were less punitive, and which were
introduced to replace the strict, ‘zero tolerance’ discipline policies. The
to-and-fro of policy reforms highlight the delicate balance that policymakers
face in managing student discipline, reducing inequitable treatment and
supporting positive behaviour, while also ensuring teachers feel safe in their
workplace and have options to effectively manage student behaviour.
Addressing classroom disruption
Numerous factors can contribute to students’ (mis)behaviour
in class, including:
- their
learning, social, and behavioural needs
- neglect,
abuse and/or trauma
- their
physiological state, for example, being hungry or tired
- medical
and psychological conditions (diagnosed or undiagnosed)
- emotional
factors including emotional regulation, boredom, lack of confidence, attention
seeking
- parenting
and home life
- relationships
with teachers and other students
- factors
relating to the curriculum, teaching and/or the classroom environment.[74]
Mobile phones and digital devices can be a source of
disruption, distraction, and cyberbullying in schools.[75]
Students’ behaviour may differ at different ages and stages of development, and
may be influenced by school composition, peer behaviour, and social
expectations.[76]
Understanding the factors that contribute to a student’s misbehaviour may point
to ways to alleviate and address disruptive behaviour.
Professor Linda Graham (Queensland University of
Technology) and colleagues state that:
Research has shown severely disruptive behaviour is affected
by a process of “cumulative continuity”, where children’s early characteristics
(self-regulation, temperament, academic and verbal ability) interact with their
school/classroom environment, resulting in a “snowball effect”. Difficulties
adjusting to the demands of school can result in poorer quality teacher-child
interactions and mutually reinforcing negative relationships, which in turn
compound learning and behavioural difficulties.[77]
Professor Graham notes that a common perception is that
children’s behaviour affects their learning. While acknowledging that this may
be true for some children, she cautions that ‘it is equally possible that
underlying learning difficulties are manifesting behaviourally’.[78]
Equipping
teachers to maintain order in the classroom
Effective classroom management is key to providing a
positive learning environment and enabling student learning.[79]
Proactive practices which reinforce expected behaviours have been found to be
more effective than reactive approaches which respond to behavioural issues
after they occur. Citing Evertson and Weinstein 2015, the Australian Institute
for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) defines classroom
management as:
The actions teachers take to create an environment that
supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning. In other
words, classroom management has two distinct purposes: It not only seeks to
establish and sustain an orderly environment so students can engage in
meaningful academic learning, it also aims to enhance students’ social and
moral growth.
Results from TALIS 2018 shed light on teachers’
self-efficacy – their belief in their ability to effectively perform the tasks
needed to achieve a goal – in terms of classroom management, instruction and
student engagement.
In terms of teachers’ beliefs about their ability to
establish an orderly learning environment and effectively manage disruptive
student behaviour, TALIS found:
- Around
90% of teachers in Australia and across the OECD reported high levels of
self-efficacy in terms of making their expectations about behaviour clear and
getting students to follow rules.[80]
- More
than 80% of Australian teachers reported high self-efficacy in controlling
disruptive behaviour in the classroom or calming a student who was disruptive
or noisy. This was lower than the average across the OECD and had declined by
more than 4 percentage points since TALIS 2013.[81]
- Fewer
(74%) Australian novice teachers (those with 5 years of experience or less)
reported being confident of their capacity to calm a student who was disruptive
or noisy, compared to more experienced teachers (84%).[82]
- Novice
teachers in Australia were less sure of their capacity to control disruptive
behaviour in the classroom relative to the OECD average.
- Novice
Australian teachers (74%) and novice teachers across the OECD (78%) reported
lower levels of confidence in their ability to control disruptive behaviour,
compared to 85% and 87% respectively for more experienced teachers.
- Teachers
felt least confident in motivating students who show little interest in
schoolwork, with only 68% of teachers reporting feeling confident of their
abilities in this area in Australia and across the OECD.[83]
- There
were also gaps between novice and more experienced teachers in terms of their
confidence to motive students with low levels of interest, with 59% of novice
teachers and 71% of more experienced teachers feeling confident in this area.[84]
Teaching standards and initial teacher education standards
National initiatives to support teachers and ensure they are
adequately prepared to maintain positive learning environments include teaching
standards and accreditation standards for initial teacher education (ITE), as
well as evidence-based resources provided by AITSL and the Australian Education
Research Organisation (AERO).
Creating and maintaining supportive and safe learning
environments is one of the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) that teachers must demonstrate
they meet as a requirement for registration as a teacher. ITE programs are accredited
to ensure graduates can meet professional standards.
Managing challenging student behaviour is one of the focus
areas under Standard 4: Create and maintain supportive and safe learning
environments (Focus Area 4.3). The Graduate standard requires graduate
teachers to ‘Demonstrate knowledge of practical approaches to manage
challenging behaviour’. To meet the Proficient standard, teachers must
demonstrate their ability to:
Manage challenging behaviour by establishing and negotiating
clear expectations with students and address discipline issues promptly, fairly
and respectfully.[85]
National resources to support classroom management
In addition to the APST and ITE standards developed by
AITSL, national coordination and support for teachers is provided by AITSL and
AERO. For example, AITSL provides resources to support teachers and school
leaders, including on:
AERO was established
in 2021, following agreement of education ministers in 2019 to create an
education evidence institute to improve learning outcomes. AERO provides
resources on classroom
management, based on a set of standards
of evidence. Resources include:
- a
focused
classrooms practice guide, which identifies key practices for teachers:
- establish
a system of rules and routines from day one
- explicitly
teach and model appropriate behaviour
- hold
all students to high standards
- actively
engage students in their learning
- an
annotated
reference list, which provides an overview of research evidence cited
through the classroom management resources
- advice
on using
the practice in relation to implementing effective classroom management,
including:
- planning
for maximum student engagement
- high
expectations for focused classrooms
- snapshots
of practice – examples of classroom management in a variety of classrooms and
settings, including links to AITSL’s classroom management illustrations of
practice (above)
- implementation
tools, including:
State and territory resources
State and territory governments also provide resources,
support staff and professional development to support teachers to manage
student behaviour. For example, in September 2022, the NSW Government announced
the creation of a NSW Chief Behaviour Advisor to lift behaviour standards in
schools, work with schools using evidence-based practices, and advise parents
and carers on ways to support their children and reinforce behavioural
approaches through schools.[86]
Then Minister for Education and Early Learning Sarah Mitchell also confirmed
plans to increase the number of Behaviour Specialists for NSW government
schools from 70 to 200, to support the management of complex student behaviour.
The additional resources accompanied changes to the management of school
discipline (discussed above). Emeritus Professor Donna Cross was appointed as
the first Chief Behaviour Advisor in March 2023.[87]
The Victorian Government Department of Education and
Training provides advice, guidance and resources
for managing challenging behaviour in schools. This includes professional
development courses (requires departmental log-in).
The WA Government Department of Education’s Annual Report 2022–23
stated that its new Student Behaviour in Public Schools Policy had been
implemented in schools from Semester 2, 2023.[88]
Changes to the policy emphasised ‘the importance of creating safe, orderly,
inclusive, supportive and culturally responsive environments’.[89]
The report also outlined training undertaken by school staff to address
concerning student behaviour, stating that more than 2,750 school staff
completed training in de-escalation and positive handling and 5,255
participants attended Classroom Management Strategies and Positive Behaviour
Support training programs in 2022.[90]
International examples of classroom management
strategies
This section provides examples of classroom management strategies
in the United Kingdom (UK) (England), the US and Japan. These 3 countries all
ranked above the OECD average in the PISA 2018 index of disciplinary climate.
It is important to note that countries’ education systems
are complex and operate in the context of each country’s social, economic, and
cultural history and current environment. Features of some education systems
may not work in other countries’ contexts. It can also be difficult to isolate
attributes of a country’s education system which contribute to students’
academic performance. Associations between attributes of education systems and
student performance may not be causative.
United Kingdom (England)
Education in the UK is devolved, with the governments in the
nations of the UK having their own education departments. The UK Government Department
for Education is responsible for education in England.
The following are initiatives targeting student behaviour in
English classrooms:
- An
independent review of behaviour in schools, titled Creating
a culture: a review of behaviour management in schools, was undertaken
in 2017. It made recommendations to the Department for Education and Ofsted (Office
for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) in relation to
strategies to support effective behaviour cultures.[91]
- The
Department for Education provides guidance for school staff in relation to
behaviour and discipline. This includes behaviour checklists for headteachers
and staff and links to further guidance and support, including:
- The
Department for Education funded Behaviour Hubs as a
3-year program to improve student behaviour. The program paired schools with
exemplary behaviour practices with partner schools that wanted to improve
student behaviour. The program was based on the Creating
a Culture review (above).
- A
review of school
exclusion was published in 2019. The review was ‘to explore how head
teachers use exclusion in practice, and why some groups of children are more
likely to be excluded, including Children in Need, those with special
educational needs (SEN), children who have been supported by social care, are
eligible for free school meals (FSM) or are from particular ethnic groups’.[92]
United
States
In the US, education is primarily the responsibility of
states and local districts. States and communities establish schools and
colleges, develop curricula and determine enrolment and graduation
requirements.[93]
The US Department of Education aims to
promote student achievement, foster educational excellence, and ensure equal
access.[94]
It plays a leadership role in education, collects data and disseminates
research, and focuses national attention on key educational issues.[95]
Institutes and centres funded by the US Department of
Education which are relevant to behaviour, discipline and school environment
include the following:
- The
National Center on Safe
Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) is funded by the US Department of
Education’s Office
of Safe Supportive Schools. The NCSSLE provides information and assistance
to states, districts, schools and higher education institutions to improve
school climate and conditions for learning.[96]
- The
National Technical Assistance Center
on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) aims to improve
the capacity of state and local education agencies to establish, scale up and
sustain PBIS.
- PBIS
is a 3-tiered, evidence-based framework for supporting students behaviourally,
academically, socially and emotionally. Results of well-implemented PBIS
include improved social and academic outcomes, reduced exclusionary discipline
practices, and school staff feeling more effective.[97]
- The
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the statistics,
research, and evaluation arm of the US Department of Education. The IES
provides the What Works Clearinghouse,
which reviews research to inform evidence-based policy making. Its publications
search tool includes a topic on ‘behavior’.
Japan
Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
Technology (MEXT) is responsible for the education system from early childhood
to higher education at the national level. MEXT allocates funding to
prefectural and municipal authorities for schools.[98]
In order to address problem behaviour and non-attendance at
school, MEXT
states that it is:
(1) enhancing emotional education and achieving
easy-to-understand lessons and enjoyable schools, (2) improving the quality of
teachers, and (3) enhancing the education counselling system.
An article explaining the educational mental health support system
in Japanese schools states:
In general, Japanese schools have a Yogo teacher (a school
nurse) who works full time, as well as three types of mental health specialists
who work part time: school counselors, advisors, and social workers. The
regularity of visits from the three types of specialists depends on schools and
regions.[99]
The OECD’s Education
Policy in Japan: Building Bridges towards 2030 (July 2018) suggests
that Japan’s relatively positive disciplinary climate may not be attributable
to a single program, but rather to a broader culture of engagement with
schooling. The OECD report states that Japanese parents have a strong
commitment to students’ self-discipline and belief in students’ ability to
learn, and that they regularly engage with teachers about student progress and
behaviour.[100]
Japanese schools report low rates of truancy and lateness, and higher than
average engagement of schools and teachers with students.[101]
Conclusion
Classroom
disruption is a complex problem that incorporates aspects of school discipline,
student learning, classroom management, equity, and student and teacher
wellbeing and safety. Strict disciplinary approaches, including exclusionary
practices, are often employed to manage more serious and persistent student
misbehaviours; however, such approaches can themselves have negative impacts
and have been found to disproportionately affect already marginalised students and
boys. However, less punitive strategies that aim to minimise suspensions and
expulsions may be viewed by teachers and principals as limiting their authority
and constraining options for managing challenging behaviours and maintaining
school safety. Research suggests that proactive approaches to teaching and
reinforcing expected behaviours are more effective than reactive approaches. To
achieve this, the research indicates the importance of ensuring that teachers
are adequately prepared, and that schools are appropriately resourced to
support students with complex learning, behavioural and psycho-social needs.