Chapter 1Introduction
1.1On 28 November 2022, the Senate referred the issue of increasing disruption in Australian school classrooms to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee (committee), to inquire and report on the following matters:
(a)the declining ranking of Australia in the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) disciplinary climate index, making Australian classrooms amongst the world's most disorderly;
(b)the impacts, demands and experience of disorderly classrooms on teacher safety, work satisfaction and workforce retention;
(c)teachers' views on whether or not they are sufficiently empowered and equipped to maintain order in the classroom and what can be done to assist them;
(d)the robustness, quality and extent of initial teacher education to equip teachers with skills and strategies to manage classrooms;
(e)the loss of instructional teacher time because of disorder and distraction in Australian school classrooms;
(f)the impact of disorderly, poorly disciplined classroom environments and school practices on students' learning, compared with their peers in more disciplined classrooms;
(g)the stagnant and declining results across fundamental disciplines as tested through National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) attributing to poorer school-leaving results and post-school attainment;
(h)how relevant Australian state, territory and federal departments and agencies are working to address this growing challenge;
(i)how leading OECD countries with the highest disciplinary climate index rankings are delivering orderly classrooms to provide strategies on how to reduce distraction and disorder in Australian classrooms; and
(j)any related matter.
1.2The committee was to report by the first sitting day in July 2023. On 22March 2023, the Senate granted the committee an extension of time to report until 16November 2023. On 18 October 2023, the Senate agreed to further extend the reporting date to 6 December 2023 to allow the committee to gather further evidence and conclude its deliberations.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.3In accordance with its usual practice, the committee advertised the inquiry on its website and wrote to relevant stakeholders and other interested parties inviting them to make a written submission by 31 March 2023.
1.4The committee received 83 submissions, as well as additional information and answers to questions on notice, which are listed at Appendix 1.
1.5The committee held five public hearings:
Brisbane – Thursday, 20 April 2023;
Perth – Wednesday, 7 June 2023;
Sydney – Friday, 4 August 2023;
Canberra – Friday, 15 September 2023; and
Canberra – Tuesday, 7 November 2023.
1.6A list of witnesses who appeared at these hearings is available at Appendix 2.
1.7The committee conducted site visits to Dawson Park Primary School and Westfield Park Primary School on 6 June 2023 (Perth, Western Australia); and Marsden Road Public School on 4 August 2023 (Sydney, New South Wales).
1.8Links to public submissions, Hansard transcripts of evidence and other information published by the committee for this inquiry are available on the committee's website.
Acknowledgements and references
1.9The committee thanks those individuals and organisations who contributed to this inquiry by providing submissions and giving evidence at public hearings. In particular, the committee thanks the Western Australian and New South Wales education departments for their assistance and for appearing at public hearings.
1.10The committee would also like to thank the schools that facilitated committee site visits of their campuses. These visits provided the committee with a vital on-the-ground perspective about evidence-based approaches to managing behaviour in Australian classrooms.
1.11References in this report to the Hansard transcripts for public hearings are to the proof Hansard transcripts. Page numbers may vary between proof and official Hansard transcripts.
Structure of this report
1.12This report comprises five chapters, including this introductory and background chapter, with the remaining chapters as follows:
Chapter 2 describes the impact of disruptive classroom behaviour on teachers and whether they are adequately supported and equipped to maintain order in the classroom.
Chapter 3 explores the consequences of disruptive behaviour for students, including the loss of instructional time and the subsequent impact on student learning outcomes.
Chapter 4 examines possible approaches and strategies that would reduce distraction and disorder in Australian classrooms.
Chapter 5 outlines the committee’s conclusions and recommendations.
The issue of classroom disruption
1.13This section provides an overview of the evidence received in relation to the definitions and characteristics of disruptive behaviour, the prevalence of disruption in Australian classrooms, and how Australia compares in an international context. The final section discusses some of the suggested causes for increasing levels of disruptive behaviour in classrooms.
What constitutes disruptive student behaviour?
1.14The issue of classroom disruption and problematic student behaviours are complex and often intertwined with issues of student engagement, classroom management, disciplinary practices, and socioeconomic factors.
1.15There is no clear definition of what constitutes classroom disruption, and a range of terminology has been used by stakeholders. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses a practical definition of the disciplinary climate, measuring it 'by the extent to which students miss learning opportunities due to disruptive behaviour in the classroom'.
1.16Generally, disruptive student behaviours have been described as varying from low-level disruptions to more challenging behaviours. The most common low‑level disruptions can include students:
talking unnecessarily and 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; and
using mobile devices inappropriately.
1.17More challenging behaviours, such as those that pose a risk to the safety or well‑being of the student or others, can include property destruction, verbal abuse or threats, physical assaults, leaving school grounds without permission, tantrums, or in some cases substance abuse.
1.18While challenging behaviours, particularly violence and aggression, tend to gain widespread attention, most disorderly and disruptive behaviour in Australia is considered as low-level. For example, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australiat:
… disruptive behaviour in Australian classrooms predominantly consists of low-level behaviours including disengagement, work avoidance and idleness, and other behaviours that are minor in nature and high in frequency.
1.19Similarly, the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) observed:
Research indicates that most behavioural concerns are minor infringements such as noncompliance or talking out of turn, and it's the extreme frequency of these issues that places a substantial strain on teachers. Although less frequent, more serious student behaviours are also challenging for teachers, and one study estimates almost 10 per cent of teachers work in schools where these occur on a weekly basis.
Prevalence of classroom disruption in Australia
1.20Just as classroom disruption can take various forms, there are also multiple ways that disruption in Australian schools can be measured. This includes surveys of school staff and teachers and data on disciplinary exclusions, such as suspensions and expulsions. Information collected by the OECD as part of its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) also provide important information on the extent of disruptive behaviour in Australian classrooms.
Surveys of school staff and teachers
1.21Several recent surveys of school leaders and teachers in Australia have provided insight into the prevalence of disruptive behaviours, including the incidence of more challenging behaviours.
1.22The Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey, conducted by the Australian Catholic University (ACU), reported an increasing trend in offensive behaviour. The ACU survey revealed that 37.1 per cent of school leaders reported being exposed to threats of violence from students, while 7.8 per cent reported being exposed to unpleasant teasing, and 30.6percent reported being exposed to cyber bullying.
1.23Similarly, findings from Monash University's 'Australian Teachers' Perceptions of their Work in 2022' report showed an increase in the number of teachers feeling unsafe at work, from 18.9 per cent in 2019 to 24.5 per cent in 2022. Monash University noted that the 'concerning increase in the percentage of teachers feeling unsafe at work was primarily attributed to student behaviour with teachers reporting abusive, aggressive, violent, and threatening behaviour'.
1.24In addition, the 2021 annual survey of school staff conducted by the Victorian Branch of the Australian Education Union indicated that 41 per cent of teachers who reported increased work-related stress attributed the increase to student behaviour and, of those who saw themselves leaving public school education in 10 years or less, 40.1 per cent blamed student behaviour.
Suspensions and expulsions data
1.25The use of exclusionary discipline in schools, such as suspensions and expulsions, can provide insight into the prevalence of challenging behaviour in classrooms. However, several stakeholders noted the need for more consistent reporting of data on the number of suspensions and expulsions across school sectors and jurisdictions, particularly in relation to the impact of exclusionary discipline on students with disability.
1.26The Parliamentary Library (the Library) noted that '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 expulsions are specified'. Nevertheless, the Library observed that:
… 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.
1.27Many participants pointed out that students with a diagnosed or imputed disability are overrepresented in suspension and exclusion data. Forinstance, Square Peg Round Whole WA collated suspension data across all states and estimated that 'nationally, students with disability are 2 to 4 times more likely to be suspended than students without disabilities'.
1.28Further discussion of the impact of exclusionary discipline on certain student cohorts is discussed in Chapter 3.
Disciplinary climate – PISA 2018
1.29The most recent survey data from the OECD's PISA 2018 questionnaires considered several dimensions of school climate, including student disruptive behaviour (which covered bullying), disciplinary climate, and student truancy and lateness. In the 2018 survey, Australian students were asked about the disciplinary climate in English classes.
1.30The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) published Australia's 2018 PISA results and discussed the findings in relation to disciplinary climate. Some of key points from ACER's analysis of the results showed that on average:
Australian students reported similar levels of disciplinary climate in their English classes to students in New Zealand, and a less favourable disciplinary climate than the OECD average;
almost half (43 per cent) of Australian students reported that there is noise and disorder in most English classes; and
Australian students' reports of disciplinary climate deteriorated between PISA 2009 and 2018, with, for example, a reported five per cent increase in students who don't listen to what the teacher says in most English classes.
1.31As part of PISA, principals were also asked about the extent to which they perceived that student behaviour hindered learning. On average, 50 per cent of principals of Australian schools reported student learning was hindered to some extent or a lot by students not being attentive.
1.32In April 2023, PISA released a policy profile on education in Australia as part of the Education Policy Outlook series, which provided further analysis of these findings, as well as the current strengths, challenges, and policy priorities for the education system in Australia. The OECD's report found that:
Australia continues to perform at or above OECD average in PISA, although performance has been in steady decline across reading, mathematics and science since first participation in 2000. While other national and international assessments show improvements for younger students, performance of older students is more mixed.
1.33The OECD also reported that Australian students 'view their teachers positively and teachers themselves have comparatively high levels of job satisfaction'. However, it also noted that 'learning environments are comparatively less favourable in terms of disciplinary climate, intimidation or bullying, and student truancy'.
Figure 1.1Index of disciplinary climate, by school characteristics
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students' Lives, 2019, p. 68.
TALIS 2018
1.34The OECD's TALIS also collects information about the learning environment and working conditions of teachers and principals across the world and asks teachers about the disciplinary climate in the classroom.
1.35ACER's analysis of Australian results for TALIS 2018 noted that, despite often being characterised as noisy and disruptive, there were no differences in these areas between Australia and the OECD. However, TALIS also considered school safety, with Australian principals reporting a higher frequency of incidents than on average:
37 per cent of Australian principals reported that intimidation and bullying among students occurs at least weekly in their schools, compared with 14per cent of schools across the OECD; and
12 per cent of Australian principals reported that intimidation and verbal abuse of teachers and staff by students occurs at least weekly, compared with three per cent of principals across the OECD.
Figure 1.2Disciplinary climate internationally and for Australia
Source: Sue Thomson and Kylie Hillman, TALIS 2018: Australian report (Volume I): teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners, (ACER, 2019), p. 60.
How does Australia compare to other education systems?
1.36It was broadly acknowledged by inquiry participants that the latest PISA and TALIS data showed a concerning decline in the disciplinary climate of Australian classrooms.
1.37The Department of Education (department) noted that the PISA 2018 data shows that Australia is one of only four countries in which students do not report a favourable disciplinary climate:
The other countries in this category are New Zealand, Finland and Canada. In Australia, almost half of the students reported noise and disorder in most English classes. A third of students said a teacher has to wait a long time for students to quieten down, and a third said students don't listen to what the teacher said. The teacher survey pretty much said the same thing.
1.38Likewise, the Centre for Independent Studies told the committee:
On that index Australia performs 69th out of 76 countries. That puts us effectively at the bottom of the ladder, particularly when we look at other developed economies and school systems. That ranking has more or less declined between the two windows in which it's been recorded. It's also not an outlier. We also have measures that do international comparisons in primary school, and that's recorded in the trends in international maths and science study, better known as TIMSS. That also demonstrates significant opportunities in the area of disruption, disorder and general approaches towards classroom behaviour.
1.39Other submitters questioned the utility of making international comparisons. For instance, QUT's Centre for Inclusive Education argued substantial cultural differences and educational methods needed to be considered when comparing countries, and the PISA data 'cannot be used to make strong claims about student behaviour, behaviour management practices, or initial teacher education in any of the participating OECD countries'.
1.40Some participants also noted that it can be difficult to isolate attributes of a country's education system, and various features of some education systems may not work in other country-specific contexts. Forexample, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth noted:
Australian classrooms are often characterised as busy and vibrant places, with lessons that promote interaction between students and teacher. The education systems that remain in some countries are not representative of Australian culture and not reflective of the accepted standards of educational practice.
1.41Some participants suggested that more focus was needed on ensuring that adequate funding and resourcing was available to support all students, particularly those in disadvantaged cohorts.
Causes of increasing disruption
1.42There were a variety of reasons offered for why Australia was experiencing increasing levels of disruptive behaviour in classrooms. Monash University's Faculty of Education pointed to research suggesting the:
… aetiology of challenging behaviour is multifaceted and the development of disruptive and challenging behaviour can be influenced by a range of biological, social, environmental, and educational factors.
1.43This aligns with reasons put forward by submitters who nominated a range of causes for classroom disruption, including but not limited to:
inadequate teacher training and/or classroom management;
student disability and the structure of classroom settings;
socioeconomic factors; and
bullying and/or family trauma.
1.44Members of the Australian Association for Flexible and Inclusive Education identified student trauma, high student teacher ratios, and a lack of allied professional staff in the classroom and school, as potential contributors to disruption in Australian classrooms.
1.45Similarly, MacKillop Family Services (MacKillop) submitted that disruptive behaviours 'are often connected to disruption that has been or is being experienced outside the classroom'. MacKillop noted that:
… 72 per cent of children have been exposed to at least one adverse childhood experience such as bullying, family violence, sexual abuse, racism, neglect, death of a parent, parental mental health or substance use issues, food or housing insecurity or environmental disaster.
1.46Autism CRC explained that 'students, including students with disabilities, may have difficulty communicating their needs and may express frustration if these needs are not understood or addressed'. Its submission stated that this could 'lead to the interpretation of behaviours as being disruptive rather than communicative'.
1.47The Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented argued that:
… gifted students may lack access to appropriately differentiated learning opportunities due to a poor classroom disciplinary climate and that gifted students may themselves become bored and create disruptions because of lack of delivery of appropriately advanced, differentiated learning opportunities.
Improved national data
1.48Several inquiry participants called for improved national‑level data to fully understand the issue of classroom disruption, particularly the amount of time spent by teachers and leaders managing student behaviour.
1.49For example, the Chief Behavioural Adviser for the New South Wales Government, Dr Donna Cross, outlined the need to improve the quality and consistency of national data around classroom behaviour:
The amount of data that we have around behaviour and children's behaviour in the classroom is quite limited and, sadly, with limited data we have an inability to benchmark, to monitor how children are performing to intervene with precision and using resources effectively to address it. We also have limited ways to evaluate how effective what we are doing is in the workplace. I believe we need to have a much more systematic data collection process so that we can understand how to respond to each of those, and particularly how to measure the effectiveness of policies and practice we have in place and be more targeted with its delivery and have a much fuller understanding of students' lives.
1.50Similarly, AERO observed that there is 'no current, accurate data on the specific amount of management time this requires of teachers and leaders'. In order to address this, AERO pointed to overseas models:
There's a really great example from the UK right now, where they've just released a report on their National Behaviour Survey, which essentially tells the experiences of teachers, school leaders and, partly, students in schools. That will be used now to inform where they take policy reform actions in the future. So that's certainly something we could learn from in terms of data collection.
1.51Professor Tom Bennett told the committee that the National Behaviour Survey in the United Kingdom has been a highly successful initiative:
… we've just started having a national behaviour survey where we have a statistically weighted, and therefore representative, sample of teachers and students telling us nationally what they think about behaviour at a national level, which has given us some fairly sobering feedback. But it's a good baseline, because until you know what's going on you can't see if things are getting better or worse. And that's been one of the biggest problems we've had in behaviour—it's almost impossible to know if it's getting better or worse. You can't always just lean into the OECD. They're not the universal arbiters of such matters. We have to know for ourselves what is happening within our schools. I have quiet confidence that we're having a large impact, but it's kind of a ripple impact; it's very hard to discern at this point.
1.52Professor Bennett described the rationale for the National Behaviour Survey as:
… an annual national survey of students and staff throughout the sector, with data weighted by demographic in order to be representative... The reason we decided to survey primarily staff and students is because they are the recipients and inhabitants of the culture we wanted to evaluate ...
The four categories we selected to investigate were:
School behaviour culture and policy – what are the whole school systems?
School environment and experience – what does it feel like being inside these systems?
Frequency and impact of misbehaviour – what actually happens?
Responding to behaviour – how does the school deal with incidents?
… The research was conducted through a series of survey waves, carried out through the existing panel surveys conducted by the Department for Education – the School and College Panel (SCP) and the Parent, Pupil and Learner Panel (PPLP)… The termly survey data was collected from multiple respondent groups (school leaders, teachers, pupils and parents) to allow for triangulation of views and was weighted to be nationally representative of teachers, schools and pupils (for England), which was vital to the credibility of the survey as an accurate summary of views at a national scale.