In the evolving landscape of education, one of the most pressing challenges that consistently emerges is student behaviour and the challenges this poses to teachers, who have consistently ranked this among the most complex challenges they face for the past 60 years, yes – SIXTY Years.
I wrote the following passage in my thesis back in 2012:
As far back as the early 1960s, teachers were reporting problems with ‘discipline’, ‘classroom methods’ and ‘motivation’ (Dropkin & Taylor, 1963). Two decades later, in his extensive review of the problems that beginning teachers face, Veenman (1984) found 68 distinct problems that beginning teachers perceived. Of those 68 problems, “classroom discipline” and “motivating students” ranked one and two, respectively, in both the frequency and severity with which respondents mentioned it as a problem.
This isn’t a new problem; despite recent attention, it will not be fixed anytime soon. Based on the PISA 2015 report, Australia was the worst-ranked nation in the OECD in student-reported classroom disciplinary climate. The results for 2018 were no better: 69 out of 76. The problem is so bad that we have referred it to the Education and Employment Reference Committee. However, if this has been the biggest teacher problem for the past 60 years, it won’t be easily remedied.
Jason Clare MP says that our teachers are great, but most say they weren’t ready for the rigours of the classroom on day 1 of their career. Pardon my language, but no shit, minister. Were you job-ready on day one at Transurban when you took that job? What about when you became Senator – didn’t you attend Senate School? Why was that necessary? Did your BA in Law not prepare you for the role?
I don’t mean to pick on the Federal Minister, but his comments are asinine. Very few university graduates are ready for the rigours of the workforce the day after graduation; that’s why doctors intern and lawyers article. While there may not be a cutesy name for it in other professions, there are very few, if any, professions that require their neophytes to do the same job as 20-year veterans on day one, except teaching.
So, when education isn’t working, we seem to blame teacher training institutions and pass more legislation to standardise teacher training further. Have they learned nothing!? There have been no fewer than ten national reviews of education over the past 20 years; the development of state and national standards authorities; the development and implementation of a national curriculum; the introduction of professional teaching standards, which have resulted in mandatory changes to initial teacher education (ITE) training, including, but not limited to new entry requirements for ITE in NSW; new national ITE program standards; a mandatory nationally-accredited Teaching Performance Assessment; and, national compulsory literacy and numeracy competency tests for ITE graduates. What have all these legislative changes accomplished? Fewer teachers in the profession, causing a teacher shortage, no discernible improvement in student learning, and their behaviour is the worst in the OECD!
So, logic would suggest another review, and the recommendations of that review will again solve nothing. But let’s look at what they came up with. So far, the recommendations to improve student behaviour include:
- Teaching students how to behave through an explicit behaviour curriculum.
- Modelling appropriate behaviour
- Holding students to high standards, and
- Engaging students in their learning.
Really? You mean all we have to do is teach them to behave better and, voila, problem solved… Why didn’t we think of that?
Alright, alright… enough of the cynicism; let’s dive into this complex topic to understand the challenges and explore potential strategies for actually fixing the issue.
What we’re seeing is a shift in the dynamics of classroom behaviour. Factors like increased screen time, social media influence, and the changing family dynamics contribute to this shift. A study from the Australian Institute of Family Studies highlights the impact of family structure and parental engagement on children’s behaviour. Similarly, in the US, research indicates a correlation between screen time and attention issues in children (American Academy of Pediatrics). But this is nothing new; we’ve seen these trends for decades, especially when new technology disrupts normative constructs.
However, at the same time as this technological shift, we have also seen a shift away from punitive school strategies towards more innovative strategies, like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a proactive approach to establishing behavioural supports and social culture. From my experience, the focus has shifted to positive reinforcement and individualised support plans, as opposed to punitive punishments, focused on rules for everyone. Case-in-point, a unit I currently teach – Positive Learning Frameworks – is a classroom management unit focussed on building a positive environment for learning as a proactive approach to prevent poor behaviour from occurring. When I started teaching the course, it was called psychological principles of classroom management.
While one can’t ignore the role of technology in this discourse, it can be a double-edged sword. Most schools either require or heavily encourage the use of technology because it offers innovative tools for engagement, but it also contributes to shorter attention spans and potential behavioural issues. When you give a student a device ‘for learning’ but it also has all their social engagement tools and games on it, will they really focus on algebra? Australian research points to technology as both a cause and solution for classroom management issues, but I think it is more the cause.
A crucial aspect of addressing classroom behaviour is the training and support provided to teachers. While I do not advocate a behaviour curriculum, there should be more focus on practical strategies in teacher training. It shouldn’t be a trade-off where you have either a course on discipline or classroom management or a course on preventive strategies, like the one I mentioned above, but both. And if there isn’t enough room for both, maybe we need to ensure that it is integrated into other areas of our teaching, as student behaviour toward learning is an essential determinant of learning. That said, this isn’t a legislative issue. Students and children behave poorly in schools; this is as accurate a fact as 1+1=2. That doesn’t mean we need to accept it, but what teachers really need isn’t better initial training, although that may be one part of it; they need experience and more time to learn, in context, about their school, school culture, students, expected behaviours and disciplinary practices of the school. This isn’t a teacher-training issue; it is a school-training issue.
Every school has its own community, its own context and its own set of standards. One cannot expect the various teacher training institutions to prepare students for every context thrown at them when they enter a new school community. This relates to my point earlier in the piece – no other career expects neophytes to take on the same responsibilities as a twenty-year veteran on their first day. No other career provides ZERO on-the-job training. Why do we expect a 21-year-old teacher graduate straight out of university to be able to aptly handle the multitude of behavioural and mental health issues that cause disruptive behaviour with little to no experience in doing so?
What other job has these expectations?
Looking ahead, the future of classroom management will likely involve new legislation to include mandated ‘evidence-based practice’ in initial teacher education (ITE). While I’m not supportive of further standardising the practices of ITE, of course, we should be teaching evidence-based strategies for improving student learning by eliminating disruptive behaviours. The problem is that ITE programs should be allowed to differentiate themselves and enable experts to teach what they believe and what their research tells them works. If you standardise all the practices, there is no room for innovative approaches that may well help solve the problem.
If the legislators think we haven’t been teaching evidence-based strategies, they aren’t paying attention. Those strategies have been and are being taught, yet for the past 60 years, these are still the problems beginning teachers face. The human elements – empathy, understanding, and connection – remain at the heart of effective classroom management – and those things, like most of what makes teachers effective, can’t be taught.
The challenges of behaviour management and classroom discipline are perennial issues. Schools and classrooms are complex and multifaceted places that are as varied as diverse. Teaching standardised strategies to manage behaviour is like trying to herd cats while riding a unicycle – each student has their own mind and motivation, leading to unpredictable scenarios. Meanwhile, the teacher, like a circus performer, is constantly adjusting and trying to balance the content, discipline, and students’ individual attention, all while trying to portray an image of grace, confidence, and empathy. Effective teaching requires vision, agility, and a relentless commitment to steering your students towards long-term success amidst daily challenges.
A behaviour curriculum? Really, senators, is this the best you could come up with?
Maximising Student Potential 