Teachers union rolls over on suspensions and expulsions

Interesting developments in New South Wales

Photo by nomao saeki on Unsplash

---

I think all of us would like the numbers of school suspensions and expulsions to fall. However, differences arise when we argue about the best way to make that happen.

One way would be to implement evidence-based programmes and interventions that reduce antisocial, unsafe and disruptive behaviour. We could invest in using the science of reading to teach more children to read and so presumably better engage them with school and schoolwork. We could train teachers in whole class approaches with proven effectiveness — such as sitting students so they face the teacher — and we could invest in allied professionals such as speech pathologists or trained counsellors who can provide more intensive support. As a result, we may expect that suspensions and expulsions would naturally fall.

An alternative is to regulate suspensions and expulsions from above to make it more difficult for school principals to use these tools. Undoubtedly, this would bring down the officially reported figures for suspensions and expulsions — the emphasis here being on ‘officially reported’. The trouble is, suspensions and expulsions would not fall as a result of behaviour actually improving. So, the life chances of the young people affected by that behaviour would not be enhanced.

It is deeply unfortunate that so many politicians are lured onto the rocks of this second approach. The sirens calling to them are inclusion campaigners who seem to think banning suspensions and expulsions will usher in a new age of inclusion and not, as many of us may suppose, a new era of violence, abuse and disrupted learning.

But the politicians won’t be told.

I had a go at it. I warned Sarah Mitchell, the education minister in New South Wales, that plans to bear down on suspensions and expulsions were misguided. Whether they were aware of my arguments or not, Teachers Federation, the New South Wales teaching union, appeared to agree with me and took a stand against these changes which have been delayed as a result.

However, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Teachers Federation have now rolled over and offered Sarah Mitchell their tummy.

Apparently, only ‘minor revisions’ have been made to the original proposal and the plans may now proceed as intended. Teachers Federation are still pursuing a proposal to enshrine, “the rights of teachers to teach and students to learn in a classroom environment free of persistent disruption and maintaining the authority of principals and teachers to manage student behaviour.” However, the agreement on setting even this low a bar appears to still be pending. That did not stop one inclusion advocate taking to Twitter to express their views on such a proposal:

Catia Malaquias @CatiaMalaquias

Also, talk of "enshrining the rights of teachers to teach" is nonsense. Teachers have rights & duties as employees - they do not include "the right to teach". Students have human rights to education in international law, and rights and protections under domestic laws.

Catia Malaquias @CatiaMalaquias

Credit to NSW Education Minister @smitchellmlc for pursuing reforms to address the disproportionate impact of suspension and expulsion policies on disabled and First Nations Students, and to the many groups & advocates that demonstrated the case for reform https://t.co/Ia7bvDSMkN

July 31st 2022

5 Retweets11 Likes

It makes me wonder what inclusion advocates want from teachers.

As is so often the case, the Sydney Morning Herald article uncritically repeated statistics showing disparities in suspension and expulsions rates between students with and without disabilities and from different backgrounds, inviting us to infer discrimination. Disparities do not automatically prove discrimination. Given that some disorders and disabilities can negatively affect behaviour, the fact that students with disabilities are more likely to be suspended or excluded is hardly surprising.

It is also not surprising that students from economically marginalised groups would be overrepresented. In the case of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, I can well imagine they face discrimination in schools and this may affect their exposure to disciplinary measures, but the disparity in suspensions and expulsions does not prove this. Moreover, if there is a fundamental problem with racial bias, tinkering with suspension and exclusion rates will not fix it.

It is worth reminding ourselves that disadvantaged students are also the victims of violent and abusive behaviour and disrupted learning. They are perhaps more likely to be exposed to it because they are less likely to have middle class parents who can move home to attend a public school of choice or raise the funds to finance a private education. If we bring down suspension and expulsion rates without tackling the underlying causes, we are condemning disadvantaged students to a deteriorating quality of education.

And as I have highlighted recently, violent and disorderly schools are also likely to exacerbate the growing teacher shortage, with shortages being most acute in the most disadvantaged schools.

I am left wondering what Teachers Federation think of the way this story has been presented. Have they changed their minds? Did they really roll over? Did they suddenly come to accept the arguments of inclusion advocates? Or has the story caught a little spin in its telling?