Editorial: Schools are best placed to judge whether an SDA is justified
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 128 No 3, 5 May 2023, page no. 5
During last term, we heard from various members about the pressures they were feeling in relation to behaviour management. Changes to the OneSchool behaviour management tool did not alter their view that their approaches to behaviour management were being curtailed.
Some schools believed that they were being required to establish targets for student disciplinary absences (SDAs) within their annual implementation plans, some shared spreadsheets with SDA targets in them, and others reported that behaviours that would once have warranted an SDA were being minimised to meet targets.
In discussions with the department and the Minister, the QTU was told that such targets did not exist. We were advised that there was a sharp focus on SDAs, as every student had a right to an education and SDAs could be seen as reducing that right. There appeared to be a perception that SDAs were being used instead of cross agency solutions, and that SDAs were used in response to incidents of low-level behaviour.
This questioning of the professional judgment of teachers and school leaders is disheartening. I do not believe that our members rush to judgment around SDAs (or in fact discipline). SDAs are used when behaviours escalate to such an extent that they are warranted. They are not used because a student’s behaviour is inconvenient, they are used because the behaviour is or has the potential to cause harm.
The reality is that teachers, heads of program and school leaders manage behaviours every day that do not warrant an SDA: behaviours that our members report are multiplying; behaviours that are not receiving the same sharp focus as SDAs.
If not managed, these behaviours – disruption, disobedience, verbal abuse, graffiti, apparent belief that the school rules don’t apply to them – can lead to more significant behaviours such as bullying, physical abuse, vaping, and destruction of property; behaviours that members report are permeating schools. Yet the focus and potential additional support and resourcing only come when the accumulation of these behaviours lead to an SDA.
We’ve heard a lot about behaviours such as vaping; we’ve been told that in itself it should not warrant an SDA and that schools need to do more to prevent it. It’s a blanket statement to make when the data that attracts media attention, such as the number of SDAs reported for each school, is not accompanied by the number of incidents that led to the SDA, the number of incidents of vaping for each student, or the interventions that occurred prior to the SDA.
Schools are best placed to know the student’s circumstances and which consequences will have what effect – in many circumstances these consequences are bespoke to the student. However, no one can argue that once behaviours manifest to harm, or are illegal, the consequences should be consistent and should ensure that other students and our members have access to a safe and healthy working environment.
Members should not have to tolerate occupational violence because of an individual’s right to education. Queensland’s teachers, heads of program and school leaders have a right to a safe workplace – one that is free from harm and abuse.
Statistics show that gendered violence, psychological abuse, and physical abuse of members have escalated in recent years. This abuse leads to an unsafe teaching and learning environment, which must be addressed. While it might be suggested that students displaying these behaviours have learned them at home, and as such an SDA may not assist in addressing these behaviours, a lens about their acceptability or otherwise in other contexts also needs to be applied.
Schools should not be expected to accept violent behaviours. The question shouldn’t be how much violence is enough – the statement should be violence will not be tolerated in any school, just as violence will not be tolerated in any other workplace.
Recently, members have sought the assistance of the QTU to ensure that the department responds effectively to behaviour management concerns and WHS incidents. The outcome of these actions is quite often additional resourcing and support to the school, which helps address the behaviours of the student/parent/community member. However, it should not take members seeking to refuse instruction from a violent/disruptive student or refusing to engage with community members who seek to harm the reputation or wellbeing of our members for the department to respond. One has to wonder, if the department had as sharp a focus on the contributing behaviours that lead to these concerns, then maybe its concerns about the use of SDAs would be minimised.
The QTU remains resolute: despite the need for effective behaviour management policies in schools, work should never hurt. Consequently, if an SDA is the appropriate mechanism to remove the risk of harm to QTU members, other employees, and other students, then the Union will stand with our members and support their professional decision making and their right to a safe teaching environment.