Editorial: Target the behaviours behind SDAs, not the numbers
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 129 No 2, 28 March 2024, page 5.
At a school leader forum recently, members made it clear that the recent proposed changes to the Education (General Provisions) Act (EGPA) are yet another attempt by the Department of Education to curtail the exercise of professional autonomy when it comes to school disciplinary absences (SDAs).
We all know that SDAs are used when adjustments that teachers put in place do not have effect or when the behaviour is such that the only solution is to remove the student from the school to ensure the safety and wellbeing of other students and members. But it is now suggested that this consequence should have further limitations.
The question therefore arises, what behaviours are acceptable in workplaces? And what consequences apply to unacceptable behaviours? Currently, SDAs are issued in line with the consequences included in the student code of conduct. Clearly, they are necessary to ensure safe workplaces, but also to ensure orderly classrooms.
The department emphasises maximised learning days, which also means minimising disruptions to learning caused by some students’ persistent, disruptive behaviours. At the end of the day, if the purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide a check and balance of the use of SDAs in particular circumstances, are there not better ways to do this than establishing an arbitrary number of days for which a student can appeal a suspension?
There is already an appealable right, which occurs when a student receives a suspension of more than ten days (not cumulative), as it is seen that this student is at risk of exclusion from learning. Why does this need to change? In the QTU’s view, it does not; and it should not.
Let’s be honest, SDAs and their use by schools are under scrutiny. As one school leader described it, they currently feel that the issue with behaviour for those looking into schools is the number of SDAs, not the interventions necessary to address the behaviours. If, as has been reported, performance conversations are happening that compare the number of SDAs in one workplace with the number in other “like” workplaces, this must stop.
A principal who uses SDAs as a consequence for behaviour cannot be considered an underperforming principal.
If school leaders had more options to address students’ persistent disruptive or violent/aggressive behaviours – such as positive learning centres available throughout the state and for all year levels – the need to use SDAs to create a safe and orderly learning environment would decrease.
No leader wants an unsafe workplace or an unsafe learning environment for students. For many students, school is a safe space; however, this knowledge does not provide an excuse or a reason for members to tolerate behaviours that impinge on their human rights or the human rights of all the students in the class.
These include the human rights of students who need extra support. A focus on number of “learning days lost” by students subject to the SDA, and the economic cost to their family/caregivers, runs counter to providing a safe learning environment and protecting the human rights of the majority. A better focus would be whether the SDA is the best response in relation to all affected by the student’s behaviour. How many learning days were gained by the remainder of the students, and did it provide a safer workplace for the teacher and others in the school. This is the lens we know that school leaders apply – a human right to an education does not provide a right to be poorly behaved or to make learning for others unsafe.
In March, QTU State Council resolved that if SDAs were used as a performance measurement of principals, a ballot should be conducted for action. Likewise, it sought a ban on schools making further amendments to the student code of conduct. QTU Executive has rejected the amendments to the EGPA as they relate to the appeals for a cumulative 11 days of SDA in a year and the requirement to develop a support plan for every SDA for students in particular cohorts. This will be a focus of our submission to the Parliamentary committee.
Let’s be clear, the student code of conduct is one of the mechanisms used to establish those boundaries that create a safe learning environment and consequently a safe workplace. It is time the focus moved from the number of SDAs to the interventions required to address the behaviours of the students that warranted the SDA in the first place. We want all students to achieve, and schools must be given the tools to do this.