Pupil Behaviour: Is it Getting Worse?

“Declinism is a close relative of nostalgia” – Jenny Odell

Over the past few weeks, a growing discussion has been surrounding pupil behaviour in schools. Much of this has been fuelled by the recent news of a pupil assaulting a teacher during a fight with another student. As a result, the student was excluded.

There have been many discussions about the factors surrounding the pupils’ behaviour before their exclusion. In the article in question, it suggests the school system does not provide students with adequate support. Due to this, the student should not have been excluded. The argument is that the student wasn’t fully responsible for their actions due to the failures of the school system.

This article is filled with ambiguous language that isn’t wholly helpful to the discussion, which is why I have chosen to not link to it. While it was the catalyst for many discussions, I will not be referencing this further. 

Instead, I will be looking at some historical news articles from the past 30 years and using these to frame a discussion on some attitudes toward behaviour in schools today.

The Guardian – Out of Control (2000)

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/mar/29/schools.classroomviolence

I’ve been teaching for seven years, and each year, I hear colleagues remark that “behaviour is getting worse.” Reflecting on their own careers, few teachers would likely disagree with me – there’s always someone who recalls a time when things were better, suggesting that behaviour has deteriorated over time.

The article I’ve shared above reinforces my point. The comments from teachers themselves highlight the common sentiment around student behaviour 24 years ago. Here are a few notable examples:

• “What has changed more than anything in my 33 years of teaching is the level of anger now apparent in many teenagers.”
• “I firmly believe that behaviour has worsened over the past decade, and society has played a huge part in the lack of morals and standards among youngsters today.”
• “Nobody [pupils] is prepared to take responsibility for their actions.”

Hearing this repeatedly in just my seven years has led me to largely discount it completely. It reflects a classic form of declinism: the belief that society is in gradual decline. This mindset appears in many areas, even former Prime Ministers have warned of an impending societal breakdown. Although these warnings may not always resonate broadly, the sentiment often dominates online discourse, evident in the comments on almost any social or political post. Education is rife with rosy retrospection yet if we look at it, teachers have been seeing these issues for years. Poor behaviour is nothing new.

The Independent – School Violence Rocketing in 90s (1995)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/school-violence-rocketing-in-90s-1524988.html

The Independent – Teachers Call for Guidance on Banning Pupils (1994)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/teachers-call-for-guidance-on-banning-pupils-1416861.html

In recent social media discussions, a prevalent narrative suggests that educators and school leaders lack understanding in managing exclusions. While I do not claim to be an expert on exclusion processes, I find this perspective reductive. Through conversations with various headteachers, it’s clear that the decision to permanently exclude a student is both rigorous and difficult, requiring substantial evidence for review by exclusion panels. Without sufficient supporting evidence, exclusions can be overturned, and the student is reintegrated into lessons.

To assume that high exclusion rates at a particular school reflect incompetence oversimplifies a complex issue, which is something both these articles do and I still hear today, 30 years later. Exclusion decisions frequently undergo scrutiny and can be reversed by local authorities or governing bodies. Therefore, if one’s stance is critical of exclusions, it is perhaps misdirected to solely attribute responsibility to the schools themselves.

Exclusions are not easy processes to go through for pupils, and of course, this is not what we want to happen but in some cases, it has to happen. I often think back to a time during my teacher training and a discussion with a teacher on the attempted exclusion of a pupil. They were involved in circumstances that significantly harmed another pupil which meant they were no longer physically able to attend school. The student who was not excluded returned to school and complained that it was not a nice environment to be in because of the attitudes of their former friends. The pupil who was physically unable to return to school was unable to complete education. Friends of both pupils were afraid and all declined support offered to them due to distrust in the system. All left school without the grades they wanted and deserved.

Yes, all teachers will have that one incident that helps them form their opinion on exclusions and, excluding my own personal experience of exclusion when I was at school, this is mine. However, this illustrates that the pupil remaining at the school wasn’t in the best interests of anyone involved. It is still my opinion that this student should have been moved to another school, yet the local authority thought differently.

Sometimes exclusions are necessary, for everyone.

BBC – Education Tackling Truancy (1999)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/260076.stm 

Increasingly, many point to funding issues as a major factor behind rising poor behaviour. Looking back at an article from 1999, it’s evident that this perspective has long fostered diverse opinions. Currently, the National Education Union is campaigning to restore per-pupil funding to 2010 levels. According to data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, per-pupil funding is now 4% below what it was in 2010 and is expected to overtake 2010 levels in 2025 without any direct government investment anyway.

The more impactful issue, however, is the sustained reduction in per-pupil funding over the previous 14 years due to austerity measures by the Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition and Conservative tenures. This prolonged decrease significantly affected schools’ resources, showing that the debate should shift away from restoring 2010 funding levels to a focus on raising funding to compensate for years of losses. But alas, this is not the current focus of many.

That said, I believe the funding increase may not achieve the outcomes many anticipate as throwing money at a problem is unlikely to alleviate it. Rather than repeat myself, I will elaborate on this later.

BBC – Should Corporal Punishment Return to the Classroom? (2000)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/594392.stm 

The Guardian – Parents Call for Schools to Bring Back the Cane (2000)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/08/schools.news

The recurring “kids these days” argument resurfaces periodically, casting today’s youth in a less favourable light. I left mainstream school in 2009, and even then, this view was common. These two articles from 2000 reveal a similar sentiment, with some members of the public attributing perceived increases in poor behaviour to the decline of corporal punishment.

While few today advocate for a return to such disciplinary practices – despite some in the article claiming it did them no harm – this perspective reflects a broader societal feeling: a belief that “they don’t want to anymore.” 

Rather than focusing on this notion myself, I’d like to direct your attention to a Twitter post by author Paul Fairie, illustrating how the “people don’t want to work anymore” mantra has been echoed consistently for over 120 years.

https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/1549527748950892544

While Fairie’s post focuses on attitudes toward work, anecdotally, I believe a similar pattern could likely be observed in the perception of student behaviour in schools today. Many believe they don’t want to behave or just simply don’t know how to.

This is not to suggest that challenging behaviour in schools should be disregarded or accepted as the norm. However, I do believe it is an exaggeration to claim that behaviour has reached unprecedented levels. Even by looking at suspension and exclusion data, we can see this just isn’t true.

The Herald Scotland – Teachers Call for Policy on Dealing with Violent Pupils (2005)

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12069799.teachers-call-for-policy-on-dealing-with-violent-pupils/

A few years ago, a senior leader once told me that “If you want to see what behaviour truly is like in your school, observe the pupils in a supply lesson.”

This was a piece of advice changed my attitude towards pupil behaviour. Should pupils only have good behaviour if they are heavily managed in the classroom, or should it be a basic expectation in school regardless of who they interact with?

I have been to numerous lessons where I notice that a pupil behaves perfectly in one classroom but acts up, fails to follow instructions, and is sometimes the lead distractor in the room when placed in another. This difference shows that pupils do know how to behave well, and therefore, they are choosing not to do so based on the staff member in front of them.

Could this be down to the lesson being uninspiring and boring? Possibly, and I will discuss this further later on.

For me, the behaviour of the class should not be dependent on the staff member in front of them – we should expect pupils to be well-behaved regardless. Yes, there will be pupils who do need that extra coaching, and for that, we should have the skills necessary and the behaviour systems in place, but again, this should not be the major focus of a teacher – it should be the pupil’s learning. 

Every minute, or even an entire lesson, that a pupil is not meeting expected behaviour standards is time taken away from other students in the classroom. Poor behaviour is often viewed as a symptom of an “unmet need,” and while I understand this perspective, it’s important to recognise that many students with significant needs do not disrupt lessons. These students deserve the teacher’s attention and support, yet the focus frequently shifts toward those exhibiting behavioural issues, positioning them as the primary recipients of additional resources.

This leaves quieter students, who come in, follow expectations, and rarely demand extra attention, at risk of being overlooked simply because they “just get on with it.”

In my view, this is fundamentally unfair.

The Telegraph – Unruly Behaviour in Schools Caused by Boring Lessons (2011)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8298825/Unruly-behaviour-in-schools-caused-by-boring-lessons.html

The Guardian – Turn Lessons into Game Shows to Engage Pupils (2009)

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/apr/15/steer-school-behaviour-quiz

While I’ve explored various perspectives, one I frequently hear from those outside education is that pupils misbehave simply because they’re bored.

To that, I’d respond: no.

One article begins by describing student behaviour in schools as “endemic,” citing issues like name calling, swearing, not paying attention, interrupting staff and fighting as the major behaviours teachers 13 years ago were experiencing.

The article then moves on to argue that a “boring” curriculum is to blame for students’ disinterest and resulting behaviour issues, suggesting that a curriculum overhaul is needed to make it more engaging and aspirational.

This argument is strikingly familiar. The call to revamp the curriculum because it supposedly fuels student disengagement has been repeated time and again. While it could be said that the curriculum changes in 2014 aimed to make it more aspirational, ten years on, it’s “boring” again. However, attributing classroom behaviour solely to curriculum design is an oversimplification of a much more complex issue.

During my PGCE, I was advised to start each lesson with a “hook” to engage students right from the outset. I was encouraged to incorporate as many practical activities as possible to prevent boredom and to ensure my lessons were interesting, emphasising that if students found the lesson dull and the content appeared on the exam, they would likely fail.

However, a student can appear engaged in the classroom through raising their hand, asking enthusiastic questions, taking notes from paper strewn across the classroom, or pretending they’re contestents on Blankety Blank. It all looks fun and engaging, but let’s be honest: little to no actual learning may actually be taking place. While a handful of students may be actively involved, on average, in a class of 30, the level of genuine learning is often minimal.

Some lessons are, by their very nature, less engaging for some. Even I find certain topics tedious, and I believe that some should be removed from the curriculum. However, if eliminating these lessons means retaining content that is outdated or does not reflect the current landscape of my subject, I would choose to keep the less engaging material every time.

Students should recognise the value of their education and understand that what they are learning is essential for their future. It is crucial for them to engage with the material, appreciating how impactful our subject can be in tackling challenges, making informed decisions, and contributing meaningfully to society. All stakeholders in a student’s future should emphasise the need for a good education, without this, a teacher’s job is made significantly harder, not because it is boring, but because they are failing to grasp its importance.

Teaching Times – Behaviour: The Social Context (2005)

https://www.teachingtimes.com/behaviour-the-social-context/?download_file=1

This final article conveys a narrative I have encountered numerous times before. The landscape of the world has shifted significantly, leading to profound changes in our society, and it is essential that our behaviour policies evolve to reflect these transformations.

Whilst the technological landscape has indeed changed dramatically from what many teachers experienced when they were younger, this often leads to a lack of understanding about how and why students engage with these platforms. The discourse surrounding social media and young people’s interactions with technology mirrors many of the concerns I encountered during my own school years 15 years ago – a point also highlighted in this article.

However, the impact of social media and technology on students is not the primary focus of this post, and I may address it in more detail at another time. That said, I believe that attributing all of our students’ challenges to social media is a significant oversimplification of a much more complex issue.

The one thing this article does focus on is what was currently happening in society in 2005 and for this, I would like to list several up-to-date impactful statistics:

• 20% of children are estimated to have a mental health disorder
• 30% of all children are living in poverty
• Almost 3 million children live in poor-quality housing
• Children are the most likely group to live in overcrowded housing
• An estimated 800,000 children are registered young carers
• Over 300,000 children have had a parent in prison in the past year
• A basic basket of food has increased by 24% since 2022

These factors all contribute to students arriving in our classrooms already facing significant challenges. We encounter pupils who come in hungry, have dressed themselves or their younger siblings, are living in temporary accommodation, have a heightened awareness of their parent’s financial struggles, reside in cold and mouldy homes, share bedrooms with multiple siblings, or are even responsible for caring for their own parents. 

This article examines societal changes affecting young people in 2005, and if we use that year as a benchmark, nearly every measure has worsened. Child poverty, mental health issues, inadequate housing, the number of young carers, home overcrowding, and food costs have all increased since then, each contributing to the challenges young people face.

Many discussions over the years have attempted to reduce complex behavioural issues to a single, easily fixable problem, missing the larger picture. The root cause of much of the poor behaviour observed in classrooms is deprivation. Increases in deprivation lead to declines in educational outcomes, and deprivation itself is inherently multifaceted, influenced by a variety of interrelated factors.

Societal issues cannot be resolved by a teacher alone, and as a result, behavioural problems in the classroom cannot be addressed solely through the efforts of teachers. The reasons why pupils are behaving poorly in schools are larger than the world inside the school gates. It is complicated and any effort attempting to simplify this is a flawed one. Granted, Twitter and Bluesky are not the places for long-form critique but it does not mean we should be attributing a lack of effort on the teacher’s part.

Teachers dedicate immense effort to their students, yet poor behaviour consistently ranks as one of the leading reasons for leaving the profession. Unfortunately, attempts to address this issue are often oversimplified, with blame frequently misdirected at teachers and schools rather than examining the broader context of the challenges we face.

We’ve been doing this for years. Whether it’s blaming societal decline, SLT shortcomings, inadequate funding, lack of discipline, uninspiring lessons, or simply changing times, we’ve often searched for simple explanations for poor behaviour. Yet, when we examine the data and headlines, as I have, a pattern emerges: the issue of behaviour has remained remarkably consistent. What has changed is the depth of our societal challenges, and yet, the need to pinpoint a singular cause has only grown more detrimental to what we are all trying to achieve – better outcomes for students.

---

I have been working on this article for several weeks, drawing insights from multiple articles, posts on Twitter and Bluesky, and even two books on behaviour. Despite my efforts to find a witty, engaging, or motivational conclusion, I am at a loss.

The truth is, the time we spend shifting blame among ourselves for poor behaviour detracts from addressing the underlying causes – many of which are beyond our control. While it may be difficult to adopt this perspective, we must acknowledge that, until there are positive societal changes, a reduction in the cost of living, a renewed focus on mental health, and efforts to alleviate poverty etc, we may continue to face these issues for years to come, often without a clear resolution.