Behaviour in Schools: Addressing the Critics
The Department for Education’s recent survey found that seven minutes out of every thirty are now lost to disruption in classrooms, equivalent to 45 days of missed learning for every pupil each year. With figures like these, it is no surprise that behaviour is high on the agenda, and that strong views are being expressed about what schools should do.
A common solution suggested is to simply remove misbehaving students from classrooms, or exclude them, so that staff can teach and students can learn. But is this an effective approach? Does it align with the values we hold about education, and does it create the long-term change we need in our schools?
We explore some of the most common criticisms of supportive approaches to behaviour and explain why they do not stand up to scrutiny.
Q: Why not just exclude children who misbehave so others can learn?
Research is clear. The Department for Education’s Timpson Review found that only 7 per cent of permanently excluded children achieved good passes in English and Maths at GCSE, compared with more than 40 per cent of all pupils. The Education Policy Institute followed more than half a million pupils and showed that those who were suspended were twice as likely to be unemployed or not in education or training by the age of 24, and 2.5 times more likely to rely on unemployment benefits.
The picture is just as concerning when it comes to offending. A major 2024 study funded by the Youth Endowment Fund found that suspended or excluded pupils were four times more likely to self-report violent behaviour, and five times more likely to have a police record, even after accounting for wider risk factors. Research published in the British Journal of Criminology in 2025 showed that permanent exclusion increased the likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence within two years by 33 per cent.
Exclusion might appear to solve a short-term classroom issue, but the long-term impact is profound. Children who are excluded from school are less likely to gain qualifications, less likely to move into secure employment, and more likely to become involved in crime. For schools, communities, and wider society, the costs are high.
Behaviour is not something that children automatically know; it is something that must be taught, modelled, and reinforced, just like literacy or numeracy. If we do not invest in helping children learn how to regulate their emotions, manage conflict, and engage positively, we deny them the very skills they need to succeed.
Q: Isn’t this behaviour crisis caused by permissive approaches that excuse poor behaviour?
Some critics argue that trying to understand behaviour is the same as tolerating it. That could not be further from the truth. Supportive approaches are not permissive approaches. When schools seek to understand behaviour, they are not excusing it; they are addressing the root causes so that change can happen.
Proactive strategies involve teaching the skills pupils need to regulate, while also holding consistent expectations for how they should behave. This means staff act early to prevent escalation, reducing risk for pupils and adults alike. Far from being permissive, this approach is both demanding and effective. It recognises that behaviour support is not about letting things slide, but about creating a culture where problems are prevented and solutions explored before they reach crisis point.
Q: Shouldn’t teachers be allowed to focus on the children who are willing to learn?
This is a perspective often heard outside schools, but it does not reflect reality. Children bring their whole selves into the classroom, just as adults do when they go to work. If you arrived at work visibly upset, how would you want your colleagues to respond? Would you expect them to tell you to stop being upset and get on with your job, or would you hope they might show care, offer you a moment to gather yourself, or even make you a cup of tea?
When we apply the same humanity to children, we see that behaviour is often a reflection of underlying stress, worry, or unmet need. Responding with empathy does not mean lowering expectations; it means giving children the support to meet them.
Q: Isn’t it quicker and easier to remove pupils who are stopping others from learning?
It may be quicker in the moment, but it is not necessarily effective in the longer term. When a pupil is dysregulated, sending them away does not teach them how to regulate. It simply removes them from sight. They are returned to class and inevitably the same patterns of behaviour repeat again, creating a significant long-term impact on everyone’s learning. Real change comes through co-regulation: being alongside the pupil, guiding them, and helping them develop strategies they can later use independently.
Everyone’s safety must be considered when making decisions in escalating situations, and removing a student may be necessary at times; however, we must consider what a student is doing when they are removed, how we support them out of class, and ways to facilitate a positive return for them.
Actively developing students’ regulation skills takes more time, investment, and patience, but it leads to stronger outcomes for everyone. Over time, fewer pupils reach crisis point, staff spend less time firefighting problems, and classrooms become calmer places where learning is not constantly interrupted.
Q: How do we know these approaches really work?
Evidence from schools shows the impact. At Team Teach, we have trained tens of thousands of staff across education, health, and social care. As of May 2025, based on nearly 120,000 responses, first-time participants reported their confidence in supporting behaviour rising from 6.3 out of 10 before training to 8.1 afterwards. For refresher participants, confidence increased from 7.4 to 8.5. Confident staff are more consistent, more resilient, and better able to support pupils.
In England, Ofsted outcomes also reflect the difference. 90 per cent of Team Teach trained schools are rated Good or Outstanding for behaviour and attitudes, and 89 per cent are rated Good or Outstanding overall. In primary schools previously graded Requires Improvement or Inadequate in 2019, 96 per cent had achieved Good or Outstanding by 2024.
Q: What about staff who feel overwhelmed by behaviour every day?
No strategy can succeed without acknowledging the pressure staff are under. Teachers and support staff face enormous challenges and deserve to feel safe, supported, and confident in their roles. Behaviour support is not just about helping pupils; it is about sustaining the workforce. Staff who feel supported are more likely to stay, more likely to feel capable, and more likely to create the consistent culture pupils need.
That is why we pair our training with over 100 hours of resources in Team Teach Connect, giving staff ongoing access to tools and ideas that help deepen their understanding long after their initial training has finished.
Q: Isn’t behaviour all about poor parenting?
It is easy to point the finger at parents, and families do play a vital role in shaping children’s behaviour. But behaviour is influenced by a wide range of factors. Neurodiversity, childhood experiences, trauma, poverty, mental health, and the culture of the school environment all contribute. Blaming parents alone oversimplifies the issue and risks alienating families who may already feel judged or excluded.
Instead, schools need to work in partnership with parents and carers. Many parents never receive any training or guidance in how to support behaviour at home. When schools provide clarity, consistency, and support, families are far more able to reinforce expectations and help their children succeed. Behaviour support is most effective when schools and families stand together and learn from each other.
Q: Aren’t behaviour problems really just down to a small minority of pupils?
It is true that a relatively small number of children are responsible for the most disruptive behaviours. But the Department for Education’s own data shows that low-level disruption is widespread and costly. Teachers estimate that seven minutes in every half hour are lost to disruption. That equates to 45 days of learning lost per pupil every year.
Even if only a handful of pupils are regularly disrupting lessons, the ripple effects are felt by everyone. The idea that behaviour only matters for a few children ignores the cumulative impact on whole-class learning, staff workload, and school culture. Every pupil deserves to learn in a calm and purposeful classroom, and every member of staff deserves to feel safe and supported.
Q: Doesn’t a supportive approach mean lowering standards?
This is one of the biggest misconceptions. A supportive approach is not permissive. It does not ignore poor behaviour or allow pupils to just “get away with it”. On the contrary, it combines high expectations with the support children need to meet them, and safety for everyone should always be prioritised.
Understanding behaviour means we look at what is driving it, so we can address the causes rather than just the symptoms. Proactive strategies involve teaching children how to regulate, practising skills, and intervening early to prevent escalation. This is not about lowering standards; it is about giving every child the chance to reach them.
Q: Why should teachers have to “manage behaviour”? Shouldn’t pupils know how to behave?
This question reflects a frustration that many staff understandably feel. But the reality is that behaviour, like reading or maths, is a skill that needs to be taught, modelled, and practised. Some children pick up social and emotional regulation quickly, while others need structured support and more time.
Expecting pupils to automatically know how to behave is unrealistic. Just as we would not blame a child for struggling to read without being taught, we should not blame them for struggling to regulate their emotions without guidance. Teaching behaviour is part of preparing children for life. When staff are supported to do this consistently, it leads to calmer classrooms and more time for teaching.
Q: Isn’t this just more workload for already over-stretched staff?
On the surface, proactive behaviour support can feel like extra effort. Taking the time to co-regulate, intervene early, or adjust classroom strategies may seem like yet another demand on staff who are already under pressure. But in the long run, it reduces workload rather than increasing it.
When staff are confident in their approaches, incidents de-escalate more quickly, classrooms run more smoothly, and fewer crises occur. Our own data shows that after Team Teach training, confidence scores among staff rise significantly, from 6.3 out of 10 to 8.1 for first-time participants, and from 7.4 to 8.5 for refresher participants. Confident staff feel less overwhelmed and more able to focus on teaching.
Q: Why should other children’s education be disrupted by a few pupils?
This is a fair concern raised by both staff and parents. Every child has the right to learn in an orderly classroom. But the solution is not to remove those who struggle. If we rely on removal as the primary tool, we end up with cycles of disruption, exclusion, and long-term disadvantage.
A better solution is to invest in proactive and preventative strategies. When schools build consistent systems, de-escalate early, and support children to regulate, classrooms become calmer for everyone. Supporting children with behavioural needs does not lower the quality of education for others; rather, it improves it by reducing interruptions and creating a more stable learning environment.
Q: Isn’t exclusion sometimes the only option?
Exclusion might seem like a short-term easy fix, but it creates long-term risks for young people and society. Exclusion should never be the default response to behaviour. It must be seen as a last option when all other alternatives have been considered and is necessary to keep pupils and staff safe.
The real challenge for schools is to create systems that minimise the need for exclusion by intervening earlier, supporting staff with consistent training, and building cultures where behaviour is understood and supported. Exclusion should be the last resort, not the main strategy.
There is no one solution to behaviour in schools
There is no single solution to behaviour in schools. The current conversation is often dominated by quick fixes and simplistic slogans, but the evidence shows that lasting change is built on understanding, consistency, early intervention, and a commitment to supporting both pupils and staff.
Supportive approaches do not mean lowering expectations or tolerating unsafe behaviour; they combine high standards with the strategies and safeguards staff need to feel safe and keep everyone protected. Exclusion may feel like the easier option in the moment, but as the data shows, it creates greater problems for young people and society in the longer term and cannot be our default response.
Supportive, proactive approaches take more effort, but they are the pathway to calmer classrooms where pupils can learn, teachers can teach, and whole school communities can thrive.
Please get in touch any time if you’d like help with behaviour in your organisation.
