A landmark study tracking over 71,000 students in New South Wales has revealed that nearly one-fifth of them experience suspension or expulsion at least once during their public school education. The research, led by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), is the first in Australia to follow a large cohort of individual students over their entire school careers, providing a detailed picture of the prevalence and patterns of exclusionary discipline.
The findings indicate that disciplinary actions are not isolated events but often part of a cumulative cycle that begins early and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable students. Researchers found that two-thirds of students who were suspended once were subjected to the measure on multiple occasions, suggesting that the practice may be ineffective at correcting behavior. The study raises significant questions about the long-term consequences of these policies and has amplified calls for alternative strategies to support student behavior.
Scope and Scale of Disciplinary Actions
The decade-long analysis paints a clear picture of when and why students are removed from the classroom. The journey into the disciplinary system often starts in primary school, where approximately one in 20 children received their first suspension. The rate of exclusion then accelerates significantly during the initial years of secondary school, a critical period in adolescent development. This pattern suggests that for a substantial minority of students, disciplinary issues become an ongoing part of their educational experience rather than a response to a single serious transgression.
Contrary to perceptions that suspensions are reserved for severe safety breaches, the study found the most common triggers were less severe infractions. The leading reasons cited for exclusion were “aggressive behaviour” and “continued disobedience,” which can encompass a wide range of classroom conduct. Incidents involving serious offenses, such as the use of weapons or illicit drugs, were comparatively rare, indicating that daily classroom management challenges are the primary driver of the high suspension rates observed across the state.
Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Groups
A central finding of the research is the stark inequity in how disciplinary measures are applied. The data consistently shows that students who are already facing significant barriers are far more likely to be suspended or expelled. This disparity suggests that exclusionary discipline may be exacerbating existing social and educational disadvantages. The researchers identified several key groups who bear the brunt of these policies.
The study highlights a clear demographic pattern among the students most frequently excluded from school. Analysis revealed that specific cohorts are suspended at much higher rates:
- Gender: Boys were found to be significantly more likely to be suspended than their female peers.
- Socioeconomic Status: Students from disadvantaged families faced a higher risk of exclusion. In a particularly stark finding, children of unemployed parents were approximately 10 times more likely to experience 16 or more suspensions compared to children from employed households.
- Location: Those living in regional and remote areas of NSW were more frequently suspended than students in metropolitan centers.
- Indigenous Students: Aboriginal students, who constitute about 8.6% of the student population, accounted for a quarter of all suspensions, indicating a severe overrepresentation.
- Students with Disabilities: Students receiving adjustments for a disability were heavily impacted, representing nearly 48% of all students suspended in 2023.
A First-of-its-Kind Longitudinal Study
The research stands apart from previous analyses due to its comprehensive and long-term methodology. Led by a team at QUT, including researchers from the School of Psychology and Counselling and the Centre for Inclusive Education, the study utilized a massive dataset of population data from NSW public schools. By tracking the educational journeys of more than 71,000 individual students from kindergarten through to Year 12, the project provided a unique, high-resolution view of disciplinary patterns over time.
This longitudinal approach allowed researchers to move beyond simple annual statistics, which often mask the cumulative impact of suspension on a student’s life. Instead of just counting the number of suspensions in a given year, they could identify how many individual students were affected throughout their schooling, how often they were excluded, and at what stages of their education the exclusions occurred. This method provided robust evidence that for many, suspension is a recurring event, with two-thirds of affected students being suspended more than once. The scale and precision of the data offer a solid foundation for re-evaluating current disciplinary policies and their effectiveness.
Doubts on the Efficacy of Exclusion
The study’s authors have directly challenged the effectiveness of suspension and expulsion as tools for behavior management. Corresponding author Professor Kristin Laurens of QUT stated that the findings demonstrate that exclusion does little to improve student conduct and often deepens existing inequalities. The research suggests that removing students from the learning environment, particularly on multiple occasions, fails to address the root causes of their behavior and may instead contribute to a negative cycle of disengagement and further disciplinary problems.
This cycle is highlighted by the high rate of re-suspension. According to lead author Lauren Piltz, “Most children who are suspended once are likely to be suspended again.” This indicates that the disciplinary action itself is not serving as a successful deterrent or corrective measure. Experts argue that these practices can set students on a path of academic disadvantage while failing to provide them with the skills or support needed to manage their behavior more effectively in the future. The research team advocates for a shift away from punitive measures and toward more inclusive models that provide better behavioral support, especially for the vulnerable students who are most at risk.