Suspension Is Not Support: Queensland’s Disabled Students Are Being Pushed Out of Education

Bronwyn Jane Hammond

Sep 3

8 min read

I hate suspension.

There, I said it.

I believe suspension is an outdated behaviour management response that too often allows a system to remove a child without addressing why the behaviour occurred in the first place.

Before somebody deliberately misunderstands me, I am not saying schools should ignore genuine violence, serious aggression or an immediate risk of harm. Every student and staff member has the right to be safe. In rare and serious circumstances, temporarily removing a student may be necessary while the immediate risk is addressed and a safe plan is developed.

But an emergency safety response should be the exception. It should not justify suspension becoming the standard response to dysregulation, distress or disability.

The data suggests that this distinction is being lost.

Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion reported that disabled students represented roughly 25 per cent of Queensland’s student cohort but accounted for 64 per cent of students suspended in Term 2 of 2025.

That is not a small discrepancy. It is evidence of a system responding very differently to disabled children. When one group of students is being suspended at such a wildly disproportionate rate, we need to stop asking, “What is wrong with these children?” and start asking, “What is happening inside our schools?”

Behaviour is communication-even when that communication is uncomfortable

Disabled and neurodivergent students are often suspended for behaviour described as defiance, refusal, disruption, disrespect, non-compliance, absconding, swearing or aggression. But those labels tell us what adults observed. They do not tell us what happened to the child.

Was the classroom unbearably noisy? Was the student unable to process a long verbal instruction? Had demands continued to build after the child’s capacity was gone? Was the child experiencing pain, fatigue, panic, sensory overload, communication frustration or a trauma response? Had they asked for a break in the only way they could access at that moment? Were their documented adjustments actually being provided consistently?

Behaviour is communication (and i will say that till my dying breath!)

That does not mean every behaviour is safe or acceptable. It means that if we respond only to the behaviour and ignore the message underneath it, the same situation will happen again.

Calling distress “defiance” does not make the distress disappear.

Suspension removes the student-not the problem

What does suspension actually teach?

The student is sent home. They miss learning, routine, friendships and access to the professionals who are supposed to support them. Their family is left to manage an unexpected school-day absence, often at significant financial and emotional cost.

The child returns days later to the same environment, the same demands, the same triggers and, too often, the same missing adjustments.

Nothing has been repaired. Nothing has been taught. Nothing has changed.

For a child already experiencing school as unsafe, repeated suspension can deepen shame, anxiety, trauma and disconnection. It can teach them that they do not belong and that exclusion is what happens when their disability becomes inconvenient to the system.

Then, when that child becomes increasingly anxious, avoidant or unable to attend, we call it “school refusal” and place the problem back onto them and their family.

You cannot punish a nervous system into feeling safe.

Re-entry meetings should be about support-not a scripted list of consequences

I have sat in numerous re-entry meetings where the entire conversation has been:

“This is the bad thing you did. This will be the consequence next time.”

There is often no meaningful discussion about what the student experienced, what led up to the incident or what the adults could have done differently.

There is rarely a genuine question such as:

“How can we support you?”

Or:

“In your perfect world, what could we have done differently?”

Instead, the responsibility is placed entirely on the student. The student is expected to explain, regulate, comply and behave differently, while the adults and the environment are treated as though they played no part in what happened.

But in some cases, I have sat in those meetings knowing that the incident was solely the result of what a teacher did-or failed to do. Schools often cannot verbally admit that.

It is easier to say the student was defiant than to acknowledge that an instruction was delivered inaccessibly, a known adjustment was not provided, a warning sign was ignored, a demand was escalated or an adult response intensified the situation.

A re-entry meeting should not be a formalised lecture about the student’s wrongdoing. It should be an opportunity to understand what happened, repair relationships, identify unmet needs and agree on what everyone will do differently.

If the only outcome is “the student must not do that again”, then it is not a support meeting. It is a warning.

Even Queensland’s own guidance calls suspension a last resort

Queensland’s Principal guidelines-student discipline describe suspension and exclusion as last-resort options.

The guidelines define “last resort” as the point at which evidence-based, positive and proactive approaches have failed to reduce risk, or when risk is escalating and no other available response is likely to reduce it.

The guidelines also say principals should assess the behaviour and level of risk, consider the student’s individual circumstances-including disability, mental health and wellbeing-and consider whether a less restrictive response could achieve the same purpose.

That means suspension should not be the automatic next square on a behaviour consequence chart.

It should not be used because a student swore while overwhelmed, left a classroom to regulate, shut down, could not comply quickly enough, reacted impulsively or reached a crisis point after earlier signs of distress were missed.

If disabled students are 25 per cent of the cohort but 64 per cent of those suspended in a term, it is reasonable to question whether suspension is genuinely being reserved for the last resort-or whether it is being used because schools lack the people, resources, training and flexibility required to respond differently.

Adjustments must come before punishment

Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005, education providers have obligations to make reasonable adjustments so disabled students can access and participate in education on the same basis as their peers.

Schools must also consult regularly with students and their parents or caregivers about those adjustments.

A diagnosis is not a free pass to harm others. However, disability absolutely matters when a school is deciding what happened, why it happened and what response will be fair, safe and effective.

Before suspending a disabled student, schools should be able to answer:

What function or unmet need was the behaviour communicating?
What happened in the lead-up to the incident?
Which reasonable adjustments were in place?
Were those adjustments known and consistently implemented by every relevant staff member?
Were the student and family consulted?
Were communication, sensory, cognitive, physical, cultural, trauma and mental-health needs considered?
Were early signs of distress noticed and responded to?
What positive and proactive strategies were attempted?
Is suspension genuinely necessary to address an immediate risk, or is it simply the easiest available way to remove the problem?
What will be changed before the student returns?
What will adults do differently next time?

If a school cannot answer those questions, suspension is not a solution.

It is an admission that the system reached the end of its own capacity and made the child carry the consequence.

Safety matters-and so does getting the response right

There are circumstances involving serious violence or aggression where a student may need to be removed to protect them, other students and staff. Acknowledging this does not weaken the argument against suspension. It makes the argument more honest. But even in those serious cases, removal cannot be the entire plan.

There must be an immediate safety response followed by a proper investigation of risk, unmet need and environmental factors. The student’s plan and reasonable adjustments must be reviewed. The student and family must be consulted. Staff need clear, consistent strategies. Appropriate specialist or regional support should be involved.

A return-to-school plan should address what will change-not simply list what the student must do better.

If nothing changes before the student returns, the school has not reduced the risk. It has only postponed it.

What happens if more responsibility is pushed onto schools without the right expertise?

This concern becomes even more urgent in a Queensland context where the state has not signed on to the Thriving Kids initiative, yet there is ongoing concern that the model could move into schools or place additional responsibility on education settings.

How does the Queensland Government plan to manage that?

Queensland schools are already struggling. The suspension data makes that clear. Disabled students are being excluded at disproportionate rates, and schools are already demonstrating that they do not have enough resources, staffing, training or specialist support to respond effectively.

So what happens when even more responsibility is pushed onto schools-or onto organisations working within schools-that are not equipped or trained to manage complex disability, developmental, mental-health and regulation needs?

We cannot keep transferring responsibility without transferring expertise, funding, accountability and appropriate safeguards.

Schools cannot be expected to become health, disability and therapeutic services by default. Teachers cannot be expected to manage complex needs without meaningful training and specialist support. And an organisation that is not trained or equipped to provide the required level of support cannot simply be placed in the middle of a child’s education and expected to solve problems created by systemic under-resourcing.

If the government is considering any model that increases the responsibility of schools or school-based organisations, it must answer:

What training will be provided?
Who will be accountable for the quality and safety of support?
What specialist services will be available?
How will disabled students and families be consulted?
How will conflicts of interest be managed?
What safeguards will prevent distress being treated as behaviour to be controlled?
What additional funding and staffing will be provided?
How will the government measure whether the model is improving inclusion rather than increasing exclusion?

We already have evidence that the current system is failing disabled students. The answer cannot be to place more responsibility on people and organisations that are not trained, resourced or authorised to manage the complexity involved.

You cannot solve a capacity problem by pretending capacity exists.

What should schools do instead?

There is no single replacement for suspension because behaviour does not have a single cause. Effective responses are individual, proactive and based on need.

Depending on the student, this could include:

a functional assessment examining patterns, triggers and unmet needs
a co-designed positive behaviour or regulation support plan
predictable routines and clear, accessible communication
sensory, movement and rest breaks available before crisis
reduced verbal load and visual or alternative communication supports
low-arousal and trauma-informed responses from adults
task modification and flexibility around how learning is accessed or demonstrated
access to a safe regulation space without shame or punishment
restorative conversations once everyone is regulated
re-entry meetings that ask the student what support would help and what adults could have done differently
consultation with the student, family and relevant professionals
additional staffing, regional support and meaningful staff training
a documented re-entry plan with accountability for what the school will change.

This work requires time, training and resources. Teachers and school leaders are often trying to manage complex needs inside an overstretched system. This is not about blaming an individual teacher for every failure of policy or resourcing.

But it is also not acceptable to protect the system from accountability by placing every failure onto the student.

It is about refusing to accept disabled children as the pressure-release valve for a failing system.

Exclusion is not inclusion

We cannot say we believe in inclusive education while disproportionately removing disabled students from it. We cannot celebrate attendance campaigns while repeatedly telling some children to stay home. We cannot claim to be trauma-informed while using exclusion against children whose behaviour is communicating distress.

We cannot hold re-entry meetings that only list what the student did wrong and call that support. We cannot push more responsibility onto schools and untrained organisations while ignoring the fact that schools are already struggling to meet existing obligations. And we cannot keep calling suspension a last resort if it remains one of the first responses reached for when a disabled student is struggling.

Suspension might remove a behaviour from a classroom for a few days. It does not create regulation. It does not repair relationships. It does not teach missing skills. It does not provide reasonable adjustments. It does not make the environment more accessible.

Most importantly, it does not answer the question every school should be asking:

What does this student need to be safe, included and able to learn?

It also does not answer the equally important question:

What do the adults and the system need to change?

Disabled students do not need more polished pathways out of the classroom.

They need properly resourced pathways back into belonging.

Suspension is not support.

Exclusion is not intervention.

A re-entry meeting is not support if it is only a list of consequences. And removing a child is not the same thing as solving the problem.