In the latest survey of National Education Union members, conducted ahead of Annual Conference in Brighton, 10,715 teacher members and 3,274 support staff members gave us their views on pupil behaviour in schools.
We found that:
- Two thirds (66 per cent) of state-school teachers in England say pupil behaviour has a negative impact on learning in lessons either regularly or all the time.
- This figure is almost exactly the same as in 2024 (67 per cent), but markedly higher than in 2022 (48 per cent) and 2020 (46 per cent).
- Support staff were more likely to report pupil behaviour disrupting lessons regularly or all the time (76 per cent) than teacher counterparts (66 per cent).
- Teachers reference a lack of resources and staffing, unmet needs of students with regard to SEND and the impact of social media use among what they feel are some of the main causes of behaviour that challenges.
- More teachers feel supported by their school’s behaviour policy (43 per cent) than feel unsupported (34 per cent).
- Support staff felt less supported by behaviour policies in their school than teachers
Disruption in lessons
Our survey shows that behaviour causes significant disruption in lessons, and teachers report that the problem is greater than before the pandemic.
Overall, two-thirds (66 per cent) of English state teachers said that student behaviour had a negative impact on their lessons at least regularly. This includes a quarter (26 per cent) who said this disruption occurs “all the time”.
The levels of disruption reported by NEU members this year closely match those recorded in 2024 (when 67 per cent reported behaviour negatively impacting lessons regularly or all the time) but are markedly higher than those recorded in 2022 (48 per cent) and 2020 (46 per cent). Years of underfunding in both education and the wider child support system have contributed to this long-term decline, along with the lasting social effects of the pandemic.
Looking closer at this year’s figures, disruption associated with behaviour occurs across all schools in the system. However, it is worse in primary schools and special schools/PRUs, where 70 per cent and 69 per cent of teachers respectively say behaviour impacts negatively on lessons regularly or all the time, compared to secondary schools (60 per cent).
Women teachers faced pupil behaviour having regular negative impacts on their lessons more often than men, particularly within the primary phase (73 per cent of female teachers compared to 52 per cent of male counterparts). Younger teachers on average experienced greater levels of disruption than older counterparts (73 per cent of those in their 20s reported regular negative impacts, compared to 61 per cent of those aged 50 and older).
There is a correlation with disadvantage: teachers working in high deprivation settings were more likely to say that student behaviour had a negative impact on learning in their lessons compared to teachers working in less deprived schools. The Sutton Trust notes that children eligible for free school meals are over-represented in every category of SEND, particularly social emotional and mental health, moderate learning difficulties and severe learning difficulties (Sutton Trust, Double Disadvantage, 2025).
Alongside state-school teachers and support staff, we asked the same question to independent-school teacher members. This illustrated the roles that resourcing, class size and pupil to adult ratios play in behaviour, with 31 per cent of independent school teachers saying pupil behaviour “rarely” or “never” had a negative impact on lessons. In state schools this figure was just 8 per cent.
Support staff report similar concerns
Support staff in English state schools were somewhat more likely to report pupil behaviour disrupting lessons regularly or all the time (76 per cent) than teacher counterparts (66 per cent).
Support staff members showed less variation by phase, with 73 per cent of secondary support staff reporting regular disruption to lessons, compared to 75 per cent in special schools/PRUs and 79 per cent in primaries.
An unmanageable system
When asked about the causes of challenging behaviour in their schools, some of the main reasons given by teachers included a lack of resources and staffing, unmet needs of students with regard to SEND, and the impact of social media use.
Teachers told us that their ability to manage behaviour is hampered by a lack of resources and understaffing, particularly around unmet SEND needs:
“Due to unmet SEND needs and insufficient specialist provision, staff are increasingly required to manage complex behaviours without adequate support or intervention from senior leadership.
“Low level disruption – mostly caused by increase in students with additional needs, especially ADHD, who are not being supported well enough due to funding.”
Regarding social media, teachers drew a clear line between extreme views found online and behavioural issues in schools:
“Increasing exposure to concerning attitudes and beliefs on the internet: misogyny is clearly having a huge effect, especially as a female teacher when dealing with the behaviour of male students.”
“Children do not have the resilience to persist at tasks (attention deficit caused by constant scrolling) and they are often rude, talking back to teachers (posting and commenting on social media with no real ramifications).”
Teachers also referenced a rigid curriculum that is often inappropriate for some students:
“Not enough time to teach children good learning behaviours and PSHE as the pressures of the curriculum are immense. These pressures affect the wellbeing of many children and teachers”
“Overloaded curriculum, too much expected of the children in a short space of time. Too much pressure on evidencing learning and not enough time given to interactive, fun learning, outdoor learning which can improve wellbeing…”
Others referenced problems in wider society and difficulties in pupils’ backgrounds:
“Schools seem to be doing the jobs of multiple agencies. Children who are online (particularly on social media) before they are emotionally mature enough. Lack of parental support for education. Not enough support available in school. Not enough behaviour interventions available due to lack of support staff.”
Support staff members mostly raised similar concerns about behaviour to teacher members:
“High SEND provision and not enough resources or staff to meet their needs at all times. We try our best, but with their dysregulation comes behaviour – which they can't control.”
“Too many different needs to meet and not enough staff or resources to facilitate”
“Once one child is struggling to regulate and an adult is supporting, the teacher is often then left with multiple others who challenge behaviour.”
School behaviour policies
Despite the problems with pupil behaviour disrupting lessons, more teachers felt supported by their school’s behaviour policy (43 per cent) than felt unsupported (34 per cent). Nonetheless, this still means that a third of teachers feel let down by their school’s approach to pupil behaviour.
In particular, 47 per cent of teachers in special schools and PRUs felt supported compared to 24 per cent who did not, followed by secondary teachers (46 per cent supported compared to 31 per cent unsupported). Primary teachers felt the most unhappy, in line with their reporting of the highest rates of disruption. The 39 per cent of primary teachers agreed that they felt supported were almost offset by the 37 per cent who disagreed.
Teachers in leadership roles were much more likely (60 per cent) to say that they felt supported by their setting’s behaviour policy compared to classroom teachers (40 per cent). This may be due to leaders having less exposure to extreme student behaviours within classrooms or could reflect a greater confidence that their concerns will be listened to.
Support staff responding to the survey felt less supported by behaviour policies in their school than teachers. Overall, slightly more support staff disagreed with the statement (35 per cent) than agreed with it (33 per cent). Similar to responses from teachers, the proportion who felt supported was lower in primary schools than other settings (32 per cent compared to 34 per cent in secondary and 39 per cent in special/PRU).
Commenting on the findings of the survey, Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said:
"Many teachers are worried about the impact of challenging behaviour on learning in their lessons.
“Schools need behaviour management policies that staff can rely on in practice. In too many settings, this confidence is lacking. The NEU will continue to press for all schools and colleges to be safe working and learning environments, where staff are protected from violence and abuse.
"Teachers in this report identify that the curriculum offer is too restrictive and that curriculum flexibility and breadth is needed. This is a key part of supporting positive behaviour for learning. Schools' efforts to deal with behaviour problems are hampered by understaffing and a lack of resources.
"Too often, students are trapped in a de-motivating data cage. There is a connection between the lack of art and creativity in the curriculum and student disaffection.
"External support systems are not adequate to meet the demand for specialist support. Teachers and parents are anxious about the record waiting lists for EHCP referrals and the SEND reforms must deliver more help. The SEND reform must address the urgent call for resources, funding and staffing.’’
Editor’s Note
The online survey of National Education Union members was conducted between 5-16 February 2026.
We received responses from teachers, support staff and other members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This release focuses on the responses from 10,311 teachers and 2,996 support staff in English state schools, reweighted by personal and professional characteristics in line with data from the most recent School Workforce Census.
Deprivation is calculated using IDACI bands, band 1 corresponds to the least deprived schools and band 5 to the most.
For reweighting purposes, teachers in state-funded primary and state-funded nursery schools are counted together, as this is how they are recorded in the School Workforce Census. However, state nursery teachers represent only 0.3% of the primary and nursery sample, and so although the group name is used in full in the charts, we mostly refer to this group as “primary” in the text.