

October 01, 2025
What the education system doesn’t want you to find out about classroom incivility.
Mom Is Very Involved: Are Child and Adolescent Students More Uncivil?
Before you read this blog and the article I’m about to discuss, I’d like to share a few more things about myself.
I have biases that are relevant to this post.
I am a neurodivergent individual who some people, particularly in the field of education, consider uncivil. Additionally, I am a parent of a child who has been labeled uncivil both in and outside of the classroom by many educators. I work as a social worker with extensive experience advocating for marginalized groups and believe that systemic discrimination is still a significant issue, preventing equal opportunities for everyone.
These biases do not mean that my opinions are wrong; they do mean that I may not always be as right as I think and that I may not be aware of this limitation.
I have no sponsorships, affiliations, or conflicts to declare.
You will gain a deeper understanding of why I make this declaration by the end of this post.
Are children and adolescents more uncivil since the COVID-19 pandemic?
When you have the chance, please read or review the article mentioned below, as I will only highlight the points that are most relevant to my concerns.
The article can be found here: Spadafora, N., Al-Jbouri, E., & Volk, A. A. (2024). Are child and adolescent students more uncivil after COVID-19?. School Psychology. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000672
I have frequently noticed this article in the news, which made me wonder why it was receiving so much attention.
After reading the article, I concluded that many mistakes were made. Remember, this is strictly my opinion, and I do not mean to suggest that the researchers intentionally sought to further bias and discrimination against students.
I generally support research because it creates opportunities for additional insights, advancements, and critical thinking. We just have to be careful because it can also be manipulated and used to further agendas. While these errors are sometimes unintentional, at other times they are intentional, and regardless, the impact remains the same.
I reached out to the lead researcher via email before writing this post, but I have not yet received a response.
Here are some highlights from the articles.
The article claims that its findings, “highlight that school shutdowns may have impacted classroom incivility in children and youth.”
To define incivility, the article references a seminal study, which states incivility is a “low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457).
“Classroom incivility is defined more specifically as ‘any action that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere in the classroom’ (Feldman, 2001, p. 137)”.
The article repeatedly discusses the role that teachers play in establishing routine, structure, and norms and describes a teacher’s role as crucial in these processes.
The article makes little mention of other aspects of life that would also support the learning of routine, structure, and norms.
The researchers conducted two studies to gain further insight. Both studies focused on the perceptions of teachers and students.
The researchers did not seek input from parents or any other person or professional involved in these students’ lives. Nor did the researchers seek input about other potential causes or contributors to the increased classroom incivility being reported by the study’s participants.
In the article, the researchers state, “we hypothesized that mean levels of classroom incivility would be higher post-pandemic school closures (Fall 2022) than prior to the pandemic (Fall 2019).”
They then proceeded to seek out evidence that supported the answer they wanted, rather than following the information to gain a deeper understanding of the issue.
Here are some of the article’s findings.
Their research showed that the involved adolescents self-reported that they engaged in more classroom incivility post-pandemic than pre-pandemic.
The teens reported no change in their treatment of each other. Self-reported bullying, emotional problems, and the number of friendships they had were relatively stable pre- and post-pandemic.
For these adolescents, the only thing that they noticed was their changed behaviour in the classroom.
The teachers’ feedback highlighted several changes in behaviour. These included an increase in interruptions, a lack of routine, inadequate awareness, insufficient self-regulation, limited social skills, a general lack of respect, and a rise in individualism.
I find this fascinating and am particularly drawn to the conclusions the researchers have reached.
While the adolescents are validating what the teachers are reporting, I don’t understand how the researchers determined that the lack of in-person teaching was the central cause of the changes in classroom behaviour. Nor do I know how they concluded that online learning enables students to engage in behaviours considered uncivil in a traditional classroom setting.
I wonder if the adolescents realized through online learning that there was an alternative to the way they were treated in the classroom and then refused to allow teachers to continue that treatment once they returned to in-person learning.
If their behaviour was uncivilized, would we not observe evidence of it in all their relationships?
It is hard to believe that these concerning traits are limited to a school setting.
What about teacher incivility? Why was it not included in their research?
The researchers repeatedly link classroom incivility to a higher risk of antisocial behavior and state, “previous research has demonstrated that classroom incivility during the adolescent years can be associated with other antisocial behaviour and traits (e.g., Spadafora et al., 2020), this further supports the necessity to ensure that classroom incivility is being addressed across development, in both childhood and adolescence.”
Why is there no discussion about the influence teachers have on creating their classroom environment? Or how educators and school boards impact the culture of their schools and workplaces?
I have shared extensive evidence that supports the notion that we have a problem with teacher incivility in the classroom. Does this research mean that teachers who exhibit uncivil behavior in the school are antisocial?
For your reference, the DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder as “A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years”. It also requires the individual to meet three of the seven listed criteria. You can review the criteria here.
The relationship between teacher incivility, student incivility, and antisocial behavior presents intriguing research opportunities, prompting me to investigate further.
Looking into complaints filed with the Ontario Ombudsman against school boards between 2017 (pre-pandemic) and 2024 (post-pandemic), I learned: In the 2017-2018 report, school boards had 871 active complaints. In 2019-2020, they had 732. In 2021-2022, there were 722, and in 2023-2024, the number increased to 1,334.
I also reviewed the number of complaints registered with the Ontario College of Teachers and found that the total number of complaints in 2017 was 610; in 2018, this number increased to 722. In 2019, the number increased again to 850, followed by a decline to 625 in 2020, another drop to 579 in 2021, and a significant increase to 836 in 2022, peaking at 1,127 in 2023.
Teacher complaints declined during in-home and online learning, but have risen at an alarming rate since the return to the classroom.
The above begs the question: Is the increasing incivility in classrooms related to the growing incivility in the teaching profession?
The growing number of teacher complaints may be because our youth, when outside of the classroom, experienced less teacher incivility. Upon returning to school and facing it again, they may have become less willing to tolerate such behavior because they have gained new insights.
The purpose of their incivility may be a form of protest.
A call to action.
Although they reference their affiliation with the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University, they do not address how child and youth workers are integrated into our education system. Additionally, they fail to mention that Brock University offers a teacher education program. Their declaration of no conflicts of interest suggests a lack of awareness regarding their personal and professional biases, which may be influencing their findings.
The study’s findings indicate that educators face a heavier workload, as they must address not only gaps in academic achievement but also the development of social skills and classroom expectations. It appears to be a call for increased funding.
To further illustrate my point, the research lead states in The Brock News on September 19, 2025, “It all starts with being a kind, respectful person,” she says. “If you can teach your children that at a really basic level, you’ve laid a good foundation for them to build from as they head into the classroom.” She goes on to encourage parents to discuss manners and civility with their children.
Thanks, just what we need – another educational professional blaming parents and suggesting an empty, simplistic solution to a complex challenge.
I am frustrated with these kinds of assumptions.
Educators are not sent from the heavens, and not every problem lies solely with parents.
Let’s burst the holier-than-thou bubble and get down to work.
This is a call to action for educators to acknowledge their roles in classroom issues so we can collaborate on meaningful and lasting solutions!
Your ADHD advocate,
Lynn