But those numbers tell only part of the story.
Increasingly, young people leave school anxious, disengaged and unsure of their strengths, even when they are capable, creative and highly intelligent. The issue is not simply academic performance. It is relevance and purpose.
Students are quietly asking: “Why am I learning this?” They are trying to imagine their place in a future shaped by artificial intelligence, portfolio careers, remote work and constant reskilling.
For decades, the social contract was simple – study hard, get a degree, secure a career. That contract has fractured. Yet our education system remains focused on ranking, standardisation and high-stakes exams.
Research from the Grattan Institute shows around 40 per cent of students are regularly disengaged in class. They are not disruptive; they are simply switched off.
Poor exam results are often a symptom of that disengagement. But teachers, already stretched, do not have the specialist support or structural flexibility to address its underlying causes.
High stakes testing and rigid streaming can sideline curiosity and wellbeing, putting some of our most promising young minds at risk. At the same time, access to integrated health support within schools remains inconsistent.
Early adolescence is a critical period for brain development. It is also when conditions such as ADHD, anxiety, mood disorders, learning differences and certain endocrine disorders often emerge.
These challenges frequently manifest first in classrooms, through poor concentration, behavioural change, fatigue or declining academic performance.
Better integration of health expertise within schools would allow earlier diagnosis and targeted support, improving both wellbeing and academic outcomes.
In many public schools, a single psychologist may be responsible for more than 1,100 students, more than double the Australian Psychological Society’s recommended benchmark of one psychologist per 500 students.
Teachers are often the first adults to notice when something is wrong. But they are educators, not clinicians. They cannot diagnose. They cannot coordinate care. And they should not be expected to.
Without embedded specialist support, families are pushed into private assessment and treatment, services that are costly and unevenly accessible. The result is a two-tiered system in which early intervention depends on postcode and income.
Embedding psycho-educational professionals within schools, including psychologists, allied health clinicians and learning specialists, would enable earlier identification of barriers to learning, reduce stigma and improve long-term educational and health outcomes.
Prevention in adolescence is significantly less costly than crisis management in adulthood.
This model should be funded and led by health systems in partnership with education departments, ensuring teachers are supported rather than burdened by additional responsibilities.
But reform must go further. We routinely test children to rank them. We rarely assess them to understand them.
If governments are prepared to spend millions administering standardised tests, they should be equally prepared to invest in evidence-based cognitive and developmental assessment embedded within schools.
Understanding a child’s learning profile, executive functioning, interests and motivational drivers early is not labelling; it is personalised education. It is prevention.
Brains develop at different rates. A child with limited focus in Year 8 may demonstrate strong executive functioning by Year 12 as the prefrontal cortex matures.
Streaming students narrowly on exam performance ignores developmental science and risks locking them into pathways that underestimate their potential.
Instead of ranking students against each other, integrated learning profiles could guide subject selection, targeted support and strengths-based pathways. That is how potential is unlocked before disengagement becomes crisis.
This is not about medicalising childhood. It is about recognising cognitive diversity. Children with different cognitive styles may process information differently and perform differently under timed conditions. That does not mean they lack ability.
Interest-driven learning is not indulgent; it is strategic. Engagement builds persistence, resilience and adaptability, the very qualities employers now prioritise.
If students later change direction, they do so with confidence rather than shame.
Evidence from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare consistently shows that early intervention in childhood is among the most cost-effective strategies for improving long-term health outcomes and reducing future system pressure.
Early mental health support lowers hospitalisations and chronic service use over decades. Prevention pays, fiscally as well as socially.
In an era when artificial intelligence can draft essays and complete standardised assessments, Australia’s competitive advantage will not come from producing students who are simply good at exams. It will come from developing young adults who can think critically, solve complex problems, collaborate and adapt.
International models, particularly in Scandinavian education systems, demonstrate that integrating psychologists and counsellors into schools while prioritising wellbeing improves engagement and reduces mental health burden.
Investing in children’s mental and cognitive development is not a wellbeing add-on – it is economic, workforce, and health policy.
Embedding school psychologists, funding early assessments, and integrating health with education planning would represent genuine preventative reform, giving Australia a healthier population, a more innovative economy, and lower long-term public costs.
