EduResearch Matters is a blog for educational researchers in Australia to get their work and opinions out to the general public. Please join us here. We would love to get your comments and feedback about our work.
As the year grinds to a close, we celebrate the end-of school results of our Year 12 students. It’s an annual ritual, the festive season is always accompanied by school league tables and predictable stories about school and student success – somewhat in contrast to the seeming failure of other schools and students.
But something extra happened this year. The results festival was preceded by the release of the most recent PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) scores and analysis . . . hotly followed by the quite separate release of proposals for Australia’s next National Schools Reform Agreement (NSRA). When seen alongside our end-of-school results, these two events point to a sorry past and present, but one gives us a glimpse of a better future.
Let’s start with PISA
Each PISA report usually sparks a moral panic about our schools – not so much this year because there seems a bit of good news: Australia’s student achievement picked up a tad. We have actually climbed the international rankings … alas, only because others have slipped backwards.
But a different story lies behind the headlines. PISA shows that the achievement gaps between high socio-economic status (SES) and disadvantaged students have continued to widen in reading, mathematics and science since 2006. For those at the bottom, this now amounts to years of lost learning time and opportunity.
Even where progress seems evident, variations within Australia reveal problems. NSW students have improved most in maths and reading . . . but NSW has the widest range of scores between the top and bottom students, results usually found in the Northern Territory. It’s a bit unsettling: in terms of the school achievement gaps, NSW ranks alongside the poorest parts of Australia.
End of year results
Of course, not everyone wants to dig into PISA scores to get a handle on such gaps. So why not see how it plays out in those end-of-school results that get us excited every December? We know that the HSC and Victoria’s VCE, as two examples, tell something about student achievement, school by school. But the changing distribution of high-level scores reveals much more.
There has always been a gap between the highest and lowest SES schools; those near the top creep up, those at the bottom just keep struggling. So what has happened to those just above and below the middle – the schools which enrol most students? Back in 2006 the schools above the middle increased their share of the most valued students and, in the case of NSW, their equally valued distinguished achiever awards. But the schools below the middle saw their share of such students cut in half. The pattern in Victoria is similar, with fewer extremes.
Put bluntly, large swathes of rural and low SES schools, even if they can attract teachers, struggle hard enough to offer a rounded senior school curriculum, let alone boast many, if any, high-level achievers. The latter have gone, and they took their high scores with them.
It’s almost as if the lower half decided not to try harder. Certainly, that’s often implied by the commentariat, and by legislators who should know better. And of course there is no shortage of reasons offered up for such poor performance. Take your pick from some recent ones: too many devices, an inadequate science syllabus, impact of COVID, misbehaving kids, not enough phonics, the list goes on.
Reasons for optimism
But there is reason for optimism, and this is where we get to the third big event, alas the one with the smallest headlines: the panel set up to inform the upcoming National School Reform Agreement (NSRA) has now reported. As expected, and as it should, it wants full Schools Resourcing Funding for all schools, closing the funding gaps sooner.
There is much more. By any standards, the reportImproving outcomes for alldeveloped by this remarkable panel and its supporting team has potentially broken new ground.
It clearly states that “the current system entrenches educational disadvantage and makes it less likely that other reforms will realise Australia’s longstanding ambition of equity and excellence.” They won’t and shouldn’t walk away from authentic and proven reform, but they are effectively saying: let’s stop fluffing around here with peripheral (and appealing) reform and reduce the segregation of student enrolments which is increasingly widening achievement gaps and contributing to poor overall performance.
Markedly different obligations
It effectively confirms a fundamental and sadly unique feature of Australia’s public/private framework of schools, its hierarchical nature. Schools operate on a very unlevel playing field, with often similar funding . . . but markedly different obligations. In the inevitable competition between schools, those with choice – and that includes both families and schools – do well, those without risk falling behind.
Who they enrol and where they come from
The hierarchy is everywhere. Anyone can compare, for schools in their local area, this year’s HSC or VCE results alongside My School’s measure of school socio-educational advantage. It is the work of schools which should contribute most to ‘school’ results; instead, the school-by-school differences are more determined by who they enrol and where they come from.
Given that this crazy framework of schools is rusted into our psyche and functioning as families and schools, it was arguably brave of Education Minister Jason Clare to set up any review, especially one entitled a Review to Inform a Better and Fairer Education System. Then, it was a very forward looking panel to deliver recommendations which, if implemented, will begin to change our system for the better.
The panel has directly addressed the need to increase socio-economic diversity in school enrolments and to do it soon, by “reviewing existing policy settings by the end of 2027 and implementing new policy levers to increase socio‑economic diversity in schools and lift student outcomes” and, even earlier, to set in place the reporting of the SES diversity of schools and systems. To serve this and other purposes it recommends substantial improvement in data collection and use at all levels.
Those on the panel and in the supporting reference group could see the problem. The Productivity Commission has stated that peer effects and less experienced teachers in schools with high concentrations of disadvantage were drivers of poorer student outcomes – and that students from priority equity cohorts demonstrate, on average, less learning growth if they attend a school with a high concentration of disadvantage. Parents know this and arguably have for decades, it substantially drives their search for schools up the SES ladder. It matters to them who their kids sit with – and the evidence, even going back to the Gonski Review, backs up their concerns. It has left Australia with a profoundly wicked problem.
What next?
Where to from here? The recommendations have gone to Australia’s education ministers and will be worked into Commonwealth legislation for the next School Reform Agreement. Our leaders and legislators need to be firmly convinced that what are relatively mild recommendations should remain and be even strengthened and implemented in full. And that’s just the easy part. It then has to navigate a perilous path among politicians who will need to fully understand all the issues and possible solutions – and cast their lot in with those who really do want a better and fairer education system.
Yaw Ofosu-Asare won the 2023 AARE Conference People’s Choice Award for his poster: Redefining design education boundaries in Africa.
In the lingering afterglow of the AARE 2023 Conference, I find myself adrift in a sea of half-remembered conversations, keynote speeches that echo faintly in my mind, and ideas that seemed so clear just days ago. This struggle to recollect, to weave coherent narratives from the scattered threads of memory, leads me to ponder a deeper, more profound question: how much of what we call history is truly accurate? There’s an old African proverb that says, “Until the lion tells the story, the hunter will always be the hero.” This simple line unravels a complex truth about the stories we’ve been told. History, as it reaches us, is often a tale spun by the victors, the dominant, the ‘hunters.’ It makes me wonder, as I sift through my own cloudy memories of the conference, how many stories have we lost? How many lions have remained silent?
Our history, especially in the West, is a patchwork of narratives, stitched together from memories and records that have survived the test of time. We’ve built our understanding of the world on these narratives, drawing from the well of Greek philosophy, the Renaissance’s bloom, and the moral frameworks of Christianity. But in this grand design, where do the voices that were never heard fit in? What about the philosophies and wisdoms that didn’t find their way into our textbooks?
This reflection takes on greater significance in a country like Australia, steeped in the ethos of multiculturalism, where each culture contributes its unique history and heritage. How do we educate in such a society, acknowledging the full spectrum of human experience, not just the parts that have been traditionally highlighted? It’s a challenging thought, especially when considering that much of non-Western history is passed down orally, often dismissed by those who favour written records.
The stories we’ve leaned on, like those of Aristotle and Plato, were themselves cloaked in narrative and allegory, yet they’ve shaped our understanding of existence, our politics, our very way of life. Today, with social media, we’re witnessing a new chapter where previously unheard voices are finding a platform. African stories, Australian Indigenous narratives, and countless others are finally being shared, challenging our perceptions and inviting us to reconsider the foundations of our knowledge. In this realisation lies a profound question: what happens when we acknowledge that our view of history has been narrow, biased towards a certain type of memory, a particular way of recording events? What if we start valuing stories and oral histories as much as we do scientific evidence and written records?
As I reflect on my time at the conference, the murkiness of memory seems less like a hindrance and more like an invitation—an invitation to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of human experience. It’s an invitation to embrace a more holistic view of history, one that includes the voices of the lions as well as the hunters. In doing so, we might just find a richer, more inclusive narrative that resonates with the true spirit of a multicultural society like Australia. Perhaps then, we can start to redefine what it means to be Australian, not as a singular identity, but as a symphony of voices, each contributing its unique note to the melody of our shared history.
Now, let us turn the lens towards the realms of academia and education. In recent times, there’s been a surge in the use of buzzwords – ‘disruptive,’ ‘transformative,’ ‘inclusive,’ and the like. These terms, while signalling progressive intentions, often raise the question: are they merely a veneer, a fashionable cloak draped over the status quo to appease the ‘woke’ crowd? Or do they genuinely signal a shift in how we approach education and knowledge?
The world of educational research is not immune to trends and fads. The allure of catchy phrases can sometimes overshadow the need for deep, meaningful exploration of issues. It’s crucial to ask ourselves – when we speak of being ‘disruptive’ or ‘transformative,’ are we truly embodying these ideals, or are we just echoing hollow terms? This brings us back to the crux of our reflection on history and memory. If our understanding of the past is limited, skewed by dominant narratives, then how can we hope to build an educational system that is truly inclusive and representative of all voices? The challenge lies not just in acknowledging the gaps and silences in our historical narrative but in actively seeking to fill them.
We live in a world where diversity of thought and experience is richer than ever before. Our classrooms are microcosms of this world, brimming with stories and perspectives waiting to be heard. To educate in a way that honours this diversity means going beyond tokenistic inclusion. It involves a fundamental rethinking of what we teach, how we teach it, and whose voices are amplified in the process. In Australia, this task is particularly vital. As a nation grappling with its identity – torn between its colonial past and its multicultural present – the way we approach education can either reinforce old divides or bridge them. Teachers, educators, and policymakers have the power to shape a narrative of Australia that is inclusive, that celebrates its Indigenous heritage alongside its myriad immigrant stories, and that prepares its youth for a world where being ‘Australian’ is synonymous with being part of a global, interconnected community.
So, as I conclude these reflections – intentionally pushing beyond the 800-word limit to 994, as a small act of ‘disruption’ – I leave you with this thought: in our quest to make education truly transformative, let’s ensure that the change we seek is not just in words, but in actions. Let’s strive to make our classrooms places where history is not just taught, but questioned; where stories are not just heard, but honoured; and where learning is not just about acquiring knowledge, but about understanding the diversity of human experience. Only then can we hope to educate in a way that is truly reflective of the world we live in.
Yaw Ofosu-Asare has a PhD from Southern Cross University, where his research has been instrumental in exploring and challenging the biases and power dynamics within indigenous and decolonizing systems, focusing particularly on culture, knowledge creation, perception, and engagement. Heis an associate research fellow at the Sustainability, Environment, and the Arts in Education section within the Faculty of Education at Southern Cross University. He Apart from his research pursuits, Dr. Ofosu-Asare is also passionate about teaching, user interface and experience design, art, digital marketing, and creativity. He is dedicated to influencing individuals and communities positively through the transformative power of education.
Header image is neither from Africa nor from the West. It does, however, apparently have lions and hunters in it.
What will it mean to be a teacher – and teach – in the future? What should be the relationships between schools and communities, young people and school systems? How can we overcome the challenges currently faced by teachers and by schools to imagine new futures for teachers and teaching?
The Wednesday evening of the AARE conference week in Melbourne saw the launch of the Monash Faculty of Education’s Inquiry into the Future of the Teaching Profession. The Inquiry will put Australian teachers and teacher educators’ work into a broader international context and actively seek to create resources for local public debate – new ideas, new language, and new practical options for moving constructively to reimagine teaching, teacher education and schooling. It will be an opportunity to shape a new, hopeful and future-oriented discourse about education in society.
Chaired by Marie Brennan, Professorial Fellow in the Monash Faculty and eminent Australian educationist, the Inquiry panel will comprise James Desmond, Head of Humanities and an early career teacher at the Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School in Melbourne; Meredith Peace, Victorian President of the Australian Education Union; Professor Jay Phillips, Head of the School of Australian Indigenous Studies at Charles Sturt University; and David Robinson, Executive Director (Workforce Policy and Strategy) in the Department of Education in Victoria. You can find out more about the Inquiry itself here .
Speaking at the launch event, Marie Brennan was joined by Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Australian Greens spokesperson for schools and a former secondary school teacher, as well as Desmond and Robinson. The conversation among speakers and a large audience both in-person at the Monash Conference Centre in Collins Street and online via YouTube acknowledged the current challenges and issues facing Australia and many other countries globally but moved on to address both the general future directions of policy and practice as well as debating the focus for the work of the Inquiry panel over the first half of 2024. A recording of the launch event is available on YouTube.
A 2016 UNESCO report estimated that the world would need almost 69 million more teachers by 2030 to achieve the fourth Sustainable Development Goal – universal basic education. Current trends see that estimate increasing. Countries like Australia will experience the consequences of these trends – and will do so differentially, with often the poorest and least well-served and marginalised communities struggling to recruit and retain teachers. This year, 2023, the UN established a high-level panel on the teaching profession and just a few months ago more than 100 countries met and committed to fully funding public education for their countries. Yet many economically developed countries fail to do so, Australia being one of them.
For Senator Allman-Payne, fully funding public education in Australia was fundamental to addressing all aspects of the challenges going forward and inextricably linked to all future possibilities. Describing the shortfall in funding as the ‘elephant in the room’, Allman-Payne argued that a fully funded public education system was essential not only for a quality education but for a ‘cohesive society and a strong and robust democracy’. Marie Brennan picked up on the importance of public education in societal terms in referring to the outcome of the recent referendum on an Indigenous Voice in parliament, describing it as, in part, a failure of education that was linked to the broader politics of education in Australia, as well as other issues. For James Desmond, the key issue was ‘inequality – of funding, of opportunities, and of outcomes. Your postcode should not dictate the quality of and access to education you receive.’
David Robinson drew attention to the community respect and support afforded to teachers in successful education systems worldwide. For too long, he argued, the public discourse around education had been predominantly negative and failed to recognize the achievements and ‘everyday successes’ of teachers in classrooms. Marie Brennan extended this point by emphasising the necessity for schools as institutions as well as individual teachers engaging with their communities, understanding and learning from them, and regarding schools as in and of their communities rather than being separate from them. For Marie, teachers need the time and space to ‘build the relationships on which good teaching depends’ – and the relationship-building does not stop at the classroom door.
The kind of work that teachers are expected to do was also a focus of the discussion with Senator Allman-Payne and Marie Brennan both commented on the importance of teachers’ agency. For Senator Allman-Payne, teaching as a career is at its most rewarding when it empowers teachers to be agentic professionals. For Marie Brennan, given that education and the work of educators is ‘always future-oriented’, it is critically important that education policy also becomes future-oriented and resists reverting to trying to ‘standardise’ teaching and teachers’ work on a vision of the past. For David Robinson, as a public servant tasked with teaching workforce development, a future-orientation filled with hope is also a practical concern when it comes to both teacher recruitment and, crucially, retention.
For the evening’s panelists as well as the Inquiry panel more broadly, it is now time to focus on working towards a positive future for teaching, the profession and schools rather than reinventing the past. And while most work on educational futures has tended either to extrapolate on current trends or to imagine idealized, utopian institutions, different futures now need to be constructed in practice to move forward from the current situation.
This is a challenge that cannot be answered with yet another political review or academic critique. As James Desmond noted: ‘Ultimately the Inquiry is about looking forward, rather than analysing the past; to better understand the challenges of the future; and to make teaching a sustainable and attractive vocation for years to come.’The Inquiry will involve further public activities and events across Australia, in-person as well as virtually, along with commissioned briefing papers, and culminating in a final report in mid-2024. We hope you join us along the way.
Viv Ellis is Dean of the Faculty of Education at Monash University. His latest book (with Lauren Gatti and Warwick Mansell), The New Political Economy of Teacher Education: The Enterprise Narrative and the Shadow State, will be published by Policy Press early next year.
Image in header: Prof Marie Brennan, Chair of the Inquiry into the Future of the Teaching Profession, Professorial Fellow, Faculty of Education, Monash University; David Robinson, Executive Director (Teaching Workforce), Department of Education, Victoria; James Desmond, Head of Humanities and early career teacher, MacRobertson High School, Melbourne On the screen: Senator Penny Allman-Payne (Senator for Queensland, Green Party spokesperson on schools)
Teachers need interdisciplinary expertise. Why? So they can navigate increasingly complex theory, evidence and practice landscape, so they can keep up with technological developments, such as AI, and so they can prepare students for the 21st century.
This is the case across both pre-service and in-service education contexts. It is not just a matter of adding one one-hour professional learning session on what interdisciplinarity is. It requires a different way of thinking about teachers’ expertise and the ecosystem for teachers’ professional learning. It requires us to make room beyond subject matter.
In a previous AARE blog, we discussed how teachers’ interdisciplinary practices are multifaceted. There are personal and environmental barriers and there is a need for an ecological framework, knowledge sharing and adaptable resources necessary to support this goal.
Why is interdisciplinary research, education and innovation needed?
In this report, identified needs include: creating environments and structures to reward and diversify research; greater student awareness of interdisciplinarity in their curriculum; and, the need for broader education system innovation to integrate interdisciplinary studies (which are increasingly required for developing workplace skills). For example, integrating interdisciplinarity across programs has been identified as a way to foster communication, collaboration, problem solving and leadership skills.
In Australia, the National School Reform Agreement is a joint agreement to lift outcomes in Australian schools – this process offers an opportunity to co-create an interdisciplinary ecosystem that develops teachers’ professional learning across micro, meso, and macro levels.
What are the policymaking and leadership implications of the “Developing Teachers’ Interdisciplinary Expertise” project?
It aims initially to identify the principal capabilities teachers need when developing their students’ abilities to engage in interdisciplinary work. From that it then aims to create a framework, including a set of reusable design resources for integrating the development of teachers’ interdisciplinary expertise in preservice and in-service teacher education.
Some insights from our draft framework are outlined below. If you are interested to hear more, please join our webinar.
Creating an interdisciplinary ecosystem – research-practice insights
The framework developed in this project provides multi-level guidance for developing teachers’ interdisciplinary expertise across personal (micro), school (meso), and system (macro) levels. It therefore focuses on developing teachers’ knowledge for teaching that extends across these levels in an interdisciplinary ecosystem. It also aims to deepen their understanding and know-how of diverse interdisciplinary practices and foster their agency to participate in and shape interdisciplinary teaching practices and cultures beyond their classrooms.
It also acknowledges the diversity of teacher interdisciplinary practices and contexts and does not prescribe a specific professional learning model. Models suited for particular professional learning purposes and contexts should be co-created by teacher educators in partnership with teachers and other stakeholders.
However, developing interdisciplinary teaching expertise requires a systemic approach and also creating an ecosystem conducive to teachers’ interdisciplinary practices and learning.
Such an approach should extend beyond a narrow focus on teachers. It should seek change across different aspects and levels of the educational ecosystem system, including institutional levels (e.g., school, university) and broader system-level changes (e.g., professional standards, accreditation requirements, initial teacher education policies, state and school-level policies and practices, curriculum).
This requires not only individual teachers’ and teacher educators’ involvement but also the engagement of many other stakeholders (e.g., accreditation agencies, curriculum authorities, departments of education, school leadership, and leaders of initial teacher education programs). Therefore, building a shared vision of what constitutes an ecosystem conducive to teachers’ interdisciplinary practices and learning and how different actors can contribute to it is important.
Considerations for policy and decision-making
How do we support teachers to become interdisciplinary?
Barriers to developing teachers’ interdisciplinary expertise are often related to environmental aspects, such as organisational and structural constraints.
First, we need to create an interdisciplinary ecosystem which supports schools, teachers, and teacher-educators. This needs leaders and policymakers to understand and address the wide range of classroom, school, assessment, and logistical pressures facing teachers and teacher-educators.
Teachers’ engagement in interdisciplinary practices and learning can be inhibited by numerous other day-to-day pressures that teachers face. Common constraints include a lack of interdisciplinary focus in the curriculum, high-stakes assessment and examination system, lack of time and other resources to develop interdisciplinary lessons, timetabling issues, and other logistical barriers that teachers cannot address alone.
Similar challenges are faced by teacher educators who need time and other resources to develop high-quality, interdisciplinary courses and find ways to embed interdisciplinarity into pre-service teacher programs and accreditation requirements. For example, existing curriculum constraints often impose boundaries around specific subjects not only in schools but also in teacher education programs. Furthermore, intensified regulation of teachers’ preparation, compliance requirements, and other systemic pressures result in overcrowded teacher education programs and high administrative demands on teacher educators. While many of these requirements could be addressed by engaging pre-service and in-service teachers in interdisciplinary learning, lack of time, resources and system-level incentives for more creative reimagination of teacher education programs result in sub-optimal solutions limiting teachers’ interdisciplinary education.
Individual pre-service and in-service teacher education cases with strong interdisciplinary focus already exist in Australia and other countries, evidencing that successful interdisciplinary professional learning is possible. However, such practices are not widespread; and not all teachers and, consequentially, students are benefiting. Some system-level decisions and changes are inevitably needed to ensure the broad reach of interdisciplinary education and equity.
Interdisciplinary professional learning does not need to be added on top of everything else that teachers already are learning. Most likely, interdisciplinary professional learning could even provide a solution for addressing not always the most welcome, often competing, professional education demands and regulations, such as integrating the core content in the initial teacher education programs. However, this area of professional learning requires more ecological thinking about teachers’ professional learning and distributed leadership.
Hear 🦻🏼more, have your 🗣️say, or get👯♂️ involved
As a part of our consultations, we will host an open webinar in which we will share key framework findings for participants to discuss and provide feedback on. We welcome everyone interested in teachers’ professional learning, including preservice and in-service teachers’ educators, policymakers, educational leaders, school principals, head teachers, and interested in-service and preservice teachers. We would like to hear additional insights and interest in further developing these ideas.
The forthcoming webinar is 4 pm – 5 pm (AEST), Tuesday 12 December 2023. For more information and registration, please visit the Webinar page.
Teresa Swist is a Research Associate and Policy Officer at University of Sydney, plus a co-founder of the Education Futures Studio. She is on Linkedin and Twitter @teresaswist. Lina Markauskaite is a Professor of Learning Sciences and co-leader of the research theme Knowledge Practices and Cultures, the University of Sydney, Australia. She is on Linkedin and Twitter @markauskaite. Peter Goodyear is Emeritus Professor of Education at The University of Sydney and was founding co-director of the University’s Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation. He is on Linkedin and Twitter @petergoodyear. Cara Wrigley is currently Professor of Design Innovation within the Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology at The University of Queensland. She is on Linkedin and Twitter @drcarawrigley. Genevieve Mosely is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Queensland. She is on Linkedin and Twitter @genevievemosely.
Schools are workplaces as well as places of learning. All those who work in them have the right to feel safe. Clearly, not all teachers feel safe. The interim report of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee: The issue of increasing disruption in Australian school classroomsand the submissions to it provide evidence for this. The interim report refers to surveys conducted by the Australian Catholic University (ACU), Monash University and the Victorian Branch of the Australian Education Union, all documenting the unacceptably high levels of fear which some teachers operate under as a result of perceived and real threat. While the levels are disturbing, we want to stress that any level is too high.
In our view, the recommendations by this Committee to address such behaviours miss the mark.
Within the report there is yet again, and something that those working in teacher education are becoming very familiar with, a critique of initial teacher education. Inadequate ‘teacher training’ alongside a lack of classroom management skills is foregrounded as one of the major contributors to poor behaviour. Included are also the structures of classrooms, especially for students with disability, socioeconomic factors, bullying and family trauma. The recommendations thus focus on fast tracking reforms outlined in the TEEP Report.
Where’s the evidence?
The report makes frequent reference to the need for ‘evidence-based approaches’ as if ITE programs across the country are not already providing them. A scan of such programs will reveal plenty of courses that aim to explain the root causes of schooling disengagement that lie at the heart of ‘disruptive classrooms’; indeed, the report notes many examples provided in diverse submissions from many social and educational bodies – typically, low SES, disability, undiagnosed neurodiversity, childhood trauma and just the challenges posed by adolescence. Many approaches are suggested but the Senate Committee appears to favour suggestions that coincide with practices from the past that may have been suitable in a non-global industrial era rather than approaches that are responsive to the needs of young people today who come to school with vastly different attitudes and digital skills than, say, the “boomer” generation.
The report makes much of the need for “explicit instruction”, including explicit behavioural instruction; it favours “traditional” classrooms and “Positive Behaviour for Learning”. The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) claims to have “the most rigorous and relevant research” and the Senate Committee appears not to question that despite many other contributing research organisations who present very different views that situate challenging student behaviours within broader socio-economic and social factors and the roles played by community and parents/caregivers. Reverting to what seems to translate into “training-for-good-behaviour” will not solve the problem and will stifle engagement even more.
What needs to be fixed first
Schooling engagement and associated behaviours have several dimensions – cognitive and emotional as well as “behavioural”. The first two factors have to be addressed before “better behaviour” will occur. Students have to be intellectually stimulated to engage cognitively; for teachers to do this they must be confident in their subject matter and enthusiastically creative in their delivery. Learning should be an enjoyable journey for students; it should be meaningful and provide them with opportunities to problem-solve and work in teams; these are the skills required for future economic and social structures for which “explicit instruction” will have no place.
Students need to feel respected and have a sense of belonging; to feel supported and safe at school. Whilst acknowledging the external impacts of poverty, the report does not address it. Young people who experience homelessness, hunger and family violence will remain “disruptive” regardless of what happens to ITE programs. This is a shameful problem that we share as a society: the fact that some young people are so neglected, sad and angry that often their response is to turn against their teachers cannot be solved by educators alone.
While we support Recommendation 3 that calls for investment in professional learning for teachers, we rigorously challenge the conclusion evident in Recommendation 4 with its sole focus on promoting ‘explicit instruction; formative assessment; mastery learning; and spacing and retrieval to manage ‘disruptive behaviour in classrooms and provides the best possible learning conditions, to be implemented’. We need rich forms of professional development that recognise, value and enhance the professionalism of teachers.
No one-size-fits-all
Within academic research and also evident in the submissions to the committee, is a clear need for a diversity of responses to student behaviour, depending on the reasons for the behaviour: there is no quick fix, no “one-size-fits-all”. Additionally, the conclusion evident in Recommendation 4 appears to ignore the complexities of the lives of adolescents living in the 21st century and the skills that they will need for future economies and their self-efficacy and well-being.
We support Recommendations 5 and 6 that call for greater support for young people and teachers in managing neurodiverse students. Whilst we agree that a national approach to classroom management might lead to the sharing of useful research, we are alarmed by Recommendation 9 seeking to ‘fast-track the implementation of the National Unique Student Identifier for school students’.
This proposal is Orwellian in its intent to “track” students who may have experienced challenges at school. Wherever they go to school in Australia, their past will follow them and label them as “trouble-makers”. How can young people start with a clean slate at a new school and prove themselves. The suggestion of a National Unique Student Identifier is an egregious assault on their human rights. Historically, young people have been labelled as “good” vs “bad” but we argue that such simplistic generalisations have no place in 21st century education systems.
Alarm bells
The silences in the report also raise alarm bells. There are references to violence without any mention of gender. There is no consideration here about who the students are who are threatening violence against teachers. We know that there is a strong relationship between dominant forms of masculinity and violence. The threats posed to teachers, and others, as a consequence of toxic forms of masculinity performed by some boys need to be challenged. This violence can also contain a sexual element to it. We know that female teachers can be sexually harassed by male students and made to feel uncomfortable and threated by innuendo and verbal abuse.
Much of the report often implies that it is schools located in lower socioeconomic areas where teachers are likely to be most threatened. However, we know that gender-based violence towards female teachers can be present in some of the ‘best of schools’. Similar silences exist in the report about other forms of discrimination and the ways in which teachers can, for example, be the subject of racial vilification or transphobic abuse from students. Addressing these issues will require, alongside broader societal approaches, school programs and curricula that address consent, valuing difference, human rights and social justice. There is nothing in this report that encourages such approaches.
Unfortunately, the Senate Committee’s recommendations are largely based upon one view which disempowers teachers and students and is backward looking rather than aspiring towards the future worlds in which our young people will live. Many submissions pointed to relational and pastoral approaches of working with young people within contexts of support and early intervention. It is our view that this is confirmed by a breadth and depth of peer-reviewed educational research.
Glenda McGregor is associate professor and deputy head of the School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University. Martin Mills is a research professor in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership, QUT. He was awarded an honorary life membership of AARE in 2023 for services to educational research and the Association.
On 30 November, 2023, the Australian federal government released its Australian Framework for Generative AI in Schools. This is an important step forward. It provides much-needed advice for schools following the November 2022 release of ChatGPT, a technological product capable of creating human-like text and other content. This Framework has undergone several rounds of consultation across the education sector. The Framework does important work in acknowledging opportunities while also foregrounding the importance of human wellbeing, privacy, security and safety.
Out of date already?
However, in this fast-moving space, the policy may already be out of date. Following early enthusiasm (despite a ban in many schools), the hype around generative AI in education is shifting. As experts in generative AI in education,researching it for some years now, we have moved to a much more cautious stance. A recent UNESCO article stated that “AI must be kept in check in schools”. The challenges in using generative AI safely and ethically, for human flourishing, are increasingly becoming apparent.
Some questions and suggestions
In this article, we suggest some of the ways that the policy already needs to be updated and improved to better reflect emerging understandings of generative AI’s threats and limitations. With a 12-month review cycle, teachers may find the Framework provides less policy support than hoped. We also wonder to what extent the educational technology industry’s influence has affected the tone of this policy work.
What is the Framework?
The Framework addresses six “core principles” of generative AI in education: Teaching and Learning; Human and Social Wellbeing; Transparency; Fairness, Accountability; and Privacy, Security and Safety. It provides guiding statements under each concept. However, some of these concepts are much less straightforward than the Framework suggests.
Problems with generative AI
Over time, users have become increasingly aware that generative AI does not provide reliable information. It is inherently biased, through the biased material it has “read” in its training. It is prone to data leaks and malfunctions. Its workings cannot be readily perceived or understood by its own makers and vendors; it is therefore not transparent. It is the subject of global claims of copyright infringement in its development and use. It is vulnerable to power and broadband outages, suggesting the dangers of developing reliance on it for composing content.
Impossible expectations
The Framework may therefore have expectations of schools and teachers that are impossible to fulfil. It suggests schools and teachers can use tools that are inherently flawed, biased, mysterious and insecure, in ways that are sound, un-biased, transparent and ethical. If teachers feel their heads are spinning on reading the Framework, it is not surprising! Creators of the Framework need to interrogate their own assumptions, for example that “safe” and “high quality” generative AI exists, and who these assumptions serve.
As a policy document, the Framework also puts an extraordinary onus on schools and teachers to do high-stakes work for which they may not be qualified (such as conducting risk assessments of algorithms), or that they do not have time or funding to complete. The latter include designing appropriate learning experiences, revising assessments, consulting with communities, learning about and applying intellectual property rights and copyright law and becoming expert in the use of generative AI. It is not clear how this can possibly be achieved within existing workloads, and when the nature and ethics of generative AI are complex and contested.
What needs to change in the next iteration?
A better definition: At the outset, the definition of generative AI needs to acknowledge that it is, in most cases, a proprietary tool that may involve the extraction of school and student data.
A more honest stance on generative AI: As a tool, generative AI is deeply flawed. As computer scientist Deborah Raji says, experts need to stop talking about it “as if it works”. The Framework misunderstands that generative AI is always biased, in that it is trained on limited datasets and with motivated “guardrails” created largely by white, male and United States-based developers. For example, a current version of ChatGPT does not speak in or use Australian First Nations words, for valid reasons related to the integrity of cultural knowledges. However, this indicates the whiteness of its “voice” and the problems inherent in requiring students to use or rely on this “voice”. The “potential” bias mentioned in the Framework would be better framed as “inevitable”. Policy also needs to acknowledge that generative AI is already creating profound harms, for example to children, to students, and to climate through its unsustainable environmental impacts.
A more honest stance on edtech and the digital divide: A recent UNESCO report has confirmed there is little evidence of any improvement to learning from the use of digital technology in classrooms over decades. The use of technology does not automatically improve teaching and learning. This honest stance also needs to acknowledge that there is an existing digital divide related to basic technological access (to hardware, software and connectivity) that means that students will not have equitable experiences of generative AI from the outset.
Evidence: Education is meant to be evidence-informed. Given there is little research that demonstrates the benefits of generative AI use in education, but research does show the harms of algorithms, policymakers and educators should proceed with caution. Schools need support to develop processes and procedures to monitor and evaluate the use of generative AI by both staff and students. This should not be a form of surveillance, but rather take the form of teacher-led action research, to provide future high-quality and deeply contextual evidence.
Locating policy in existing research: This policy has missed an opportunity to connect to extensive policy, theory, research and practice around digital literacies since the 1990s, especially in English and literacy education, so that all disciplines could benefit from this. The policy has similarly missed an opportunity to foreground how digital AI-literacies need to be embedded across the curriculum, supported by relevant existing Frameworks, such as the Literacy in 3D model (developed for cross curricular work), with its focus on operational, cultural and critical dimensions of any technological literacy. Another key concept from digital literacies is the need to learn “with” and “about” generative AI. Education policy needs to reference educational concepts, principles and issues, also including automated essay scoring, learning styles, personalised learning, machine instruction and so on, with a glossary of terms.
Acknowledging the known dangers of bots: It would also be useful for policy to be framed by long-standing research that demonstrates the dangers of chatbots, and their compelling capacity to shut down human creativity and criticality and suggest ways to mitigate these effects from the outset. This is particularly important given the threats to democracy posed by misinformation and disinformation generated at scale by humans using generative AI.
Teacher transparency: All use of generative AI in schools needs to be disclosed. The use of generative AI by staff in the preparation of teaching materials and the planning of lessons needs to be disclosed to management, peers, students and families. The Framework seems to focus on students and their activities, whereas “academic integrity” needs to be modelled first by teachers and school leaders. Trust and investment in meaningful communication depend on readers knowing the sources of content, or cynicism may result. This disclosure is also necessary to monitor and manage the threat to teacher professionalism through the replacement of teacher intellectual labour by generative AI.
Stronger acknowledgement of teacher expertise: Teachers are experts in more than just subject matter. They are expert in the pedagogical content knowledge of their disciplines, or how to teach those disciplines. They are also expert in their contexts, and in their students’ needs. Policy needs to support education in countering the rhetoric of edtech that teachers need to be removed or replaced by generative AI and remain only in support roles. The complex profession of teaching, based in relationality and community, needs to be elevated, not relegated to “knowing stuff about content”.
Leadership around ethical assessment: OpenAI made a clear statement in 2023 that generative AI should not be used for summative assessment, and that this should be done by humans. It is unfortunate the Australian government did not reinforce this advice at a national policy level, to uphold the rights of students and protect the intellectual labour of teachers.
More detail: While acknowledging this is a high-level policy document and Framework, we call for more detail to assist the implementation of policy in schools. Given the aim of “defining what safe, ethical and responsible use of generative AI should look like” the document would benefit from more detail; a related education document from the US runs to 67 pages.
A radical policy imagination
At the 2023 Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference, Jane Kenway encouraged participants to develop radical research imaginations. The extraordinary impacts of generative AI require a radical policy imagination, rather than timid or bland statements balancing opportunities and threats. It is increasingly clear that the threats cannot readily be dealt with by schools. The recent thoughts of UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Education on generative AI are sobering.
A significant part of this policy imagination needs to find the financial and other resources to support slow and safe implementation. It also needs to acknowledge, at the highest possible level, that if you identify as female, if you are a First Nations Australian, indeed, if you are anything other than white, male, affluent, able-bodied, heterosexual and compliant with multiple other norms of “mainstream” society, it is highly likely that generative AI does not speak for you. Policy must define a role for schools in developing students who can shape a more just future generative AI, not just use existing tools effectively.
Who is in charge . . . and who benefits?
Policy needs to enable and elevate the work of teachers and education researchers around generative AI, and the work of the education discipline overall, to contribute to raising the status of teachers. We look forward to some of the above suggestions being taken up in future iterations of the Framework. We also hope that all future work in this area will be led by teachers, not merely involve consultation with them. This includes the forthcoming work by Education Services Australia on evaluating generative AI tools. We trust that no staff or consultants on that project will have any links whatsoever to the edtech, or broader technology industries. This is the kind of detail that may help the general public decide exactly who educational policy serves.
Generative AI was not used at any stage in the writing of this article.
The header image was definitely produced using Generative AI.
Lucinda McKnight is an Australian Research Council Senior Research Fellow in the Research for Educational Impact Centre at Deakin University, undertaking a national study into the teaching of writing with generative AI. Leon Furze is a PhD Candidate at Deakin University studying the implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence in education, particularly for teachers of writing. Leon blogs about Generative AI, reading and writing.
At an event at Parliament House earlier this year I heard that 2024 is going to be the year of education. That is excellent news given that we haven’t heard much about education from the Albanese government but, to be honest, that has been somewhat of a blessed reprieve given the hyperventilation of the previous Morrison LNP government.
I have mixed feelings about what might be coming but wouldn’t if education policy was informed by evidence rather than politics. It isn’t. The impact of that politicisation is never openly acknowledged and the policy decisions that are made (or not made) by governments are never the focus of inquiries or reviews. Instead, the “problem” is always framed by alleged deficiencies in students, parents, teachers, and/or universities.
Disagreement among panel members
Take, for example, the Senate Inquiry into the issue of increasing disruption in Australian classrooms. The interim report has just landed, and, like the final report of the Disability Royal Commission, there was disagreement among panel members. Labor and Greens senators have made additional comments that acknowledge the complexity of behaviour in schools and the Greens have only one recommendation: to fully fund public schools at the beginning of the next National School Reform Agreement in 2025.
I was called to give evidence at the senate inquiry. At the time, I expressed concern that the Inquiry based its case for ‘increasing disruption’ on PISA data, noting first, that there are cultural and other differences between countries and second, that there are problems with the rankings. I will have more to say about the report and its recommendations in time but for now I want to take readers through points I made in the new first chapter of Inclusive Education for the 21st Century, which extend my comments from the evidence I gave to the inquiry.
Since that hearing, I have looked more closely at the data on which these claims are based and I’m frankly astonished that the Inquiry team did not do this themselves. Even a cursory glance should have been enough to signal to the Senate that these rankings were not a rigorous enough premise on which to base an Inquiry.
Let us wade through this numerical sewage together
The claim for ‘increasing disruption in Australian classrooms’ is based on the difference in results from two surveys of 15-year-olds who participated in the OECD’s Program of International Student Assessment (PISA).
The first survey occurred in 2009 and the second in 2018. The disciplinary climate data is based on five survey items:
1. Students don’t listen to what the teacher says.
2. There is noise and disorder.
3. The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down.
4. Students cannot work well.
5. Students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins.
Here’s where things get interesting! Here are relevant findings from the two reports.
PISA 2009
PISA 2018
Participating countries were ranked on the percentage of 15-year-old students who selected ‘never or hardly ever’ and ‘in some lessons’ for Item 1 ‘Students don’t listen to what the teacher says’, and Item 3 ‘The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down’.
79 countries participated and 76 were ranked, however, this time the OECD developed a disciplinary climate index that encompasses all five items with some minor changes in wording.
Australia was ranked 28th for the first item and 25th for the second.
Countries were ranked using their respective Index scores.
Differences between PISA 200 and PISA 2009 were calculated.
Australia was ranked 69th
Australia deemed to have an average disciplinary climate that had not significantly changed between the two timepoints.
Differences between PISA 2009 and PISA 2018 were calculated
There was a significant difference between timepoints in the responses of Australian students for onlytwo of the five items: Item 3 ‘The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down’, and Item 4 ‘Students cannot work well’.
Item (5) also declined (-1.8%) but not significantly, while Items (1) and (2) improved (both +0.8%), but again not significantly.
What does all this mean?
First, Australia has not fallen from 28th or 25th in the ranking to 69th. Rather, the number of participating countries has changed over time and so therefore have the rankings. To be clear, the number of participating countries has grown from 43 (2000) to 65 (2009) to 79 (2018). And, because comparisons can only be made between countries that participated in each assessment, the number of countries in the rankings has changed from 38 in 2009 to 76 in 2018. This is not to dispute that Australia is ranked lower than anyone would like but there are problems with the rankings which render them meaningless.
Here’s why
1) The types of countries participating in PISA 2009 and PISA 2018 substantively changed due to the entrance of Asian countries. Unlike Australia, these jurisdictions/systems are grounded in Confucian culture, which has a profound effect on teacher-student relationships, classroom interactions, and climate.
2) There was a significant difference between timepoints in the responses of Australian students for only two of the five items. The case for increasing disruption in Australian classrooms therefore rests on a 3.7% decrease in the number of students saying their teacher ‘never or hardly ever’ has to wait a long time for students to quiet down, and a 2.8% decrease in the number saying students cannot work well ‘never or hardly ever’. Given that there was no difference in students’ responses between PISA 2000 and 2009, that suggests that there has been no change in more than 20 years for at least two of the five items.
3) Countries with almost identical disciplinary index scores are ranked above and below each other. For example, Australia and Belgium received Index scores of 0.20 and 0.21, respectively yet Australia is ranked 69th and Belgium 70th. There is a snowball’s chance in hell that these scores are statistically different to each other, so why is one being ranked above the other? Doing this simply expands the number of places in the ranking which makes the distance between countries look larger than it really is.
4) No tests of significance between countries or ranks were conducted, so we do not know whether there is a statistically significant difference in Australian students’ responses to the OECD average or how much of a difference there is between Australia and the countries at the top of the ranking. Similar points have been made numerous times over the years in relation to the rankings for student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science, but at least in those cases, countries with statistically indistinguishable performances are grouped together and given the same rank.
5) Recent research by Sally Larsen from the University of New England has indicated no decline in TIMMS, PIRLS or NAPLAN results of Australian students. Any observed correlations between declines in PISA’s disciplinary climate survey and student academic outcomes should not be causally interpreted.
My view
If politicians are going to look at rankings, then look at them all. Let’s consider, for example, that:
1. Australia is sitting at the top of ranked countries in terms of the hours that teachers spend in face-to-face teaching.
2. Australian teachers spend more hours teaching than the OECD average (838.28 hours/year vs 800.45 hours respectively)
3. Korea is ranked first in classroom disciplinary climate and Australia is ranked 69th. However, Australian teachers spend 323.30 more hours per year in face-to-face teaching than their Korean counterparts, who teach just 516.98 hours/year.
4. In disciplinary climate, the difference between advantaged students and disadvantaged students in Australia (0.34) is double that of Korea (0.17).
These are just some of the gaps and anomalies that arise when the PISA data is subjected to close reading, which is the absolute minimum amount of analysis that should have been conducted (if not, prior, then at least) during an Inquiry that used these data for its rationale.
The questions education ministers must ask
Readers of the Interim Report, especially Education Ministers, should regard it very critically and start asking serious questions:
Who stands to benefit from such simple representations of these data?
Might there be financial benefits for non-university providers from the ‘deregulation’ of initial teacher education?
Are there other data that have been ignored and, if so, what does their omission suggest about rigour and bias?
Might Australian students tell a different story if asked by expert researchers using both open and close-ended questions?
Are we brave enough to ask them?
Linda Graham is professor and director of The Centre for Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). She has led multiple externally funded research projects and has published more than 100 books, chapters and articles. Her international bestseller, Inclusive Education for the 21st Century: Theory, Policy and Practice, is now in its second edition. In 2020, Linda chaired the Inquiry into Suspension, Exclusion and Expulsion processes in South Australian government schools. She also gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability on the use of exclusionary school discipline and its effects.
That was a huge week at the AARE conference hosted and we had so many excellent contributions. Many thanks to all of you who contributed during the conference, making time despite a huge and very busy conference.
All the blogs are here, in reverse chronological order, from the pre conference through to the wrap the morning after. Find them all here.
First, let’s start with republishing the 2023 AARE Blog of the Year, announced on Wednesday during the conference, Teachers now: Why I left and where I’ve gone by Robyn Brandenburg, Ellen Larsen, Richard Sallis and Alyson Simpson.
At the conclusion of AARE 2023, the esteemed editor of this blog 😉 has asked me for my thoughts on two things. First to give a bit of context for the paper that was awarded the Early Career Researcher Award; second to make some links to the position of early career researchers at this critical juncture for education research.
I would like to reiterate how honoured I was to receive the Early Career Researcher Conference Paper Award for 2023. Like many early career researchers, I am still finding my place in the education research community in Australia and it is reassuring to know that the research I am doing resonates with people. Thank you again to the committee.
The title of the paper poses a question: Are Australian students’ academic skills declining? (you can read the preprint of the paper here – currently under review). I became interested in exploring this question during my PhD and working with NAPLAN data. I knew that average NAPLAN results did not necessarily show downward trends. Nonetheless, everywhere we turn we see stories of crisis and decline.
For the paper I compiled publicly available data from the four major standardised assessments undertaken by Australian students. These assessments included the Program for International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), and of course, the ubiquitous NAPLAN.
Looking at average score trends across all these assessments from the inception of each up to the present shows that average scores in most assessments have improved or remained stable. The only assessment to show persistent declines is PISA, which assesses the reading, mathematics and scientific literacy of 15-year-old students every 3 years. When I explain these results to people both outside of universities and in other faculties the common reaction is one of surprise. The narrative about declining standards, students’ achievement going backwards, and universities not teaching preservice teachers ‘correctly’ is relentless.
In his keynote on day 3 of the conference, Professor Neil Selwyn noted that expert opinion on education is increasingly being sought from voices outside the academy. And we can see this in the proliferation of public-facing commentary and opinion pieces about standardised test results from think-tanks and experts outside the field of education research. But its very easy to cherry pick the data that supports your prior opinions. To me this selective reporting is a flag that quantitative methods are being misapplied or misunderstood.
It’s probably an apocryphal anecdote, but Mark Twain is supposed to have coined the phrase “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”. Whether or not he said this, I think this phrase encapsulates what is going on with the interpretation of educational data in the public domain. It doesn’t seem to matter what the truth is, the statistics are used to support a preconceived position.
But what do we do about poor interpretation of educational data? My contention is that if we want to take back the narrative about education in Australia we have to play at the same game. After all, governments do love numbers, and despite their limitations and potential harms, standardised testing is here to stay. As a field I think it’s time for us to increase the amount of work we do with assessment data. We can train research students to use existing assessment data in principled ways to answer pressing research questions; we can a bring methodological rigour to this work that non-academic research struggles to do; and we can show where the public narrative has got it wrong.
Obviously, this strategy may not work. After all, if academic researchers have already been positioned as those without the necessary expertise, opinion will always be sought from others.
Early career researchers will play a pivotal role in this work into the future. It is challenging to do so, but for ECRs who are passionate about their field, and feel their research should be shared widely, the only way to help shift the narrative about education in Australia is through promotion. Newspaper journalists love expert commentary for their stories. But they’ll never find you if you don’t promote the work that you do. I would encourage ECRs if they have a positive story to tell from their research, to find ways to tell it in the public domain.
Kevin Lowe, in his acceptance speech for the AER Best Paper Award 2023 spoke about how kids can internalise deficit discourses about their potential and ability. This extends to teachers too, and their perceptions of the capability of kids in their classrooms. Pushing back against the relentless disaster stories about education in a variety of ways is important, and could have wider reaching effects than simply putting the record straight.
Until next year 😊
USQ’s Ellen Larsen on the conference
“Wrapping up” the highlights of a conference such as this is an almost impossible task as there were just so many incredibly powerful and significant moments throughout the week. Such efforts to capture the totality of such an event are further complicated by the fact that we all take away our own very personal ‘moments of magnitude’- meeting ‘that’ researcher for whom you have overwhelming respect, connecting with colleagues you have only seen through a screen over the past 12 months, learning something that will change the way you think or go about your work or knowing that you got through your first ever AARE presentation and others were really interested in what you had to say and share!
Following a busy and productive preconference and a celebratory evening of welcome at the Science Centre, the conference commenced with a palpable air of excitement as everyone arrived, with umbrellas in hand, at Melbourne University. But not even the rain could dampen the mood of anticipation. In a hushed room, the passing of the Coolamon at the opening plenary by Melitta Hogarth on behalf of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Special Interest Group into the care of the AARE for this event encapsulated the energy that pervaded each day of the Conference- -one in which solid and enduring relationships were nurtured through care, respect, and acknowledgment of voice, truth, and place.
At each and every turn, conference delegates were challenged to examine their own ontological and epistemological beliefs about the world and their work in ways that were concurrently unsettling and reassuring. Our 2023 Radford lecture presenter, Mary Lou Rasmussen, asked us to consider how we, as researchers, might shape conflicting public pedagogies for educating about gender, sex, and sexualities, drawing our attention to the ‘Matilda phenomenon’. Later in the week, the 2022 Radford Lecture presenter, Susan Danby, foregrounded the agentic language use of children and asked us to consider the new possibilities for research with children that leverage disciplinary junctures.
Keynote presenter Marcia Langton challenged us to consider Indigenous knowledge, ontologies, and curriculum and find ways to unsettle ‘what is’ by thinking about ‘what could and should be’. Neil Selwyn continued in his keynote to dare us to get uncomfortable in our research and to ask ourselves how we might reassess what we think and believe in ways that may assist us to better connect to broader global issues rather than tinkering at the edges. Our thoughts were swimming from the privilege of hearing from these generous academics who have the ability to make us question, productively doubt, and connect ideas; while at the same time making sure that our hearts are full from the enviable experience of being inspired.
Presentations, symposiums, and featured symposiums throughout the week continued to underscore the depth and breadth of education research in Australia and beyond, making it impossible to identify specific presentations or presenters that should be mentioned over others. Every presentation, every presenter across all days, sessions, and Special Interest Groups contributed to what could only be described as a rich tapestry of knowledge, as Jess Holloway described it on Sunday, knowing, and knowing in becoming. In other words, we have left the conference changed, different, enriched by our experiences and interactions.
Congratulations to the AARE award winners! Hearing about their work was both inspiring and exciting. The awarding of Martin Mills and Fazil Rizvi as honorary life members was enthusiastically celebrated. Our early career and post-graduate researchers showed an impressive address of both local and global issues in education. As a group, the postgraduates and early career researchers showed throughout the conference that they were the educational leaders of tomorrow with ideas and ways of researching that are innovative, transformative, and driven by a passion to make a difference.
Putting a conference together for over 1000 researchers is no mean feat- and it is without a doubt that many of us would shrink from such a formidable task. So, it is with absolute gratitude that we thank all of those concerned, including Julie McLeod (President AARE) and Catherine Smith (AARE Conference Chair) for leading the way. Thank you to the AARE executive, Conference Committee, and all academics, professional staff, and volunteers from the University of Melbourne who gave their time and energy to make this conference the amazing success it has been. And so, this morning, the Coolamon was passed back into the care of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research SIG through Tracey Bunda, as the conference drew to a close.
Thank you for your attendance and see you at the University of Sydney in 2024.
And that’s a wrap for the 2023 AARE Conference in Melbourne!
The following post is by Helen Proctor, University of Sydney, who was the discussant for this session.
The war between the underfunded and the overfunded
Jane Kenway and Matthew Sinclair’s featured symposium, entitled “Critical policy junctures, private school hegemony and potential counter hegemonic challenges” addressed the serious problem of the underfunding of public-school education in Australia and the peculiarly Australian policy relationship between public and private school funding. Having assembled a team of early career, mid-career and well-established academics, the aims of the organisers were not only to offer new perspectives – conceptual and empirical – but also to contribute to the development of a future pro public-school counter discourse and policy strategy.
Barbara Preston (Barbara Preston Research) has for many years been tracking the increasing divergence between private and public schools in terms of various categories of advantage and disadvantage. In her paper, “The private school ascendancy: An origin story” she called for, among other things, a recognition—in terms of sufficient funding – of the public-school system’s unique responsibilities to welcome all comers.
Matthew Sinclair (Curtin University) proposed that we are now in a ‘Post Gonski’ era and argued that the equity promises of the 2011 Gonski report remain unfulfilled. He proposed the establishment of a new National School Funding Agency to distribute funding to schools based with the kind of rigour and transparency that could be resistant to political lobbying and to the pressures of the state and federal electoral cycles.
A key contribution of Emma Rowe’s (Deakin University) paper was her centring of the voices and experiences of overworked public school principals who, as she describes it, have been compelled to become funding entrepreneurs, supporting basic functions of their schools by applying for soft money grants from philanthropic foundations and from a shifting array of government programs.
Jane Kenway (Monash University) and Rebecca Boden (Tampere University, Finland), in a paper co-authored with Malcolm James (Cardiff Metropolitan University) offered an excoriating critique of the practices of elite private schools, proposing a framework for understanding their accumulation of wealth – via substantial recurrent funding, taxation exemptions and other indirect public support) as a process that actively depletes the public system.
Joel Windle (University of South Australia) was unfortunately unable to join the session but the article on which is contribution would have been based is this one in The Australian Educational Researcher: Windle and Fensham (2022), ‘Connecting rights and inequality in education: openings for change’ https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00564-x Also watch out for a Special Issue in The Australian Education Researcher edited by Jane Kenway and Matthew Sinclair which will include papers from this symposium as well as others, coming soon.
The following post is by Sally Morgan, Hope Co-Operative and Monash University
Activist researchers: all for radically improving CALD and refugee education
Hi all. At the end of this wonderful conference, I hope to articulate my experience of that richness, as it emerged today in the CALD Education concurrent session. Picture, if you will, the intimate space offered by Room 217 in the Babel building squeezed full with passionate education researchers. Literally all but one of us were women. All of us were either presenting or keenly listening, on four topics: Sally Baker (ANU) presented on the progress being made on the development of Complementary Pathways for refugee students into Higher Education in Australia; I presented on my doctoral study, ‘Partnering for Hope: Critical participatory action research with young people seeking asylum in Australia; Wendy Goff shared the work being done at Swinburne University of Technology (in partnership with Centre for Multicultural Youth, Pasifika community elders and others), facilitating hands-on university experiences – marvellous, creative and rich ‘Discovery Sprints’ – for Pasifika youth; and Jennifer Alford gave a fascinating snapshot of the critical literacy practices being engaged in by EALD teachers and their students in two schools in QLD, and by those students beyond school, in their critical engagement with social and digital texts.
I’ll talk briefly about my own work, then try to draw some of the themes that I think were emerging across our two hours together.
Being a newly minted doctor, and being ongoingly involved in the Hope Co-Operative (image above) which was the site and focus of my study, I remain rooted to practices of bottom-up social justice with people of asylum-seeking backgrounds and committed to critical participatory action research. I have become convinced that the theory of practice architectures offers a very useful tool for understanding what site specific arrangements enable humane and educationally effective practices. My study found that in Hope Co-operative, there were five characteristic practices that worked symbiotically and ecologically together, in relationships and activities that sustained Bhaba’s empathic solidarity. The most exciting part of that was finding that empathic solidarity makes it possible to shape practices in which people seeking asylum navigate and prevail against the barriers to their social inclusion and connectedness.
There were two things that stood out to me across the various parts of this session.
First, that there is change afoot. At national, institutional, community and classroom levels, there are policy windows and policy entrepreneurs (many either present or represented at AARE) coming together and making change.
Second, there is nowhere near enough change. There are deeply sedimented colonialist and racist conditions that persist in our education systems, discourses and practices which keep refugee students’ diverse experiences of education, and their educational rights and needs hidden from view. As Molla powerfully argues, policy invisibility and misframing, among and continue to reproduce socially unjust educational practices in Australia.
However, today at AARE, we were all reminded that there is change happening. We need to know about the specific instances and sites of that change. We need to talk it up, support it and grow it. Today was a reminder of how scholarship can have impact, bringing the best of what the academy might – through knowledge, skills and advocacy of activist researchers – bring to bear on real world wicked problems in education provision for students who have experienced forced migration.
My final point however, is that the people working hardest as academic activists in the refugee education space – or as Sally Baker asked, “field”? – need to be valued within and by their institutions as more than what I call ‘academic bling’. As Jane Wilkinson reminded us at the end of today’s SIG symposium, our work is often hard. Moreover, it comes from and through the heart, and connects us with profoundly difficult human experiences. It also deeply enriches us. The work needs – it ethically demands – to be sustained, and in order to sustain it, we all need to be taking care of ourselves and of each other.
Today, for me, was part of that care-taking and care-making. Thank you to everyone who was part of it.
The following post is by Keith Heggart, University of Technology Sydney
A balanced diet: teachers and online professional development
Keith Heggart, University of Technology Sydney and Steven Kolber, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne
The “administralisation” of teachers
In Australia, over recent years and in all jurisdictions, the teaching profession has become increasingly ‘administralised’. This has taken a number of forms, including requirements for teachers to undertake, document and comment upon professional development, limited avenues for recognition of registered professional development and increased requirements in order to become a teacher or to gain employment in various schooling systems. This has been described as the impact of neoliberalism upon the education profession, and is related to the use of performance measures and cultures. These can trigger critiques of teacher performance (as opposed to the performance of schools or systems) and calls for reforms. Many of these reforms have focused on higher standards amongst the teacher profession – high standards of entry to the profession, higher standards of practice within the profession, even higher standards of dress and grooming amongst teachers). Yet these calls do little to address significant concerns from teachers and their representatives about casualisation, workload and status. These criticisms of teachers are a common aspect of both legacy and social media.
It is hardly surprising, then, that initial teacher education student numbers are either declining or experiencing only very limited growth. There is also evidence, contested though it might be, that many teachers are planning to leave the profession, citing workload, stress and poor remuneration as the key factors for that decision. One of the issues of workload is linked to teachers’ concerns about the increasing administrative requirements of the teaching profession. For example, the completion of mandated professional development (PD), and the necessity of recording and uploading this and completing paperwork associated with it is an increased administrative burden for many teachers – and there is a great deal of evidence that teachers are already time poor. Time spent on this, and other administrative tasks, means that there is less time for other activities, sometimes represented as ‘core work’ : planning, teaching, collaborating with colleagues – despite many teachers’ desire for this to be a central part of their daily work.
The contradiction of teacher professional development
When faced with this, one might imagine that many teachers might seek to limit their required professional development solely to that which is mandated. And that might be the case for some teachers; however, for many teachers, the opposite of this is true. The opportunities afforded by social media have been embraced by teachers, both in Australia and worldwide, for a variety of reasons and purposes. A number of ongoing, sustainable and vibrant educator-focused communities developed on social media platforms like X (then Twitter) during the 2010s-2020s. Some of the best known in Australia included #AussieEd, #edureading and #primarystemchat. Teachers embraced both the synchronous and asynchronous nature of the platforms, and the flexibility to engage when and how they chose, with whom they chose, as they discussed key educational ideas, topics and approaches. Numerous studies have shown that this was an empowering activity for teachers – in a profession where they were increasingly feeling disempowered. It’s possible to visualise a suite of online learning communities and activities that might be useful to sustain teacher commitment, reignite passion and build both professionalism, confidence and make steps towards empowerment. In the case of #edureading, teachers from all over the world engaged with democratically chosen research papers via a variety of platforms over a monthly cycle, and in doing so, developed a new model of professional development that alleviated many of their previous concerns.
A case study of online PD: #edureading
#edureading was chosen as an exemplar social media community for the purpose of this study. This was because both of the authors had access and were familiar with the community. The 15 most active members of the community were identified and interviewed by the researchers. The interview transcripts were thematically coded.
#edureading as a social media group for educators was launched by one of the authors (name removed) in 2018. The stated purpose of #edureading was to explore the ways that teachers engaged with, made use of, and spoke back to educational research (Kolber et al., 2021). #edureading was an immediate success. It continued for more than four years, during which time different participants read and discussed more than 30 journal articles. More than 1000 educators from Australia and overseas, including England, Canada, France and South Africa, were regular participants in the various #edureading activities.
Each month, articles were selected via group consensus. Participants then read the article, and shared their thoughts via X, or posted their reflections via a video journal using Flip. Originally, users made use of the #edureading hashtag and posted their comments on Twitter in public. However, increasingly, members are making use of private groups within Twitter to have conversations. At the end of each month, there is a Sunday evening twitter chat that makes use of the #edureading hashtag; this is conducted publicly.
Benefits of #edureading
It is clear that #edureading met some of the needs of the educators that were regular participants. Interviewees were quick to identify the differences between #edureading and other forms of professional development. Another aspect that they noted was that, although there was an additional time commitment involved in #edureading (in teachers’ already busy schedules) the fact that they had choice about how often, how much and when to engage with #edureading made a significant difference. Some of the key benefits of #edureading included:
It was accessible and sustainable. Teachers liked the ongoing nature of the PD, and also the fact that it wasn’t a one-shot; in other words, it didn’t matter if they missed a month, they could return the following month and continue the conversation
It allowed teachers to follow their own interests. Teachers had a great deal of choice about what they engaged with, and that was linked to the development of a reflective practitioner mindset, as well as the perception that they were being treated more like a professional.
The flexibleschedule was also vital. As stated above, it allowed teachers to dip in and out, but also allowed them to access the content in small doses, and respond in those brief periods of downtime they might have. In this respect, it was like a basic form of microlearning.
But… the future?
We’re not suggesting that #edureading should be the only form of PD available to teachers; indeed, far from it. Instead, we are arguing that it is important for individual teachers and the collective profession to be able to make decisions about their own professional development, and #edureading is an example of that. There is a need to make space within the current PD diet for these informal learning communities and opportunities too. Of course, how that might look in a world where Twitter is increasingly being abandoned by educators is hard to predict.
This varied and balanced diet of PD available online may require additional ingenuity and resources for teachers to find. As such, the participation in these avenues may be limited to a small group of highly committed and connected teachers. It must also be noted that this work is aspirational labour (Duffy, 2016), unpaid, and often gendered in nature, so they are not provided here without complications. Making clear what avenues there are for freely available PD online to teachers outside of this group may be beneficial.
As well, principals, school systems, departments, archdioceses, AITSL and similar accrediting bodies should be aware of these emergent forms of professional development and consider how a varied and balanced diet of PD can support teachers.
Lastly, there is a real need for these kinds of groups and learning opportunities to be possible and realistic for all teachers – not just those highly committed and willing to make personal sacrifices to engage. A workable workload for teachers where time and flexible work allows for participation in learning of all kinds. Whilst ambitious, if teachers, as knowledge workers are to have their thinking and learning valued, alongside their work, time and freedom to carry out this work is essential and unavoidable.
The following post is by Steven Kolber, University of Melbourne
Voices otherwise: Feminist and anticolonial Place-based pedagogies for ecosocial justice
Justice in place based pedagogy, in a fossil fuel orientated nation, is a clear challenge to educators.
This series of four papers brought together the following disciplines:
Education
Social work
Childhood studies
Indigenous studies; and
Performing arts
Firstly, the concept of ‘Petro-pedagogy’, that sees fossil fuel companies making resources developed around climate change and how they position the nature of this topic. WA is an example of a ‘captured state’ where petrol companies have infiltrated almost all aspects of public life, including schools.
Holding these resources, both learning and promotional, up to a feminist and anti-colonial lens found that individuals were positioned as both the cause and the solution of climate change.
Climate change was shown as slow, natural, and inevitable, zooming out and noting that changes occur across climate in a natural, and unproblematic manner.
These resource remain silent on issues that matter, and instead suggest ‘walking to the shops’ and ‘meat-free Monday’ rather than more considered alternatives. Within these resources, First Nations perspectives on land, place and country are never mentioned – ‘greenhouse gaslighting’ is a neat catch-all for the focus of these resources and their positioning. Separating schooling from the placating embrace of petrol companies within WA is a key proposal from the paper.
Educational practices around the Gabbiljee Wetlands and a close focus on bracken fern as a foci for some place based pedagogical approaches.
‘Vulnerable reading’ is a way to get educators to connect with place and relationships with human and other groups. Walking with educators brought a focus to the appearance of bracken fern throughout the journey. The ongoing attempts to remove this plant from the environment spawned a story response.
This story was then considered with ‘hesitating practices’ slowing down to consider the partial nature of understanding, as a way to consider alternative readings and stories that positioned this
The Noongar people used bracken fern for medicinal purposes, and this plant provides important roles for the native animals within the area.
A reading of a colonial story that mentioned bracken fern from the Famous Five stories by Enid Blyton where bracken is regularly collected for bedding – the assumption being that this plant will always be present and available for human use.
Considering the silences and silencing from stories of this type was proposed as a clear technique for teachers and educators to use.
Place-based pedagogies
From a First Nations perspective, the world is recognised through its relations, ‘relationality is kinship’, noting the power hierarchies within colonial framing where patriarchal and neoliberal concepts are given precedence, for example ‘Time Imperialism’ work which disempowers communities and their connection to the land. The alternative is the ‘Long Now’ where the past, present and future exist in a non-linear fashion, but are always embedded within the environment.
This circular perception of time is a way to make people know that their actions have ongoing (never ending?) actions. (Writing about time in a non-linear way within a time linear scale is difficult).
The ‘One Peppercorn’ method / workshop, place-based event, brings together an audioscape and performances. Participants follow actions presented through this audio performance (delivered through wireless headphones) and interact with elements within the place and lived environment. Within this performance, headphones were removed at points and participants walked in synchronicity, as a means to bring people closer to land.
Embodied listening
A demolition site on contested land opposite a school became a site of great curiosity and interest for students. The children of the Montessori school produced an improvised dance that was produced into a video that outlines the history of the building and how it begun, was sold, then later demolished.
The media was a co-construction, using elements of green/screen style approaches to bring the environment and the student dancers into closer relationship.
The discussion brought about the fact that environmental and earth science as a contested subject within the Australian Curriculum, and elsewhere within Australia. Each paper was considered and critiqued, touching on the centrality of themes that ran through each session.
Place-based education and non-traditional approaches to teaching and interacting with the natural world can be used to consider the topic of ecosocial justice. For a practitioner well outside of one’s depth, each of these papers suggest possible ways forward worthy of deeper consideration.
Feminist and anticolonial
Place-based pedagogies for ecosocial justice
Petro-pedagogy in WA Schools: a critique of fossil fuel reach in education.
Georgia Beardman, School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University; Lucy Hopkins, Centre for People, Place and Planet, ECU; Naomi Godden, Centre for People, Place and Planet, ECU; Trudi Cooper, Centre for People, Place and Planet, ECU
Vulnerable reading practices: Making space for otherwise weedy worlds.
Karen Nociti, Centre for People, Place & Planet, Edith Cowan University
Circular Relations: Art Activations
Generating Extended Forms of Knowledge through Place-based
Audio-Visual Encounters.
Cassandra Tytler, Centre for People, Place & Planet, Edith Cowan University
The following post is by Scott Eacott, UNSW
In for a difficult few years in higher education
In this year’s AARE Presidential Forum, Julie McLeod brought together key figures Andrew Norton (ANU), Alison Ross (ARC) and Jill Blackmore (Deakin) to discuss significant moves in higher education that will shape the work of academics at all levels in all institutions in the immediate future.
(Picture, left, Nicole Mockler)
It is impossible to capture all of the issues that speakers, and questions raised, but I will endeavour to provide some highlights:
Potential greater intrusion from the government was flagged by Andrew Norton. Drawing specifically on a high-level overview of the University Accord (in its current publicly available form), Andrew spoke of the current low-trust and high-regulation approach to higher education and the potential for greater government (Commonwealth Department of Education) involvement in curriculum, specifically around the how and what universities teach – an unprecedented move. There is currently a move towards a further market-based approach embedded in the Accord where complaints from students could trigger audit of courses, and this is coupled with incentives to pass students to avoid fines for failing students. The potential for how best to respond by academics and universities to this may be far less desirable than intended.
Similarly, Jill Blackmore highlighted the preserve impact – at sector level, and its manifestation at institutional levels – of research assessment on the individual and collective behaviours of education (and other) researchers. Metrics are often blunt, yet used uncritically in the assessment of individuals and cascading effects they have on research cultures. We are all part of this. It is how our institutions interpret and enact these policy conditions that matters. Mindful that higher education is embedded in a global context and if thinking with the Accord, there is potential for greater differentiation of the university sector (research-only, teaching-research, teaching-only), and in a field that so often focuses on national or jurisdictional enactment of policies and practice, how do we best support research (basic, strategic and applied) in education?
It was not all doom and gloom. Alison Ross spoke of the importance of consultation and the importance of individual and collective voice to bring about changes in the system. Specifically, she highlighted how listening to the sector led to reforms aimed at reducing the administrative burden of applying for ARC grant schemes. With evidence immediately clear in the streamlined application process and new two-stage process for the 2025 Discovery Program round. Recent and currently proposed changes include reconfiguring governance at the ARC to with greater oversight through a board rather than minister. This is not to mention the changes in assessment of research engagement, impact, and quality built on feedback and consultation. These changes come about through individual and collective voice.
An overarching theme across all the speakers was the recasting of government and sector relations. Initial Teacher Education, and education more broadly, are easy targets for social commentators, policy makers, click bait stories. There is no doubt there is a public purpose for our institutions, and considerable public funds flow into them. This creates considerable opportunities and risks. Policy is cyclic, and as Andrew Norton warned, based on the current version of the Accord, we are in for a difficult few years in higher education. Creating better conditions, represents a call to arms. This week there have been countless presentations of the breadth, depth, and quality of education research in Australia. There has never been a better, or more important time to raise our collective voices to speak back to policy makers with our expertise. As alluded to by Andrew, Alison, Jill, and Julie, now is a time to draw on our capacities and capabilities to speak back and collectively behave in ways that sustain – if not advance and expand – our work and its impact. As a powerful concluding plenary, the takeaway message is not one of doom and gloom but of hope. Hope not built on blind faith, but instead, voice, truth and place as we have reached this critical juncture for education research.
