EduResearch Matters

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.

Examining the crucial role of remote education tutors: Who are they? What problems do they face?

November 30, 2020rural and remote education in AustraliaAGILE project, Australian Geographically Isolated Learner Education, Brad McLennan, Karen Peel, national survey of remote education tutors, Patrick Danaher, Problems with Remote Education Tutors, remote education tutors, University of Southern Queensland (USQ)

The events of 2020 have shone a spotlight on learning remotely from home as schools and teachers shifted their classes online. However, for many children in Australia, distance education, that is education delivered in the home, is the norm rather than a response to exceptional pandemic circumstances.

Central to the delivery of distance education in Australia are remote education tutors who are accountable for the face-to-face supervision and educational support of students. Unlike schooling at home during the pandemic, it is a requirement that children in Australian schools of distance education have adult supervision for the duration of their school day. Distance education would not be possible without the commitment of these tutors.

There are many problems with the provision of distance education in Australia today. Debates continue over availability, accessibility, and affordability. However we are especially interested in the remote education tutors, the vital role they play and the problems they face.

Remote Education Tutors

Outside the metropolitan cities and regional towns of Australia, much of the country is sparsely populated, with many students requiring remote access to education through distance education schooling. The qualified distance educator who organizes and administers the curriculum for students is often located hundreds of kilometres from where the learning takes place. Families are directly responsible for setting up a dedicated area at home as a formal schoolroom space for children who are being remotely schooled and for supplying a tutor who will oversee the learning.

The tutor who plays this vital part could be a parent or adult family member, a governess, or someone employed by the family to tutor children using the lessons, resources and tools provided by the assigned state or territory government distance education teacher.

The tutors act as facilitators, conduits, and connectors. Successful distance schooling is seen as a shared responsibility of distance education teachers, students and the remote education tutors. Research has highlighted the importance of the partnership between distance educators and the home providers for quality learning outcomes.

Problems with Remote Education Tutors

Although a recommendation to conduct research into the role of the remote education tutors was made over 20 years ago by the Queensland School Curriculum Council, this has received limited research attention. The remote education tutor supervisory responsibility often falls on mothers, who feel obliged to fulfill this multiple and sometimes conflicting role. The assumption that mothers are available to provide this supervision is changing in concert with broader social changes, and many now see it as no longer valid.

However, there is limited literature currently available on the demographics and the work identity of the remote education tutor.

We believe the opportunity for quality distance education is unsustainable and inequitable because of the:

limited supply of employees to work in remote education positions;
lack of credentialing opportunities for the roles that remote education tutors play; and
insufficient government subsidies to assist parents to fund the supervision of their children’s learning.

Our research

In addressing these issues, we are researching who is doing the work of Remote Education Tutors, where they are located and their perceptions of their work, including their needs satisfaction. This research is part of work being undertaken as a partnership between Australian Geographically Isolated Learner Education (AGILE) project an the University of Southern Queensland (USQ).

We have just recently activated a national survey to map the experiences and perceptions of remote education tutors. The purpose of this research is to: identify who represents the remote education tutor workforce in Australia; understand how this role impacts on personal lifestyles and professional work; find out how to support those in this role; and inform change.

There are three parts to our survey:

Part A Australian Remote Education Workforce;
Part B Remote Education Tutor’s Personal and Professional Perspectives; and
Part C Remote Education Tutor’s Basic Needs Satisfaction in the Work Domain.

Participation in this project is entirely voluntary and 100% anonymous. For those who are interested, the survey takes about 20 minutes to complete.

As educational researchers from the University of Southern Queensland, we see the potential of the project lies in its capacity to acknowledge the work of remote education tutors, recognise the lifestyle and professional impacts of this essential work, and raise the profile of this role as an occupation.

The often-overlooked role of a remote education tutor In Australia is crucial to ensuring the sustainability and equity of children’s access to consistent and quality educational support.

Dr Karen Peel is a Senior Lecturer of Initial Teacher Education in the School of Education at the University of Southern Queensland. She has extensive experience in curriculum design and implementation of practices for effective teaching and learning. Her research is situated in the fields of self-regulated learning, classroom behaviour management, teacher resilience and currently in the work of Remote Education Tutors. She has published and co-published in educational journals and refereed books and has presented at a number of national and international educational conferences.

Patrick Danaher is Professor (Educational Research) in the School of Education at the Toowoomba campus of the University of Southern Queensland. Patrick has continuing research interests in rural education, including the educational aspirations and outcomes of occupationally mobile families such as circus and show people who travel through regional, rural and remote communities. More broadly, he is interested in formal education’s ambivalent capacity to perpetuate sociocultural marginalisation and to contribute to sociocultural transformation.

Dr Brad McLennan is a Senior Lecturer of Initial Teacher Education in the School of Education at the University of Southern Queensland. He has 30 years’ experience in collaborative curriculum design and implementation of practices for effective teaching and learning in both the primary and higher education sectors. His research is situated in the fields of classroom behaviour management, teacher efficacy, self-determination theory and currently in the understated work of Remote Education Tutors. He has published in international and domestic journals and refereed books. As a priority, he continues to forge strong relationships and partnerships between the University and key stakeholders across all facets of education.

The national survey closes on Sunday, 17 January 2021. If you are, or have you been, a governess, home tutor, parent or family tutor, or distance education tutor in Australia, tell us about your experiences because there is not much information about this, and Australia needs to know. We also encourage you to share the survey link.

Embarking on university study after domestic violence: New research

November 23, 2020Domestic violencechallenges and opportunities for women leaving domestic violence, domestic violence and university students, domestic violence research, domestic voilence, embarking on study after domestic violence, embarking on university study in the aftermath of domestic violence, Kelly Lewer

There is a growing interest in researching the challenges and opportunities for women who choose to leave a violent relationship. University students, however, have largely been absent from the literature, especially women who embark on university study in the aftermath of domestic violence. My research is focused on the experiences of these women, addressing a clear gap in the current literature.

Domestic violence in Australia

Domestic violence is control over a relationship partner in the form of physical, verbal, emotional, financial and/or sexual abuse. It is a widespread, gendered problem. Within Australia, the publication of statistical information points to increases in the incidence of this form of violence. Approximately 17% of women and 6% of men in Australia experience such violence – a glimpse into an underreported crime.

Many who leave such relationships embark on career changes and education.

My Research

In response to the gap in domestic violence literature, for my doctoral research I analysed the narratives of nine women, enrolled at universities across New South Wales, Australia. Fitting the research criteria, all were currently enrolled in university studies, over twenty-one years of age, and had left a violent relationship at least three years prior to the research. Their narratives focus on educational experiences during three key periods of their lives – before, during and after the experience of DV. (For those interested – Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, habitus and field provided a conceptual lens to understand their resources and position within society.) Most of the women were from middle-class backgrounds.

After the experience of DV: Engagement with university study

Ongoing Control

When the women were freshly separated from their relationships they continued to feel controlled by their ex-partners and experienced a reduction of capital, particularly economic capital.

He scared me out of asking for money that he owed me, he scared me out of going through with the charges with the police. The police had found evidence and everything. He convinced the kids that I was having him charged and the police had no evidence, and they [children] to this day they believe him (Lynda, 55, Bachelor of Psychology)

After leaving her suburban family home, land and horses, Lynda relocated to her parent’s modest rural home. There she paid child support for children, whom she had lost contact with, whilst she concentrated on her university studies.

A new sense of self

My research establishes that university study, like other forms of education (e.g. literacy and basic skills), has favourable consequences for women post domestic violence.

A new sense of self was a shared theme within the interviews.

University gives me confidence; it gives me a goal that I could actually achieve. It makes me feel like people will see me differently and that I will also have some kind of recognition… (Sophie, 44, Bachelor of Psychology)

It was also in journals. In Rachel’s written words:

Coming into uni to do a research degree taught me
1. About a topic
2. About how to do research.
It also took me to real points of ‘sink or swim’. I had to do it all. And on my own b/c [because] that’s how it works- either I learn or I don’t. And in undertaking this mammoth task- the degree – I saw me A woman who doesn’t give up.
A woman who can find/ask for help when needed.
A woman who is neither overbearing nor a door mat.
I learned to juggle…& sometimes to juggle with grace.
And I’ve received recognition for my efforts.
And all this in a safe environment Safety is paramount.
Being able to rebuild! I guess for most students, they are building- for me I got to re-build!
…Of course, ‘education’ is not the magic bullet. It’s a combination – my personal traits, my strong Christian beliefs, a loving Mum & kind children. But I think taking time to study allowed me time to think, to achieve & to rebuild – where I could build a reputation, a past & friendships. The safety of uni cannot be underestimated.
BUILDING PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING & CONFIDENCE & EXPERIENCE… (Rachel, 51, PhD)

An opportunity to support other women in similar situations

University study was chosen over other forms of education by the women as a pathway to professional careers and financial independence. Most women explained that their qualifications would also enable them to support others in similar situations.

You can work [in domestic violence support services] with all the passion in the world but until you get the theory it can be really dangerous (Dawn, 51, Master of Social Work)

Helping women is a passion of mine. When I met my [second] husband, he got me to write a goal and one of them is helping women, I am still finding out exactly how. When I started uni, I lived day to day, learning how to cope. Going to uni helped. You find out a lot about other people’s lives and that made me think that it was wrong what happened to me. And the whole feminist thing. It made me realise that everyone has rights and mine were violated (Tamson, 34, Bachelor of Arts)

For the youngest woman in the study Amelia (27, Bachelor of Social Work), the decision to support other women, was made while she was seeking support at her local police station. There she noticed a poster hanging on the wall advertising a job for a domestic violence worker. Amelia described this as a pivotal moment, instrumental in inspiring her to help other women in similar situations. She asked the police officers how she could become a domestic violence worker herself. From there she went to TAFE and then university.

Choosing not to socialise

In an effort keep their backgrounds private, most women avoided socialising beyond the classroom. In the words of Amelia:

I don’t know, single mother in housing commission like, you know it’s not something you just tell people, you know there is a lot of judgement around that and yeah with domestic violence too, people just think it is your own fault so I am very careful with what I tell people at uni as well.

University as a place of support

Those who sought university support for matters relating to their circumstances (e.g. leave to attend Family Law Court) were fearful of retelling (and reliving) their stories, and not being believed.

I think it would have been nice to have a little bit more understanding and not have to go into detail, so to say ‘I have to go into family law court, I won’t be there this day’, and for them to say ‘ok well you don’t have to be there this date’ but maybe there needs to be a little bit more understanding that maybe there is a bit more going on, it would have been probably helpful, but that is in the individual level (Claudia)

Future Research

My research sheds light on a cohort which has been largely overlooked within the literature. Although open to women of all demographics, most were from middle class backgrounds – with the ambition and comfort in the education setting to succeed. As such, my research did not capture women who lacked the capital resources to attend university, or those who withdrew early from university. My research provides a platform for future studies to understand such women and how they might be assisted.

Dr Kelly Lewer is an Honorary Fellow with the University of Wollongong School of Nursing and an Honorary Affiliated Researcher with the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute. Since completing her Doctor of Philosophy in 2019, she has turned her attention to understanding the intersection of women’s education and health, particularly in relation to domestic violence trauma recovery.

Surprising findings from new analysis of declining NAPLAN writing test results

November 16, 2020NAPLANDamon Thomas, decline in writing skills, NAPLAN test modifications, NAPLAN writing test, writing prompts

Despite the considerable annual investments of money and school resources to hold the NAPLAN tests, almost no research has sought to investigate patterns of student achievement in the NAPLAN writing test data over time. I wanted to know what the NAPLAN writing test results tell us about male and female student performance over time.

My research study found Year 9 males write at a similar standard as Year 7 females. There has been a rapid decline in student writing scores for both genders, however the gap between male and female writing scores widens with every tested year level, to an equivalent of two years of learning by Year 9.

Most significantly I also found that the NAPLAN writing test’s design and the way we implement the test may be factors that make it difficult to trust the test’s outcomes over time.

Writing is a skill that is basic to the economy, to people’s wellbeing, and to their life trajectory. It underpins our activity and experiences in education, science, governance, law, the economy, religion, and cultural life. Writing is essential for the day-to-day operations of most employees across all global industries and services according to the US National Assessment Governing Board. A person’s success in education, the workplace, and broader society is strongly influenced by their capacity to write.

Lack of research into NAPLAN writing data

To ensure that Australian students are developing adequate skills in writing, reading, language conventions, and mathematics for adult life, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs introduced the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests in 2008. Since then, over one million students in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 completed the tests each year (the test was cancelled in 2020 due to COVID-19). However almost no research has sought to investigate patterns of student achievement in the NAPLAN writing test data over time.

My research

So, what does the last decade of NAPLAN testing tell us about student writing outcomes? My research drew on the NAPLAN results provided by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) in annual NAPLAN reports for 2011-2018. According to ACARA (2016a), “in 2016, the narrative prompt was placed onto the existing persuasive writing scale, creating a NAPLAN writing scale comparable for both genres… [meaning] that the results can be compared and trends analysed in NAPLAN writing data from 2011 onwards but not for results before then” (para. 3). For this reason, my research compared male and female student performance on the writing tests between 2011 and 2018.

I also drew on the Grattan Institute’s Equivalent Year Levels approach which calculates student progress using a different method to ACARA and which results in a cohort’s equivalent year level rather than the seemingly arbitrary and difficult to interpret numbers in the NAPLAN reports. For example, a NAPLAN achievement score of 536 would equate to an equivalent year level of 7.5 or halfway through Year 7. A cohort’s equivalent year level can be subtracted from their equivalent year level on the previous NAPLAN test to work out their progress in the two years between NAPLAN tests. If a cohort scored 536 in Year 7 and 548 when tested again in Year 9, they would be performing at the equivalent of a Year 8 standard, making approximately six months of progress in the two years between tests.

I used the NAPLAN achievement scores and the equivalent year level approach to provide the first in-depth picture of how male and female students have performed on the writing test between 2011 and 2018.

Figure 1

Year 3 writing achievement by gender, 2011-2018

Figure 2

Year 5 writing achievement by gender, 2011-2018

Figure 3

Year 7 writing achievement by gender, 2011-2018

Figure 4

Year 9 writing achievement by gender, 2011-2018

My findings reveal a clear gender gap in writing outcomes for all four tested year levels. Year 3 male students’ scores were, on average, the equivalent of 8.16 months of learning behind female scores. The gender gap widened across the year levels, to 11.8 months of learning in Year 5, 20.1 months of learning in Year 7, and 24.1 months of learning in Year 9. Despite a considerable gender gap across all tested year levels, writing achievement declined rapidly for both genders over the selected eight years.

Test modifications make a difference

While these results paint a dismal picture of student progress with writing in a decade of testing, my research highlighted four modifications that ACARA have made to the writing test across the years that make it difficult to tell if the tests have been equally challenging for students.

Modification 1: Text type switching

Between 2011 and 2018, four NAPLAN writing tests required students to write narrative texts (stories), while seven required them to write persuasive texts (arguments). This is problematic because educational linguists have shown for decades that writing narratives involves very different linguistic and structural choices than persuasive writing. Despite this, ACARA have treated the results of all NAPLAN writing tests as directly comparable, despite the focus on either narrative or persuasive writing each year.

Modification 2: Age-appropriate writing prompts

Between 2008 and 2014, students in all year levels responded to one writing prompt each year. Because certain prompts were deemed too challenging for primary students or too simplistic for secondary students, from 2015, ACARA introduced separate, age-appropriate prompts for primary and secondary school students. The move to age-appropriate prompts altered the test conditions, yet scores over time are still treated as directly comparable.

Modification 3: Knowledge of the target genre focus prior to test

From 2008 to 2013, teachers and students were made aware of the genre focus (either narrative or persuasive text) before the test date. Since 2014, ACARA has not revealed the genre focus until the time of the test. The decision to reveal the focus genre at the time of the test aimed to prevent teachers from over-preparing students for one genre of writing; however, knowing the genre prior to the test gave those completing it before 2014 an advantage over those completing it since. Despite this change to the test conditions, ACARA treats all scores as directly comparable.

Modification 4: Shift to online testing

From 2008 to 2017, students completed paper-based writing tests. In 2018, 20% of students completed the test online. The 2018 test results were higher for those who completed it online, but despite this, online test results are directly compared with paper-based results.

Taken together, the modifications made to the NAPLAN writing test raise questions about whether each test has been equally challenging, and therefore whether the decline reported through the NAPLAN annual reports is real.

The future of NAPLAN writing tests

As the future of the NAPLAN writing test is debated, my research highlights two important points. First, any new version of the NAPLAN writing test should be designed and implemented carefully, learning from the current test’s history to avoid the need for modifications that call into question whether scores can be reliably compared over time.

Second, every NAPLAN writing test has found the same concerning gender gap that widens as students progress through school. While comparing NAPLAN writing scores year after year is clearly problematic, any single test on its own can be considered a valid measure of writing achievement for that point in time, so we can say with confidence that the gender gap does exist and widens across the school years.

To understand what is behind the writing gender gap, further research is needed into the personal and environmental factors that influence the writing development of male and female students. If we can understand what is happening, it is more likely we will be able to improve writing outcomes for all students.

Those interested can read more about Rapid decline and gender disparities in the NAPLAN writing data

Damon Thomas is a Senior Lecturer in English Education at the University of Tasmania. His PhD investigated the persuasive writing choices made by primary and secondary school students who scored highly on the NAPLAN writing test and critiqued the test’s design. His research interests include reading and writing development and pedagogy, assessment, social semiotics and theories of persuasive communication.

It’s not just identifying quality evidence, it’s quality use of it that makes the difference

November 9, 2020evidence-based practicesevidence based practices, evidence use in education, Joanne Gleeson, Lucas Walsh, Mandy Salisbury, Mark Rickinson, practitioner expertise, quality of evidence, quality use of evidence

Medical experts around the world are channeling rapidly evolving, and sometimes contradictory, research evidence to inform politicians and the public on the best way forward during this pandemic. A high level of expertise is required to navigate this torrent of information, determine the most appropriate evidence, communicate it, and help work out ways to apply it across diverse populations.

School teachers and leaders, like medical experts, demonstrate a similar expertise to determine appropriate evidence from a range of sources, including student data and research evidence, then adapt and apply it to inform decision-making, planning and implementation in diverse education settings.

Yet, how school educators access and use research evidence is still far from well understood. So at Monash University we have embarked on a large scale, five year project to investigate how teachers in Australia use research evidence to inform their practice, and to help educators who are interested in improving the quality of their use of evidence in their classrooms and schools .

Our project

Understanding how educators use research evidence is an emerging field of research in education and is at the heart of the Monash Q Project. Our research is a first for Australia.

We began by searching more than 10,000 scholarly records from databases across education, health, social work and policy, as well as over 100 documents and 65 organizational websites to understand what it means to use evidence well. We reviewed and synthesised this global knowledge and, coupled with regular feedback from project partners and stakeholders, used it as the basis for defining what quality use of evidence might be in education, and to develop a best practice framework for use of evidence in classrooms and schools.

We defined the quality use of research evidence in education as: the thoughtful engagement with and implementation of appropriate research evidence, supported by a blend of individual and organisational enabling components within a complex system.

Our framework describes the key characteristics of quality use of research evidence that are salient to education. It focuses on the quality of use of evidence as well as the quality of evidence.

Quality use of research evidence framework

Our framework is a resource for anyone interested in improving the use of research evidence within and across all levels of schools and school systems.

At the centre of our framework are two core components we believe are needed to use evidence well. The first is the ability to find and understand appropriate research evidence, and the second is to be able to thoughtfully engage with and implement the evidence.

The ability to identify appropriate research evidence

Our research indicated that being able to identify appropriate research evidence well involves, among other things, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of research evidence, as well as their potential and practicality to inform teaching and learning.

According to a principal in a P-12 school in Queensland who was involved in our study, using appropriate research evidence well means

“considering the context of the research, and working out the extent to which the research applies to our local context and students”.

The ability to thoughtfully engage with and implement the evidence

Alongside the ability to identify appropriate research evidence is the ability to thoughtfully engage with and implement evidence. This involves engagement with the evidence, shared deliberation about its meaning and effective integration of aspects of evidence within practice. Our research indicated that to do this well includes questioning assumptions about the evidence within the context of practice, working collaboratively in professional learning communities, and working to adapt strategies over time.

In our study a middle school leader in a Victorian High School emphasised,

“all teachers involved in implementing a program or practice that purports to be informed by research evidence would have sufficient professional learning time ALLOCATED to read, review, and critically analyse that evidence”.

The inter-dependencies of these two components of our framework are more nuanced than simply applying research to practice, particularly in highly variable contexts such as schools and classrooms.

Cross sector insights

Our cross-sector research in health, social care and policy provided insights around evidence use, highlighting a central role for practitioner expertise in using evidence well. Practitioner expertise was characterised as the ability to apply external and practical knowledge in context – referred to as tacit and explicit knowledge. Far from just following the evidence, all sectors emphasised the need for such expert interaction with theevidence.

In one of the first and most enduring definitions of evidence-based medicine, American-Canadian physician and a pioneer in evidence-based medicine, David Lawrence Sackett, emphasised the need to balance external evidence with expertise:

“Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannized by external evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient. Without current best external evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients.”

Practitioner expertise and professionalism

These ideas are relevant in the education sector, where educators have to navigate education research, some more fashionable than others, to determine what is most appropriate for their own students. With the growing expectation for Australian schools to use research evidence to underpin their improvement efforts, the challenge of building expertise (and confidence) to use evidence becomes more salient.

According to British educationalist, Professor Dylan Wiliam, “Evidence is important, of course, but what is more important is that we need to build teacher expertise and professionalism so that teachers can make better judgments about when, and how, to use research.”

The need to understand and support such expertise raises the question: How can practising ‘thoughtful engagement with and implementation of appropriate research evidence’ become part of educational professionalism?

As our experiences of the COVID-19 crisis have shown, evidence does not speak for itself but depends on careful decisions about whether, when and how to use and act on it in specific contexts, raising the question: How can quality use of research help us understand the potential and limitations of research evidence in responding to educational challenges?

Responding to the current pandemic requires growing our collective understanding of and respect for the level of expertise needed to negotiate an ever-changing body of knowledge and then apply it effectively in a rapidly unfurling context. In education, the Monash Q Project is working to better understand what this kind of expertise looks like among teachers and leaders in our schools.

Now, more than ever, a concerted effort is needed to understand, develop and support educators and schools to make better evidence-informed decisions to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

Connie Cirkony is a research fellow with the Q Project in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, investigating how educators use evidence in their practice. Connie’s background is in science and environmental education, and in educational practice and policy. Her research is focused on improving students learning experiences. Connie is on Twitter @ConnieCirkony

Lucas Walsh is Professor of Education Policy and Practice, Youth Studies, in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. He is currently a chief investigator on The Q Project (Quality Use of Evidence Driving Quality Education) funded by The Paul Ramsay Foundation. Recent books include: Imagining Youth Futures: University Students in Post-Truth Times (Springer, with Rosalyn Black), and Young People in Digital Society: Control Shift (Palgrave Macmillan with Amanda Third, Philippa Collin, and Rosalyn Black,.

Mark Rickinson is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. His work is focused on understanding and improving the use of research in education. He is currently leading the Monash Q Project, a five-year initiative with the Paul Ramsay Foundation to improve the use of research evidence in Australian schools.

Joanne Gleeson is a Research Fellow with the Q Project in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. Joanne draws from cross-sectoral professional experience in executive human resource management, business consulting, careers counselling, education and education research. Her research is focused on improving adolescents’ career identity, employability and education-work transitions. Joanne is on Twitter @dr_gleeson

Mandy Salisbury is a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. She has worked in the early years and primary sectors in teaching and leadership roles, and also has commercial experience. Mandy has a passion for supporting teachers and pursuing equitable educational opportunities and outcomes.

Access the Monash Q Project’s Quality Use of Research Education Framework

Access the Discussion Paper “Towards Quality Use of Research Evidence In Education.”

Learn more about the Monash Q Project

Join the Twitter Conversation @MonashQProject

Readers are encouraged to connect with the Q Project and be part of strategic dialogue and system-level change around research evidence use in Australian education.

Schools are unfairly targeting vulnerable children with their exclusionary policies

November 2, 2020classroom behaviour managementAnna Sullivan, behaviour at school, Bruce Johnson, classroom management, excluded students, exclusion from school, exclusionary policies and practices, expelled students, Jamie Manolev, Neil Tippett, school discipline, School Exclusions Study, suspended students, suspensions from school

Australian schools are unfairly suspending and excluding students, particularly boys, Indigenous students, and students with a disability. Our research is examining exclusionary policies and practices in Australian schools and the impact they have on vulnerable children. The findings suggest that these practices are discriminatory and harmful to the health, welfare and academic achievement of the children involved.

Recent publicly available data from 2019 shows that school exclusionary practices are being disproportionately applied towards particular groups of students in Australia. Our analysis shows that the following groups of students are at greater risk of being unfairly suspended and excluded from schools:

Indigenous students

In Queensland, Indigenous students received a quarter of all fixed-term and permanent exclusions (25.3% and 25.4% respectively), despite making up just over 10% of all Queensland’s full-time state school enrolments.
In NSW, of all short and long suspensions approximately 25% were for Aboriginal students, even though this group represents just 8% of all student enrolments.
In Victoria, 6.5% of all expulsions were for Indigenous students, however, this group represents only 2.3% of the student population.

Students with disability funding

In Victoria, students with disability funding received 14% of all permanent exclusions yet constituted only 4.5% of all government school enrolments.

Male students

In South Australia, over three quarters of all suspensions were given to male students (77%), a ratio of over 3:1 compared to females.
In Victoria, males received over 80% of the permanent exclusions, a ratio of 4:1 compared to females.
In NSW, around three quarters of all short and long suspensions in 2019 were for males (75.3% and 73.9% respectively).

It’s not just happening in Australia

A recent review of US research concluded that marginalised groups, including students from particular racial backgrounds, students with disabilities, boys, and, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, were disproportionately at risk of being suspended and excluded from school.

Similar findings have been observed in England. Research has shown disproportionately higher rates of exclusionary practices are applied to Black Caribbean students, Gypsy/Roma and Traveller pupils, Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils, boys, as well as those with disabilities and/or behavioural, emotional or social difficulties.

What exclusionary practices are involved?

Exclusionary practices involve removing students who disrupt the ‘good order’ in schools and threaten others’ safety. This includes suspensions in which a child is removed from a class to a different place in the school (in-school suspension) or suspending a child from attending school for a set number of days (out-of-school suspension). It can also include exclusions or expulsions, whereby a child is removed from the school either temporarily or permanently.

Why it matters

Exclusionary practices that disproportionately affect vulnerable groups of students have the potential to contribute to ‘deep exclusion’. Deep exclusion refers to ‘exclusion across more than one domain or dimension of disadvantage, resulting in severe negative consequences for quality of life, well-being and future life chances’.

Research shows that there is a clear relationship between suspension from school and a range of behaviours detrimental to the health and wellbeing of young people’ including alienation from school, involvement with antisocial peers, increased alcohol and tobacco consumption and a lower quality of school life which increases the likelihood of school dropout, and involvement in illegal behaviour.

Students who are considered vulnerable or disadvantaged in more than one way are at heightened risk of being suspended from school and are therefore more likely to be adversely affected. Thus, school exclusions are likely to both result from and contribute towards further deep exclusion.

What is possible instead?

We believe exclusionary practices should be considered as a last resort and that legislation and policy related to school exclusions can be framed in ways that provide guidance for school discipline while also keeping students in school where possible. We hope our ongoing research will help provide the evidence base for policy and school-based interventions that enhance the success of vulnerable children in our schools.

For those who want more information – please visit our website School Exclusions Study

Anna Sullivan is an Associate Professor and Director of Research for Educational and Social Inclusion Group at the University of South Australia. She is a leading expert in school discipline and is committed to investigating ways in which schools can be better places. A/Prof Sullivan was lead researcher of a major Australian research study investigating behaviour in schools. The findings from this research have led to a greater understanding of teachers’ views of student behaviour and how school leaders can enact behaviour policy to support students in humane and caring ways. Her research has informed education policy and practice internationally.

Neil Tippett is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of South Australia, who completed his PhD at the University of Warwick in May 2015. His doctoral research examined school bullying from a socioecological perspective, identifying how individual behaviour and wider societal characteristics impacted on the likelihood of children being victimized or bullying others at school. Currently, his research interests include child safety, mental health, and student wellbeing and behaviour. Most recently he played a central role in reviewing and updating the National Safe Schools Framework, the Australia-wide document guiding how schools and communities can support the safety and wellbeing of their students.

Bruce Johnson is an Emeritus Professor at the University of South Australia. He is an international expert in school discipline and classroom management. His research interests include human resilience, curriculum theory and development, school reform, classroom management, and sexuality education. He was a Chief Investigator on the Australian Research Council Linkage funded Behaviour at School Study

Jamie Manolev is a PhD candidate at the University of South Australia undertaking research within the fields of classroom management and school discipline. His expertise is in discipline, classroom management and critical policy analysis. He has worked as a research assistant on two ARC Linkage projects: The Behaviour at School Study, and the Refugee Student Resilience Study.

New help for regional students thinking of taking a gap year

October 26, 2020pathways to university, rural and regional educationCatherine (Kate) Smyth, Country Education Foundation, creative pedagogies, doable teachable actionable, gap year for regional students, Gap Year resources, regional students and educational disadvantage, Samantha McMahon, Why take a gap year?

Taking a gap year is a popular choice for school leavers, and may be even more so in the current pandemic climate. However, research tells us when regional students take a gap year they are much less likely to transition on to university than their metropolitan counterparts who take a gap year.

We are not against gap years or think university is the best educational future for school leavers, but we are concerned that gap years seem to be perpetuating educational inequity for regional students. So, we wanted to look more closely at what is happening and design a resource that could specifically help regional students explore their post school options in creative new ways.

What is happening with regional students and gap years?

According to a recent, large-scale study:

In NSW, over 40% of regional students with an ATAR over 75 are not going to university from school (compared with 26% in metropolitan areas)

In NSW, approximately 50% of regional high school students will take a gap year, yet only 5% of this gap year group will transition to university This is a significantly lower rate of transition to university compared to metropolitan students who take gap years.

One possible reason for this may be the amount of information available to support decision making around taking a gap year. If you type “Why Take a Gap Year?” into Google, you will receive around 155,000 pages selling gap year programs or selling university attendance; the sites rationalise gap years in terms of adventure, improving skills, widening horizons and self-discovery. But we know from the large-scale study, that the main reasons for NSW regional students choosing a gap year over immediate university attendance will be:-

financial costs of university – worry about future debt for fees and how to pay for living costs while studying
social costs of moving away from family and home
indecision about what and where to study

We wanted to help regional students through the process of thinking about taking a gap year -from what they might want from a gap year, to helping them develop an understanding of what university is about, to correcting known misconceptions about gap years and university experiences.

Re-framing the gap year for regional students in NSW – our research project

The NSW Department of Education is investing over half a million dollars in our research project to help regional students with their gap year decision making. The project brings together a consortium of education academics and equity practitioners from the University of Sydney, the University of Canberra, the University of Wollongong and the Country Education Foundation.

Our aim is to establish new forms of supportive digital communications for regional students and their parents. The non-branded resources we are creating and making available from this project are not intended to actively dissuade or encourage regional students to take a gap year, rather they are designed to help students understand options and help them through a decision-making process.

Pilot and production work are already underway. You can check out the episodes and resources we have so far created here. Episodes include how to manage income and expenses, how to get your head around actually going to university, gap year needs and wants, and making the most of your time before university.

Access to all of the resources is free and anyone can use them.

The innovative aspect of this research project

If you visit our Gap Year resources, you will notice every ‘episode’ provides a ‘call to action’ for

Year 12 students,
young people already on a gap year, and
families and support networks of gap year decision makers.

The ‘call to action’ sections help participants work in a space that invites, through co creation, ways to conceptualize, critique and to problem solve using creative ways of thinking and knowing. They support regional students in making informed, accurate decisions about taking a gap year and going to university.

When we design the calls to action, we draw on theoretical and yet practical dramatic and theatrical traditions. For example, in drama the use of ‘conscious alley’ (a dramatization activity where both sides of your conscience are speaking to one another), this thinking routine gives our students a chance to problematise, analyse, imagine and make plausible difficult and sometimes uncomfortable decisions about their educational futures. This approach works in concert with many drama and creative pedagogies, with (all call to actions are different), providing tools to give decision makers agency and processes that help reduce the ‘noise’ and anxiety of market-driven information available regarding gap years.

We want young people and their families to use the tools we offer to ‘think differently’ about taking a gap year. It is this use of creative pedagogies for critical, cultural social marketing purposes that is the real innovation in our project.

Using creative pedagogies

A key feature in our project is the use of creative pedagogies. If we want young people and their families to ‘think differently’ about gap years, there needs to be different knowledge and different thinking tools offered to help with decision making. Creative pedagogies can be tailored to this task.

There are three guiding principles in the facilitation of creative pedagogies in this project and they work to create doable, teachable, actionable knowledge. Our gap year decision makers need to get hands-on resources that are eminently doable and in and of, the moment. Students need to feel a connection to what they are being offered, and they need space for connection and collaboration. This is why our resources are largely online and digital.

Connections are created by responding to key messages, and applying them to their own decision making, in structured conversations and activities such as KWL Charts, conversational prompts, planning templates and empathy mapping. The project is about ensuring our gap year decision makers are ready to engage with all that university has to offer them

We know there are substantive links between creativity and student success for decision makers to understand the gap year and the university world and their place in it. Learning by imagining can be a powerful tool and complement generative learning strategies like our calls to action. It is our hope that our gap year decision makers will be able to actively construct meaning from diverse and complex information and develop it into relevant and actionable knowledge; this is the key to our generative model of creative pedagogy

Alison Grove O’Grady is the Program Director (combined degrees) and Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, Sydney School of Education and Social Work. Alison teaches and researches across a range of areas including Pedagogy and Practices, English Curriculum and Creativity Teacher Artistry. Alison’s PhD examined the teaching philosophies of pre-service and graduate drama teachers and how they use language to orient to theories of social justice. Alison is involved in an international research project that examines the effectiveness of applied theatre in professional learning for history teachers. Alison is currently working on an interdisciplinary project that facilitates a critical consciousness of human rights in personal practice using drama. Alison brings to the project expertise in foundational and creative pedagogies that will ensure the resource design and content is pedagogically effective.

Samantha McMahon is an Academic Fellow, Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney and lead CI for the “re-inventing the gap year” project. Sam is an educational sociologist; her research explores how engagement with multiple knowledges effects the equity of student experience. Her research includes participation in The AIME Research Partnership (the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience) and NSW public primary and high schools. Sam brings to the project expertise in epistemology and sociology of knowledge and research experience in the fields of widening participation and outreach and digital resource design and production. Samantha is on Twitter @McMahonSam_

Catherine (Kate) Smyth is a Senior Lecturer in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney, where she coordinates and teaches HSIE K-6 curriculum (Human Society and its Environment) in both the B.Ed. and Masters of Teaching primary teacher education programs. Kate works extensively in developing, facilitating and supporting primary teacher professional learning collaborations in rural and urban schools in NSW. Since 2008, Kate’s sustained interests in regional education is evidenced in her involvement in an ongoing academic partnership with rural schools in the Lismore area. Previously, Catherine worked as a primary teacher in NSW, the Solomon Islands and Kuwait and as a project officer in HSIE curriculum. Kate was primary history advisor for the Australian Curriculum: History; her research and PhD explore history teaching and learning in the primary classroom and she is particularly interested in the role that ICT and creativity play in activating historical knowledge. Kate brings to the project expertise in creative and digital pedagogies and a wealth of experience working with regional schools. Kate is on Twitter @SmythCatherine

Why women are under represented in teacher union leadership – and why this needs to change

October 19, 2020teacher unionsCOVID19 and gender inequality, feminised industry, gender inequality, New South Wales Teachers Federation, NSWTF, participation of women in unions, teacher union membership, teachers unions, triple burden, work intensification

Amidst declining union influence, teacher unions have retained considerable power. However in Australia, while females overwhelmingly occupy the majority of teaching positions and teacher union membership, it is the women who are finding union leadership and activism increasingly difficult. We decided to look more closely at what affects the participation of women in their teacher unions and what might help increase women’s representation and involvement.

COVID-19 and women’s work

The COVID-19 pandemic has done much to highlight – and exacerbate – existing patterns of gender inequality. In the world of work, many women have found themselves juggling more than they used to. Not only have they needed to learn ‘Zoom’ or some other video conferencing tool to enable their ‘work from home’, many have taken on extra responsibilities such caring for children at home during the working day and supervising their children’s participation in remote learning.

However, it seems ‘working from home’ doesn’t quite mean the same thing for women as it does for men. In the university sector for example, it has been reported that while academic journal submissions are up, they’re mostly from men. We acknowledge, of course, that every domestic arrangement is unique, and the division of labour within the home shows general signs of becoming increasingly even, but patterns persist, and they aren’t equal.

More work for a ‘feminised’ industry

These uneven patterns in women’s participation across spheres of work, home and beyond is particularly interesting when it comes to women who are teachers. Teachers are one of the most unionised professions globally, at times even increasing their membership against a backdrop of union decline, but teaching is often referred to as a female-dominated or ‘feminised’ profession. In NSW public schools, 72.4% of teachers are women.

It’s also a profession where workload seems to be intensifying. Our recent research conducted in collaboration with the NSW Teachers Federation found 87% of teacher respondents reported an increase in their working hours over the period from 2013-2017.

So, women are particularly impacted by any escalation in teacher workload, simply because they are the majority of the teaching workforce.

The triple burden

The literature on women’s union participation notes the impact of what has been called the ‘triple burden’ – the combination of:

formal work responsibilities;
societal expectations of women in regard to care-giving and other domestic responsibilities; and
union involvement.

Typically, the second factor is seen to hamper the third. As women normally take on a greater proportion of labour in the home, the possibility for active involvement in the union declines. We were interested to see whether this is also what is happening in teaching, with so many teachers being women, and teaching being such an intense, and intensifying occupation.

To consider this issue (see here to access a free version) we drew on two related studies. The first was a case study of the NSW Teachers Federation, exploring the union’s response to reform impacting teachers’ working conditions. The second was a large workload study we conducted via the NSW Teachers Federation, with a response rate of 18,234 teaching staff – constituting 33.6% of the Federation’s membership.

In NSW 72.4% of public-school teachers are women, and roughly the same proportion are members of the Federation, with 73.5% being union members. However, despite the union’s active efforts to build female representation at all levels, when we looked at the proportion of those involved in key decision-making forums, the stats were a bit different. We found only 55% of union executive identified as female. Generally speaking, things become more representative the closer we get to the level of the school, where 64.9% of union delegates and 71% of workplace committee members are women.

We should note that women’s involvement in the NSW Teachers Federation has been actively supported and is increasing, with movement in the right direction. While the union of the 1990s was described to us as “90% men and very blokey”, the Federation has since implemented a range of progressive strategies, including via the provision of childcare. Moreover, the union has been led by eminent senior female leaders throughout its history including Lucy Woodcock, Jennie George, and most recently Maree O’Halloran, and has successfully campaigned for major improvements to conditions for women teachers, like paid maternity leave.

So, what is hindering women’s involvement in their union?

Conflict with homelife

There is evidence in our survey that workload is impacting home life for women teachers. More women than men (86% vs 82%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that their work demands conflicted with their family responsibilities. As one respondent commented, “I’m not really sure if I can sustain a workload of 60-70 hours per week whilst also caring for my children and family. Something has to give!” This indicates that union involvement, as the third element of the ‘triple burden’, may also fall by the wayside.

Intensity of workload

Yet this finding also highlights that it’s not just about caring responsibilities – it’s also about the intensity of the work itself. Survey data indicate that women teachers do have slightly higher weekly working hours, at 56.9 compared to 55.1 for men, a finding that, while small, was statistically significant. There may have been some gendered pressures at play here; as another participant commented, “the biggest problem with teachers particularly primary, being female dominated, [is] we keep saying yes to things without…saying no”.

Traditional union culture

Further, rather than just home responsibilities and workload being an issue, there is also a role being played by traditional union culture. Despite efforts to assist female unionists, union meeting schedules can conflict with caring requirements, for instance, with meetings sometimes taking place late into the night or on weekends.

The profile of unionism today is no longer just a hardhat and a hi-vis vest. Women are now more likely to be union members than men and research has consistently shown there is a need for change in how unions engage their members.

The ‘catch 22’

While female membership is going up, representation is not yet equal. The intensification of teacher’s work, combined with women’s heavier burdens in terms of family responsibilities and carer duties, conspire to limit women’s progression into union leadership. This is a catch-22 situation, as more women’s leadership is needed to address the triple burden women face.

Awareness of the triple burden of union activism, family commitments and workload, is key to achieving the challenging goal of gender equality in unionism but that task is growing more daunting because of the increasing intensity of teachers work. The work demands on all teachers are currently very high, and are likely to only get worse, as we continue to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic and its ripple effects.

In a time of crisis and uncertainty, having a union body that is fully representative of its members, and cognisant of their needs, could significantly help address issues currently facing the teaching profession and ultimately, the students they teach.

Mihajla Gavin is a lecturer in the Business School at the University of Technology Sydney, and has worked as a senior officer in the public sector in Australia across various workplace relations advisory, policy and project roles. Mihajla’s research is concerned with analysing the response of teacher unions to neoliberal education reform that has affected teachers’ conditions of work. Mihajla is on Twitter @Mihajla_Gavin

Meghan Stacey is a former high school English and drama teacher and current lecturer in the School of Education at UNSW Sydney. Meghan’s primary research interests sit at the intersection of sociological theory, policy sociology and the experiences of those subject to systems of education. Meghan’s PhD was conferred in April 2018. Meghan is on Twitter @meghanrstacey

Susan McGrath-Champ is Associate Professor in the Work and Organisational Studies Discipline at the University of Sydney Business School, Australia. Her research includes the geographical aspects of the world of work, employment relations and international human resource management. Recent studies include those of school teachers’ work and working conditions.

Rachel Wilson is Associate Professor at The Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has expertise in educational assessment, research methods and programme evaluation, with broad interests across educational evidence, policy and practice. She is interested in system-level reform and has been involved in designing, implementing and researching many university and school education reforms. Rachel is on Twitter @RachelWilson100

TikTok teachers go viral in these #COVID-19 times

October 12, 2020COVID-19 and schools#teacherlife, #teacherproblems, #teachersoftiktok, COVID-19 and teaching, edupreneurs, teacher influencers, teacherpreneurs, teachers and social media, teachers and TikTok, TikTok, Tiktok teachers

TikTok is one of the world’s fastest growing apps, with an estimated two billion total downloads since its inception, including more than 1.4 million monthly active users in Australia. Much of TikTok’s success has been attributed to its appeal among children and young people. However, during COVID-19 lockdowns, a growing number of teachers have found solace—and celebrity-status—through the app.

TikTok teachers

One teacher who has regularly utilised TikTok’s capabilities during the disruptions of 2020 is South Australian primary school teacher, ‘Mr Luke’ (handle: iam.mrluke). Most of Mr Luke’s TikTok videos are recorded in his classroom (sans students) and often involve him excitedly sharing an anecdote from a lesson or his reflections on what it means to be a teacher.

In the last year, Mr Luke has accrued a following of 277 thousand people and over seven million likes for his short clips. Many of his videos are set to pop music and involve him enthusiastically dancing and jumping around his empty classroom.

In an interview with Swinburne teaching student Jessica McGough, Mr Luke described his use of social media as a “juggling game” and TikTok in particular as a “really cool”, “engaging”, and “fun” platform. But he was also quick to mention that he has guidelines for using TikTok in terms of his choice of language and music, aware that his videos are viewed by his students and their parents.

TikTok’s emphasis on music and dance is especially useful for teachers seeking to playfully connect with their students and school community during lockdown.

Earlier this year, teachers at Terrigal Public School (TPS) in New South Wales created TikTok dance videos as a fun end-of-term send off for their students. The videos received thousands of views and a local news outlet picked up the story, interviewing teacher Tayla Lythall who said:

“Due to the virus, teachers have been asked to come up with ideas for online content that kids want to connect and engage with on a totally new level. The feedback has been so positive. Both students and parents have been commenting how much they enjoyed watching it, and for the teachers, it’s been nice to show everyone that we’re normal people just like them”.

These TikTok teachers challenge the one-dimensional and sometimes even patronising stereotypes of teachers as faultless saints or hapless victims.

Viral TikTok teachers of North America

The attention given to Australian teachers pales in comparison to attention received by teachers in the much larger market of the United States, where the app is used by an estimated 100 million Americans every month.

Washington kindergarten teacher Mackenzie Adams recently went viral when she posted a TikTok video of herself delivering a lesson to her kindergarten students over Zoom. With more than 10 million views in less than a week, the video shows a highly animated and energetic Adams teaching her young students online, remaining ever-so-patient as a student grapples with the mute button.

Reflecting on her rationale for posting the video to TikTok, Adams subsequently said in an interview:

“I honestly just wanted to see what I looked like while teaching, kind of as a reflection tool. I wanted to see: am I being energetic enough for them? Am I engaging enough? And I was like, ‘I’ll just take a quick video and watch it back later, probably delete it.’ And about an hour later I got a text from a friend and she said, ‘you know you’re viral, right?’”

Social media commentators and news reporters were quick to praise the video, waxing lyrical about Adams’ energy and patience with her students. For many commentators, Adams’ video was more than just a snapshot into her daily life; the video represented the work of countless teachers around the world trying to make the best of a challenging situation. Adams shared a similar sentiment about the profession:

“I really hope that teachers are getting the recognition they deserve right now … the outpouring of love has been great”.

A booming new genre

Adams and Mr Luke are not the only ones receiving the love. A growing number of teachers are taking to TikTok to share their experiences during the pandemic. The “booming new genre” of Teacher TikTok has even led some websites to compile lists of the ‘top teachers’ to follow.

For some teachers, it is about connecting with their students and incorporating TikTok into class activities. For others, it is about connecting with a teaching community, sharing tips, celebrating successes, laughing at themselves, or venting frustration – all vital under lockdown and COVID-related restrictions.

Teachers’ TikTok videos under hashtags such as #teachersoftiktok #teacherlife #teacherproblems have views in the billions and capture the everyday, funny, and perplexing moments that speak to the rarely seen chaos, charm, and complexity of teaching at the ‘screen face’ during a pandemic.

The good and the bad of TikTok for teachers

Of course, not all have embraced TikTok’s potential during the pandemic, with recent calls from US President Donald Trump to ban downloads of the app over its questionable use of user data.

Concerns about problematic or harmful content circulating on TikTok have also made news headlines.

When TikTok merged with Musical.ly in 2018, the marketing for the app cleverly side-stepped parental concerns about the potential harms of social media and distinguished itself from apps like Instagram by emphasising TikTok’s focus on safe and child-friendly play and creativity. Yet, recent reports have challenged the ‘child-friendliness’ of the app, including alarm about a video of a suicide that was circulating on the platform.

Many schools sent warnings to parents about the video, however, in one reported case a group of students in a Western Australian school watched the video during class and their teacher was subsequently stood down. This is not the first case of an educator losing their job over a TikTok controversy, and students have also been at the receiving end of vitriol for their use of the platform. Such controversy only furthers the evidence for those who wish to see mobile phones banned and ICT policies tightened in schools.

TikTok is not the first social media app to appeal to teachers. Teacher TikTok reflects a broader growth in the number of teachers using social media platforms, as well as websites including Teachers Pay Teachers, to enhance their professional work and reach. Known as ‘teacher influencers’, ‘teacherpreneurs’ or ‘edupreneurs’, these teachers use social media to craft and promote a particular professional identity, often teaming up with companies to support their work, starting their own education resource businesses, and accruing a significant following: fellow teachers, students, and members of the public.

While some view the increased visibility of teachers online as a form of innovative leadership built on mutually-beneficial commercial relationships, others contend that such practices may intensify neoliberal competition between educators, privileging those who are comfortable juggling the personal and professional online and have the means to create a marketable image. For Mr Luke, his position on this juggle was clear:

“Social media is going to happen, we’re all a part of it. … I know I am. So I think it’s important to distinguish your professional life and personal life and try and not get those two things confused.”

Social media is a significant global force for teachers during and beyond the current pandemic. Platforms such as TikTok are increasingly shaping professional practices, as well as the perceptions of the profession. And this raises important questions about the future of initial teacher education in a post-COVID-19 landscape.

Dr Catherine Hartung is Senior Lecturer in Education in the Department of Education at Swinburne University of Technology. Catherine’s teaching and research explores the educational and political institutions that govern young people’s lives, and the ways that young people negotiate and resist this governance. Connect on Twitter: @catharty

Dr Natalie Hendry is Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Media and Communication at RMIT. Natalie’s research explores everyday social media and digital technology practices in the context of critical approaches to education, mental health, media, wellbeing, youth studies, and policy. Connect on Twitter: @projectnat

Dr Rosie Welch is Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. Rosie’s teaching and research engages with the socio-cultural complexities of health education across school, teacher education, institutional, government and community settings. Connect on Twitter: @rosiewelch

Politicisation of teaching Chinese language in Australian classrooms today

October 5, 2020Teaching of languagesChinese language, Chinese language education, Chinese language programs in schools, Conficius Classrooms, Confucius Institutes, Language of the future, Michiko Weinmann, Rod Neilsen, Sophia Slavich, Teaching Chinese, teaching of Languages

In a year dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Asia-Pacific region is increasingly embroiled in an atmosphere of China scepticism. Diplomatic tensions between Australia and China have arisen in the past largely due to political and trade disagreements, but the provision of Chinese language programs in Australian schools has also ignited controversy.

Australia’s education agendas for the 21st century have focused on supporting Australian school students to become future global citizens with the skills and capabilities to live, work and engage in the international community, particularly with Australia’s neighbours. Proficiency in an Asian language has been seen as a key skill to achieve this goal. However, while policy promotes the study of Chinese as a ‘language for the future’, such motives are readily cast aside in times of diplomatic crisis when the ‘enigma’ of China and speakers of the Chinese language are seen as a threat.

The politicisation of Chinese language study in Australia promotes the idea that learning Chinese is useful to Australians for purely practical economic reasons, such as being able to conduct business or trade. This has particular implications for Languages teaching and learning, as it reduces multilingualism and its associated benefits—intercultural competence, literacy, language awareness and critical thinking—to a strategic resource.

Within the broader Languages education debates in Australia, Chinese stands out because of its unique place in Australian society and education. After English, Chinese is the language most spoken at home, and is one of the most widely taught languages in Australian schools. However, students who are not from Chinese heritage backgrounds rarely achieve high proficiency; and Chinese is considered a ‘difficult’ language compared to European languages, which are linguistically closer to English. The perceived language advantage of Chinese-heritage students also has a demotivating effect.

Our research

In a recent study, we explored how debates in the media and conversations among language teachers reflect the contentions surrounding Chinese language learning and Australia’s multicultural identity. We examined a selection of Australian media articles on Chinese language education published between 2012 and 2017, and conducted interviews with teachers of Asian languages in 2015 and 2016. We found a strong discrepancy between advocacy for Chinese language instruction as key to Australia’s economic future, and media and public debates that portray Chinese as ‘too difficult and too foreign to learn’. Such debates also position learning Chinese as linked to the dissemination of Chinese government propaganda, and as undermining Australia’s Anglo-European and anglophone identity.

We identified four main themes:

Chinese is the ‘language of the future’ for Australians
Chinese taught in Confucius Classrooms in Australia is suspicious
Chinese culture and language are too foreign and difficult for Australians to master
Uneasiness or ambivalence in Australia towards teaching and learning Chinese

Chinese is the ‘language of the future’

Eleven of the twenty-three media articles selected for our study reflected the Asian Century discourse, which heralds China as the ‘rising’ economic and geopolitical power. Chinese education programs were often described as ‘cutting edge’: statements such as ‘bilingual first in schools’ and ‘preschool language program rolled out’ suggest that bilingual language programs are a new phenomenon, rather than a long-established tradition in Australia.

Several articles also seemed to suggest that language education was less about language learning than about technological innovation: students would be able to form ‘virtual relationships’ with ‘digital sister schools’ ‘with the help of an innovative program’. The notion of using technology to connect with ‘real’ Chinese people in mainland China reinforces the perception that the purpose of language learning is to communicate with ‘foreign people’, outside Australia. This renders invisible the significant Chinese-speaking community in Australia’s ‘own back yard’.

Chinese and Confucius Classrooms: The language of suspicion

An interesting if unsurprising finding—given the controversy of China’s investment in ‘cultural projection to the world’—was the significant number of articles critical of the role of Confucius Classrooms in Chinese language programs. Headings such as ‘Schools paid $10,000 to teach Chinese’, and ‘China sends teachers to Palmerston’, position China as the sole driver of such programs, despite the Australian government’s policy focus on developing language proficiency in Chinese. Statements in the same article, such as ‘the Territory will soon be speaking Chinese if the NT [Northern Territory] Government gets its way’ reveal an underlying hostility towards the arrival of ‘twenty Chinese teachers set to be calling the Northern Territory home’. In this way, Chinese language and culture are politicised as threats to Australian national identity—a view that is reinforced and manifested by a hierarchical view of languages. An Australian company manager, interviewed by the Gold Coast Bulletin (FIRST job—and where are you now? 24/10/2016) comments:

The school curriculum is too crowded …. People often suggest learning Chinese. I don’t believe Chinese is essential as all Chinese students learn English … however, basic Chinese skills assist in business etiquette and overcoming the cultural barrier.

So, while language and cultural knowledge are useful skills, English-speaking Australians only need to acquire ‘survival Chinese’ in order to overcome cultural barriers. But on the other hand, Chinese speakers are assumed (and expected) to have a high level of communicative proficiency in English. Chinese may be the ‘language of the future’ and worthwhile engaging with—but not to the extent of attaining high linguistic proficiency and a deeper understanding of Chinese culture and society. This creates a cycle of ‘privilege and parochialism’ for the English-dominant speaker.

‘It’s too foreign’

Similar concerns were expressed by the Languages teachers we interviewed. ‘Pam’, Head of Languages and a teacher of Japanese at a Catholic secondary school in metropolitan Melbourne, comments on the ‘usefulness’ of studying Chinese:

I think […] that as a society we’ve always viewed Japanese with a sense of prestige. Kids like the animated cartoons, feel like there’s things they can really relate to. Now, Chinese hasn’t got that.

Although popular culture can support interest in language learning, it doesn’t occur as often as people believe. Pam’s comment that Chinese language lacks cultural aspects that Australian students can relate to suggests that China continues to be seen as too far removed from ‘Australian’ culture. ‘Daniel’, Head of Department and teacher of Chinese at an independent K–12 college in Melbourne, echoes this sentiment:

I mean it’s as basic as [Chinese] textbook layout. At the moment it doesn’t feel Western. It feels, just even opening the book, quality of the pages, fonts […] kids look at it and go, ‘This looks really foreign.’

According to Daniel, a student’s very first classroom encounter with Chinese can be deeply alienating. A resource as simple as a textbook can exemplify a perceived linguistic and cultural chasm between ‘East and West’.

Uneasiness or ambivalence in Australia towards teaching and learning Chinese

Both advocates and critics of Chinese language education in Australia draw on arguments around economic proximity and cultural distance that are difficult to reconcile. This uneasiness was reflected in stories of the everyday professional interactions involving languages teachers of both Australian and Chinese descent. Pam and Daniel discussed their involvement as Heads of Languages in staffing, recruitment and employment of Languages teachers:

For Chinese by far, we have too many native speakers, and they’re all teaching because they can speak the language. Our industry for Chinese is dominated by native speakers up to 99 per cent.

I feel like in the past, we’ve really just gone: ‘Well, you can speak the language, come and teach here.’ And it’s almost like: You don’t do that with English teachers. How did you just realise that that doesn’t work for other languages? (Daniel)

Daniel is commenting on the widespread assumption that teaching one’s first language is ‘easy’; as something that is ‘innate’, it is thought to require little effort or formal study. It is a ‘springboard’ for a teaching career in Australia, as demonstrated by the high proportion of native Chinese language teachers. Daniel suggests that his school had not questioned this assumption in the past; it had recruited Chinese language teachers mainly based on their ability to speak the language, a practice that changed when it was realised that teachers of other languages were not recruited in this way. However, a great deal of irony is apparent when such recruitment practices for Chinese versus English language teachers are considered, as many native English speakers are employed overseas today as English language teachers based mostly on their ability to speak English as a first language.

Our research reflects the well-documented themes in media and teacher discourses in Australia around representations of Chinese language education: utilitarian arguments for Chinese language learning, the exoticising of the cultural and linguistic ‘other’ and a deep-rooted ambivalence towards China and speakers of Chinese.

If the intention of policy is to position Chinese as the ‘language of the future’ and worthy of study, it requires progressive politics, policy and education systems to recognise that ‘while multilingualism is laudatory, the means by which one becomes multilingual also matter’. Language learning is valuable for a broad range of reasons, including the economic, political, societal, intercultural and interpersonal.

In light of the current Australia–China tensions, re-embracing relationships in the Asia- Pacific that move beyond binary Australia–Asia relationships of ‘us versus them’ could be crucial for stabilising the region. This will require a more critical engagement with Australia’s multicultural identity, and consideration of how our diversity could be reflected more comprehensively. It will also raise new questions about how Australia communicates with its Asian neighbours.

For those who want more – Neilsen, R. & Weinmann, M. (2019). Repositioning teacher identities: Beyond binaries of Self and Other. The Australian Educational Researcher.

ABC news Chinese, Indonesian language teachers get creative bringing Asia to regional Australia

Dr Michiko Weinmann is a senior lecturer in Languages Education, and Director of the Centre for Teaching and Learning Languages (CTaLL) at Deakin University, Melbourne. She has researched and published on multilingual education, Asia literacy, and teacher mobility. Michiko curates the Languages resources website: www.languageteacherhelpmate.com. Her forthcoming co-authored book (with Dr Rebecca Cairns, Deakin University) ‘Rethinking Asia-related Curriculum’ will be published by Routledge in 2021. Michiko is on Twitter at @MichikoWeinmann

Dr Rod Neilsen is a senior lecturer in TESOL at Deakin University, Melbourne. He has worked as an English teacher and teacher educator on five continents. He has conducted research into pre-service and in-service teacher mobility and multilingual approaches to language learning. Rod is the Chief Editor of the Australian journal, TESOL in Context.

Sophia Slavich is a Chinese and EAL/D language teacher with experience in primary, secondary and tertiary levels. She conducted research in language education policy as part of her Masters of Teaching degree at Deakin University, Melbourne. Sophia is an advocate for linguistic diversity and the worldviews it represents. She currently teaches Chinese at Stawell Primary School, Victoria and works as an instructional coach for beginning teachers with the Teach for Australia program.

We also have a book chapter to be published in 2021 -Weinmann, M., Slavich, S. & Neilsen R. (forthcoming 2021). ‘Multiculturalism and the “broken” discourses of Chinese language education’, In: Halse, C. & Kennedy, K. (eds.). The future of multiculturalism in turbulent times. Asia-Europe Education Dialogue series, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Pandemic Collection: Reflections on inequities amplified by the COVID-19 global crisis

September 28, 2020COVID-19 and schoolsAmy McKernan, Bonita Cabiles, COVID-19 and education, COVID-19 and schools, COVID-19 and teaching, Inequity in Australian education, Jessica Gerrard, Ligia (Licho) López López, Michelle Cafini, Nicky Dulfer, Rhonda Di Biase, Sophie Rudolph, teaching during the pandemic

The pieces in this collection are our reflections on the ongoing inequities in education that have been amplified or illuminated by the COVID-19 global crisis. We hope our reflections help readers consider how education work might respond to and address these inequities.

All of these pieces were written during early May 2020—prior to the death of George Floyd and the global movement that ensued. Though the reflections in the collection predate George Floyd’s killing, many of the issues raised in this collection are part of the same unequal system that produces Blak/Black death, through the virus and beyond.

We are all staff or higher degree research students from the Social Transformations and Education Research Group at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education.

Our pieces meditate on the ways the teacher has been positioned through the crisis and what this says about how our society sees teachers (Amy McKernan); the many roles played by schools in the pursuit of mass schooling (Nicky Dulfer); the politics of expertise (Jessica Gerrard); schools futures and Indigenous history (Ligia (Licho) López López); possibilities for investing in community as key to education (Sophie Rudolph); opportunities for rethinking the local in relation to global problems (Rhonda Di Biase and Bonita Cabiles); and the importance of attempting to understand each student’s emotional life and journey in supporting learning communities (Michelle Cafini).

Our Pivoting Teachers By Amy McKernan

So what does “mass schooling” mean to us now? By Nicky Dulfer

Saving education: Trust me I’m an expert By Jessica Gerrard

Ancestral 2020 vision: Chronicle of a death foretold By Ligia (Licho) López López

Here’s our chance to refocus on education for community, not just for the economy By Sophie Rudolph

Turning global adversity into advantage: Working towards education for all By Rhonda Di Biase and Bonita Cabiles

Which boat were you in? by Michelle Cafini

Our pivoting teachers

By Amy McKernan

In my job I teach teachers. Some of my students are working to qualify as teachers, some are teachers already established in the profession. This semester, I have been deeply concerned for my students who also teach. They worked through the term one holidays to accommodate two possible futures – a return to school as we knew it and an about-face to distance learning.

They ‘pivoted’, and now they must ‘pivot’ again. They sit in my webinars with grey faces, tired and quiet, somehow still submitting assignments amongst all of this. Somehow, they are still determined to become more knowledgeable, more skilled, and better teachers.

My teacher students have worked even longer hours than before, implementing a whole new way of teaching, and redeveloping months and years of planning for a completely different world. They have drawn on considerable reserves of expertise and ingenuity to keep their school students learning, all the while closely monitoring wellbeing, and performing the emotional labour of caring.

I have watched over the weeks as the teachers in my classes have become withdrawn, resigned to the fact that they were the last to be considered in this global pandemic, that the decision to close schools appeared to be based not on the possible threat to teachers’ wellbeing, but on the economic wellbeing of families who must work and the safety of grandparents who might need to babysit.

I’m not suggesting that the needs of families should not be a factor in decision-making, of course they should. But the silence on teachers’ safety, including the safety of the many immunocompromised teachers, has been deafening. No one seems to acknowledge the likely mental and physical health issues teachers face as they managed the increased workload of teaching students both in and out of the classroom.

There has been an implicit assumption that teachers will take up a significant burden in this crisis. As is so often the case, teachers have little agency and little voice in making the big decisions that affect them. The evident lack of concern for teachers throughout the discussions of school closures has been so sadly reflective of the disrespect afforded to the profession in this country that I supposed I shouldn’t be shocked.

Most of us, including the parents currently supervising the schooling of their children at home, do not have a great deal of insight into the demands of teaching. If we did, teaching would be among the highest paid professions in the country, without question. It is my hope that in the future, when COVID-19 is a memory and the economy is returning to life, the students who are now witnessing their teachers’ innovations are learning that actually no, not just anyone (your parents) can do what teachers do. I hope the respect teachers truly deserve will grow.

I hope eventually we will see clearly the sacrifices teachers made during this crisis (and the way they were sacrificed). I hope we start to understand how important teachers are, and value them enough to stop sacrificing them in the name of economic gain. I hope, ultimately, those exhausted teachers sitting quietly in my webinars will, at last, receive the respect befitting their status as some of Australia’s most essential workers.

Dr Amy McKernan is an early career academic at the Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne. Her research broadly investigates teaching and learning with confronting histories and narratives of trauma, violence and injustice. She is a teacher educator in the sociology of education, international education, and educational research methodologies.

Back to top

So what does “mass schooling” mean to us now?

By Nicky Dulfer

For the first time in my living memory, onsite school attendance has had to cease. Mass schooling, which has been described as a way of providing universal educational access through school attendance, has been disrupted in Australia and around the world.

We have closed schools and opted for distance and remote learning models to help contain the spread of COVID-19. For the vast majority of our 3.8 million students, this involves students attempting to learn in their home environments with their teachers providing content, support and feedback remotely.

As a result of school closures in Australia many people are just discovering how many roles schools fulfil. To students in unsafe homes, schools can provide sanctuary; to the hungry, food; to the homeless, shelter; to the scared, security; to the lonely, friendship; and to the isolated, a sense of belonging. For those of us who have worked in disadvantaged school settings this is not surprising. Schools have long been a proxy home for many students. School libraries can create safe places to sit quietly and read, school breakfast clubs can ensure everyone has the chance to eat something at the beginning of the day, school homework clubs can provide equipment and staff to support students who need some extra help, and school teachers can provide a valued adult relationship for students who seek connection and support. This is not to say that everything about mass schooling is positive.

To many students attending school can mean isolation, bullying, violence and ridicule. It can mean being taught to be ashamed of personal cultural heritage and difference. It can be a place that is not safe or inclusive. For many students, schools are just another place in which they are not valued.

Mass schooling has meant that schools are also often sought after as places to institute certain political agendas. Governments have long understood this. In the 1970s the Whitlam government instituted the Disadvantaged Schools Program as a way of ensuring schools could help support those students who needed it most. Until the 1980s students used to sing ‘God Save the Queen’ at every assembly as way of ensuring the Colonial past erased all that had gone before. The Howard government offered additional financial support to schools if they flew the Australian flag. Mass schooling is also seen as a way of instituting social agendas as schools are a way of reaching all students. In the 1950s the Menzies government, concerned with malnutrition among children, instituted the school milk program. In the 2000s concerns around obesity led to significant changes in what is available at the school canteen. Now, students all around the world are being educated on the correct way to wash their hands in classrooms.

Thus, school sites are often used to perpetuate both helpful and harmful political and social agendas.

In the time of COVID-19 one thing that has become very clear is the dependence of modern society on mass schooling. The provision of mass schooling serves the dual economic function of allowing parents to work whilst educating their children to be useful to the workforce in the future. It also serves the social function of transmitting the social norms of society to students. Additionally, mass schooling has been used as a place in which equity has been supported.

I believe one of the few good things to come out of the COVID-19 pandemic is the revitalised conversation within our communities about what it is that mass schooling does, can and should do.

Nicky Dulfer is a Senior Lecturer at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne. Her research areas of expertise include issues of inequality and pedagogy within secondary education.

Back to top

Saving education: Trust me I’m an expert

By Jessica Gerrard

Dr Norman Swan comes on the radio and I shush my partner. Dr Norman Swan has become a national treasure.

COVID-19 is apparently going to save experts. After years of the apparent growth of ‘populism’ and of the political denial of climate change, it appears it has taken this horrendous virus to demonstrate the utility of expert knowledge.

In the absence of political leadership, in the days and weeks after COVID-19 made its way to Australian shores, it was Dr Norman Swan – ABC Radio National’s health editor – who interpreted and disseminated the medical evidence on COVID-19. It is, of course, experts who are racing to find a vaccine and providing medical care.

Meanwhile, the Australian government has kept universities out of its cornerstone JobKeeper policy, throwing casuals – and the higher education sector – to the curb. There’s even reports of universities asking volunteers to cover teaching because of staff cuts. For permanent staff workloads have increased and universities (and the sector’s union) have already put pay slashes on the table.

In these sorts of moments, a defensive move is understandable: we have to save education, right? Higher education, after all, is the place in which experts are produced. And isn’t now, of all times, the time to be protecting and nurturing the production of expertise? Defending the worth of and possibility for education for our future?

Expertise, however, is neither neutral nor categorical. Experts do not float disinterestedly above social relations. They are made by society and they have a vested interest in making particular versions of society. Eugenics, phrenology, conversion therapy, hysteria diagnoses – and dare I say it, even JobKeeper – were all driven to some degree by experts.

Expertise rests upon divisions between experts and so-called ‘laypeople’, and this division is marked by power. It also rests upon structural inequalities of education. Despite the vast expansion of higher education, contemporary society is built on a fallacy, not actuality, of social mobility for all. Hierarchical divisions in educational achievement are the bedrock of educational institutions, as are inequitable divisions in labour.

COVID-19 is apparently going to save experts, but it is cleaners who are saving us all.

Expertise is not just about producing knowledge: it is also practiced in relation to the ‘unknown’. The boundaries between the known and unknown are shaped by what we think it is possible to know about; what the social, technological and political relations of the day make possible to know about; and what is strategically denied (*cough* climate change).

COVID-19 demonstrates that the current moment is not defined by a withering of expertise, but its reconfiguration in relation to what is known and unknown (and asserted to be known and unknown) in the function of modern capitalist democracies.

Indeed, the recent proposals that materially de-value the humanities and social sciences demonstrate that the current Australian government is centrally concerned with the form and function of expertise. In this proposed reform particular forms of expertise are recognised as valuable above others.

Moreover, it’s no coincidence that at the time of rising post-truth there is concurrent fetishization of evidence and data. Particularly in education, data metrics are increasingly valued political assets: university and journal rankings, student evaluation surveys, impact scores, citation rates, h-indexes are all presented as numerical proxies for the value of university work.

So, what exactly are we saving? What education are we declaring an interest in for the future?

Perhaps at the very least, not one that unthinkingly asserts expertise as an unproblematic elixir. And not one that presumes that the production of expertise necessarily relies on divisions in labour and systems of meritocracy that structurally require unequal access to education and outcomes of it.

Shush, Dr Norman Swan is back on the radio.

Dr Jessica Gerrard researches the changing formations, and lived experiences, of social inequalities in relation to education, activism, work and unemployment. She works across the disciplines of sociology, history and policy studies with an interest in critical methodologies and theories.

Back to top

Ancestral 2020 vision: Chronicle of a death foretold

By Ligia (Licho) López López

Part II

Wati’t, will you tell me the rest of that origin story?

The one where another life begins in the future.

Right. The story of a future inhabited by peculiar beings who will call themselves Humans. Thousands of years from now, in the year 2020 entities from the virus world will decimate thousands of them. Humans will be forced to flee. They will mistakenly think of the virus in the only frame they know: War. So in the first months of a rising decade in the 21^st century, they will wake up and will feel as if bombs were dropped on them as they have dropped bombs on others. With no time to pack their bags stuffed with Human supremacy, and the rest of their useless belongings including belonging itself, they will lose being and becoming Human.

What will those planes of existence look like Wati’t?

Full of wonder and wilderness! At first they will be afraid of what they will encounter. With no Normal saint or Economy god to misguide their existence, they will be swept with bewilderment. The first thing they will realize is that they are just one more element of an endless constellation and not the centre of it. Some of the cleverest ones, well they will not be that clever, really! but some of them will smuggle their useless concept of the Individual which will have no currency in other planes. Their existence will be relational. Upon entry to these unfamiliar planes of existence, Humans will disappear and become a collective of moving particles. Friction, magnetism, and sonic waves, not Identities, Borders, or Institutions, will characterize their movements in the new planes.

Remember that genius Human invention they called Schools? Well before being forced by the 2020 virus entity to flee the world as they knew it, Schools were Institutions. In these planes Schools will be sites of encounter. They will be located throughout and will not require a building called “school” for learning to take place. Because some habits are hard to die, some of them will invoke obsolete modern ideas to say “schools are the best place for children to learn.” But the majority of them having learned the lessons from the 2020 pandemic will ask: To learn what? To learn how? To learn whose knowledges? Can knowledges be owned? What counts as learning? What learning counts? Where, with what, and with whom can learning take place? In the new plane of existence, they will realize that moulding children into rubrics, test scores, statistics, international comparative data, and the next capitalist battalion of citizens will bring their demise. It will by 2020 and will again after 2020.

Instead of learning to become settler colonialists, at the site of encounter children will teach and learn about colonialism and the history that forced them to seek refuge in new planes of existence. Instead of taking, children will learn to borrow and give back in full respect of the sentient beings they will be in commune with. Children will return to their wilderness without the Human fear of “being backward” or “falling behind.” That will be pre 2020 history. Colour codes for children’s bodies will no longer be the norm. In fact, there will be no norms, gender or otherwise. There will not even be ‘children’ as the category upon which ‘adults’ manage and attempt to control the/their futures. Through wondering into the histories of human grids and classificatory regimes through online or VR learning, they will regain a sense of humility. That will be the ultimate social and emotional learning lesson resulting in new worlds unfolding. How marvellous!

Maltyox wati’t

Dr López López is a Caribbean, Queer, and Brown scholar of Indigenous background whose life begins in Abya Yala. She has lived, researched, taught, and learned in continental Africa, Europe, the US, and Australia. Her interdisciplinary research is situated at the intersection of curriculum studies, Indigenous and race studies in education, and youth and visual studies.

Back to top

Here’s our chance to refocus on education for community, not just for the economy

By Sophie Rudolph

On my daily local walk I pass a primary school which now has a sign on the gate saying there is limited access to the school while remote learning is in place. The ‘learning from home’ situation has meant parents and carers have been asked to supervise and facilitate learning that is set out and guided by teachers remotely. Teachers have been asked to transform their lessons and connect with students and families in unfamiliar ways, many going to extra lengths to reach those who have limited digital resources at home.

In recent decades education has become highly focused on the product of learning – NAPLAN results, PISA results, ATARs, marks and degrees are tallied, scrutinised, lamented, celebrated and compared. This focus on product both overshadows the process of learning and undermines education as a social good – in and of itself valuable. It can easily position teachers as technicians and students and parents as consumers, concerned primarily with their own individual success. However, education is much more than this and rarely is the lived reality of education so stark and straightforward.

During the COVID-19 pandemic children and young people have been frequently positioned as an inconvenience – the supervision and care they require being seen as an impediment to ‘restarting the economy’. The government was quick to push for learning to be transferred back to schools so that parents/carers can be freed to return to their roles within the economy. However, this overlooks the unpaid and underpaid labour that is done under regular circumstances to support the economy.

The lessons of this time therefore offer opportunities for valuing and nurturing some of the parts of education that have been disregarded by the shift to focus on educational product. A post-pandemic education system could take seriously what feminist global studies historian Tithi Bhattacharya argues are the ‘life-making’ activities of social reproduction. This is work that is largely done by women or in highly feminised professions and it is work of a social nature, not purely an economic nature. It is the process and relational aspects of education, not the product. Imagine if we thought about children and young people as important, thoughtful and valuable members of our society now, rather than just future workers getting in the way of the economy.

If education were to value community more thoroughly, we might see greater time in schools spent building relationships with local First Nations communities to nurture understanding and awareness of Indigenous knowledge. We might see teachers, students and local community collaborating more to find solutions to problems affecting their communities. We might see curriculum that valued the funds of knowledge that children and young people have for pursuing their learning outcomes rather than waiting for NAPLAN or ATARs to tell us what students can and can’t do. We might recognise that the job of teaching involves emotional work and that teachers require time to recharge so they don’t burn out and leave the profession. We might think about restructuring work so that communities – teachers, students, families, carers and friends – have more time to come together more often to share in the process of learning and living together.

We could take a lead from young people who ask us to imagine what is possible, and work collaboratively to cultivate education communities that care for the human and more than human world, and not just for their ATAR outcomes and unfettered economic growth.

Dr Sophie Rudolph is a Lecturer at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at The University of Melbourne. Her research and teaching interests centre on issues of education equity, politics and ethics, through historical and sociological analyses.

Back to top

Turning global adversity into advantage: Working towards education for all

By Rhonda Di Biase and Bonita Cabiles

When listening to an expert panel talking about COVID-19, one particular comment resonated with us: “We will learn a lot about the virus, but we will learn more about ourselves”. The subsequent discussion referred to our learning as people, as communities and as nations. We add to this, learning as a global community, and we reflect on this here.

In discussing the race to find a vaccine, this same panel highlighted differences in the way this particular global challenge has resulted in an international collective effort. A spirit of collaboration, not competition, has developed in the race against the virus. Can this global momentum to collaborate be harnessed in new and creative ways in a post-COVID world?

So too does this question apply to our vision for the world we want post pandemic. Can we continue to work together in unprecedented ways? Can our common goal become to realise the vision embedded in the United Nations’ globally endorsed Sustainable Development Goals?These goals include no poverty, zero hunger, good health and wellbeing, quality education, gender equality, and reduced inequalities. This pandemic provides impetus for a more deliberative discourse around issues of equity in education, including how we ‘do aid,’ without reverting to business-as-usual. The vision embedded within the Sustainable Development Goals offers fertile ground for international interdependence working towards education for all.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a disruption to the status quo of schooling that has exposed more sharply the cracks of education, especially among the most vulnerable. It has powerfully cast a bright light in many countries on what seems to be a perpetual state of crisis in education.

However, financing, which is a key to bridging educational inequities, remains compromised. In the latest UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report, Sustainable Development Goals Secretary-General, Jeffrey Sachs, laments the sobering decline of development aid for education. In the aftershocks of COVID-19, will the global community be willing to work in a spirit of cooperation to ensure equitable education for all; or do we, instead, become inwardly focused and leaner and meaner as nation-states?

Our question is not unfounded. In news about international cooperation in developing a vaccine for COVID-19 the focus of discussion is already around who or which countries will get access. Will access to any successful vaccine depend on money or kindness, on power or a sense of equity and justice? We ask similar questions about education and aid. We fear that as countries tighten their geographical borders and focus on impending recessions and debt and deficit; the sense of compassion, care, and solidarity may also end within their borders. Low and middle-income countries, after the pandemic will, more than ever, need to work within a global community as they advance their respective national/local agendas of equity, justice, and inclusion in education, that have been exposed through this pandemic.

Local contexts offer extensive experiences and knowledge about how we can (re)think and (re)imagine collaboration to respond to and acknowledging the long-standing educational crisis that COVID-19 has pushed us to confront. Within this discourse, perhaps it is also time to foreground the voices of the local communities to construct ‘glo/b/cal’ cooperation, whereby local conditions are centred in global initiatives and international development.

Rhonda Di Biase is a lecturer at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne. She is currently a co-convener for the AARE Global Contexts for Education SIG. She has previously worked at the Faculty of Education, Maldives National University as part of a post-tsunami aid project focusing on implementing student-centred learning and through an Endeavour Executive Fellowship. Her research interests include active learning reform, teachers’ professional learning and education reform in small states.

Bonita Cabiles is currently a PhD candidate at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne. She is currently a co-convener for the AARE Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (CALD) SIG. Her work explores issues of diversity and power in classroom practices with interest in Bourdieuian sociology and qualitatively oriented research.

Back to top

Which boat were you in?

By Michelle Cafini

American evangelical Christian pastor, Rick Warren, in his video, ‘Ten COVID commandments for emotional health’ states that long after a vaccine has been developed, people will still be dealing with the economic, relational and emotional effect of the virus. His words resonated with me when he said although we have all been in the same storm, people have been in different boats during the storm. Some in yachts, where they have had enough money, a secure job and a nice home to live in during the crisis. Some have been in rowboats, living week to week off savings and where being jobless has been a disaster. Others have been clinging to driftwood, experiencing homelessness, domestic abuse, and alcoholism to name but a few of the consequences of COVID-19.

As schools across the nation begin to re-open after a period of online learning, and staff busily adjust back to face-to-face teaching, it is important to reflect that things will not be “the same” as before. Teachers will be considering the social and emotional wellbeing of their students as they re-commence schooling in person. Things will not and may never be the “same” for some students. The experiences that students have had over the past few weeks and months will be different. While some students may have thrived at home, for others there may be deep emotional scars that may take a long time to heal – the death or illness of a family member, the arguments overheard between parents dealing with the ramifications of unemployment, increased alcohol consumption in the home, anger and abuse that manifested while families were in lock-down, the loss of self-esteem and social skills that are usually being developed during interactions with friends. All of these factors may have a considerable impact on the lives of different students, and the once happy, resilient, confident student in January may not present in the same way in July.

School leaders and teachers will be mindful of the boat their students have travelled in during the storm and may need to provide support for those who have lost their bearings. More than ever, embedding social and emotional learning into the curriculum is important. Young students who were just starting school may need support to foster friendships. Those who have spent lengthy time with caregivers may feel the anxiety of separation and will need to once again develop confidence and trust at school. Students who were just in the throes of transitioning from primary to secondary school and only just adapting to new expectations and routines may need to be assisted to develop social and self-management skills. And those at the end of their school journey may need the motivation to set course again. While many teachers would have been cognizant to look out for this at the beginning of a new year, teachers will be observing their students through a new lens, knowing that the experience of isolation will have had some impact – for some positive, for others not.

When the bell rings, it will never be back to the way it was. When the boats come back into the shore and schooling resumes in its entirety, teachers will be confronting the journey each child has been on. School may be the safe harbour that many of them are needing.

Dr Michelle Cafini has recently commenced employment at the University of Melbourne, teaching units in the Master of International Education (IB). She has over 30 years of experience teaching and leading schools in Victoria and overseas.

Back to top