AARE blog

subject selection represented by arrows

Students in Year 10 are set to choose senior subjects. Those with disability miss out. Why? 

inclusion, , ,

It’s around this time of the year students in Year 10 across Australia attend career events and interviews to select their subjects in Year 11 and 12.  

Many students feel anxious about their future choices, leading to a variety of myths circulating among students, parents, and sometimes teachers.   

Making decisions about the future while still in secondary school can be a challenge for most young people, but it can be even more complex for students in equity groups, especially students with disability.   

Transition to post-school life  

Research on post-school transition and student aspirations suggests that higher socioeconomic backgrounds continue to shape aspirations towards prestigious careers and pathways. While gender and school achievement play a significant role in the decision to pursue university studies, schools’ geographic location and socioeconomic makeup can also impact the subject options available to students. 

In recent years, rapid changes to school-to-work pathways have resulted in fewer stable, long-term employment opportunities for young people. There is increased pressure on young people to pursue university pathways, a trend further reinforced by government higher education policies shaping public perceptions of what success after school looks like.  

Adding to the complexity is a vocational education and training (VET) system that is often undervalued, can be difficult to navigate, and is troubled by rogue providers.    

The Australian government has made significant changes to enabling programs designed to help students from equity groups access university education. However, government discourse and policies continue to portray students from equity groups as having low aspirations, while failing to adequately recognise the barriers these young people face during school years and beyond.  

Many students find themselves adjusting their aspirations downward as they navigate the realities and uncertainties of secondary school. Various forms of disadvantage, like living in a remote location and having a disability can also overlap and create additional barriers to achieving educational and career aspirations. 

Low aspirations or low expectations? 

Research on career aspirations of students with disability in regular schools in Australia is limited. My research, which focuses on the aspirations of students with disability in general education in Queensland, found that barriers often begin much earlier—sometimes in primary school or even before students start school.  

Most students in my study faced a culture of low expectations, inconsistent provision of reasonable adjustments, and inadequate consultation about their adjustment needs or their plans for life after school. These barriers significantly affected the options available to them in Year 10. 

Although the selection of senior subjects may not be the most significant factor influencing most young people’s careers, limited options during the senior phase of learning can further reduce opportunities for people with disability to pursue and realise their aspirations.  

Students with disability are more likely to have lower educational attainment,  experience bullying and be suspended, with almost 1 in 4 students with disability leaving school before the age of 15. Alternative pathways do exist, but they can be time-consuming and costly and may not translate into increased university participation. 

The Australian Universities Accord Final Report found that students with disability have achieved parity targets, so what is the problem? 

Disability advocates have criticised the Accord Report due to questionable data on disability prevalence and participation rates in higher education. More importantly, the Accord report concluded that it had done enough for students with disability.   

There is a lack of recognition in both school education and higher education policies regarding the need to invest in the educational achievement of students with disability. Despite poorer academic outcomes, students with disability continue to be left out of priority equity targets.  

The flow-on effect of educational barriers 

Young people with disability face ongoing barriers to finding and maintaining meaningful employment because of discrimination, a lack of employer understanding of reasonable adjustments, and inaccessible recruitment processes.  

For some disabilities, like autism, the unemployment rate is almost six times higher than that of those without disability and more than double the rate for people with disability. To improve employment outcomes and economic participation of people with disability, the Australian Government awarded $22.1 million to establish Australia’s first Disability Employment Centre of Excellence earlier this year. 

Re-imagining aspirations and achievement for students with disability  

Education is a human right that enables all other rights. Hence, schools and universities play a vital role in improving equity, inclusion, and participation of young people with disability in the Australian economy and society.  

While educational institutions in themselves cannot resolve labour market challenges or guarantee employment outcomes for students with disability, they have a moral and legal responsibility to provide access and participation of people with disability on the same basis as their peers without disability. Inclusive practices have also been shown to improve academic outcomes for students with and without disability.  

For Australia to realise its aspirations of excellence and equity as set in The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, schools and universities must become genuinely inclusive. A prosperous future for Australia hinges on our collective commitment to advocate for all and ensure that no one is left behind.   

Lara Maia-Pike is a postdoctoral research fellow with the Centre for Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology. Her research focuses on student transitions and accessible practices. She is also a sessional academic in the School of Education.

AERO

Evidence is important, but what is the problem?

Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), , , , , ,

Following on from our previous piece, we explore the necessity for genuine evidence-based education practice to guide teachers’ work. 

What is evidence-based practice in education, really?

By the early 2000s, the medical model had evolved from Sackett’s original concept. New frameworks appeared integrating the patient’s values, preferences, and circumstances and the clinical context, with research evidence and practitioner expertise. Through this evolution, evidence-based practice became an individualised process of decision-making. It relied on professional reflection, situational awareness, and mutual understanding between doctor and patient.

It was never designed as a universal prescription, but as a guide for action within the complexities of human care.

Evidence-based practice in education didn’t emerge through a tradition of reflective professional judgement, as it did in medicine. Instead, it was imported through policy mechanisms, often driven by governments seeking scalable solutions to perceived educational problems. 

In Australia, these “solutions” are provided by the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO). Agencies such as the EPPI-Centre (UK), the EdCan Network (Canada), and the Institute of Education Sciences (USA) serve similar purposes. They promote models of evidence use that emphasise generalisability and scalability at the expense of teacher expertise and local context.

Teachers are not invited to interpret evidence, only to receive it

In these systems, evidence-based practice becomes something done to teachers, not by them. 

The clinician making a judgement for and with a patient is replaced by a teacher required to implement a set of strategies proven “to work” in controlled trial. That’s regardless of the student, classroom, or community. The message is clear: teachers are not invited to interpret evidence, only to receive it.

This pattern of decontextualised, policy-driven “evidence use” is not new. Others have rightly criticised it. In recent posts, authors such as Dean Ashenden, Nicole Brunker, and Nicole Mockler highlight the narrowing of what counts as “evidence,” the sidelining of teacher expertise, and the ideological function of “what works” discourse in Australian education reform. These are essential critiques.

Our aim here is to build on and deepen that conversation. We do so by revisiting the roots of evidence-based practice in its original domain: medicine. By returning to David Sackett’s foundational model, we show just how far education has drifted from evidence-based practice as a reflective, individualised and context-sensitive endeavour.

A fundamental departure

We argue that what AERO presents as evidence-based practice is not simply reductive. By removing these crucial elements, it represents a fundamental departure from the professional logic that EBP was built on.

This departure matters. It shapes how teachers are trained, how their practice is judged, and how their professional expertise is valued, or ignored. It also has deep implications for student learning, particularly in a system where teachers are not supported to think critically with and about evidence. They are instead expected to implement pre-approved solutions that exclude uncertainty, discourage inquiry. These ‘solutions’ bypass the relational dynamics that are central to teaching. This is in a system that is supposed to teach critical and creative thinking in every Australian child.

We write to reclaim it as a tradition of reflective practice, professional judgement, and pedagogical care.

No problem solving for teachers or students

In the foreword to the fourth edition of their book Evidence-based Practice Across the Health Professions published just last year, Australian EBP experts Hoffman, Bennett, and Del Mar cover the current understanding of the medical model of EBP (MEBP). They define it as a “problem based approach where research evidence is used to assist in clinical decision making”. 

This remains consistent with what David Sackett understood when he first articulated evidence-based medicine. Professionals make decisions in uncertain, complex, and relational contexts. They draw on research, experience, and the needs of those they serve.

We argue that this conception of EBP is most suitable for translation into education because both teaching and learning are, at their core, problem-solving practices. Instead we are left with an education ideology that removes the practice-as/is-problem-solving and learning-as/is-problem-solving foundation of Sackett’s concept of evidence-based practice for teachers and students.

A core competency

We call for problem solving to be a core competency for teachers, just as it is for practitioners in MEBP where practice is underpinned by what Hoffman et al call an “attitude of inquiry”. Unlike AERO’s “this works – do it” mentality, the process of MEBP acknowledges that “uncertainty is an inherent part of health care”, and begins with the practitioner identifying a problem in their own context and going to the evidence base with a question. We advocate for an evidence-based practice in education that embraces the uncertainty of our profession. We propose an adaptation of MEBP’s “The five A’s” as a frame for guiding educators to engage in evidence-based practice:

The Five A’s of EBP for Education 

  1. Ask a question – convert your information needs into an answerable pedagogical question
  2. Access the information – find the best evidence to answer your pedagogical question
  3. Appraise the articles found – critically appraise the evidence for its validity (risk of bias), impact and applicability in your unique context, with your specific students
  4. Apply the information – integrate the evidence with classroom expertise; the students’ values, preferences and circumstances; and information from your classroom context.
  5. Audit – evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency with which steps 1–4 were carried out, and think about ways to improve your performance of them next time.

Embracing a framework like the Five A’s for EBP in education would not be an easy change. 

Time, resources and professional learning

Teachers would need time, resources and professional learning to develop the research literacy to engage in this kind of professional practice. However, it holds the potential for educators to take back the ownership of their profession, reclaiming/reframing teaching as a tradition of reflective practice, professional judgement, and pedagogical care.

If teachers, researchers and educational leaders are respected as the professionals they are, then there is potential to correct the current trajectory of evidence-based practice in education and its undermining of the very heart of effective teaching, empowering teachers as problem-finding, problem-solving, critically reflective teacher-learners committed to individual student needs, rather than as mere implementers of mandates.

Brad Fuller is an educator and researcher with over 35 years of experience in music education and curriculum innovation. He is associate lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney. James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. Rachael Dwyer is a lecturer in curriculum and pedagogy at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her scholarship is focused on creating social change, through decolonizing, arts-based approaches to teaching, advocacy and research.

Image of two heads with various small objects to show communication representing discussions with AERO

AERO says educators can trust its evidence. Can they really? 

Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), , , , , ,

The first in a two-part series on AERO and evidence. Tomorrow: Evidence is important, but what is the problem?

The Federal Government has now ordered an independent performance evaluation of AERO, conducted by KPMG. You can provide feedback here.

There have been debates about whether teaching is an “evidence-based” profession, or whether it should be. 

The discourse around evidence-based teaching and learning has been dominated by “effectiveness research”. That’s driven by a neoliberal obsession with metrics, the most convenient metrics being standardised test scores like NAPLAN and PISA.

Declining scores on these tests is most often attributed to poor teaching. Specifically, the blame is attributed to the quality of teachers graduating from university initial teacher education (ITE) programs. Part of the Australian Government’s solution to this  perceived problem is to increase oversight of ITE programs in universities. This has led to the introduction of highly prescriptive “Core Content” for ITE programs from the Strong Beginnings report, and further surveillance of ITE through a new Quality Assurance Board (to regulate the regulators).

The Core Content mandates teaching strategies and approaches that are “shown by research” or “proven” to be effective. 

The evidence for these assertions comes from the Australian Educational Research Organisation (AERO). AERO was established as part of the Gonski 2.0 reforms, as a national evidence body. It was intended to “conduct research and share knowledge to promote better educational outcomes for Australian children and young people”. AERO publishes a range of resources, including “Explainers”, intended to provide advice to teachers about evidence-based practice. But is this evidence-based practice, or a new avenue for governments to further intrude into the classroom?

Should teachers trust AERO to interpret the evidence for them?

As Nicole Mockler and Meghan Stacey explain, it’s hard to argue against ‘evidence-based practice’ but the devil is in the detail. Evidence-based practice as it is understood in medicine, is a far cry from evidence-based practice as it’s currently understood in teaching. Evidence-based medicine was conceived as a reflective practice grounded in individual judgement by the medical practitioner, considering systematic research evidence, their own expertise and the patient’s needs. It emerged from the medical professions in the 1990s and was pioneered by David Sackett, It has since evolved beyond Sackett’s original vision, extended to balance the patient’s values and preferences, the clinical context, the practitioner’s expertise and research evidence. 

Evidence-based teaching has been driven by policy mechanisms, promoting models of evidence use that emphasise generalisability and scalability. It reduces teaching to a set of formulaic strategies. The evidence and resources presented by AERO appear to position teachers as incapable of understanding and interpreting research, then making professional judgments based on their students and the school content. AEROpresents the research as if it was black and white– “proven”, incontestable facts. The evidence is presented as an instruction manual, with no space for professional judgments or critique.

Education researchers know  this is very rarely the case. Let’s look atAERO’s explainer on Managing cognitive load. Drawing primarily on Sweller’s cognitive load theory, the explainer proposes that explicit or direct instruction helps to avoid students experiencing cognitive overload. This can occur when too much new information is presented at once. It can also occur when previously taught knowledge is not regularly revisited. 

Arguments and counter-arguments

There is significant evidence to support the educational psychology of cognitive load theory. But there are also counter-arguments. Sweller argues that unguided learning “does not work”. But others provide evidence that problem-based and inquiry learning can be effective, and that contextual factors must inform pedagogical choices. When we consider these perspectives on the research, we begin to see the selective approach to research on which AERO has built its “evidence base”.

This is not just a concern for practising teachers. It is a concern for the entire educational enterprise. Critical thinking is identified as a crucial skill for the 21st Century. It drives innovation and preparing students for a world we can’t yet imagine.

The Australian Government promotes the importance of critical thinking. But at the same time, AERO recommends strengthening evidence-based practice through highly prescriptive approaches to teaching. It mirrors the same top-down, narrow interpretation of ‘what works’ that characterises AERO’s materials.

The government asks no questions of AERO’s research

The Australian government appears to be not engaging in any critical thinking, taking AERO’s research explainers at their word. An example of this is the full acceptance of the Strong Beginnings recommendations, including the swift implementation of the Core Content for ITE programs.

Content from the Managing cognitive load explainer dominates Core Content areas 1 and 2 from Strong Beginnings, with all ITE programs expected to teach their students:

1.2.3 The most effective teaching practices to reduce cognitive overload, including explicit instruction, scaffolding, and clearly structured content that connects new information to prior learning.

2.2.3 The importance of presenting all information required to complete these chunked tasks in one place and at one time, excluding information not directly related to the task, to reduce cognitive overload.

2.2.6 Why independent problem-solving is only effective once a student approaches proficiency (i.e. after ample opportunities to practise progressively challenging tasks) and why independent problem-solving should not represent a large proportion of teaching and learning time.

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2023)

There is no nuance in this policy language. It tells teachers what is effective and what is not. AERO presented the research as black and white, and now the policy does the same. 

Evidenced based teaching is only as good as the evidence itself

Under the present evidence-based regime in education we have lost any consensus on what evidence-based practice even means. Some suggest that evidence-based practice is oppressive, that it is in opposition to good education, leading to pre-determining of teaching practices with no regard for local context.

Others suggest that the problem is narrow definitions of what counts as evidence, and that evidence-informed policy and practice are vital to the profession. The version of evidence-based practice promoted by AERO reduces evidence to prescription, positioning teachers as technicians. This is not what David Sackett envisaged when he first articulated evidence-based medicine: that professionals make decisions in uncertain, complex, and relational contexts by drawing on research,experience, and the needs of those they serve. 

Can teachers trust AERO’s evidence?

So, can teachers trust AERO’s evidence? Maybe they could if trust meant more than compliance. But perhaps the bigger question is why doesn’t AERO trust teachers? What if AERO treated teachers not as technicians, but as thinking professionals in relationship with their students. Maybe AERO needs an “explainer”?

Rachael Dwyer is a lecturer in curriculum and pedagogy at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her scholarship is focused on creating social change, through decolonizing, arts-based approaches to teaching, advocacy and research. James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. Brad Fuller is an educator and researcher with over 35 years of experience in music education and curriculum innovation. He is associate lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney.

aerial perspectives

No more checklists – just lifelong commitment from today

Indigenous Curriculum, Indigenous learning, , , , ,

As an experienced early childhood educator and skilled migrant to Australia, I view education as a vehicle for transformation. Moving from Pakistan’s structured education system to Australia’s diverse landscape has deepened my understanding of how culture shapes learning. A key turning point in my journey has been integrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives into early childhood education, an experience that has reshaped both my practice and worldview.

Australia’s education sector increasingly recognises the value of embedding Indigenous perspectives. But the question remains: Are we doing this authentically or merely ticking boxes?

This blog reflects on my evolving understanding and the steps we must take to ensure Indigenous perspectives are genuinely honoured in early childhood settings.

Beginning with the Self: A Reflexive Lens

Change begins with self-awareness. My work as a public servant in Pakistan provided a strong foundation in education systems. But  it wasn’t until I entered Australia’s early learning sector that I began to question whose knowledge is valued and whose stories are told.

These reflections pushed me to ask:

  • Whose stories are we sharing with children?
  • What knowledge systems are we privileging?
  • How do our cultural identities influence our teaching?

Without this self-location, our efforts risk being tokenistic.

Moving from Tokenism to Transformation

Too often, Indigenous content is reduced to symbolic gestures, dot paintings, Dreamtime stories during NAIDOC Week, or the Aboriginal flag on display. While well-intentioned, these acts often lack depth and continuity.

Tokenism reduces rich cultures to surface-level content and reinforces stereotypes. A transformative approach involves:

  • Understanding Country and Place: Recognising learning as relational and land-connected.
  • Respecting Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Including oral histories, community voices, and land-based pedagogies.
  • Building Reciprocal Relationships: Working with, not for, Aboriginal communities.

Learning from Indigenous Voices

Engaging with Aboriginal scholarship transformed my thinking. Tyson Yunkaporta’s Sand Talk encouraged me to view knowledge through Indigenous metaphors relational, non-linear, and grounded in Country. Karen Martin’s work on Aboriginal epistemology deepened my understanding of curriculum as relational, place-based, and community-driven.

From Reflection to Action: Embedding Perspectives

Theory only takes us so far. Here’s how I’ve applied this in practice:

1. Place-Based Learning
 Each place has an Indigenous history. In my role supporting early learning services, we began acknowledging Country as part of our daily rhythm outdoors, during sensory play, and in conversations about the land, weather, and animals. 

2. Community Relationships
 We sought genuine partnerships with local Elders and cultural educators. Their stories brought depth and context to the curriculum. One Elder shared a local Dreaming story and helped children create clay animals, an experience that brought cultural learning to life in a respectful, memorable way.

3. Purposeful Curriculum Planning
 We moved away from “special topic weeks” and began weaving Indigenous perspectives into everyday learning.
Examples include:

  • Including Aboriginal seasonal knowledge in science units on life cycles.
  • Introducing traditional rhythms and dances in music with community guidance.
  • Using First Nations-authored picture books in literacy to reflect diverse voices.

This aligns with the idea of “pedagogies of possibility,” where the curriculum becomes a site of reflection and ethical practice.

Embracing Discomfort

This journey hasn’t been easy. At times, I’ve felt uncertain and fearful of making mistakes. But I’ve come to see discomfort as part of growth.

Challenges include:

  • Fear of getting it wrong: A common concern. But respectful engagement, consultation, and reflection help us move forward.
  • Lack of knowledge or confidence: Ongoing professional learning is essential. Workshops, Indigenous literature, and connecting with local organisations are great starting points.
  • Systemic barriers: Time and funding can limit engagement. Leadership support is key to embedding this work meaningfully.

Looking Ahead: What Must Change

For lasting impact, we must focus on:

1. Initial Teacher Education
 Universities should embed Indigenous content across disciplines, not isolate it to a single unit. 

2. Culturally Safe Workplaces
 We need environments where educators feel safe to explore identity and culture. This includes:

  • Anti-bias training
  • Cultural protocols
  • Leadership that models inclusive practice

3. Community-Led Professional Development
 PD must be guided by Aboriginal voices, Elders, cultural educators, and Aboriginal-owned consultancies. This shifts power and builds relevance. 

Final Reflections: A Lifelong Journey

Embedding Indigenous perspectives isn’t a checklist, it’s a lifelong commitment. It requires us to question dominant narratives and honour multiple ways of knowing.

As someone living on unceded lands, I feel responsible to uphold First Nations voices. As an educator, I have the privilege of shaping young minds and the responsibility to do so ethically and inclusively.

Let’s build classrooms not just inclusive of Indigenous perspectives, but built upon them where learning is land-connected, community-guided, and grounded in respect.

“When we embed Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing in our practice, we are not just teaching children we are reshaping the future.”

Arzoo Kanwal is enrolled in a research graduate certificate at the University of the Sunshine Coast. She is an experienced early childhood education leader and researcher who is passionate about embedding Indigenous perspectives, cultural inclusion, and teacher development.

Hands holding cards with different languages on them

How these teachers made languages stick

AARE blog, Languages learning, Teaching of languages, , , , , , ,

Innovative. Engaging. Authentic. These are not terms you usually hear from primary school teachers, students and parents about learning another language. In fact, usually language learning isn’t paid much attention. When it is, it is often within policy debates arguing that the curriculum is too cluttered and crowded. 

Yet, these terms characterise the feedback that classroom teachers have shared with researchers about a new approach to language learning and teaching called Teachers as Co-learners (TCL) in select Victorian Catholic primary schools.

In Victoria, all schools are required to provide a language program as Languages is one of the eight key learning areas of the F-10 Australian Curriculum. Nearly all (94.4%) of the language programs provided in Victorian government schools are taught as a separate subject. In primary schools, that often means one language class per week. 

Teachers as Co-learners

Now fifty primary schools in the Catholic education sector are rewriting the script by adopting the TCL approach. Developed by the Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools (MACS), TCL involves daily 15-minute language lessons, with all classroom teachers – supported by a language assistant who is fluent in the target language – as the facilitators of their school’s program. 

Languages currently offered in the TCL program include Italian, French, Indonesian and Auslan (Australian sign language used by the majority of the Australian Deaf community).This approach aims to address well-known challenges in language education provision. Australia often reports chronic language teacher shortages, fluctuating student uptake and retention and perceptions that rapidly advancing translation technology and AI will replace language teaching and learning altogether.

This approach is also reimagining what engaging and inclusive language and literacy education could look like in Australia’s multicultural and multilingual primary schools.

Our research

We conducted a pilot study last year into the experiences and perspectives of classroom teachers, language assistants, curriculum and school leaders with TCL. Focus group conversations were conducted with 30 participants across four Catholic primary schools in Melbourne and Geelong. Our research highlights that TCL contributes to innovation across a range of areas:   

  • Co-learning    
  • Sustained and meaningful language practice 
  • Connecting learning areas across the curriculum 
  • Levelling the playing field for all learners   

“We’re On It Together”: The Power of Co-learning  

Participants described co-learning of their school’s target language as: fun, learning together, engaging in group work, confidence building, admitting uncertainty, ‘mistakes are okay’. One participant, who was new to their school and therefore new to TCL, reflected on their experience with co-leading the learning of a language: 

Because I started this year, I said to the students: “I’m really nervous because I’ve never done this before”. So I came from a place of vulnerability and said: “I’m going to get lots of this wrong, can you please help me?”. And they have been nothing but supportive. As I learn along the way, I’ll ask questions and say something like: “I can remember that”, and I’ll tell them how I remember. So, we’re on it together. 

Making Language Stick: Sustained and Meaningful Practice  

Overall, participants agreed that TCL’s focus on teaching and learning functional language is effective in engaging students in language learning. Within TCL, students learn to make simple requests, ask for clarification and communicate a range of everyday topics in their target language. 

This emphasis on functional language is supported by a whole-school approach that provides daily opportunities for language use in and beyond the classroom: “It’s about building student confidence and teacher confidence so that Italian speaking, it’s not just in that 15 minutes – we hear it throughout the school at different times”.  

Most participants emphasised TCL’s potential in supporting students’ retention and fluency in an additional language: I’m actually really surprised at the amount of language they [the students] can understand, speak, and write, and spell.   

Linking Up Learning: Building Bridges Across the Curriculum 

Our research conversations showed that TCL provides opportunities for students to identify links between Italian study and other learning areas. Participants commented that students are making connections between English and Italian by identifying similarities and differences in grammar, phrasing, expression and idiom. Students are also recognising links between Italian and its historical and linguistic importance in Catholicism and Religious Education. 

Levelling The Playing Field: Language Learning for Every Student 

Several participants noted the collaborative and democratic basis of TCL pedagogy and curriculum. Learning a new language alongside peers and teachers empowered students who might be struggling in other areas by giving them a level playing field. 

There were a few students that loved the idea of starting from scratch with everyone. It didn’t matter whether you were strong at literacy or strong at maths – it sort of levelled the playing field again. Students that may struggle in particular areas were able to “come back to the pack”, and everyone started from one position. Students who might battle in some other subjects find Italian as being one of their areas of strength.  

Sustaining Effective TCL Implementation

While participants’ experiences with TCL were overall highly positive, they also highlighted several key considerations for the sustainability of the program. The main concern was the consistent scheduling and integration of TCL in the school day, as competing priorities in the classroom could affect the daily time-on-task for language learning: “There’s always stuff that we’re juggling – we’re doing some assessments and we need an hour timeslot, and sometimes it’s really challenging in our day to fit in what we need”.  

Participants cited whole-school collaboration as another key factor in sustaining TCL. Maintaining a collaborative culture over time can be challenging: “From the start, we did a lot together as a whole staff. Then that has died off a bit, and we’ve had a lot of change in staff. It’s how you catch everyone up, but we’ve kind of lost that ‘doing it together’ as a staff”. This highlights the need of ongoing staff engagement in TCL to keep the momentum going. 

Keeping it fresh

Program sustainability also requires continuous provision of ‘fresh’ program-specific curriculum and assessment resources: “If it [the curriculum loses a little bit of momentum because it becomes too recycled, then you can see it start to drift away”. Participants also emphasised the importance of adapting TCL resources to suit their school contexts and learners. 

Participants noted the importance of a well-coordinated transition between primary and secondary schools to sustain learner progress and engagement. Students who have learnt an additional language through TCL would leave Year 6 with basic communicative ability, compared to the majority of secondary Year 7 students who would be complete beginner learners of the language. Teachers and school leaders consistently emphasised the need for an extension of the TCL program into secondary schools, so students can continue building on the strong language foundation they developed in their primary years.

How it’s done

The potential of TCL for supporting confident language learners through consistent, functional and meaningful language use appears to be attracting national and international interest. Governments and educational systems overseas are looking to the MACS example to inform their primary language curriculum design and achieve national targets in increasing numbers of bilingual speakers (for example, Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill). This attests to Australia’s unique language diversity and continuing history of leading innovation in  multilingual language and literacy education.

For more information, visit the project page via Deakin University’s Centre for Research for Educational Impact (REDI). 

Thu Ha Bui is a graduate researcher in education at Deakin University. She researches educational technology and English as an Additional Language education. Jack K. Bennett is a graduate researcher in education at Deakin University and researches how education policy intersects with pedagogical practice and student experience. Michiko Weinmann is an associate professor in education at Deakin University (Languages/TESOL) and researches multilingual education, curriculum inquiry and internationalisation-at-home. Sarah Ohi is a senior lecturer in language and literacies at Deakin University. She researches the power and privilege of language and literacies. Andrew Skourdoumbis is an associate professor in education at Deakin University and researches teacher effectiveness research, critical policy analysis, and education reform/s.

The AARE election collection

AARE blog, election priorities,

EduResearch Matters presents all the articles it published in the lead-up to the 2025 Australian federal election 2025, held on on May 3.

Table of contents

AARE election priorities

Election 2025: AARE priorities now

Boosting the teacher workforce

Anna Hogan, QUT: “Workforce sustainability won’t be solved through recruitment alone; we need to focus on retention by making the job one that teachers can realistically and sustainably do.” 

Breakthrough: what we should do to build our teacher workforce

Nicole Mockler, The University of Sydney: “The more we assume that teachers need think tanks or economists or politicians or anyone else to ‘help them fend’, the more it feeds the teacher shortage. Teachers are human. If they don’t feel valued, and are constantly exposed to arguments about their work mounted by people with strong views but next to no actual knowledge of their work, it’s hard to keep showing up.“

Just because you went to school doesn’t make you an expert on teaching

Steven Hodge, Griffith University, and Emily Ross, University of Queensland: “Research shows teachers feel obliged to make modifications because they know their students and are ethically bound to adjust resources to suit them.” 

What teachers need now (or ‘don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!’)

Steven Hodge, Griffith University: “We want experts to be VET teachers. Here’s what happens next”Honouring the desire in teachers to advance their industries and pass on quality practices is something that could help everyone linked to the VET system – and that really is everyone!”

We want experts to be VET teachers. Here’s what happens next

Connection solutions

Martin Mills, QUT: “There are multiple crises facing education. These relate, amongst other things, to teacher shortages, to the fair distribution of the academic benefits of schooling, and to providing young people with an adequate preparation for living in a complex and fast changing world.”

Building joined up policy now, across and beyond the education sector

Donna Pendergast, Griffith University:  “The possibility to explore greater connectedness and a longitudinal framework of success for our students is needed now.” 

The urgent need for connectedness

Research-informed policy

Emma Rowe, Deakin University:  We have a great deal of expertise within universities without resorting to think-tanks or knowledge brokers, who do not make their finances or funding apparent.

How can we advance research-informed policy?

Penny Van Bergen, Macquarie University: “Evidence-based policymaking means turning away from populist views and towards genuine topic experts who have the expertise to advise how robust particular phenomena are, whether suggested applications are generalisable or specific to particular ages and disciplines, and how these insights knit together with other phenomena, explanations, and educational goals. Such policymaking is more challenging, but worth it. Our children deserve it.”  

Turning away from celebrity and towards genuine topic experts

Gwilym Croucher, University of Melbourne:  “If Australia seeks to send signals that we do not welcome students or our education quality is seen to be slipping, the future might not be so sunny. The major source countries of China and India are building their domestic systems. China has invested vast sums in educating its population.”

Here’s how to ensure a healthy future for universities

Equity and educational outcomes

Pat Thomson, University of South Australia: “So this is my challenge for those currently standing for election, an election where poverty seems to be off the agenda. We need a bold new vision for addressing the long tail of educational underachievement and child poverty. We need the courage and curiosity to inquire, to review, to face up to the equity challenge. One in six Australian children needs your commitment to do better.”

Equity: Now’s the time to tackle child poverty

 Kitty te Riele, Sherridan Emery and Emily Rudling, University of Tasmania: “It is not too late to learn from the pandemic – and to systematically and sustainably introduce approaches that proved to make our education, and our society, more equitable.”

Learning from a crisis – building back better

Robert Hattam, University of South Australia: “This inequality machine is now well ensconced  and teflon-coated and there are many snouts in the trough, making money from sustaining a failing policy regime. Is it possible that Australian schooling could become a machine for equality?”

Inequality: How Australian schools churn it out

Jill Blackmore, Deakin University: “Academic workforce is extremely discontented with the system and disenchanted with university management—they feel undervalued as core workers. The university sector has been corporatised, managerialised, marketized, commercialised and now digitalised. Gen AI is impacting on teaching and research.”

Has the social licence of universities been lost?

Widening participation, nurturing aspirations

Marnee Shay, University of Queensland: “Enabling aspirations and strong futures means building a rigorous, research-informed understanding of how the most educationally disadvantaged students can thrive in all schooling contexts.”

Aspiration: Why hope is not enough

Sally Patfield, University of Newcastle: “As we look towards the future of university admissions, we must move beyond the damaging depictions of early entry. These condemn young people for using these pathways. Instead, we must consider how these principles can foreground reform in this area, and how admissions processes can continue to evolve to better meet the needs of all Australians.”

Early entry offers: how doing things kindly can make change

Emma Burns, Macquarie University: “Sadly, one of the main factors that differentiates schools with cultures that foster adaptive emotional coping, social relationships, and achievement and those with less positive cultures is socio-economic and cultural status.”

Aspirations act as a road map for future action. Here’s what we must do now

Sarah O’Shea, Charles Sturt University:

What really happens straight after school: the messy educational journey

Will we ever have an education election?

Julie McLeod, University of Melbourne: “For a resoundingly re-elected government, heading into a new term with ambitious commitments to building fairer futures and lifting aspirations, this is the time for education to be elevated as a national priority, to be a defining feature of the coming years – not just bits and pieces of help to make different stages of the education journey more affordable but to deliver on bigger and more systematic reform.”

The big question: will we ever have an education election?
Prac payments

It’s Great The Prac Payment Will Go To Students. It Will Also End Up At The ATO

placements, , , ,

Last year I was critical of how I thought the Commonwealth Prac Payments were going to work. These were to provide Austudy level payments, currently equivalent to $331.65 a week, for nursing, midwifery, social work and teacher education students while undertaking compulsory work placements. The payment starts on 1 July 2025 for students on income support and some working students.

Rather late in the day, the legal paperwork for its higher education version was completed last week. The vocational education diploma of nursing version paperwork was already available. The higher education version is administered by universities and funded through the ‘other grants’ provisions of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The VET Prac Payment is administered by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, although thefunding is authorised under the Social Security Act 1991.

Things I was concerned about that have not happened

Some of my Prac Payment concerns from last year were not realised in the policy as enacted. The Prac Payment has a means test but it is based solely on the student’s income, not family income. However family income has an indirect effect through eligibility for income support. 

A policy goal is reduce the number of students who defer or withdraw from their course due to placement obligations, but students won’t need to prove that they are considering either of those things.

But in the Australian way of public policy, the Prac Payment is an underwhelming half-measure. The payment is low and will be further reduced by tax and by social security income tests. Many students won’t be eligible at all. 

Who is eligible for the Prac Payment?

Aside from undertaking one of the compulsory placements, to be eligible students need to be a) on an eligible Commonwealth income support benefit or b) working with hours and income parameters defined by the guidelines. If working, a two-part test applies:

  1. In either a) the 4 study weeks immediately prior to the mandatory placement starting or b) in the 4 study weeks immediately prior to applying for the Prac Payment (whichever is earlier) the student worked on average more than 15 hours a week (i.e. more than 60 hours over 4 weeks) AND
  2. Earned from all sources less than $1500 a week on average (i.e. less than $6000 over 4 weeks).

Students on income support

All the eligible Commonwealth benefits – the plain-language list of which benefits are covered is in the vocational payment guidelines – are means tested. The ever-vigilant Services Australia is already warning students that they must declare Prac Payment income, which can reduce their income support payment. The government gives with one hand and takes with the other.

For students on Austudy the income test is fortnightly. Students can earn up to $528 a fortnight without affecting their Austudy payment. As the Prac Payment will pay $663.30 fortnightly it means the student’s Austudy payment will be reduced.

For a single student with no children the Prac Payment would reduce their Austudy by $52.50 plus 60c cents per dollar over $633, so another $18.18 for a total of $70.68. The net value of the Prac Payment after the income test is $260.97.

Some students could use their income bank (credit for other fortnights in which they have earned less than $528) to reduce this impact. But if students earn other income from part-time work during their placement the income test would take more of their Prac Payment.

A better Prac Payment policy for students on income support might be to pay them exactly the income test amount – $528 a fortnight or $264 a week. The student would be $3 a week better off and the Department of Education would save $67.65 a week on each student.

For students on other income support payments the income test is less generous. For example, a student with one child on a Parenting Payment can earn $220.60 a fortnightbefore their payment starts decreasing by 40 cents in the dollar. Partial loss of the student’s parenting payment would make the Prac Payment worth $243.11 a week.

Policy purpose – income support

The policy purpose for income support recipients seems slightly different from students facing the work test. Income support recipients won’t lose any benefits income by doing their placement. But they are likely to incur additional expenses, such as travel to the placement location. This can include accommodation if the placement is too far from the student’s home. 

As described in the next section, for many working students the Prac Payment won’t cover their income loss, let alone additional placement costs. 

Students without income support – eligibility

The two-part test for working students without income support means that it only applies in a range of incomes. From 1 July 2025, when the new minimum wage of $24.95 an hour applies, 15.5 hours work (so more than 15 hours) = $386.72. So the Prac Payment is for students earning between $386.72 and $1499.99 a week. As the weekly Prac Payment is $331.65 students must lose at least $55 if they can’t work their normal hours at all. 

Using the ABS Education and Work TableBuilder product I can analyse the relevant fields of education, although this includes some courses that won’t get the Prac Payment. The working hours options offered by TableBuilder don’t exactly match the payment criteria, but based on Education and Work 2024 approximately 30% of students would be ineligible due to working too few hours, and another approximately 30% would be ineligible due to working too many hours (based on a minimum wage * hours calculation). Some no or short work hours students would, however, be eligible based on receiving an income support payment.

There is no taper in the Prac Payment. A person averaging $1499 a week gets the full $331.65 Prac Payment, a person averaging $1501 gets nothing; a person working 15.5 hours gets the full amount, a person working 14.5 hours gets nothing. We can expect gaming of the system to expand eligibility.

But with administration of the program outsourced to universities, discussed below, a tapered payment would have been unreasonably complex for organisations with no experience of running income support programs.

Policy purpose – income test

Other than to reduce the government’s costs, I’m not clear on the rationale for the $1500 a week cut-off for Prac Payment eligibility. If the student is their household’s main or a major income earner the financial consequences of taking time off for the placement are more serious than for students whose paid work finances discretionary expenses. The more than 15 hours minimum work makes more sense than the $1500 income maximum. 

Admittedly $331.65 is not much compensation if the placement requires forgoing the full $1500+ a week; making the placement work is still going to require savings and sacrifices. But arguably a higher income signals greater rather than lesser needs.

The ATO takes its share

As well as counting towards social security income tests the Prac Payment is taxable. Somone on Austudy for 52 weeks would receive $17,245, just below the first income tax threshold of $18,200. Each course has its own maximum number of weeks on placement. It is 20 hours for nursing, so a maximum Prac Payment of $5219 (at the $260.97 effective rate, the money will be taken out of their Austudy), and total income support of $22,465. Of this, $4265 is taxable at 16 cents in the dollar = $682. 

Someone at the upper limit of the income range would be in the 30 cents in the dollar tax bracket.

As the Prac Payment is taxable this reduces the effective cost of extending it to people earning over $1500 a week. 

Deductible placement expenses?

While the ATO gets a cut of the Prac Payment money, as students are earning money for the placement can they claim placement expenses as tax deductions? I think probably not due to the interaction of section 26-19 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and section 160AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, which refers to a ‘Commonwealth education or training payment’ (sub-section 1(b)). But sub-section 1 (b) cross-references a sub-section 6(1) for more detail, but that section does not seem to exist. 

In 2024 I thought that Centrelink rather than universities should administer the Prac Payment. Universities aren’t set up to run means tests. If all the casual underpayment issues are a guide, they aren’t very good at ad hoc payments either. 

During the Senate inquiry into the bill authorising higher education Prac Payment spending, however, students made a reasonably persuasive case that dealing with Centrelink was not easy, and that students not on income support currently have no interaction with the social security system. The universities would also still need to be involved, to authenticate that the placement was happening.

But arrangements for vocational education diploma of nursing students suggest a third option, that the relevant policy Department arrange the payments – the Department of Education for higher education students. If DEWR can do it so can the DofE, or better still they could share it. It would be more efficient than every university setting up its own means testing system, for which the Department has already paid them $2.3 million. 

The relevant students could be flagged in TCSI, and records of the payments sent to Services Australia and the ATO for maximum efficiency and cost recovery. 

Will it make a major difference?

The Prac Payment is a good idea, but with overly complex implementation that also reduces its value to students. Many students in Prac Payment courses will find that they are not eligible at all or, due to income tests and income tax, will get less than the already modest $331.65 a week. Some money is better than none at all, but these deficiencies raise questions about whether the Prac Payment will make a major difference to completion rates.

Andrew Norton is professor of higher education policy in the Monash Business School at Monash University, based at the Caulfield campus. Until December 2024 I was professor in the practice of higher education policy at POLIS: The Centre for Social Policy Research (formerly the Centre for Social Research and Methods) at the Australian National University.  He has worked in higher education policy since 1997, when I started as an adviser to the then minister, Dr David Kemp. You can read his blog here.

child paying attention to a dinosaur

When joyful autonomy matters so much more than curriculum outcomes

inclusion, Inclusive Education, , ,

There is a particular kind of attention some children bring to the things they love. It is not casual curiosity. And it isn’t interest-based learning. It runs deeper, providing a kind of cognitive home. A space where attention settles, and where the child feels most themselves. Some children spend long periods happily absorbed in these activities or topics, even when they do not show the same stamina for other activities.

These are the children we are working hard to engage in our increasingly inclusive classrooms.  But they may remain sensorially overloaded or emotionally sidelined due to their limited interest in certain activities, and low motivation for peer interaction.

I’m reflecting particularly on my observations of younger learners, though many of these patterns continue or shift as children move through schooling. What follows is not a complete guide, but an invitation to consider how we might view monotropic focus differently at different stages of development. 

What is monotropism?

Monotropism is a theory developed by autistic thinkers Dinah Murray, Mike Lesser and Wenn Lawson. It describes a style of attention that zooms in deeply, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else. For monotropic learners, a beloved topic or activity is not just a preference. It is a space where their cognitive and emotional energy flows most naturally.

In our training and professional development, many of us have been encouraged to build on these passions. We are taught to use them as bridges into broader engagement and connection with the child, and between the child and their larger world. And sometimes, that works well.

But for children with monotropic attention profiles, which are widely understood within autistic communities as a core feature of autistic cognition, this approach can easily go astray. For these learners, deep and sustained focus is not just joyful but also protective. Not every passion wants to be explicitly and publicly shared. Not every safe space should be mined for learning outcomes. Sometimes, the most respectful choice is to leave that space sacred between the child and their passion.

Why certain classroom approaches can be distressing

This understanding of monotropism helps explain why certain common classroom approaches can be experienced as distressing. Shifting away from that space is hard. Autistic people speak of the challenge of switching tasks. Theire distress is visible when we try to redirect neurodiverse learners away from their interests. Some educators recognise the need to respect these patterns of attention. But there is less emphasis placed on the pain associated with having a monotropic interest co-opted or restructured into a new context. This practice can be distressing for the learner and detrimental in the longer term.

This is why a child who can talk for hours about dinosaurs might clam up when asked to write a report on them. Why a child who adores Peppa Pig might resist a Peppa-themed classroom unit. Why trying to use the monotrope can strip it of personal meaning. Or, why it may set young learners up for disappointment or withdrawal later in their schooling.

In my experience, this tension can become even more pronounced as children grow older. A young child’s monotropic play may be seen as a charming quirk or an entry point for learning. As academic expectations increase, there can be growing pressure on the child to adapt their passions to fit curriculum demands. Or, perhaps, to leave them behind altogether. This raises questions about how we, as educators, can honour these ways of being across developmental stages, not just in the early years.

The harm of misuse

I have seen this often, in high school as well as early childhood. Well-meaning teachers, eager to connect, create whole projects around a child’s special interest. But the child withdraws. The joy dulls. The sacred space has been reshaped into something performative or demand-driven. More common still, the child is inflexible in their engagement. They may be delighted at being encouraged to engage with the topic. But they are unable to manipulate their interest into the desired outcome being asked of them.

Other times, educators and sometimes family members do the opposite, banning or restricting the monotrope entirely. They worry that it is taking over, or that it is not age appropriate. That too is likely to cause harm. The child learns that their deepest sources of comfort and identity are unwelcome or wrong.

In my experience as a high school teacher, this appears in students who are afraid to share their joy. They are wary of adults interacting with them, and often display defensiveness or protectiveness over their interests.

Well-meaning attempts to capitalise on an interest, somes as times labelled an obsession or fixation, can unintentionally strip away the joy and meaning from the subject, or turn it into a source of shame.

So what is the respectful path?

Here is what I have learned, and what many autistic adults have generously taught me.

Let the monotrope exist for its own sake. It does not have to be useful. It does not need to prove curricular value to deserve space in the classroom.

Engage by invitation, not by design. If a child wants to share their interest with you, wonderful. If they are deep in their own play, let them be. This is a period of processing and regulation which can allow for more meaningful engagement and learning at other times.

Avoid dilution. Do not turn a beloved topic into a chore. If they love trains, not everything needs to be train-themed learning. Sometimes, trains are just trains.

Notice the regulation. Monotropic focus often helps a child feel safe and centred. Taking it away can destabilise them, even if done with good intentions.

A wider invitation

Respecting the monotrope does not mean ignoring it or the child. It means recognising that for some learners, joyful autonomy matters more than curriculum outcomes in certain moments.

And it means knowing not every passion must be mined for teachable moments. It means understanding that deep focus is not a deficit. It is a difference.

And it means trusting that when we honour that difference, we build relationships of safety and respect. Relationships where learning can flourish naturally, in its own time.

I do not claim to have all the answers here. But I do wonder: if we allow monotropic play to remain sacred in the early years, might we better support children as they encounter the increasing structure and expectation of later schooling? Might we give them stronger foundations of trust, autonomy, and identity to draw upon as they grow? These are questions worth holding in mind as we continue to learn from the lived experiences of neurodivergent learners.

Attention! Passion is a strength

Many of us are used to celebrating adaptability in our students. Flexibility, shifting attention, joining the group. And those are valid strengths. But constancy is a strength too. Deep, unwavering focus is a strength. Passion is a strength.

Sometimes the best thing we can do is to leave the monotrope sacred.

To let it be what it is, not what we wish it could become.

Gem Clutton is a parent, and a lecturer in teacher education at the University of Canberra. With 14 years of experience across special education and mainstream classrooms, she has a particular interest in how we support complex and challenging behaviours. She is still learning, and often finds her best teachers are the children themselves.

What do you think: Will Labor fix higher education?

equity in higher education, higher education, , , , , , , , , ,

The recent federal election victory of the Albanese Labor government, which secured a larger majority in parliament, presents a unique opportunity to implement meaningful reforms in Australian higher education.

With this victory comes the responsibility to address longstanding issues in the tertiary education sector. It has long been treated as “a political punching bag”, says Associate Professor Milad Haghani of the University of Melbourne. Universities were particularly vulnerable during political debates about housing shortages, congestion, and migration associated with international students.

What was missing from these debates? The broader social, cultural, and long-term diplomatic contributions that international students make to Australian campuses and communities economically.

The current higher education landscape in Australia faces significant challenges regarding student completion rates. Social determinants play a vital role in determining who successfully completes university degrees. Recent research examining 2,528 Australian graduates who finished their degrees between 2018 and 2022 reveals various interconnected factors influence university completion, extending beyond assumptions that financial barriers are the primary obstacles to student success.

Higher Education Success Factor Framework: Evidence-Based Reform for Australian Universities

Our new research, published in Frontiers in Education, introduces the Higher Education Success Factor (HESF) framework. This is a validated tool that identifies and addresses the social determinants impacting Australian university students’ completion rates. We claim this study could provide timely and useful evidence to guide the implementation of the Federal Government’s Universities Accord reforms.

The HESF framework addresses a fundamental research question. “What are the main multidimensional factors influencing Australian students’ completion of a university degree?”

Confirming the data responses from over 2,200 Australian graduates, the research has validated both the 5-factor and 4-factor models measuring the social determinants of higher education success. These models examine five key areas: social environment (institutional support and inclusive policies), physical environment (facilities, housing, and safety), economic conditions (financial stability), health and wellbeing (mental and physical health), and individual characteristics (motivation and resilience).

The research reveals that health and well-being emerge as the most significant factors influencing completion rates, followed by individual characteristics and economic conditions. For Indigenous students specifically, economic challenges were identified as a critical barrier, but the research demonstrates that targeted support must address both financial and non-financial factors to be effective.

An opportunity now exists to fix the longstanding challenges in Australia’s Higher Education sector using evidence from the Higher Education Success Factor (HESF) framework as the Government implements the Universities Accord reforms, which aim to increase tertiary attainment to 80% of the workforce by 2050.

Key Findings from the HESF framework

  1. The research validated a streamlined 4-factor model that reduces redundancy while maintaining strong predictive power. The critical factors include:
    • Social environment (institutional support, inclusive policies)
    • Physical environment (facilities, housing, safety)
    • Health and economic wellbeing (financial stability, mental/physical health)
    • Individual characteristics (motivation, resilience)
  1. Based on surveys of 2,528 Australian graduates (2018-2022), the research identified health and wellbeing as the most significant factor influencing completion rates, followed by individual characteristics and economic conditions. 
  2. Among university graduates, Indigenous students’ economic challenges were identified as a critical barrier, underscoring the need for targeted support that addresses both financial and non-financial factors.

Alignment with the Universities Accord Implementation

The HESF framework directly supports the implementation of key elements in the Australian Universities Accord, which Minister Clare describes as “the biggest and broadest review of the higher education sector in 15 years.” These key elements are addressed below.

Supporting Needs-based Funding

The HESF research provides solid evidence for the Accord’s Needs-based Funding system, which will be implemented from January 2026. This funding model ensures “students from underrepresented backgrounds get the academic and wrap-around supports they need to succeed at university.” The Government has committed to demand-driven Needs-based Funding, meaning “funding for wrap-around supports will grow with each additional student, instead of having to stretch existing supports and services across more students.”

In its first year, the program will support approximately 140,000 students from low SES backgrounds and First Nations students, with regional contributions benefiting an estimated 150,000 students at regional campuses.

Informing the Australian Tertiary Education Commission’s (ATEC) Work

We believe that the research could also guide the work of the new ATEC which was established with $54 million in funding to “advise on and implement tertiary education reform, drive growth through equity and ensure our national skills needs are met.”

The HESF framework can inform ATEC’s approach to:

  • Determining allocations for the Managed Growth Funding system
  • Implementing Needs-based Funding as part of the core funding model
  • Negotiating enhanced mission-based compacts with providers

Enhanced Support for Students with Disabilities

Our research highlights the importance of non-financial factors such as social environment, physical environment, health, and economic well-being. The Government will quadruple the Higher Education Disability Support Fund, increasing funding by approximately $40 million annually. This boost will “help universities deliver more programs and services that empower students with disabilities to access, participate in, and succeed in higher education.”

Our recommendations for Implementation 

The HESF research suggests universities should:

  • Use the HESF model to audit existing support systems, identifying gaps in health services, mentorship, and infrastructure;
  • Integrate health and wellbeing support into strategic planning as a top priority, particularly for marginalised groups;
  • Create supportive environments that address academic, social, and emotional needs; and,
  • Targeted support for Indigenous students with both financial and cultural/social assistance.

Policy makers: The evidence from our large scale research conducted with 2,528 Australian graduates who graduated between 2018-2022 should not be overlooked. Instead policymakers could:

  • Ensure the ATEC incorporates the HESF framework in its Managed Growth Funding system oversight.
  • Balance financial initiatives (like the 20% HECS debt reduction) with structural support addressing non-financial barriers.
  • Measure success by enrolment numbers and completion rates across demographic groups.
  • Direct additional resources to regional campuses to address their unique challenges

Economic and Social Impact

The benefits are substantial for individuals—a median annual income increase of $30,000 for those with a bachelor’s degree compared to Year 12 completion.

Beyond individual benefits, the Department of Social Services estimates that “increasing educational attainment from year 12 to a higher education qualification lowers projected lifetime social security costs by an average of $12,000 (2021-22 dollars)” per person.

A pivotal contribution

The HESF framework could be used as a pivotal contribution to evidence-based higher education policy in Australia at a critical reform moment. As the Government implements the Universities Accord, this research provides the answers to student success as measured by completion rates.

The timing of this research aligns perfectly with Prime Minister Albanese’s commitment to higher education reform and the 20% student debt reduction. Together, these initiatives create a comprehensive approach to improving completion rates and addressing barriers that underrepresented students face.

By incorporating the HESF framework into policy implementation, Australia has the opportunity to transform equity goals into measurable actions and ensure its ambitious 80% tertiary attainment target becomes a reality. This will prepare more Australians for the jobs of the future while strengthening the nation’s position in the global knowledge economy.

Bios, from left to right

Thu Pham is a researcher at the Indigenous Research Unit, Griffith University. Her work focuses on Indigenous higher education and supporting Indigenous HDR student projects. Her research explores how university leadership can enhance Indigenous student success by improving student experiences and outcomes. She is on LinkedIn.

Angela Baeza Pena is a lecturer at Queensland University of Technology. She is Diaguita First Nation from Chile. Her PhD focuses on understanding the experiences of teachers and Indigenous community members in providing Indigenous education in rural and remote areas. Her research area includes Indigenous education, teacher professional development and higher education with Indigenous peoples. She is on LinkedIn.

Peter Anderson hails from the Walpiri and Murinpatha peoples of the Northern Territory and is the incoming Pro Vice Chancellor (Indigenous) at the University of New England. His research encompasses Australian Indigenous education, educational systems, curriculum, and pedagogical interventions, alongside the intersecting relationships with Indigenous peoples both globally and domestically. He is on LinkedIn.

Levon Blue is an associate professor at The University of Queensland in the Office of the Deputy-Vice-Chancellor Indigenous Engagement. Her PhD focused on financial literacy education practices in a First Nation community in Canada. She is a member of Beausoleil First Nation in Canada. Her research area includes financial literacy education and higher education with Indigenous peoples. She is on LinkedIn.

jigsaw of a community representing teacher retention

Retention: How to keep teachers

teacher retention, , , , , , , , , ,

It’s no secret that Australia is in the grip of a teacher workforce crisis. The federal government review has revealed a shortfall of over 4,000 teachers, while reports and media headlines continue to highlight “critical teacher shortages”, “fears students will suffer as burnout contributes to ‘unprecedented’ teacher shortage” and other alarming trends. Amid this national narrative of crisis, one question is rarely asked: What about the schools that are managing to retain their teachers? What can we learn from them? What succeeds in teacher retention?

Rewriting the Narrative

Much of the current research and policy debate has rightly focused on why teachers are leaving the profession. The Australian Education Union’s 2024 State of Our Schools survey highlights chronic underfunding, excessive workloads, administrative overload, declining wellbeing, occupational violence, and limited career progression as key factors driving teachers out of the classroom. 

But understanding what’s driving teachers away is only half the story. The other half, arguably the more actionable part, lies in what enables teachers to stay.

We thus need to balance the debate by asking not only ‘Why are some teachers leaving?’ but also ‘How are some schools managing to keep their teachers, despite all the odds?’

This shift in perspective opens the door to learning from the ‘success stories’.

Learning from the Schools Getting Teacher Retention Right

There is a plethora of research on why teachers leave. And yes – workload, burnout, inadequate support, limited career pathways and housing stress all play major roles. It’s vital that we continue to examine these factors. 

But when the national conversation remains stuck on what’s going wrong, we risk missing the bigger picture: learning from some schools that are getting it right.

Across Australia, in the very places hardest hit by staffing shortages, remote towns, outer suburbs, low socio-economic communities, some schools are quietly bucking the trend. They’re not just holding onto teachers; they’re building stable, collaborative staff cultures where teachers stay and thrive.

These schools are not unicorns. They are real and they exist in the same policy and funding environments as those struggling with attrition. What sets them apart are the ways they’ve created spaces and structures that help their teachers stay the course.

Yet, these stories rarely make the headlines.

Where Community Keeps Teachers

Some schools are keeping their teachers not through flashy incentives, but by building strong local connections. Our recent research found that in hard-to-staff schools, what makes the difference is context, knowing the community, responding to students’ real lives, and creating a culture of care.

In one rural Victorian school, one principal talked about success coming from “translating” teaching to fit students’ needs and building trust with families, many of whom had negative experiences with school themselves. 

Another principal in outer Melbourne talked about the power of “boots on the ground” leadership, being present, responsive, and deeply embedded in the school community.

These schools don’t rely on top-down rules. They focus on relationships, inclusion, and flexibility. And it’s working. They’re holding onto their new teachers because those teachers feel connected, supported, and valued in their school communities.

In our Queensland case studies, what stood out was the basics done well. When schools offered practical support such as affordable housing and child care, paired with strong, empathetic leadership and a culture that trusted teachers to use their professional judgement, something powerful happened. Teachers stayed. 

Teachers told us they had the autonomy to do what they came into the job to do: make a real difference in the lives of kids. It’s about creating the conditions where teaching feels possible, purposeful, and sustainable.

Ditch the Deficit Talk

For too long, discussions about hard-to-staff schools are being dominated by a deficit narrative. We hear that “no one wants to teach there”. Or that “students are too difficult”, or that “nothing can be done unless the entire system changes”. These narratives paint an unfair picture of the students and communities. And they also risk devaluing the incredible work being done by teachers and leaders who are making a difference in these schools and their communities.

Focusing only on what’s broken can be deeply demoralising for those working in the system. It can lead to policy solutions that treat schools as sites of failure, rather than places of potential.

A more productive approach is to ask: where is retention working, and why?

By highlighting success stories, schools that have achieved relative workforce stability even in high-turnover contexts, we can identify practical, replicable strategies. We can also challenge the myth that teacher attrition is inevitable in certain places.

Let’s Celebrate What’s Working

It’s time we give credit where it’s due. There are principals across Australia who have created supportive, empowering work environments despite resource constraints. And there are teachers who stay, not out of obligation, but because they feel connected, respected, and supported in their professional growth. There are communities that rally around their local schools to ensure teachers feel welcomed and valued.

These efforts deserve recognition, not just as heartwarming exceptions, but as serious sources of insight.

Learning from what’s working allows us to shift from damage control to positive change. It equips other schools, policymakers, and education departments with ideas grounded in real-world experience. Most importantly, it gives the teaching profession, and the students who depend on it, something increasingly rare: hope.

To be clear, naming and addressing the problems driving teachers out of the profession is still essential. But we can’t afford to dwell solely on the negative. A deficit-only narrative will not lead to change. What we need now is a dual approach, one that recognises what’s wrong, and builds on what’s strong.

Let’s start recognising the schools that are holding on to their staff. And let’s amplify the voices of teachers who choose to stay. Let’s look beyond the crisis headlines and ask: what can we learn from the schools that have found ways to build a stable teaching workforce?

Amid the crisis talk, there are quiet successes all around us. We just need to start listening.

Bios

Babak Dadvand is a senior lecturer in pedagogy, professional practice and teacher education at La Trobe University, Australia. His research focuses on issues of equity and social justice in education, with a particular emphasis on preparing and supporting teachers to work in underserved and hard-to-staff school settings. 

Steve Murphy is a senior lecturer at La Trobe University and is informed by his experience as a teacher and educational leader in rural primary and secondary schools. His research focuses on teaching and school leadership practices. He is particularly interested in practices contributing to students’ engagement and achievement in STEM education. 

Terri Bourke is dean/head of school and professor at Queensland University of Technology and researches professional standards, professionalism, accreditation processes and diversity in education.

Reece Mills is an associate professor of education. He commenced his career in education as a secondary school science teacher before being appointed at QUT. Reece’s research aims to create ecologically and socially sustainable futures through education.

Scott Eacott is professor of education at UNSW Sydney. His current research looks at the systemic implications of housing and transport affordability for the teaching workforce.

Juliana Ryan is a senior lecturer in Teacher Education and Ethics in the School of Education at La Trobe University. Her deliberately diverse career has been shaped by a belief in the importance of social equity in and through education. Juliana has taught in community, carceral, vocational and university settings.