AARE blog

Open book with two trees, one alive and one dead

Why we need to COP it, for today and tomorrow

climate change, climate literacy, , , , , , ,

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed that if he was re-elected, his party would formally bid for South Australia to host a future International Climate Change Conference in partnership with Pacific Nations.

The recent re-election of the Albanese Labor government in Australia, with a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, marks a pivotal moment for climate policy and education reform. As we at the SWISP Lab (Coleman & Healy) reflect on this outcome, we see a unique opportunity to advance climate education and push for transformative changes in our approach to teaching and learning in the Anthropocene.

The COP31 Opportunity

With Australia’s bid to host COP31 in Adelaide in November 2026, we stand at a critical juncture. This summit presents an unprecedented platform for Australia to:

  1. Demonstrate climate leadership on the global stage
  2. Respond to regional calls for greater climate ambition, particularly from our Pacific neighbours
  3. Accelerate domestic climate policy reforms

To fully realise the promise of COP31, Australia must look beyond policy and infrastructure. It must also invest in cultural and educational transformation. As the climate crisis deepens, the role of education becomes increasingly urgent. This is where SWISP Lab sees a vital opportunity: to align climate action with educational reform that equips the next generation; not just with knowledge, but with the imaginative, ethical, and practical capacities to navigate and shape adaptation and mitigation in a complicated global context.

Educational Reform: A SWISP Lab Perspective

At SWISP Lab, we believe that teacher education in the Anthropocene is central to environmental justice and climate education. Our research indicates that we must reimagine teacher education to prepare educators who can foster multiple futures where children, youth, and families can thrive amidst environmental challenges.

To advocate for justice, SWISP Lab’s philosophy of learner agency and world-centred design, not just in visual arts and design education, but in the core skills of praxis through visual literacy, climate literacy, critical and creative thinking, and digital innovation address environmental inequalities and empower educators to advocate for justice.

As we advocate for educational reform in the context of climate change and COP31, it’s crucial to align our efforts with Australia’s National Cultural Policy, REVIVE. This policy provides a framework that complements and enhances our vision for climate education in partnership with the Asia Pacific Universities Alliance (APUA) COP31 Briefing. As a result, SWISP lab calls on the Australian government, educational institutions, and the broader community to:

1. Invest in Comprehensive Climate Change Education: 

o   Develop and implement climate education programs at all levels of schooling, aligning with the APUA’s emphasis on “building capacity and capability.”

o   Support teacher education programs that emphasise creative climate communication, social justice, environmental justice and creative climate pedagogies.

o   Ensure climate change education reflects diverse Australian experiences and perspectives.

o   Integrate Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into climate education curricula.

2. Foster Multi-Sited Partnerships:

o   Create collaborative networks between educational institutions, climate scientists, artists, data specialists, community organisations, and industry partners.

o   Align with the APUA’s recommendation to “leverage the collective expertise of universities” in addressing climate challenges.

3. Integrate Indigenous Knowledge:

o   Incorporate First Nations’ perspectives, Land pedagogies and knowledge systems into climate education curriculum.

o   Support First Nations-led educational initiatives that combine traditional knowledge with contemporary climate science.

o   Support the APUA’s call to “recognise and respect Indigenous knowledge” in climate action strategies.

4. Promote Interdisciplinary Research and Education on climate change:

o   Develop interdisciplinary curricula that integrate speculative thinking and critical inquiry about the Anthropocene across disciplines.

o   Align with the APUA’s emphasis on “interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches” to climate challenges.

5.   Prioritise Arts and Design in Creative Climate Education:

o   Retain and expand art and design teacher education programs to nurture creativity and interdisciplinary thinking.

o   Develop climate education programs that incorporate artistic and cultural elements, aligning with REVIVE’s emphasis on creativity.

o   Create partnerships between educational institutions and cultural organisations to enhance climate literacy through arts and culture.

o   Encourage the development of climate-themed artistic works and cultural events as educational tools.

o   Develop pedagogical responses to shifts in local Land-technology-human relations.

o   Support the development of innovative communication strategies for climate action, as highlighted in the APUA briefing.

6.  Enhance Regional Collaboration on climate change:

o   Develop educational exchange programs and collaborative research initiatives with Asia-Pacific partners.

o   Invest in digital infrastructure across regional and Asia-Pacific schools that allows for innovative, engaging climate education experiences and connection.

o   Support the APUA’s call for “regional cooperation and knowledge sharing” in addressing climate challenges.

o   Create pathways for students and educators to engage directly with policymakers and contribute to climate policy development.

o   Equip pre-service teachers with the tools to recognise injustice and advocate for social, cultural, racial, economic and environmental equity.

o   Align with the APUA’s recommendation to “bridge the gap between research, policy, and action.”

8.   Foster Climate Data Literacy and Engagement using Revive – A New National Cultural Policy 2024 Pillars:

o   First Nations First: Centre First Nations data sovereignty and ecological knowledges to ensure climate data literacy is grounded in deep time, Country, and custodianship.

o   A Place for Every Story: Foster inclusive climate narratives by equipping all Australians to critically engage with, interpret, and share data-driven stories of environmental change.

o   Centrality of the Educator and Artist: Empower educators and artists as key translators of climate data, making complex information accessible, affective, and action-oriented through creative practice.

o   Robust Data Infrastructure for Culture: Invest in the tools, platforms, and protocols that enable open, ethical, and creative engagement with climate and environmental data across education and the arts.

o   Engaging Audiences through Data Storytelling: Support compelling and participatory forms of climate data storytelling that resonate locally and globally, building public understanding and motivating collective action.

9.   Invest in Climate-Resilient Infrastructure:

o   Support the development of climate-resilient educational facilities and campuses.

o   Utilise cultural institutions as hubs for climate education and action.

o   Contribute to the APUA’s goal of “developing climate-resilient infrastructure” through educational initiatives and research.

10.  Promote Climate Finance Literacy:

o   Integrate climate finance education into relevant critical and creative curriculum to support the APUA’s emphasis on “mobilising climate finance.”

o   Develop programs that prepare students to engage with and innovate in the green economy.

11.   Advocate for a ‘Whole-of-Society’ Approach on climate change:

o   Encourage educational institutions to lead by example in climate change practices.

o   Implement creative research methodologies that develop teachers and student’s climate languages and literacies to be agents of change.

o   Support interdisciplinary collaborations between artists, scientists, and educators.

o   Support the APUA’s call for a “whole-of-society approach” to climate action through educational outreach and community engagement.

The rejection of the Coalition’s nuclear-over-renewables policy signals a public mandate for progressive climate action. This political landscape provides fertile ground for educational reform that aligns with the urgency of our climate crisis.

Call to Action

As we approach COP31, we call on the Australian government and educational institutions to:

  1. Invest in comprehensive climate education programs for all levels of schooling that incorporate artistic and cultural elements, aligning with REVIVE’s emphasis on creativity.
  2. Support teacher education programs that emphasize environmental justice and creative climate pedagogies.
  3. Foster partnerships between educational institutions, climate scientists, and community organizations.
  4. Develop curricula that integrate speculative thinking and critical inquiry about the Anthropocene.
  5. Prioritise the retention and expansion of art and design teacher education programs to nurture creativity and interdisciplinary thinking.

The Anthropocene can and should be integrated and embedded into all subjects in teacher education and in turn school-based learning, emphasising the importance of an interdisciplinary approach. The Anthropocene encourages creative and critical thinking about being in the world, politics, society, culture, colonisation, language, economy, human-land-technology relations, justice, ecosystems, life on Earth, ethics, and sustainability.

Seize the moment

The Labor government’s re-election and the potential hosting of COP31 provide a unique moment to redefine Australia’s role in climate action and education. At SWISP Lab, we stand ready to contribute our research and methodologies to this vital cause. Embracing transformative educational practices can prepare the next generation to navigate and shape our climate future with creativity, critical thinking, and a commitment to justice.

By aligning our educational reform efforts with REVIVE, we can create a more holistic, culturally rich approach to climate education. This integration of culture, arts, and climate action will not only enhance our educational outcomes but also contribute to a more resilient, creative, and sustainable Australia as we approach COP31 and beyond.

This blog post is a call to action from SWISP Lab in the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne advocating for educational reform considering Australia’s recent election results and the potential hosting of COP31. We invite educators, policymakers, and climate activists to join us in this crucial conversation about the future of education in the Anthropocene.

Kate Coleman (right) is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne and co-lead of SWISP Lab with Sarah Healy. Kate is the current President of Art Education Australia and a CI on Learning with the Land SSHRC project. Sarah Healy (left) is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne and co-lead of SWISP Lab with Kate Coleman. Sarah serves as a World Councillor for the International Society for Education through Art (2023–2025).

Aboriginal perspectives

How we could stop the blame game now

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, Aboriginal Cultures and Histories, , , , , ,

Much has been written about the failure of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cross Curriculum Priority (CCP) to translate into meaningful inclusion of Aboriginal knowledges in Australian classrooms.

This has come with a fair dose of both criticism and blame of teachers for their perceived inability to integrate the CCPs in their teaching of disciplinary subjects. But what if this wasn’t about the failure of teachers, but instead about a curriculum that is structured in ways that make the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges an impossible task from the outset? That’s the question we explore in this new paper just released online with the Australian Educational Researcher. 

Aboriginal knowledge in Australia’s national curriculum 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems are highly complex, deeply relational and transcend Western, colonial understandings and definitions of knowledge to include relationality via both the human and non human world. Australia’s first national school curriculum was introduced alongside a promise to recognise the richness of these knowledges through the mandated teaching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. Developed at a time of momentum and hope for the national Reconciliation movement, the Australian Curriculum was designed to be “three-dimensional”, consisting of eight learning areas as well as three cross-curriculum priorities and seven general capabilities.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content was written into the curriculum as one of the Cross-Curriculum Priorities, alongside Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia and Sustainability. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CCP articulates three different aspects: Country/Place, Culture and People. Each of these aspects includes sets of organising ideas embedded within subject areas intended to support teachers’ engagement with the CCP. In practice, this means that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges are to be taught within school subjects like Maths, English, Science and History. 

Solutions are more than resources

Critiques of the success of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CCP have typically taken aim at teachers – painting them as reluctant, unwilling or even unable to engage with Aboriginal knowledges in their classrooms. In the most recent review of the Australian Curriculum, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CCP was singled out by ACARA as having significant concerns regarding “implementation support and clarity.”

Solutions have focussed on providing teachers with ready-made teaching materials and student resources. These resources are necessary in helping build teachers’ confidence in engaging with Aboriginal knowledges and providing students with opportunities to explore diverse perspectives and ways of knowing. However, as helpful as additional resources are, we are concerned that the continued focus by ACARA on the ‘implementation’ of CCPs neglects the more significant, structural barriers that exist in the very design of the Australian Curriculum. Our analysis revealed that teachers have been set up to fail in their implementation of the CCP by the very structure of the curriculum itself. 

Teachers navigating conflicting curriculum 

Although the Australian Curriculum claims to be ‘three dimensional’, in reality it is built around a core structure of school subjects which very clearly prioritise Western disciplines, which are described by ACARA as “essential” knowledge for students. The curriculum in relation to subject areas is highly organised and teachers are provided with a high level of precision and clarity in the organising of learning area content into year-level descriptions, achievement standards, content descriptions, and content elaborations. 

By contrast, there is not a lot of clarity offered for teachers around the CCPs. Over a period of 10 years they have variously been described as ‘perspectives’; a ‘continuum of ideas’ and more recently as a ‘set of organising ideas’, with ACARA at pains to point out that they cannot exist as distinct learning areas in their own right. Rather than being a clear and necessary component of this ‘three dimensional’ curriculum, they sit as vague ideas beside the very clearly expressed subject areas. As an example, a teacher wanting to explore the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CCP in relation to Country/Place, Culture, and People will need to look for ‘aspects’ for exploration in ‘relevant’ moments in their classroom while they are teaching content in one of the recognised subject areas. 

An impossible task

This framing of Aboriginal Knowledges as something only to be encountered through ‘relevant’ content in subject areas is problematic for a few reasons, most notably because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges represent a highly complex way of understanding the world, and one that pre-dates subject disciplines by some 65,000 years (give or take).

Our analysis highlights that ACARA’s efforts to combine a very structured approach to curriculum (in relation to subject areas) with a very vague approach (in relation to the CCPs) creates an impossible task for teachers seeking to meaningfully teach Aboriginal knowledges in their own right. We suggest this is a deliberate, rather than accidental design choice, reinforcing a colonial perspective which diminishes the significance of Aboriginal ways of knowing, and one that ultimately creates barriers to students developing a rich appreciation for the oldest continuing culture in the world. 

What should be done differently?

The blame game on teachers as the ‘problem’ in the implementation of the Aboriginal CCP needs to stop. Our research shows that no matter how much teachers want to do this work well (and we know that they do), the curriculum thwarts them at every turn. Instead of quick fix professional learning opportunities and classroom resources, we need to reconsider the very assumptions embedded in the design of the national curriculum – assumptions about whose knowledge is considered ‘foundational’ and thus prioritised.

The overwhelming failure of the 2023 referendum shows we still have a long way to go in fostering a deep and enduring understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge history and culture in Australia. It also says a lot about the failure of the national curriculum to live up to its promises in supporting reconciliation. We think it’s time to reimagine new curriculum structures which place Aboriginal knowledges front and centre, not as ‘other’ or ‘optional’. 

Kevin Lowe is a Gubbi Gubbi man from southeast Queensland. He is a Scientia Indigenous Fellow at UNSW, working on a community and school focused research project on developing a model of sustainable improvement in Aboriginal education. Claire Golledge is a lecturer in education and the co-ordinator of HSIE Curriculum (Secondary) in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work. Prior to taking up her position at the University, Claire worked as a secondary teacher of humanities, and in school executive leadership roles, leading teacher professional learning. Phil Poulton is a teacher educator and curriculum researcher in the School of Education, RMIT Melbourne. He completed his PhD at the University of Sydney exploring early career teachers’ curriculum-making experiences in schools. Katherine Thompson has taught in a variety of secondary and tertiary settings in the United States, Australia, and Tanzania. She is currently a PhD candidate in the Centre for Social Research in Health at UNSW Sydney.

education election

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

election priorities, ,

Beaming with relief and self-declared optimism, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in his election night victory speech talked up his government’s commitment to building a future for all Australians.  Invoking signature Labor agendas, he lifted the crowd with the language of “fairness, aspirations and opportunity for all”, of striving “for futures that bring us together” with “new hope” and with “no-one left behind”.

In case the message slipped us by, the Prime Minister reminded again that “fairness, equality and respect for one another” were foundational. 

Picking up the cues, commentators were quick to describe Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s campaign as backward looking, pessimistic, worried and grievance-driven. The Labor Party and Albanese were positioned as forward looking, builders, practical, offering hope and a sense of optimism for the future.

It is possible I missed some of these more elevated dimensions of the Labor campaign but in any case, Labor’s victory is being put into history and characterised by such promises and the next term of government set up to deliver on them.

All about the future

It shouldn’t need to be said, but it clearly does. Education is fundamental to realising these promises about the future. Education is all about the future, about better worlds and times and opportunities to come, as so many of us can bang on about.

Yet where was education during the campaign? How can we ensure it is in prime position for the incoming government?

Once a trademark Labor platform item, proud and prominent in the Labor policy handbook (and not just for Whitlam), education was largely absent as a priority during the campaign, across the board. It was there in the ALP platform for 2025 but the brief education section ranged from childcare to tertiary education with an emphasis on small economic adjustments rather than big visions.

Instead of offering a coherent and compelling agenda for urgently needed reform and a vision for change – in all sectors – the electorate was offered piecemeal policy, bits and pieces of things scattered here and there. We didn’t even get the usual clever country, knowledge economy slogans of past elections.

Schooling barely registered

On the upside, Labor pushed free TAFE, a one-off 20% reduction in HECs debt and, from time-to time, mentioned early childhood education and care. Schooling barely registering in the campaign messaging, despite the ALP platform promising better and fairer funding for our public schools. This is even more alarming given that Jason Clare, Minister for Education, was also Labor’s election spokesperson. When higher education was noted, it was more likely to be indirectly via the nexus of international students, immigration and housing – a budget problem, not a national strength.

As Stephen Matchett writing in Future Campus observed, “Never has the low ebb of social licence [for higher education] and lack of electoral pull been more evident.” In the final week, the Opposition somewhat predictably tried to reignite the curriculum culture wars, a feeble effort to resuscitate the old ambition for MPs to direct curriculum content towards a more nationalistic and ideologically preferred focus, displaying not only a naïve grasp of how curriculum policy making actually works in this country but also showing how out of touch they were with the mood. How last-decade, if not last century, these protestations sounded.

What’s on the horizon

So, what’s on the horizon for education in the next three years and more? In the lead up to the Federal election the Australian Association for Research in Education issued a statement outlining five election priorities for education: 1) Boosting the education workforce: 2) Research informed policy; 3) Connected solutions; 4) Equity and educational outcomes; 5) Widening participation and nurturing aspirations. For each day last week, expert education researchers provided evidence-rich commentary on these issues, diagnosing the challenges for sure, but also offering ways forward, outlining powerful directions for reform and spelling out concrete and practical suggestions for change, building on what the research already shows.

These blog posts also highlight some of the major sticking points, the issues on which governments continue to stumble or default, despite all that is known from the research. For example, given all the talk about hope and aspirations in the immediate aftermath of the election, Marnee Shay’s blogpost provided a salutary view onto the differential and uneven opportunities available for hopefulness. Reflecting that “hope alone isn’t enough”, she argues for a more research-informed “policy focus on these cohorts who face layers of external challenges and who need robust schooling provision to create [accessible] pathways”.

What have we learned over 50 years?

In the case of equity and child poverty, Pat Thomson reminds us of findings from more than 50 years of research on poverty and its relation to education inequality. How many times does this need to be rediscovered? Looking to a hypothetical national review of child poverty and education, Thomson outlines seven key propositions that could guide such work, each based on a substantial volume of evidence gathered over many decades. These seven propositions themselves provide an initial road map for future policy reform and for a program of work that could genuinely tackle disadvantage not simply rehearse what we know about documented patterns.

This is the type of synthesis of research needed to take the rhetoric of building aspirations beyond feel-good talk to deliver actual change. And the type of research being drawn upon matters. As Penny Van Bergen argued in her blogpost on the valuing of different types of expert voices, “Effective policymaking must consider how research-informed insights from different disciplines informing education knit together” . The careful evaluation and bringing together of different types of research evidence is a crucial part of the policy informing process, yet one that can be all too easily missed in the rush to be heard.

This is the time to elevate education as a national priority

There is no lack of self-proclaimed experts on education and schools, as Nicole Mockler observed in her blogpost on the teaching workforce. Simply holding a strong opinion or having been to school does not really meet the threshold. Nor does selectively reading the research, cherry picking the data, ignoring contrary findings or foreclosing on whole fields of education research. Education advocacy is a crowded and noisy field, with thinktanks, consultants, lobbyists, national research organisations such as AERO, all part of the mix vying for influence in the political realm and in public discourse. But the quality and rigour of the research that is heard and listened to matters.

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.

High quality education research, examples of which the blogposts have showcased, must drive these agendas, it must be listened to and acted upon if the ambitions for change are to be met.  It is equally critical for education researchers not to wait around to be listened to, but to seize the space and time this moment offers.

Julie McLeod is professor of curriculum, equity and social change in the Faculty of Education and from 2017 to 2023 was Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research Capability) at the University of Melbourne. Her research is in the history and sociology of education, with a focus on youth, gender, inequality and educational reform, and particular interests in histories of educational ideas and qualitative methodologies . She is the immediate past president of AARE.

What really happens straight after school: the messy educational journey

election priorities, widening participation and nurturing aspirations, , , ,

This is the final post in our series of posts on AARE’s education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about widening participation and nurturing aspirations.

When we think about pathways between spaces or places, our imagination often conjures up straight or linear routes that effectively moves someone from ‘point A’ to ‘point B’. Imaginings about educational pathways are no different. There remains an unspoken expectation that the ‘ideal’ student will move from school to university seamlessly, study full-time. The ‘ideal’ student prioritises studies over all other activities and move efficiently through the system and into employability. But this idyll of the ‘turbo’ student is simply that: an idyll. The pathways into and through university can be highly disjointed. The material realities of life often significantly impact on educational decision making.

For those of us who work in the higher education sector, we have probably witnessed the very complex or circuitous paths taken through university. The convoluted nature of university pathways is statistically evidenced by the diversity in rates of completion. The most recent data reports that after 4 years of study (the average full-time duration of a degree) only 40.9% of all university students had successfully graduated with 37.39% still enrolled.

After school: dipping in and out

After 6 years, completion rates had increased to 61.77% with a significant percentage (12.88%) still enrolled, at nine years of enrollment nearly 70% had completed with 4.5% still enrolled (Australian Department of Education, 2023). We also know that learners frequently dip in and out of study. In 2023, 20% of domestic students deferred or departed university – that is 1 in 5 students choose to either leave or ‘pause’ their studies.

Despite these statistics, our understanding of learner pathways remains very limited. In Australia, we still do not have a way to comprehensively map the entry and exit points that our learners take. Once they leave university, there is currently no reliable and universally available pathway data to evidence future educational participation. This is a significant problem. In my own research with first-in-family university students, I have been repeatedly struck by the ‘messiness’ of these educational journeys.

An impossible destination

A project funded by the Australian Research Council highlighted how first in family learners (n= 375) reflected upon their own educational  biographies, describing  pathways that were both circuitous and meandering in nature. Many of these learners had left school early or had experienced absences from formal learning environments due to ill-health, poverty, or family caring responsibilities. Like the participants in the recent Aspirations Longitudinal Study, attending university was often ‘barely imaginable’ for many (Gore et al., 2023, p. 9). Some learners in my research indicated how university was regarded as an impossible destination for people ‘like’ them, as Mahalia explained:

‘University was probably something that I always wanted to do. When you haven’t got people that have been there before, it’s that whole stigma of “What do you want to do that for”, because it’s out of the norm so there’s not much encouragement…’

Mahalia (First-in Family, 43, Final Year B. Social Work)

The desire to attend university was similarly often crushed before even having the chance to mature, as Bailie highlighted:

‘‘When you are relatively consistently told that with your demographic, your background, you’re specifically more likely to fail it sort of sets up that whole culture of low expectations.’ (Bailie, First-in Family, 26, B. Arts/Law)

Several attempts

Confidence was a big issue for these learners and frequently it took several attempts at university study before individuals felt capable of persisting. Without a family tradition of attending university, learners described difficulty in gaining an understanding of the ‘inner’ workings of the system.

For example, Bradley, in the third year of an Arts Degree, reflected how his university attendance was ‘difficult because I don’t have that ultimate level of understanding at home or within a family circle’ (Bradley, First in Family, 20, B. Arts).  This gap in understanding could result in a much lower sense of belonging, or ‘less stickiness’ to the university setting, and as a result thoughts of leaving can consistently pervade university careers.

This is not a new problem. Over twenty years ago, Robinson (2004) pointed out the need for a longitudinal focus on the ‘educational “process” of student progression’ highlighting the lack of understanding about the ‘pathways’ that students ‘take through their courses’ (p.2). This continues to be the case. In Australia, and other countries, there is an ongoing focus on single points of progression, rather than examining the continuity of this enrolment throughout the student life-course.

A radical overhaul

To address this issue, we need a radical overhaul of understandings about university progression. Firstly, degrees should not be marketed and messaged to students in terms of a time-bounded commitment, a four-year degree remains a timeframe that is both normalised and assumed for commencing students. However, data has repeatedly indicated that concluding a degree within this timeframe is simply not achievable for many cohorts.

Instead, we need degrees designed with fluidity in mind, including the provision of nested qualifications that enable learners to depart in an ‘orderly and low cost’ manner. Having multiple departure points also provides the opportunity to slowly build confidence, the decision to leave early not understood as a deficit or problem but rather an accepted solution to personal circumstances or contexts.

Place-based pathways

Equally, the sector needs to foreground place-based pathways to allow seamless and circular movements between local educational providers. This includes shifting away from a narrow vision of pathways that assumes a one-way direction between VET and HE, instead encouraging and supporting multiple entry and exit points.

This pattern of attendance is simply more reflective of the actual lived realities of our learners. Finally, to achieve this a national (or international) system of recognition of prior learning (RPL) is needed. The current system remains state based and is somewhat ad-hoc, adding to the complexity of managing this pathway for learners and their families.

As universities shift inexorably into the ‘post-Accord’ environment, the need to embrace the circularity and ‘zig-zag’ nature of educational pathways becomes paramount, particularly if we are to retain and support learners from more diverse backgrounds.

Sarah O’Shea is a distinguished professor, acting pro-vice chancellor, research and governance and dean, graduate research at Charles Sturt University, a Churchill Fellow, principal fellow of the Higher Education Academy and has just completed an ARC Discovery Project exploring the persistence behaviours of first in family students. She is also a member of the ARC College of Experts

Aspiration: Why hope is not enough

election priorities, widening participation and nurturing aspirations, , , ,

This is the fifth and final day in our series of posts on AARE’s education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about widening participation and nurturing aspirations.

We may all have things in common, but we are not all the same. We may technically all be able to aspire to become doctors, teachers, or lawyers. But we all know that many in our communities won’t have the resources or capital to achieve those aspirations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the analogy of us all being “in the same boat” was used frequently to suggest that we all are experiencing the same issues. But the reality is that some people were on five-star yachts. Others were on rubber dinghies with patches over punctures to keep them afloat. Some were in the process of sinking. The same analogy can be used when we think about educational access and outcomes.

Hope, motivation, and drive have played some roles for people who have risen above their circumstances to achieve great things. But hope alone isn’t enough. It isn’t enough to achieve the widespread systemic equity measures needed to ensure all young people can achieve their goals, whatever they may be. The most disadvantaged young people in Australia have as much talent and promise as any other young person. We must implement evidence-based approaches to ensure this cohort has the same rigorous educational experiences as any other young person in this country. 

Talent in abundance

Talent is in abundance across all identities and communities in our societies. But there are some cohorts who we statistically know are more likely to be disengaged or educationally disadvantaged, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students with disability, students under child protection orders, LGBTIQ students and students from low socio-economic backgrounds. This list isn’t exhaustive. But we know young people from these demographics are increasingly being excluded (formally and informally) from accessing mainstream schooling options. 

Over the past decades, there has been an increase in alternative or flexible schooling options for young people for whom mainstream schooling is no longer an option. These schools play a critical role in keeping young people engaged in education. But as the sector has shown no signs of slowing in its growth, we need to invest in understanding the short-term and long-term outcomes for young people who attend them. This is critically important because of the cohorts who attend them and the challenges some of these young people will face in the longer term, particularly if they have not received a high-quality education. 

Many young people have strong relationships with staff

In 2022, we delivered Australia’s largest survey of young people who attend flexi schools. 483 young people from 19 flexi schools nationally shared their perspectives on a range of topics including their experiences of learning, what they would like to learn about and their career goals. The survey revealed many young people have strong relationships with staff. They feel supported and that learning was ‘right for them’. However, just over half of the young people did not feel challenged in their learning. We also found that young people in flexi schools have diverse and high aspirations. The risk we outline in the findings is that flexi schools may have low expectations of young people’s willingness to engage critically with academic content. 

We talk about building aspirations and strong futures in providing accessible schooling pathways. But there needs to be closer policy focus on these cohorts who face layers of external challenges and who need robust schooling provision to create these pathways. There are gaps in policy and research in understanding the role flexi schools are playing in the education ecosystem. Because the cohort who attend flexis are more likely to be in groups who experience educational disadvantage as outlined above, this glaring gap needs urgent attention. 

Imagination Declaration

There is capability and excellence within all young people. If we look at the Imagination Declaration 2019, young people eloquently articulated:

 “The future of this country lies in all of our hands… we do not want to inherit a world that is in pain. We do not want to stare down huge inequality feeling powerless to our fate… it is time to think differently”. 

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.

​​

Marnee Shay is associate professor and deputy head of school in the School of Education at the University of Queensland. She is nationally recognised for her research and expertise in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education, codesign, strengths-based approaches, educational policy and youth studies. Her maternal family are from the Ngen’giwumirri language group, Daly River region (Northern Territory). Her research has substantially impacted policy and practice in her field. She serves on multiple Government and School boards, including the Indigenous Forum at the Australian Research Council (ARC). She is a qualified and experienced Queensland registered teacher.

Early entry offers: how doing things kindly can make change

election priorities, widening participation and nurturing aspirations, , , ,

This is the fifth and final day in our series of posts on AARE’s education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about widening participation and nurturing aspirations.

We have a long way to go to make higher education more equitable. Postcode, income, family background, and Indigenous status are still major determinants of who gains entry to university in Australia.

Thankfully, the incumbent federal government recently reaffirmed its commitment to equity as part of the Universities Accord. It states 80 per cent of Australians will need post-school qualifications to meet the workforce needs of 2050. It has also has proposed new participation targets for First Nations students, students from low SES backgrounds, those from regional and remote areas, and students with a disability by 2035.

Such goals have become increasingly important in recent months against a broader international backdrop of “anti-DEI” sentiment fuelled by the Trump administration. Equity is becoming heavily politicised and decades of progress already being erased in the United States.

Ensuring young people from underrepresented backgrounds have the opportunity to access university is important now more than ever.

Achieving these goals requires genuine structural reform. My research shows that early entry schemes offer some timely insights into what is needed.

Admission: A key piece in the puzzle

In Australia, the single most common pathway for a young person to gain entry to university is via an ATAR. That’s the scaled rank students receive at the end of secondary school based on their final exams and assessments.

However, young people experiencing disadvantage are either less likely to receive an ATAR at the end of high school or more likely to receive a lower ranking compared to their more advantaged peers.

Numerous studies have demonstrated this biased nature of the ATAR. It has even been suggested that the use of the ATAR as the major selection tool for university entry has directly led to the “replication…of the [university] student profile” over time.

To counter this lack of diversity, an increasing number of ‘alternative’ pathways to enter university have been developed. These pathways include, for example, enabling and bridging programs, portfolio entry, and articulation through a VET provider.

Such initiatives are designed to meet the needs, experiences and identities of a more diverse range of students. It also challenges conventional beliefs that ability, merit and talent are only expressed through certain forms of academic achievement.

University early entry: A contentious practice?

Many of these ‘alternative’ entry pathways support non-school leaver entry to university. Early entry schemes target Year 12 students by offering potential candidates a place at university using criteria other than (or in addition to) their ATAR.

By targeting this cohort, early entry schemes are seen as a “contentious practice,” sparking a moral panic. That’s based on the belief they cause students to lose motivation at school. This is because – as the name implies – students receive their offer well before main round university offers and sometimes even before their final exams.

Equity features in these schemes through shifting the dominant measure of achievement and ability beyond the ATAR. Instead, an offer might be based on a combination of Year 11 coursework, a recommendation from a principal, extracurricular achievements, a personal statement, or contribution to the community. Some schemes also target specific equity groups.

However, concerns have been expressed that early entry might actually work against equity goals. Why? More privileged students are also more likely to be able to accrue valuable extracurricular experiences and leverage their social networks. Early entry has also been called an aggressive “arms race” among universities. That’s based on the belief that universities use the schemes to simply meet their recruitment targets.

To counter some of these issues, new guidelines were put in place by the federal government in 2024 to restrict the timing of early offers. A new national framework  is currently being developed.

A chance to do admissions differently

Instead of seeing early entry as a ‘contentious practice’ because it is disrupting tradition, we should think differently. What if such schemes actually offered a genuine chance to do university admissions differently, ensuring university is accessible to all?

As part of a research study I led in 2023, I conducted interviews with school-leavers from underrepresented backgrounds who had gained admission to university via early entry. These students described complex home lives, forced displacement, struggles with physical and/or mental ill-health. They experienced intersecting forms of material and social disadvantage. Underlying their stories were four key principles inherent in early entry that played a significant role in widening access to those most in need. These included:

·   Recognition of broader forms of success and different kinds of capabilities, opening up the possibility of higher education.

·   The certainty of having a university offer much earlier in the calendar year. That alleviated the pressure and anxiety commonly experienced during senior secondary school for both young people and their families.

·   A sense of care for young people’s health and wellbeing, treating these as genuine concerns.

·   Empathy for the complexities of young people’s lives, helping them to make a more positive post-school transition.

The future

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.

Sally Patfield is a lecturer in the School of Education and member of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. Her research focusses on issues of equity and social justice across formal schooling and higher education, particularly in relation to educational and social inequities connected to social class, rurality, first-in-family status, race, and the changing nature of the education system.

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

election priorities, widening participation and nurturing aspirations, , , ,

This is the fifth and final day in our series of posts on AARE’s education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about widening participation and nurturing aspirations.

Aspirations help students identify who they want to be and how they want to get there. For example, we know students who report stronger aspirations to finish secondary school are much more likely to go on to do so, which has invaluable benefits for their future and the future of the country. 

Educators and school leaders build positive aspirations in young people by creating school cultures and environments in which students are able to envisage a future for themselves and, crucially, can access the supports and resources they need to make that future possible. School culture is multifaceted, comprising social, emotional, and motivational dimensions. My research has provided evidence for the crucial role of these different elements of school culture in fostering aspirations. 

A sense of belonging

Positive social relationships among students, teachers, school staff, and parents foster a sense of belonging, care, and safety within a school. Students that report stronger relationships with their parents, teachers, and peers are more likely to report higher levels of motivation and engagement, including higher aspirations. Positive school culture also includes individual and shared positive affective experiences.

Enjoyment and enthusiasm are influential: teachers’ expressions of enthusiasm for their work and their subjects informs students’ enthusiasm for learning, both in the long and short-term. Schools that actively foster students’ intrapersonal motivational resources via effective practices are better positioned to support students’ long term aspirations. When schools foster positive motivation, students develop the skills and underlying self-belief necessary to maintain their drive for their long-term aspirations. Similarly, schools that have a culture of high expectations are better able to communicate to their students that they believe in their capacity to make those aspirations a reality. 

Building a positive school culture is an intentional process and is a shared endeavour between school staff and students. Said another way, building this positive school culture takes time, effort, and resources. 

A vicious cycle can emerge

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. A vicious cycle can emerge. Lower socio-economic and cultural status schools tend to report lower levels of achievement and other issues with building positive school culture. However, it is precisely the students who struggle with achievement and academic success that tend to benefit the most from positive relationships, shared positive affective experiences, and practices that foster motivation – in short these are the students who gain most from positive school culture. Because of this, equitable school funding, both in terms of money and resources, is inexorably linked with how we can help to build positive aspirations in our young people. 

Aspirations are not built alone. Students take in so many messages from their social relationships, their community, their school, and the broader culture to develop an imagined desirable future. Students work with teachers, parents, coaches, and other role models to identify where they want their life to go, including at school, at university, and beyond. All students deserve to have a ‘fair go’ at achieving that imagined future. It is our responsibility to advocate for practices and vote for policies that make this possible. 

Emma Burns is an ARC DECRA Fellow and Senior Lecturer of educational psychology at the Macquarie School of Education. Emma’s research focuses on the socio-motivational factors and processes that impact adolescents’ adaptive engagement, achievement and development, especially in STEM. To examine these diverse mechanisms, she uses advanced quantitative research methodology, such as latent growth modelling and multi-level structural equation modelling.

equity and educational outcomes in universities

Has the social licence of universities been lost?

election priorities, equity and educational outcomes, , , ,

This is the fourth day in a series of posts on AARE education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about equity and educational outcomes – including in universities.

Higher education cannot be separated from global uncertainty and shifting geopolitics – Trump’s isolationism, China’s assertiveness, wars in Gaza and Ukraine, disruptions of Gen AI, climate change, and the spread of misinformation and the misogyny circulating through social media. Nation states are seeking to become more self-reliant in defence, supply chains, energy, AI and skills development. It could be expected higher education is central.  Academic freedom and universities being a critic and conscience are central to democracies.

Education added over $29 billion to the economy in 2022. International students in Australia contributed $25.5 billion and students studying online adding a further $3.5 billion. Education is, next to health and defence, the biggest investment by governments. But government investment in non-government schools is currently greater than in universities. Australia is characterised by increased socio-geographical educational inequality and segmented education funding favouring non government schools.  

Universities are forced to rely on international students

Australian universities are internationally viewed to be high quality and exceeding research outcomes. They are in the top four ranking of international student (others. being USA, UK, Canada). University sector’s sources of income are domestic students, industry (tied), research income (tied) with international students the only discretionary funds.  Universities have therefore been forced to rely on international students to fund domestic student growth and research. 

Bipartisan weaponisation of international students has occurred with policies incorrectly linking international students to migration and housing shortages. Restrictions, increased fees and slowing of visa approvals for international students and migration policies has impacted regional universities in particular with significant job losses eventuating while Gof 8 universities attract wealthy Chinese students .  

These factors have increased differentiation between research and teaching intensive universities. Furthermore, humanities and social science courses in regional universities which are cross subsidised by international students fees, are disappearing. Again this impacts on women who are concentrated in these fields.

The impact of Covid still felt

With Covid – we lost 20,000 academics and staff because the Coalition refused Jobseeker to universities. Recovery is being impacted by Labor’s EB awards seeking to reduce casualisation but with perverse effects. The  development of teaching-only positions has increased academic workloads. This will affect research output, with potential gendered effects in education.

Universities have multiple complex international research collaborations. Research is critical to innovation and educating a skilled workforce in all forms- technical, scientific and social benefits. 

R& D funding has reduced from 2.2% in 2014 to 1.69% in 2024. There is a critical need to join Horizons Europe which is major source of research funding in EU.

Whereas foreign Interference legislation focused on transparency particularly with China, Trump’s attack on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and China has led to loss of US funding in Australian- US research programs.  Australian universities need to maintain a strong DEI stance. 

The Accord final report (2024) commendably focused on increasing participation of  equity groups (rural. Regional and remote, Indigenous,) and improving support for regional universities. Unless international student policies change and public schools who teach over 80% of students in equity groups are fully funded immediately, increased equity participation and regional  aims will not be achieved. 

The Accord named governance issues: casualisation, high VC and management salaries, workload, lack of  academic in -put in governance decisionmaking, not implementing sexual harassment policies etc.  It is questionable whether Chancellors’ Council principles of good governance will make VCs more accountable! 

Disenchantment with university management

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.  

Academics and students are concerned that the social license of the university and its core work of teaching, research and service for the public good have been lost. They seek a greater voice in decision making. 

Jill Blackmore AM PhD FASSA is Deakin Distinguished Professor in Education, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, former president of the Australian Association of University Professors and of AARE. She undertakes research from a feminist perspective of education policy and governance; school autonomy reform; gender equity reform; leadership and organisational change; international and intercultural education; gendered labour markets and employability, and teachers’ and academics’ work, health and wellbeing. Her focus is on sustainable, equitable, inclusive and safe educational organisations and workplaces.

equity and educational outcomes in universities

Inequality: How Australian schools churn it out

election priorities, equity and educational outcomes, , , ,

Economic inequality in Australia is intensifying. We now live in a society that funnels money up to the already wealthy. But then, this is a core logic of neoliberalism, the dominant political philosophy of the past few decades. And all social policy is being refashioned in the name of offloading demands onto the market and slowly undermining democratic decision making. And schooling now plays its part in this process but then also has one of the most significant roles in Australia’s social policy mix. Mostly because it is through schooling that families get out of poverty. At least that is the egalitarian myth. 

Unfortunately, schooling has gone missing again as a significant topic for the next federal election. It is not surprising because schooling has a set of very significant and difficult policy challenges that neither of the political parties wants to discuss. Briefly schooling now has the following policy troubles: falling student achievement compared to international standards, intensifying teacher shortage, a school leadership crisis with too few aspiring leaders, and increasing numbers of students not attending, disengaged and not completing schooling.

What we hear: Let’s just go harder

What is moot here is the response by those governing to this set of troubles. All we hear from governments and key knowledge brokers is let’s just go harder with the policy we have in place. But the key logics of Australia’s policy regime for schooling have weak evidence at best.

Most importantly though, Australian schooling is now one of the most unequal systems in the OECD and I want to argue that this set of troubles has at its centre, this inequality problem. But then the inequality problem for Australian schooling is: laminated over in policy debates; the very notion of equality is reframed inside of a neoliberal logic and now gets discussed in terms of ‘every child’ and not how schooling as system fails specific groups; and the strong correlation between SES status of school communities and student achievement is now treated as irrelevant, it’s not a topic for policy intervention and schools are evaluated as though they operate on a level playing field.  

Unfortunately, in response to these troubles, governments treat these issues separately, hide their own policy failures, and mostly blame schools and teachers. All we hear ad nauseum is that the policy is working and that teachers aren’t implementing the science. And the solutions are most often strategies to undermine the professional autonomy of teachers. Let’s mandate dumbed down teaching [explicit instruction (sic)], and give the stressed overworked teachers lesson plans, teach the students how to sit still, and force adoption of a phonics fundamentalism. 

What makes the machine

I argue that Australian schooling is now an inequality machine. I am using the metaphor of a machine to focus attention on an assemblage of elements that collectively shape and exercise power through schooling policy. In this case, the machine includes a government policy regime, various knowledge brokers, and the school systems. And to be more precise, schooling is a logic machine that is now driven by policy logics that have little to no evidence that they improve learning, and these logics rarely get a mention when governments discuss the policy challenges.

Four key policy logics

I note four key policy logics that drive the sector: a marketized version of school devolution, standardisation, NAPLAN and demands to implement a what works learning science [often referred to also as a Science of Teaching Paradigm SoT]. Each of these policy logics feeds the inequality machine!

Sham commitment

  • A marketised version of school devolution asserts a one-size-fits-all logic, and intensifies the residualisation of schools serving high poverty communities. As well, this policy logic promotes a sham commitment to parental choice given most parents can’t choose and hence must send their kids to the local public school. But public schooling is being actively undermined by the other 2 sectors and other policy logics. And even though the present government has finally ‘fixed’ the funding demands from Gonski, Australia ranks first among OECD countries in terms of government funding for private schools. 

Standardisation

  • Standardisation in Australian schooling contributes to educational inequality in several ways, including: narrowing the curriculum leading to disengagement and lower achievement among some students; undermines teacher professional autonomy and hence their ability to respond to the unique needs of their students, reducing the quality of instruction and student engagement, leads to fetishising a focus on raising test scores, rather than addressing underlying causes of educational inequality

Raising test scores narrows curriculum

  • The NAPLAN and the Myschool website contribute to the production of educational inequality by: placing a strong emphasis on raising test scores, which has led to a narrowing of curriculum and to teaching to the test, rather than addressing deeper learning or critical thinking skills; creates high-pressure environments that disadvantage some students; undermines alternative measures of good practice and drives teachers towards narrow, unproductive definitions of literacy and numeracy, at a time when Australia needs to be advancing as a highly developed knowledge economy.

Pushing a paradigm

  • Pushing a “Science of Teaching” paradigm contributes to educational inequality through: decontexualised truth claims about what works invariably neglects socio-economic factors such as poverty, racism, and lack of resources, which do have a significant impact on student achievement; the emphasis on standardised, evidence-based (sic) practices limits teachers’ capability to teach to the specific unique needs and interests of their students, particularly in disadvantaged communities; and tends to reinforce existing inequalities by failing to address systemic biases and barriers to learning.

Governments rave on about evidence based practice but Australian schooling policy has four key logics that have weak evidence at best that they improve students learning. And there is a strong case that these logics, operating as a set, are in large part responsible for Australia’s appalling claim to be one of the most unequal schooling systems in the OECD.

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? Some ideas:

  • A royal commission into inequality in Australian schooling
  • Scrap or rebuild AERO from the ground up and through the adoption of a ‘good social science’ and not a scientism that fetishes measuring as the only way to reform.
  • Rebuild the ‘educational’ intelligence of federal and state governments and hence undermine the reliance of policy brokers (grifters?)
  • Weaken policy borrowing from the UK and the USA who have both shown the weakness of their own schooling systems of late
  • Recalibrate the policy regime, away from a neoliberalisng marketizing logic to one that rebuilds school and teacher professional autonomy
  • Cease blaming schools, teachers and students for policy failure

Robert Hattam is emeritus professor of educational justice at the University of South Australia. His research interests include social justice critical pedagogy, school reform, educational policy and culturally responsive schools.

equity and educational outcomes in universities

Learning from a crisis – building back better

election priorities, equity and educational outcomes, , , , , ,

This is the fourth day in a series of posts on AARE education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about equity and educational outcomes.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the world was living a learning crisis . . .Even worse, the crisis was not equally distributed: the most disadvantaged children and youth had the worst access to schooling, highest dropout rates, and the largest learning deficits. . . .But it is possible to counter those shocks, and to turn crisis into opportunity. . . . As the school system stabilises, countries can use the focus and innovativeness of the recovery period to “build back better.” World Bank. 

From early on in the COVID-19 pandemic there were calls not to go back to ‘business as usual’ (BAU) in education but to ‘build back better’ once school lockdowns ended.

Five years on, these calls are even more urgent. Australia faces high levels of school refusal and youth mental health concerns. Some of these concerns are attributed to COVID school lockdowns. And inequities are deepening; and as environmental crises cause disruptions to education and schooling more and more often – it can feel like the call to build back better was not heard.

Crises offer valuable lessons

Experiences during a crisis offer valuable lessons for improving educational equity. In our book  – which called for rebuilding more equitable education systems after crises like COVD-19 – we provide extensive evidence for some key lessons related to learners’:

·  material needs

·  emotional wellbeing, and

·  access to learning.

Of course, these three aspects are linked, with the learner’s family, learning contexts, education systems and structural dimensions that shape everyday life during and beyond the pandemic. All of these dimensions form a web of interconnected factors that affect educational equity. We address each dimension in turn below emphasising the ongoing impact of these factors on learners. Systems leaders can choose to focus efforts on these dimensions to improve equity in education.

Material needs

The economic pressure of COVID-19 lockdowns placed extraordinary financial stress on many families. It highlighted that material basics are essential for enhancing educational equity.

·         Breakfast clubs and free school lunches are an essential support that helps to mitigate food poverty and help prepare students for learning. Rather than the BAU of ad hoc food provision that relies on insecure funding, schools need a systematic strategy to provide healthy food in non-stigmatising ways.

·         Overcrowded and insecure housing has negative impacts on learning. Ultimately, housing is also an educational equity issue.

·         Student access to their own digital hardware and software, and to reliable internet connection, is a crucial enabler of learning. Addressing the digital divide is a core component of achieving educational equity.

Emotional wellbeing 

The pandemic made visible the essential (but previously undervalued) work of educational providers for supporting student wellbeing (see Chapters 2 and 5 of our book). Working towards enhanced educational equity requires recognition of this role, especially for already disenfranchised and traumatised children and young people.

·         The effects of crisis-related trauma on emotional wellbeing can continue for years after the event and create a ‘shadow pandemic’. Funding for ongoing collaboration between families, education, allied health services, and other agencies is vital. 

·         Students who rely heavily on schools for wellbeing and safety need additional support. This includes students who may not be safe at home due to violence, abuse, or neglect.

Access to learning 

Despite the seeming intractability of educational inequity, there have been promising signs  of commitment to change and actual improvement in the 21st century. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant setback to these advances.

·         The achievement gap between more disadvantaged and more privileged students widened through the pandemic. Targeted, substantial support is needed to ensure inequitable learning losses do not have deep and long-term consequences.

·         Students learn best through active, face-to-face teaching by a qualified professional with whom they have positive relationships. Wholehearted government and community support for the teaching profession is essential for student learning.

Building back better 

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted potential innovations in the education sector that could improve equitable access to learning. These include enhanced digital learning, stronger home-school connections, targeted ‘catch up’ learning programs, and increased respect for the work of teachers. 

Smoother interagency collaboration was also a feature of the pandemic. Schools and school systems, welfare agencies, and charities and other non-government services overcame barriers that usually make such collaboration difficult. This helped to quickly identify students who most needed targeted support.   

Innovative approaches to income support provided in the early stages of COVID-19 demonstrated that it is possible to lift families and children out of poverty. Ultimately educational equity will be served best by a more equitable society. No matter how hard schools work they cannot overcome the impact of entrenched poverty.

Unfortunately, back to BAU means that many valuable innovations, programs, platforms and policies that were implemented during COVID-19 have disappeared. As a result, educational inequities are becoming even more entrenched. But 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.

Acknowledgements 

This blog piece is based on a book that was authored by Emily Rudling, Sherridan Emery, Becky Shelley, Kitty te Riele, Jess Woodroffe and Natalie Brown.

Kitty te Riele is professor of education in the Peter Underwood Centre at the University of Tasmania. Sherridan Emery is a research fellow in the Peter Underwood Centre at the University of Tasmania. Emily Rudling is a research ellow in the Peter Underwood Centre at the University of Tasmania.