AARE blog

Palestine teachers

Palestine: is it possible for teachers to be neutral?

anti-colonialism, civics and citizenship education, , , , , ,

Interest in Palestine amongst students and the wider public raises an age-old question regarding the teaching profession: can educators be neutral and objective? Is it possible for teachers to discuss what is happening right now across the Gaza Strip in ways that maintain an ‘unbiased’ position? 

State governments and conservative commentators have attacked teachers who have shown solidarity with Palestine or have dared to discuss the current genocide in Gaza within schools. The NSW Minister for Education, Pru Carr, has taken issue with teachers who wear Palestinian scarves in schools. She has said, “We rely on them [teachers] to be impartial in the classroom.” Similarly, Victorian Education Minister, Ben Carroll, warned educators about participating in any organised activity in support of Palestine. Carroll stated that ‘teachers in government schools must be unbiased and not have political agendas’. 

Students in Australian schools want to talk about Palestine

For over a year, we have seen school students assemble and actively rally in support of school students in Gaza. Not since the student climate protests have we seen such enthusiasm amongst Australian students. In almost every capital city, and some regional areas, students have participated in strikes in solidarity with Palestinians. In the course of mobilising, we are witnessing students become ‘active and informed’ on Palestine. Yet, school students participating in these strikes have been scolded by politicians and conservative commentators. They have told students to stay in class and ‘educate’ themselves. 

Take the NSW Premier, Chris Minns. He condemned the student strikes, stating: “If you [students] want to change the world, get an education.” A student protesting in Wollongong responded, ‘Because I am educated I am here, because I am informed I am here at this rally … I would love to be at school, I would love for the children of Gaza to be at school’. 

Similarly, hundreds of school students in Melbourne defied the Victorian Education Minister’s condemnation of their strike. The Minister Ben Carroll said students should be in school. A parent of a student protestor responded, “Young people are often presented as being naïve or ignorant and shouldn’t have an opinion when it comes to politics – I disagree.” Another student stated, “They’re not really teaching it in class. So the only way you’re going to find out is if you come to the rallies; educate yourself because you’re not learning any of it at school. It’s not even getting mentioned at school.”

Educators are told to be ‘impartial’ and ‘unbiased’ about Palestine

Similar to students, educators themselves have organised ‘Teachers for Palestine’ groups across NSW and Victoria. These groups have led rallies and held Zoom sessions to discuss incorporating content about Palestine in the curriculum. They have also discussed how to support students currently striking for Palestine. Two major groups include Teachers and School Staff for Palestine – NSW and Teachers/Staff for Palestine in Victoria. In some cases, educators have shown solidarity by openly supporting student strikes and wearing Palestinian Keffiyehs (scarves) or watermelon badges. 

Teacher unions have supported these initiatives and even passed motions that acknowledge the rights of teachers to discuss the current genocide with their students. For example, the NSW Teachers Federation Vice-President pointed out educators have a long history of publicly supporting anti-war and social justice causes. Similarly, the Australian Education Union sent its members a bulletin about the right to respectfully discuss Palestine in classrooms.

Recently, on the eve of ‘R U Ok Day’, the NSW Teachers for Palestine group posted the following:

Teaching is a political act

A common argument for teacher neutrality is that it avoids students being brainwashed. But the purpose of critical approaches to citizenship education is not to tell students what to think. It is to support them to ask questions. When the questions are curtailed, we all lose as a democracy, and we lose the opportunity to challenge injustice.

A second argument for neutrality, or more precisely, silence, is that there is no room for politics in the curriculum. However the Australian Curriculum encourages engagement with the world and with the interests that students bring across multiple subject areas. Recognising what students bring with them to school should include recognising that they are developing an understanding of conflict and politics before they enter the classroom door. There is no point pretending that politics does not exist.

All education is political

We commonly engage initial teacher education students with theories of critical pedagogies. For example, Paulo Freire argued in his landmark book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed that ‘all education is political; teaching is never a neutral act’. Similar words were echoed by bell hooks, who wrote in Teaching to Transgress that ‘no education is politically neutral’. More recently, a pioneer of critical pedagogy Henry Giroux wrote: “Those arguing that education should be neutral are really arguing for a version of education in which no one is accountable.”

Teachers are citizens and workers. They have political opinions and many are members of labour organisations. They are also responsible for helping their students to become informed, questioning and critical citizens. Pressure from educational authorities for teachers to hide their beliefs and opinions is damaging for both students and teachers.

Governments are keen to avoid political or politicised topics. Their eyes are more firmly on  negative media attention than on ethical considerations. A slippery standard is therefore applied. Almost any topic can become politicised or attract media attention, which makes schools increasingly timid. And attempts to silence discussion are applied unevenly even with similar issues. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have been treated very differently by governments and inside schools, despite the fact that both have similarities in raising sensitive issues of conflict and trauma.

The teaching profession cannot be neutral, unbiased nor objective

As citizens, teachers and students take on multiple roles. They constantly give off signals about their beliefs, even if in subtle or unrecognised ways. As long as these support the status quo, they are unquestioned. But when they go against the status quo, there is a need to make claims on the rights that all students and teachers have to express themselves. A long tradition in critical scholarship shows that ‘apolitical education’ is a myth. What is often framed as ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ within education systems stems from Eurocentric white supremacy. 

Palestine presents us with a reminder that education can never be neutral. As outlined previously, many teachers and students wish to engage in discussions about Palestine. The Australian curriculum presents many opportunities despite the condemnation that various Education Ministers have offered. It is this contradiction that affirms how neutrality in the context of an on-going genocide, live streamed to the social media devices of our students can be one that supports it, as Paulo Freire himself once said, ‘Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral’. 

From left to right: Ryan Al-Natour works as a lecturer in teacher education at Charles Sturt University on Wiradjuri Country. He is written widely about antiracist teaching, social justice pedagogies and Indigenous education. Joel Windle is an associate professor of education at the University of South Australia. He has undertaken research on educational inequalities and community activism in Australia and Brazil. Sarah McDonald is a lecturer based at the Centre for Research in Education & Social Inclusion at the University of South Australia where she conducts research in the areas of gendered subjectivities, social mobility, social barriers, and inequalities in education.

inclusive education

Inclusive education: it’s not getting better. What should we do next?

Inclusive Education, , , , ,

For decades, debates around inclusive education have persisted, with systems globally striving to make schools more inclusive. Yet, how much progress has truly been made? Despite years of reform and substantial financial investment, increasing numbers of students are being excluded or removed from schools. In Australia, no state or territory government has fully committed to inclusive schooling. That leaves the responsibility for inclusion largely on individual schools. In the ongoing debate, the founding principles of inclusion have been overshadowed, despite our classrooms being more diverse than ever.

Interpretations vary

Interpretations of inclusive education vary. In its purest form, inclusion means that all students are educated at their local school. However, this is far more complex in practice. Many schools that claim to be fully inclusive are, in reality, operating under models resembling the integration strategies of the 1980s and 1990s rather than true inclusion. To be “included” implies being part of or brought into something. Yet we rarely ask whether what we are including students into is actually worthwhile. While inclusive education offers clear benefits, there is an urgent need to shift our focus away from the notion of inclusion to providing a good education for all.

Reflecting on the current state of education, it is evident that the vision of inclusion has fallen short. It has also become narrowly associated with accommodating students with disabilities. The current model of inclusive education is not just limited, it is flawed. School leaders and teachers are under immense pressure. In many cases they are expected to meet the needs of all students without adequate knowledge or support. Many schools attempt to implement inclusive education using an outdated integration model, rather than working to establish inclusion as the usual way of doing things. This can leave teachers working in isolation to navigate the complexities of making lessons more inclusive, manage challenging classroom behaviours, whilst also improving academic outcomes. This balancing act is unsustainable, and often leads to burnout, frustration, and negative attitudes among educators. At its worst, it leads to attrition.

Is inclusive education attainable?

A huge burden has been placed at the feet of school leaders and teachers. Schools are expected to meet the needs of all students with an education system premised on structures not all that far removed from what they were many decades ago. School leaders and teachers want students to succeed. But they are struggling to figure out how to meet the increasingly diverse needs of students within a system that expects continuous improvement in academic outcomes while providing limited resources.

Evidence suggests that increasing student engagement is key to improving outcomes for all students. Yet, school leaders and teachers are faced with ever increasing rates of scrutiny, standardisation and accountability. This is a result of systems operating within a neoliberal paradigm that often seems more focused on metrics than on the provision of good education. Headlines frequently highlight the failures of schools and apportion blame to poor leadership and teaching. 

Like integration in the 1980s, the notion of inclusion as it stands now carries with it baggage attached to years of heated debate and very public failures. We argue that inclusive education, within the current educational zeitgeist, is an illusion. Today, more students are being suspended and excluded than ever before. Homeschooling numbers are rising. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves. And school leaders are experiencing harmful levels of stress. Now is the time to move beyond inclusion. 

Illuminating good education

It is time to shift our focus to what truly matters – providing a good education to all students. Rather than clinging to the illusion of inclusion, let’s take this opportunity to rethink our education system. A broader, more responsive and flexible approach is needed, one that genuinely serves the diversity of all students. This requires rethinking policies, providing better support for teachers, and ensuring that schools are adequately resourced.

The notion of a good education prompts us to consider the very purpose of education. What do we hope to achieve with compulsory education? How can we ensure that every student benefits from their schooling experience? At its core, the purpose of education is to prepare students for life beyond the classroom. Education should aim to foster a love of learning, encourage curiosity, and help students develop the skills they need to navigate an ever-changing world.

Moving forward

We need a shift in mindset and we need to stop thinking about inclusive education as something to be implemented or attained. We need to stop framing it as one policy agenda that is often in conflict with other educational reforms. Repositioning the debate to one centred on good education asks us to step back and see the bigger picture. It forces us to bring together the various components of education that are too often managed in silos and view it as a single construct.

Governments around the world need to rethink the way they ‘do’ schooling. This means overhauling outdated structures, processes and models of practice. It requires a change at every level, from school design to curriculum development to assessment requirements. Funding models need to be restructured to ensure all students have access to the resources they need. Governments need to work with universities as both research partners and teacher education providers. Voices of communities are fundamental to this conversation, allowing for dialogue to co-create powerful educational policies that can drive sustainable change.

The next challenge

The challenge to move from a debate around inclusive education to one that centres on a good education is significant. But so is the opportunity. Leaders and teachers require policies, resources, and supports necessary to respond to the needs of all students in an equitable way. Prioritising a good education for every child and young person can ensure each student is given an opportunity to thrive. This notion can no longer be positioned as an illusion. With changes to the structures of schooling, it becomes a realistic and achievable goal. Perhaps more importantly, it becomes a moral imperative.

From left to right: Christopher Boyle is Professor of Inclusion and Educational Psychology and the Associate Head (Research) in the School of Education at the University of Adelaide. Joanna Anderson is an associate professor in inclusive education and educational leadership and Associate Head (Learning and Teaching) in the School of Education at the University of Adelaide. Tom Porta is a lecturer and Master of Education Program Director at the University of Adelaide.

teacher expertise

Are we now gaslighting teacher expertise?

Curriculum review, teacher expertise, , , ,

Curriculum reform is underway in NSW, including the development and implementation of new syllabuses from kindergarten to year 12. Recent media coverage presents this reform as a ‘silver bullet’ for improving teaching and student outcomes. But there is a troubling undertone regarding teachers’ curriculum work in general – a subtle gaslighting of teachers’ curricular expertise and professionalism.

This builds on what Nicole Mockler describes, as a gaslighting of the teaching profession as a whole, in her forthcoming discussion paper “On Gaslighting, Moral Purpose, and Trust: Some Reflections on the Future of Teaching” Monash University Inquiry into the Future of the Teaching Profession.

Here’s what I’ve discovered from my own research engaging with early career teachers. They want to be curriculum-makers, not just curriculum deliverers.

Misunderstanding teachers’ curriculum work

Syllabuses are important materials in teachers’ day-to-day experiences in schools. Ensuring these official materials are clear and detailed for teachers is important and necessary. But we must also recognise teacher’s engagement with curriculum is a complex social practice.

It goes further than just listing content and outcomes in a document and believing that ‘delivery’ of these with ‘fidelity’ will resolve issues regarding teaching quality. Teachers are more than just passive conduits of curriculum.

Their curriculum work is a dynamic interpretative process. The quality of educative experiences in a classroom is dependent on teacher capabilities and opportunities that support them in transforming content into meaningful learning experiences.

Recent media coverage is largely and notably silent on this vital aspect of teachers’ curriculum work.  The focus has been on the troubled nature of past NSW syllabuses being “more open to interpretation”. These comments reveal a misunderstanding by some regarding the importance and value of teachers’ curricular interpretation in ensuring a classroom curriculum that is local, contextually relevant, and responsive to student needs and lived experiences. The silence surrounding teacher expertise and interpretation of curriculum points to a broader issue – the outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum knowledge and expertise in the name of a ‘teacher proof’ curriculum.

Gaslighting teachers’ curricular expertise

Underpinning current commentary on the new NSW syllabuses is a troublesome devaluing of teachers’ professional judgement and expertise with curriculum. This is apparent in recent conversations suggesting that teachers need access to externally vetted curriculum materials, and “directions on which lesson plans to use”. 

Here, mistrust in teachers’ knowledge and professional judgement is rife, disguised among seemingly innocent concerns for lessening the curriculum ‘burden’ on teachers’ workloads. 

This is nothing more than gaslighting; an attempt to convince teachers that they lack the required capacity to make such decisions or are too busy for curriculum matters and therefore it is ok for this important work to be outsourced to others. In reality, teachers value this curriculum work highly. They want more time for collaborative planning with their colleagues – not less, not outsourced. 

Don’t get me wrong – all teachers need supporting materials and shared resources, but they also need time and space to build their curricular expertise. This is about strengthening their understanding of the curriculum and the adjustments and transformations needed in ensuring best fit with their students and chosen pedagogical strategies (not just explicit teaching!). Time is of the essence here in how we respond to this gaslighting, raising awareness that attempts for further prescription and outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum and pedagogical work does little more than deskill our profession.  

What are we wanting? Teacher as deliverer or curriculum-maker?

While the NSW Curriculum reform proposes greater clarity and guidance for teachers, the implementation of these new syllabuses should offer us pause for thought. 

What kind of role do teachers want with the curriculum? What do they need to maintain strong curriculum identities? My own research with early career teachers points to their strong motivations and aspirations to be more than just curriculum deliverers, but curriculum-makers who are trusted and respected to make necessary and responsive curriculum choices within their local context. 

My research also suggests that the same goes too for our preservice teachers entering the profession. Critical dialogue is crucial, then, within this current reform context. School leaders, teacher educators, and the concerned public should respect the curricular aspirations of our teachers. This requires us to push back against concerning trends for ‘cookie cutter’ approaches to teaching, and with that, an outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum expertise to others as an attempt for greater ‘fidelity’ between schools and classrooms. 

Re-frame conversations

We need to re-frame conversations between teachers, school leaders, policymakers, and the broader public, moving beyond assumptions that changes to official curriculum materials offer the best and only solution. We need to listen more carefully to teachers’ voices and what they want to achieve in their curricular practice:

If I could just spend my time how I wanted to, I would obviously work hard, but if I could just spend my time planning lessons that I thought were really awesome, were really good for my learners and great for the content I was teaching, and then I could evaluate them properly, then I think I would feel like ‘ok I am benefiting society and doing the big picture thinking and fostering a love of learning in these students’ and these are the things that you go into teaching for. (First year teacher, public school in Sydney)

Creating conditions that enable this kind of work remain largely absent in conversations surrounding the implementation of the new NSW syllabuses. 

Teachers need time

Teachers need time, space, and support (not prescription or centralised materials), to help them sustain curriculum as a recognisable tenet of their professionalism. The implications of enabling school-level conditions to do this are immense, not only in promoting greater trust and regard for teachers, but importantly, for student learning and equity. A curriculum made by teachers, not others, shapes the quality of students’ access to knowledge and new ways of thinking for their future. 

Phillip Poulton is a lecturer in education (primary) at the RMIT University, Melbourne. He completed his PhD studies focusing on primary teachers’ classroom curriculum-making experiences and is published in a number of Australian and international research journals. Prior to working in initial teacher education, he worked as a primary classroom teacher and as a head of curriculum in a large public school in Australia. He is on Twitter @PhillipPoulton

early learning

Here are five ways the government could demolish barriers to early learning

Early Childhood, Early childhood education and care, , , ,

The Final Report from the Productivity Commission (PC) into Early Childhood Education and Care was released last week. This is the second in our two-part series unpacking the Commission’s proposed road map for universal access to early learning.

Yesterday: Early learning – Every child deserves access now. Here’s how we can make that happen

Today, we look at the barriers.

To implement Productivity Commission recommendations for early learning, the Government needs to attract, support, and retain educators to ensure the workability of these reforms. In this article, I outline the barriers facing educators, including poor job design, the high cost of higher education, low status and wages, and the burden of regulatory requirements as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: Barriers to opportunity for early learning in Australia

For each of these barriers, I provide information from reports, government departments,
agencies, and organisations. To illustrate this, I also provide either data from our mixed
methods online survey study involving 82 Australian educators or, where indicated, publicly
available data. A summary of what the PC said is in the final column.

Barriers to
early learning		InformationDataProductivity Commission
Recommendation
Poor job designIt is puzzling to
understand why schools in
Australia are equipped
with administrative
officers, grounds people
and cleaners, but early
learning services are not.
Educators study child
development, philosophies
of learning, ways to
support children’s
learning, curriculum
assessment, planning and
evaluation and how to best
support families. Then
they enter the workforce
and are expected to spend
inordinate amounts of
time cleaning and filling
in forms. It is a waste of
their time and talents.
Additionally, the time
allocated to filling out all
the forms would be
adequate if they were in a
private office rather than
while they are educating a
room full of children. The
amount of time doesn’t
take into consideration if
they are short staffed.		“Washing and folding
laundry is NOT
something you learn in
an education
qualification …
educators spend a lot of
time (and constantly
hounded by
management) to do
tasks that in other
workplaces would
require [a] cleaner”.
(Educator)
“Most adults would
struggle to fill in legal
paperwork while also
supervising children
attempting risky
climbing, playing
games, drinking a
bottle, putting small
parts in their mouth.”
(Educator)		The PC states
further award
increases must
improve their pay
and conditions to
align with school
teachers.
High cost of higher educationGaining the qualifications
required to be an early
childhood educator takes a
toll on educators’ time,
energy, and budget. While
the Government is now
funding practicums, and
some state and territory
governments are offering
fee-free places, the educator must provide the time and
energy to study.
This can mean fewer days
working or sacrifices to
their health, social life,
and relationships.		“Educators are being
rushed through
traineeships to meet
DoE requirements, so
are ECT[s]!”
(Educator)
“I would love to do
more but don’t have the hours in the day. I
exercise each morning
at 6am before I start
work.” (Educator)		The PC asks for
more support for
student educators
in general terms.
Low statusDue to their links to
motherhood, another
underappreciated role,
early childhood educators
are less respected than
school teachers in
Australian society, even
though they may be just as
qualified. Those teaching
younger age groups can be
more affected. Studies
link low status with
educator burnout.		“I was in a centre
where staff weren’t
valued. Relationships
were for show”.
(Educator)
“Cleaners can earn
more than I do, and yet
I studied for 2 years for
a diploma to earn just
$32hr. We are
sacrificed so that other
women can go to work
and earn a high wage.”
(Educator)		The PC
recommends
standardising
school teacher
and early
childhood
educator
registration to
improve
recognition.
Low wagesLow wages mean
educators struggle to pay
their bills and enjoy a
reasonable quality of life.
This impacts their health
and wellbeing and their
feelings of burnout. The
increase of 15% helps, but
does not mean their pay is
in line with school teacher
salaries for early
childhood teachers with
the same qualifications.		“I earn $30 per hour as
a qualified ECT with a
degree – my 17-year-
old daughter is in high
school and gets the
same amount of money,
as a swimming
instructor”. (Educator)		The PC states
further award
increases must
improve their pay
to align with
school teachers.
Burdensome
regulatory
requirements		Educators spend much of
their day filling in forms
to prove they are
providing high quality
education and care.
Administrative overload
was one of the three
reasons given by
educators who reported
they wanted to leave the
sector early.		“Yes, we need
paperwork but we also
need to be there for the
children, staff get
overwhelmed with all
the paperwork required
and training that needs
to be done during a
work day and there is
never enough time to do
everything so a lot of
staff do things at
home”. (Educator)		The PC calls for
reducing the
administrative
burden for
applying for
inclusion support
funding but
disappointingly,
not for other
aspects of their
work.

What governments must do

The Government will need to consider the PC’s recommendations carefully and it could also heed the advice of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Professor Nitin Kapur, President of the RACP’s Paediatric and Child Health Division, said the RACP was pleased to see the PC recognise the importance of access to high-quality learning and care in the early years of a child’s life.

“As experts in children’s health and wellbeing, we have long advocated for universal access to early childhood education and care because we recognise the profound positive impact it can have on children’s lives.

“Access to high-quality learning and care in the early years can help boost health, social andcognitive development outcomes for children, and ensure that they start school ready.

To stem the flow of educators out of the sector, entice educators back, and attract more, they need a range of measures to improve educators’ working conditions. Our educators deserve much better.

Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at UNE and a postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute.

Early learning

Early learning: Every child deserves access now. Here’s how we can make that happen

Early Childhood, Early childhood education and care, , , , ,

The Final Report from the Productivity Commission (PC) into Early Childhood Education
and Care was released last week. This two-part series unpacks the Commission’s proposed road map that involves many stages over the next 12 years to achieve universal access to early learning.

This is where all children can attend three days a week, regardless of location, ethnicity,
special educational needs, family income, or parent’s work or study schedules.
Universal access is critical because research shows access to early learning improves
children’s chances of a good start to school and increases their ability to flourish into
adulthood.

The PC said the recent improvements in wages through the Fair Work Commission will assist
with the attraction and retention of educators. The Commission states these recent rises are
only one step and that future awards need to consider the 20 per cent pay difference and poorer
conditions between the school and early learning sectors, even for educators with the same
qualifications. It also recommends registration be the same to improve status for early
childhood educators.

These are all excellent recommendations, but many educators continue to leave a sector in
crisis before the recommendations are implemented.

Why is the sector in crisis?

At its heart, the early childhood education and care sector is supposed to provide
opportunities for early learning. This is one of the key components of the internationally
accepted Nurturing Care Framework by the World Health Organisation, World Bank Group, and UNICEF. This framework is designed to show how children’s health and wellbeing is best supported to ensure children reach their potential.

Figure 1: Nurturing Care Framework

In Australia, children and their families face many barriers to these opportunities, as shown in
the table below. These include affordability, high levels of privatisation, a lack of services and educators, complex funding and access to funding, extra challenges in regional, rural and remote (RRR) communities, and access to inclusion support.

In the table below, I provide information from reports, government departments, agencies,
and organisations on these eight barriers. To illustrate this, I also provide either data from
our mixed-methods online survey study involving 82 Australian educators or, where
indicated, publicly available data. In the final column, I summarise what the PC states or
recommends the Government to do.

Barriers to early learning and how to overcome them

Barriers to early learningInformationDataProductivity
Commission
(PC) responses
1. AffordabilityAustralia is second only to
Switzerland in its high
costs of early childhood
education and care fees.		“It’s very sad and hard
for me to share this
story. We have no
support and can’t afford
daycare for my 11-
month-old boy. I work
casually and I’m 8
weeks pregnant. We
have to get an abortion
because we don’t get
any support.” (The
Parenthood, p. 33).		The PC
recommends free
services for low-
income families,
with fees rising
for those with
higher incomes.
2. High levels of
privatisation		Australia has some of the
highest levels of
privatisation of early
learning services in the
world. In 2020, 49% of
providers were private for-
profit, and about a third of
these were large providers
with 25 or more services.		Early childhood
education and care
(ECEC) is big business.
The sector turns over
$14 billion annually
across 16,000 centres
providing long day care
(LDC), preschool and
out of school care. The
importance of giving
young Australians the
best start in life and
encouraging workforce
participation is
recognised in the public
funding that sustains the
sector, currently around
$11 billion per annum.
This is distributed to
providers ranging from
council-run
kindergartens to stock
market-listed early
learning chains. Among
The PC
recommends
incentives for
local parent,
community
groups and
councils to start
services.
LDC provision, where
the bulk of government
subsidies flow, private
for-profit (PFP)
providers dominate.”
(United Workers Union,
p. 3).		The PC
recommends
incentives for
local parent,
community
groups and
councils to start
services.
3. Lack of servicesDue to the market supply
model, all regional, rural,
remote, and low-income
metropolitan suburbs are
part of a ‘childcare desert’.
“Childcare shouldn’t be
a postcode lottery.
Improving the
affordability and
accessibility of
childcare is once in a
generation economic
policy.” (Former NSW
Treasurer, Matt Kean)		The PC says
Government
stewardship is
needed to ensure
universal access.
4.Lack of
educators

In 2024, vacancies for
educators reached 8000
setting a new record. This
impacts staff fatigue and
morale, the quality of
education and care,
and the amount of support
available for families.
PC says the ‘workforce is
fundamental to reform’
and calls for ‘improve
measures to support the
ECEC workforce’ from
2025.		“Management [were]
very stressed about
assessment and rating
and low staff numbers,
so took it out on the
employees”. (Educator)
Q: What does quality
ECEC mean to you?
“Having more than
enough staff to ensure
educators are consistent
for children in care and
to ensure quality care
can occur even when
educators are sick and
require a day off to
recover”. (Educator)
5. Complex
funding model		‘The ECEC system is
complex and continues
to evolve in response to
the changing needs of
children, families and
society. … a range of
current system
challenges and
opportunities have been
identified.’ (The Front
Project, p. 6)		The PC
recommends a
new national
agreement to
simplify roles
and funding.		The PC
recommends a new
national
agreement to
simplify roles
and funding.
6. Complex access to
funding		Accessing subsidies is a
complex process for parents
to navigate. Strict rules about eligibility and
long wait times for
processing claims can add
to family stress during a
cost-of-living crisis.		“I’m struggling to navigate the website to
figure out if we qualify
and if so how much. I
get that there’s a bunch
of circumstances, but
maybe someone will
know if it’s worth trying
to navigate the multiple
questions and pages
that require lots of
effort from me, to have
it say ‘no go away’ at
the end.” (Reddit
forum).		The PC roadmap includes a
recommendation
for welfare and
tax reform for
parents and
reduce the
complexity of the CCS and abolish
the activity test.
7. Choiceless
in regional,
rural and
remote
communities		While a lack of choice and
availability affects those
who live in metropolitan
areas, for those in many
regional, rural and remote
locations, there are no
services close by. This
means families are
choiceless.		“When the kids are on
the farm you can
question whether you’re
exposing them to things
you shouldn’t
necessarily expose them
to. Should they be on a
sprayer? Maybe not.
But you’ve got to do
what you’ve got to do.”
(The Parenthood. p. 91)		PC recommends
grants and low
interest loans to
encourage
services to start
in these
locations.
8. Lack of
access for
inclusion
support		Children with special
educational needs can have
difficulty accessing early
learning or finding the
level of support they need.
Many have to wait until
school to engage in
education services.		‘Children with disability
are often woefully under
supported in early
childcare settings. My
complex kid can’t
access childcare.’
( Sourcekids )
The PC
recommends
major reforms to
ensure all
children have
access to early
education.

Tomorrow:

In the second article, I explore some of the challenges facing educators and what the PC
recommends the Government does to improve the sector.

The Government will need to consider the PC’s recommendations carefully. Families are
struggling to access early learning for their children, which has enormous consequences for
their future and their ability to work. Our families and children deserve much better.

Marg Rogers is a senior lecturer in early childhood education at UNE and a postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute.

Cyberabuse and deepfakes

Cyberabuse: It’s too late – the post has gone viral already

bullying, cyberabuse, teacher targeted bullying and harassment, , , , ,

The Albanese government’s proposed legislation to outlaw doxing is a landmark move in Australia’s fight against online harassment and cyber abuse. This new bill, introduced this month, makes it a criminal offence to maliciously share personal data with the intent to cause harm, with penalties of up to seven years in jail. 

Doxing, which involves publicly revealing someone’s personal details without consent, is a growing concern in an era where personal information can be weaponised through digital platforms. Under this legislation, doxing based on attributes such as race, religion, gender identity, or sexuality will carry even harsher penalties, signalling the government’s commitment to protecting Australians from online harm.

Crucial time

This legislation comes at a crucial time. Schools and teachers increasingly face new forms of cyber abuse, particularly fuelled by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). Deepfake technology, which allows users to create fake images and videos of real people, has led to disturbing incidents in educational settings. In Victoria, for example, several schools have been rocked by cases where students used AI to create fake pornographic images of their teachers. These images, manipulated from photos taken from social media, were circulated among students, devastating the lives and careers of the teachers involved. Many schools have seen incidents occur, forcing teachers to seek mental health support and raising urgent questions about the adequacy of current school policies on cyber abuse.

These incidents are not isolated to Australia. In the United States, a teacher in Baltimore was recently arrested for creating a deepfake audio recording of his principal making racist comments. The hoax, which went viral, resulted in death threats against the principal and serious disruption to the school community. This case, while unique in its specifics, highlights the global reach and implications of AI-driven content creation tools. Teachers are increasingly vulnerable to this kind of targeted abuse, with their professional and personal reputations on the line in a digital world that moves faster than policies and protections can keep up.

How teachers experience cyber abuse

My recent paper, It’s Too Late – The Post Has Gone Viral Already, explores how K-12 teachers are experiencing adult cyber abuse, particularly when content about them goes viral. The paper proposes a novel methodological stance that incorporates trauma-informed qualitative research and aligns with the principles outlined in Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021. This act, designed to empower the eSafety Commissioner, provides an essential framework for addressing online harm by requiring greater transparency from platforms and placing legal responsibility on social media companies for the content they amplify.

Through my research which aligns with the findings of the eSafety Commissioner, I found that the abuse teachers face isn’t just about direct attacks. It’s about how social media platforms enable and perpetuate that abuse through algorithms designed to boost engagement at any cost. When content targeting teachers goes viral, it’s often because these algorithms push harmful memes, videos, or posts to broader audiences, exponentially increasing the damage done. The viral nature of this content—whether a manipulated deepfake or a malicious rumour—means that even teachers not directly involved in an incident can experience secondary trauma as they witness their colleagues being publicly humiliated.

A tsunami of challenges

This paper is just the beginning. The introduction of legislation to address doxing and the growing awareness of deepfakes mark the start of a tsunami of challenges that educators will face in the coming years. Artificial intelligence, while offering immense potential in educational tools, also presents unprecedented risks to teachers’ rights, privacy, and mental health. The rise of AI-generated content, from fake images to deepfake videos, poses new threats that extend beyond traditional forms of bullying or harassment. Teachers now find themselves at the mercy of technologies that can create highly convincing false representations of them, which can spread across the internet in a matter of hours.

The proposed legislation and the growing awareness of AI-driven abuse are important first steps, but they are not nearly enough. Teachers are on the front lines, facing not only the pressure of educating young minds but also the terrifying reality of viral online abuse that can destroy their personal and professional lives in an instant. At the core of this issue is an urgent need to completely rethink teacher rights in the age of AI—and ensure these rights are clearly communicated and fiercely protected within the broader education system.

Safeguards for teachers

As technology races forward, so must the safeguards that protect those who dedicate their lives to teaching. Teachers, already in highly visible roles, are incredibly vulnerable to the kinds of threats that AI, doxing, and deepfakes bring. With just a few clicks, a phone can turn a teacher’s photo into a damaging meme or manipulated image, spreading across social media before the school day even ends. The psychological and emotional toll of this is devastating. Teachers need these psychosocial hazards to be mitigated against, as our workplaces include the ease with which a moment in the classroom can turn into a viral attack. This represents a seismic shift in the professional landscape for educators. 

We need a much larger conversation

While the new doxing legislation is a significant step forward, it is only the beginning of a much larger conversation about teacher rights at work, digital safety, and AI governance. My research highlights the urgent need for trauma-informed methodologies in addressing these issues – not just for students, but also for teachers – as well as the critical role that legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2021, must play in shaping future protections. As AI continues to reshape our world, the rights and safety of teachers must be prioritized, ensuring that they can carry out their essential work without fear of becoming the next viral victim. This is a challenge we must face head-on, with comprehensive research, policy, and action.

 Janine Arantes is a researcher and educator at Victoria University, with a focus on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI), digital safety and teacher wellbeing. Janine is the co-lead of the Teachers’ Rights and AI Network, an initiative that brings together educators, researchers, and policymakers to explore the implications of AI on teacher safety and to develop strategies that protect educators from emerging risks in the digital environment. With a background in educational technology, trauma-informed research, and policy advocacy, Janine’s work addresses the psychosocial risks associated with AI and its potential to disrupt traditional teaching environments. Find her on LinkedIn

Is the social media ban a moral panic?

Social media and young people, , ,

South Australia last week began consultations on a proposed social media ban for children under the age of 14. The federal government quickly announced its intention to follow suit with a national social media ban for children (age to be determined) by the end of 2024. This announcement comes hard on the heels of an increased attention to the harms of social media. Specifically, a lot of that attention has been related to reporting of sexism and misogyny in schools. 

In other words, plans to ban social media for children is exactly how an ‘education crisis’ moral panic plays out. 

A perfect storm

Incidents of young men behaving badly in schools getting media attention exists alongside a long debate about whether children can be banned from using social media. The perfect storm of four well-documented types of moral panic (young male deviance, sex and violence, schools and teachers, and the evils of the media) have led to a mediatisation of education that has sustained public anxiety. 

The evidence that the media causes immoral behaviour is fuzzy (though it is stronger in relation to some acts). But that fact is overshadowed by the confident public appeals to common-sense and intuition by people in positions of authority. We saw this debate play out about Dungeons and Dragons during the 1980s Satanic Panic. We also saw it in 1999 after the Columbine school shooting. The two young shooters’ media choices were extensively scrutinised because they were listening to Marilyn Manson and playing shooter video games.

Such mediatisation of an event sustains well-placed public anxiety for longer than it might otherwise have been maintained. When public anxiety is prolonged, policy makers in a democracy are forced to act. The trouble is that journalistic polemics freeze debate and the kind of important dialogue necessary to address the problem. 

As such, policymakers react to a moral panic with poor policy. In the case of the current social media ban proposal, that’s a reactionary authoritarian policy that stagnates what might be otherwise thoughtful localised protocols working to address underlying community problems.

What is a moral panic and why is the social media ban an example of a moral panic? 

The term ‘moral panic’ has been used by social media scholars in response to the proposed bans. But what is a moral panic? A moral panic generally means that the extent and significance of a concern has been exaggerated or overblown. What makes something a moral panic is when a public fear is politically positioned to the point that systems of power begin to respond to it. This means that there is a significant difference between generalised worry about children using social media, and the generalised worry deliberately being used to justify policy.

Being labelled a moral panic does not mean that the foundational morals and values of the nation are safe. Nor does it imply that the reaction is invalid, hysterical, delusional or fantastical (though it might be misused in that way). Labelling something a moral panic is a rhetorical flag that signals an intense and condensed political struggle. Identifying a moral panic helps a political sociologist identify, quite clearly, the lines of power in society. In other words, it helps identify who is influential, who is a political actor worth watching and who are the traditional political actors being ignored. 

Trying to shift the political agenda

“Moral panic’ is a powerful rhetorical device. When a social group, whether academic, political, legal, or journalistic, labels something a moral panic it usually means a power broker is trying to downplay the public anxieties sparking the panic in the first place. It means they are trying to shift the political agenda by signalling to policymakers that the political agenda is not actually responding to a wide public need. Labeling something a moral panic signals that decisions are reactive and being applied at a surface level, without deep thought about the actual cause of the anxiety in the first place. 

At the end of the day, if a social media ban is democratically popular, no amount of thoughtful, expert advice will have any effect. Ironically, the tools that social media researchers are experts in are the same tools that have shifted how politics works, anxieties are spread, and policies are made in Australia. Experts have to acknowledge this shift in how democratic nations now make laws, and advise policy makers within that reality (at least until the technology companies are better regulated).

What do schools have to do with the social media ban?

Schools may welcome this ban because it means that they can use the law to make policies to limit student social media use beyond ineffective mobile phone bans that do not acknowledge students can still access social media sites on their BYOD devices, or even the school-provided devices via a proxy. 

But all the bans in the world will not address the fundamental social issues that create problematic classroom and schoolyard behaviours in the first place. It is not social media that leads young men to distribute ranking lists of their female classmates, nor was it AI that caused them to place the heads of classmates and teachers on naked bodies, nor is it the algorithm that causes them to call their female teachers and classmates foul names. All these tools do is make it easier but even if the tools are banned, misogyny will find another way. 

So the real issue is the lack of time and space that schools have to engage in difficult conversations about how to act in society. We have seen scholarship after scholarship after scholarship about the curriculum crunch and the time poverty of teachers and school leaders. We have seen debate after debate about how to fit more into the curriculum, and very little about finding the time to have conversations about democratic values like equity, inclusion and diversity. Time that is necessary to process big feelings as children come to understand their world. 

Students need time to process ideas

Often this world holds no resemblance to what they thought the world would look like because important skills like critical and media literacy have shattered their world view. It is quite natural for an adult, let alone a teen, to lash out when their worldview is challenged. Teaching of these skills needs time to allow students to process the ideas but schools are so time poor that often critical skills are shoehorned in because a teacher thinks they are important. The reality is that critical skills are not something that can take one lesson. They develop over time, even years. 

The concerns of parents, teachers and school leaders about sexism and violence happening in their own communities has been heard by politicians but because moral panic mechanisms have been deployed through the mediatisation of schools, young men, sex and violence, the political solution is poor and will not address the real issue. Schools and their communities need time to come up with a localised plan. This might include banning social media, but that cannot be something the federal government decides.

Naomi Barnes

Naomi Barnes is an associate professor at QUT. She has a specific focus on moral panics and has demonstrated how online communication influences education politics in Australia, the US and the UK. She has analysed and developed network models to show the effect of moral panics on the Australian curriculum. Naomi lectures future teachers in Modern History, Civics and Citizenship and Writing Studies.

How engaging hearts leads to engaging minds

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

“I’m not here to make you feel guilty, but I’m here to give you truths and facts that ensure that the pain ends with us” is how the Uncles from the Stolen Generation begin their stories of tragedy, trauma and survival. We are with Uncles from  KBHAC (Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation) who are speaking to around 100 students and staff at the University of Sydney. KBHAC was established in 2002 to support survivors of the Kinchela Boys Home to heal and reconcile from their experiences of trauma by honoring their narratives and recovering their stolen identities, by engaging in truth-telling.

Through established processes, their Care Model and networks of support, empower each survivor to “take control of their future” and break the cycle of trauma. The Uncles establish a safe space for the largely non-Indigenous preservice teacher audience to learn by making it clear that they do not intend for the audience to feel shamed, attacked, or guilty for the past. Telling their story, talking about their culture and the impact of their removal from their families and culture, supports their healing. The Uncles invite listeners to learn from their stories, with no judgment toward those without prior knowledge of Aboriginal histories and cultures. As they explain, this is an opportunity to educate future teachers so their grandchildren have teachers with a deeper understanding and empathy for Aboriginal children and their families.

Engaging hearts and engaging minds 

The process of listening to Aboriginal narratives of lived experiences creates a deep emotional engagement that we argue is critical to learning; that is, an openness and willingness to engage in deep listening, understanding, learning, and feeling (Thorpe et al, in press). For effective learning and change to take place, emotions need to be awakened, expressed, understood and unpacked. Engaging hearts to engage minds contrasts sharply with dominant Western approaches that emphasise objectivity and positivist knowledge.

This deep emotional engagement allows and legitimizes the sharing of personal experiences and truth-telling, giving a human face to complex issues, and bridging the disconnect between policy and the people, communities and Countries that are affected by these. Rather than textbook teaching, learning from an Uncle sharing his experiences of discrimination today and his efforts to shield his family from these experiences, provides listeners who may be emotionally and intellectually disconnected from this reality, an opportunity to understand history as a living reality for Aboriginal peoples in this country.

Motivation to do better

Emotional discomfort, difficult conversations and disquieting knowledges are important for channeling negative emotions into motivation to do better. Engaging in controversial and complex dialogue builds critical consciousness to work towards a more equal, equitable society. Lasting change requires support from the ground up, where dominant attitudes cannot easily be shifted by changes in power.

In order to do this, critical consciousness must be built through the exposure of narratives that challenge the status quo.“Emotionally engaging with such truths may be means of understanding the inhumanity of the status quo, which can lead to a commitment to collective humanization”. When people come to understand the injustices that others face, they may feel more personally responsible for helping undo these systems as “the right thing to do,” 

Embodying Truth-Telling through Learning From Country

Learning from Country (LFC) is a pedagogical approach that involves being present and going on a journey with Aboriginal Elders and community members on Country to experience Aboriginal narratives of place and the effects of colonisation. By collaborating with Aboriginal organizations such as KBHAC, pre-service teachers have opportunities to deepen their understanding of Aboriginal cultures, histories and knowledges through place-based learning on Country.

The University of Sydney’s Learning From Country (LFC) course is a three-week intensive program that engages hearts to engage minds, where most of the teaching time is spent learning from Aboriginal community-based educators. Through this approach, complex issues are addressed, and negative perceptions about Aboriginal peoples are challenged to educate and  empower preservice teachers to create culturally-safe classrooms. Pre-service teachers come to understand their privilege, how it shapes their reality and feel motivated to ameliorate these inequalities for their future students. The transformative impact of these experiences is noted by one preservice teachers 

The emotion and pain in the room was palpable, but in hearing those stories and bringing them to light, I felt as a room it was a shared feeling of motivation as educators to do what we could in our roles to support breaking those cycles of intergenerational trauma. As an educator, I want to hold onto the grief that I felt in that room for the people that were and still affected by those policies and use it to motivate and inform my actions.

The Way Forward

The LFC approach of engaging hearts to engage minds provides a way forward by thinking about what is critical in developing culturally responsive teachers who feel empowered to challenge the education systems which continue to fail Aboriginal children. When students’ lifeworlds are not reflected in curriculum and assessment, when their families and communities are victims of the system claiming to help them, and their histories of trauma, tragedy and survival are silenced, disengagement, failure and alienation ensues.

“Indifference to these issues denies all students with the opportunity to be informed about those socio-political discourses that have forged the environment in which Aboriginal people exist in Australia today”. We need to continually remind ourselves of the human, social and cultural purposes of schooling to bring perspective and prioritize accountability to our students and communities, rather than to the system.

Culturally safe learning environments

Healing and social change is a collective process which can be achieved through the efforts of teachers. Knowledgeable, confident and emotionally engaged teachers who provide culturally safe learning environments to foster culturally aware, empathic students, can help  end cycles of generational trauma for Aboriginal students and generational ignorance in the broader student population. “We need the systems to listen and respond to good practice based on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, being, and doing that have been shared and demonstrated over many decades under colonization”.

Thus, programs like LFC that collaborate with Aboriginal community-based educators and organisations such as KBHAC, provide opportunities to rewrite dominant narratives, beginning with teachers emotionally engaging with Aboriginal histories, cultures and communities for the benefit of their future students, and society. Our mission is to never let another cohort of Australian students go through the system without knowing the true history of this country.

From left to right: Study Abroad student Caroline Pontaoe is a third-year student at Cornell University, USA is studying education in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. While studying at the University of Sydney, she researched Australian Aboriginal education policy and the significance of emotions in policy.

Cathie Burgess is an associate professor and researcher Aboriginal Community Engagement, Learning from Country and Leadership in Aboriginal Education programs at the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. Her teaching and research centres on the transformative impact of Aboriginal community-led education in university and school education. Cathie’s work is acknowledged through the 2024 Teacher Educator of the Year Award, Honorary Life Member, NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group and Life Member, Aboriginal Studies Association NSW Email: cathie.burgess@sydney.edu.au Valerie Harwood is a Professor of Sociology and Anthropology of Education in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. Her research is centred on a social and cultural analysis of participation in educational futures. This work involves learning about collaborative approaches and in-depth fieldwork on educational justice with young people, families and communities.Email: Valerie.harwood@sydney.edu.au

Header image: Learning From Country July 2020. Aboriginal presenters Kareel Phillips, Macoy Hansen, Willy Gordon, Tiarna Fatnowna, Julie Welsh & Gloria Duffin. Lecturers Valerie Harwood (SSESW), Cathie Burgess (SSESW), Reakeeta Smallwood (Sydney Nursing School) with nursing students.

Why evidence is important in educational practice and policy

evidence-based policy, evidence-based practices, , , , ,

Evidence is critical in education. Topical new research findings related to child and adolescent development, learning processes, education inequities, and the outcomes of specific pedagogical and classroom approaches must be shared with teachers, leaders, and policymakers. Alongside these, stakeholders need contextual information about the quality and nature of that evidence: have findings been replicated with different learners and in different contexts? Are the interpretations drawn by the researchers valid reflections of the data, or are other interpretations possible? How robust are the phenomena? 

Education is multidisciplinary and should draw on evidence from the multiple fields that inform ecologies of learning and teaching. Cognitive and psychological sciences are vital for understanding the psychological foundations of learning, for example, but do not inform our understanding of educational and social systems and their impact. Evidence-based practices must weave together insights from different fields in a way that is rigorous and robust. 

Some evidence is widely replicated and universally applicable (e.g. matching pedagogy to so-called student “learning styles” does not work – and may in fact penalise learning), whereas other evidence may be relevant only in particular contexts (e.g. worked examples are effective in supporting problem solving in Maths, particularly for well-defined problems and novice learners, but are less relevant in English). Supporting teachers, leaders, and policymakers to know what phenomena are universal, or not, and why, is vital – as are discussions about what evidence relates to which aspects of development and learning. 

Critiques of evidence-based practice in education

Evidence-Based Practices have been criticised in EduResearch Matters recently on the grounds that they are harmful and oppressive. These critiques raise important questions regarding the slimness of evidence used by some policymakers; the peculiar interests of some advocates in oversimplifying particular research findings and excluding others; and the focus on experimental interventions to the exclusion of other useful methodologies that can offer different types of insights about education, students, and learning. 

Such critiques can, though, be misread by stakeholders as suggesting that evidence itself is unimportant. This mischaracterisation is unhelpful. Instead, we must be clear that evidence matters – as does the robustness of that evidence; its generalisability or specificity; its ecological validity; and the contextualisation of that evidence for teachers and teaching. 

Those with limited expertise in educational research, including policy-makers, should turn to educational researchers with genuine expertise in specific domains to understand what research shows as our “best-bets”. That is, the pedagogical practices shown to best achieve specific educational outcomes in specific contexts; the degree to which prior knowledge, discipline, age, social context, and learner characteristics affect these bets; and the background knowledge about learners, social contexts, and development that is needed to support other related aspects of schooling such as wellbeing and classroom behaviour.  

The role of universities in promoting evidence-based practice

A key justification for the positioning of teacher education in universities is the need to connect school practice with research scholarship to enhance student learning. As outlined by Aspland (2006), however, this has not always been the case. In the 1800s, school-based apprenticeship models were widely used in Australia. While some conservative commentators prefer this model still, concerns emerged that instructional skills among trainees were poor. In the 1900s, teacher colleges focused predominantly on the craft of teaching. It was not until the late 1980s, and following moves by minister Dawkins to amalgamate colleges of advanced education with universities, that teacher educators in Australia came to adopt more scholarly and theoretical approaches connecting research evidence from different disciplines to teacher education and practice. 

Most academics in Schools of Education today have both teaching and research roles, and there is very little peer-reviewed research in education in Australia that does not come from a university faculty. Key research insights related to cognitive load, worked examples, expertise, reading science, goal setting, neuromyths, formative and summative assessment, EAL/D learners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and cultures, and multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) – all prominent components of the Teacher Education Expert Panel’s new core content – come directly from expert researchers located in Schools of Education.  

Emphasis on peer review

Note here our emphasis on independent peer-review: a universal gold standard in research accountability and quality. TEQSA notes that research, at a minimum, must (i) lead to and/or transmit new knowledge or advances in creative or professional practice in a field, (ii) be a planned, purposive intellectual inquiry, and (iii) produce outputs that are subject to external, independent scrutiny. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research similarly states that research must be transparent and must be tested through peer review. 

Of course external organisations may also conduct relevant educational research provided they adhere to the Australian Code. The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) is one such example, with an NHMRC-registered Human Research Ethics Committee and peer-reviewed research subject to external oversight and scrutiny. 

The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) recommend that teachers have high confidence in an approach only after having “read research published in peer-reviewed academic journals OR conducted by a trustworthy source such as AERO”. This highlights a dilemma for policymakers, school leaders, and teachers seeking accessible evidence not restricted to refereed journal articles – how do such stakeholders confidently differentiate the quality of the range of excerpts, explainers, popular press and commercial tools available and promoted to them without underlying peer-reviewed evidence? And how can university researchers with expertise in ensuring quality support them?  

What should evidence look like in practice? 

To support teachers, leaders, and policy-makers to engage in evidence-based practices, we highlight three important caveats. 

First, context matters. A key role for teachers and school leaders in the translation of research evidence into practice is in knowing how different research insights will apply within their local context. As educational researchers we must be explicit in highlighting who a body of evidence is relevant to, for what purposes, and what boundaries exist to generalisation beyond these conditions. 

The need to account for context does not mean one is free to choose their own adventure. On the contrary, all relevant findings must be accounted for. The quality of that evidence must also be accounted for: peer review is a minimum standard but does not replace incisive questions about how research is conducted or what, collectively, the findings can tell us. There is a sense of intellectual humility in being willing to change one’s approach in line with valid and robust evidence.

Second, evidence evolves. A recent review of well-known classroom strategies emerging from cognitive science found that some had been tested across year groups and subjects (e.g. retrieval practice), while others were tested predominantly in the middle years of schooling and in Maths or Science (e.g. interleaving). Where evidence is simply missing, and not contrary to practice, teachers and policymakers must use sound judgement to consider how relevant related evidence might be. 

Description which has grown capital letters

Given the evolution of knowledge, we should also be wary of definite characterisations of evidence that don’t appear open to nuance or change. The Science of Reading (together with other ‘Sciences of’) is an interesting example of a “description which has grown capital letters”: a linguistic phenomenon in which a field of study can, in the wrong hands, act semantically like a proper name – it becomes rigid and resistant to investigation and may no longer denote the field of inquiry to which it originally referred. Reading science, cognitive science, or psychological science are safer characterisations and offer much evidence that is useful in classrooms. 
Third, purpose matters. Evidence should not supplant philosophical discussions and sociologically informed considerations of what education is for or what it can reasonably be expected to do. Rather, evidence should support decision-making about how best to achieve specific educational goals within specific subjects and for specific learners.

Left to right: Penny Van Bergen is head of school, School of Education, University of Wollongong, Mary Ryan is executive dean, Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University, Deborah Youdell is the dean of Macquarie School of Education, Macquarie University.

Learning to talk

The right time to talk is now: Phonology before phonics

spoken language, , , , ,

Early years teachers are identifying a worrying cultural trend affecting children’s spoken language development – their ability to talk – which has implications for early literacy learning. 

Teachers report that on entry to school, many young children lack the verbal skills of previous generations. The cause is parents’ incessant use of mobile phones which inhibits verbal interaction with their children. Teachers also noted children’s poorer core body strength, gross and fine motor coordination. Whilst the latter deficiencies support the argument for more physical activity in the early years the former suggests a strong need for a focus on spoken language in early schooling. 

These findings will come as no surprise to early years practitioners. They have extensive knowledge of the importance of active play and talk as fundamental elements of early learning.  Before children learn to read and write, they need to have a comprehensive foundation of phonological skills which includes a good awareness of discrete sounds in words. This should be an imperative prior to the introduction of formal instruction in reading and writing. 

The transition is complicated

The transition from phonological awareness to reading is complicated by the fact English is not a phonetic language. Here’s the complication: there is no comprehensive one-to-one relationship between individual letters and sounds. Although there are 26 letters in the alphabet, English has 44 sounds or phonemes. This means a single letter may map to several different sounds.  For example, the letter ‘a’ is not always a short vowel sound, as in ‘apple’. Nor does it have only one variation, as in the split digraph, ‘late’, where the ‘silent e’ changes the medial ‘a’ to a long vowel. Other phonological variations of ‘a’ can be found in the following words: 

  • short vowel ‘i’ as in ‘women’
  • ‘ar’ as in ‘fast’ and ‘father’
  • the schwa as in ‘about’ and ‘around’
  • the short vowel ‘o’ as in ‘was’ and ‘what’
  • the short vowel ‘e’ as in ‘many’
  • and finally, ‘or’ as is ‘call’ and ‘ball

So, the single letter, ‘a’, which is often considered to be one of the simplest letter-sound correspondences in English, has nine different sounds. That makes it more complex than ‘a’ for ‘apple’ suggests. Unless children have extensive experience of hearing and uttering words in which letters that have phonological variations, they are unlikely to have sufficient command of the range of sounds to know which one to apply when they see the word in print.  

One sound, many letters

What further complicates learning to read in English is that a single sound (phoneme) can be represented by letter combinations. For example, the ‘f’ sound can be represented in the following ways – ‘f’ – ‘ff’ –‘ph’ – ‘gh’. In addition, there are longer letter strings that represent a single sound, e.g.  ‘igh’, ‘aye’, ‘eau’. The representation of sounds in print are called ‘graphemes’. The exact number of graphemes in English is a matter of debate. One estimate suggests the figure is as high as 284. One means by which children learn to read is through combining their visual memory of letters and letter combinations and their auditory memory of corresponding sounds. The process of linking letters to sounds is known as phonics, of which there are two main types: synthetic and analytic. 

Early years practitioners have a wealth of knowledge. They have ways to give children repeated opportunities to hear these variations, as well as have opportunities to say them. They know that regularly reading aloud to children, as well as story-circles, story-telling, singing songs, reciting rhymes and provoking talk through play all contribute to the development of strong phonological awareness. If we are developing a culture in which children are not getting these phonological experiences before they start school, it is essential they are emphasised in early schooling.   

What children really need

However, evidence from England, where the teaching of synthetic phonics was made statutory in 2010 suggests this professional knowledge has been displaced by commercial programs and policy directives. These have resulted in the ‘streaming’ of young children on the basis of their ‘ability’ to make letter-sound correspondences using synthetic phonics. It is likely, therefore, that children with the least developed phonological abilities will be placed in ‘low ability’ groups where they will be coached in phonics. But what they really need is varied opportunities to hear and use spoken language. In addition, recent articles by UK academics report children in England are having fewer or no books read to them. They have fewer opportunities to hear and use naturalistic language. These important aspects of early years education have all been replaced. They’ve been replaced by streams of powerpoints, simplistic worksheets, decodable books and the choral chanting of letter-sound correspondences. 

However, the UK Labour Party has made speaking and listening a key component of its Education Manifesto. Australian teachers already know the importance of talk as a tool for learning. Policy makers here need to heed the imminent change in Britain, and follow suit. The evidence from teachers in Western Australia suggests the mobile phone is killing talk in the home. This is why it is even more important children have extensive opportunities to hear and use spoken language in school.  

Biographies

Paul Gardner is a senior lecturer in English in the School of Education at Curtin University. He has been a Secondary teacher of Drama and English, a primary teacher and an educational leader in early learning. His published works cover the themes of: creativity, socially inclusive education, writer identity and compositional processes. He advocates for critical pedagogy and social justice.   

Sonja Kuzich is a senior lecturer and Director of Learning and Teaching in the School of Education, Curtin University. Her research interests and publications encompass social justice and equity, literacy practices in schools, educational policy development and implementation particularly through a sustainability agenda, EfS curriculum and pedagogy and the impact of nature on children’s affective and cognitive outcomes.