Griffith University

What do you think: Will Labor fix higher education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Findings from the HESF framework

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

Alignment with the Universities Accord Implementation

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

Supporting Needs-based Funding

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

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

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

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

The HESF framework can inform ATEC’s approach to:

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

Enhanced Support for Students with Disabilities

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

Our recommendations for Implementation 

The HESF research suggests universities should:

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

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

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

Economic and Social Impact

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

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

A pivotal contribution

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

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

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

Bios, from left to right

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

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

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

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

election priorities

The urgent need for connectedness

Education policy, election priorities, , , , ,

This is the second day in a series of posts on education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about why we need connected solutions.

The middle years

For more than two decades I have conducted research in the field of young adolescent learning and teaching, with interests in student engagement and wellbeing; teacher self-efficacy; and professional learning.  During this time, policy-makers and systems have sporadically focussed on the middle years (Years 6/7-9/10) with specific initiatives, such as the 2015 implementation of the Junior Secondary Guiding Principles.

The impetus for the focused attention has ranged from responses to structural shifts, such as moving Year 7 into secondary schools, to concerns about the wellbeing of our middle years’ students across a range of academic, social and emotional indicators. The initiatives have been characterised by their transient and short-lived nature. They are often a reflection of political cycles,  which in turn impact the sustainability of reforms to achieve long-term transformation.

The most recent evidence provides an alarming insight into how we are travelling in the middle years. It is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 data.  PISA is an international comparative study of student performance, directed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It measures the cumulative education outcomes of 15-year-olds in 81 countries.

Lower than the OECD average

The findings reveal Australia’s mean index score is lower than the OECD average for: students’ sense of belonging; student-teacher relationships; disciplinary climate in mathematics classes; feeling safe at school; resistance to stress; curiosity; and perseverance. Exposure to bullying is higher than the OECD average. These scores occurred despite our investment in schooling that is just above the average of the OECD countries.

Students in various states and sectors also report variations across these indicators, highlighting the inconsistency of experiences around the nation. This is gravely concerning data. 

Furthermore, it aligns with persistent evidence of declining mental health and wellbeing of young adolescents over the last two decades. That has surged since the COVID pandemic, with the peak of onset coincidentally occurring at 15 years of age. 

Young people’s mental health and wellbeing is now a leading health concern. It accounts for 45% of disease globally in those aged 10–24 years.

It is clear that the middle years in the education life course requires urgent and sustained attention in Australian education.

The intention is there

The intention to improve middle years education is evident in the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. It provides the vision for Australia to achieve a world class education system that encourages and supports every student. 

The middle years receive special attention in the Declaration which states: [T]he middle years are an important period of individual growth and learning when a balanced set of cognitive, social and emotional skills are developed.”

And: “[T]his is also a time when they are at the greatest risk of disengagement from learning.

“Through directly addressing each student’s range of needs, schools must focus on enhancing motivation and engagement”

The need for learning with positive student-teacher relationships, strong peer relationships and age-appropriate pedagogies are the salient factors to achieve effective engagement, with the promotion of student agency at the core. The implications of disengagement are profound, with students life chances diminished when appropriate climates for learning are not in place.

Moving in and moving out

In addition to age-appropriate teaching and learning, the Declaration explicitly calls for the improvement of transition into – and out of – the middle years. 

Transition from Year 6 into Year 7 has been identified as an area of concern for decades. The words ‘gap’ and ‘plunge’ are commonly used to describe the impact of ineffective transition. That leads to disengagement, lack of achievement and disillusionment in the middle years.

Some hope

The Flying Start Initiative in Queensland was a timely approach to ensure the efficacy of the introduction of a prep year and the shift of Year 7 into secondary schools.  It also included an intentional model of Junior Secondary Guiding Principles that explicitly shaped teaching and learning for the middle years. It included a focus on distinct identity and sense of belonging related to effective transition into Year 7.  While the standalone Principles has now been abandoned as explicit policy, many of the concepts have been embedded into practice. We can share some promising findings of the impact of intentionally shaping middle years pedagogy.

Our study tracked 317 Year 6 students in 18 Primary Schools into Year 7 in 11 Secondary Schools. We discovered that the intentional approach resulted in students’ sense of belonging at school remaining mostly stable and positive through the transition. It set them up for success and avoiding the gap that might negatively impact their engagement and success at school. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of transition out of the middle years, and the relevance and veracity of the senior school models which vary around our nation. 

The need for connected solutions – a longitudinal framework with efficient pit stops 

In this brief commentary I have focused on the middle years. This is my area of passion and research, and where the stakes are especially high. However, similar challenges exist in all phases across the life course, from early childhood education to tertiary education. The opportunity to seek enhancements for confluence in our schooling system reduces abrupt shifts that serve as pit stops and potentially detours between phases, which have become increasingly compartmentalised.  The possibility to explore greater connectedness and a longitudinal framework of success for our students is needed now. And it must be said, the mental health and wellbeing of our students must sit at the front of the class. Investing in a consistent and evidence-based approach is paramount to addressing the declining mental health and wellbeing of our young people.

Professor Donna Pendergast is the Director of Engagement in the Arts, Education and Law Group and former Dean and Head of the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University. Her research expertise is education transformation and efficacy.

five ticks in circles and a finger pointing to a target.

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

boosting the teacher workforce, election priorities, , , , , , ,

This is the fourth in a series of posts on AARE’s education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about boosting the teacher workforce. This post develops some of the themes we published earlier today on boosting the teacher workforce.

It is expensive to become a school teacher – for the individual and for government. It is a great calling, but why do relatively few stay for the longer term? There is no simple answer, and both researchers and policymakers must avoid the temptation of simple solutions. One touted solution is to reduce the burden on teachers by removing all the non-class duties that have built up over the years. This ‘busy work’ does create workload pressures and is cited as a reason teachers leave the profession.

Yet an important part of non-class time is researching and planning for time spent with students. This has always been part of teaching. Unfortunately, this work is often labelled ‘busy work’ alongside administration and compliance tasks. In accordance with this labelling, generative AI and pre-produced curriculum resources are increasingly harnessed to replace teachers’ own research and planning.

Teachers are ethically bound to adjust resources

These are ‘solutions’ that must be closely scrutinised, for teachers value research and planning. Research shows teachers feel obliged to make modifications because they know their students and are ethically bound to adjust resources to suit them. So, even if resources are purchased to save teachers’ time, teachers have to devote time anyway to ensure materials meet the needs of their students. This kind of assistance may not be the panacea to teacher workload that it is imagined to be.

AI-generated and off-the-shelf resources are never able to anticipate the diverse needs of real students. Teachers know they have to use their professional discretion to fine-tune even the best of supplied resources. The understanding of students’ needs that guides curriculum adjustment is built on rapport with students. This social-emotional work is vital to teachers’ (and students’) wellbeing. It is undermined when teachers are made to use resources without scope for interpretation.

Teachers’ interpretive work with curriculum and resources is highly skilled and intensely difficult. The interpretive process not only calls for fine-grained attunement to students’ needs, but the curriculum and resources always need to be related back to broader knowledge and skills. For instance, maths curriculum is a sort of shorthand for certain mathematical skills and knowledge. Teachers have to unpack the knowledge and skills implicit in curriculum and resources to make learning come to life. This creative work taps into teachers’ own interests and expertise and is one of the sources of joy in planning.

Teachers’ interpretive work is nearly invisible to the casual observer

Teachers’ interpretive work (to serve diverse students, and to unpack knowledge and skills) is nearly invisible to the casual observer. However, it is critical to ensuring official curriculum is converted to quality learning. Early evidence suggests that standardising curriculum resources – that is, to replace this work with off-the-shelf resources – increases the dissatisfaction of teachers. Teachers need to interpret curriculum rather than recite it. They deeply value the work of lesson planning and preparation in their roles. Maybe it is the invisibility of this work that prompts people outside education to undervalue it?

To help education ministers and bureaucrats in their well-intentioned efforts to improve the lives of teachers and make the profession more attractive, researchers need to clarify the professional need to interpret and plan for quality learning. We need research that can explain the links between planning and performing in classrooms, and how teachers’ work satisfaction is implicated. 

We also need policy makers who are capable of a nuanced response to the needs of teachers, who are open to the complexities of teachers’ work and with that, wary of simple solutions.

Steven Hodge is director of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research (GIER). His research focuses on the relationship between curriculum development and the work of educators. Emily Ross is deputy director of Teaching and Learning and Director of Primary Programs in the School of Education at The University of Queensland. Emily’s curriculum interpretation and implementation research has shaped government policy in Queensland and Australia

five ticks in circles and a finger pointing to a target.

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

boosting the teacher workforce, election priorities, vocational education and training (VET), , , ,

This is the third in a series of posts on AARE’s education priorities for the 2025 federal election. Today’s posts are about boosting the teacher workforce.

Vocational education and training (VET) is a large and important education sector in Australia. VET supports the learning of a significant number of Australians, with 5.1 million enrolments in 2023. Our economy is transforming rapidly, impacting the knowledge and skills needed by the Australian workforce. VET is the educational powerhouse that supplies the bulk of these needs. The importance of VET cannot be denied, but there is a problem: it is getting harder to recruit teachers. Despite some commentary to the contrary, the overwhelming evidence is that across the sector, providers are finding it difficult to secure and retain teachers.

There are multiple factors in play in the VET teacher supply challenge. One is that VET teaching often pays less than what could be earned in industry. Given cost of living pressures, this is a significant factor in the supply problem. Another is that the nature of the sector requires varying kinds of teacher, from industry experts doing ad hoc teaching and assessment through to career teachers in various modes of employment. The diversity of VET teaching roles means that any response to the supply challenge must be nuanced.

Too much for some, too little for others

The diversity of roles also means the current entry-level qualification – a level 4 Certificate – is too basic for dedicated VET teachers. At the same time too involved for industry people on brief teaching stints. As a result, the qualification to become a VET teacher is a long-standing sore point for the system that undermines teacher satisfaction and system quality, while creating a barrier for some types of teacher.

A more subtle factor in the teacher supply challenge is that the VET system uses an approach to course design that sidelines and can even conflict with teachers’ industry expertise. VET teachers need substantial industry expertise. For instance, if I learn hairdressing, then it can only be from someone who is or was a hairdresser. And system rules require teachers who are not currently practising in industry to maintain their links with and currency. These rules mean VET teachers are always industry experts.

However, when an industry expert opts to become a VET teacher, they are obliged to base their educational work on standardised descriptions of industry tasks and roles. These descriptions (called ‘competencies’ in the system) guide resource production and lesson planning. The competencies are a good idea in principle. The reality is they follow a format not natural to many industry experts and may become outdated quickly.

The problem of unnatural format is important because industry expertise is always quite specific, whereas the format for the statements is one-size-fits-all across everything from creative industries to electrotechnology to enrolled nursing. As a result, the many nuances of industry skills and knowledge are not always communicated adequately in the documents. It makes industry experts teaching from them uncomfortable.

The rates of change pose a real problem

The second problem is becoming a big issue in VET because the rate of change in some industries is outpacing the process for writing the competencies. Research suggests that some of these statements can be out of date by the time they are released, while others are only current for a short time. Teachers are put in a difficult position when faced with out-of-date information. The rules of the system say they must teach exactly what is in the statements, but teachers cannot in good conscience teach what is no longer industry practice.

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is responsible for the VET sector and over the last few years has undertaken a VET Qualification Reform process intended to tackle these and other issues. A new era is promised that may lead to a system that allows for rich design principles and curricula. But VET teachers must be central to the creation and maintenance of such a system.

Regardless of which party or parties come to power this election, the reform process must be followed through to the point where teachers given scope to put their expertise to good use. In this way, a declining workforce can be invigorated. Honouring the desire in teachers to advance their industries and pass on quality practices is something that could help everyone linked to the VET system – and that really is everyone!


Steven Hodge is Director of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research (GIER), a large, multidisciplinary community of education researchers. Steven’s research focuses on the relationship between curriculum development and the work of educators. Much of his empirical research has been in the areas of adult and vocational education, concerned with how occupational knowledge and skills are represented in curriculum and how that curriculum is translated for learning.

Balancing act: can screens really get kids moving?

physical education, Physical exercise, physical literacy, , ,

As digital technology becomes more ingrained in early childhood education, the debate over its effects on young children’s physical literacies intensifies. While there’s no denying the potential of technology to engage children in learning, it’s crucial to ask: How does it affect their physical literacies? This article explores the impact of digital technology on physical literacies and offers practical advice for parents and educators looking to strike a healthy balance. My research specifically investigates how teachers and parents perceive digital technology’s influence on young children’s physical literacies, addressing a critical gap in understanding its effects beyond motor skills.   

The Growing Role of Digital Technology in Early Childhood

We live in an increasingly digital world, and young children are no exception. Tablets, smartboards, and educational apps are now staples in early childhood education. They offer children interactive learning experiences that can stimulate creativity, enhance cognitive skills, and foster social collaboration.

Research shows that when used effectively, technology can support literacy and numeracy development, catering to diverse learning needs (OECCED). But as screen time increases, concerns about its effect on physical literacies also rise. With children spending more time on devices, is there enough time left for physical activity, the kind of play that builds motor skills like running, jumping, and balancing?

What Is Physical Literacy?

 The Australian Sports Commission states that physical literacy is about more than just mastering physical skills—it’s about confidence, motivation, and the ability to engage in physical activities for life. Early childhood is the perfect time to nurture this because active play lays the foundation for lifelong health. The Australian Physical Literacy Framework and The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) stress the importance of physical activity in children’s overall development, highlighting that active play is essential for physical, social, and emotional growth.

Yet, with the rise of screen-based learning, educators and parents must ask: how do we ensure that technology enhances, rather than detracts from, children’s physical literacies? Despite its importance, current research lacks a comprehensive definition of how digital technology influences physical literacies in young children. My research seeks to address this gap by exploring how teachers and parents perceive and define physical literacies in today’s digital age.

How Does Digital Technology Affect Physical Literacies?

Research on the intersection of digital technology and physical literacies presents a complex picture. On one hand, increasing screen time is linked to lower levels of physical activity, which can hinder the development of essential motor skills such as balance, coordination, and agility. While studies show a correlation between increased screen time and reduced physical activity, little research has explored how parents and educators actively manage these challenges in early education settings. 

On the other hand, there’s growing evidence that digital technology can support physical literacies when used creatively. Motion-based games, such as those using augmented reality (AR) or exergaming, encourage children to move while they engage with technology. Apps that promote activities like dance or yoga can integrate fun physical challenges with the engaging aspects of digital play, making them excellent tools for developing motor skills. 

So, how can we ensure that technology is a tool that promotes, rather than stifles, physical development?

Striking the Right Balance: Practical Tips for Educators and Parents

The key is balance—striking the right balance between technology and physical activity in early childhood education is essential for fostering healthy development. Here are some tips to help educators and parents find the right  balance when incorporating digital technologies into young children’s physical literacies:

  • Incorporate active digital play, where educators and parents can choose technology tools that encourage movement, such as interactive whiteboards for dance activities or apps designed for physical exploration. These tools help make learning more dynamic and engaging.
  • Limiting screen time according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines is important to prevent it from replacing physical activity. It is essential to prioritise free playtime, where children can move, explore, and engage physically, which is vital for their development.
  • Blending technology with outdoor play provides another valuable approach. By using nature exploration apps to guide outdoor activities or integrating storytelling apps with physical role-playing, educators and parents can ensure that technology supports active learning while fostering both cognitive and physical growth. 
  • Engaging parents is equally important. Encouraging co-play or co-viewing during screen time transforms it into a shared experience that prompts movement and meaningful interactions.  This not only strengthens parent-child relationships but also supports the development of physical literacies. 
  • Prioritising unstructured outdoor play remains essential, as it offers children opportunities to develop motor skills and interact with their environment. Ensuring children spend time outdoors every day, free from screens, supports their physical and emotional well-being.

Doesn’t have to be a battle

The relationship between digital technology and physical literacies doesn’t have to be a battle. The truth is, when used thoughtfully, digital tools can complement physical play and support young children’s overall development. It’s about finding a balance—one where technology enriches learning without overshadowing the need for physical activity.

By integrating technology that encourages movement and setting clear boundaries around screen time, educators and parents can help children thrive in both the digital world and the physical one. By examining how digital technology intersects with physical literacies, my research aims to provide educators and parents with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about integrating technology while fostering active play. Understanding these perspectives can help bridge the gap between concerns about screen time and the opportunities digital tools offer to support movement and engagement.

What’s your experience with balancing technology and physical activity in early childhood education? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Trent Davis is an experienced early childhood educator and is passionate about advancing research in the early years’ domain. He is currently an adjunct academic and PhD candidate (post-confirmation) within the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University. His study applies a case study and phenomenological approach to uncover these perspectives, offering practical insights that can shape future early childhood practices.      

HEADER IMAGE: COURTESY OF AB PATERSON COLLEGE

A call to action on Indigenous education rights: uphold fundamental human rights now

Indigenous Curriculum, Indigenous education, Indigenous education policy, Indigenous futures, Indigenous learning, Indigenous research, , , ,

It’s exactly one year since the referendum on the Voice to Parliament. This is a call to action in a post-referendum Australia to advance Indigenous education rights.

In the wake of the unsuccessful Voice referendum, Australia finds itself at a critical juncture in its relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As an Indigenous academic who has long advocated for a rights-based approach to education, this moment calls for a renewed commitment. It also calls for action from all sectors of our education system, particularly non-Indigenous educators and leaders.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Foundation for Rights-Based Education

Before delving into specific actions, it’s crucial to understand the international framework that underpins our rights-based approach. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly in 2007 and endorsed by Australia in 2009, provides a comprehensive framework for recognising, protecting, and promoting the rights of Indigenous peoples globally.

UNDRIP explicitly addresses education in several articles:

Article 14: asserts indigenous peoples’ right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions, providing education in their own languages and in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

Article 15: emphasises the right of indigenous peoples to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories, and aspirations, which should be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

Article 21: states that indigenous peoples have the right to improvement in their economic and social conditions, including in the area of education.

These articles, among others, form the basis of our rights-based approach to education. They shift the paradigm from viewing education for Indigenous peoples as a matter of welfare or closing gaps to recognising it as a fundamental human right. This approach demands our education systems not only provide access to education for Indigenous peoples but also do so in a way that respects and promotes Indigenous cultures, languages, and ways of knowing.

The Imperative of Rights-Based Education

The referendum’s outcome doesn’t change the fundamental rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to quality education that respects our cultures, languages, and traditions. These rights, as outlined in UNDRIP, to which Australia is a signatory, remain intact and urgent. Our education systems, from early childhood through to higher education, have both an opportunity and a responsibility to embed these rights into their practices, policies, and curricula.

This isn’t just about “closing gaps” or hitting targets. It’s about recognising and upholding fundamental human rights and contributing to a more just and inclusive education system for all Australians.

Key Areas for Action

1. Curriculum Reform

We must move beyond tokenistic inclusion of Indigenous content. A rights-based approach calls for deep integration of Indigenous knowledges, histories, and perspectives across all subject areas. This isn’t just for the benefit of Indigenous students; it enriches the education of all Australians and promotes intercultural understanding.

2. Indigenous Leadership in Education

Increased Indigenous representation in educational leadership is crucial. This involves more than just hiring Indigenous teachers, educators, and academics (though that’s important). It means creating pathways for Indigenous education experts to shape policy, develop curricula, and lead institutions.

3. Community Partnerships

Education systems must forge meaningful, reciprocal partnerships with Indigenous communities. This goes beyond consultation to the co-design of educational programs and policies. Respecting Indigenous self-determination means recognising communities as experts and agents of their own educational needs and destinies.

 4. Safe Learning Environments

Creating safe learning environments is a key aspect of upholding Indigenous educational rights. This involves comprehensive cultural competency and anti-racism training for all staff, along with policies and practices that respect Indigenous cultural protocols and ways of learning.

 5. Language Revitalisation

Indigenous languages are not just communication tools; they are repositories of culture and knowledge. Education systems have a vital role to play in supporting language revitalisation efforts, offering bilingual education where appropriate and recognising the cognitive and cultural benefits of Indigenous language learning.

6. The Critical Role of Non-Indigenous Educators

Improving Indigenous educational outcomes is not solely the responsibility of Indigenous peoples. Non-Indigenous educators and leaders have a social and moral obligation to be at the forefront of this work alongside their Indigenous colleagues.

Here are key actions for non-Indigenous educators and leaders:

1. Educate Yourself: Commit to ongoing learning about Indigenous histories, cultures, and contemporary issues. Engage with Indigenous scholarship and participate in cultural competency training.

2. Amplify Indigenous Voices: Create platforms for Indigenous colleagues to share their expertise and advocate for increased Indigenous representation in decision-making bodies.

3. Critically examine curriculum and pedagogy: Review teaching materials for bias and incorporate Indigenous knowledges across all subject areas. Adopt culturally responsive teaching practices.

4. Build Genuine Partnerships: Reach out to local Indigenous communities to understand their educational priorities and involve them in curriculum development and decision-making processes.

5. Advocate for Systemic Change: Push for policy changes that support Indigenous rights and student success. Challenge practices that undermine Indigenous rights.

6. Support Indigenous Languages: Advocate for Indigenous language programs and support initiatives that integrate Indigenous languages into the broader curriculum..

7. Create Culturally Safe Spaces: Make your classroom or office welcoming for Indigenous students and colleagues. Be proactive in addressing racism and discrimination.

Overcoming Challenges

I recognise that this work comes with challenges. Non-Indigenous educators may feel discomfort or fear of making mistakes. Remember that discomfort is often a sign of growth. You may encounter resistance to change; use your position of privilege to advocate persistently for Indigenous rights. Strive for a balance of proactive engagement and respectful consultation with Indigenous colleagues and communities.

The path forward

The referendum may not have delivered constitutional change. But it has sparked crucial conversations. Now is the time to translate those conversations into meaningful action in our education systems. By embracing a rights-based approach, we can work towards an education system that truly serves all Australians and honours the unique rights, cultures, and contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

I call on all educators, policymakers, and community members to commit to concrete actions:

– Advocate for curriculum reform in your local schools and universities

– Support initiatives that amplify Indigenous voices in educational leadership

– Engage with local Indigenous communities to understand their educational priorities

– Push for robust cultural safety training in all educational institutions

– Support and participate in Indigenous language learning programs

The path to fully realising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational rights will be long. Yet every step matters. As we move forward, let’s remember that this work isn’t about charity—it’s about recognising and upholding fundamental human rights. Together, we can create an education system that not only respects Indigenous rights but also benefits from the rich knowledge and perspectives that Indigenous peoples bring to the table.

Peter Anderson is from the Walpiri and Murinpatha peoples of the Northern Territory and is Professor and Director Indigenous Research Unit at Griffith University. Professor Anderson’s research spans the area of Australian Indigenous education, educational systems, curriculum and pedagogical interventions and the intersecting relationships with indigenous peoples both globally and domestically.



teacher shortages

We have a massive teaching shortage. Here’s how to fix it

teacher shortage, , , , , , , , ,

The Federal Department of Education predicts an alarming teacher shortage of 4,100 teachers by 2025. It is now more pressing than ever that we explore ways of addressing this crisis. 

Our research examined female Initial Teacher Education (ITE) completion data in Australia to identify trends around which degree types (postgraduate and undergraduate) and study modes (internal, external, and multimodal) are likely to attract more potential female ITE students, and subsequently increase the ITE completion and ultimately the teacher supply pipeline.   

The research reveals a declining trend in ITE completion by females in the internal study mode for both degree types.  On the contrary, there has been an increasing trend in ITE completion by females in the external and multimodal study modes for both types of programs.  We therefore argue that policymakers and universities should make these programs and study modes more accessible to potential female ITE students.  This would help to maximise female ITE completion in tackling the predicted teacher shortage. 

Why use female ITE completion data? 

Historically, the teaching profession in Australia – and globally – has attracted more females than males. As such, efforts to increase the number of females graduating from ITE programs would play a significant role in bolstering the teaching workforce. Supporting women’s entry and retention in the teaching profession is key to ensuring an adequate ongoing teacher supply.  

A closer look at what the female ITE completion data tell us 

Our research shows that for the period from 2001 to 2021, there was a significant decline – by nearly 40 per cent – of female ITE completion in the internal study mode for undergraduate ITE programs. But at the same time, female ITE completion by multimodal study doubled and nearly tripled for female ITE graduates in the external study mode.   

Similar observations can be seen with the postgraduate ITE programs.  The internal study mode declined by nearly 20 per cent in the same period. For the external and multimodal study modes, there were mammoth increases of 264.40% and 1089.11% respectively in female ITE completion.  

It is clear that there is a growing interest by females to enrol in and complete ITE programs in the external and multimodal study modes as opposed to the internal study mode. 

A graph showing the percentage of a course type Description automatically generated

The upward trend in the external and multimodal study modes is likely attributed, in part, to technological advancements.  The increased use and accessibility of the internet in homes would have contributed to the growth in female ITE completion in these modes of study.  

These same technological advancements facilitated the adoption of online delivery methods for ITE degrees by universities. The shift to online learning around 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic would have also contributed to the upward trend in the external study mode. 

Given the increasing trend in female ITE completion in these flexible study modes, universities would be wise to make these modes more accessible to maximise ITE completion.  We argue that policymakers, universities and schools have an important role to play in this space to address the teacher shortage. 

Policymakers should consider: 

Offering financial support, such as scholarships and financial incentives, which are specifically targeted at female students, for example: 

  1. loans or grants for female students during placements to help cover living expenses; and 
  2. needs-based support for female students from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds. 
  3. Capping tuition fees to ensure they remain affordable for all female students. 

Universities should consider:  

Providing support for students balancing academic studies with other commitments, such as family duties, which disproportionately burden female students, such as: 

  1. flexible assignment extension and leave of absence policies; and 
  2. subsidised childcare services. 

Offering flexible study options, which might include: 

  1. part-time study;  
  2. evening classes; 
  3. block study; and 
  4. mixed study mode. 

Enhancing the accessibility of external and multimodal programs by: 

  1. providing 24/7 IT helpdesk support and certified training programs to aid the development of skills required for online learning; 
  2. implementing user-friendly learning management systems and eLearning tools; and 
  3. offering funding for suitable IT equipment and internet access, especially for those in regional areas.

Fostering supportive and inclusive learning environments by: 

  1. establishing peer support groups and academic skills advising tailored to external and online students; 
  2. providing networking opportunities;  
  3. mentorship programs; and 
  4. further initiatives that address the unique challenges faced by women in tertiary study. 

Schools should consider: 

Collaborating with policymakers and universities in structured partnerships to: 

  1. facilitate the establishment of outreach programs; 
  2. provide mentoring initiatives; and 
  3. promote teaching as a viable and rewarding career choice for females.

Investing in flexible, supportive, and financially accessible ITE programs, alongside broader strategies can encourage more females to enrol in and complete ITE degrees.  This would contribute to ensuring a steady supply of qualified teachers to help avert the pending teacher shortage. 

From left to right: Scott Cowie is a librarian in Academic Engagement Services at Griffith University, who has a keen interest in educational research.  Loan Dao is an Educational Designer at the University of New South Wales and an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Access Education at Central Queensland University.  Jeanne Allen is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University and is also a member of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research.  Darren Pullen is a Lecturer in Health Science and Information and Communications Technology in the School of Education at the University of Tasmania.

Working future: Now, how to build a bridge

higher education, vocational education and training (VET), , , ,

The Federal Government’s white paper Working Future argues for closer cooperation between vocational education and training (VET) and higher education (HE). The goal is a seamless array of lifelong education opportunities for Australians. 

Here’s the problem. VET and HE don’t always work well together, prompting commentators to characterise the Australian tertiary sector as a ‘binary’. But that’s not my only concern – the white paper reflects a degree of amnesia about the history of the sector. The silos of VET and HE are largely creations of government policy over several decades.

The call for a more effective tertiary sector runs up against a complex of differences: dimensions of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, teacher preparation, regulation, funding and marketisation. These individual differences have sprung from government policy, even in relation to fundamentally educational categories.

One of these differences stands out as fundamental for both educators and policy makers. Curriculum is fundamental because it expresses the meaning of educational intentions and experience. In the context of Australian tertiary education and its problematic binary structure, the importance of curriculum is amplified. 

On one side of the tertiary binary, a single curriculum model has been successfully imposed on providers and teachers while the other side has managed to avoid it. On the VET side, ‘competency-based training’ (CBT) was implemented as a system-wide model for all government-funded provision. Its justification was economic and social. In the 1980s, the Labour Government initiated sweeping reforms to reposition Australia as a global economic competitor across its portfolios, including VET. Higher education was targeted too, but it effectively resisted imposition of a CBT approach.  

The upshot was that HE was left to follow its own lights in regard to curriculum. Of course, there are broad structures that impinge on curriculum in HE, such as the Australian Qualifications Framework, but their level of prescription is modest, at least in terms of implications for actual curriculum. 

The lack of centralised control over HE curriculum turned out to be a boon for that side of the tertiary sector. It means HE providers can exercise maximum creativity in relation to curriculum, and rest on the expertise and insight of their teachers and researchers to craft learning experiences that directly reflect the requirements of disciplines, study areas and professions with a stake in HE. 

Even where standards are produced by professional associations and tied to program accreditation, HE providers have latitude to meet those standards in unique and innovative ways and the conceptualisation of standards is specific to the industry involved (rather than a generic model like CBT).

It is worth pointing out that if professional standards become too prescriptive then curriculum quality suffers and teachers may become alienated. 

That is precisely what has happened in VET. CBT can be regarded as a highly prescriptive implementation of standards relating to industries served by that system. Instead of high-level expressions of essential capabilities such as those prepared by Engineers Australia and used in HE engineering programs, competency standards in VET are intricately detailed and include very specific requirements about what knowledge and skills are supposed to underpin competent performances and how those performances should be assessed. 

The curricular impact of adherence to such standards is hard to overstate. It is possible to imagine that very uninformed providers and teachers might benefit from that level of prescription, but for the bulk of educators in VET the imposition is frustrating and even demoralising. As such, the quality of the whole system may be compromised through overprescription of industry standards. 

But it takes educational expertise to untangle many of these issues. At the level of policy making, high levels of prescription may be reassuring.  Policy makers may find it difficult to trace ramifications for curriculum innovation and quality.

From a curriculum angle, an effective tertiary sector in Australia would require stepping back and considering how to find a productive balance between industry or professional standards on the one hand, and curriculum innovation on the other. 

Critical here is the level of prescription attached to standards. Those representing industries and professions should leave educational decisions to those with educational expertise. As the VET experience demonstrates, it is easy for industry representatives to stray into the realm of curriculum decision-making and thereby impose constraints on educational innovation and quality that in turn undermine provider and teacher expertise and motivation. 

A more effective tertiary sector would be one where great care is taken to promote curricular creativity across both VET and HE. Winding back the curricular constraints implicit in the Australian implementation of CBT in VET is one way to address the binary of our tertiary sector. At the same time, those who work in HE should remain vigilant. It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which standards for an area like Initial Teacher Education (ITE) become politicised and from there become more prescriptive and exert stronger influence over actual curriculum in ITE degrees. In a scenario like that, the quandary in which expert and caring educators in VET find themselves could become a reality for education academics responsible for ITE.

This Blog is based in part on a recent MCERA Webinar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQKX6SoReU) and on a paper by Hodge, Guthrie, Jones and Waters currently under review. Contact Steven Hodge (s.hodge@griffith.edu.au) for a copy of the draft.

Steven Hodge is a member of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research (GIER) and of the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University, where he is Director of the Master of Education and Graduate Certificate in Professional Learning programs. He is immediate past president of the Australasian Vocational Education and Training Association and key contributor to debate in Australian post-compulsory education.

Why you can’t identify gifted students using NAPLAN

Gifted and talented students, NAPLAN, , , ,

Some schools rely on NAPLAN results to identify gifted students, a trend that is leading to many high-potential learners being overlooked and neglected. New research outlines the mistake of using this standardised assessment as the only identification tool for giftedness when it was never designed or intended for this purpose.

There are over 400,000 gifted students in Australia’s schools (approximately 10% of school students), but there are no national identification practices or national means of collecting information about Australian school students who are gifted.It has been over 20 years since the last national inquiry into the education of gifted and talented children in Australia. Despite two senate inquiries (one in 1988 and one in 2001), there are no national initiatives aimed at reducing the impact of ongoing problems in identifying and supporting the needs of gifted learners. It is a national disgrace that gifted students are among some of the most underserved and neglected students in our schools.

The Contentious Belief in NAPLAN for Identifying Giftedness

In education, we constantly strive to uncover and nurture the gifts of our students and develop these into talents, hoping to unleash the full extent of their potential across their lifespan. In Australia, the National Assessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) plays a controversial role in evaluating student performance and guiding educational policies and practices. However, there exists a contentious belief that NAPLAN data alone can accurately identify high-potential gifted students. In this blog post, I delve into the fallacy of exclusively using NAPLAN data to identify gifted students. 

A Snapshot of NAPLAN

NAPLAN is a nationwide standardised assessment, conducted annually in Australia, designed to assess the proficiency of students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9, in key learning areas, specifically reading, writing, language conventions, and numeracy. Its main goal is to gauge the effectiveness of the education system and pinpoint areas that may require improvement. NAPLAN was never designed, intended, or validated as a tool to identify giftedness. It was also never designed to make leagues tables for comparing schools.

What is giftedness?

Gifted students typically exhibit advanced cognitive abilities, exceptional problem-solving skills, and have a high capacity for critical thinking. They often demonstrate creativity, strong motivation to learn (in areas of interest), and an insatiable curiosity. In Australia, the terms gifted and talented are often used as synonyms where in fact they have separate meanings. Giftedness is defined using Gagné’s Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). In this Model, gifted individuals are understood to have (sometimes as yet unidentified) potential to excel across various domains, including intellectual, (e.g., general intelligence); creative (e.g., problem-solving); social (e.g., leadership); and motor control (e.g., agility).

On the other hand, the Model associates the term talent with performance, accomplishment or achievement, which is outstanding mastery of competencies in a particular field. The term talented is used to only describe individuals who are among the top 10 percent of peers (e.g., leading experts in their field) in any of nine competencies, including academic (e.g., mathematics); technical (e.g., engineering); science and technology (e.g., medical); the arts (e.g., performing); or sports (e.g., athletic talents).

Giftedness seems to be a misunderstood word in Australia. It is often incorrectly construed as referring to people who apparently ‘have it all’, whatever the elusive ‘it’ might be! Anyone who has any experience with giftedness would know that this is an elitist and unrealistic view of gifted learners and indeed, gifted education. In Australian education systems that are based on Gagné’s Model, giftedness focuses on an individual’s potential and ways to foster that potential through programs and practices that support the development of giftedness into talent.

Identifying Giftedness

The quest to identify gifted students has been a long-standing objective for education systems that seek to be genuinely inclusive. Research recommends that we should aim to identify exceptional potential as early as possible, providing tailored education to further nurture abilities. Naturally, the notion of using standardised test data, such as NAPLAN results, can be appealing because of its relative ease of implementation and data generated. But giftedness is not always demonstrated through achievement or performance. Rather, what NAPLAN may identify is some form of talent if we are using Gagné’s definitions.

Giftedness can coexist with other exceptionalities, such as disabilities, where a student is said to be twice-exceptional (or a gifted learner with disability). The twice-exceptionality stems from the two exceptionalities—individuals who are gifted (exceptional potential ) and have coexisting disabilities (e.g., learning, physical, or emotional), and therefore, require unique educational support that addresses both exceptionalities.

Why is Identification Important?

Many students can have their educational needs addressed in a typical classroom, but gifted learners often need specific interventions (e.g., extension, acceleration), or something different (e.g., specific curriculum differentiation), that engages their potential, in areas such as creativity, problem-solving, and curiosity, to develop these natural abilities into competencies and mastery.

There remains a persistent myth that gifted students are so clever that they will always do just fine on their own, without specific support. Yet, we would never expect a gifted tennis player, or a gifted violinist to do “just fine” on their own—the expectation would be for expert, tailored coaching along with extensive opportunities for practice and rehearsal to develop the student’s potential. Coaches focus on the individual needs of the student, rather than a standardised teaching program designed to suit most, but not all. Still, in Australia many claim to have misgivings about introducing anything ‘special’ for gifted students, while not having the same reservations with respect to athletically gifted or musically gifted students.

What Happens if Gifted Learners are Not Supported?

Failing to support the unique needs of gifted students at school can have significant and detrimental consequences on the students and on education systems and societies. Gifted students who are not appropriately challenged and supported may become disengaged and underachieve academically. Some researchers have estimated that 60%-75% of gifted students may be underachieving.

Becoming bored in the classroom can cause disruptive behaviour and a lack of interest in school, leading to problems such as school ‘refusal’ or ‘school can’t’, disengagement and school ‘drop out’ (estimated at up to 40% of gifted students). This perpetuates a cycle of missed opportunities and undeveloped potential. Furthermore, without appropriate support, gifted students may struggle with social and emotional challenges, feeling isolated from their peers because of their unique interests and abilities. This can lead to anxiety, depression, or other mental health issues.

When gifted students are not recognised and supported so that their giftedness can be transformed into talents, they may develop feelings of inadequacy or imposter syndrome. This can lead to decreased self-efficacy and self-confidence. Failing to identify and support gifted students means missing out on nurturing exceptional gifts that deprives the world of potential future leaders, innovators, medical researchers, and change-makers.

Gifted students from diverse backgrounds, including those from underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, may face additional barriers to identification and support. NAPLAN can be particularly problematic as a misused identification tool for underrepresented populations. Neglecting identification, and subsequently neglecting to address gifted students’ unique needs perpetuates inequity.

Societies and education systems that do not embrace inclusion and equity to the full extent risk continuing cycles of exclusion and inadequate support for giftedness. The OECD makes it clear that equity and quality are interconnected, and that improving equity in education should be a high priority. In Australia, priority equity groups never include giftedness or twice-exceptionality, and fail to recognise intersectionality of equity cohorts (e.g., gifted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students), further compounding disadvantage. When schools fail to support gifted students, these learners can become disengaged and leave school prematurely, impacting social wellbeing and economic growth, and representing a missed opportunity for education environments to be truly inclusive. Inclusive education must mean that everyone is included, not everyone except gifted learners.

The Fallacy Unveiled: Limitations of NAPLAN Data to Identify Giftedness

While NAPLAN may have some merits as a standardised assessment tool, problems have been identified and there have even been calls to scrap the tests altogether. So, it is vital to recognise NAPLAN’s limitations, especially concerning the identification of high-potential gifted students. Some key factors that contribute to the fallacy are the narrow assessment scope, because NAPLAN primarily focuses on literacy and numeracy skills. While these are undoubtedly critical foundational skills, they do not encapsulate the full spectrum of giftedness. Moreover, the momentary snapshot provided by NAPLAN of a student’s performance on a particular day may not accurately represent their true capabilities. Factors such as test anxiety, external distractions, or personal issues can significantly impact test outcomes, masking a student’s actual potential.

Giftedness often entails the capacity to handle complexity and to think critically across various domains. Standardised tests like NAPLAN do not effectively measure the multidimensionality of giftedness (from academic precocity, or potential to achieve academically, to creative thinking and problem solving). Relying solely on NAPLAN data to identify gifted students overlooks those who have potential to excel in non-traditional fields or those who possess such unique gifts.

Embracing Comprehensive Identification Practices

To accurately identify and cultivate giftedness, we must embrace a comprehensive and holistic approach for the purpose of promoting inclusive and supportive educational environments, and for developing talent. Using data from multiple sources in identifying giftedness, including both objective and subjective measures (i.e., comprehensive identification) is the gold standard.  

Comprehensive identification practices involve using multiple measures to identify giftedness, with the expectation that appropriate educational support follows. These identification practices should be accessible, equitable, and comprehensive to make sure identification methods are as broad as possible. Comprehensive identification may consist of student portfolios showcasing their projects, psychometric assessment, artwork, essays, or innovative solutions students have devised. This allows educators to gain a deeper understanding of a gifted student’s interests, passions, abilities, and potential.

Additionally, engaging parents, peers, and the student in the identification process can yield valuable perspectives on a student’s unique strengths and gifts, activities and accomplishments, which they may be involved in outside school. This may offer a more well-rounded evaluation. Experienced educators who have completed professional learning in gifted education could play a crucial role in recognising gifted traits in their students. 

By appropriately identifying, recognising, and addressing the needs of gifted students, we can create inclusive and enriched educational settings that foster the development of gifted potential in education environments that are genuinely inclusive.

 

Michelle Ronksley-Pavia is a Special Education and Inclusive Education lecturer in the School of Education and Professional Studies, and a researcher with the Griffith Institute for Educational Research (GIER), Griffith University. She is an internationally recognised award-winning researcher working in the areas of gifted education, twice-exceptionality (gifted students with disability), inclusive education, learner diversity, and initial teacher education. Her work centres on disability, inclusive educational practices, and gifted and talented educational practices and provisions. 

The way teachers work must change now. The Scott report doesn’t even try to fix the real challenge

initial teacher education, LANTITE, Teacher Education Expert Panel (TEEP), teacher workforce, , , , , ,

There is a collective sigh of frustration from education academics when initial teacher education (ITE) is yet again the subject of review, with a series of recommendations that promise to transform not only ITE, but the teaching profession. Apparently the problems with the teaching profession are entirely the result of the failures of ITE. 

It is also crucial to consider these most recent recommendations in context – they are  the most recent in what has been a decade of ITE reform. 

Released on July 7 and titled Strong Beginnings: Report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel, this review has 14 recommendations across four domains, reflecting the earlier discussion paper: strengthening ITE programs to deliver confident, effective beginning teachers (which is mostly about embedding core content); strengthening the link between performance and funding of ITE programs (which is mostly about reporting and data); improving the quality of practical experiences in teaching; and improving access to postgraduate ITE for mid-career entrants.   

The opening sentence in the executive summary, “[T]he importance of great teachers cannot be overstated”, is uncontestable – thank you – we agree.  The closing paragraph provides the rationale and context for the recommendations that follow, acknowledging the “major reforms” progressed under Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG, 2014) and noting “but there is still more to do”.  

Warning bells – tinkering with ITE will not be a panacea for the workforce shortage challenges facing the sector, with ITE a small part of the much more complex landscape, and with a long lead time to take effect.  

I read the report and recommendations from the informed and insider position as a Dean of Education, Chair of the Queensland Council of Deans of Education, program accreditation panellist and chairperson; for the duration of the time we collectively traversed the intense period rolling-out the reforms of TEMAG. 

It was indeed major – and very costly – reform.  Only recently, around the nation, have those reforms been fully implemented.  And we even have a few graduates who have journeyed through these new programs. It is important to acknowledge their added length combined with the time it takes to complete the programs – for many enrolled part-time due to the tough economic environment that demands they work alongside their study. 

We have only a few years of graduates from these TEMAGed programs so we don’t yet know the impact of the major reforms.  Hence, the value and impact of the TEMAG initiatives are not yet known in terms of the profession and workforce – in fact there is a gap in research about many aspects of ITE, a point clearly made in the report. 

The recommendations thus are appended to a significantly revamped ITE sector that has not had the benefit of resources to research and review the effects of major reform. 

The big shifts resulting from TEMAG include: additional non-academic requirements for entry to ITE; the Literary and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE); program standards; and demonstrating classroom readiness through the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA), as a final hurdle, alongside mandatory volumes of learning and consistent professional experience time allocation. Some of these reforms are dubious in terms of adding quality and value and the cost benefit analysis for ITE, but none has been contested in the report recommendations. That’s a missed opportunity.   

There are some recommendations in the report that could be silver linings. Acknowledging the need for additional funding to research ITE and resourcing this deficit, and the intention to consider TPAs comparatively, are standouts for me. This makes sense as the focus should be on the readiness and novice expertise of ITE graduates about to enter the workforce, taking into account the learning and value that comes from their ITE program.  

Other glimmers of hope among the recommendations include: establishing a separate authority for oversight and achieving national consistency (contentious, but important); greater visibility of mentor teachers; and the importance of investing in professional experience by all members of the profession, which is a key aspect of program retention and identity development for ITE students. The mechanics for activating these innovations however, is lacking, so these might more properly be regarded as potential positives. The current demands on the ITE sector to meet accreditation requirements are significant, so adding to that does mean additional workload for tertiary educators, hence it is refreshing to see funding for transition and funding for the establishment of leadership institutions.  This is happening at a time when the number of tertiary experts in education is also depleted consequential to universities tightening their belts, so a reasonable implementation timeline will be crucial.

Less convincing is the need to specify core content. The question of what is core has been narrowed to four areas that appear, frankly, to be incontestable and likely already to feature in ITE programs in the country. It will be the necessary changes to standards that will take the time and the task of making visible the core content for compliance assurances, and the relative volume of learning and level of prescription that is yet to be defined that will undoubtedly cause consternation for the implementation of the core content recommendations. And the question of what is to be removed from programs is already sounding around the nation – adding more means something has to go. The loss of agility and likelihood of sameness is thus concerning, cookie cutter education programs seem to be the antithesis of what we need to ensure we attract and graduate a diverse teacher workforce.

Importantly, refinements in ITE do not solve the problem of workforce shortages in classrooms today.  

There is extensive research that points to the need for a major shift in the way we do schooling today.  The way teachers work also needs to change.  This is crucial for the necessary transformation that is needed to reset school education to reflect the needs of contemporary society.  The TEEP recommendations work within our current system and can be considered as an incremental step in the bigger challenge of transforming our schooling sector and the teachers entering it.

Professor Donna Pendergast is the Director of Engagement in the Arts, Education and Law Group and former Dean and Head of the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University. Her research expertise is education transformation and efficacy.