University of Melbourne

White writing on green background: Well, here we are in 2025 and no closer to the top of the OECD’s league tables than we were fifteen years ago when the boast was made

Why AERO should take a long hard look at itself

March 13, 2025Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)AARE blog, AERO, Dean Ashenden, University of Melbourne

How AERO’s failures fail us all: part one published yesterday

To look at AERO’s teaching model is to wonder whether the organisation is living in some other reality, a world in which there are no students who refuse to go to school, or leave school as soon as they can, or last the distance but leave with not much to show for it, or wag it, or bully and harass or are bullied and harassed, sometimes in the classroom often outside it, or have little or no sense of “belonging” at school or “attachment” to it. Why on this crowded stage is AERO putting the spotlight solely on what the teacher is doing in the classroom? Can teaching be expected to change the whole experience of being at school? Or is that somebody else’s problem?

And what about kinds of knowledge other than formal, out-there, discipline-derived knowledge, the staple that has launched a thousand curriculums — know-how, for example, knowing how to learn, how to work in groups, how to think through complicated life and ethical questions? And what about students’ knowledge of their own capabilities and options? The suspicion arises that what AERO is after is schooling for the poor, for the denizens of the “long tail of attainment,” cheap, narrowed down and dried out, a something that is better than nothing.

AERO is misconceived

As well as misconceiving, AERO is misconceived. Its job is to gather research from up there and packaging it for consumption down below. It wants teaching to be based on research evidence — on just two kinds of research evidence, in fact — as if what teachers and school leaders know from experience, debate and intuition isn’t really knowledge at all, as if it’s research evidence or nothing. That most teachers and others in schools don’t use research evidence very often is taken not as a judgement about priorities but as an “obstacle” to uptake.

AERO claims that “evidence-based practices are the cornerstone of effective teaching” without providing or citing evidence to support the claim. More, it implies that the “how” of teaching is the only thing that teachers should concern themselves with, that teaching and schooling are free of doubts and dilemmas, of messy questions of judgement, decision and purpose.

A deeply hierarchical idea

AERO’s deeply hierarchical idea of the relationship between researchers and practitioners is of a piece with its conception of the relationship between teacher and taught. It is, in fact, the kind of institution that John Hattie feared. “There’s a debate going on about building an evidence institute for teaching,” he told Larsen in 2018. “My fear is that it will become like [America’s] What Works Clearinghouse and people will be employed to take academic research and translate it into easy language for teachers.”

At the risk of an apparent sectarianism, let me suggest that Martin Luther had the necessary idea: the priest should not stand between God and the flock but beside the flock reading God’s Word for themselves and finding their own way to salvation. AERO should stand beside teachers and schools, and it should help them stand beside their students. But that is not what AERO was set up to do.

What is AERO?

Nominally the creation of the nine ministers of education and their departments, AERO is actually the handiwork of the NSW Department of Education, long the bastion of the “traditional” classroom, and Social Ventures Australia, or SVA, an organisation privately funded to “influence governments and policymakers to create large scale impact.”

SVA was much taken by Britain’s Education Endowment Foundation, and pitched to the Commonwealth the many benefits that would flow from an Australian equivalent. The pitch included some words about new things to be learned in new ways but more about a “robust evidence ecosystem” serving the cause of “continuous improvement” that would boost school performance. SVA wanted the new organisation to be independently funded and established through a tendering process. As the proposal made its way through the machinery of the “national approach” it was shorn of the progressive talk along with the independent funding and the creation by tender.

The organisation that emerged is indistinguishable from the NSW Department of Education in its underlying assumptions about “evidence-based teaching,” its “teaching model,” its definition of “evidence,” and its view of the relationship between theory and practice and of the control of schools. AERO’s board is chaired by the former chief executive of the Smith Family, a charity so committed to “explicit teaching” that it has taken ads in the mainstream media to urge its universal adoption. The chief executive is a former senior officer of the NSW department and AERO references the department’s Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (“the home of education evidence”). AERO’s “partner,” Ochre Education, a not-for-profit provider of “resources [that] support effective, evidence-based practices,” has one “partner” larger than all the rest put together, the NSW Department of Education.

Embedded in its own dogma

AERO is deeply embedded in its own dogma and in the national machinery that was supposed to deliver “top 5 by ’25.” Well, here we are in 2025 and no closer to the top of the OECD’s league tables than we were fifteen years ago when the boast was made. To the contrary, as the former head of Australia’s premier research organisation and of the OECD’s mighty education division concluded recently, inequality is rising, quality is falling, and the system is resistant to reform. What reason is there to expect that another fifteen years doing the same thing will produce a different result?

AERO is not going to go away, but perhaps it can be pressed to lighten up. It should be persuaded, first, to accept that teaching is a sense-making occupation and that schools are sense-making institutions. Schools should not be treated as outlets applying recipes and prescriptions dispensed by AERO or anyone else.

Second, AERO’s evidence should bear on the system in which schools do their work as well as on the schools and their teachers. That should include evidence about whether and how Australia’s schooling system should join schools and teachers as objects of reform.

Rethink the conception of “evidence”

Third, AERO should be pressed to rethink its conception of “evidence.” Schools do and must use many kinds of evidence, including some that they gather formally or informally themselves. Evidence derived from academic research may well be a useful addition to the mix, but that is all. It is — and AERO should say so — provisional and contingent, not altogether different from other kinds of evidence schools use. The contrary idea, that evidence generated by formal academic research is scientific and therefore beyond debate and disagreement is encouraging the gross misconstructions of effectiveness research described by John Hattie.

AERO should also expand the range of academic sources it draws on and the kinds of evidence it embraces, going beyond the “how” to include the “what,” “why” and “whether to” — debates over evidence and evidence-use, and evidence from educational philosophy, sociology, economics and history as well as from that dubious disciple psychology (the source of both the effectiveness paradigm and cognitive load theory) and from beyond the all-too familiar Anglosphere.

The lens must be widened

And, most important of all: while many teachers are no doubt grateful for at least some of AERO’s output, and perhaps particularly for the resources distributed by AERO’s partner, Ochre, those resources go no further than helping teachers do a job in need of a fundamental rethink. The lens must be widened to include the organisation of students’ and teachers’ daily work and the organisation of students’ learning careers as well as what teachers can do in the classroom as it now exists. AERO should identify schools working to organise the curriculum around each students’ intellectual growth and the development of their capacities as individuals and as social beings. It should put those schools in touch with one another, and work with them on a different kind of research, on finding ways through an essential but immensely difficult organisational and intellectual task. •

This is part two of the story by Dean Ashenden on AERO. We published part one yesterday. This was first published in Inside Story. We are republishing with the permission of both Dean Ashenden and of Peter Browne, editor of Inside Story.

Dean Ashenden is a senior honorary fellow in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, the University of Melbourne. He has worked in and around, over decades, as a teacher, academic, commentator and consultant: He is co-author, with Raewyn Connell, Sandra Kessler and Gary Dowsett, of the 1982 classic Making The Difference: Schools, Families and Social Division. Unbeaching the Whale: Can Australian schooling be reformed? was published last year.

AERO: Hand with chalk about to write on an empty blackboard

AERO: Why and how its failures fail us all

March 12, 2025Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)AARE blog, AERO, Dean Ashenden, University of Melbourne

The Vatican has the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith. Australian schooling has AERO.

New, not very important but very symptomatic, the Australian Education Research Organisation fits snugly into the elaborate machinery of Labor’s “national approach” to schooling. As an “evidence intermediary,” its task is to make a certain kind of research finding more available to teachers and schools. But its key sponsors hope it will proclaim the doctrine in a system dependent on prescription, surveillance and compliance.

The doctrine is this: schooling is first and foremost about knowledge; teaching is first and foremost about getting prescribed knowledge into young heads; research has established the relative effectiveness (“effect size”) of teaching techniques and “interventions”; learning science has reinforced this evidence by showing how to “harmonise” teaching with the brain’s learning mechanisms; teaching must be based on evidence supplied by this research.

The faith: that in this way the long slide in the performance of Australian schools will at last be arrested and reversed.

AERO’s “gold standard”

In AERO’s view, though, there is no doctrine or faith. “Gold standard” research into effective teaching and findings on the workings of the brain have established scientific facts, clear and definitive.

Of AERO’s two intellectual pillars, effectiveness research is the much larger and stronger. Long-established and buttressed by a vast literature, it has become the lingua franca of education policy (including the policies promoted by the national approach) and has been absorbed by many teachers. But effectiveness research and its uses have also concerned and sometimes enraged many, including, surprisingly enough, John Hattie.

For many years Hattie has been by far the most influential exponent of the effectiveness idea in Australia, and perhaps around the world. But in a series of conversations with Danish philosopher Steen Nepper Larsen (published as The Purpose of Education in 2018) Hattie looks back over a formidable body of effectiveness research and his own work with schools and involvement in national policymaking to find flaws and limitations in the research itself, and gross misinterpretation and misuse of it by policymakers and schools alike.

Education research has (Hattie says) “privileged” quantitative studies over qualitative, and has been “obsessed” with the technical quality of studies at the expense of their importance and value. The focus of so much effectiveness research on basic outcomes (80–90 per cent of it by Hattie’s estimate) has been salutary, but has also obscured much of what schools do and should do.

“I want more,” Hattie says. He emphasises: “I want broader. I want schools and systems to value music, art, history, entrepreneurship, curiosity, creativity, and much more.”

Many ways of skinning the cat

In much the same way, measuring “effect size” was useful but has ended up being the reverse, Hattie argues. It helped teachers and school leaders to accept that there are many ways of skinning the educational cat and to rely less on habit, hunch and assumption. But the “effect sizes” summarised in his celebrated Visible Learning (2009) and many publications following are averages, he points out, and too often the fact, extent and causes of variation are forgotten — along with the importance of context. Effect-size tables have been taken as a kind of installer’s guide — policymakers look at them and say “tick, tick, tick to the top influences and no, no, no to the bottom,” thus missing the point entirely.

The point? To inform and prompt thinking, interpretation, explanation: what is this evidence telling us? What do these numbers mean? What’s going on here, and why? What, for example, should we do with evidence showing that smaller classes have not produced better performance? Just say: no more smaller classes? Or ask why smaller classes aren’t being used more effectively?

A sustained failure of policy

How can we actually do what effectiveness research has made possible? Research can go only so far; it reflects schooling as it is, not how it has to be; the rest is up to government and policy. Properly interrogated, Hattie concludes, the evidence first assembled in Visible Learning (2009) reveals a sustained failure of policy.

Hattie’s criticisms cover much but not all of the ground on which effectiveness research stands. He and others were convinced that education research could do for schooling what medical research had done for medicine. Research of the “gold standard” medical kind would reveal what worked in the classroom (or as Hattie later put it, what worked best). They were also convinced that the teacher was the crucial variable in the schooling equation, which made teachers and teaching “quality” the central objects of policy.

Not medical practitioners, not patients

But teachers are not like medical practitioners and students are not like patients. Teachers try to enlist students in their cause; students might or might not join in. They might do their best to make sense of what the teachers seems to want, or pretend that they’re trying to, or subvert or resist the teacher’s efforts in myriad ways. Much of what students learn is not what is taught but what students think has been taught; often it has not been taught at all, for students learn all kinds of other things in the classroom and everywhere else at school. They learn about themselves, the world, how the world treats them, and how they can and should treat others. Students are, in other words, co-producers of learning, of themselves, and of each other. They learn, and they grow.

What students learn and how they grow, taken in its full extent and complexity, depends partly on what teachers do but mostly on the circumstances in which they and teachers meet. Producing learning and growth is in many ways just like producing anything else. Any form of production combines people, time, space, task, expertise, objectives, rewards and sanctions in a specific way. The central question is not how to make teaching more effective (as effectiveness research assumes) but how to make schools more productive. Which combination of the many factors of production is most productive of what kinds of learning and growth for which students? The failure to ask what the evidence is telling us about what is going on and what could go on is the seed of the policy failure Hattie points to.

A less reliable vessel

“Learning science” is an even less reliable vessel. There is in fact no such thing as “learning science.” The learning sciences (plural) include experimental psychology, social and affective neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, developmental psychology, robotics and AI, and neurology, systems theory and many others. AERO relies on a particular subset of a particular branch of the learning sciences, cognitive load theory, or CLT, which is held in low esteem by many for its failure to take into account “the neurodynamic, attitudinal, social, emotional and cultural factors that often play a major, if often invisible and unsung role in every classroom.”

Learning scientists who do pay attention these “often invisible and unsung” factors reach conclusions very different from AERO’s. Two prominent psychologists for example, concludedafter career-long research that learners thrive when they feel competent and successful, challenged, purposeful, connected to community and culturally safe, working collaboratively on things relevant to their lives. A neuroscientist studying the relationship between young people’s behaviour, circumstances and neural development found that “support, safe spaces, and rich opportunities [to] think deeply about complex issues, to build personally relevant connections, and to find purpose and inspiration in their lives” is crucial to the brain’s development. Indeed, “the networks in the brain that are associated with these beneficial outcomes are deactivated during the kinds of fast-paced and often impersonal activities that are the staple of many classrooms” (emphasis added).

What about other kinds of classroom teaching?

One of the consequences of AERO’s use of CLT and effectiveness research is the assumption that teaching “knowledge” is the only game at school and there is only one way to play it. Of course knowledge is core business in schooling: knowledge of reading, writing, maths and science are “basic”; didactic teaching is for most kids and some purposes the shortest route between a fog and an aha! moment; the precepts of “explicit” teaching may well help to improve didactic teaching; and “effectiveness” research and its “effect sizes” can indeed make teachers and school leaders more aware of options and less reliant on hunch, habit and anecdote.

But what about other kinds of classroom teaching? And other ways of learning? Is AERO’s “teaching model” a one-punch knockout? The sovereign solution to the many things that students, teachers and schools contend with?

Tomorrow: How AERO can (and should) take a long hard look at itself.

This story by Dean Ashenden on AERO was first published in Inside Story. We are republishing with the permission of both Dean Ashenden and of Peter Browne, editor of Inside Story.

Your hottest 100: I’m so excited. And so much more

January 27, 2025higher educationAARE blog, higher education, Mark Selkrig, Nicky Dulfer, Ron “Kim” Keamy, Troy Heffernan, University of Helsinki, University of Melbourne, University of Oxford

Mark Selkrig, Nicky Dulfer, Ron ‘Kim’ Keamy, Troy Heffernan and Kristiina Brunila announce the “Academic Turning Points” Playlist Collection: Academics’ Journeys Expressed Through Music

Many readers of this blog would know that higher education continues to be an ever-shifting landscape where constant change prevails. Academics worldwide who work inside higher education are navigating a myriad of profound changes and complexities. At the same time, they are grappling with increasing accountability measures and compliance requirements. The professional and personal pressures academics face can be immense. The impact is evident, with academics being overworked, exhausted, and on the verge of burnout. Alarmingly, many of these behaviours have become normalized.

To better understand how academics are adapting to these evolving environments, our research team launched an innovative global study: “Turning Points: Changes Academics Make to Shape Their Working Lives.” The key research question driving this project was: How do academics articulate and represent the turning points that caused them to change course professionally, as well as the enduring impacts of those shifts? Using multi-modal, arts-based methods, we invited participants to not only share written experiences about a pivotal moment where they elected to ‘do something different in their work practices’, but also describe an image and select a piece of music representing their evolved professional approaches.

Your turning point playlist

Based on responses from over 120 participants in this study, some of whom may be readers of this blog, our findings reveal powerful windows into the nuanced realities of academic life. Drawing from the academics’ insightful musical selections, we’ve curated the “Academic Turning Points” Playlist Collection – a series of thoughtfully crafted playlists that audibly capture professional journeys across the globe.

We are launching the first instalment: “Academic Turning Points 1: Reframing Perspectives on Work-Life Balance.” This resonant playlist explores the profound need for balance, perspective and self-compassion amid academia’s relentless demands. Tracks like “Don’t Worry Be Happy” by Bobby McFerrin and “Sunrise” by Norah Jones reflect participants’ experiences re-evaluating unsustainable work practices and realigning priorities, with lyrics urging listeners to slow down, be kinder to themselves, and gain clarity on what’s important. As one participant shared, a particular track helped them “realise that the way I was working was not sustainable, and I needed to make some changes to find more balance”.

From identity shift to finding purpose

We invite you to immerse yourself in this playlist and reflect on your own experiences. You may even want to consider the song you would choose to represent your own journey towards better work-life balance and sustainable practices. This is just the beginning. In the coming months, we’ll unveil additional playlists, each offering a unique perspective through the powerful lens of music. From grappling with identity shifts to finding purpose, these collections will resonate with anyone impacted by academia’s demands. By centring multi-modal expression, our research aims to foster deeper understanding of academic life’s nuances. In this era of constant change, listening to academics’ voices is crucial.

The “Academic Turning Points” playlist collection invites you to embark on an auditory exploration of professional journeys, struggles, triumphs and pivotal moments. To access the first playlist on in the collection on Spotify click on the QR code or follow the hyperlinked text to experience “Academic Turning Points 1: Reframing Perspectives on Work-Life Balance” .

A qr code on a white background

Description automatically generated

Remember to stay tuned for more releases in this powerful series. For academics worldwide, may these playlists remind you that you’re not alone, and that the path to balance and fulfillment is one we navigate together, one note at a time.

The evocative AI-generated playlist image (shown in the top image for this blog and also right) is based on descriptions of images that represented their academic turning point are also striking visual representations of the complex emotional terrain academics navigate daily.

A collage of images of two people

Description automatically generated

If you would like to know a little bit more about the project, or access a catalogue of whole collection of playlists as they are released, be sure to look at our Turning Points project website

Meet the Turning Points Team

Mark Selkrig is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. His research and scholarly work focus on the changing nature of educators’ work, their identities and lived experiences of these events. He has been the recipient of awards for publications in this field and acknowledged for his leadership, outstanding work and advocacy for arts development and education. Mark is on Linkedin.

Nicky Dulfer is a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne, Nicky’s research agenda is driven by a social justice imperative and seeks to make a significant change to the ways in which marginalised students experience education. Her research explores educational curriculums and institutions and the ways they both shape, and are shaped by, those who work and study in them.

Ron “Kim” Keamy is an associate professor and a teacher education researcher in the Assessment & Evaluation Research Centre, Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. Kim’s research and scholarly work traverses educational and academic leadership, initial teacher education and teachers’ professional learning.

Troy Heffernan is a Fulbright Scholar and currently a visiting fellow at All Souls College, University of Oxford. As a sociologist of higher education administration and equity, his work examines issues such as those related to precarious employment, the implication of academic networks, and the factors involved in hiring and promotional decisions. He also examines ways to enhance student equity and experience.

Kristiina Brunila works as professor in the University of Helsinki where she directs the research centre of AGORA for the study of social justice and equality in education. With her AGORA research community she has studied educational transformations in global and glocal contexts including reforms in universities as well as questions related to inequalities and education.

Your focus isn’t broken, it just needs time

January 21, 2025Educational research, PhD education, PhD workAARE blog, doing a PhD, Katherine Firth, La Trobe University, PhD work, University of Melbourne

My recent book, Writing Well and Being Well for your PhD and Beyond includes a chapter on thinking towards writing which includes a focus practice using a rubber duck, a walking practice, and more information about focussed and diffuse thinking modes; and another chapter on recharging that gives advice on what to do when your brain gets tired after practising some deep thinking. For years, I advised students and researchers who were convinced their brains were broken because they couldn’t do eight hours of deep work every day, five days a week. I’ve never been able to focus like that, and my research suggests that’s normal and fine–which might be reassuring for you too!

We all know that it’s a challenge to focus, to go deep and still and clear and to stay there, to think hard thoughts or read long books or write longform. Many books, podcasts, news articles and research careers tackle this issue, from classics like Cal Newport’s Deep Work, or Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow, to recent work like Gloria Mark’s Attention Span.

A number of recent panicked bestsellers claim our focus has been stolen, our children’s brains rewired, and that our ability to concentrate is deeply broken. Most prominently among these are Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation and Johann Hari’s Stolen Focus. They argue modern inventions like our phones and the internet and traffic are why it’s hard to concentrate.

But fear we have lost the ability to focus is as old as civilisation.

So what can do to help ourselves focus?

Anyone who has ever worked in a bustling office, or cared for children, or taught in a classroom knows interruptions come from other humans. That’s why, across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe, societies keep inventing hacks to help us focus, whether that’s hermitages, meditation, pilgrimages or libraries.

HERE’S how you can use each one of those techniques to help you and your students relearn to focus in everyday life.

1. Become a hermit

Hermits withdraw from society, they give up power and responsibility, and the pursuit of a comfort, profit, or prestige. Some hermits live on their own, and others with a small group of like-minded people. They live in country huts, caves, or up on pillars. You can be a hermit for a shorter period of retreat. Cal Newport famously tells the story in Deep Work (2016) of the person who bought a first class round trip plane ticket to Japan. And then there’sSarah McLachlan who spent months in a cabin before she was ready to write the songs for Fumbling Towards Ecstasy (Pitchfork 2017).

Writing retreats and writing groups give us examples of how we can do this in our everyday life. We set aside a time and a place to focus, we remove distractions of the the day-to-day demands of life, and we wait. Being a hermit is supposed to be uncomfortable, restrictive and ascetic – so if it feels difficult or itchy, we are doing it right. If we persist, eventually the hermitage becomes a place where we can find focus.

2. Learn to meditate

Meditation is a practice of focus. Itt is different from mindfulness, which can be more of aboutawareness and intention. When you learn to meditate, you have to learn how to hold a thought, image or phrase in your mind. And then how to bring yourself back to the thought every time your brain wanders. And it will wander. This is why most traditions use all of the senses to help hold and return to focus: songs, breath, bells, candles, incense, intricate images or patterns, beads on strings.

We don’t do a lot of just sitting and thinking in every day life, so it helps to start short and slow and build up to more challenging practices. In this case, we are learning to focus to have our own thoughts and insights, so classes or a guided meditation recording may not be so useful.

If we are practising on our own, then, it helps to surround ourselves with as many focus tools as we need. Have the right chair, the right fidget toy, a picture of the thing we want to think about, thinking music, a colouring in book or some knitting. Set a timer for 2 minutes. I find the first 30 seconds are always a mess, and you may too. Keep breathing and wait. After 2 minutes, get up and stretch. Come back tomorrow. Start being small but consistent, and then once you can do that, start extending the time. You’ll be fine.

3. Walk it out

Going on a journey, preferably on foot, changes us. Whether we take our horses to Canterbury as Chaucer’s characters did in medieval England, or we walk the Narrow Road to the Deep North as Bashō did in Edo Japan, we not only leave our everyday lives behind, but we have the repetitive rhythm of steps and the physical experience of progress to get our thinking moving. There’s a reason that traditional universities have gardens, courts, avenues, and other walkable spaces: places for people to pace and stride and wander, as they talked it out with a colleague or worked it out in their head.

I find the pilgrimage is a useful model for focus because it reminds me that focus is hard work and I can’t do it indefinitely. By the time my legs are tired, my brain will also be tired. So then I am reminded to stop focussing and recharge instead.

We do not need to walk to go on a pilgrimage, but we do have to get up from our desk and move elsewhere. Some people find that they think well in the car or on trains. Or we might replicate the enclosed centrifugal journey of university courtyards in laps of a pool or velodrome. But this is not merely moving for exercise. It is important to start your journey with a clear intention: a problem to solve, an idea to generate, words to find. At the going out and at the coming home, return to your intention and check that you have made progress, even if you have not fully arrived.

4. Go to the library

Obviously we go to the library for a whole range of activities and services: we borrow books, consult archives, attend story-times, use the computers, consult librarians etc. But we can learn from the many students who pack into libraries just before their final exams to study, because libraries are a fantastic place to focus. Libraries are thinking infrastructure. Need a quiet place to put your head down? Need a place where other people are also putting their heads down? Need something to put into your brain first so it has something to chew on? Need a reminder that thousands of other people have also had ideas and the persistence and focus to think them and then write them down? Libraries have you covered.

Favourite way to focus

My favourite way to focus in a library is to use a book to think with/against/alongside. As a writer and an academic, I’m often reading and reacting to other people’s ideas. It’s easy enough to read in snippets, or to let myself get sucked into a fascinating fictional world when I’m on holiday, but if I’m tired and busy and bored, I find my brain keeps sliding off a difficult text I need to read.

I deal with that problem, by going to a library with the book and a notebook. I take notes about what the book says, but also about my feelings, my reactions, my original thoughts sparked by the book. I have pages of notes with marginalia expressing how annoying someone’s writing style is, how shoddy their research is, or how wrong their conclusions. The library helps me focus long enough to clarify and explain what I don’t like about the book, which is important as when I need to explain why I think a book is great.

Each of these ‘tricks’ makes focus easier, but none of them make it effortless. Focus takes time, there’s friction in the process. It can’t be sustained indefinitely, because focus is hard work,

It’s not magic

Focus is not a magic trick. And not everything is worthy of the magic of focus. Keeping a vague eye on the pot of soup bubbling on the stove and the songs on the radio and the chatty Teams messages from your colleagues does not need deep thinking. Save your brain for the hard, serious, chewy stuff.

When you need to go deep, you don’t need to wait for the lightning of inspiration to strike you, or the panicked hyperfocus of a looming deadline. You can detach yourself briefly from the world, set up your environment to support your focus, and practise learning how to pay attention.

In this post, I’m arguing that there’s nothing wrong with our ability to focus, but we can take some sensible steps to support deep focus, including (re-)learning how to do it. Focus feels hard and messy because it is hard work, and it’s where we address the hard problems. As we practise it more often, we’ll build up our focus muscles and increase our focus tools, but we will always have to practise falling in and out of focus. What matters is not our diamond mind, but our commitment to returning to try again.

Katherine Firth is the inaugural Head of Lisa Bellear House, a residential hall at the University of Melbourne, and a senior lecturer in research education and development at La Trobe University.

What I learned from my first AARE conference

December 16, 2024AARE blog, AARE conferenceAARE blog, AARE conference, Hugh Gundlach, University of Melbourne

Just days after the week-long AARE 2024 conference, I’ve had time to reflect on the experience. A walk through Lane Cove National Park helped me process the insights and challenges discussed during the Conference.

Attending back-to-back sessions was intellectually exhausting, especially when focusing on my research interests of teacher shortages and working conditions. The persistent challenges facing Australian educators prompted some critical questions:

How can we translate conference discussions into meaningful progress?
Are we more focused on researching problems or solving them?
How innovative and uncertain of their outcomes are our research approaches?

Despite the draining content, the conference was ultimately uplifting. I felt the AARE community demonstrated a shared commitment to collaborative problem-solving. It was a valuable opportunity to connect with teachers, school leaders, union leaders, researchers, and even colleagues from my own university whom I’d never previously met.

As an early career researcher, meeting renowned ‘rock star’ researchers I’d extensively cited in my thesis and teacher education assignments was both intimidating and inspiring —they too wrestle with the complexities and struggles of teaching and research.

I felt prepared for the conference. I read The Thesis Whisperer‘s books. I also attended the AARE PGS & ECR Online Event: Making the Most of Your Conference Experience. And I have some insights for fellow researchers, especially ECRs, based on my enjoyable experience.

AARE Conference Tips for Early Career Researchers

1. Attend Diverse Sessions, and as many as possible

Even if a session doesn’t directly align with your research, you’ll gain insights into presentation styles, methodological approaches, and potential interdisciplinary connections. It is also a great opportunity to meet other attendees. I research the teacher shortage and teachers’ work, so Monday and Tuesday’s program was packed with relevant sessions.

The following days offered fresh perspectives on concepts familiar to most teachers. I was already aware of concepts like ‘time poverty’, ‘toxic leadership’ and the treatment of teaching as ‘women’s work’ but hearing from academics specialising in these areas provided deeper insights.

2. Attend Graduate Researcher and ECR Sessions

Just like large music festivals, you can be torn between a headline act on the main stage or the potential of discovering the next big thing “before it is cool”! I found ECR sessions offered some raw, engaging discussions. Craig Skerritt’s presentation provoked discussion about whether toxic leaders knowingly and intentionally harm organisational culture. Similarly Matthew Brown’s innovative study on principal decision-making also raised questions about whether ‘rational’ decisions are inherently better to ‘emotional’ ones.

3. Don’t Underestimate Poster Presentations

I don’t know whether everyone attending viewed the AARE conference posters when they were up some steep stairs and all the food was on the ground floor, but I did see a few researchers have a near-continuous stream of visitors during the designated poster time.

I really enjoyed making my poster. The people who did stop by during the poster time gave me some great ideas and feedback I am going to act on. I recommend anyone with a new project make a poster. The format encourages discussion and can potentially have more impressions than a short concurrent talk. It would signal respect and commitment from senior researchers to submit posters too and stand by them as a medium, literally!

The posters that really stood out to me were the ones that did not try to cram a whole paper into a poster format. Instead they used plenty of space and graphics to lead the viewer’s gaze through the different sections.

Khalifah Aldughaysh’s poster on barriers to implementing practices for students with autism and Tamitha Hammond’s study on Pasifika students, stood out with striking graphic and vibrant colours. Jeroen Koekoek and Wytse Walinga used a creative analogy of a professional coloured lighting setup in their study of decision-making in Dutch physical education. Though unrelated to my research, their compelling designs drew me in.

4. Be Early, and Stay Until the End

I recommend being early to sessions, partly to get a good seat. But I also found that there was a better chance to chat with the presenters and other audience members before the session than afterwards.

Not everyone can attend the entire conference. But people presenting on the last day are very grateful for patronage. There are strong opportunities for new insights, especially if conference organisers place hard to categorise presentations then. They can have the most unique methodological and topical insights.

5. Act on the ideas and connections

This reflection emerged from me transcribing my copious handwritten notes to a word document. When we spend so much time doing busy work with emails or at screens, taking a whole week out to connect with people in the flesh and to get some perspective before the new year really helped me work out some new projects.

It was a great week, and I look forward to next year’s conference in Newcastle already. Fingers crossed it is as warm as last week in Ryde so we can hit the beach!

Hugh Gundlach is a lecturer and researcher in the Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne. He teaches in the Master of Teaching (Secondary) and is the Commerce Coordinator. He is one of the ABC Top 5 Media Residents (Humanities) for 2024. There are intakes for the ABC Top 5 in the Arts, Humanities and Sciences. Early career researchers are encouraged to apply in 2025.

We know Australia has a private/public divide. But there’s even more inequality

November 27, 2024inequity in schooling, public schooling in AustraliaAARE blog, inequality in Australian schools, Joel Windle, Laura Perry, Murdoch University, Quentin Maire, UniSA, University of Melbourne

A major driver of inequality in contemporary education systems internationally is the segregation of students from different social backgrounds into separate schools. Australian education separates students from different backgrounds to a greater extent than many other countries. Research we will present at the forthcoming AARE Conference reveals competition between unequally resourced schools makes many parents feel they must choose an alternative to their local school. Although a major contributor to this separation is the existence of a large fee-paying private school sector that is over-resourced through public subsidies, there are also major divisions within public education. We note in particular the rise of specialist curriculum programs in otherwise comprehensive public secondary schools. These present major risks to equity.

More inequality: The new selectivity in public schooling

There are over 366 specialist curriculum programs in otherwise comprehensive public secondary schools in Australia. Each has its own admission criteria. Specialist or special interest programs are educational initiatives that focus on specific subject areas, such as sports, language, arts and STEM, delivered through dedicated classes and providing advanced learning and enrichment opportunities not available to other students.

One avenue for improving equity in education is to support the broadening of curriculum options and programs that can appeal to a diverse range of students and interests and strengthen demand for public education. However, when specialist programs are used by schools to cherry-pick students rather than prioritising the needs of local communities, this generates new problems. Instead of broadening options, this use of specialist programs creates a new hierarchy that further segregates students between and within schools. Some parents have more time, resources and knowledge than others to compete for places for their children in select-entry specialist programs.

A two-speed public system

The reality of high-demand public schools in middle-class neighbourhoods is in stark contrast to that of schools without capacity constraints and located in working-class neighbourhoods. Public schools with established reputations often leverage high demand to grant selective access to those who live beyond their enrolment zone, with specialist and accelerated learning programs providing mechanisms to do so. Those who travel from further afield are also more likely to be middle-class and high-achieving. The ‘choice’ to attend high-demand schools is also available to those who are able to buy or rent within the zone specifically for the purpose of gaining access to a desired school.

Schools face threats to enrolment numbers from private schools. To combat that, public schools make use of specialist programs to shore-up local demand and to build student engagement. In working-class neighbourhoods, vocational and alternative curriculum offerings are particularly popular. Under such conditions, specialist programs do not present such a threat to the model of comprehensive public schooling where education is viewed as an entitlement. In Victoria, where close to one in two students enrol in a government school outside their catchment area, the Education Department has made clear its attachment to this local comprehensive model. That prevents schools from using curriculum grounds to enrol students from beyond their catchment zones.

Learning from the past on the drivers of inequality

For specialist programs to broaden appeal rather than contribute to segregation, it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past. The first lesson is that demand for, and success at, gaining access to selective schools is extremely uneven. Greater efforts are needed to ensure that access to specialist programs is democratic and inclusive so that all benefit. Fees should not be charged for entrance examinations, and enrolment procedures need to be carefully re-examined. The efforts made by many universities to improve equity in access can serve as an example here. That includes the move away from examination results as measures of student potential.

The second lesson is that competition between schools does not necessarily increase innovation and diversity in curriculum offerings for all. Competition drives schools to attract students who will perform highest on traditional measures and are least taxing on scarce resources. That increases inequality.

Many public school principals are keen to retain high-achieving students and to appeal to middle-class families. Instead, schools should be encouraged to collaborate with each other. That includes the provision of specialist programs at local schools. For example, including participating in programs beyond the school in which they are enrolled. Further, interest in specialist programs should be used to drive offerings available to all students, with no access barriers.

Looking forward towards genuine choice in education

For families and students, availability of specialist curriculum programs across diverse curriculum areas, including sports and vocational courses, is appealing. They demonstrate that public education is doing more than providing a bare minimum, as some parents perceive it to be.

We need to be vigilant against the re-emergence of streaming and academic selectivity as a defining characteristic of public education and a byproduct of the existence of specialist programs. In much of the country, streaming and separate high and technical schools were abandoned in the 1970s and 1980s, as Year 12 completion through a common qualification became the default setting in all jurisdictions.

What’s the best way forward? Reduce market pressure in a system with a large private sector pushing public schools to reintroduce forms of internal differentiation. More equitable resourcing would be a good starting point.

The broadening of curriculum options and choice to appeal to students from all backgrounds is to be welcomed. There is a role for specialist programs and for vocational learning in engaging students who struggle with or are less interested in some traditional curriculum options. Transforming traditional areas, such as STEM and humanities, is also worthwhile and school-level innovation can contribute in important ways to improving the quality of social and learning experiences at school. The proviso is that such benefits must be broadly available, rather than placed within discretionary selection procedures and fee-charging testing regimes.

Not the only division

Public versus private is not the only division in Australian schooling. But it is one that ends up distorting public schooling through the pressure to attract particular types of students, keeping out others. The big losers are working-class schools and students. They are located in sites that are by-passed by peers being driven to high-demand middle-class schools. Ultimately students, families and societies lose in a system that divides students, rather than bringing them together.

We need policies that broaden options without re-creating the hierarchies of a by-gone era.

Left to right: Joel Windle is associate professor of education at UniSA. He researches educational inequalities and curriculum differentiation in Australia and Brazil. Laura Perry is a professor of education at Murdoch University. She is a specialist in comparative research on educational marketisation and equity.

Quentin Maire is a senior research fellow in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. His research focuses on social inequalities in school systems internationally.

Arts education: we fail our students with so many tests

October 28, 2024Arts educationAARE blog, arts education, Mark Selkrig, University of Melbourne

The Impoverishment of Standardised Learning

In today’s educational climate, with its intense focus on raising standardised test scores, it seems like we have lost sight of nurturing the extensive human potentials of both our students and teachers. There is an ongoing fixation with individualised student-centred approaches, along with drilling basic competencies in reading, writing and maths. Approaches are increasingly narrowed to “teach to the test” to accommodate these high-stakes metrics. The need to develop foundational skills is necessary, although rigid, utilitarian approaches can be ideological and problematic in many ways .

This includes the risk of depleting our capacities for original creative thinking, empathetic cross-cultural understanding, ethical reasoning and collaborative problem-solving. We fail to cultivate the diverse cognitive, emotional and social capabilities if education becomes transactional.

Human beings can’t truly flourish and thrive if it’s just about prescribed knowledge, regurgitated on exams or for tests,

Different ways of knowing

Current education approaches may allow students to complete well on tests (although various indicators suggest otherwise such as recent NAPLAN results), but it is not clear how it serves students to envision innovative solutions to complex issues or what Eisner alludes to as being able to reconcile competing perspectives. The unprecedented socio-ecological challenges we face as a global society – from climate crises to technological disruption, systemic injustices and societal fragmentation – demand different ways of knowing, being and doing that many of our current precision education approaches neglect. Moving from individualised notions of education we need collaborative leaders able to synthesize insights across domains, embrace diverse worldviews and to ethically co-create inclusive, transformative possibilities.

The Generative Power of Learning In and Through the Arts

This is where facets of arts education across all levels of schooling provides powerful pathways for societal progress and human flourishing. An ever growing body of research reveals that learning in and through the arts awakens the full spectrum of human ways of knowing, exploration mindsets and personal growth preparing young people for success, both in school and in life while also enriching individual and community wellbeing. Learning in the arts involves direct engagement with arts practices, developing skills and techniques in specific art forms, whereas learning through the arts involves using artistic methods as tools to understand and explore other academic subjects or concepts.

Authentic self-expression

There is Ample evidence to support both intrinsic and instrumental benefits of the arts. That has been documented – for example Ewing’s arguments in The Arts and Australian education: Realising potential , as well as the repository provided by the National Advocates for Arts Education (NAAE). And more, recently in the UK by National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD) and The benefits of Art, Craft and Design education in schools A Rapid Evidence Review by Pat Thomson and Liam Maloy. Within this evidence we continue to see how the arts through participatory inquiry and hands-on creation processes promote imaginative visioning, authentic self-expression, interpretive depth, cross-cultural understanding, empathy, and the persevering practice of manifesting new ideas into realised form. We also saw the power of the arts during the peak of the COVID wave .

Crucial experience

Engaging in arts practices and processes also nurtures innovative confidence in students, empowering them to develop unique perspectives and collaborative abilities. Students gain crucial experience exploring real-world complexity through multiple creative lenses, as well as synthesizing original interpretations that honour and amplify their authentic voices, visions and cultural identities.

Unlike standardised testing environments that encourage regurgitation of prescribed “right” answers, collaborative and individual artmaking allows diverse individuals and communities to experience firsthand how engaging differing viewpoints through dialogue, cooperative creation and respectful exchange can generate multiple and new understandings and possibilities that transcend any single worldview.

Promoting Teacher Agency to Guide Expressive Flourishing

Teaching we know is an increasingly complex task. There are many imposed requirements that can impact how we might imagine the role of educators in adopting teaching approaches that are linked to learning in and through the arts. It is also not clear in current education systems if we are encouraging or intentionally nurturing teachers’ own capacities to be creative and design immersive experiences that awaken students’ expressive capacities, intrinsic motivations and unique potentials to unveil new possibilities.

We know it is it possible for teachers through their facilitation of exploratory creative practice, that they can model the vital human dispositions that involve what Maxine Greene refers to as wide-awakeness or what Biesta refer to as engaging in a conversation with the world. Though the arts we can support teachers to adopt practices like open-mindedness, ethical reasoning, self-actualization and comfort with ambiguity that become classroom norms.

Similarly with the current trend for teachers to work with colleagues as a member of a professional learning community (PLC), are they able to work cooperatively to design innovative, arts-integrated lessons to awaken students’ imaginative visioning abilities, critical consciousness, changemaking impulses and self-actualizing identities as bold co-creators of more beautiful realities.

Overcoming Barriers to an Arts-Driven Future

Of course, such a radical shift that I’ve alluded to here, as have others before me, faces considerable systemic barriers in the form of ingrained institutional inertia, standardised testing regimes, and entrenched industrial mindsets around education’s purposes. Adopting arts-driven, creative inquiry-based teaching approaches will no doubt provoke fears and resistance from those invested in existing power structures and conventional teaching philosophies.

Dan Harris in a previous post in this blog has spoken about the tensions between arts policy and education policy. However, as intensifying social and ecological pressures converge into existential crises, the vital necessity for human flourishing will only grow more urgently apparent. We know that intentionally integrating the arts provides an inclusive, expressive pathway for focusing on key aspects of education as well as promoting basic competencies.

Collaborative wisdom

When prioritised, arts education provides the vital spark illuminating a way to both cultivate students’ and teachers’ expressive talents, ethical vision and skills for imaginatively co-creating new sustainable systems and worlds.

There are options here to nurture the collaborative wisdom so urgently needed to navigate our era’s unprecedented planetary tests and initiate long overdue systemic transformations. Yet the evidence related to the power of arts education seems to be ignored or sidelined and instead the focus of education remains on testing.

Mark Selkrig is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. His research and scholarly work focus on the changing nature of educators’ work, their identities and lived experiences of these events. He has been the recipient of awards for publications in this field and acknowledged for his leadership, outstanding work and advocacy for arts development and education. Mark is on Twitter @markselkrig and LinkedIn.

Research impact: What I Learned From Being An ABC Media Expert For Two Weeks

October 10, 2024Research impactAARE blog, ABC, Hugh Gundlach, media impact, Research impact, University of Melbourne

The ABC’s TOP 5 is a unique program where the national broadcaster works with a group of early career researchers across science, humanities and the arts. This year, the University of Melbourne’s Hugh Gundlach was one of the Humanities TOP5. He specialises in education, particularly in teacher retention and teachers’ work.

Amplifying your Research Impact through the Media

As academic researchers, we have a responsibility to share our findings beyond just peer-reviewed journals. The public and industry funds much of our work, so we should return that knowledge to its context by providing expert opinion supported by facts and evidence. Apart from helping attract funding and building profiles inside and outside institutions, media exposure allows us to start conversations in society and elevate stories beyond headlines.

I had the opportunity to spend two weeks at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) as part of their Top 5 Media Residency program. During this time, I learned how to retain the integrity of complex research while presenting it to a broader, non-academic media audience. I believe we can all benefit from the insights offered by this program.

Why Engage with the Media?

Media helps set and follow the public interest, but it can also fall prey to sensationalism and PR agendas. Academics can play a key role in elevating stories, providing context, and reducing sensationalism. Most people will never read a peer-reviewed journal, making the media an essential platform for reaching diverse and influential audiences, including policymakers, highly educated audiences, and the general public.

Media also allows academics to incorporate personal stories and case studies, elements typically absent from formal research outputs.

Storytelling is Key

The purpose of news media is to serve the public interest by exposing injustice, informing the population, but also entertaining. The ABC prides itself on sharing good stories, well told, without dumbing them down. They carefully consider who the audience is for each program, repeatedly asking why that audience should care about the content.

Good media coverage is fundamentally about storytelling. The ABC focuses on big issues told through engaging, human-centred stories. Ask yourself:

Does your research connect with any current societal issues?
Can you offer a fresh perspective on something in the news?
What part of your work will make people say, “Wow”?
What’s the one takeaway for the audience?

Use vivid language and imagery to bring your research to life.

Which Media Formats Should I Consider?

Being behind the scenes at the ABC helped me understand the range of media formats. Each requires a different approach:

Online Articles

Online articles offer features, opinion pieces, explainers and analysis. They need to be timely, impactful, locally relevant, surprising, containing conflict/tension, human interest and universal themes.

Articles are around 1,000 words with succinct one sentence paragraphs, lots of subheadings, and engaging images every scroll. Most are read on phones, with an average two minute read time. High performers attract about 20,000 views with an average 4 minute read time.

Focus on making one key point very well. Use impactful quotes from other work, hyperlinking sources after the first three paragraphs to avoid sending readers away initially.

Radio

People listen to radio news and talk programs to gain knowledge, hear stories of shared interest, and get help with their lives. As a guest, be passionate but remember it’s not for you – keep the conversation flowing without drifting off-topic. Find the human interest angle and use sensory details to create a narrative flow for the imagined listener of that program.

You may be brought in as an expert to provide context and perspective behind the headlines on live breakfast, afternoon or drivetime shows. Or you might pre-record an interview for a more specialised subject-based program, where you can tell richer stories and case studies in a friendly, informal environment.

Podcasts

Podcasts are even more niche, with segmented audiences actively seeking out that specific content. Listen to past episodes to understand the particular style – it could be a casual host chat, long-form interview, high production narrative or a daily news-style briefing. Whatever the format, your interviewing ability is key.

Types of Interviews

Interviews are guided conversations aimed at informing, discovering new insights, or holding someone accountable. For researchers, interviews are usually of the first two types.

Before agreeing to an interview, ask the journalist/producer who the audience is, what angle they’re taking, what areas they want to cover and who else they’re speaking to. It’s acceptable to decline interviews if you don’t feel qualified or confident in the treatment of the topic.

The producer will likely pre-interview you to prepare questions for the talent to ask. But the talent may still ask stereotypical questions the public is expecting – remember, the audience should be getting the most out of it.

In an interview, answer the question you’re asked, not the one you’ve prepared for. Keep your language accessible, contextualise any statistics, and maintain a conversational tone. Try to answer questions as a fellow human, not just an academic!

How to Pitch Your Research

Producers are the gatekeepers for most media appearances. When pitching, be specific and personal—show them how your content aligns with their audience. Timing is critical. Reach out before 9 am and avoid Fridays.

Tailoring your pitch to relevant holidays or major events (e.g., ‘Back to school’, Exams, the Olympics, NAPLAN) can improve your chances. Be mindful of when Parliament is not sitting, as those weeks can create more opportunities for academic voices to be heard.

Don’t be discouraged if you don’t hear back immediately—media work often involves getting “bumped” or edited out. The key is to remain persistent, relevant and to make yourself known. Write articles for platforms like EduResearchMatters, The Guardian, or The Conversation, update your profile on your institution’s website, and connect with journalists covering your area of expertise, as well as any media teams within your institution.

Engaging with the media offers a valuable opportunity to share your research with a wider audience. By telling your story clearly and compellingly, you can contribute to important conversations, elevate public discourse, and make a lasting impact beyond academia.

Hugh Gundlach is a lecturer and researcher in the Faculty of Education at The University of Melbourne. He is one of the ABC Top 5 Media Residents (Humanities) for 2024. There are intakes for the ABC Top 5 in the Arts, Humanities and Sciences. Early career researchers are encouraged to apply in 2025.

How research-based news articles (like this one) accelerate research impact

NAPLAN: Time to think differently

August 29, 2024NAPLANAARE blog, NAPLAN, Sophie Rudolph, University of Melbourne

It’s not the results of NAPLAN that are the problem. It is NAPLAN testing itself. These standardised tests contribute to the maintenance of a deeply unequal system.

The release of NAPLAN results in August prompted an avalanche of responses from politicians, commentators and researchers all with a take on how to understand the continued ‘declining results’ in the national standardised testing program.

The federal minister for education Jason Clare responded the morning the results were released, noting the inequities in the system: “There’s about one in ten children who sit these tests that are below what we used to call the minimum standard. But it’s one in three kids from poor families, one in three kids from the bush, one in three Indigenous kids. In other words, your parents’ pay packet, where you live, the colour of your skin affects your chances in life.”

He also said, “The results showed why school funding talks were crucial — not just to supply extra money, but to reform classroom practices.” Jordana Hunter and Nick Parkinson from the Grattan Institute agreed: NAPLAN results laid bare stark inequities within our education system. And “high quality teaching and support”’ leads to almost all students learning to read competently.

Other perspectives

But other perspectives, from experienced education researcher Jim Tognolini warns “there is only so much ‘growth’ that can occur across one or two years of learning”. And Gore, another experienced researchers, argues: “Students are more than their brains . . they learn in social and emotional conditions that also need to be addressed.”

Calls for evidence-backed solutions to the problem have also abounded. While it is important not to dismiss the role of evidence in addressing these problems, there is also room to consider how a structural analysis that takes into consideration some different theoretical lenses, might both reveal different insights on the problems and different possible solutions.

Take, for example, the decline in the mental health of young people. On the same morning (and on the same radio station), Jason Clare responded to the NAPLAN results, Patrick McGorry, Executive Director of Orygen and lead author of the Lancet Psychiatry Commission on Youth Mental Health report revealed findings that the ‘mental health of young people has been declining over the past two decades, signalling a warning that global megatrends and changes in many societies are increasing mental ill health.’

Correlations

It is worth noting that the global trend in standardised testing and comparison also emerged over the last two decades. The correlations of a number of these issues is significant: NAPLAN results have been declining; youth mental health has been declining; school exclusion and refusal has been increasing; the disruptive and distressing effects of global warming have been increasing; global inequality has been increasing; surveillance capitalism has been increasing; and we are currently watching a genocide live streamed to our phones while students and staff are discouraged from talking about it.

When viewed together these trends point towards a global system of inequity, in which as noted above the unequal schooling system in Australia is but one component. This means the inequities in the education system cannot be fixed by providing more funding and supporting better quality teaching (although these things are of course, incredibly important), but require a closer look at the broader system of inequality. And what we find when we look at that system is that inequality is required in the system.

Capitalism and colonialism, systems that our societies and schools have grown out of, and continue to inform their operations, are based on maintaining gaps between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, between those who ‘succeed’ and those who ‘fail’.

The system must be reckoned with

While Jason Clare and others might be concerned about such NAPLAN gaps in achievement of the poor, those who live rurally and First Nations students, the system that produces these gaps must be reckoned with if a solution is to be found.

Anthropologist Jason Hickel, based in Barcelona, points out ‘capitalism is predicated on surplus extraction and accumulation; it must take more from labour and nature than it gives back…such a system necessarily generates inequalities and ecological breakdown.’

Further, he notes ‘what makes capitalism distinctive, and uniquely problematic, is that it is organised around, and dependent on, perpetual growth.’ And he shows how this perpetual growth has relied for centuries on colonial appropriation of land and resources, enclosure, enslavement and exploitation, and cheapening of labour to underpin capitalist growth.

This is the system that schooling sits within. Thus the white, wealthy, urban families that Jason Clare points out, have children who achieve on the NAPLAN test, demonstrate the colonial, capitalist system working as it is designed to.

Unequal by design

US education researcher Wayne Au, argues high-stakes testing (such as NAPLAN) is unequal by design and operates to standardise inequality. Au explores how ‘the data produced by the tests are used as the metric for determining value, which in turn is used for comparison and competition in the educational marketplace.’ He also outlines how high-stakes, standardised tests ‘perpetuate institutionalized racism and white supremacy, and they are functionally weaponized against working-class communities of color’.

This leads, therefore, to a situation in which it’s not so much about which evidence-based teaching strategies are working but which schools in the unequal market system have the capacity to extract test results from students that produce the greatest market value. That is, the results in Australia that get recorded on the MySchool website and enable the marketing of their school as a higher achieving school. The recording of other attributes of the school community on the MySchool website also contribute to the institutionalised racism and classism that Au outlines.

I’d argue this then gives some schools more power in the market system and allows them to accumulate surpluses. Surpluses might be in the form of more teachers wanting to teach at their school which can lead to smaller class sizes (particularly in the teacher shortage) or it might be in the form of more students wanting to attend their school which leads to greater resourcing when resources are attached to student enrollments. More research is needed to understand this phenomenon.

Organised abandonment

Through these processes of extraction and accumulation, violence also occurs. North American theorist Ruth Wilson Gilmore argues that certain racialized and impoverished communities are subject to ‘group differentiated vulnerability to premature death.’ In other words, the capitalist state deliberately under-resources particular groups so that they are more vulnerable to premature death. Wilson Gilmore calls these practices ‘organised abandonment.’

There are welcome calls for better funding of disadvantaged schools. But the long-standing practice of under-funding public schools in poorer communities in Australia is an example of organised abandonment,entrenches inequality in ways that increased funding alone will have little chance of shifting.

A different possible solution to the problem is to abolish standardised testing and the MySchool website and undo the market based system of schooling. If we are serious about addressing academic achievement, mental wellbeing, poverty, racial discrimination and global warming we must build an education system that is anti-colonial and anti-capitalist. This requires abolishing harmful systems of competition, extraction, accumulation and corporate growth and investing in systems of deep care for, in Jason Hickel’s words, ‘human needs (use-value) through de-accumulation, de-enclosure and de-commodification.’

Sophie Rudolph is a senior research fellow at the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. Her research and teaching involves sociological and historical analyses and is informed by critical theories. She is currently working on a DECRA project investigating the history and politics of racialised school discipline and exclusion in Victoria.

READING, part six: The media say we have a reading crisis now . Do we?

August 21, 2024media representations of reading, Reading, UncategorizedAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, media representations of education, Noella Mackenzie, reading, University of Melbourne

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explores what the media say about reading. This is the sixth and final post on reading to celebrate Book Week.

What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

Three: What is the Simple View of Reading?

Four: What is the Science of Reading?

Five: Why teachers need more than this year’s model

Recently the debates around the best ways to teach reading have been reignited. The media coverage has been fierce, and is often led by people who have little or no experience in mainstream classroom teaching of language or literacy. Media reports have also been negative and polarising; providing reductionist definitions of reading, simplified solutions to a perceived crisis, and calling for a phonics first (and fast) approach to teaching and assessing reading for all children, without evidence to demonstrate that all children need or benefit from this narrow approach to reading instruction.

A highly regarded Australian academic argues that Australia’s ‘right-wing media have a lot to answer for in terms of fostering narrow approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment . . .’. In England and the United States of America (USA) the aggressive media commentary on the teaching of reading has contributed to policy mandates that demand or exclude specific literacy instructional practices.

Crisis? What crisis?

In recent times, media outlets have switched their narrative from the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and the Science of Reading (SOR) (Post 4) to Structured Literacy (SL) (Post 5) and explicit teaching. We dispute the perceived literacy crisis that is so often reported by the media and the idea that the science related to reading, is settled (Post 4). It is the perceived literacy crisis that we tackle here.

Australia does not have a reading crisis. Recently an analysis of 25 years of Australian national and international standardised assessment data, and found that student literacy data have remained consistent, despite different policies and approaches to literacy teaching. Australia has participated in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) test every four years since 2011. Australia’s results improved between 2011 and 2016 and then remained consistent. Table 1 shows the mean scores for Australia, England, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore in 2011, 2016 and 2021.

Country	Mean scores (out of a possible 600)
Country	2011	2016	2021
Singapore	576	576	587
Hong Kong	571	569	573
England	552	559	558
Australia	527	544	540
New Zealand	531	523	521

Table 1 PIRLS data

In 2021, Australia had 80% of students reaching the PIRLs benchmarks. Only six countries achieved higher: Italy (83%), Finland (84%), England (86%), Russia (89%), Singapore (90%) and Hong Kong (92%). Twenty-eight countries had lower scores than Australia in 2021.

Funding and fairness

A continuing trend for Australia is the poor outcomes for students from low SES and Indigenous backgrounds. Perhaps Australia’s literacy outcomes have more to do with funding and fairness than pedagogy.

The data from the 2022 Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), which assesses the literacy skills of students who are 15 years old, show Australia’s performance is above the OECD average. That’s comparable to America, and slightly above students from the United Kingdom. Eight countries were identified as performing significantly higher than Australia and 68 countries performed significantly lower.

Australia’s performance has remained relatively unchanged since 2015, whereas the United Kingdom’s results have declined. Despite this evidence, some think we would benefit from importing approaches to literacy teaching from England and the US.

Borrowing policy

Countries often “policy borrow” from other countries; despite advice that innovation is more likely to be more effective than borrowing. Highly respected Australian researchers question the appropriateness of Australia looking to the US and the UK for guidance in education.

Australia’s borrowing of educational ideas from other countries is ill-advised. Why do we accept the myths and beliefs underpinning educational innovations almost without evidence or questioning? Is it because of our close links with the UK and the USA, instead of their proven success and transferability? If so, how wise is this?

Others have also questioned Australia’s policy borrowing. They have argued instead for policy learning that takes into account ‘national and local histories, cultures and so on’.

Policy borrowing led to the introduction of standardised testing system based on systems used in the USA and England. It is questionable whether Australia learned from the mistakes of the USA and England when designing NAPLAN. The Phonics Check is another example of policy borrowing.

Why are we borrowing policies from countries that are not doing any better than Australia?

England’s Department for Education (DfE) has acknowledged that “evidence suggests that the introduction of the check has had an impact on pupils’ attainment in phonics, but not an identifiable impact on their attainment in literacy’. Enjoyment of reading by children in England is at its lowest level since 2005.

In addition to the falloff in enjoyment of reading, it is estimated that up to 25% of upper primary school students in England are unable to meet expected reading standards. They also lack the fluency required to extract meaning from age-related texts.

Despite this, a recent Grattan institute report encourages Australia to follow England and the US initiatives to improve literacy learning. That’s despite any evidence to suggest approaches to literacy teaching in these countries work any better than those already operating in Australia.

Follow carefully

When policy shopping perhaps we should choose the countries we follow more carefully. In the republic of Ireland children outperform their English peers in reading without an emphasis on Synthetic phonics. Additionally, Canada’s success, where curricula until most recently were mostly aligned with Balanced Literacy (BL), has largely been ignored.

We contend that policy makers should critically consider what is happening in Australia before adopting policies from other countries that have not been proven to work better than approaches well established in Australian schools, as demonstrated by data. They should also consider the plethora of reading research that is available.

Much is written about reading research. But teachers sometimes only get to read research papers or summaries of papers that their employer has pre-chosen to support current policy or to provide the rationale for proposed changes. Further doubts and insecurities are fuelled by inaccurate media reports of declining reading standards, suggestions that teachers are the cause of this decline, and claims that reading science is settled. A common claim from those outside education, is that teacher education courses have neglected to teach what teachers need to know about reading. That’s despite rigorous teacher education accreditation processes.

A narrow view of reading

Suggested solutions to the perceived reading crisis are often based on a narrow view of reading and reading research. They do not take into consideration the needs or contexts of all learners. At this time the recommended approaches are scripted, commercial packages that prioritise phonics and decoding using texts with phonologically regular words (called decodable texts), and controlled language with limited meaning. These texts were originally designed for use with beginning readers. But publishers have taken up the challenge of creating this style of texts for all primary grades. The outcome? Some schools have removed all of their predictive and authentic texts and those classified as wider reading. They have been replaced by decodable or controlled texts. This is also a time when schools have reduced their investment in libraries and librarians.

An emphasis on phonology and a diet of decodable texts won’t help students become readers who read for pleasure. It won’t prepare them for the texts they will need to read in high school or for that matter, life. This narrow, one size fits all approach to the teaching of reading, cannot possibly meet the needs of all Australian students. It is based on what works with students who have dyslexia or reading difficulties. There is no evidence of transferability into mainstream classrooms. It does not acknowledge that teachers are best placed to make teaching decisions for the students in their classrooms.

Focus on those in need

While we do not agree that there is a crisis in reading in Australia, we do agree that students from low SES backgrounds, Indigenous students, and those experiencing learning difficulties need more focused assistance. Much research has been conducted in this area and should be utilised to make the necessary changes for these students, including funding and staffing measures based upon equity rather than equality.

Teachers must always think critically about research, and the various reading models and frameworks being suggested or promoted and make teaching decisions based on the needs of the students they are teaching, not what is promoted by think tanks or the media. With their theoretical and practical wisdom, along with their content and contextual knowledge, teachers should be supported to make decisions that best meet the needs of the students in their classrooms. As authors of this paper, we are confident that teachers continue to work hard to meet the different needs of the diverse children in their care, despite the many traps in the reading jungle.

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.