University of Melbourne

Literacy

READING, part five: why teachers must have more than this year’s model of literacy

Literacy teaching, Reading, , , , , , , ,

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore structured literacy, whole language and balanced literacy. This is the fifth 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?

Reading models do not automatically translate to classroom practice. Instead, it is the knowledgeable and skilful teacher who translates models or theories into classroom practice. A teacher’s beliefs may steer them towards a particular model or theory. 

For example, teachers who believe reading for meaning is critical at all stages of reading, are more inclined to align with a model that embeds meaning throughout all stages of instruction. In contrast, a teacher who believes decoding is at the heart of reading, will align more comfortably with a model or theory that requires a strong emphasis on phonics and decodable text use. 

The reality of Australian classrooms

The teacher who has access to multiple models and a range of possible pathways, can work flexibly. This caters for the diversity of students that is the reality of Australian classrooms in the current landscape. 

Key features of Structured Literacy (SL) are identified as:

‘(a) explicit, systematic, and sequential teaching of literacy at multiple levels— phonemes, letter–sound relationships, syllable patterns, morphemes, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph structure, and text structure; (b) cumulative practice and ongoing review; (c) a high level of student– teacher interaction; (d) the use of carefully chosen examples and nonexamples; (e) decodable text; and  (f) prompt, corrective feedback’.

SL has been shown to be appropriate for students with dyslexia, as it addresses their core weaknesses in phonological awareness, decoding and spelling.

However, SL appears to apply ‘principles of industrial production: linearity, conformity and standardisation’ at a time when we should instead be promoting ‘a creative revolution in education’. Structured Literacy (SL) is a term often used by commercial phonics programs designed for children with dyslexia or reading difficulties.

Commercial programs in question

The quality of commercial programs has also been questioned. Researchers examined over 100 Commercial phonics programs and found considerable problems. For example: 

  • One program introduced the sound /t/ but then provided a follow-up activity that featured words in which the /t/ phoneme did not occur, for example the word ‘the’. 
  • Another example was an activity where children had to identify words that commenced with the /æ/ phoneme such as ‘A’ for apple, but also included images representing words that do not contain /æ/, as in ‘A’ for apron. 

Researchers were also concerned that the linguistic inaccuracies in some of these programs could confuse both teachers and children. Some also used gimmicks and avoided using correct terms to describe phonemes-graphemes.  An additional concern was raised about commercial programs used in pre-schools. It required children to engage in ‘busy’ work, such as colouring in worksheets, as well as drill, practice and memorisation. The ‘individual needs of students and the professional autonomy of teachers’ are de-centred by commercial  programs .

There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted programs for mainstream classes . There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted program for typically developing readers who make up 85-90% of students in most classrooms. SL programs are designed for the 10-15% of children experiencing learning to read difficulties. 

Why our students need skilled teachers

We believe students need knowledgeable and skilled teachers who can create differentiated teaching opportunities to meet the needs of all children; commercial programs simply cannot provide this.

Whole Language instruction refers to an approach which focuses first and foremost on whole texts. It uses these to teach the small parts of language, including words and letters. In the 1980s and 1990s, whole language was a growing movement of teachers, bearing affinities with learning centred, literature-based, multicultural classrooms in the UK and other parts of the English-speaking world including New Zealand and Australia. Whole language teachers use authentic texts or trade books (children’s/ Young Adult fiction, non-fiction, poetry, magazines, etc.) and children’s writings rather than readers and textbooks.

Some advocates of whole language believe that “for some children, a minimum of teaching, and sufficient exposure to print supported by interaction with more advanced readers including family members, is enough to learn to read”. However most children will need explicit instruction to learn how to read.

Whole language is sometimes incorrectly confused with balanced literacy

Balanced Literacy (BL) describes an approach used by many teachers in Australian classrooms until recent policy changes. BL continues to be the dominant approach in Canada, continually successful on the international literacy stage. However Ontario has recently added a Synthetic Phonics element to their curriculum. A Balanced Approach is also common in the republic of Ireland, which consistently does very well in international assessments. The term ‘balanced’ is used to describe how a knowledgeable teacher works to respond to constantly shifting student needs, in the day-to-day teaching of Literacy. There are  five ways to balance literacy learning:

  1. Balancing reading and writing, 
  2. Balancing phonics and comprehension,
  3. Balancing Informational texts and Narrative texts,
  4. Balancing direct instruction with dialogic approaches, and
  5. Balancing whole class instruction and small groups.

BL also offers a teacher a way of being able to cater for the diverse needs of their students. BL classrooms also focus on oral language and include shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, read aloud and writing activities that help students make connections between their reading and writing.

A brand new model

The Double Helix of Reading and Writing is a new instructional reading and writing model. The authors argue that their “model provides a rationale and evidence base for a balanced approach to teaching reading and writing . . .[and argue that] the practice of systematic phonics teaching should be carefully integrated with other main elements in reading and writing lessons and activities in early years and primary education”.

Tomorrow: the impact the media has on the teaching of reading

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.

Science of reading

READING, part four: Is the science of reading settled?

Reading, , , , , ,

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Science of Reading (SoR) in this fourth post 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?

What do people mean when they talk about the science of reading?

The terms ‘science of reading’ or ‘Science of Reading’ are often mentioned in media reports. Where have these terms come from and what do they really mean?  The science of reading (sor) as a term has been used for more than 200 years to describe reading science or reading knowledge. The  term has no single definition and is currently used in different ways by different stake-holders.   

The sor, (without capital letters) as a “corpus of objective investigation and accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught”. This sor is a rich, and constantly growing source of knowledge, a virtual library of research into reading. It has been contributed to by countless researchers from many different disciplines, with various different methodological approaches and a range of findings related to; 

  • what happens when we read, 
  • why some people find it hard to learn to read, and
  • the success or otherwise of different instructional approaches with different groups of learners. 

Reading research includes; 

  • typically developing learners, 
  • learners who find learning to read difficult, 
  • learners who are learning to read English as extra language or dialect, and 
  • adult learners. 

Should it be the Science of Teaching Reading?

In 2021, the construct  was expanded to the Science of Teaching Reading. Others have argued in 2024 that we should refer to the integration of science of teaching reading AND science of teaching writing. 

The term Science of Reading (SoR, with capital letters) is often used to refer to, or give strength to, approaches to reading instruction that privilege or prioritise synthetic phonics, Structured Literacy (SL) (International Dyslexic Association), or the Simple View of Reading (SVR). SoR has been identified as having a focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction.

Some schools publicise that they are SoR schools and sometimes advertise for teachers who can ‘teach’ the SoR.  Some professional learning providers and commercial programs also identify with being informed by the SoR. 

This SoR, is ‘characterised by a narrow theoretical lens, an abstracted empiricism, and uncritical inductive generalisations derived from brain-imaging and eye movement data sources’.

It has been argued that ‘neuroimaging does not distinguish the phonological processing of a decoding model of reading from the graphophonic processing of a meaning-centred model’.

The practical wisdom of teachers

SoR activists often criticise teachers’ knowledge and any approaches that don’t align with SoR.  But Dehaene, often quoted by SoR advocates as providing the answers for how to teach reading based upon brain scans, suggests the practical wisdom of teachers has an important role to play in the day-to-day decisions of what different children may need. He sums up his concerns in this way:

Our own impression is that neuroscience is still far from being prescriptive. A wide gap separates the theoretical knowledge accumulated in the laboratory from practice in the classroom. Applications raise problems that are often better addressed by teachers than by the theory-based expectations of scientists.

Unfortunately, this SoR movement has led to the breaking down of reading into skills and subskills. It is taking teachers away from the bigger goal of teaching children to become readers who want to read. Some suggest that:

Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake. . . Time spent jumping through PA hoops could instead be spent on activities that expand the knowledge that supports comprehending texts of increasing complexity and variety

Is the ‘science of reading’ settled? 

In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer reviewed journal articles have been published that included the keyword reading based on a PsycINFO search. Our knowledge related to reading is not settled. It  is “ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy”. Other researchers also question the notion of settled science.

The ‘artful implementation of pedagogies and interventions that close the circle – from scientific findings translated into practical applications in education and back to addressing problems in education as impetus for evidence-informed theorizations of learning’. This has not happened with some of the studies that come under the banner of SoR. 

What are these findings really?

Findings from laboratory studies are not tested in mainstream classrooms, before being hailed as miraculous, and studies that focused on students with learning difficulties, are not tested on students without learning difficulties before being heralded as the perfect way to teach all students. This is akin to a medication that has helped control nausea in a particular group of patients with a specific illness, being prescribed to the general population to prevent or treat nausea, without clinical trials. 

Our next post will tease out the terms structured literacy, whole language and balanced literacy. 

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.

READING, part three: What is the Simple View?

Reading, , , , ,

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Simple View of Reading (SVR) in this third post to celebrate Book Week. This describes reading at a single point in time: decoding x listening/ linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension (D x LC = RC). 

What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

The SVR presumes that, once printed matter is decoded, a reader can “apply to the text exactly the same mechanisms which he or she would bring to bear on its spoken equivalent”. It is not a theory or model of how to teach reading. The SVR is not suggesting that reading is a simple process. These researchers were providing a simple explanation of why some readers experience reading difficulties.

Some advocates have used the SVR as the justification for an emphasis on phonics and decoding first (and fast). This has led to the idea that listening comprehension and reading comprehension happen after decoding. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that decoding guarantees a reader will identify each word in isolation. And then, that reader will be able to bring these words together and understand what has been read. 

The opaque nature of the English language makes this almost impossible. 

In many cases the meaning of a word (in context) determines the pronunciation of the word, rather than the other way around, e.g. I read on the train in the mornings. I read my book on the train yesterday. 

Correct pronunciation does not guarantee meaning

There are many homonyms in the English language. For example, ‘plane’ could be a straight line joining two points OR a level of existence. It could also be a level surface OR an aeroplane. It could also be an open area of land OR a wood working tool. 

Despite this, the SVR is often cited as the justification for the use of synthetic phonics programs in the early years of school, and a focus on decoding as the most important problem-solving approach to an unknown word across all grades.

Building on the Simple View of Reading

The SVR has formed the basis for more complex understandings of reading. For example, The Reading Rope diagram (Figure 1) expands the three elements of the SVR and explains the complexity of skilled reading.

‘Decoding’ is described as a subcomponent of ‘word recognition’ and does not automatically lead to comprehension. “Even if the pronunciation of all the letter strings in a passage are correctly decoded, the text will not be well comprehended if the child:

(1) does not know the words in their spoken form, 

(2) cannot parse the syntactic and semantic relationships among the words, or 

(3) lacks critical background knowledge or inferential skills to interpret the text appropriately and ‘read between the lines’”

The Reading Rope is often used in teacher professional learning sessions, although the language comprehension elements are not always given the same emphasis as the word recognition elements. As a result, word recognition or decoding instruction is often prioritised. That’s despite the fact that reading comprehension requires language comprehension which is made up of background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures (syntax and semantics), verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. Word recognition should be taught in conjunction with language comprehension if reading comprehension is the goal. 

Much more to understand

One of the original developers of the SVR, Tumner, agrees that there is ‘much more to understand about reading than what is represented in the SVR’ and has more recently co-developed with Hoover the Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (CFRF). 

Figure two: The Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020)

In the figure above, “each cognitive component represents an independent, but not necessarily elemental, knowledge-skill set that is an essential, hierarchically positioned, building block in reading and learning to read”. 

This framework includes ‘background knowledge’ and ‘inferencing skills’ as well as ‘phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge’.  The CFRF also demonstrates the complexity of the reading process. 

Numerous other models have been developed from the SVR including the Active View of Reading (AVR). The AVR highlights the ‘key self-regulation skills’ required to manage all aspects of reading.  Motivation and engagement are identified as key self-regulatory skills. These are overlooked in some other reading models, but other researchers have identified the importance of seeing reading as not just a technical activity but one that needs to engage hearts and minds.

The SVR does not suggest that reading is a simple process and it is not a model of reading instruction. In the next post we will explore the Science of Reading (SoR) and unpick some of the confusions associated with it. 

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.

Reading

READING, part two: What really works for readers and when?

Phonics, Reading, , , , , ,

This morning Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone helped us navigate the reading jungle

We start this afternoon’s post with evidence-based instruction (EBI) and then move to a discussion of phonics/phonemic awareness.  

The term ‘evidence-based’ is used widely. It can be appealing even if it is not clear how the evidence being referenced was collected or analysed. Reading related science is complex. Evidence coming from science needs to be viewed from different perspectives and time, so the full picture to emerge. The evidence-based movement includes ‘a focus on behaviourist theory, quantitative research, randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, hard numerical data and high stakes standardised testing’. It often ignores ‘structural inequalities in pursuit of better outcomes’. 

Some claim evidence to support a particular approach. Others use different evidence to claim that the same approach does not work. A common assumption is that if something works with students from one cohort it will work with all students. 

Huge differences

Any parent who has more than one child will point out the huge differences, even between two siblings. When they walk, talk, learn to feed themselves, sleeping patterns etc, etc. Take, for example, a class of 25 children who come into school together, from 25 different homes. They may vary in gender and in age, of up to 18 months. They bring more differences than can be counted and qualified. 

In terms of preparedness for school, there will be a huge range of prior experiences socially and culturally. There will also be a huge range of experience in terms of oral and written language exposure. To assume all children should start at the same point with the same instruction is naive. (For more on EBI read EduResearch Matters posts by Nicole Brinker   and Tom Mahoney. These provided  comprehensive discussions of this vexed topic.) 

The topic that is the most talked about in the current era is that of phonics or phonemic awareness instruction. While all agree that phonics is necessary for reading, the amount and methods are up for debate. Australia’s National curriculum includes the teaching of phonics. But it also recognises that when reading, children will draw on a range of sources. That includes their knowledge of letters and sounds, what makes sense and knowledge of how language works.

Children who can already read when they start school

Let’s start with the children who can already read when they begin school. It is important for teachers to first check that any children who arrive at school with the ability to read, are able to problem solve unknown words, within text, using phonological information. Children who can already demonstrate the ability to apply phonological information effectively should focus on a wide range of engagements with texts. 

Focused, systematic, and explicit phonics lessons should be aimed at children who are just starting to discover, or are still learning, how letters and sounds (phonemes) work in reading and writing. It may be difficult initially to identify those children who we will refer to as typically developing readers. These children make up the majority of most classrooms. Most will need daily focused phonics lessons for the first year of school. 

Those who show early signs of struggle

Assessments of children’s reading will efficiently and accurately determine what children know, what they can do. These same assessments can be used to determine when children no longer need phonics teaching for reading. A small group (10-15%) may show early signs of struggle and may possibly be diagnosed as experiencing reading difficulties. These children will need more focused instruction in addition to the daily classroom program. 

While phonics is a necessary element of reading instruction, and will probably account for approximately 25-30 mins of daily instruction in the first year of school, there are different methods for teaching phonics. 

Synthetic phonics

Synthetic phonics is a particular decontextualised, approach to teaching reading that involves teaching children how to convert letters or letter groups into sounds (phonemes) and then blending these sounds to form words and/or non-words. Commercial Structured phonics programs usually use a synthetic phonics approach.  Even the strongest supporters of a phonics first approach question the need for Synthetic Phonics. ”In our view, the evidence is not yet sufficient to conclude that a synthetic phonics approach should be preferred over an analytic one”.

Analytic phonics

Analytic phonics (also referred to as analytical phonics or implicit phonics) refers to an approach that focuses on teaching the sounds (phonemes) associated with particular letter patterns within the context of a whole word. 

Embedded phonics

Embedded phonics, integrates phonics instruction into the context of reading authentic texts, rather than being taught as separate, isolated skills.  Recent research conducted in Melbourne illustrated the affordances of explicit phonics instruction integrated into a rich literacy environment. It showed the clear benefits for students when phonics was taught in context.

Analytic and embedded methods may be described as contextualised approaches and are often integrated. All approaches to phonics instruction can be systematic and all involve explicit instruction. 

Phonics instruction through writing is often overlooked and yet provides the potential for children to explore letter sound relationships from a different perspective than when reading. Instead of going from letter to sound they go from sound to letter. What can I hear? What letters could I use to make that sound? 

A concern expressed by some, is how long focused phonics or phonemic awareness (PA) instruction should continue. 

The goal is to read

The goal of teaching children to read is reading, not phonemic awareness .

We know learning to read does not require being able to identify 44 phonemes or demonstrate proficiency on phoneme deletion and substitution tasks. How do we know that? Because until very recently no one who learned to read had to do these things. Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake. 

Problems with the way phonics is sometimes referred to by advocates of the Science of Reading have also been identified (more on the SoR in a future post)

The idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the Science of Reading approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”.

An integrated approach

In 2000, The National Reading Panel (NRP) in the US suggested systematic phonics instruction, although important, “should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program”. The NRP even warned against phonics becoming a dominant component in a reading program.  The 2005  Rowe Report on the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading stated the importance of systematic phonics instruction. But it also noted it was equally important that . . .

Teachers should provide an integrated approach to reading that supports the development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar, reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new technologies.

More recently, it has been argued that the teaching of phonics to typically developing readers should be “contextualised in whole texts, including a focus on comprehension and including the teaching of writing within reading lessons”. This claim is well supported by a seminal 1990 study which compared de-contextualised phonics teaching with contextualised phonics teaching and a ‘business as usual’ control group. Recent research conducted in Melbourne also showed that a contextualised phonics intervention was more effective than de-contextualised phonics because it bridged the learning about phonemes, with input on reading more generally, in order to promote broader transfer of skills.

It’s all about context

Has this started you thinking and perhaps questioning what you may have read about phonics and evidence-based instruction in the media? Tomorrow we explore the Simple View of Reading and how that’s influenced much of the reading research over recent times. 

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.

READING, part one: How to find your way through the jungle

Reading, teaching reading, , , , ,

To celebrate Book Week, EduResearch Matters is publishing a six part series on reading by Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone.

A jungle is a land covered with dense forest and tangled vegetation, usually in tropical climates. The jungle metaphor describes the current landscape in regard to science and reading. The huge amount of research published in the last two decades, the media interpretations or misinterpretations of selected findings, and claims the reading science is settled, are akin to a dense forest. The policies and mandates teachers dealing with are like tangled vegetation. The tropical climate refers to the heat in the debate. In this series of blog posts we try to make sense of the jungle and its dense forests and tangled vegetation, challenge the notion that the science is settled, and take some of the heat out of the debate. 

Learning to read

Ever since humans have been writing they have also been reading.  A person who could read often taught a learner to do what they themselves could already do. The instructors had no formal training and no access to theories or methods. In wealthy households there may have been a governess or master tutor to teach children to read. But in many households, a literate parent or friend provided the reading instruction. The most common text used for instruction was probably the bible. And these instructors were not teaching 25 students in a classroom. Instead, they were probably teaching highly motivated individuals, who saw being able to read as a way out of their current situation. 

In the current climate, we need to consider a range of questions:  

  • Why is the teaching of reading such a hot topic in the current era?
  •  Is learning to read a natural process? 
  • Is reading simple or complex? 
  • Is there a right way to teach reading? 
  • What is the role of phonics, and is there a right way to teach phonics? 
  • What does reading research have to say about learning to read and reading instruction? 
  • What is the Science of Reading? 
  • What does evidence-based actually mean? 
  • What impact has the media had on the debates about reading? 

We will respond to these, and many other questions, in a series of 6 blog posts, in an attempt to remove some of the mystery and heat from this topic. 

Both authors have taught many children how to read and have decades of combined classroom teacher experience before moving into academic and researcher roles. Both continue to work with classroom teachers in classrooms. Let’s start!

Learning to read is not natural

It’s not a hard wired skill like learning to talk, although a great deal of learning might happen quite organically within the home and community before formal instruction begins. Children who hear stories read aloud and songs and rhymes repeated often, develop an ear for the sounds of written English. 

From a young age, many are able to recognise some of the differences between spoken and written language, even if they cannot explain the differences. The child who picks up a book and recites using the patterns and rhythms of picture story books is showing knowledge of written language but does not speak to people in these written language patterns. 

In today’s world most people send their children to school to learn to read, but some families choose to homeschool with a parent taking on the instructor role. These parents often have no formal training, although they do have access to resources and curriculum guides. They often respond to their children’s need to learn to read in the same way that they respond to their need to learn to do many other things, (e.g. walk, feed themselves, dress themselves, take turns, share, ride a bike). Children add reading to their set of skills at a time that works for them. 

Different stages, different ages

Parents instinctively understand that children learn in different ways and at different ages. School starting age varies greatly across countries.  In Australia, while we are having debates about how children learn to read at ages 5 or 6, in some countries children do not start formal schooling (or reading) until 7 or 8 years of age (e.g. Finland). Families who homeschool do not feel the same pressure as teachers in schools. So, what does research tell us about reading? 

Reading research has a rich history, a contested and expansive present, and an interesting future, as researchers endeavour to understand what is a multidimensional, neurological process ‘mediated by social and cultural practices’ . 

It is difficult to research foundational educational processes that are as complex as reading. In contrast, it is easy to test the effectiveness of letter learning based upon a particular approach to teaching letters. Short-term gains are also easiest to measure and control for, while long term learning is much more challenging to measure and to control for. Additionally, teaching and learning are sensitive to differences among teachers, students and settings. 

What works with one mightn’t work with another

Even medical researchers agree that what may work in one situation with patient X, despite being faithfully repeated with patient Y, can have a different effect altogether.  

The complexity of the reading act has led to multiple disciplines investigating or researching reading using different theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, some focused on the process of reading, others on the practice of reading and still others on reading instruction. For example, research highlights brain maturation and reading experience.

Reading is a learned skill that is likely influenced by both brain maturation and experience…results suggest that children who are better readers, and who perhaps read more than less skilled readers, exhibit different development trajectories in brain reading regions. Understanding relationships between reading performance, reading experience and brain maturation trajectories may help with the development and evaluation of targeted interventions.

Not all evidence is equal

Perhaps brain maturation and the impact of reading experience deserve further consideration when determining policy and planning instruction. Teachers need access to research evidence in order to make informed decisions about the teaching of reading in their classrooms. Not all evidence is equal. Selective use of limited research by those with a vested interest can give the illusion that the evidence is in, and the reading science is settled, when this is not the case.

In the next post we will continue the discussion of evidence and evidence-based reading instruction.

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.

Image of an engaged teacher

16 Years a HALT: Reflections of a Highly Accomplished Teacher

Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher (HALT), , , ,


I received some long-awaited news last week, and it came as a simple enough e-mail. After ten years, I’ve been certified as a Highly Accomplished (HALT) teacher under AITSL Standards for the third time, granting my accreditation from 2013 to 2029. 

Sounds very fancy. What does that actually mean?

The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) provides a national framework for Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers (HALTs), who are recognised as expert teachers and reflective practitioners. Under AITSL’s vision, HALTs lead and support their colleagues towards better outcomes for learners, understanding their own impact in improving teaching and learning within and beyond their schools.

Some days I’m not sure

Some days, I’m not sure how expert I am. In reality, I see so many teachers doing amazing things every day. But, I have learned this about accreditation. It’s about professional teachers making decisions for their own career and working to develop colleagues and students every day. And it’s the kind of professional development we can initiate ourselves.

Since national teacher certification became available in Australia in 2012, around 1500 teachers have achieved HALT status, working in schools across every state and territory. Here’s what I’ve learned over the past 10 years as a highly accomplished teacher:

HALT is a Political Football

From the $7000 bonus initially promised by the Gillard Government, which was quickly withdrawn by Christopher Pyne as the incoming Education Minister; to some states, systems, and unions opting out of HALT operations for a while; the program has been at the centre of many political debates. Current Education Minister Jason Clare aims to have 10,000 HALTs or equivalents by the end of next year. Every discussion of HALT is a discussion of values and priorities in a contested place. Even the cost of applying for HALT is problematic  – teachers pay fees on progress through application in some jurisdictions while other systems provide incentive payments of $4000 during application. 

Everything Changes

The current models for HALT certification differ significantly from the original system. For instance, the ACT’s Teacher Quality Institute  has implemented a modular system to simplify applications and support teachers collectively. At the national level, AITSL’s framework change last year is designed to increase HALT numbers while maintaining the integrity of the certification process by allowing regulatory authorities flexibility in accrediting HALTs. The rate of gain for certification is growing and will continue to grow.

Your Progress Matters

Applying for and operating as a HALT demands continuous reflection on practice. The Standards provide a scaffold for innovation and improvement, encouraging teachers to consider their impact, actions, progress, and missteps. This constant focus on professional growth benefits not only the individual teacher but also those around them. Some days provide deeper inspection of practice than others, but the Standards provide clear expectations for performance.

One Person Can Make a Difference

HALT certification provides a professional mandate to pursue larger goals. For me, this has involved working with early-career teachers and teaching students during their practicum. With strong and consistent support from leaders at my College, I mentor new teachers in classroom practice, lesson planning, professional networking, and student feedback and provide practicum experiences to support the next generation of teachers. HALT offers a powerful impetus to support the development of others.

The Only Boundaries Are Your Own

I have been fortunate to work with researchers at universities in studies of teachers’ careers. I have been able to brief regulatory authorities about ways to support aspirant HALTs. The work to establish HALT networks in states and territories shows many HALTs are seeing opportunities to improve the profession in a range of ways. HALT can provide a banner for teachers to come together and make progress to benefit teaching and learning for all.

It’s important to note that HALT is not the only path to progress in schools. Many excellent schools thrive without a single HALT. There are impressive initiatives like QT Academy and the Monash Q Project, which guide thousands of teachers toward reliable improvement. A HALT badge doesn’t bestow superpowers. I am not, and never will be, the best teacher at my school. Instead, HALT can  serve as a marker of dedication to building capacity and creating development pathways.

Ultimately, HALT is a way to keep expert teachers in the classroom – to provide a career that recognises and rewards teachers for their work each day. Traditionally, great teachers were promoted out of the classroom into management roles. A system that recognises and rewards exceptional teachers while keeping them in the classroom is a vital part of addressing the teacher retention crisis. HALT is not a silver bullet, but it is a significant step towards ensuring expert teachers can continue to teach effectively and support their colleagues’ professional growth.

John Cole is a Year 7 teacher in Canberra. He is about to take a sabbatical to work on a Doctor of Education with University of Melbourne, researching how Australian teachers make  career decisions (but he’ll still be teaching every week).

Fight! How video games can power up learning now

video games in schools, , , ,

Video games are a dominant form of entertainment, consistently outselling books, film, and music combined. How can education learn from their addictive design?

Great games and great learning share attributes of experiences that challenge us through a variety of immersive problem solving, decision-making and strategic activities.

Video games tap into supportive internal factors of learning such as engaged and positive emotional states, immediate feedback, interval learning and input quantity (or ‘chunking’).

It’s super effective! (For learning)

The success of video games in facilitating learning lies in their intuitive, pleasant design, engaging narratives, and addictive, rewarding feedback loops. Research indicates that video games can improve perception, memory and knowledge retention.

Though video games may be studied as texts , we are focusing here on incorporating game-inspired elements into teaching methodologies to enhance both learning outcomes and student enjoyment. By leveraging the intuitive and self-directed nature of gaming, educators can make learning addictive and engaging across various subjects.

Gamification vs games-based learning. Fight!

Incorporating game elements into education can take two primary forms. Both approaches can enhance the learning experience by adding elements to lesson content such as risk and excitement, urgency, pleasure, and status.

Gamification pervades our lives in everyday things such as loyalty program points, fitness apps, productivity performance targets, Uber ratings, social media metrics and dating apps. Gamification in education involves integrating game mechanics, such as points, badges, achievements, awards or rankings to the classroom, while game-based learning uses actual games as the primary teaching tool . Here, we are more focused here on game design than using games per se.

via GIPHY

“It’s-a-me, Mario!”

Effective game design is crucial for facilitating learning through gameplay. Games with visually pleasing designs, engaging narratives, and addictive gameplay mechanics tend to be more successful in capturing learners’ attention and promoting active, enjoyable participation.

Engineer Mark Rober outlined how a game design approach, what he calls the “Super Mario effect ” can encourage participation in learning activities where it otherwise would not be evident. 

By situating repeated, instant feedback for error correction in a dynamic narrative or context where there is a freedom to fail, gamers learn from failure, try alternate strategies, and develop their skills at their own pace until they succeed.

Design is crucial to this process, and there is even a New York school that has based its philosophy on the principle of video game design.

Achievement unlocked

Video games excel in setting challenging goals and providing clear objectives for players to achieve. The sense of accomplishment and progression inherent in games motivates players to overcome obstacles and master new skills.

Educators can adopt similar strategies to set challenging yet achievable goals for students, fostering a sense of accomplishment and motivation in their learning journey.

Emphasising effort, progress, and continuous improvement fosters a sense of agency and ownership in learning.

Advocates of game-based design have recognised that games prove students are quite capable of memorising and recalling immense volumes of knowledge, when it is constructed by them and founded in experience.

Pokémon players famously memorise more than 27,000 values in three dimensions when battling hundreds of character iterations. By contrast, the entire periodic table has 118 elements and there are approximately 200 irregular verb forms in English.

While students may want to hide their effort and achievements, gamers proudly share their status, achievements and even how long it has taken. In Mortal Kombat, one achievement requires winning 2,800 matches, playing more than 670 hours. To obtain the Pure Poker achievement in Pure Hold’em takes about 10,000 hours.

One has to respect the time and effort gamers dedicate to their craft. Gamers are willing to dedicate and invest time into seemingly repetitive and mundane levels or challenges, showing a persistence and resilience that we would envy in education. Some gamers even modify their games or set challenges to make them even more difficult  than the developers intended, such as speedruns or completing games using only one button!

Games are ‘eustressful’, a beneficial form of stress somewhere between fun and scary, that is motivational.

How can education manage this balance? Measuring progress rather than purely achievement could be key.

“Save progress?”

Games offer tangible feedback on players’ progress through various metrics such as scores, levels, and achievements. Similarly, educators can implement assessment methods that provide meaningful feedback and recognize students’ growth and achievements. Emphasising progress  over final scores encourages continuous improvement and resilience in learning. ATAR, take note! 

The Legend of Zelda was one of the very first games to offer saving. In education, resubmitting a task for a better grade and measuring improvement rather than pure achievement is an example of offering the equivalent of save points for assessments. Could a student’s response to teacher feedback be considered as well as the achievement itself?

Compared to many games of the 80s and 90s where a player had only a few ‘lives’ to survive the whole game, modern first-person shooters such as HALO and the Lego series of games provide more generous opportunities to make progress and complete levels, rewarding persistence and removing a punishment for failure. Where once, players may have merely given up when reaching a level or ‘boss’ that was too difficult, modern games allow players to eventually progress. When learners are not as worried about how they fare relative to everyone else, they focus on their own game.

“Select your difficulty”

Games often offer adjustable difficulty levels to accommodate players with varying skill levels and preferences. The 1977 Atari is credited as one of the first video game consoles to offer selection of difficulty.

Nintendo intentionally made Disney’s The Lion King and Aladdin games difficult so that gamers would have to rent the game longer from the video store!

Games showcase a stellar array of ways to increase challenge in differentiated ways. They can add more enemies, more difficult or faster enemies, more complexity, reduced health or time to complete the same challenge, and even adaptive intelligence enemies.

Moving away from kill counts and mindless shooting, first person shooter action games such as the James Bond franchise and Metal Gear Solid have innovated with objectives related to time, stealth, lives lost, civilians saved, accuracy, ammunition saved and even style.

Similarly, educators can personalise learning experiences to meet the diverse needs of students by offering differentiated instruction and support. By providing opportunities for students to challenge themselves while maintaining a supportive learning environment, educators can foster a sense of competence, growth and autonomy in their students.

“Game over. Play again?”

Often based in an immersive world or context, in games there is a clear sense of objective made meaningful by a narrative  and the presentation of a pathway towards a goal. The map views of SuperMario, Donkey Kong Country and Candy Crush are exemplary examples of how to establish a sense of journey and incremental challenge, which promote mastery and replayability.

By embracing game-inspired elements such as dynamic feedback, meaningful challenges, and personalised learning pathways, educators can empower students to become active participants in their learning journey.

Video games offer valuable insights into effective learning strategies that educators can leverage to create engaging and immersive learning experiences.

Dr 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.

Budget 2024: The government must support universities, students – and research

Changes to higher education, equity in higher education, higher education, higher education funding, higher education policy, , , ,

This is the third in a series of posts on the 2024 Budget. Today: higher education by the University of Melbourne’s Abigail Payne, director of the Melbourne Institute. Last Friday: early childhood care and education by the University of New England’s Marg Rogers, postdoctoral fellow at the Manna Institute Last Thursday: school funding by Curtin University’s Matthew P. Sinclair, a lecturer in education policy.

I approached this year’s budget with excitement and with trepidation. 

Why excitement? This budget offered the potential to embrace some of the more positive insights from the Universities Accord Report.  Trepidation? Would we see the government fail to address the more challenging aspects of working at a university in Australia.

I had hoped to write about the promise of renewed investment in research, in the financing of universities, and supporting the important role that universities play for progressing innovation and delivering solutions that will support strong economic growth for Australia. 

Frankly not much was announced about any important investment that must be made to strengthen and invest in our universities.  

A quick search on terms revealed that the term “student” appeared 109 times, higher education 27 times, university 27 times, VET 25 times, TAFE 7 times, science 35 times, and research 65 times. This blog will focus on the budget announcements for addressing enrolment and the servicing of debt.  

Importance of Increasing Tertiary Education Attendance

Let me start with the promising information. A goal of creating a highly skilled workforce that includes a tertiary attainment target of 80 percent by 2050. This is both laudable and ambitious.  As Figure 1 depicts, Australia is ranked 10th amongst OECD countries for educational attainment (tertiary or higher) for individuals aged 25 to 34. The current rate for those living in Australia is 49 percent for men and is 63 percent for women. 

Is increasing access to universities only about the money?

The budget also recognizes the importance of broadening access to encourage more underrepresented students to attend university. This importance will include a commitment for more needs-based funding.  What this means for the budget is vague.  And is the solution to achieving both an 80 percent target and broadening access simply about money? Increased financial commitments were announced in the budget: $1.1 billion over five years for expanded access and $350.3 million to expand access to free university courses. 

Of course, money matters. 

But research has shown, time and time again, the returns to further education are positive. That has not wavered over time. Why are we not observing high demand for university places? 

Increasing educational attainment must include considerations: how we encourage students to prepare for pursuing these degrees; how we support our schools to deliver what is needed for success in university; and what we can do to support growth in the tertiary system. All that, while maintaining high standards to ensure graduating students are best prepared for opportunities that will require higher levels of skill and knowhow.

Addressing accumulated debt – will changing indexation solve the problem?

As has been well reported, as tuitions have risen, so has student debt. Figure 2 illustrates the dramatic increase in student debt based on tax data obtained from the Australian Tax Office, computed based on the year of the last observed loan for a student, reported in real ($2022) dollars. When HECS/HELP was introduced, the average accumulated debt at the end of schooling was $10,000 in today’s dollars.  Today, the average is nearly $40,000. If we look at remaining debt after five, ten, and fifteen years (ignoring those who have fully repaid their loan), those with debt after ten years are still not making much of a dent in repaying the debt.

Increasing debt, and in more recent years, increasing effective interest on this debt has risen. This means that it is taking longer to repay debt.  Figure 3 illustrates this fact.  Using tax data and the loan information from the Australian Tax Office, we depict the share of students who have repaid their student loan debt after five, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, based on the year of the last year a loan was received.  For example, if a student enrols in university in 2000 and takes out three years of loans between 2000 and 2002, the student is identified as having received her last year of loans in 2002.

What’s changed

When tuition was on the order of $2,000 (nominal) per year (1989 to 1995), approximately 30 percent of the students had repaid their loans within five years and 78 percent had repaid the loan within ten years. Fast forward to more recent periods: only 20 percent of students have repaid their loans within five years. Only 55 percent have repaid their loans within 10 years.  As debt has increased so has the time to repay. 

The budget has recognized the challenges of loan repayment. They have announced that the effective interest rate for these loans will change. The rate will be the lower of either the Consumer Price Index or the Wage Price Index. This use of different measures to capture “inflation” is welcomed. 

Are the cuts to debt fair?

The Government has also indicated it will cut $3 billion in student debt, providing relief for those with existing debt. That’s welcome. But is it fair for those who no longer hold debt but paid off their loans in recent years?  One should also consider the potential signal it serves regarding opportunities to pay off one’s loan faster than is required. And finally, what about those who have never held a loan but are struggling financially?

Confusions around tuition rates and debt repayment – does it cause a student to pause before enrolling?

Revisiting the question of how to increase participation in tertiary education, we should think about the role increasing debt plays on the decision to pursue a university degree. The income-contingent loan repayment scheme should be applauded for creating a structure to encourage participation while deferring payment for that participation.  

What started as a simple concept, however, has become convoluted. It may lead to confusion and a decision not to pursue further education. As Figure 4 illustrates, tuition has not only increased but there are differential tuition rates depending on the program of study.  This aspect makes sense if the tuition rate reflects the cost of delivering the given program of study. This simple depiction of three or four rates, however, quickly gets confusing when a student pursues courses in different programs. Once enrolled, depending on course selection, a student can end up facing differential course fees, making it even more challenging to understand the total cost of a degree before enrolling in university. 

Source: Parliamentary Library based on Department of Education,  https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Chronologies/HigherEducation

Potentially even more confusing for a student who wants to be fully informed before university registration is the repayment rates. The basic principle is that repayment is tied to earnings. With the minimum repayment amount equalling a percentage of one’s income.

But the percentage and thresholds vary across incomes and over time. Figure 5 depicts the minimum repayment rates. These have changed both with respect to what is owed as well as the income threshold for computing the amount owed. Given the repayment rates can adjust on a year to year basis, it would be very challenging to figure out at the time of university registration how long it might take to repay a student loan. 

Source: Parliamentary Library based on Department of Education,  https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Chronologies/HigherEducation

Encouraging greater participation and meeting 2050 targets

Encouraging greater participation in tertiary education must be more than making a proclamation. We can do more to invest in our institutions, to identify the factors that contribute to a decision to pursue a degree or diploma beyond secondary school, and to provide transparent mechanisms for capturing tuition and loan repayment. To encourage greater participation in tertiary education, information on costs and expectations for repayment should be clear and easy to understand. 

Government has made a move towards reducing the costs associated with loan indexation. It has also provided temporary loan forgiveness, and is investing to promote greater access to university. But it should do more to embrace and address the challenges students AND universities face.

Abigail Payne is the Director & Ronald Henderson Professor at the Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research at the University of Melbourne. Her research is wide- ranging and includes the effects of policy on educational outcomes, schooling transitions, gender differences, and student performance; the determinants of poverty and disadvantage and the mechanisms for reducing poverty; and charitable giving and the role played by nonprofits in service provision.  

school exclusion

School exclusion: what this heartbreaking work tells us

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,

Numbers show school exclusion is on the rise. But there is very little evidence to show it is an effective mechanism for improving or managing student behaviour. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students with a disability, or living in out of home care continue to be significantly overrepresented in suspension and exclusion statistics. These patterns of systemic exclusion are part of a much longer story. Ahead of the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s inquiry into the education system, what might we learn from this history that can help us to end school exclusion?

School exclusion today

Across Australia today, schools disproportionately exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Data from 2019 shows that in Queensland and NSW, schools directed 25% of all exclusions at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students despite making up just over 10% of full-time state school enrolments in QLD and only 8% in NSW. The likelihood of exclusion increases even more for students with intersecting experiences such as living with disability or in out of home care. There are also connections between inadequate and unfair schooling systems and contact with the criminal justice system. However, access to up-to-date school exclusion data remains difficult, limiting public scrutiny and accountability for the full extent of school exclusion across Australia. 

The history of school exclusion

Beginning in 1883, multiple generations of Aboriginal students at Yass were segregated, excluded and denied access to public schooling. The 70-years of school exclusion at Yass is just one of many stories of school exclusion detailed in a recent research report. For the first time, the history of school exclusion of Indigenous students across Australia has been recorded in one place. It confirms what families and communities have said for generations: the education system has a systemic racism problem. But Indigenous communities have always resisted and organised to fight exclusion. The historical record is replete with stories of families fighting back in diverse ways including strikes, organised protests, letters and petitions, media and legal campaigns.  

What we found

Our research found exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students occurred across all state school systems in Australia. We found systemic exclusion, that is, exclusion in all states and territories, from the foundation of the first education systems in the 1870s to the present. We found two main types of exclusion:

  1. The failure of governments to provide access to schooling for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students by either not ensuring access or by outright denying access. 
  2. The disproportionate use of exclusionary measures, such as suspension and expulsion, against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. 

Historically, Indigenous students were excluded based on explicitly racialised justifications. Today, modern forms of exclusion are represented as race ‘neutral’, yet schools use disciplinary exclusion measures disproportionately against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, compounding the educational debt that is owed.

This history highlights the explicitly racist origins of school exclusion today. It also makes clear that school exclusion is not a new issue but rather is part of a system that has yet to fundamentally rethink how it supports young people. 

Problems with current policies

Exclusion has proven ineffective in addressing the underlying causes of student ‘misbehaviour’. In fact, most data shows that once a student is excluded, they are likely to be excluded again. Yet school systems in Australia continue to rely on exclusion as a form of punishment. 

Our research also found troubling continuities between past and present policies. From the outset, education systems gave police powers to investigate and bring charges against families for their child’s non-attendance, sometimes leading to the removal of children from their families. Today, police continue to play a central role in managing school absenteeism in many states. In Queensland, this relationship has been formalised. Of 57 secondary schools currently in QLD’s ‘School Based Policing Program’, 41 have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student population higher than the state figure of 8-10%. This suggests a link between the racial profiling, surveillance, and over-policing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in schools, and their overrepresentation in processes of school exclusion. 

Policy fixation

Another problem is policy fixation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school attendance and disadvantage which have dominated the policy-making space in Indigenous education. Yet, there has rarely been a focus on the impact of the exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In fact, notably, our research suggests that discipline policies, suspensions and expulsions are rarely mentioned in national policy documents and inquiries.

Finally, access to data remains difficult. This is despite national agreement for increased levels of transparency around school attendance. Limited availability of data on school exclusion in Australia prevents a full investigation of the racialised nature of exclusion and hinders public accountability.

So what does work?

First and foremost, disaggregated data needs to be made publicly available to increase transparency. Only then can we have a full picture of which students are being excluded which can be used to hold governments and schools to account.

Second, we need to shift away from school exclusion as a form of discipline towards more restorative approaches that emphasise repairing relationships over and above the need for punishment. Restorative justice practices are already being implemented in communities across Australia and numerous school districts in other countries are implementing restorative practices in schools as an alternative to exclusionary discipline. We have clear examples to draw on, we just need the willingness to do so.

Lastly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have fought and continue to fight resolutely to access schooling for their children and to resist discriminatory practices and policies. Today, organisations like the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition are taking up this fight, advocating for the end of school exclusion and for a self-determined education system that reflects and embodies Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. 

How do we end school exclusion?

We developed a School Exclusion 101 – Youth Guide. It aims to equip young people with the knowledge and tools to challenge exclusion in schools. The guide includes an audit tool that young people can use to reflect on whether their school’s student behaviour policy (or code of conduct) is inclusive, transparent and fair. It provides a starting point to discuss ways to make such policies more inclusive.

The report underscores the need for greater attention to the historical foundations of discrimination in Australian school systems. Acknowledging this history and advocating for greater truth-telling is a pivotal step towards addressing systemic inequalities.

From left to right: Mati Keynes is a non-Indigenous historian living and working on Wurundjeri Country. Mati is currently McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Education at the University of Melbourne. Samara Hand is a Worimi/Biripi woman born on Awabakal Country in New South Wales, Australia. She is currently a PhD candidate at UNSW, visiting scholar at the University of Manitoba, and a co-founder of the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition.  Beth Marsden is a non-Indigenous historian living and working on Ngunnawal and Ngambri Country. Currently, she is ARC Laureate Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Research Centre for Deep History at the Australian National University. Archie Thomas is a Chancellors Research Fellow at University of Technology Sydney where his research focuses on how institutions like schools and the media exclude and include historically marginalised groups.

School funding: Is this Australia’s most important moment for reform?

School funding, , , , , ,

School funding policy burst back onto the national agenda last Tuesday. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare announced a ‘statement of intent’ had been signed with Western Australia to fully fund the state’s public schools by 2026.

This language is important. A statement of intent is not  a signed, five-year, bilateral funding agreement. There is still much water to go under the bridge.

Yet, on face value, the announcement is good news. It signals the federal government’s intention to boost overall funding for public schools in WA by an extra $777.4 million over five years. In doing so, lifting its share of public school funding from 20 percent to 22.5 percent. Importantly, priority is also given to the state’s most disadvantaged public schools to ensure they are the first to receive the new funding.

As part of the deal, the WA government committed to providing at least an equivalent amount over this period, or 77.5% of the SRS, bringing total additional investment in public schools to $1.6 billion.

In theory at least, this will bring all WA schools regardless of sector up to 100% of the Student Resource Standard by 2026, in school funding policy terms, a quick turnaround.

So why was WA the first cab off the rank?

A review of the annual reporting of states and territories concerning their bilateral funding agreements shows that in 2018, WA actually funded schools at 104% of the SRS, with the WA state government providing 84.43% of the SRS in addition to the federal government’s 20% contribution. From 2019, each year, WA has incrementally dropped its funding to the plateau in 2021, 2022 and 2023 of 75%.

In short, for the federal government to achieve a much needed political and public victory concerning school funding, WA was low hanging fruit. It was sitting on 95% of the SRS in 2023, and only years before schools had been funded in excess of 100%.

WA is also in strong budgetary position vis a vis the other states and territories with a $3.7 billion net operating budget surplus now forecast for 2023‑24.

Perhaps in a sign of things to come, included in the signed statement of intent was a no-disadvantage clause. This means the WA will net hundreds of millions more for education if the Eastern states secure a higher share.

Judging from the initial reaction from some eastern seaboard states, who rejected outright the federal government’s 2.5% increase in funding, Minster Clare faces a rocky negotiation path ahead.

Don’t get too excited

There’s a lot we don’t know. And a lot to worry about if history repeats itself. Our school funding history in relation to equity and needs-based funding is not reassuring.

Minister Clare obviously hopes that the WA agreement will set the scene for other state and territory agreements. He wants all parties to negotiate in good faith and with noble purpose.

But the much-travelled path of federal/state school funding negotiations is littered with disagreements —protracted and fierce. Their results have seldom been fair let alone noble. 

At this stage Victoria and Queensland are not agreeing to 22.5. In equally good faith they are pushing for 25% funding from the federal government.

The Australian Education Union concurs. Its Every school. Every child campaign has long made this clear. It also asks for 40% for the NT where public schools are in dire straits.

Funding war?

Some observers are foreshadowing another ‘funding war’. The exact strategies and tactics of the combatants remain to be seen. Or not. Wider publics are seldom privy to manoeuvres behind-the-scenes. 

The usual funding wars also involve the private schools. Independents, Catholics, the federal government and the states/territories all go into battle for self-interest.

These current negotiations are focused on  the needs-based funding of public schools. Yet Private schools may still enter the funding fray. They always have. 

Currently, for all schools, the SRS is topped up with ‘equity loadings’. We don’t yet know how these will be built into these new funding arrangements. 

There is also the 4% depreciation and other costs loophole that allows the states and territories to reduce their funding in real times. Without its removal, WA Public schools will receive 96% of the SRS rather than the suggested 100%. 

Will disadvantaged schools, with time poor teachers, be given additional support to claim such loadings.  

This federal money is to be tied to various ‘practical reforms’. The Improving Outcomes for All review is the touchstone. These reforms will, in the Minister’s words, ‘help children to keep up, catch up and finish school’.  

But we don’t yet know how these reforms will be rolled out. We don’t know how they will be devised and evaluated, or the assessment and accountability mechanisms involved. 

It is not clear if the Commonwealth has any claw back mechanisms if the states/territories don’t measure up.

Commonwealth accountability mechanisms are notoriously complex, obscure and unhelpful. Danger lurks here.  

Matters to keep in mind

These recent WA developments are an important starting point for the National School Reform Agreement (NSRA) and the new bilateral funding agreements to be negotiated this year.

But, while the haggling over the percentage of government contributions toward the SRS continues, we urge all parties to keep in mind that the SRS represents the minimum standard of funding needed to meet the educational needs of students. 

The WA negotiations have also signalled the federal government’s capacity to move beyond the arbitrarily imposed 80/20% funding split that has shaped federal funding reform since 2017.

This is an important development. It demonstrates there is no constitutional or legislative reason why it can’t move beyond the 22.5% it agreed to on Tuesday, toward the 25% sought by other states.  

We also suggest that substantially strengthened transparency measures be built into the new NSRA and bilateral funding agreements.

Invisibility of funding data

At present, publicly available and easily comprehensible information on how money is spent by governments, and then allocated by schooling sectors is limited. Gaps exist in the visibility of funding data. This is especially problematic given that SRS funding from the federal government is not directly sent to all schools, but redistributed in line with state and sector-based funding models.

These gaps are even more worrisome when considered in relation to the additional government money allocated to priority equity groups (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students with disability, students with socio-educational disadvantage, students with low English proficiency, small schools and schools in regional and remote locations).

On this, a 2023 Productivity Commission report established that there is ‘no publicly available data on school-level spending on students’ from these cohorts.

Bolster accountability

Enhanced transparency mechanisms would serve to curtail any potential ‘accounting loopholes’ or cost shifting that have historically beset funding agreements. They would also bolster accountability and enforceability in line with the needs-based principles of the SRS which should remain a central focus of any future funding reform.

There is much at stake for public schools and their students, teachers, and leaders around Australia in the coming months as the school funding negotiations ramp up.

Jane Kenway is an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, Australia, Emeritus Professor at Monash University and Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her research expertise is in educational sociology.  

Matthew P. Sinclair is a lecturer of education policy at Curtin University’s School of Education in Western Australia. His research and teaching focuses on education policy, school funding, globalisation, education futures, and equity in schooling.

Jason Clare, Federal Minister for Education

Elisa Di Gregorio is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. Her research focus is the sociology of education policy, with a particular interest in articulations of equity in school funding policy.